The Matchup Zone Blog

2013-2014 Projections Are Live

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:35:00 +0000

The first iteration of the preseason projections are up, and you can find them here. The basic methodology is the same as last year, but I've tweaked the player projections a little bit. Whereas last year I was basing the player projections on a broad pattern-based similarity model in which players were projected simply on their position and their conference, the new model actually uses a more sophisticated similar-player model to identify the 100 or so most statistically similar players and build each projection off of that data. I think it'll be a little bit more accurate, but there's no way to know for sure until the ball is tipped.

The projections will be updated periodically throughout the summer as players enter and exit programs. I'll try to keep on top of that as best as I can, but if you notice any glaring omissions from a team's roster, or anyone who shouldn't be there, please let me know and I'll fix it in the next projection run.

The current projections include all players who are eligible to return to their teams and who have not, to my knowledge, announced their intention to either leave the program or declared themselves eligible for the professional draft. I did do a run of the model before removing all the transfers and underclassmen going pro, though, and I've included that list below the break. It'll be interesting to see how the teams' projected fortunes change based on who is and isn't coming back.

RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	OFFENSE	(RANK)	DEFENSE	(RANK)	PACE	(RANK)	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
1	Louisville	AmCon	15.77	74.33	(7)	58.34	(1)	67.55	(80)	100%	98%	90%
2	Florida	SEC	15.69	74.67	(5)	58.58	(2)	62.85	(297)	100%	99%	82%
3	Indiana	BigTen	15.41	76.84	(2)	62.02	(5)	66.59	(126)	99%	97%	39%
4	Ohio State	BigTen	14.65	75.11	(4)	62.55	(10)	65.57	(171)	99%	92%	21%
5	Michigan	BigTen	14.63	79.62	(1)	66.58	(51)	61.77	(320)	99%	96%	24%
6	Virginia Commonwealth	A10	14.00	73.09	(9)	62.51	(8)	66.88	(108)	96%	83%	63%
7	Michigan State	BigTen	13.77	70.97	(20)	60.87	(4)	64.80	(205)	93%	75%	9%
8	Georgetown	BigEast	13.58	70.34	(30)	60.50	(3)	62.19	(312)	94%	76%	56%
9	Gonzaga	WCC	13.41	75.21	(3)	65.81	(36)	65.93	(152)	93%	74%	80%
10	Arizona	Pac12	13.30	71.33	(14)	62.41	(7)	65.75	(161)	90%	69%	51%
11	Wisconsin	BigTen	13.12	73.93	(8)	64.64	(22)	57.50	(348)	92%	70%	4%
12	North Carolina	ACC	12.96	72.17	(10)	64.29	(20)	72.72	(7)	93%	72%	29%
13	Syracuse	ACC	12.79	70.06	(37)	62.26	(6)	65.12	(192)	90%	66%	23%
14	Kentucky	SEC	12.51	70.74	(22)	63.72	(15)	66.29	(135)	93%	66%	8%
15	Iowa	BigTen	12.39	70.25	(35)	63.53	(12)	68.15	(62)	83%	55%	2%
16	Maryland	ACC	12.08	69.66	(43)	63.61	(14)	68.49	(49)	84%	53%	14%
17	Tennessee	SEC	12.08	71.64	(13)	65.46	(33)	64.71	(210)	90%	58%	5%
18	Pittsburgh	ACC	11.96	70.43	(26)	64.24	(19)	60.87	(335)	80%	47%	12%
19	Duke	ACC	11.83	72.06	(11)	66.48	(46)	68.28	(56)	76%	44%	11%
20	Virginia	ACC	11.55	69.53	(47)	64.15	(18)	58.74	(344)	77%	40%	7%
21	Saint Louis	A10	11.52	70.38	(27)	65.32	(31)	63.12	(290)	79%	43%	19%
22	Oklahoma State	Big12	11.50	69.65	(45)	64.68	(23)	65.94	(149)	76%	40%	27%
23	Arkansas	SEC	11.46	74.40	(6)	69.64	(100)	69.68	(26)	80%	42%	3%
24	New Mexico	MWC	11.39	70.89	(21)	66.04	(39)	65.60	(169)	66%	31%	42%
25	Marquette	BigEast	11.13	71.80	(12)	67.60	(65)	67.65	(76)	69%	32%	14%
26	North Dakota State	Summit	11.09	68.90	(56)	64.76	(25)	64.41	(222)	66%	31%	52%
27	Colorado	Pac12	11.07	68.23	(66)	64.15	(17)	66.14	(143)	64%	29%	14%
28	Denver	Summit	11.02	71.29	(15)	67.04	(57)	57.09	(351)	60%	28%	47%
29	Wichita State	MVC	10.94	71.19	(16)	67.27	(58)	64.89	(202)	66%	29%	56%
30	UCLA	Pac12	10.91	69.32	(49)	65.61	(35)	67.09	(101)	59%	29%	15%
31	Kansas	Big12	10.72	69.91	(38)	66.56	(49)	67.91	(68)	64%	29%	18%
32	Alabama	SEC	10.64	68.12	(68)	64.82	(26)	62.11	(314)	67%	27%	1%
33	Stanford	Pac12	10.63	69.65	(44)	66.47	(45)	66.74	(116)	61%	23%	9%
34	Connecticut	AmCon	10.58	69.68	(42)	66.51	(47)	64.15	(233)	60%	24%	5%
35	Southern Mississippi	CUSA	10.55	71.08	(18)	67.92	(68)	64.01	(242)	59%	23%	40%
36	Louisiana Tech	CUSA	10.51	67.63	(77)	64.75	(24)	68.53	(48)	57%	23%	38%
37	Minnesota	BigTen	10.46	70.32	(31)	67.37	(59)	64.05	(240)	58%	22%	0%
38	Kansas State	Big12	10.46	70.45	(25)	67.55	(64)	65.64	(168)	54%	21%	12%
39	Texas	Big12	10.46	67.88	(72)	65.05	(28)	65.82	(155)	62%	24%	14%
40	Butler	BigEast	10.36	67.30	(81)	64.63	(21)	63.93	(248)	51%	20%	8%
41	Baylor	Big12	10.36	68.56	(59)	65.88	(38)	66.32	(130)	53%	21%	13%
42	Creighton	BigEast	10.17	71.09	(17)	68.73	(80)	64.91	(200)	48%	16%	5%
43	Providence	BigEast	10.14	68.27	(65)	66.09	(40)	68.21	(59)	54%	20%	7%
44	California	Pac12	10.13	68.52	(61)	66.33	(44)	66.82	(114)	50%	18%	8%
45	Richmond	A10	10.04	70.26	(34)	68.18	(71)	62.37	(308)	44%	16%	5%
46	Nevada-Las Vegas	MWC	9.88	64.18	(151)	62.53	(9)	69.11	(35)	44%	16%	24%
47	George Washington	A10	9.83	66.92	(87)	65.33	(32)	64.65	(215)	40%	15%	5%
48	Northwestern State	Sland	9.81	70.37	(28)	68.88	(86)	72.19	(9)	36%	14%	76%
49	Harvard	Ivy	9.78	69.90	(39)	68.36	(75)	62.01	(315)	50%	15%	85%
50	Georgia	SEC	9.71	66.38	(98)	64.96	(27)	61.84	(317)	40%	13%	0%
RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	OFFENSE	(RANK)	DEFENSE	(RANK)	PACE	(RANK)	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
51	Iowa State	Big12	9.69	69.55	(46)	68.23	(72)	69.03	(36)	43%	15%	9%
52	Memphis	AmCon	9.67	68.32	(64)	67.04	(56)	68.96	(37)	43%	12%	2%
53	Wright State	Horiz	9.64	65.02	(127)	63.76	(16)	61.78	(319)	40%	11%	57%
54	Cincinnati	AmCon	9.60	64.07	(155)	62.88	(11)	63.89	(250)	37%	11%	2%
55	North Carolina State	ACC	9.55	71.05	(19)	69.99	(112)	67.51	(82)	42%	13%	1%
56	St. John's	BigEast	9.49	67.95	(71)	67.01	(55)	66.84	(111)	40%	12%	4%
57	St. Mary's	WCC	9.45	69.32	(50)	68.42	(76)	64.09	(239)	35%	10%	14%
58	Mississippi	SEC	9.43	68.77	(57)	67.93	(69)	68.12	(63)	39%	11%	0%
59	Miami (FL)	ACC	9.43	70.59	(23)	69.72	(103)	63.28	(284)	39%	9%	1%
60	Purdue	BigTen	9.41	68.51	(62)	67.72	(66)	65.74	(163)	41%	11%	0%
61	Dayton	A10	9.31	69.37	(48)	68.76	(82)	65.30	(189)	34%	9%	2%
62	Boise State	MWC	9.28	70.31	(32)	69.75	(107)	65.80	(158)	33%	8%	14%
63	Illinois	BigTen	9.16	66.59	(94)	66.27	(42)	65.42	(184)	34%	9%	0%
64	San Diego State	MWC	9.14	65.54	(116)	65.26	(30)	64.93	(199)	29%	8%	13%
65	Texas A&M	SEC	9.12	66.77	(90)	66.53	(48)	60.69	(336)	31%	7%	0%
66	West Virginia	Big12	9.10	68.97	(54)	68.77	(83)	63.45	(276)	34%	7%	3%
67	Louisiana State	SEC	9.06	67.02	(82)	66.90	(53)	66.73	(117)	33%	8%	0%
68	La Salle	A10	9.00	70.29	(33)	70.30	(122)	69.13	(34)	31%	8%	2%
69	Xavier	BigEast	8.98	68.67	(58)	68.71	(77)	64.61	(216)	29%	7%	2%
70	Villanova	BigEast	8.90	67.32	(80)	67.51	(63)	67.10	(99)	29%	7%	2%
71	Massachusetts	A10	8.89	69.22	(52)	69.43	(99)	71.23	(13)	30%	7%	1%
72	Indiana State	MVC	8.85	66.39	(97)	66.68	(52)	64.79	(207)	28%	6%	20%
73	Oklahoma	Big12	8.79	65.16	(125)	65.57	(34)	65.38	(185)	26%	6%	3%
74	Canisius	MAAC	8.78	70.14	(36)	70.57	(128)	65.65	(166)	25%	8%	41%
75	Georgia Tech	ACC	8.73	63.07	(187)	63.59	(13)	66.02	(146)	25%	6%	1%
76	Wake Forest	ACC	8.55	65.01	(129)	65.86	(37)	68.63	(45)	22%	6%	1%
77	Oregon State	Pac12	8.48	67.95	(70)	68.93	(89)	70.16	(22)	18%	4%	1%
78	Northern Iowa	MVC	8.48	67.86	(73)	68.92	(88)	60.38	(338)	21%	4%	14%
79	Missouri	SEC	8.41	69.83	(40)	70.98	(141)	68.38	(52)	21%	4%	0%
80	Middle Tennessee State	CUSA	8.31	64.97	(131)	66.31	(43)	65.74	(162)	19%	4%	9%
81	Brigham Young	WCC	8.18	67.63	(76)	69.17	(92)	72.79	(6)	18%	3%	5%
82	Florida Gulf Coast	Asun	8.14	65.87	(109)	67.50	(62)	68.57	(47)	16%	3%	51%
83	Vanderbilt	SEC	8.09	64.75	(139)	66.57	(50)	63.87	(252)	19%	3%	0%
84	Notre Dame	ACC	8.07	70.35	(29)	72.27	(177)	61.32	(329)	16%	3%	0%
85	Boston College	ACC	7.94	69.75	(41)	71.89	(167)	63.35	(280)	14%	2%	0%
86	St. Joseph's	A10	7.86	67.01	(83)	69.31	(96)	63.53	(273)	17%	3%	1%
87	Vermont	AmEast	7.84	66.89	(88)	69.22	(93)	62.82	(299)	11%	2%	45%
88	Texas-El Paso	CUSA	7.81	62.90	(194)	65.22	(29)	62.92	(295)	14%	3%	6%
89	Southern California	Pac12	7.61	63.35	(179)	66.10	(41)	62.87	(296)	11%	2%	1%
90	Belmont	OVC	7.59	65.97	(106)	68.74	(81)	68.02	(66)	14%	2%	46%
91	George Mason	A10	7.59	66.98	(84)	69.75	(106)	66.30	(132)	10%	1%	0%
92	Akron	MAC	7.55	66.95	(85)	69.81	(109)	66.58	(127)	11%	1%	36%
93	Detroit	Horiz	7.55	68.13	(67)	70.91	(138)	69.59	(28)	16%	4%	27%
94	Eastern Kentucky	OVC	7.54	68.38	(63)	71.36	(149)	61.47	(326)	10%	1%	37%
95	Fresno State	MWC	7.54	65.00	(130)	67.91	(67)	62.62	(303)	11%	1%	3%
96	Boston University	Pat	7.49	66.93	(86)	69.96	(111)	63.65	(264)	9%	1%	49%
97	Illinois State	MVC	7.44	69.09	(53)	72.23	(175)	65.48	(180)	12%	2%	7%
98	Iona	MAAC	7.39	69.30	(51)	72.43	(184)	70.48	(20)	14%	2%	30%
99	Florida State	ACC	7.35	67.51	(78)	70.74	(133)	67.31	(91)	9%	1%	0%
100	Oregon	Pac12	7.35	63.74	(167)	66.92	(54)	68.21	(58)	10%	2%	1%
RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	OFFENSE	(RANK)	DEFENSE	(RANK)	PACE	(RANK)	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
101	Utah State	MWC	7.27	70.47	(24)	74.08	(232)	61.69	(323)	7%	1%	2%
102	Washington	Pac12	7.24	67.76	(74)	71.16	(144)	69.22	(32)	9%	1%	0%
103	Charleston Southern	BigSou	7.23	66.82	(89)	70.29	(121)	67.71	(73)	8%	1%	58%
104	Mercer	Asun	7.14	66.14	(101)	69.93	(110)	63.87	(253)	6%	1%	35%
105	Seton Hall	BigEast	7.10	65.16	(124)	68.91	(87)	66.30	(133)	7%	1%	0%
106	Southern Methodist	AmCon	6.98	66.45	(96)	70.65	(130)	60.19	(339)	7%	1%	0%
107	Western Michigan	MAC	6.97	65.08	(126)	69.07	(90)	65.70	(165)	7%	1%	23%
108	Rutgers	AmCon	6.96	65.64	(112)	69.72	(104)	64.44	(220)	7%	1%	0%
109	Davidson	SoCon	6.95	64.86	(135)	68.82	(84)	66.85	(110)	10%	2%	51%
110	San Francisco	WCC	6.91	67.96	(69)	72.08	(171)	67.87	(69)	5%	1%	1%
111	Wyoming	MWC	6.85	66.00	(104)	70.39	(127)	61.50	(325)	7%	1%	2%
112	Green Bay	Horiz	6.84	65.97	(107)	70.25	(120)	64.69	(213)	6%	1%	13%
113	New Mexico State	WAC	6.69	65.23	(122)	69.72	(105)	67.84	(70)	6%	1%	66%
114	Charlotte	CUSA	6.65	63.47	(176)	68.04	(70)	67.09	(102)	5%	1%	2%
115	South Florida	AmCon	6.63	64.83	(136)	69.78	(108)	59.20	(343)	4%	1%	0%
116	Air Force	MWC	6.61	65.88	(108)	70.82	(135)	61.27	(331)	4%	1%	1%
117	Tulsa	CUSA	6.53	62.69	(202)	67.46	(61)	66.24	(136)	6%	1%	2%
118	Houston	AmCon	6.44	68.90	(55)	73.95	(230)	67.59	(77)	3%	0%	0%
119	Toledo	MAC	6.31	65.51	(117)	70.89	(137)	65.64	(167)	3%	0%	16%
120	Alabama-Birmingham	CUSA	6.30	64.92	(132)	70.38	(126)	64.77	(208)	3%	0%	1%
121	Army	Pat	6.30	67.47	(79)	72.84	(195)	68.36	(54)	3%	0%	29%
122	Utah	Pac12	6.29	63.87	(160)	69.42	(98)	63.16	(287)	3%	0%	0%
123	Texas Tech	Big12	6.24	66.66	(91)	72.10	(172)	67.51	(81)	3%	0%	0%
124	Stony Brook	AmEast	6.21	63.50	(175)	69.27	(95)	62.28	(310)	4%	1%	32%
125	Drake	MVC	6.12	68.54	(60)	74.34	(245)	66.83	(113)	2%	0%	1%
126	Missouri State	MVC	6.10	65.50	(118)	71.53	(156)	61.18	(332)	2%	0%	1%
127	Florida International	CUSA	6.09	65.36	(120)	71.15	(143)	67.24	(96)	3%	0%	1%
128	Buffalo	MAC	5.99	64.06	(156)	70.02	(114)	66.30	(134)	3%	0%	12%
129	Niagara	MAAC	5.91	67.71	(75)	73.87	(228)	68.66	(44)	2%	0%	7%
130	Penn State	BigTen	5.88	64.43	(142)	70.85	(136)	62.34	(309)	2%	0%	0%
131	Cal Poly	BigWest	5.87	66.48	(95)	73.18	(206)	58.42	(346)	2%	0%	24%
132	Drexel	CAA	5.85	64.16	(154)	70.67	(131)	61.15	(334)	3%	1%	38%
133	Arizona State	Pac12	5.80	65.68	(110)	72.31	(182)	63.45	(277)	2%	0%	0%
134	California-Irvine	BigWest	5.78	62.04	(221)	68.34	(74)	68.60	(46)	2%	0%	25%
135	Manhattan	MAAC	5.78	60.88	(245)	67.38	(60)	64.03	(241)	2%	0%	6%
136	Southern	SWAC	5.70	64.17	(152)	70.98	(140)	64.15	(232)	2%	0%	64%
137	Elon	SoCon	5.65	63.90	(158)	70.62	(129)	67.71	(74)	2%	0%	25%
138	Clemson	ACC	5.58	62.59	(205)	69.69	(102)	62.76	(301)	1%	0%	0%
139	Arkansas-Little Rock	SunBelt	5.56	64.22	(149)	71.17	(145)	65.54	(174)	2%	0%	27%
140	Montana	BigSky	5.46	65.24	(121)	72.64	(191)	62.83	(298)	1%	0%	38%
141	California-Santa Barbara	BigWest	5.46	63.79	(166)	71.22	(146)	63.37	(278)	1%	0%	19%
142	North Carolina Central	MEAC	5.46	64.17	(153)	71.41	(151)	64.70	(212)	2%	0%	44%
143	Loyola Marymount	WCC	5.40	64.40	(144)	71.79	(164)	65.80	(157)	1%	0%	0%
144	South Carolina-Upsate	Asun	5.38	65.68	(111)	73.10	(205)	65.81	(156)	1%	0%	11%
145	Central Florida	AmCon	5.35	66.64	(92)	74.28	(238)	64.39	(225)	1%	0%	0%
146	Western Kentucky	SunBelt	5.34	64.22	(150)	71.63	(158)	67.59	(78)	1%	0%	23%
147	St. Bonaventure	A10	5.33	65.23	(123)	72.85	(196)	63.97	(244)	4%	1%	0%
148	Wagner	NEC	5.33	62.97	(191)	70.35	(124)	67.25	(95)	1%	0%	42%
149	Yale	Ivy	5.33	63.32	(181)	70.77	(134)	65.10	(193)	1%	0%	8%
150	South Carolina	SEC	5.29	64.88	(134)	72.50	(186)	65.47	(181)	1%	0%	0%
RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	OFFENSE	(RANK)	DEFENSE	(RANK)	PACE	(RANK)	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
151	Northeastern	CAA	5.21	64.22	(147)	72.12	(173)	62.95	(294)	1%	0%	18%
152	DePaul	BigEast	5.16	65.98	(105)	73.46	(215)	72.12	(10)	1%	0%	0%
153	Santa Clara	WCC	5.15	66.33	(99)	74.26	(237)	66.71	(119)	1%	0%	0%
154	College of Charleston	CAA	5.14	62.29	(212)	70.13	(116)	66.02	(145)	1%	0%	19%
155	Wofford	SoCon	5.12	60.75	(250)	68.84	(85)	62.15	(313)	1%	0%	17%
156	Morehead State	OVC	5.11	60.76	(249)	68.72	(78)	64.25	(229)	1%	0%	6%
157	Cal State Northridge	BigWest	5.08	65.64	(113)	73.44	(214)	69.28	(31)	1%	0%	13%
158	Eastern Washington	BigSky	5.07	65.58	(115)	73.62	(224)	67.18	(97)	1%	0%	24%
159	Nebraska	BigTen	5.06	63.27	(183)	71.68	(159)	61.37	(328)	1%	0%	0%
160	Tulane	CUSA	5.02	64.42	(143)	72.71	(194)	64.44	(221)	1%	0%	0%
161	Ohio	MAC	5.02	64.43	(141)	72.60	(190)	67.42	(86)	1%	0%	5%
162	Weber State	BigSky	5.00	63.06	(188)	71.24	(148)	64.48	(219)	1%	0%	23%
163	Albany	AmEast	4.99	63.04	(189)	71.40	(150)	62.51	(305)	2%	0%	14%
164	Washington State	Pac12	4.97	64.26	(145)	72.97	(200)	63.67	(263)	0%	0%	0%
165	Hawaii	BigWest	4.94	64.79	(137)	73.04	(203)	69.40	(29)	1%	0%	11%
166	Auburn	SEC	4.89	63.71	(168)	72.26	(176)	65.43	(182)	1%	0%	0%
167	Loyola (MD)	Pat	4.85	64.67	(140)	73.41	(212)	63.59	(268)	1%	0%	10%
168	Northwestern	BigTen	4.82	63.56	(172)	72.59	(189)	61.69	(322)	1%	0%	0%
169	Arkansas State	SunBelt	4.71	62.38	(208)	71.44	(154)	63.52	(274)	1%	0%	14%
170	Rhode Island	A10	4.67	62.72	(200)	71.69	(160)	65.12	(191)	1%	0%	0%
171	Evansville	MVC	4.67	61.70	(228)	70.71	(132)	66.32	(131)	1%	0%	1%
172	Hartford	AmEast	4.66	60.23	(269)	69.36	(97)	63.64	(265)	1%	0%	7%
173	Norfolk State	MEAC	4.62	62.29	(211)	71.23	(147)	68.30	(55)	1%	0%	21%
174	Youngstown State	Horiz	4.55	66.12	(103)	75.34	(269)	67.56	(79)	1%	0%	2%
175	Marist	MAAC	4.54	63.12	(186)	72.22	(174)	67.46	(85)	1%	0%	2%
176	Seattle	WAC	4.52	60.27	(266)	69.14	(91)	74.26	(2)	1%	0%	25%
177	William & Mary	CAA	4.52	66.61	(93)	76.38	(295)	62.55	(304)	1%	0%	12%
178	Louisiana-Lafayette	SunBelt	4.50	62.74	(198)	71.83	(165)	69.77	(25)	1%	0%	13%
179	San Diego	WCC	4.49	63.39	(178)	72.96	(199)	63.98	(243)	0%	0%	0%
180	McNeese State	Sland	4.49	62.71	(201)	72.29	(180)	63.94	(246)	0%	0%	7%
181	Colorado State	MWC	4.48	63.01	(190)	72.55	(188)	64.80	(206)	1%	0%	0%
182	Portland	WCC	4.46	61.41	(235)	70.95	(139)	65.18	(190)	0%	0%	0%
183	Mount St. Mary's	NEC	4.40	64.79	(138)	74.53	(247)	64.49	(218)	0%	0%	25%
184	Bowling Green	MAC	4.38	60.24	(268)	69.99	(113)	63.74	(258)	0%	0%	3%
185	Southeast Missouri	OVC	4.38	64.24	(146)	73.71	(225)	66.93	(106)	1%	0%	5%
186	Princeton	Ivy	4.32	61.52	(230)	71.78	(162)	61.30	(330)	1%	0%	3%
187	Temple	AmCon	4.30	59.49	(286)	69.22	(94)	65.92	(153)	1%	0%	0%
188	North Carolina-Asheville	BigSou	4.28	63.88	(159)	73.59	(221)	69.16	(33)	1%	0%	12%
189	Mississippi State	SEC	4.27	59.75	(283)	69.64	(101)	66.62	(124)	0%	0%	0%
190	Loyola (IL)	Horiz	4.27	64.22	(148)	74.58	(252)	61.73	(321)	0%	0%	1%
191	Lehigh	Pat	4.25	63.64	(171)	73.57	(220)	68.89	(39)	0%	0%	5%
192	Ball State	MAC	4.25	63.34	(180)	73.60	(222)	63.57	(269)	0%	0%	2%
193	Oakland	Summit	4.24	66.13	(102)	75.93	(282)	70.94	(17)	0%	0%	0%
194	Towson	CAA	4.23	62.82	(196)	73.06	(204)	64.39	(226)	0%	0%	7%
195	Murray State	OVC	4.22	63.84	(163)	74.16	(233)	64.38	(227)	1%	0%	3%
196	Dartmouth	Ivy	4.22	61.33	(238)	71.55	(157)	63.72	(261)	0%	0%	2%
197	Oral Roberts	Sland	4.20	63.85	(162)	74.01	(231)	64.89	(201)	0%	0%	5%
198	Gardner-Webb	BigSou	4.20	61.95	(222)	72.38	(183)	63.31	(281)	0%	0%	10%
199	Pennsylvania	Ivy	4.20	61.47	(234)	71.75	(161)	63.97	(245)	0%	0%	1%
200	Sam Houston State	Sland	4.18	59.78	(282)	70.14	(117)	63.16	(288)	0%	0%	5%
RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	OFFENSE	(RANK)	DEFENSE	(RANK)	PACE	(RANK)	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
201	Caliornia-Davis	BigWest	4.16	63.97	(157)	74.24	(236)	66.47	(128)	0%	0%	5%
202	Georgia State	SunBelt	4.16	66.25	(100)	76.92	(306)	63.63	(266)	0%	0%	8%
203	Duquesne	A10	4.14	62.88	(195)	72.99	(201)	70.09	(23)	0%	0%	0%
204	Radford	BigSou	4.02	60.61	(258)	71.00	(142)	66.64	(122)	0%	0%	8%
205	Stephen F. Austin	Sland	4.01	59.18	(291)	70.35	(125)	58.51	(345)	0%	0%	6%
206	Fairfield	MAAC	3.97	57.57	(317)	68.30	(73)	63.27	(286)	1%	0%	1%
207	Nevada	MWC	3.95	63.50	(174)	74.28	(239)	66.42	(129)	0%	0%	0%
208	Kent State	MAC	3.90	65.36	(119)	76.31	(292)	66.95	(104)	0%	0%	1%
209	Hampton	MEAC	3.90	58.24	(306)	68.72	(79)	68.36	(53)	1%	0%	18%
210	Cleveland State	Horiz	3.90	61.50	(231)	72.46	(185)	64.84	(204)	0%	0%	0%
211	Central Michigan	MAC	3.90	65.02	(128)	76.28	(291)	64.24	(230)	0%	0%	1%
212	South Alabama	SunBelt	3.89	62.63	(204)	73.53	(219)	66.93	(105)	0%	0%	7%
213	Texas-Arlington	SunBelt	3.88	60.73	(251)	71.49	(155)	68.72	(42)	0%	0%	8%
214	Bucknell	Pat	3.87	60.82	(247)	71.93	(168)	63.57	(270)	0%	0%	3%
215	Western Carolina	SoCon	3.74	63.66	(170)	74.89	(260)	67.32	(88)	0%	0%	5%
216	Robert Morris	NEC	3.74	63.20	(185)	74.88	(259)	63.89	(251)	0%	0%	11%
217	Old Dominion	CUSA	3.73	62.38	(207)	73.90	(229)	64.09	(238)	0%	0%	0%
218	Fordham	A10	3.73	63.22	(184)	74.53	(248)	67.68	(75)	0%	0%	0%
219	Pacific	WCC	3.73	60.44	(262)	72.28	(178)	60.58	(337)	0%	0%	0%
220	Columbia	Ivy	3.71	60.64	(257)	72.29	(179)	63.09	(292)	0%	0%	1%
221	Navy	Pat	3.67	61.87	(225)	73.77	(226)	63.28	(283)	0%	0%	1%
222	Miami (OH)	MAC	3.66	62.30	(210)	74.24	(235)	61.94	(316)	0%	0%	1%
223	High Point	BigSou	3.64	62.73	(199)	74.44	(246)	64.97	(198)	0%	0%	6%
224	Bradley	MVC	3.59	62.95	(192)	74.69	(254)	67.04	(103)	0%	0%	0%
225	Delaware	CAA	3.57	62.94	(193)	74.81	(258)	66.08	(144)	0%	0%	4%
226	Morgan State	MEAC	3.56	61.83	(227)	73.47	(216)	66.79	(115)	0%	0%	11%
227	North Dakota	BigSky	3.55	60.95	(242)	72.68	(193)	66.60	(125)	0%	0%	6%
228	Eastern Michigan	MAC	3.52	59.86	(278)	72.31	(181)	61.40	(327)	0%	0%	1%
229	IPFW	Summit	3.51	62.27	(214)	74.22	(234)	66.64	(121)	0%	0%	0%
230	Texas Christian	Big12	3.51	59.99	(273)	71.98	(169)	65.09	(194)	0%	0%	0%
231	Pepperdine	WCC	3.51	60.10	(270)	72.52	(187)	63.09	(291)	0%	0%	0%
232	Texas Southern	SWAC	3.51	63.86	(161)	76.12	(287)	64.70	(211)	0%	0%	24%
233	Illinois-Chicago	Horiz	3.50	61.34	(237)	73.61	(223)	63.75	(256)	0%	0%	0%
234	Florida Atlantic	CUSA	3.48	59.78	(281)	71.88	(166)	63.55	(271)	0%	0%	0%
235	Quinnipiac	MAAC	3.47	62.36	(209)	74.29	(240)	66.72	(118)	0%	0%	11%
236	N.J.I.T.	Ind	3.46	59.95	(275)	72.04	(170)	65.31	(188)	0%	0%	0%
237	Stetson	Asun	3.45	65.61	(114)	77.69	(317)	68.71	(43)	0%	0%	1%
238	North Florida	Asun	3.40	59.32	(289)	71.43	(153)	66.20	(141)	0%	0%	1%
239	Northern Colorado	BigSky	3.38	63.69	(169)	76.17	(288)	66.24	(137)	0%	0%	5%
240	Rider	MAAC	3.37	58.17	(308)	70.23	(119)	67.95	(67)	0%	0%	0%
241	North Texas	CUSA	3.36	60.53	(260)	72.65	(192)	67.49	(83)	0%	0%	0%
242	Virginia Tech	ACC	3.31	61.49	(232)	74.33	(242)	64.20	(231)	0%	0%	0%
243	Northern Kentucky	OVC	3.24	59.79	(280)	73.47	(217)	57.37	(350)	0%	0%	1%
244	Valparaiso	Horiz	3.18	57.26	(321)	70.11	(115)	65.09	(195)	0%	0%	1%
245	Sacred Heart	NEC	3.18	63.44	(177)	76.34	(293)	66.64	(123)	0%	0%	9%
246	Samford	SoCon	3.18	62.05	(220)	75.63	(274)	59.90	(340)	0%	0%	1%
247	Bryant	NEC	3.18	63.81	(165)	76.95	(307)	65.59	(170)	0%	0%	8%
248	Marshall	CUSA	3.17	63.52	(173)	76.64	(299)	66.92	(107)	0%	0%	0%
249	Long Beach State	BigWest	3.16	62.16	(217)	75.05	(263)	68.08	(64)	0%	0%	1%
250	Chicago State	WAC	3.15	59.11	(293)	71.78	(163)	70.08	(24)	0%	0%	5%
RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	OFFENSE	(RANK)	DEFENSE	(RANK)	PACE	(RANK)	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
251	Coastal Carolina	BigSou	3.13	60.04	(272)	73.36	(211)	64.67	(214)	0%	0%	3%
252	Colgate	Pat	3.12	62.09	(218)	75.09	(265)	66.23	(138)	0%	0%	1%
253	Eastern Illinois	OVC	3.05	61.48	(233)	75.33	(268)	61.18	(333)	0%	0%	1%
254	East Carolina	CUSA	2.98	60.25	(267)	73.86	(227)	66.22	(139)	0%	0%	0%
255	South Dakota State	Summit	2.94	60.70	(254)	74.60	(253)	65.36	(187)	0%	0%	0%
256	Cal State Bakersfield	WAC	2.93	62.21	(216)	75.88	(280)	66.64	(120)	0%	0%	4%
257	California-Riverside	BigWest	2.92	57.48	(318)	71.41	(152)	62.96	(293)	0%	0%	1%
258	East Tennessee State	Asun	2.88	61.86	(226)	76.11	(286)	64.35	(228)	0%	0%	0%
259	Northern Illinois	MAC	2.87	56.33	(333)	70.31	(123)	63.86	(255)	0%	0%	0%
260	Chattanooga	SoCon	2.84	62.27	(213)	76.20	(289)	68.81	(40)	0%	0%	1%
261	St. Francis (NY)	NEC	2.83	61.63	(229)	75.52	(272)	67.41	(87)	0%	0%	4%
262	Southern Illinois	MVC	2.81	60.90	(244)	75.10	(266)	63.72	(260)	0%	0%	0%
263	Austin Peay	OVC	2.80	63.82	(164)	77.86	(319)	68.39	(51)	0%	0%	0%
264	Texas A&M Corpus Christi	Sland	2.73	61.91	(224)	76.59	(298)	63.61	(267)	0%	0%	0%
265	James Madison	CAA	2.69	59.02	(295)	73.52	(218)	65.79	(159)	0%	0%	2%
266	Hofstra	CAA	2.68	58.67	(299)	73.23	(208)	65.06	(196)	0%	0%	1%
267	Montana State	BigSky	2.65	61.94	(223)	76.67	(300)	65.51	(179)	0%	0%	1%
268	Savannah State	MEAC	2.64	55.26	(338)	70.19	(118)	62.49	(307)	0%	0%	2%
269	American	Pat	2.62	59.86	(277)	75.59	(273)	59.74	(341)	0%	0%	0%
270	New Hampshire	AmEast	2.53	59.02	(294)	74.53	(249)	62.80	(300)	0%	0%	0%
271	Lipscomb	Asun	2.48	61.19	(240)	75.86	(279)	70.31	(21)	0%	0%	0%
272	Tennessee Tech	OVC	2.47	60.77	(248)	75.95	(284)	68.18	(60)	0%	0%	0%
273	Winthrop	BigSou	2.47	58.61	(302)	74.34	(244)	61.84	(318)	0%	0%	1%
274	Liberty	BigSou	2.45	63.30	(182)	79.08	(341)	64.54	(217)	0%	0%	0%
275	Campbell	BigSou	2.39	61.39	(236)	76.75	(303)	65.94	(150)	0%	0%	1%
276	Holy Cross	Pat	2.39	58.65	(300)	74.33	(243)	64.12	(237)	0%	0%	0%
277	Lafayette	Pat	2.35	61.26	(239)	77.11	(308)	65.56	(172)	0%	0%	0%
278	Alcorn State	SWAC	2.34	57.99	(310)	72.89	(198)	71.16	(14)	0%	0%	5%
279	Maine	AmEast	2.33	60.70	(255)	76.24	(290)	67.30	(93)	0%	0%	0%
280	South Dakota	Summit	2.33	62.52	(206)	78.03	(327)	69.63	(27)	0%	0%	0%
281	Tennessee State	OVC	2.33	60.32	(264)	76.00	(285)	66.01	(147)	0%	0%	0%
282	Georgia Southern	SoCon	2.31	58.68	(298)	74.58	(251)	64.39	(224)	0%	0%	0%
283	Jackson State	SWAC	2.27	59.14	(292)	75.06	(264)	63.74	(257)	0%	0%	3%
284	Nebraska-Omaha	Summit	2.22	64.89	(133)	80.33	(345)	72.25	(8)	0%	0%	0%
285	Cornell	Ivy	2.22	58.72	(297)	74.70	(255)	67.47	(84)	0%	0%	0%
286	San Jose State	MWC	2.19	57.09	(322)	73.24	(209)	65.71	(164)	0%	0%	0%
287	Louisiana-Monroe	SunBelt	2.18	60.05	(271)	76.81	(304)	63.48	(275)	0%	0%	0%
288	Northern Arizona	BigSky	2.17	59.68	(284)	75.77	(277)	65.93	(151)	0%	0%	1%
289	North Carolina-Greensboro	SoCon	2.13	59.25	(290)	75.05	(262)	71.83	(11)	0%	0%	0%
290	Brown	Ivy	2.12	56.64	(329)	72.99	(202)	65.77	(160)	0%	0%	0%
291	Monmouth	MAAC	2.11	58.23	(307)	74.74	(256)	67.10	(100)	0%	0%	1%
292	Texas State	SunBelt	2.11	62.26	(215)	77.99	(325)	73.36	(4)	0%	0%	0%
293	Portland State	BigSky	2.11	62.07	(219)	78.39	(334)	65.98	(148)	0%	0%	1%
294	Howard	MEAC	2.06	56.42	(331)	73.21	(207)	64.12	(236)	0%	0%	1%
295	Central Connecticut State	NEC	2.03	60.72	(253)	77.47	(314)	68.02	(65)	0%	0%	1%
296	Coppin State	MEAC	2.03	57.99	(311)	74.58	(250)	68.94	(38)	0%	0%	1%
297	Cal State Fullerton	BigWest	1.98	59.93	(276)	76.57	(297)	69.31	(30)	0%	0%	0%
298	St. Peter's	MAAC	1.97	56.14	(334)	73.43	(213)	63.73	(259)	0%	0%	0%
299	Western Illinois	Summit	1.97	54.98	(339)	72.86	(197)	57.50	(349)	0%	0%	0%
300	IUPUI	Summit	1.96	60.57	(259)	77.98	(324)	63.70	(262)	0%	0%	0%
RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	OFFENSE	(RANK)	DEFENSE	(RANK)	PACE	(RANK)	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
301	Jacksonville State	OVC	1.95	59.64	(285)	77.42	(313)	61.57	(324)	0%	0%	0%
302	Central Arkansas	Sland	1.95	62.68	(203)	79.00	(338)	73.04	(5)	0%	0%	0%
303	Rice	CUSA	1.93	60.90	(243)	78.53	(335)	64.41	(223)	0%	0%	0%
304	Jacksonville	Asun	1.85	58.34	(304)	75.65	(275)	67.77	(72)	0%	0%	0%
305	Idaho	BigSky	1.81	60.44	(263)	78.94	(337)	62.70	(302)	0%	0%	0%
306	Appalachian State	SoCon	1.80	60.64	(256)	78.15	(329)	66.84	(112)	0%	0%	0%
307	Idaho State	BigSky	1.79	58.15	(309)	76.69	(302)	62.27	(311)	0%	0%	0%
308	Houston Baptist	Sland	1.77	57.39	(320)	74.30	(241)	70.88	(18)	0%	0%	0%
309	North Carolina A&T	MEAC	1.74	57.90	(314)	75.79	(278)	68.18	(61)	0%	0%	2%
310	Tennessee-Martin	OVC	1.72	59.32	(288)	77.20	(309)	67.28	(94)	0%	0%	0%
311	Delaware State	MEAC	1.71	59.96	(274)	79.52	(342)	58.41	(347)	0%	0%	0%
312	Sacramento State	BigSky	1.71	59.46	(287)	78.32	(333)	63.28	(285)	0%	0%	0%
313	Milwaukee	Horiz	1.69	56.88	(326)	75.35	(270)	65.56	(173)	0%	0%	0%
314	Maryland-Eastern Shore	MEAC	1.68	60.72	(252)	79.05	(339)	67.32	(89)	0%	0%	0%
315	Siena	MAAC	1.62	57.76	(315)	76.87	(305)	65.37	(186)	0%	0%	0%
316	St. Francis (PA)	NEC	1.61	58.30	(305)	77.50	(315)	63.29	(282)	0%	0%	0%
317	Presbyterian	BigSou	1.60	60.46	(261)	80.30	(344)	59.33	(342)	0%	0%	0%
318	SIU-Edwardsville	OVC	1.56	57.91	(313)	76.56	(296)	67.79	(71)	0%	0%	0%
319	North Carolina-Wilmington	CAA	1.56	58.99	(296)	78.07	(328)	64.87	(203)	0%	0%	0%
320	Mississippi Valley	SWAC	1.52	58.52	(303)	76.68	(301)	71.44	(12)	0%	0%	1%
321	Prairie View A&M	SWAC	1.43	54.36	(341)	73.33	(210)	68.47	(50)	0%	0%	2%
322	Kennesaw State	Asun	1.43	57.44	(319)	77.24	(310)	63.36	(279)	0%	0%	0%
323	Nicholls State	Sland	1.43	58.65	(301)	78.53	(336)	63.86	(254)	0%	0%	0%
324	Texas-San Antonio	CUSA	1.40	55.36	(337)	75.29	(267)	65.86	(154)	0%	0%	0%
325	Utah Valley State	WAC	1.40	60.30	(265)	80.54	(347)	64.98	(197)	0%	0%	0%
326	Lamar	Sland	1.36	56.09	(335)	75.04	(261)	70.68	(19)	0%	0%	0%
327	Maryland-Baltimore Co.	AmEast	1.35	57.96	(312)	77.26	(311)	68.27	(57)	0%	0%	0%
328	Missouri-Kansas City	WAC	1.30	56.87	(327)	77.34	(312)	63.93	(247)	0%	0%	0%
329	Furman	SoCon	1.29	56.95	(325)	77.81	(318)	63.53	(272)	0%	0%	0%
330	Florida A&M	MEAC	1.28	55.91	(336)	75.72	(276)	68.80	(41)	0%	0%	0%
331	Arkansas-Pine Bluff	SWAC	1.28	54.53	(340)	74.80	(257)	66.86	(109)	0%	0%	1%
332	Alabama State	SWAC	1.26	56.97	(324)	77.68	(316)	64.77	(209)	0%	0%	1%
333	Troy	SunBelt	1.25	56.99	(323)	77.89	(320)	66.21	(140)	0%	0%	0%
334	Longwood	BigSou	1.25	59.80	(279)	79.54	(343)	71.13	(16)	0%	0%	0%
335	Virginia Military	BigSou	1.21	62.75	(197)	83.10	(349)	74.41	(1)	0%	0%	0%
336	Southeast Louisiana	Sland	1.10	56.34	(332)	77.91	(321)	64.13	(234)	0%	0%	0%
337	Southern Utah	Summit	1.07	54.35	(342)	75.39	(271)	66.16	(142)	0%	0%	0%
338	Fairleigh Dickinson	NEC	1.07	57.63	(316)	79.07	(340)	67.31	(92)	0%	0%	0%
339	Citadel	SoCon	1.05	61.18	(241)	84.05	(350)	63.12	(289)	0%	0%	0%
340	Long Island	NEC	1.05	60.85	(246)	81.92	(348)	73.73	(3)	0%	0%	0%
341	Alabama A&M	SWAC	1.02	56.57	(330)	77.98	(323)	67.31	(90)	0%	0%	0%
342	Bethune-Cookman	MEAC	0.85	56.75	(328)	80.33	(346)	62.50	(306)	0%	0%	0%
343	Texas Pan American	WAC	0.85	52.77	(344)	75.89	(281)	64.12	(235)	0%	0%	0%
344	Binghamton	AmEast	0.79	52.74	(345)	76.35	(294)	63.90	(249)	0%	0%	0%
345	South Carolina State	MEAC	0.72	53.73	(343)	78.01	(326)	67.17	(98)	0%	0%	0%
346	Grand Canyon	WAC	0.60	52.66	(346)	77.97	(322)	65.53	(175)	0%	0%	0%
347	Incarnate Word	Sland	0.56	52.43	(347)	78.19	(330)	65.53	(175)	0%	0%	0%
347	Abilene Christian	Sland	0.56	52.43	(347)	78.19	(330)	65.53	(175)	0%	0%	0%
347	Massachusetts-Lowell	AmEast	0.56	52.43	(347)	78.19	(330)	65.53	(175)	0%	0%	0%
350	New Orleans	Sland	0.54	51.45	(350)	75.95	(283)	71.15	(15)	0%	0%	0%
351	Grambling State	SWAC	0.14	51.43	(351)	85.42	(351)	65.42	(183)	0%	0%	0%

Filling Out the Brackets

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:01:00 +0000

I had hoped to have a cool feature up by this point that would be a one-stop shop for all Tourney-related needs. It would show teams' chances against all other Tourney teams, plus show odds for advancing, and would update in semi-real time. It would be really cool. Alas, my programming skills aren't quite what they should be, and it's taking much longer than I'd anticipated.

But what I can offer is something that I'd been meaning to get around to ever since launching the site: The Matchup Generator. It's not very pretty, but it is pretty simple. Just select two teams and decide whether you want to pretend they'd play on an on-campus or neutral floor, and with one click you can see a detailed matchup projection. Enjoy!

Final Preseason Projections (Probably) Are Up

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:31:00 +0000

Unless some major news comes in over the next 24 hours, I probably won't run the season projection model again. Last Friday, CBS's Eye on College Basketball (which has the best reporting on college basketball anywhere) posted a listing of all the injuries and suspensions they were aware of. I incorporated all of that information into the model, as well as the news that's come in yesterday about the suspensions of a couple of Indiana's freshmen for the first nine games of the season, as well as this morning's reversal of the NCAA's earlier decision clearing Maryland's Dez Wells to play immediately.

The Wells decision actually brings me to a point that I've been meaning to post on for a while now. Those who analyze college basketball--fans and media alike--tend to put far too much stock into the impact of a single player on a team's fortunes. While it's true that there is the occasional transcendent player who can singlehandedly take an otherwise ordinary team and turn them into a very good one--Blake Griffin is the most recent example--for most teams at the major conference level, the addition or subtraction of a single player isn't usually enough to move the needle very much.

So, let's look at what the model projected for Maryland as of this morning, when Dez Wells was assumed to be benched for the season under the NCAA transfer rules. (The model isn't as high on the Terps as a lot of humans, mostly because it sees Alex Len not for his potential NBA draft status but for his rather pedestrian freshman season, and it sees the Terps' highly-touted freshmen, Jake Layman and Shaquille Cleare, as, well, freshmen. But the projection itself isn't all that important--just take note of it as a baseline:

Player	Class	Team	MIN	FGM	FGA	3GM	3GA	FTM	FTA	OREB	DREB	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
Logan Aronhalt	SR+	MD	27.3	4.0	11.1	1.8	5.5	2.7	2.8	1.7	2.9	4.6	0.9	1.9	0.6	0.7	1.6	12.6
James Padgett	SR	MD	27.1	4.3	8.6	0.0	0.0	2.9	5.7	5.2	3.4	8.6	0.8	2.1	0.1	0.5	2.2	11.4
Nick Faust	SO	MD	28.5	3.5	9.4	1.0	3.2	2.6	3.9	1.0	3.9	4.8	2.2	2.9	1.1	0.4	2.4	10.5
Jake Layman	FR	MD	23.3	2.5	6.9	0.5	2.1	1.6	2.2	1.7	3.0	4.6	1.4	1.8	0.8	0.7	2.4	7.0
Shaquille Cleare	FR	MD	18.6	2.4	5.4	0.1	0.4	1.6	2.4	2.7	3.6	6.2	0.4	1.3	0.5	1.5	2.2	6.3
Varun Ram	SO	MD	20.2	1.7	4.9	0.7	2.4	1.0	1.3	0.4	1.3	1.8	1.9	1.6	0.9	0.1	2.0	5.0
Charles Mitchell	FR	MD	14.7	1.8	4.1	0.0	0.2	1.1	1.8	1.9	2.7	4.6	0.4	1.0	0.4	0.9	1.7	4.7
Pe'Shon Howard	JR	MD	16.7	1.4	3.5	0.5	1.6	0.9	1.2	0.1	2.2	2.3	1.8	1.8	0.5	0.2	0.9	4.1
Alex Len	SO	MD	11.6	1.4	2.7	0.0	0.0	0.9	1.4	1.2	2.3	3.5	0.3	1.0	0.1	1.7	1.4	3.6
Seth Allen	FR	MD	7.4	0.7	1.9	0.2	0.8	0.4	0.6	0.4	0.8	1.2	0.5	0.5	0.2	0.1	0.8	2.0
John Auslander	JR	MD	2.8	0.2	0.5	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.5
Maryland TEAM			200.0	23.7	59.4	4.8	16.5	15.7	23.7	16.4	26.5	42.9	10.7	16.4	5.4	6.9	18.3	68.0
Maryland OPPONENTS			200.0	26.1	62.1	6.6	19.3	14.1	20.3	13.2	23.8	37.0	7.4	11.7	6.1	6.0	19.9	72.8

So what's it look like once Dez Wells and his projected 10.1 points and 6.4 rebounds per game are thrown into the mix? Not much different on the bottom two lines.

Player	Class	Team	MIN	FGM	FGA	3GM	3GA	FTM	FTA	OREB	DREB	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
Logan Aronhalt	SR+	MD	27.3	3.9	10.9	1.7	5.4	2.7	2.8	1.8	2.8	4.6	0.9	1.9	0.6	0.7	1.6	12.3
James Padgett	SR	MD	25.2	3.9	7.9	0.0	0.0	2.7	5.3	5.0	3.0	8.0	0.7	2.0	0.1	0.5	2.1	10.3
Nick Faust	SO	MD	28.5	3.4	9.2	0.9	3.2	2.6	4.0	1.0	3.8	4.8	2.3	2.9	1.1	0.4	2.5	10.3
Dezmine Wells	SO	MD	27.6	3.7	8.7	0.7	2.1	2.0	2.9	1.7	4.7	6.4	1.1	1.2	1.0	0.6	1.9	10.1
Jake Layman	FR	MD	20.5	2.1	6.0	0.5	1.8	1.4	2.0	1.5	2.5	4.0	1.3	1.6	0.7	0.7	2.1	6.1
Shaquille Cleare	FR	MD	15.2	1.9	4.4	0.1	0.3	1.3	2.0	2.2	2.8	5.1	0.3	1.0	0.4	1.3	1.8	5.1
Varun Ram	SO	MD	17.2	1.4	4.1	0.5	2.0	0.8	1.1	0.4	1.1	1.5	1.7	1.4	0.7	0.1	1.7	4.1
Charles Mitchell	FR	MD	10.6	1.3	2.9	0.0	0.1	0.8	1.3	1.4	1.9	3.3	0.3	0.7	0.3	0.6	1.3	3.4
Pe'Shon Howard	JR	MD	13.0	1.0	2.7	0.4	1.2	0.7	1.0	0.1	1.6	1.7	1.4	1.4	0.4	0.1	0.7	3.1
Alex Len	SO	MD	7.2	0.8	1.6	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.9	0.8	1.4	2.2	0.2	0.6	0.1	1.0	0.9	2.2
Seth Allen	FR	MD	3.2	0.3	0.8	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.3	0.8
John Auslander	JR	MD	2.8	0.2	0.5	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.4
Maryland TEAM			200.0	23.8	60.0	4.9	16.8	15.9	23.7	16.1	26.6	42.6	10.6	15.3	5.6	6.2	17.7	68.5
Maryland OPPONENTS			200.0	26.3	62.0	6.6	19.4	13.2	19.1	12.6	24.6	37.2	8.1	11.8	6.1	5.9	20.0	72.4

That's because you don't just add Dez Wells' stat line to the baseline. There are only 200 minutes per game to go around, so those 27.6 minutes that Wells is projected to play have to come from somewhere. And while Wells is likely to be a better player than the guys whose minutes he's taking, those guys weren't going to be just standing around doing nothing. They'd be taking shots, and getting rebounds, and playing defense that whole time, too. And these guys aren't just folks plucked off the quad; they're ACC-level basketball players. So the net effect is that the Terps will probably score about a half point more per game, and give up about a half point less per game with Wells than they would have without him.

One point per game, net, isn't nothing. But it's not a whole lot, either. According to the model, it's enough to move Maryland up from the #124 spot to #114 nationally, and to leapfrog Clemson for the #9 spot in the ACC.

New & Improved Projections Are Live

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:50:00 +0000

The 2013 projections are now based on the actual team rosters rather than my inferred rosters based on remaining eligibility and known transfers. I've tried to remove as many players as possible who I know to be injured, suspended, or taking redshirt years, but if I've got anyone included in the projections who shouldn't be there, please let me know.

Another small but important tweak that I've built into the system is to correct incoming players' anticipated defensive rates based on the defense they'll be playing in. This isn't necessary for returning players, because the system adjustment is built into the baseline from which the projections are derived. For freshmen, though, the tweak needs to be made. A player in Shaka Smart's Havoc defense will get more steals than the exact same player would if he was playing in a more positional system; Florida State's freshmen will have a better defensive two-point field goal percentage than they would if they were playing in a system that didn't place so much emphasis on denying those shots.

I'll continue updating the projections through next Thursday as injury, suspension, and eligibility news comes in.

North Carolina Isn't Going To Be Very Good (or: Matchup Zone's Projection System Explained)

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:58:00 +0000

There seems to be a pretty clear pattern when it comes to the way people approach the projections on the site. First off, they'll scan the page or do a Ctrl-F to find their favorite team. They'll almost always mutter under its breath that it's too low, that some stupid computer can't know how hard their guys are working, and how the chemistry on this year's team is gonna be better, and how that new recruit is going to take the league by storm. Then they'll scroll back up to the top of the list and start reading down. That team's too high, they'll think, and that other one's underrated, and New Mexico? Really? Ah, whatever.

They'll usually click around a little bit, visit a team site or two, and one or two conference sites. But, eventually, in all of that clicking and scrolling, they'll come across this line, and they'll start to question my sanity.

RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
88	North Carolina	ACC	8.46	19%	3%	1%

*The numbers on the projection might be slightly different by the time you're reading this; rankings and relative strengths and postseason probabilities are changing all the time as players transfer out, receive immediate eligibility at new schools, or are ruled ineligible by either the schools or the NCAA

They'll click through to the UNC team page to try and figure out what in the world could justify such a patently ridiculous prediction. What could make North Carolina a less than 1-in-5 shot to reach the NCAA Tournament? And what seems to jump out to most folks is that James Michael McAdoo--the guy who everybody just knows is going to have a breakout sophomore season--is projected to go for just 6.4 points and 3.1 rebounds in a little over 18 minutes per game.

That's crazy, they'll think. The guy averaged 6.1 points and 3.9 rebounds in 15 minutes per game last year. Surely he'll be better than that this year, and doesn't Mr. Matchup Zone know that McAdoo's gonna be The Man this year? This is stupid. I'm gonna go back to watching cat videos.

And so they leave the site. They don't come back. And they don't even tell their friends that they need to check out this clown site on the Internet that says UNC will be lucky to be an NIT bubble team come March, because it's just a bunch of numbers on a screen that don't tell a story.

So I guess I've got to tell the story of how the system arrived at its predictions. Follow me past the jump, and I'll try to explain this thing.

Build a Roster
The first step toward building a team projection is a simple one in theory, but poses some interesting practical challenges. I've got to find out just who is going to be playing. The starting point for that is simply last year's roster. Take away the seniors, and move everyone else up a class. Jeff Goodman's list of Division I transfers is a valuable reference for keeping track of who's moving, and his list from the previous year is great for checking on who'll be eligible for their new teams. Subscriptions to various national RSS feeds covering college basketball catch most of the late player movement happening at the high- and mid-major level. And the various recruiting services' listings of incoming freshmen help me fill out the rosters.

Even with all of that, I'm sure there's lots of player churn that's completely missed. If you see anyone listed on the team pages who you know won't be playing, let me know. Likewise, if I'm missing someone, let me know about that as well. The rosters are the foundation upon which the projection model is built, so the better that information is, the better the projections will be.

Build Individual Player Projections
Once I know who's going to be playing, the next step is to start making some predictions about how those players will perform in the coming year. There's no way to know exactly what an 18- to 22-year old is going to do over the course of 30 games. But what we can do is hazard an educated guess based on how other similar players have done in the past.

So, getting back to our North Carolina example of James Michael McAdoo, the computer looked for other freshman power forwards who'd been highly regarded recruits out of high school and played somewhere between 25% and 50% of their team's floor minutes. It then found out how those players' sophomore seasons differed from their freshman seasons. Using McAdoo's freshman numbers as a baseline, it then built a projection of what his sophomore season would look like. The computer goes through the same process of finding similar players and building projections for every returning player on every team in the country.

For freshmen, there are a couple of different ways to get projections. For the 100 or so freshmen listed in the RSCI, the process isn't all that different from the way returning players are projected. Other players are found with similar recruiting rankings and positions, and those previous players' performances are averaged to form the expectation for the incoming freshman. The remaining freshmen and junior college players are projected based on how freshmen at their positions in their conferences have performed, with some minor tweaking based on their reputation scores (stars, grades, etc.) aggregated from various recruiting services.

These are crude projections, though, because the numbers they're based on--both from the returning players and from the historical comps--have been stripped of all their context. They're all adjusted rates, meaning that they show how the players would perform against a standardized level of competition, and surrounded by average teammates. This is a really important feature of the system, actually. It's what makes it possible to project how a guy transferring from an ACC team to one in the MAC will perform, and it allows us to compare individuals and teams across widely varying levels of competition in an apples-to-apples way.

Build a Team Projection
What we need to do now is to put some of that context back in by assembling the team and determining how all these individual pieces will interact with one another. The first order of business here is dividing the players' minutes up so that the sum of all players' minutes on each team in 200 minutes per game. (In the real world this never happens; since no team has every player play in every game, the sum of players' minutes per game is always somewhere north of 200. What we're really doing is figuring out what percentage of the team's minutes each player will play over the course of the full season.) This is accomplished by determining first how deep of a rotation each coach likes to play by checking previous seasons. Then, using a model based on that rotation size, individual players' projected effectiveness relative to his teammates, and the players' minutes played the previous season, the computer spits out everyone's predicted share of minutes played.

With that done, it's on to the business of figuring out how all these players will interact with one another. Most guys will see their projected share of field goal attempts adjusted up or down, depending on who they'll be sharing the floor with. Their shooting percentages will change based on whether or not they'll be playing with others who are good at setting up their teammates' shots. And their rebound rates will change a little bit depending on whether they play with teammates who either cannibalize or run away from rebounding opportunities.

Once all that is done, it's simply a matter of adding everything back up to arrive at each team's projected effectiveness. At this point, we have a complete, working model of how each team will play, all the way down to turnover rates and defensive block percentages and everything else one would need to project individual matchups, just like we do here in the regular season. Pretty cool.

Build In Some Error
We're not quite done yet, though. What we've actually gotten ourselves is a series of snapshots of what each team is most likely to do, with that roster and that rotation. But they're not going to play that exact rotation--some guys are going to get hurt and miss chunks of the season, others are going to get themselves kicked off the team at some point, some freshmen will get homesick and quit--and those players aren't all going to have exactly that output.

What's cool about using a similar-player model for projecting players is that we can not only make some pretty good predictions about how guys are going to perform, but we can also have a pretty good idea of how much error there is in those projections. And on the individual level, there's a lot of error. For an individual player, we're talking about something on the order of 3 or 4 points of value per 100 possessions that we know we're likely to miss by. On the team level, though, all that error tends to even out. This guy overperforms, this other guy doesn't develop at all. So even though the individual predictions might be off, there's much less error in the team's projection. And teams with lots of seniors, obviously, tend to have a lot less expected error than those full of freshmen.

To account for the possibility of injuries and other player losses, the system removes each player from his team's projection completely, and then makes note of the difference between the team's performance with and without the player. For the best players on relatively thin teams--guys like Aaron Craft at Ohio State, Erick Green at Virginia Tech, and Lorenzo Brown at NC State--this downside risk can be as high as 4 projected TAPE wins. For the really good players who are expected to carry their mid-major teams--Pierce Hornung at Colorado State, C.J. McCollum at Lehigh, Doug McDermott at Creighton--the number can be as high as 5 or 6. Since we can't know when or whom the injury bug is going to bite, the model aggregate's the individual discounts and applies them to the team.

Putting It All Together
So that's pretty much it. We've now got a median performance expectation for each team. We know the associated expected error, and can build in a discount for the expectation of missed time due to player attrition. All of that together gives us the ability to identify the full range of best-case to worst-case scenarios for each and every team in Division I.

But You Said Carolina's Not Going To Be Good. Please To Explain.
I will, thanks. The Tar Heels have a median TAPE expectation of 8.38, which means that over the course of 18 games against average BCS-league competition they'd have a win expectancy of 8.38 games. On its face, that seems absurd. I get that. I mean, they're North-friggin'-Carolina, right? Everybody knows they're gonna be good. But looking deeper, it makes a certain amount of sense.

Carolina's returning players (and their incoming players, for that matter) were all highly-regarded prospects coming out of high school. They're thus just sort of assumed to be very good players. But, so far at least, they haven't done much at the collegiate level to justify their reputations.

The Tar Heels' backcourt consists of two shooting guards who can't shoot and a freshman point guard. Leslie McDonald, who missed all of 2012, has hit just 38% of his career two-point attempts and 33% of his threes; P.J. Hairston hit 39% of his twos and 27% of his threes as a freshman. And, most concerning for UNC fans, those numbers were put up while sharing the floor with an all-time great assist man. Any gains in experience and age are likely to be offset by the loss of Kendall Marshall.

In the frontcourt, much is expected of James Michael McAdoo, but he suffers from the exact same problem as his backcourt mates face. He put up middling numbers as a freshman, and those came while surrounded by much more impressive teammates than he'll share the floor with in 2013. McAdoo was a good defensive player as a freshman, but he was well below average at the offensive end of the floor. Based on the performance of similar players in their sophomore years, McAdoo is most likely to improve to simply average on offense.

But what if the projection for McAdoo is wrong. What if he turns into Tyler Hansbrough on offense. Well, I ran a dummy projection for UNC, substituting Hansbrough's junior season numbers for McAdoo's (I left McAdoo's defensive numbers there, because he's already a better defender than Hansbrough ever was). And, it should come as no surprise, Carolina did a lot better in that model:

RANK	TEAM	CONF.	TAPE	At Large	Top 25	Win Conf.
48	North Carolina	ACC	10.51	55%	21%	6%

You'll notice, though, that even in this scenario, where McAdoo turns into a beast the likes of which we've not seen in some time, and undergoes just a ridiculously off-the-charts breakout improvement, Carolina still is just a bubble team. In order for UNC to have the kind of season that everybody seems to expect of them, they're going to have to see tremendous improvement from all of their returnees, and their incoming freshmen--especially point guard Marcus Paige--are going to have to be better than their recruiting expectation expects them to be.

That could all happen. It's a lot that has to go right, though, and that's why this system gives the Heels such long odds to enjoy the sort of success they're accustomed to.

2013 Projections are Ready

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:51:00 +0000

I've posted the first run of 2013 projections. They can be found at: http://matchup-zone.com/projections.

I'll get a much more detailed post up one of these days dealing with the methodology, but the short version is that I've built a program that projects each returning player's anticipated production for the 2013 season based on a very broad comparable-player model. I then added in the expected production of the RSCI top 100 incoming freshmen, and filled out each team with generic newcomers based on each team's conference. The result is a detailed projection not just of each team's season, with detail down to the line score level.

Today's Game: The National Championship

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:58:00 +0000

9:23 PM Monday, New Orleans					65.5 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
2	Kansas	50.04%	68.67	47.5	17.5	34.1	22.5
1	Kentucky	49.96%	68.65	47.7	17.9	32.8	27.6

Well, it really doesn't get any closer than this one. Only four games all year have been closer on paper than this game, and with all due deference to the WAC Tournament game between Utah State and Louisiana Tech, I think it's safe to say that none of the others have had quite the stakes that this game has. And what's really amazing here isn't just that the projected final score is so close, but that every single phase of this game is so evenly matched.

Kansas has been sort of the forgotten great team of the 2012-2013 season. In October this looked like a team that wouldn't be able to live up to the usual high standards of Kansas basketball. Then they lost to Kentucky at Madison Square Garden in November, and lost to Duke in Maui, and the consensus was reached: this was a good-but-not-great team. Their win over Ohio State in Allen Fieldhouse was written off since the Buckeyes were without Jared Sullinger, and then when the Jayhawks lost to Davidson 9 days later, it was set in stone. So nobody really even noticed when they won the Big 12 by two games. Missouri and Baylor were better stories, after all. But this is a team that's been among the 10 best teams in the country since December 10, and hasn't been outside the top 5 in all of 2012.

Today's Games: The Final Four

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:30:00 +0000

6:09 PM Saturday, New Orleans					65.9 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
4	Louisville	26.2%	61.9	42.2	18.8	32.7	20.7
1	Kentucky	73.8%	69.7	47.2	21.1	40.0	31.1

Five of Kentucky's 8-point advantage in the model's projection come from the free throw line. With the officiating in the NCAA Tournament (and college basketball in general) having been a major topic of conversation all year and having grown to a crescendo in the week leading up to the Final Four, it's entirely possible that the officials could once again be the story. The model predicts 37.1 total personal fouls and 41.7 combined free throw attempts in this game, and 36.6 and 40.7 in the night-cap. Nobody outside the fans of the losing teams will complain much if those numbers come in low, but if we see more than 85 fouls called or more than 95 free throw attempts between the two contests tonight, we could--and should--see the criticism of the way college games are officiated ratchet up even further.

8:49 PM Saturday, New Orleans					67.6 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
2	Ohio St.	54.7%	68.8	46.3	17.9	32.1	25.5
2	Kansas	45.3%	67.4	50.4	22.2	28.7	25.8

Kentucky is the prohibitive favorite to cut down the nets on Monday night according to the betting public, but the TAPE model isn't nearly so high on the Wildcats. Ohio State would be a 1-point favorite against Kentucky, and Kentucky would only be favored by 0.2 points against Kansas.

Sweet Sixteen Overview

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:00:00 +0000

I've been out of town and swamped with work, and apparently the script that I thought would post all the previews while I was gone didn't work so well.

7:15 PM Thursday, Boston					56.9 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
4	Wisconsin	51.5%	58.5	44.7	19.2	38.6	21.1
1	Syracuse	48.5%	58.1	45.6	15.2	30.6	22.0

7:47 PM Thursday, Phoenix					65.6 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
4	Louisville	22.0%	58.4	41.6	21.4	29.5	27.1
1	Michigan St.	78.0%	67.8	48.2	23.3	40.0	28.4

9:45 PM Thursday, Boston					64.6 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
6	Cincinnati	17.7%	60.1	43.8	17.4	27.5	17.3
2	Ohio St.	82.3%	71.6	50.7	19.5	39.2	21.8

10:17 PM Thursday, Phoenix					68.5 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
7	Florida	55.0%	75.9	52.9	20.1	35.4	20.8
3	Marquette	45.0%	74.2	51.0	18.2	31.7	26.7

7:15 PM Friday, Atlanta					66.2 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
10	Xavier	33.6%	67.1	47.9	19.5	30.9	26.9
3	Baylor	66.4%	72.5	49.6	19.9	38.1	27.0

7:47 PM Friday, St. Louis					72.1 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
13	Ohio	16.9%	67.2	43.6	18.1	28.4	16.3
1	North Carolina	83.1%	79.9	49.6	21.6	43.4	34.9

I hope to have something up tonight or tomorrow morning about what Kendall Marshall's absence might mean to the Heels' chances in this one. This projection is not adjusted for Marshall's status.

9:45 PM Friday, Atlanta					65.0 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
4	Indiana	36.7%	70.2	47.7	17.4	35.3	25.4
1	Kentucky	63.3%	74.5	52.8	17.7	35.7	28.5

10:17 PM Friday, St. Louis					67.6 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
11	N.C. State	19.7%	64.7	45.0	20.4	31.5	25.3
2	Kansas	80.3%	75.4	51.9	17.9	35.0	25.0

Today's Games: 3/17/2012

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:52:00 +0000

Time

Visitors

Exp. Score

Home

Poss.

Conf.

Yesterday: 9-9 (50.0%) overall, 10-6-1 (62.5%) vs. the spread, 12-5-0 (70.6%) vs. the over/under.
Season: 3962-1370 (74.3%) overall, 1778-1774-73 (50.1%) vs. the spread, 1794-1790-32 (50.1%) vs. the over/under.

NCAA First Round Preview: Midwest Region

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:30:00 +0000

12:40 PM Friday, Columbus					67.0 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
11	N.C. State	50.5%	69.4	48.0	18.5	33.4	22.4
6	San Diego St.	49.5%	69.2	47.5	17.5	31.5	22.3

1:40 PM Friday, Greensboro					63.0 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
9	Alabama	54.8%	69.1	50.6	15.2	29.7	22.5
8	Creighton	45.2%	67.6	52.1	20.3	30.5	30.8

3:10 PM Friday, Columbus					63.7 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
14	Belmont	33.5%	63.7	46.6	18.0	28.3	25.0
3	Georgetown	66.5%	68.9	51.5	19.4	33.1	31.1

4:10 PM Friday, Greensboro					68.8 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
16	Vermont	9.1%	62.1	41.8	18.7	28.3	17.7
1	North Carolina	90.9%	79.1	49.5	16.0	40.3	28.1

7:20 PM Friday, Nashville					61.2 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
13	Ohio	28.3%	58.5	46.0	21.7	32.5	18.2
4	Michigan	71.7%	65.4	53.0	21.7	31.4	29.7

7:27 PM Friday, Omaha					62.0 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
10	Purdue	56.2%	71.2	52.0	11.6	29.2	20.4
7	St. Mary's	43.8%	69.3	52.6	18.8	33.9	27.6

9:50 PM Friday, Nashville					59.1 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
12	South Florida	44.0%	58.6	48.5	23.1	33.7	22.5
5	Temple	56.0%	60.3	48.8	18.0	27.2	22.1

9:57 PM Friday, Omaha					67.5 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
15	Detroit	7.8%	61.5	40.6	19.8	30.8	27.1
2	Kansas	92.2%	79.2	59.5	22.3	37.2	35.6

NCAA First Round Preview: West Region

noreply@blogger.com (Vince) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:03:00 +0000

12:15 PM Thursday, Louisville					63.5 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
11	Colorado St.	48.8%	68.9	52.3	21.4	33.2	32.2
6	Murray St.	51.2%	69.3	51.6	19.7	33.2	32.1

Colorado State junior Pierce Hornung is the top offensive player in the nation, and second only to Kentucky's Anthony Davis in per-possession value, according to PAPER. An undersized power forward, Hornung has grabbed a ridiculous 17.75% of all available offensive rebounds, and has hit 68.25% of his two-point field goal attempts on the season. Foul trouble is Hornung's bugaboo, though, limiting him to participating in just 54% of the Rams' floor minutes.

1:40 PM Thursday, Portland					68.6 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
13	Davidson	34.1%	66.2	43.7	22.1	35.5	27.0
4	Louisville	65.9%	71.4	48.1	17.5	30.5	32.2

2:45 PM Thursday, Louisville					76.8 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
14	BYU	32.7%	74.7	47.2	23.2	33.5	24.5
3	Marquette	67.3%	80.7	51.0	20.4	29.9	32.5

BYU entered their First Four game with Iona as a slight underdog, with a 48% chance to beat the Gaels for the right to face Marquette. By the time they were down 25 points with 4 minutes to play in the first half, that chance had dropped to just 1.4%.

4:10 PM Thursday, Portland					67.1 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
12	Long Beach St.	31.0%	64.8	46.7	21.4	31.0	23.2
5	New Mexico	69.0%	71.0	51.2	20.8	33.1	23.6

2:10 PM Friday, Omaha					57.9 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
10	Virginia	48.1%	60.7	52.2	19.1	26.5	23.3
7	Florida	51.9%	61.3	51.4	16.8	25.4	19.9

While Florida comes into the game with a well-deserved reputation as a strong three-point shooting team, Virginia actually has a slightly higher expected three-point percentage in this game than the Gators (36.6% to 35.1%) thanks to Virginia's stellar field goal defense and Florida's struggles with same.

4:40 PM Friday, Omaha					66.5 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
15	Norfolk St.	3.6%	62.2	47.2	23.0	29.5	19.8
2	Missouri	96.4%	84.8	58.8	14.7	33.6	31.7

6:50 PM Friday, Columbus					63.0 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
9	Saint Louis	46.4%	62.9	46.1	18.8	30.8	25.4
8	Memphis	53.6%	63.9	51.2	23.2	30.1	31.8

Saint Louis lived in and around the top fifteen of the TAPE ratings for most of the season, but I haven't been able to figure out exactly why. I have a feeling that the system may overrate teams with strong defenses who play at a slow pace (Wisconsin, Virginia, and Saint Louis are all rated higher in TAPE than common sense would place them), and in the offseason I'll be revisiting this to find out if it's actually the case.

9:20 PM Friday, Columbus					72.2 possessions
Team		WIN%	PTS	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTM:FGA
16	Long Island	2.9%	66.5	44.4	22.7	28.4	29.3
1	Michigan St.	97.1%	91.4	57.5	16.2	41.1	21.0

Draymond Green has been one of the most valuable players in the country for all four years he's been at Michigan State, but it wasn't until February of his senior season that he started to get the recognition he deserves. If there's anything that can be done on a basketball court to help his team win a game, Draymond does it.