Basketball’s most important factor feels eclipsed

Brynn Anderson/AP

During the men’s national championship game this week, TBS showed a graphic stating that UConn was shooting 48 percent and Purdue was connecting at a 46 percent rate. I winced as I always do when I see straight field goal percentages. Upon further reflection, however, my winces possess varying basketball connotations.

At this late date when an announcer still mentions rebound margin, for example, I wince on three separate yet uniformly unimpeachable grounds. Not only is the metric in question a perfect storm of statistical noise that can yield up-is-down, left-is-right results. Not only was there never a time when this was a useful statistic.

As if these reasons weren’t sufficient by themselves, there’s a perfectly good alternative that other announcers use all the time. This season I heard Bill Raftery, Jay Bilas, Dan Shulman and who knows how many others repeatedly and correctly offer variations on: Purdue rebounds almost 40 percent of its misses. Boom, you’re done. It’s easy!

Field goal percentage is different. It’s prohibitively noisy in the three-point era, of course, but the sport didn’t always have a three-point era. There was a time, 50 years ago in the NBA and 40 in the college game, when field goal percentage was a commendably sound stat. You can see why there was a desire to hang on to something similarly handy with the introduction of the three-point line.

Continue reading

Leaderboard for modern tournament wins

Tyler Schank/NCAA Photos via Getty

The men’s NCAA tournament field expanded to 64 teams in 1985 only after years of opposition. Then Villanova upset Georgetown in an iconic final and pretty much everyone loved the new format after all.

We call this the modern tournament era, which is perhaps a bit presumptuous. Even at this late date, there were more tournaments played before 1985 than have been contested since.

Still, “modern” makes descriptive sense. These brackets have shot clocks and three-point lines (starting in 1986 and 1987, respectively).

Expanding the field did away with byes, giving us a trusty measuring stick when teams accumulate tournament victories over the years. Yes, the NCAA muddied that up a bit by expanding past 64 teams starting in 2001, but we can adjust with a well-placed asterisk here and there.

UConn is moving up fast on the leaderboard for modern-era tournament victories. Winning two titles in the span of about 390 days vaulted the Huskies past Michigan State, Arizona, and Syracuse.

Winningest NCAA tournament teams, 1985-2024

                         Wins
1.  Duke                 105    
2.  North Carolina        98 
3.  Kansas                94
4.  Kentucky              84
5.  UConn                 67
6.  Michigan State        63
7.  Arizona               58
8.  Syracuse              57* 2018
9.  UCLA                  55* 2021
10. Michigan              51* 2016
11. Louisville            49
12. Florida               48
13. Villanova             47
14. Gonzaga               46
15. Purdue                40
16. Arkansas              38
17. Oklahoma              37
    Indiana               37* 2022
19. Wisconsin             36
20. Ohio State            35
    Maryland              35

* Round of 68 wins
Continue reading

Performance against seed expectations

One measurement of performance in the NCAA tournament is wins above or below what every other team with the same seed has done. The difference between expected wins and your actual victories is performance against seed expectations (PASE).

Back in the day, PASE was shaping up to be a handy item. Then the field expanded to 68 teams, and assigning praise and blame became a bit less tidy with a few extra results knocking around.

The proposal here is to ignore the round of 68 entirely, both its wins and its losses. Take Virginia’s loss to Colorado State in the round of 68 this year. Don’t worry, Cavaliers. Never mind, ACC. For PASE purposes, we’ll simply count as though the Hoos missed the tournament entirely. Which they kind of played like they did. The Rams, conversely, do count as a No. 10 seed that won zero games in the 2024 tournament.

Based on tournament results from 1985 through 2024, here are the values for expected wins by seed starting from the round of 64. If you greet that first Thursday morning with one of the following numbers still listed as a live fact next to your name, this is what we expect of you….

seed    expected Ws       seed    expected Ws
1.  3.30 9. 0.62
2. 2.33 10. 0.60
3.  1.84 11. 0.67
4. 1.56 12. 0.51
5. 1.15 13. 0.26
6. 1.04 14. 0.15
7. 0.90 15. 0.10
8. 0.71 16. 0.01

Wins in and subsequent to round of 64 only
Continue reading

Sudden death and narratives

(Greg Fiume/Getty)

We tell ourselves NCAA tournament stories in order to love. March Madness is a treasure, surprises always occur, and each turn of events demands immediate explanation. We all have our narratives.

Here are some of my stories. I carry these with me serene in the knowledge they must be dashed by events someday….

Absolutely any team can lose one game, but only teams above a certain threshold can win six.

Not so much the mere presence of threes starting in the 1980s as their increasing prevalence since the teens has introduced new suspense in tournament outcomes.

Some seed lines are winning more games than previously and as a result old values for “expected” wins require an update (see below).

The champion’s always a team from the top 12 of the Week 6 AP poll and from the top six at KenPom on Selection Monday morning, etc., etc.

Continue reading

The best games of tournament offense “ever”

Historically great tournament offense has a rich tradition stretching from 2003 to last Sunday. (AP/Mary Altaffer)

This past weekend in the round of 32, teams kept putting up ridiculously good numbers for offense. I would say as much in real time, and after two or three instances of this I was asked: Well, just how good are these performances, historically speaking?

Good question.

Here’s what I have for the top 25 games of NCAA tournament offense ever. As usual, “ever” is understood to encompass just the most recent 29 percent of tournaments as archived faithfully by my friend Ken.

Tough luck, old times! You should have tracked offensive boards and turnovers sooner and more frequently.

But before anyone asks: Villanova’s “Perfect Game” against Georgetown in 1985 comes in at 1.16 points per possession. Perfect shooting, yes, but turnovers were committed.

This is a very unofficial curation. Corrections and additions are welcome.

Still, it is likely that four of the best six tournament games on offense ever came from just two individual tournament runs. And one of those teams didn’t even reach the national title game. March Madness is beautiful, truly.

Continue reading

Why “selection”?

The first selection committee: Ned Irish, pictured in 1943. (Associated Press)

I said this:

Naturally, this begs the question of what we should do instead.

The problem’s in the very term “selection,” isn’t it? True, the NCAA’s decision making body doesn’t really carry that name. It’s not the selection committee, it’s the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee. But we say Selection Sunday and “the selection show,” and we’ve done so for years.

No one bats an eye when we say “selection” because we’re using the term accurately with regard to the NCAA tournament. Selection’s precisely what is happening. Selection is exactly what should not occur, however, in anything rightly understood as sports. Selection renders that which is being selected a passive vessel.

In other sports, teams make the playoffs or qualify for the Champions League. We even talk like this in college basketball when we see teams win their conference tournaments. What we call an “automatic bid” is a euphemism for mere sports normalcy.

Instead of selecting teams in March we should choose criteria in May.

Continue reading

Bid thieves and March vocabulary

In 2021 Georgetown was a bid thief’s bid thief. (Georgetown Athletics)

Every March we’re awash in college basketball terms where bottom-up usage has filled a vacuum or triumphed over official top-down naming. “NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship” is a mouthful. “March Madness” is perfect.

The NCAA trademark March Madness has a byzantine origin story. Even the lightest 2020s search shows this catchy bit of alliteration to be older than basketball itself. The term begins to produce more search hits in the 1920s and 1930s, when March madness could refer to gardening, the weather, or anything else happening that month. Actually, for a heartbeat it looked like March Madness might become the exclusive possession of English football.

Then Indiana newspapers covering high school hoops in the 1930s got busy. A poem celebrating the state high school tournament next door in Illinois limned “the March madness” and was published in 1939 by the Illinois High School Association.

Four decades later the IHSA commissioned March Madness, a history of the Illinois state tournament. From his chair at CBS Chicago in the 1970s, a young Brent Musburger picked up the term. Musburger took it with him to the mother ship when CBS began carrying the tournament in 1982. March Madness stuck. NCAA lawyers have been shooing away unauthorized users and uses ever since.

Continue reading

This is the golden age of shot volume

Scoring efficiency is up significantly in Division I men’s hoops in 2024 even as shooting accuracy remains more or less the same as it was last year. Teams are simply attempting more shots.

Giving credit for trends on the largest scale is challenging, but one version of events could venture to say the praise for our current high-scoring game might go to Kelvin Sampson and the NCAA, in that order.

Sampson is the guru of shot volume. This season the guru has landed in what is still, even with the presence of his Houston team, the lowest shot volume league of the six major conferences.

Broadly speaking, the Big 12 hasn’t traditionally done shot volume. More precisely, the league has perhaps hosted two schools of thought represented tidily by recent national champions. The Baylor school does say yes, please, to shot volume. The more influential paradigm, however, has been the Kansas school which has shown vividly you can win national titles, plural, without this volume stuff. This season the Jayhawks are pushing this to an extreme even by their own standards, cruising toward a No. 2 seed while ranking No. 67 out of 80 major-conference teams for shot volume.

Then there’s Sampson. When you watch a Houston game in 2024 the analyst will still say the Cougars’ best play call on offense is a missed shot. This remains a fair description as far as it goes, but tonight, for example, UH will host Cincinnati and based on Big 12 play the Cougars won’t even be the best offensive rebounding team in the building. Houston in 2024 carries the lowest whole-season rank for offensive rebound percentage of any post-pandemic UH team.

Continue reading

Reduce the number of timeouts

Anyone with the effrontery to suggest improvements for Division I men’s college basketball in 2024 should begin with the welcome elephant in the room. The game is flourishing. Arguably it’s never been better.

Scoring is up because efficiency has increased markedly. Back in the aughts when “points per possession” first started to be bandied about online, it was a notable occurrence to run across an offense clocking in at 1.07. Now the major conferences collectively score points at that rate in league play.

The change to the block/charge rule this season has been a spectacular success. Offensive fouls per game have declined from 3.7 in 2021-22 to 2.2 this year. Turnovers are down significantly across D-I. Scarcity in giveaways means abundance in points. Ours is truly a golden age of shot volume.

Many fans of the game clamored for reform on this front, often in anguished posts on social media. Then the NCAA stepped in, made the change, and suddenly the issue has subsided drastically. Now everyone can promptly set about finding other things to complain about, like for instance there being too many timeouts. Be that as it may, the new block/charge rule has been a triumph. Take a bow, NCAA.

Continue reading

Preserving madness

Mark Norris/Houston Public Media

One of the many joys of the NCAA tournament is that it can be savored as two distinct events. There is of course the desire to see the strongest teams with the best records settle this question head-to-head. This dynamic emerges over the second weekend and can on occasion shine forth to brilliant effect at the Final Four.

The first weekend’s radically different. The last five brackets in particular have shown how fully the round of 64 embraces the term March Madness.

Over that time we’ve seen two No. 1 seeds fall in the round of 64. We’re on a three-year streak of a No. 2 seed losing to a No. 15 each March. These are upheavals that “should” occur just one and seven percent of the time, respectively. We’ve been awash in rarity since 2018.

The round of 64 holds two qualities that are scarce if not wholly absent anywhere else in team sports as media properties. First there’s the sheer volume of the knockout round: 32 games in 36 hours, give or take. Often there are four games happening at once and every one constitutes the most important 40 minutes of the season to the teams and their entire fan bases.

Continue reading