Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 3 Seeds
Friday, May 09, 2008
Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.
Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama
Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier
Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville
Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis
Recap: The 5 Seeds
20. Oklahoma St
19. Pittsburgh
18. UCLA
17. Oklahoma
Recap: The 4 Seeds
16. Syracuse
15. Ohio State
14. Gonzaga
13. Maryland
THE THREE SEEDS
12. Stanford
Last 10 Years: 233-83; JCI Rk: 12 (Prev Rk:11); SOS: 34
2007-08: 28-8; JCI Rk: 9; SOS: 10; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 110-50; JCI Rk: 25; SOS: 45
First 5 Years: 123-33; JCI Rk: 7; SOS: 29
NCAA Apperances: 9 (10 wins)
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 2
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 28-8 | 9 | 10 | S16 |
| 2006-07 | 18-13 | 52 | 15 | L1 |
| 2005-06 | 16-14 | 76 | 62 | None |
| 2004-05 | 18-13 | 43 | 26 | L1 |
| 2003-04 | 30-2 | 9 | 111 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 24-9 | 25 | 68 | L2 |
| 2001-02 | 20-10 | 21 | 10 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 29-3 | 2 | 19 | E8 |
| 1999-00 | 26-4 | 6 | 58 | L2 |
| 1998-99 | 24-7 | 10 | 17 | L2 |
11. Texas
Last 10 Years: 245-93; JCI Rk: 11 (Prev Rk:15); SOS: 19
2007-08: 30-7; JCI Rk: 5; SOS: 2; Tourney: E8
Last 5 Years: 129-43; JCI Rk: 8; SOS: 19
First 5 Years: 116-50; JCI Rk: 16; SOS: 24
NCAA Apperances: 10 (16 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 5
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 30-7 | 5 | 2 | E8 |
| 2006-07 | 25-10 | 25 | 48 | L2 |
| 2005-06 | 30-7 | 9 | 33 | E8 |
| 2004-05 | 19-11 | 44 | 47 | L1 |
| 2003-04 | 25-8 | 11 | 20 | S16 |
| 2002-03 | 26-7 | 6 | 5 | F4 |
| 2001-02 | 22-12 | 20 | 6 | S16 |
| 2000-01 | 25-9 | 17 | 51 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 24-9 | 18 | 14 | L2 |
| 1998-99 | 19-13 | 67 | 74 | L1 |
10. Wisconsin
Last 10 Years: 234-95; JCI Rk: 10 (Prev Rk:13); SOS: 9
2007-08: 31-5; JCI Rk: 7; SOS: 54; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 130-39; JCI Rk: 6; SOS: 34
First 5 Years: 104-56; JCI Rk: 17; SOS: 4
NCAA Apperances: 10 (14 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 4
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 31-5 | 7 | 54 | S16 |
| 2006-07 | 30-6 | 9 | 35 | L2 |
| 2005-06 | 19-12 | 49 | 42 | L1 |
| 2004-05 | 25-9 | 10 | 13 | E8 |
| 2003-04 | 25-7 | 18 | 43 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 24-8 | 17 | 45 | S16 |
| 2001-02 | 18-13 | 41 | 22 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 18-11 | 24 | 9 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 22-14 | 14 | 1 | F4 |
| 1998-99 | 22-10 | 12 | 6 | L1 |
9. Arizona - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 236-92; JCI Rk: 9 (Prev Rk:6); SOS: 7
2007-08: 18-15; JCI Rk: 41; SOS: 1; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 108-56; JCI Rk: 23; SOS: 10
First 5 Years: 128-36; JCI Rk: 5; SOS: 13
NCAA Apperances: 10 (15 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 4
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 18-15 | 41 | 1 | L1 |
| 2006-07 | 20-11 | 21 | 2 | L1 |
| 2005-06 | 20-13 | 41 | 18 | L2 |
| 2004-05 | 30-7 | 9 | 17 | E8 |
| 2003-04 | 20-10 | 66 | 90 | L1 |
| 2002-03 | 28-4 | 3 | 42 | E8 |
| 2001-02 | 24-10 | 7 | 2 | S16 |
| 2000-01 | 27-8 | 3 | 2 | F4 |
| 1999-00 | 27-7 | 10 | 27 | L2 |
| 1998-99 | 22-7 | 20 | 55 | L1 |
posted by Jim Colton @ 12:08 PM,
,
Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 4 Seeds
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.
Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama
Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier
Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville
Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis
Recap: The 5 Seeds
20. Oklahoma St
19. Pittsburgh
18. UCLA
17. Oklahoma
THE 4 SEEDS
16. Syracuse - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 242-97; JCI Rk: 16 (Prev Rk:12); SOS: 52
2007-08: 21-14; JCI Rk: 51; SOS: 55; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 118-52; JCI Rk: 22; SOS: 48
First 5 Years: 124-45; JCI Rk: 12; SOS: 45
NCAA Apperances: 7 (11 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 3
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 21-14 | 51 | 55 | None |
| 2006-07 | 24-11 | 59 | 96 | None |
| 2005-06 | 23-12 | 25 | 11 | L1 |
| 2004-05 | 27-7 | 18 | 62 | L1 |
| 2003-04 | 23-8 | 15 | 17 | S16 |
| 2002-03 | 30-5 | 1 | 2 | NC |
| 2001-02 | 23-13 | 55 | 88 | None |
| 2000-01 | 25-9 | 21 | 58 | L2 |
| 1999-00 | 26-6 | 7 | 40 | S16 |
| 1998-99 | 20-12 | 41 | 45 | L1 |
15. Ohio State
Last 10 Years: 229-101; JCI Rk: 15 (Prev Rk:21); SOS: 24
2007-08: 24-13; JCI Rk: 35; SOS: 39; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 119-51; JCI Rk: 17; SOS: 41
First 5 Years: 110-50; JCI Rk: 15; SOS: 17
NCAA Apperances: 6 (12 wins)
Final Fours: 2
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 24-13 | 35 | 39 | None |
| 2006-07 | 35-4 | 1 | 9 | F4 |
| 2005-06 | 26-6 | 13 | 56 | L2 |
| 2004-05 | 20-12 | 38 | 40 | None |
| 2003-04 | 14-16 | 102 | 68 | None |
| 2002-03 | 17-15 | 54 | 22 | None |
| 2001-02 | 24-8 | 23 | 55 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 20-11 | 34 | 28 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 23-7 | 12 | 21 | L2 |
| 1998-99 | 26-9 | 5 | 3 | F4 |
14. Gonzaga
Last 10 Years: 261-67; JCI Rk: 14 (Prev Rk:14); SOS: 83
2007-08: 25-8; JCI Rk: 29; SOS: 89; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 131-31; JCI Rk: 13; SOS: 84
First 5 Years: 130-36; JCI Rk: 18; SOS: 83
NCAA Apperances: 10 (12 wins)
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 4
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 25-8 | 29 | 89 | L1 |
| 2006-07 | 23-11 | 61 | 75 | L1 |
| 2005-06 | 29-4 | 8 | 87 | S16 |
| 2004-05 | 26-5 | 14 | 80 | L2 |
| 2003-04 | 28-3 | 12 | 105 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 24-9 | 38 | 86 | L2 |
| 2001-02 | 28-4 | 14 | 111 | L1 |
| 2000-01 | 25-7 | 32 | 99 | S16 |
| 1999-00 | 26-9 | 30 | 72 | S16 |
| 1998-99 | 27-7 | 13 | 70 | E8 |
13. Maryland - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 231-103; JCI Rk: 13 (Prev Rk:10); SOS: 10
2007-08: 19-15; JCI Rk: 73; SOS: 65; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 101-62; JCI Rk: 30; SOS: 14
First 5 Years: 130-41; JCI Rk: 4; SOS: 10
NCAA Apperances: 7 (17 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 2
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 4
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 19-15 | 73 | 65 | None |
| 2006-07 | 25-9 | 19 | 34 | L2 |
| 2005-06 | 18-13 | 52 | 32 | None |
| 2004-05 | 19-13 | 42 | 29 | None |
| 2003-04 | 20-12 | 16 | 2 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 21-10 | 23 | 29 | S16 |
| 2001-02 | 32-4 | 1 | 5 | NC |
| 2000-01 | 25-11 | 7 | 7 | F4 |
| 1999-00 | 25-10 | 25 | 25 | L2 |
| 1998-99 | 27-6 | 6 | 21 | S16 |
posted by Jim Colton @ 10:48 AM,
,
Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 5 Seeds
Monday, April 21, 2008
Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.
Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama
Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier
Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville
Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis
THE FIVE SEEDS
20. Oklahoma St
Last 10 Years: 220-103; JCI Rk: 20 (Prev Rk:16); SOS: 42
2007-08: 16-16; JCI Rk: 60; SOS: 9; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 109-56; JCI Rk: 21; SOS: 28
First 5 Years: 111-47; JCI Rk: 19; SOS: 56
NCAA Apperances: 7 (11 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 3
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 16-16 | 60 | 9 | None |
| 2006-07 | 21-13 | 63 | 62 | None |
| 2005-06 | 17-16 | 84 | 63 | None |
| 2004-05 | 25-7 | 11 | 19 | S16 |
| 2003-04 | 30-4 | 3 | 18 | F4 |
| 2002-03 | 21-10 | 20 | 13 | L2 |
| 2001-02 | 23-9 | 30 | 46 | L1 |
| 2000-01 | 19-10 | 57 | 80 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 26-7 | 9 | 33 | E8 |
| 1998-99 | 22-11 | 43 | 75 | L2 |
19. Pittsburgh - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 231-96; JCI Rk: 19 (Prev Rk:23); SOS: 37
2007-08: 26-10; JCI Rk: 17; SOS: 18; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 130-40; JCI Rk: 7; SOS: 20
First 5 Years: 101-56; JCI Rk: 36; SOS: 53
NCAA Apperances: 7 (10 wins)
Sweet 16's: 4
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 26-10 | 17 | 18 | L2 |
| 2006-07 | 29-8 | 10 | 32 | S16 |
| 2005-06 | 25-8 | 16 | 29 | L2 |
| 2004-05 | 20-9 | 31 | 48 | L1 |
| 2003-04 | 30-5 | 5 | 21 | S16 |
| 2002-03 | 28-5 | 4 | 30 | S16 |
| 2001-02 | 28-6 | 9 | 60 | S16 |
| 2000-01 | 18-14 | 64 | 53 | None |
| 1999-00 | 13-15 | 112 | 76 | None |
| 1998-99 | 14-16 | 89 | 28 | None |
18. UCLA - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 221-106; JCI Rk: 18 (Prev Rk:18); SOS: 14
2007-08: 34-4; JCI Rk: 4; SOS: 4; Tourney: F4
Last 5 Years: 124-45; JCI Rk: 11; SOS: 18
First 5 Years: 97-61; JCI Rk: 23; SOS: 14
NCAA Apperances: 8 (19 wins)
Final Fours: 3
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 6
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 34-4 | 4 | 4 | F4 |
| 2006-07 | 29-6 | 3 | 3 | F4 |
| 2005-06 | 32-7 | 6 | 27 | F4 |
| 2004-05 | 18-11 | 36 | 27 | L1 |
| 2003-04 | 11-17 | 135 | 93 | None |
| 2002-03 | 10-19 | 135 | 24 | None |
| 2001-02 | 21-12 | 22 | 3 | S16 |
| 2000-01 | 23-9 | 9 | 10 | S16 |
| 1999-00 | 21-12 | 31 | 13 | S16 |
| 1998-99 | 22-9 | 23 | 39 | L1 |
17. Oklahoma
Last 10 Years: 235-92; JCI Rk: 17 (Prev Rk:17); SOS: 46
2007-08: 23-12; JCI Rk: 24; SOS: 11; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 102-54; JCI Rk: 36; SOS: 44
First 5 Years: 133-38; JCI Rk: 9; SOS: 44
NCAA Apperances: 8 (12 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 3
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 23-12 | 24 | 11 | L2 |
| 2006-07 | 15-15 | 86 | 47 | None |
| 2005-06 | 20-9 | 50 | 77 | L1 |
| 2004-05 | 25-8 | 20 | 42 | L2 |
| 2003-04 | 19-10 | 39 | 45 | None |
| 2002-03 | 27-7 | 8 | 10 | E8 |
| 2001-02 | 31-5 | 3 | 9 | F4 |
| 2000-01 | 27-8 | 19 | 74 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 27-7 | 21 | 63 | L2 |
| 1998-99 | 21-11 | 36 | 63 | S16 |
posted by Jim Colton @ 10:25 AM,
,
Fantasy Hoops: 2007-08 Season Recap
Friday, April 18, 2008
I've gotta admit...I am glad the 2007-08 NBA season is finally done. Had the fantasy season dragged on for another six weeks, I would've probably gone certifiably insane. The amount of injuries and random DNP's from high-caliber players is simply too much for one guy to take. In some ways, the 2008 season was just as bad as 2007 in terms on injuries, which is really saying something. Just don't get me started about Shawn Marion.
In general, it was a pretty disappointing season for my 52 fantasy teams, even though I did manage to win 20 of them and make a nice profit of about $12K (which equates to roughly 45 cents per hour, if you were wondering). But it's all for fun and science anyways. I guess I shouldn't complain. But about six weeks ago I was staring at somewhere between 30-32 wins. But it's safe to say if you had teams built around Yao Ming, Dwyane Wade, Shawn Marion (don't get me started), Chris Kaman, Gerald Wallace, Caron Butler, Manu Ginobili, Mike Miller, Kevin Martin and Maurice Williams, you probably didn't fare too well down the stretch. Thankfully, I had enough of a cushion in some leagues to hold on..many cases just barely (as in 1 or 2 field-goal makes barely). Thank goodness for Chris Paul, Marcus Camby and Lamar Odom, the only guys I had big exposure to that actually played well down the stretch.
THE PROJECTIONS COMPETITION - FINAL RESULTS
If only my fantasy teams had been as successful as my preseason stat projections (maybe I should've listened to my own numbers and drafted Mike Dunleavy, but I just couldn't pull the trigger on him). The stat projection competition really wasn't much of a competition at all, I had the best projections so far. In fact, I finished ahead of the combined consensus projections, so you could say that I outperformed all of the other projections combined. If you received the projections before the season, I hope it helped lead you to the title.
As I've done in the past, I look at the results two ways. The first measures the improvement in the projections across category (measured by sum of squared-error) using the 2006-07 numbers as a baseline (the crudest projection set you could come up with). The second ranking looks at each player and gives 14 points for the closest projection down to 1 point for the worst. Click here if you want a detailed run-down of each of the contenders.
IMPROVEMENT VERSUS BASELINE
1 COLTON INDEX (free) 26.63%
2 CONSENSUS PROJECTIONS 22.51%
3 ROTOFREAK (free) 15.86%
4 NBA.COM (free) 13.54%
5 HOOPSKLYCE ($16) 13.14%
6 FANTASY SPORTS CENTRAL (free) 12.05%
7 FANTASY HOOPS REALM ($14.95) 11.89%
8 ESPN/TALENTED MR ROTO (free) 11.80%
9 BASKETBALL MONSTER ($14.99) 9.75%
10 ROTOWORLD ($14.99) 9.04%
11 ROTOWIRE/YAHOO ($14.99) 6.50%
12 CBS SPORTS (free) 4.26%
13 2006-07 BASELINE 0.00%
14 FANTASY LOUNGE ($7.99) -4.45%
Fantasy Lounge gets the boobie prize for coming out worse than the previous season baseline. Previously, this spot was reserved for CBS but they managed to get above the Mendoza line. Just think about how hard this is to do. A monkey would use the previous season as a starting point and adjust from there. The adjustments that a so-called fantasy expert would make to this baseline in a set of projections should add value, not destroy value.
POINTS-BASED
1 COLTON INDEX 2107
2 CONSENSUS PROJECTIONS 2097
3 ROTOFREAK 1786
4 ESPN/TMR 1786
5 BASKETBALL MONSTER 1717
6 FANTASY SPORTS CENTRAL 1674
7 HOOPSKLYCE 1670
8 NBA.COM 1602
9 ROTOWORLD 1582
10 2006-07 BASELINE 1558
11 ROTOWIRE 1549
12 FANTASY HOOPS REALM 1539
11 CBS SPORTS 1528
14 FANTASY LOUNGE 1510
I'm a little surprised to have finished ahead of the consensus picks considering the consensus is going to be consistently solid across the board. In other words, at worst the Consensus is going to finish in the middle of the pack for any one pick and will more likely be near the top, while my projections could be last (or near last, at least ahead of the Lounge) for any given player. I'm also surprised to see four projections below the 2006-07 baseline.
To dig a little deeper, let's look how each performed in measuring the rookies, which in my opinion is the toughest thing to do. This is where the proverbial bread is buttered. Fantasy Sports Central took the cop-out route and opted not to make projections on rookies at all (what's the point in that?). So here's the top 12...obviously you can't measure versus the 2006-07 baseline so I'll show the results Nascar style and display the results in terms of how they were behind the leader. The results are based on 12 rookies that were common to each projection set (with the exception, again, of Fantasy Sports Central...I just can't get over the fact that they'd choose to leave the rookies out).
ROOKIES - SUM OF SQUARE ERRORS
1 COLTON INDEX
2 CONSENSUS PROJECTIONS 5.04% worse
3 BASKETBALL MONSTER 12.42%
4 ROTOFREAK 19.01%
5 ESPN/TALENTED MR ROTO 28.55%
6 FANTASY LOUNGE 36.11%
7 ROTOWIRE/YAHOO 40.06%
8 FANTASY HOOPS REALM 46.15%
9 HOOPSKLYCE 46.88%
10 ROTOWORLD 54.03%
11 CBS SPORTS 106.17%
8 NBA.COM 178.94%
The points-based method pretty much shows the same thing so I won't bore you with the details.
One area I spent a lot of time on this year was trying to project games played. The results prove what I already knew...games played is nearly impossible to predict. I was able to be a little more precise than the competition, but was still off by about 10 games on average per player. Here's the sum of squared error results for the 10 projections that bothered trying to project games relative to the 2006-07 baseline:
GAMES PLAYED
1 COLTON INDEX 21.67% improvement vs 2006-07
2 CONSENSUS PROJECTIONS 15.14%
3 FANTASY SPORTS CENTRAL 14.90%
4 ROTOWIRE/YAHOO 14.45%
5 NBA.COM 13.88%
6 CBS SPORTSLINE 13.23%
7 FANTASY HOOPS REALM 12.90%
8 BASKETBALL MONSTER 12.58%
9 HOOPSKLYCE 12.42%
10 ROTOWORLD 8.62%
11 2006-07 BASELINE 0.00%
Hopefully, you find this information interesting and useful in deciding which projection to buy or not to buy next season.
If I get up enough courage, I may take a closer look at some of my draft picks and trades, which promises to be a rather depressing exercise. I can only cringe at the thought of finding out how many times I picked Dwyane Wade over Chris Paul or Elton Brand over Hedo Turkoglu.
posted by Jim Colton @ 3:18 PM,
,
Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 6 Seeds
Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.
Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama
Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier
Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville
THE 6 SEEDS
24. Wake Forest
Last 10 Years: 201-120; JCI Rk: 24 (Prev Rk:20); SOS: 12
2007-08: 17-13; JCI Rk: 66; SOS: 69; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 97-62; JCI Rk: 26; SOS: 7
First 5 Years: 104-58; JCI Rk: 20; SOS: 21
NCAA Apperances: 5 (5 wins)
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 17-13 | 66 | 69 | None |
| 2006-07 | 15-16 | 75 | 23 | None |
| 2005-06 | 17-17 | 68 | 30 | None |
| 2004-05 | 27-6 | 6 | 7 | L2 |
| 2003-04 | 21-10 | 10 | 5 | S16 |
| 2002-03 | 25-6 | 11 | 46 | L2 |
| 2001-02 | 21-13 | 31 | 12 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 19-11 | 23 | 11 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 22-14 | 34 | 26 | None |
| 1998-99 | 17-14 | 47 | 30 | None |
23. Indiana
Last 10 Years: 203-118; JCI Rk: 23 (Prev Rk:22); SOS: 6
2007-08: 25-8; JCI Rk: 27; SOS: 68; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 94-60; JCI Rk: 38; SOS: 22
First 5 Years: 109-58; JCI Rk: 14; SOS: 3
NCAA Apperances: 8 (9 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 25-8 | 27 | 68 | L1 |
| 2006-07 | 21-11 | 26 | 22 | L2 |
| 2005-06 | 19-12 | 33 | 12 | L2 |
| 2004-05 | 15-14 | 61 | 23 | None |
| 2003-04 | 14-15 | 75 | 36 | None |
| 2002-03 | 21-13 | 27 | 12 | L2 |
| 2001-02 | 24-12 | 8 | 1 | F4 |
| 2000-01 | 21-13 | 29 | 12 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 20-9 | 22 | 7 | L1 |
| 1998-99 | 23-11 | 16 | 12 | L2 |
22. Tennessee - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 204-110; JCI Rk: 22 (Prev Rk:24); SOS: 16
2007-08: 30-5; JCI Rk: 6; SOS: 15; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 105-54; JCI Rk: 18; SOS: 6
First 5 Years: 99-56; JCI Rk: 24; SOS: 33
NCAA Apperances: 6 (8 wins)
Sweet 16's: 3
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 30-5 | 6 | 15 | S16 |
| 2006-07 | 24-11 | 14 | 4 | S16 |
| 2005-06 | 22-8 | 14 | 13 | L2 |
| 2004-05 | 14-17 | 96 | 32 | None |
| 2003-04 | 15-13 | 55 | 19 | None |
| 2002-03 | 17-12 | 47 | 43 | None |
| 2001-02 | 14-16 | 67 | 13 | None |
| 2000-01 | 22-12 | 30 | 22 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 25-7 | 16 | 46 | S16 |
| 1998-99 | 21-9 | 24 | 44 | L2 |
21. Memphis - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 244-96; JCI Rk: 21 (Prev Rk:28); SOS: 77
2007-08: 38-2; JCI Rk: 2; SOS: 48; Tourney: F4
Last 5 Years: 148-34; JCI Rk: 4; SOS: 74
First 5 Years: 96-62; JCI Rk: 62; SOS: 80
NCAA Apperances: 5 (12 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 3
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 38-2 | 2 | 48 | F4 |
| 2006-07 | 33-4 | 4 | 85 | E8 |
| 2005-06 | 33-4 | 5 | 68 | E8 |
| 2004-05 | 22-16 | 79 | 83 | None |
| 2003-04 | 22-8 | 25 | 42 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 23-7 | 28 | 82 | L1 |
| 2001-02 | 26-9 | 40 | 114 | None |
| 2000-01 | 20-15 | 68 | 70 | None |
| 1999-00 | 14-16 | 109 | 97 | None |
| 1998-99 | 13-15 | 116 | 76 | None |
posted by Jim Colton @ 10:00 AM,
,
Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 7 Seeds
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.
Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama
Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier
THE 7 SEEDS
28. Notre Dame
Last 10 Years: 202-116; JCI Rk: 28 (Prev Rk:32); SOS: 35
2007-08: 25-8; JCI Rk: 20; SOS: 53; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 99-54; JCI Rk: 35; SOS: 40
First 5 Years: 103-62; JCI Rk: 31; SOS: 34
NCAA Apperances: 5 (5 wins)
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 25-8 | 20 | 53 | L2 |
| 2006-07 | 24-8 | 28 | 73 | L1 |
| 2005-06 | 16-14 | 57 | 22 | None |
| 2004-05 | 17-12 | 53 | 54 | None |
| 2003-04 | 17-12 | 40 | 16 | None |
| 2002-03 | 24-10 | 9 | 3 | S16 |
| 2001-02 | 21-11 | 37 | 31 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 22-11 | 37 | 50 | L2 |
| 1999-00 | 22-15 | 40 | 32 | None |
| 1998-99 | 14-15 | 102 | 59 | None |
27. Villanova
Last 10 Years: 204-119; JCI Rk: 27 (Prev Rk:25); SOS: 26
2007-08: 22-13; JCI Rk: 34; SOS: 25; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 110-52; JCI Rk: 16; SOS: 8
First 5 Years: 94-67; JCI Rk: 48; SOS: 50
NCAA Apperances: 5 (7 wins)
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 3
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 22-13 | 34 | 25 | S16 |
| 2006-07 | 21-11 | 38 | 31 | L1 |
| 2005-06 | 28-5 | 4 | 3 | E8 |
| 2004-05 | 24-8 | 13 | 24 | S16 |
| 2003-04 | 15-15 | 61 | 15 | None |
| 2002-03 | 15-16 | 74 | 40 | None |
| 2001-02 | 19-13 | 51 | 50 | None |
| 2000-01 | 20-14 | 43 | 27 | None |
| 1999-00 | 20-13 | 50 | 68 | None |
| 1998-99 | 20-11 | 40 | 56 | L1 |
26. Cincinnati - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 222-102; JCI Rk: 26 (Prev Rk:19); SOS: 66
2007-08: 13-19; JCI Rk: 104; SOS: 14; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 94-66; JCI Rk: 51; SOS: 46
First 5 Years: 128-36; JCI Rk: 13; SOS: 67
NCAA Apperances: 7 (7 wins)
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 13-19 | 104 | 14 | None |
| 2006-07 | 11-19 | 156 | 63 | None |
| 2005-06 | 20-13 | 36 | 17 | None |
| 2004-05 | 25-8 | 25 | 65 | L2 |
| 2003-04 | 25-7 | 24 | 59 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 17-12 | 61 | 61 | L1 |
| 2001-02 | 31-4 | 6 | 74 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 25-10 | 28 | 65 | S16 |
| 1999-00 | 29-4 | 5 | 55 | L2 |
| 1998-99 | 26-6 | 14 | 68 | L2 |
25. Louisville - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 215-109; JCI Rk: 25 (Prev Rk:29); SOS: 53
2007-08: 27-9; JCI Rk: 12; SOS: 5; Tourney: E8
Last 5 Years: 122-47; JCI Rk: 15; SOS: 35
First 5 Years: 93-62; JCI Rk: 50; SOS: 63
NCAA Apperances: 7 (9 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 27-9 | 12 | 5 | E8 |
| 2006-07 | 23-10 | 35 | 53 | L2 |
| 2005-06 | 21-13 | 48 | 44 | None |
| 2004-05 | 31-5 | 3 | 28 | F4 |
| 2003-04 | 20-10 | 38 | 44 | L1 |
| 2002-03 | 25-7 | 18 | 55 | L2 |
| 2001-02 | 19-13 | 69 | 68 | None |
| 2000-01 | 12-19 | 115 | 62 | None |
| 1999-00 | 18-12 | 49 | 52 | L1 |
| 1998-99 | 19-11 | 34 | 41 | L1 |
posted by Jim Colton @ 5:16 PM,
,
Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 8 Seeds
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.
Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama
THE 8 SEEDS
32. North Carolina St
Last 10 Years: 192-134; JCI Rk: 32 (Prev Rk:26); SOS: 13
2007-08: 15-16; JCI Rk: 81; SOS: 31; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 99-66; JCI Rk: 28; SOS: 4
First 5 Years: 93-68; JCI Rk: 47; SOS: 28
NCAA Apperances: 5
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 15-16 | 81 | 31 | None |
| 2006-07 | 20-16 | 64 | 30 | None |
| 2005-06 | 22-10 | 27 | 34 | L2 |
| 2004-05 | 21-14 | 28 | 4 | S16 |
| 2003-04 | 21-10 | 13 | 6 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 18-13 | 49 | 34 | L1 |
| 2001-02 | 23-11 | 25 | 19 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 13-16 | 83 | 15 | None |
| 1999-00 | 20-14 | 53 | 53 | None |
| 1998-99 | 19-14 | 50 | 38 | None |
31. Mississippi St
Last 10 Years: 207-115; JCI Rk: 31 (Prev Rk:34); SOS: 58
2007-08: 23-11; JCI Rk: 42; SOS: 64; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 108-55; JCI Rk: 29; SOS: 51
First 5 Years: 99-60; JCI Rk: 45; SOS: 52
NCAA Apperances: 5
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 23-11 | 42 | 64 | L2 |
| 2006-07 | 21-14 | 46 | 27 | None |
| 2005-06 | 15-15 | 78 | 46 | None |
| 2004-05 | 23-11 | 32 | 53 | L2 |
| 2003-04 | 26-4 | 8 | 48 | L2 |
| 2002-03 | 21-10 | 26 | 27 | L1 |
| 2001-02 | 27-8 | 16 | 42 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 18-13 | 49 | 43 | None |
| 1999-00 | 14-16 | 120 | 67 | None |
| 1998-99 | 19-13 | 58 | 60 | None |
30. Georgetown - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 207-116; JCI Rk: 30 (Prev Rk:36); SOS: 39
2007-08: 28-6; JCI Rk: 10; SOS: 40; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 113-51; JCI Rk: 19; SOS: 23
First 5 Years: 94-65; JCI Rk: 49; SOS: 51
NCAA Apperances: 4
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 3
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 28-6 | 10 | 40 | L2 |
| 2006-07 | 30-7 | 6 | 14 | F4 |
| 2005-06 | 23-10 | 15 | 6 | S16 |
| 2004-05 | 19-13 | 49 | 49 | None |
| 2003-04 | 13-15 | 109 | 55 | None |
| 2002-03 | 19-15 | 53 | 25 | None |
| 2001-02 | 18-11 | 49 | 58 | None |
| 2000-01 | 25-8 | 20 | 75 | S16 |
| 1999-00 | 18-15 | 63 | 47 | None |
| 1998-99 | 14-16 | 88 | 32 | None |
29. Xavier
Last 10 Years: 238-93; JCI Rk: 29 (Prev Rk:30); SOS: 79
2007-08: 30-7; JCI Rk: 13; SOS: 37; Tourney: E8
Last 5 Years: 119-50; JCI Rk: 37; SOS: 77
First 5 Years: 119-43; JCI Rk: 29; SOS: 84
NCAA Apperances: 7
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 30-7 | 13 | 37 | E8 |
| 2006-07 | 25-9 | 51 | 99 | L2 |
| 2005-06 | 21-11 | 69 | 93 | L1 |
| 2004-05 | 17-12 | 113 | 147 | None |
| 2003-04 | 26-11 | 22 | 29 | E8 |
| 2002-03 | 26-6 | 22 | 89 | L2 |
| 2001-02 | 26-6 | 12 | 61 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 21-8 | 41 | 85 | L1 |
| 1999-00 | 21-12 | 77 | 113 | None |
| 1998-99 | 25-11 | 44 | 104 | None |
posted by Jim Colton @ 8:42 AM,
,
Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 9 Seeds
It's that time of the year again. Now that the basketball season is over, let's update the final Colton Index rankings for the year and add 2007-08 to the record books. That means we can update my last 10 year rankings by replacing 1997-98 with 1998-99. Previous versions of my 10-year rankings have received more attention than one of my normal blog posts (which means about 10 hits instead of 1 or 2, if my math is correct that's up to a 500% increase in readership. How many blogs can say that?)
Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.
We'll group the teams by seed and list them one at a time, building up a to an anti-climatic announcement of the 1 seeds in the next week or so. Stay tuned and enjoy!
36. Iowa - ON THE DECLINE (but they did win the Big Ten Tournament in 2006 and 2001)
Last 10 Years: 185-135; JCI Rk: 36 (Prev Rk:31); SOS: 25
2007-08: 13-19; JCI Rk: 160; SOS: 74; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 92-66; JCI Rk: 55; SOS: 57
First 5 Years: 93-69; JCI Rk: 33; SOS: 9
NCAA Apperances: 4
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 13-19 | 160 | 74 | None |
| 2006-07 | 17-14 | 78 | 52 | None |
| 2005-06 | 25-9 | 23 | 39 | L1 |
| 2004-05 | 21-12 | 30 | 18 | L1 |
| 2003-04 | 16-12 | 67 | 61 | None |
| 2002-03 | 17-14 | 70 | 71 | None |
| 2001-02 | 19-16 | 65 | 36 | None |
| 2000-01 | 23-13 | 27 | 21 | L2 |
| 1999-00 | 14-16 | 36 | 2 | None |
| 1998-99 | 20-10 | 11 | 4 | S16 |
35. Marquette
Last 10 Years: 199-111; JCI Rk: 35 (Prev Rk:42); SOS: 69
2007-08: 24-10; JCI Rk: 19; SOS: 16; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 100-54; JCI Rk: 42; SOS: 67
First 5 Years: 99-57; JCI Rk: 46; SOS: 70
NCAA Apperances: 5
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 24-10 | 19 | 16 | L2 |
| 2006-07 | 23-10 | 39 | 55 | L1 |
| 2005-06 | 19-11 | 40 | 26 | L1 |
| 2004-05 | 18-12 | 85 | 100 | None |
| 2003-04 | 16-11 | 79 | 79 | None |
| 2002-03 | 27-6 | 7 | 18 | F4 |
| 2001-02 | 26-7 | 18 | 69 | L1 |
| 2000-01 | 17-15 | 87 | 79 | None |
| 1999-00 | 15-14 | 89 | 73 | None |
| 1998-99 | 14-15 | 119 | 98 | None |
34. Oregon
Last 10 Years: 194-120; JCI Rk: 34 (Prev Rk:38); SOS: 56
2007-08: 18-14; JCI Rk: 49; SOS: 12; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 90-65; JCI Rk: 49; SOS: 42
First 5 Years: 104-55; JCI Rk: 35; SOS: 57
NCAA Apperances: 5
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 18-14 | 49 | 12 | L1 |
| 2006-07 | 29-8 | 8 | 17 | E8 |
| 2005-06 | 14-18 | 113 | 58 | None |
| 2004-05 | 14-13 | 68 | 35 | None |
| 2003-04 | 15-12 | 93 | 89 | None |
| 2002-03 | 23-10 | 42 | 75 | L1 |
| 2001-02 | 25-9 | 13 | 25 | E8 |
| 2000-01 | 17-15 | 78 | 49 | None |
| 1999-00 | 21-8 | 32 | 49 | L1 |
| 1998-99 | 18-13 | 49 | 53 | None |
33. Alabama
Last 10 Years: 197-124; JCI Rk: 33 (Prev Rk:27); SOS: 31
2007-08: 17-16; JCI Rk: 97; SOS: 78; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 98-62; JCI Rk: 34; SOS: 17
First 5 Years: 99-62; JCI Rk: 42; SOS: 47
NCAA Apperances: 5
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 1
Performance by Season
| Season | W-L | JCI Rk | SOS | NCAA |
| 2007-08 | 17-16 | 97 | 78 | None |
| 2006-07 | 20-12 | 43 | 36 | None |
| 2005-06 | 18-13 | 39 | 9 | L2 |
| 2004-05 | 23-8 | 24 | 41 | L1 |
| 2003-04 | 20-13 | 21 | 8 | E8 |
| 2002-03 | 17-12 | 48 | 31 | L1 |
| 2001-02 | 27-8 | 15 | 41 | L2 |
| 2000-01 | 25-11 | 36 | 66 | None |
| 1999-00 | 13-16 | 101 | 66 | None |
| 1998-99 | 17-15 | 53 | 26 | None |
posted by Jim Colton @ 8:41 AM,
,
RPI Plus: A simple fix to the RPI
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Buried deep in Part 2 of my 3-part presentation exposing the flaws of the RPI is a proposal for a simple, common sense fix to some of the major problems with the RPI. I called it RPI+ because it takes the RPI and adds an extra performance component to come up with a more accurate number.
Essentially, all it's doing is asking 'If Team X has a RPI of 100, did they outperform or underperform expectations for team with that RPI and that schedule. A team that won more games than expected for its RPI would have a pretty strong case that its rating was too low. A team that lost more games than expected for its RPI would be viewed as being rated too high. This is basically what I do with the Colton Index, only I start with the win-loss record and do multiple iterations of the expectations and performance relative to expectations until the complete ranking set is as correct as it can be. The RPI+ proposal uses just one iteration of the performance component (although additional iterations would only make it better). You'll see in a minute that just one iteration does have a significant impact. Also, because you can capture the home-road adjustments more accurately in the performance component, you really wouldn't need to do the crude 40% home/road adjustment upfront. You'd be better off just using the old RPI and let the home/road show up in the performance component. However, I used the new RPI here simply because it makes for easier comparison of teams that would be most impacted.
The other proposed change is to finally abandon the deeply flawed, linear RPI SOS measure. Since we are calculating expected winning percentage for the performance component, it's easy to implement here. The proposed SOS captures the home/road influence accurately and recognizes that SOS is not linear (playing the 1st, 2nd and 330th ranked teams on the road IS NOT the same as playing the 110th, 111th and 112th rated teams at home).
Below is the new RPI and RPI+ for the top 90 RPI teams plus 6 teams who would be top 90 under RPI+. The 'Exp Wins' column shows the Expected Number of Wins for a team with that RPI given its schedule. So Tennessee would be expected to win 28.11 with its schedule if it were the #1 RPI team. Since they won 28 games, you'd expect their 'true' ranking to be slightly lower than that. The far right column shows the expect number of wins in the second iteration (if you account for the change in a team's rating for RPI+ and the change in the rating of all its opponents). I only show it here for information purposes, so you can get some sense directionally which way teams would go if you added additional performance iterations. The top 20 overperformers relative to RPI are shaded in yellow. The top 20 underperformers relative to RPI are shaded in orange.
Just adding the one performance components is a huge improvement in the RPI. The wins versus expectations are off by an average of 0.89 wins per team in the new RPI. Adding that one performance component brings that number down to 0.34 (the Colton Index is off by 0.04 per team). The other way I like to look at these rankings is by measuring the amount of informational lift that ranking provides over the most simple rank order you could think of...simply sorting teams by their win-loss record. We use alternative rankings because we know win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. Presumably, the ranking is a more accurate reflection of what's going on during the course of a basketball season, otherwise we wouldn't use it. Therefore, it's easy to measure different rating systems on how much additional value they provide.
Traditionally, the new RPI has been about 5-6% worse than the old RPI, and the Colton Index has provided 40-50% more lift versus the baseline relative to the new RPI. The 2007-08 season is no exception. I know it's hard to believe, but the old RPI is 5.2% better than the new RPI. The Colton Index outperforms the new RPI by 44%. RPI+ is 33.5% better than the new RPI. This seems like an easy fix that would provide the Selection Committee with significantly better information to make their decisions.
A couple teams to note from the table below:
- Vanderbilt seemed to be overseeded as a 4 seed, and we see their performance was over a game worse than expected from that lofty 12th-rated RPI. The 2nd iteration would suggest they would go down even futher with additional iterations. UNLV is another team that seemed to be overseeded as well.
- The Selection Committee doesn't seem to have much faith in very strong RPI numbers for mid-majors (see Southern Illinois last year). Butler seemed to suffer from this bias this year, although the RPI+ numbers suggest they outperformed their 17th-rated RPI.
- Arizona St is one of the biggest movers amongst tourney or bubble teams. They move up 30 spots when you consider they outperformed their RPI rating by 1.73 games. Also, by moving away from the linear nature of SOS, the 'bottom feeders' in their non-conference schedule don't hurt as much and their SOS increases from 77 to 32.
- South Alabama doesn't move in RPI+ (they would move down in future iterations), but just check out that SOS impact. 127 vs 203.
| EXP WINS | RANK | SOS | EXP WINS2 | |||||||
| TEAM | W | L | RPI | RES | RPI | RPI+ | RPI | RPI+ | RPI+ | RES2 |
| Tennessee | 28 | 4 | 28.11 | -0.11 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 28.30 | -0.30 |
| North Carolina | 32 | 2 | 30.51 | 1.49 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 31.46 | 0.54 |
| Memphis | 33 | 1 | 31.29 | 1.71 | 3 | 2 | 27 | 115 | 32.28 | 0.72 |
| UCLA | 30 | 3 | 28.32 | 1.68 | 4 | 4 | 14 | 22 | 29.42 | 0.58 |
| Kansas | 30 | 3 | 28.90 | 1.10 | 5 | 5 | 50 | 72 | 29.68 | 0.32 |
| Texas | 27 | 6 | 27.25 | -0.25 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 26.97 | 0.03 |
| Duke | 27 | 5 | 26.49 | 0.51 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 26.89 | 0.11 |
| Georgetown | 27 | 5 | 26.44 | 0.56 | 8 | 7 | 32 | 43 | 26.97 | 0.03 |
| Xavier | 27 | 6 | 27.34 | -0.34 | 9 | 11 | 24 | 55 | 27.50 | -0.50 |
| Drake | 26 | 4 | 25.35 | 0.65 | 10 | 10 | 68 | 92 | 26.03 | -0.03 |
| Wisconsin | 29 | 4 | 27.33 | 1.67 | 11 | 9 | 61 | 86 | 28.50 | 0.50 |
| Vanderbilt | 26 | 7 | 27.12 | -1.12 | 12 | 17 | 41 | 83 | 26.55 | -0.55 |
| Louisville | 24 | 8 | 24.50 | -0.50 | 13 | 14 | 6 | 23 | 24.02 | -0.02 |
| Stanford | 26 | 7 | 25.06 | 0.94 | 14 | 13 | 56 | 29 | 25.72 | 0.28 |
| Pittsburgh | 25 | 9 | 25.03 | -0.03 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 12 | 24.92 | 0.08 |
| Michigan St | 25 | 8 | 25.58 | -0.58 | 16 | 22 | 43 | 58 | 24.80 | 0.20 |
| Butler | 29 | 3 | 27.40 | 1.60 | 17 | 12 | 128 | 156 | 28.88 | 0.12 |
| Connecticut | 24 | 8 | 24.10 | -0.10 | 18 | 21 | 35 | 40 | 23.74 | 0.26 |
| Clemson | 23 | 9 | 22.91 | 0.09 | 19 | 20 | 17 | 19 | 22.91 | 0.09 |
| Marquette | 23 | 9 | 22.50 | 0.50 | 20 | 19 | 21 | 15 | 22.81 | 0.19 |
| Kent St | 28 | 6 | 27.73 | 0.27 | 21 | 24 | 111 | 140 | 28.24 | -0.24 |
| Indiana | 25 | 7 | 24.49 | 0.51 | 22 | 23 | 59 | 80 | 25.10 | -0.10 |
| Washington St | 24 | 8 | 22.72 | 1.28 | 23 | 16 | 46 | 25 | 23.61 | 0.39 |
| UNLV | 25 | 7 | 26.17 | -1.17 | 24 | 34 | 63 | 141 | 25.48 | -0.48 |
| BYU | 27 | 7 | 26.78 | 0.22 | 25 | 25 | 97 | 122 | 27.30 | -0.30 |
| Notre Dame | 24 | 7 | 22.76 | 1.24 | 26 | 18 | 81 | 67 | 23.89 | 0.11 |
| Oklahoma | 22 | 11 | 22.16 | -0.16 | 27 | 31 | 13 | 24 | 21.88 | 0.12 |
| Southern California | 21 | 11 | 20.68 | 0.32 | 28 | 27 | 9 | 3 | 20.49 | 0.51 |
| West Virginia | 23 | 10 | 22.64 | 0.36 | 29 | 28 | 45 | 33 | 22.85 | 0.15 |
| Gonzaga | 25 | 7 | 23.92 | 1.08 | 30 | 26 | 93 | 102 | 24.99 | 0.01 |
| EXP WINS | RANK | SOS | EXP WINS2 | |||||||
| TEAM | W | L | RPI | RES | RPI | RPI+ | RPI | RPI+ | RPI+ | RES2 |
| Arkansas | 22 | 11 | 23.29 | -1.29 | 31 | 40 | 25 | 59 | 21.98 | 0.02 |
| Dayton | 21 | 10 | 22.39 | -1.39 | 32 | 42 | 33 | 78 | 21.16 | -0.16 |
| Illinois St | 23 | 9 | 23.85 | -0.85 | 33 | 39 | 71 | 93 | 22.84 | 0.16 |
| Miami (FL) | 21 | 10 | 21.22 | -0.22 | 34 | 36 | 42 | 48 | 21.01 | -0.01 |
| Davidson | 25 | 6 | 24.43 | 0.57 | 35 | 30 | 129 | 150 | 24.96 | 0.04 |
| St. Mary's | 24 | 6 | 23.28 | 0.72 | 36 | 29 | 138 | 145 | 24.16 | -0.16 |
| Arizona | 18 | 14 | 19.27 | -1.27 | 37 | 46 | 2 | 1 | 17.19 | 0.81 |
| South Alabama | 24 | 6 | 24.19 | -0.19 | 38 | 37 | 127 | 203 | 24.60 | -0.60 |
| Western Kentucky | 25 | 6 | 24.62 | 0.38 | 39 | 35 | 142 | 201 | 25.53 | -0.53 |
| Mississippi St | 22 | 10 | 22.33 | -0.33 | 40 | 41 | 58 | 85 | 22.26 | -0.26 |
| Texas A&M | 23 | 10 | 21.99 | 1.01 | 41 | 33 | 52 | 56 | 23.06 | -0.06 |
| Massachusetts | 21 | 10 | 21.31 | -0.31 | 42 | 43 | 70 | 84 | 21.17 | -0.17 |
| Baylor | 20 | 10 | 19.71 | 0.29 | 43 | 38 | 49 | 54 | 19.98 | 0.02 |
| Saint Joseph's | 21 | 12 | 21.55 | -0.55 | 44 | 48 | 53 | 60 | 21.23 | -0.23 |
| Purdue | 24 | 8 | 22.58 | 1.42 | 45 | 32 | 114 | 98 | 23.89 | 0.11 |
| Creighton | 20 | 10 | 20.40 | -0.40 | 46 | 50 | 66 | 79 | 19.96 | 0.04 |
| Temple | 21 | 12 | 22.15 | -1.15 | 47 | 58 | 51 | 73 | 20.65 | 0.35 |
| Mississippi | 21 | 10 | 21.31 | -0.31 | 48 | 49 | 65 | 91 | 21.07 | -0.07 |
| Ohio State | 19 | 13 | 19.61 | -0.61 | 49 | 54 | 18 | 27 | 18.70 | 0.30 |
| Kansas St | 19 | 11 | 19.33 | -0.33 | 50 | 51 | 34 | 51 | 18.61 | 0.39 |
| Villanova | 20 | 12 | 19.78 | 0.22 | 51 | 45 | 47 | 39 | 20.04 | -0.04 |
| Virginia Tech | 19 | 13 | 19.98 | -0.98 | 52 | 63 | 39 | 38 | 18.45 | 0.55 |
| Oral Roberts | 23 | 8 | 23.72 | -0.72 | 53 | 59 | 157 | 191 | 23.56 | -0.56 |
| VCU | 24 | 7 | 23.61 | 0.39 | 54 | 44 | 161 | 189 | 24.45 | -0.45 |
| Syracuse | 19 | 13 | 19.68 | -0.68 | 55 | 61 | 10 | 34 | 18.50 | 0.50 |
| UAB | 22 | 10 | 23.56 | -1.56 | 56 | 70 | 95 | 155 | 22.12 | -0.12 |
| Kentucky | 18 | 12 | 18.03 | -0.03 | 57 | 55 | 19 | 41 | 18.02 | -0.02 |
| Oregon | 18 | 13 | 18.02 | -0.02 | 58 | 56 | 37 | 9 | 17.36 | 0.64 |
| New Mexico | 24 | 8 | 23.14 | 0.86 | 59 | 47 | 155 | 165 | 24.51 | -0.51 |
| Florida St | 19 | 14 | 19.11 | -0.11 | 60 | 60 | 15 | 16 | 18.49 | 0.51 |
| EXP WINS | RANK | SOS | EXP WINS2 | |||||||
| TEAM | W | L | RPI | RES | RPI | RPI+ | RPI | RPI+ | RPI+ | RES2 |
| George Mason | 23 | 10 | 24.79 | -1.79 | 61 | 83 | 126 | 211 | 23.20 | -0.20 |
| Southern Illinois | 17 | 14 | 18.40 | -1.40 | 62 | 77 | 16 | 42 | 16.09 | 0.91 |
| Cleveland St | 19 | 12 | 20.40 | -1.40 | 63 | 86 | 85 | 105 | 18.65 | 0.35 |
| Stephen F. Austin | 22 | 5 | 21.21 | 0.79 | 64 | 52 | 263 | 297 | 22.42 | -0.42 |
| Cornell | 21 | 5 | 20.62 | 0.38 | 65 | 62 | 265 | 292 | 21.35 | -0.35 |
| Siena | 22 | 10 | 23.09 | -1.09 | 66 | 85 | 120 | 179 | 22.21 | -0.21 |
| Georgia Tech | 15 | 17 | 15.70 | -0.70 | 67 | 76 | 7 | 2 | 14.43 | 0.57 |
| Charlotte | 20 | 13 | 20.17 | -0.17 | 68 | 71 | 64 | 95 | 20.12 | -0.12 |
| IUPUI | 23 | 7 | 23.19 | -0.19 | 69 | 73 | 238 | 277 | 23.44 | -0.44 |
| Utah St | 23 | 10 | 24.93 | -1.93 | 70 | 102 | 168 | 267 | 23.44 | -0.44 |
| Florida | 21 | 11 | 19.92 | 1.08 | 71 | 57 | 87 | 94 | 21.22 | -0.22 |
| Miami (OH) | 17 | 15 | 17.93 | -0.93 | 72 | 89 | 54 | 50 | 16.83 | 0.17 |
| Nevada | 20 | 11 | 21.53 | -1.53 | 73 | 100 | 132 | 161 | 20.18 | -0.18 |
| Texas Tech | 15 | 15 | 15.65 | -0.65 | 74 | 84 | 5 | 7 | 14.46 | 0.54 |
| Akron | 23 | 10 | 22.53 | 0.47 | 75 | 65 | 135 | 157 | 23.37 | -0.37 |
| Ohio | 19 | 12 | 20.07 | -1.07 | 76 | 94 | 109 | 123 | 18.94 | 0.06 |
| Rhode Island | 21 | 11 | 20.47 | 0.53 | 77 | 64 | 107 | 124 | 21.27 | -0.27 |
| Oklahoma St | 16 | 15 | 15.94 | 0.06 | 78 | 72 | 12 | 11 | 15.85 | 0.15 |
| Belmont | 24 | 8 | 24.46 | -0.46 | 79 | 82 | 229 | 293 | 24.81 | -0.81 |
| CS Fullerton | 23 | 8 | 23.29 | -0.29 | 80 | 79 | 199 | 249 | 23.24 | -0.24 |
| Houston | 22 | 9 | 21.62 | 0.38 | 81 | 69 | 146 | 171 | 22.31 | -0.31 |
| San Diego St | 19 | 12 | 19.80 | -0.80 | 82 | 90 | 99 | 118 | 19.00 | 0.00 |
| Arizona St | 19 | 12 | 17.27 | 1.73 | 83 | 53 | 77 | 32 | 18.58 | 0.42 |
| Austin Peay | 24 | 10 | 26.00 | -2.00 | 84 | 116 | 205 | 288 | 25.12 | -1.12 |
| Maryland | 18 | 14 | 18.05 | -0.05 | 85 | 80 | 31 | 63 | 17.89 | 0.11 |
| Wright St | 21 | 10 | 20.21 | 0.79 | 86 | 66 | 149 | 144 | 21.35 | -0.35 |
| Boise St | 24 | 8 | 23.59 | 0.41 | 87 | 74 | 196 | 276 | 24.61 | -0.61 |
| UMBC | 23 | 8 | 23.57 | -0.57 | 88 | 95 | 264 | 302 | 23.57 | -0.57 |
| UC Santa Barbara | 22 | 8 | 21.62 | 0.38 | 89 | 75 | 208 | 221 | 22.33 | -0.33 |
| American | 21 | 11 | 22.58 | -1.58 | 90 | 120 | 158 | 237 | 21.48 | -0.48 |
| California | 16 | 15 | 15.51 | 0.49 | 92 | 81 | 28 | 14 | 15.61 | 0.39 |
| Nebraska | 19 | 12 | 17.39 | 1.61 | 96 | 68 | 94 | 69 | 18.72 | 0.28 |
| Wake Forest | 17 | 13 | 15.26 | 1.74 | 100 | 67 | 86 | 52 | 17.20 | -0.20 |
| Minnesota | 20 | 13 | 18.75 | 1.25 | 101 | 78 | 113 | 87 | 20.03 | -0.03 |
| Providence | 15 | 16 | 13.62 | 1.38 | 112 | 87 | 44 | 17 | 15.09 | -0.09 |
| Washington | 16 | 16 | 14.06 | 1.94 | 121 | 88 | 60 | 18 | 15.78 | 0.22 |
posted by Jim Colton @ 10:46 AM,
,
The Bracket - Initial Thoughts
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Here is my final, data-driven bracket projections taking into consideration all of the conference championship games (my 'Final bracket' that I submitted was an average of two different outcomes and assumed Arkansas beat Georgia.
1: North Carolina, UCLA, Memphis, Tennessee
2: Kansas, Duke, Wisconsin, Texas
3: Georgetown, Stanford, Drake, Washington St
4: Butler, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Xavier
5: Southern California, Clemson, Connecticut, Marquette
6: Michigan St, Notre Dame, Indiana, Kent St
7: Vanderbilt, Purdue, West Virginia, Oklahoma
8: Texas A&M, Arizona, Gonzaga, Miami (FL)
9: BYU, Davidson, Arizona St, Baylor
10: Oregon, Illinois St, St. Mary's, Villanova
11: Arkansas, Kansas St, Florida St, UNLV
12: Ohio State, Temple, Western Kentucky, Oral Roberts
13: Cornell, George Mason, Siena, Georgia
14: CS Fullerton, Boise St, San Diego, Belmont
15: UMBC, Winthrop, Portland St, American
16: Austin Peay, UT Arlington, Mt St. Mary's, Coppin St, Miss Valley St
Last 4 In: Arkansas, Kansas St, Florida St, Ohio State
First 4 Out: Syracuse, Mississippi St, Saint Joseph's, Massachusetts
Next 4 Out: Dayton, Creighton, Virginia Tech, Mississippi
This one probably performed worst than my previous version since it drops Mississippi St. I had 50 teams within 1 seedline of actual, which I'm sure will be the worst of all bracketologists. Most of my differences were not unexpected, I think there's a good chance that a lot got all of the teams and nearly all of the seeds right. My hats off to you for predicting what the Committee would do.
Of course, that's not what I'm about. I'm all about exposing the weaknesses in the RPI and highlighting the teams that deviated most from the 'body-of-work' approach that the Selection Committee continues to say they judge teams on. Overall, I think the Selection Committee did a good job with the information they had in front of them, especially given some of the unique situations that went down this week. However, I think that misleading information may have skewed their decision making, and ultimately caused less deserving teams in the tournament at the expense of more deserving teams. Obviously, this wasn't the intent of the Selection Committe, they are hard working, well-intentioned people that take this task seriously. I only blame the NCAA for continuing to provide the Selection Committee with bad information that makes already a tough job that much tougher, especially when these problems would be easily fixed.
I will likely dive deeper into some of these issues later this week, but here's the list of winners and losers.
Losers - Teams Lower Than They Should've Been
| Proj | Act | RANK | SOS | NC SOS | ||||||||
| Seed | Seed | TEAM | W | L | JCI | RPI | JCI | RPI | JCI | RPI | QW | QL |
| 3 | 5 | Drake | 26 | 4 | 11 | 10 | 82 | 68 | 114 | 126 | 15 | 15 |
| 4 | 7 | Butler | 29 | 3 | 12 | 17 | 127 | 128 | 78 | 109 | 21 | 7 |
| 6 | 8 | Indiana | 25 | 7 | 23 | 22 | 66 | 57 | 150 | 71 | 22 | 20 |
| 6 | 9 | Kent St | 28 | 6 | 25 | 21 | 128 | 111 | 96 | 56 | 27 | 30 |
| 8 | 10 | Arizona | 18 | 14 | 33 | 37 | 1 | 2 | 19 | 5 | 23 | 48 |
| 9 | 11 | Baylor | 20 | 10 | 36 | 43 | 47 | 48 | 213 | 130 | 38 | 40 |
| 10 | 12 | Villanova | 20 | 12 | 42 | 51 | 37 | 47 | 228 | 157 | 34 | 59 |
| 9 | Arizona St | 19 | 12 | 37 | 83 | 17 | 77 | 305 | 293 | 39 | 42 | |
| 10 | Illinois St | 23 | 9 | 39 | 33 | 84 | 72 | 184 | 115 | 42 | 38 | |
| 12 | Ohio State | 19 | 13 | 43 | 49 | 24 | 17 | 25 | 12 | 51 | 43 | |
| 11 | Florida St | 19 | 14 | 47 | 59 | 23 | 14 | 197 | 128 | 36 | 65 | |
The average Colton Index for these teams is 32 versus an average RPI of 39. But the RPI's aren't deflated across the board. There seems to be a bias against the mid-majors here...an assumption that teams such as Drake, Butler and Kent State (and Illinois St by association) aren't as good as their records or RPI's indicate, or put in other words, they didn't play anybody therefore have inflated records. Well, each of those mid-majors have profiles of wins and losses factoring in weaker schedules that still put them as deserving higher seeds, so penalizing them further would be like giving them losses for games they either won or didn't play. Drake had a 26-4 record with an RPI SOS of 68. Notre Dame had a weaker schedule (according to the RPI) and went 24-7 with a RPI SOS of 81, and had the same seed. But Kansas has a RPI SOS of 60 and got a 1 seed with a 29-3 record. There seems to be a disconnect.
I want to dive into the issue deeper later this week, but Arizona St simply flat out got screwed of the tournament this year. Of course, they didn't do themselves any favors with their non-conference scheduling. I can't argue that their non-conference wasn't weak, I had it even easier than the RPI (305 vs 293). However, the difference comes with how much this weighs on the final decision. I consider it as part of the body of work and Arizona St still rans 37th overall even with that very weak schedule (the cupcake wins don't tell us much about how good Arizona St really is, therefore don't help their profile much at all). In the RPI, these games drag down the team's overall RPI and SOS to the point like they barely look like a bubble team at all. (Plus, if the Committee is going to list that as a reason you didn't get picked, then they are already overweighting that factor more than it should be. Of course, Stanford and Notre Dame had equally weak non-conference SOS's and it didn't hurt them at all. Notre Dame even got seeded a little higher than expected.) Even if you win those games against the cupcakes, just showing up drags your RPI down. The seemingly harmless decision of playing Florida Gulf Coast, Idaho and St Francis (PA) is what kept them out of the tournament, not what they did or didn't do during the other 29 games of the season. If they had played Vermont, Wichita St and Navy instead (games they still would've won), they'd be playing in the NCAA instead of the NIT right now.
I could (and may) write a whole post about the plight of Florida St. This is the third year in a row that I felt they deserved to get in but didn't. They are the quinticessential bubble team. But every year they have a deflated RPI that's right in the 40-60 sweet spot, an undesirable position to be in. Check out their numbers the last three years.
2007-08: JCI 47, RPI 60
2006-07 JCI 33, RPI 40
2005-06 JCI 37, RPI 63
You gotta feel for these guys. Every year there are going to be winners and losers in this process, but imagine if it was your team that was on the outside looking in for three years in a row. And based on e-mails I've received from Seminole fans, it seems like they've resigned themselves to the fact that it will keep on happening. Florida St gets so little respect that they weren't even listed among the 8-9 teams more 'most surprising team left out' fan poll.
Winners - Teams Higher Than They Should've Been
| Proj | Act | RANK | SOS | NC SOS | ||||||||
| Seed | Seed | TEAM | W | L | JCI | RPI | JCI | RPI | JCI | RPI | QW | QL |
| 7 | 4 | Vanderbilt | 26 | 7 | 24 | 12 | 91 | 40 | 277 | 93 | 30 | 25 |
| 11 | 8 | UNLV | 25 | 7 | 40 | 24 | 152 | 63 | 221 | 60 | 62 | 34 |
| 8 | Mississippi St | 22 | 10 | 45 | 40 | 90 | 58 | 217 | 124 | 50 | 51 | |
| 10 | South Alabama | 24 | 6 | 53 | 38 | 214 | 127 | 127 | 69 | 83 | 35 | |
| 11 | Saint Joseph's | 21 | 12 | 54 | 45 | 73 | 51 | 135 | 116 | 29 | 99 | |
| 11 | Kentucky | 18 | 12 | 60 | 58 | 58 | 21 | 129 | 98 | 55 | 63 | |
| 15 | 13 | Winthrop | 20 | 11 | 128 | 107 | 211 | 178 | 56 | 38 | 112 | 123 |
Here's where you can really see a pattern. The average team listed here has a RPI of 46 and average Colton Index of 58, and average RPI SOS of 77 vs 127, and an average RPI NC SOS of 85 vs 166. Remember those differences are based purely on the nuance (ie flaws) of the RPI formula. It's clear that the RPI has a role in the process. It's almost unfathomable that the NCAA would rely on SOS numbers that may be off by 90 or more (look at Vandy's NC SOS of 93 vs 277...yikes!) slots for any given team. How does the Committee make any informed decisions using inputs with margins of error that large? Certainly, it skews the profiles of Vandy, UNLV, Mississippi St and South Alabama in particular.
The SEC was the main beneficiary of the seeding process, as the Committee must've felt that Mississippi St and Kentucky were better than their records and profiles indicated (or maybe it was just the Silve factor). The only way to determine strength of a conference is to view how the perform against non-conference foes. Unfortunately, nearly all of this occurs in the first half of the season. The rest of the season is just teams beating up on each other in conference. The SEC doesn't fare too well against other conferences, mainly because Kentucky, Florida and Missippi St performed poorly in non-conference play. It drags down the conference looks overall. Maybe it's true that those teams improved as the season went on, but is it 'body-of-work' or not? I even factored in last 10 games and Kentucky was still way down the list. By discounting their non-conference season, you might as well be giving Kentucky wins for games that they lost.
THIRTEEN TEAMS MORE DESERVING THAN SOUTH ALABAMA
South Alabama is the anti-Arizona St. The danger of being a bubble team with a deflated RPI is that there's going to be less deserving bubble teams with inflated RPI's of the same amount or more. South Alabama's profile and tourney-worthiness falls apart if their RPI were 53 instead of 38 and SOS was 214 instead of 127. I have them 83rd in quality wins (a summation of a team's wins scaled by difficulty), the next closest at-large is BYU at 56th. And considering they got a 10 seed, it looks like they got in the tournament by a pretty safe margin.
| Proj | Act | RANK | SOS | NC SOS | ||||||||
| Seed | Seed | TEAM | W | L | JCI | RPI | JCI | RPI | JCI | RPI | QW | QL |
| 9 | Arizona St | 19 | 12 | 37 | 83 | 17 | 77 | 305 | 293 | 39 | 42 | |
| 10 | Illinois St | 23 | 9 | 39 | 33 | 84 | 72 | 184 | 115 | 42 | 38 | |
| 11 | Florida St | 19 | 14 | 47 | 59 | 23 | 14 | 197 | 128 | 36 | 65 | |
| 12 | Ohio State | 19 | 13 | 43 | 49 | 24 | 17 | 25 | 12 | 51 | 43 | |
| Syracuse | 19 | 13 | 51 | 55 | 36 | 9 | 195 | 20 | 35 | 72 | ||
| Massachusetts | 21 | 10 | 50 | 42 | 93 | 71 | 138 | 88 | 43 | 61 | ||
| Dayton | 21 | 10 | 49 | 32 | 92 | 33 | 147 | 26 | 41 | 64 | ||
| Creighton | 20 | 10 | 46 | 46 | 76 | 65 | 177 | 91 | 63 | 45 | ||
| Virginia Tech | 19 | 13 | 52 | 52 | 38 | 38 | 176 | 135 | 53 | 55 | ||
| Mississippi | 21 | 10 | 55 | 48 | 105 | 67 | 269 | 122 | 47 | 67 | ||
| VCU | 24 | 7 | 57 | 54 | 191 | 161 | 82 | 85 | 60 | 56 | ||
| Nebraska | 19 | 12 | 56 | 97 | 57 | 94 | 281 | 310 | 69 | 52 | ||
| 11 | Kentucky | 18 | 12 | 60 | 58 | 58 | 21 | 129 | 98 | 55 | 63 | |
| California | 16 | 15 | 58 | 92 | 5 | 26 | 291 | 175 | 52 | |||