Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 127 teams in the nation’s top 11 conferences are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis. For a tidy little homily on why this stuff is so very awesome, go here.

Over the weekend a coach got somewhat upset, and it got me to thinking about past examples of wondrous instantaneous fury spewing forth like lava.

The difference being, of course, in college basketball we have peculiar mechanisms for enforcing standards of decorum. See below, “ACC.”

American: No, Connecticut is not the greatest 9-5 team in the history of sports
Through games of February 24, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession   Opp. PPP: opponent PPP
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Louisville       12-2   68.2    1.17    0.91    +0.26
2.  Connecticut       9-5   66.2    1.12    0.96    +0.16
3.  Cincinnati       13-2   62.4    1.06    0.93    +0.13
4.  SMU              11-4   65.9    1.06    0.95    +0.11
5.  Memphis          10-4   69.0    1.09    1.00    +0.09
6.  Houston           5-9   67.0    1.00    1.11    -0.11
7.  Rutgers          4-10   69.6    0.99    1.12    -0.13
8.  Temple           2-12   67.7    1.01    1.14    -0.13
9.  UCF              2-12   66.1    0.98    1.16    -0.18
10. S. Florida       3-11   65.7    0.93    1.12    -0.19

AVG.                        66.8    1.04

Usually when you outscore your league by 0.16 points per trip you get better results than UConn’s .643 winning percentage. Here’s what we’ve seen from such teams in the short happy life of Tuesday Truths.

Teams that outscored their leagues by 0.16 points per trip

                      W-L    Pct
Syracuse      2012   17-1   .944
Michigan St.  2012   13-5   .722
Gonzaga       2012   13-3   .813
Duke          2011   13-3   .813
Ohio St.      2011   16-2   .889
Wichita St.   2011   14-4   .778
Pitt          2009   15-3   .833

                    101-21  .828

That’s some pretty august company, and at first it might appear that the Huskies are being woefully underrated. Maybe so, but keep in mind another possibility as well.  Continue reading →

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 127 teams in the nation’s top 11 conferences are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis. For a tidy little homily on why this stuff is so very awesome, go here.

Greetings from the Ruby Tuesday in Morton, Illinois….

Midwesterners will tell you it looks like this here all the time. Do not believe them! It’s February, run for your lives!

Here at RT the wifi is strong, the severe winter storm du jour has another couple hours to go, and I’m somewhere in between where I was (the folks’  house) and where I’m going (a visit with a certain devilish defensive dictator from the Dakotas).

My suggestion is that we start obsessively tracking the bands of non-catastrophic weather. Let’s have “urgent sunny weather” warnings. Or name the good-weather days. “Sunny Day Ivan is shaping up to be the best in memory,” etc. Because what we’re doing now weather-wise clearly ain’t working.

American: Beware RIF!
Through games of February 17, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession   Opp. PPP: opponent PPP
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Louisville       10-2   68.8    1.19    0.91    +0.28
2.  Connecticut       8-4   66.2    1.15    0.97    +0.18
3.  SMU               9-4   66.5    1.06    0.95    +0.11
4.  Cincinnati       12-1   62.5    1.05    0.94    +0.11
5.  Memphis           8-4   69.5    1.10    1.01    +0.09
6.  Rutgers           4-9   69.9    1.00    1.13    -0.13
7.  Houston           4-8   67.1    0.97    1.11    -0.14
8.  Temple           2-10   67.7    1.02    1.16    -0.14
9.  UCF              2-10   65.9    0.98    1.15    -0.17
10. S. Florida       3-10   65.6    0.94    1.12    -0.18

AVG.                        67.0    1.05

Last week I rolled out the concept of FIF, or the Fordham Inflation Factor, and the brand new metric is already a smash hit! And by that I more specifically mean I still use it seven days later. In that same spirit, today I bring you the Rutgers Inflation Factor. Teams that have the good fortune of playing the Scarlet Knights can on occasion see a big improvement in their Tuesday Truths numbers.

On Sunday evening while you were stuck in a snow bank somewhere and texting for help (no way, me too!), the plucky and resourceful Knights were falling to Louisville at the KFC Yum! Center by the score of 102-54. If we could have one of our handy Truths tables for just one game, the Cardinals would look like this:

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Louisville        1-0   68.9    1.48    0.78    +0.70

See what I mean? There is some serious RIF at work in that “+0.28” you see up there in the real (multi-game) Tuesday Truths next to the Cards’ name. So, no, I don’t necessarily believe that, as that gaudy number would seem to suggest, the Ville is truly the greatest college team of all time, better than Kentucky 2012 and Kansas 2008 combined. In fact I’m even on the record as suspecting that Pitino’s men are going to drop a couple more games.  Continue reading →

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 127 teams in the nation’s top 11 conferences are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis. For a tidy little homily on why this stuff is so very awesome, go here.

The labored ex post facto linking device of today’s Truths is the word “frozen,” referring both to the weather (greetings, weekly Severe Weather Alert email!) and to the smash-hit animated feature produced by my employer’s parent company. Synergy, bay-bee! And I’m not talking about scouting hoops or charting man versus zone.

American: Why the first-place team has a “5.” next to its name
Through games of February 10, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession   Opp. PPP: opponent PPP
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Louisville        8-2   69.1    1.15    0.93    +0.22
2.  Connecticut       6-4   66.2    1.14    0.99    +0.15
3.  SMU               8-3   66.7    1.06    0.93    +0.13
4.  Memphis           7-3   70.1    1.10    0.99    +0.11
5.  Cincinnati       11-1   63.2    1.03    0.93    +0.10
6.  Rutgers           4-7   70.6    1.01    1.10    -0.09
7.  Houston           4-7   68.2    0.96    1.09    -0.13
8.  Temple            1-9   68.0    1.03    1.17    -0.14
9.  S. Florida        3-8   65.8    0.95    1.10    -0.15
10. UCF               1-9   66.1    0.95    1.15    -0.20

AVG.                        67.4    1.04

To this point in the season the Louisville and Connecticut offenses have clearly separated themselves from the rest of the league. Meanwhile on D, the Cards, Cincinnati and SMU collectively represent the state of the art.  Continue reading →

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 127 teams in the nation’s top 11 conferences are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis. For a tidy little homily on why this stuff is so very awesome, go here.

Greetings, casual fans. Don’t worry about the non-competitive Super Bowl, college basketball had one of those too in 2011. Let me bring you up to speed on what’s transpired thus far in the world of college hoops….

American: Game of the Year of the Week on Thursday
Through games of February 3, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession   Opp. PPP: opponent PPP
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Louisville        7-2   69.8    1.14    0.92    +0.22
2.  Connecticut       5-3   66.8    1.16    1.01    +0.15
3.  Cincinnati       10-0   63.2    1.05    0.90    +0.15
4.  SMU               6-3   67.2    1.03    0.95    +0.08
5.  Memphis           6-3   69.5    1.07    1.00    +0.07
6.  Rutgers           3-6   70.1    1.01    1.08    -0.07
7.  Temple            1-7   68.3    1.05    1.15    -0.10
8.  Houston           3-6   68.7    0.92    1.08    -0.16
9.  S. Florida        2-7   66.3    0.92    1.09    -0.17
10. UCF               1-7   67.3    0.94    1.15    -0.21

AVG.                        67.7    1.03

We haven’t heard much about Connecticut lately, but look at the Huskies now. Kevin Ollie’s team rates out (+0.1498) as a hair superior in American play to a Cincinnati team (+0.1472) that the pollsters and yours truly both have in the top 10 nationally at the moment. Does this mean UConn is woefully underrated?  Continue reading →