2006 Tempo Free Stats

All 2006 Tempo-free stats in one convenient aisle:

SEC 2006

ACC 2006

Conference USA 2006

Pac 10 2006

Big East 2006

Big 12 2006

Pace, Tempo and the Cooks that Make It

Over at BigTen Wonk, Mr. Gasaway provided a humorous look at the Big Ten's sluggish pace thus far. As he pointed out here, he's as big of a fan of varying styles as the next guy.

But, in his defense in backing up his response to an email inquiry regarding what is a "good" collection of tempos in-conference, the Big Ten lags far behind in not just pace, but variance between the teams' tempos.

As a hometown fan of the Big Ten, I will stand up for it anytime, but it's interesting to see the big gaps between the major (hello MVC!) conferences:


Average Pace (possessions per 40 minutes)

ACC	69.8
SEC	67.6
Big 12	67.3
Big East	65.9
Pac 10	64.3
MVC	63.8
Big 10	60.9

Standard Deviation of Pace

Big East	4.3
Big 12	4.2
ACC	3.4
Pac 10	3.2
SEC	2.8
MVC	2.2
Big 10	1.9

Of course, with a smaller sample size (11 teams vs. some of the larger leagues), your standard deviation will be slightly smaller. But just take a look at The Big Ten and compare the teams to the other conferences to see the noticable difference.
(Take Northwestern out of the picture and the average rises to 61.5 but the standard deviation is a miniscule .5)

Big East Tempo Free Stats

The Goliath-sized Big East finally has been posted! Onward to Tempo Free Utopia!!!!

Final 2007 Season Tempo Free Stats


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Syracuse	70.3
2. Providence	69.7
3. Notre Dame	69.3
4. Seton Hall	69.1
5. Marquette	67.4
6. Connecticut	67.1
7. USF	65.8
8. St. John's	65.2
9. Villanova	65
10. Louisville	64.2
11. West Virginia	64.2
12. Cincinnati	63.2
13. DePaul	62.9
14. Pittsburgh	62.1
15. Rutgers	61
16. Georgetown	59.5

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Georgetown	1.14
2. Louisville	1.09
3. Notre Dame	1.08
4. West Virginia	1.08
5. Pittsburgh	1.08
6. Villanova	1.06
7. Marquette	1.04
8. Providence	1.03
9. Syracuse	1.02
10. Seton Hall	1
11. Cincinnati	0.98
12. DePaul	0.98
13. Connecticut	0.95
14. St. John's	0.95
15. USF	0.93
16. Rutgers	0.93

Effective FG %

1. Georgetown	56.9%
2. West Virginia	53.8%
3. Pittsburgh	52.3%
4. Providence	51.6%
5. Notre Dame	50.8%
6. Louisville	50.2%
7. Syracuse	49.3%
8. Marquette	47.4%
9. USF	47.3%
10. DePaul	47.1%
11. Villanova	47%
12. Seton Hall	45.8%
13. St. John's	45.7%
14. Cincinnati	45.2%
15. Connecticut	42.8%
16. Rutgers	42.1%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Georgetown	57.7%
2. West Virginia	54.9%
3. Providence	52.3%
4. Louisville	50.4%
5. Pittsburgh	50.3%
6. DePaul	48.9%
7. USF	47.5%
8. Notre Dame	47.1%
9. Syracuse	46.5%
10. Marquette	46.3%
11. Seton Hall	43.7%
12. Villanova	43.4%
13. Cincinnati	43.4%
14. St. John's	42.5%
15. Connecticut	41.2%
16. Rutgers	40.8%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Notre Dame	37.9%
2. Pittsburgh	37.8%
3. Georgetown	37%
4. Syracuse	36.2%
5. West Virginia	35.3%
6. Villanova	35.3%
7. St. John's	33.8%
8. Seton Hall	33.5%
9. Providence	33.3%
10. Louisville	33.3%
11. Marquette	33.1%
12. Cincinnati	32.2%
13. Connecticut	31.3%
14. USF	31.1%
15. Rutgers	30.1%
16. DePaul	28.9%

Turnover %

1. Seton Hall	16.7%
2. Louisville	16.9%
3. West Virginia	18.4%
4. Cincinnati	18.4%
5. Notre Dame	18.5%
6. DePaul	18.6%
7. Rutgers	18.6%
8. Pittsburgh	20.4%
9. Syracuse	21.1%
10. Marquette	21.4%
11. St. John's	21.8%
12. Connecticut	21.9%
13. Villanova	22%
14. Georgetown	23.5%
15. Providence	24.1%
16. USF	24.5%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Georgetown	38.3%
2. Providence	37.9%
3. Villanova	37.5%
4. Connecticut	36.7%
5. Marquette	36.5%
6. Pittsburgh	35.3%
7. Cincinnati	33.7%
8. Louisville	32.2%
9. Notre Dame	31.2%
10. Syracuse	30.6%
11. Rutgers	30.3%
12. St. John's	30.1%
13. USF	29.6%
14. DePaul	29.4%
15. Seton Hall	27.1%
16. West Virginia	24.5%

Efficiency Margin

1. Georgetown	0.16
2. Louisville	0.13
3. Pittsburgh	0.11
4. Notre Dame	0.08
5. Syracuse	0.04
6. Marquette	0.03
7. West Virginia	0.03
8. Villanova	0.03
9. Providence	0.02
10. DePaul	0.01
11. Connecticut	-0.02
12. Seton Hall	-0.08
13. St. John's	-0.09
14. Cincinnati	-0.13
15. USF	-0.14
16. Rutgers	-0.15

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Louisville	0.96
2. Pittsburgh	0.97
3. Georgetown	0.97
4. Connecticut	0.97
5. Syracuse	0.98
6. DePaul	0.98
7. Notre Dame	1.01
8. Marquette	1.01
9. Providence	1.02
10. Villanova	1.02
11. St. John's	1.04
12. West Virginia	1.05
13. USF	1.08
14. Rutgers	1.08
15. Seton Hall	1.09
16. Cincinnati	1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut	43.3%
2. Syracuse	43.5%
3. Georgetown	45.2%
4. Louisville	46.3%
5. Pittsburgh	46.6%
6. DePaul	47.1%
7. Marquette	47.2%
8. Notre Dame	47.8%
9. Providence	48.5%
10. Villanova	49.4%
11. USF	49.6%
12. St. John's	49.9%
13. Rutgers	50.1%
14. West Virginia	51.6%
15. Seton Hall	53.1%
16. Cincinnati	55.9%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Syracuse	40.1%
2. Connecticut	42%
3. DePaul	43.9%
4. Georgetown	44.2%
5. Louisville	45.3%
6. Villanova	45.4%
7. Notre Dame	46.2%
8. USF	47%
9. Marquette	47.1%
10. Rutgers	47.3%
11. Providence	48.4%
12. Pittsburgh	48.7%
13. St. John's	49.6%
14. Cincinnati	50.4%
15. West Virginia	53.2%
16. Seton Hall	54.3%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Cincinnati	42.5%
2. Rutgers	37.4%
3. Villanova	36.5%
4. USF	36.4%
5. DePaul	35.8%
6. Notre Dame	34.1%
7. Seton Hall	33.7%
8. St. John's	33.7%
9. Syracuse	32.8%
10. Providence	32.4%
11. Louisville	32.2%
12. West Virginia	32.1%
13. Marquette	31.5%
14. Georgetown	31.2%
15. Connecticut	30.9%
16. Pittsburgh	28.7%

Turnover % Forced

1. Louisville	23.2%
2. Villanova	22.7%
3. Marquette	22.4%
4. West Virginia	21.9%
5. Cincinnati	21.9%
6. Seton Hall	21.8%
7. Connecticut	21.2%
8. Georgetown	20.9%
9. Pittsburgh	20%
10. DePaul	20%
11. Notre Dame	19.7%
12. Syracuse	19.4%
13. St. John's	19.3%
14. Providence	18.6%
15. USF	17.1%
16. Rutgers	16.8%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Villanova	75.5%
2. Pittsburgh	74.2%
3. DePaul	73.7%
4. Louisville	72.2%
5. Seton Hall	71.9%
6. USF	71.8%
7. West Virginia	70.9%
8. Cincinnati	70.8%
9. Rutgers	70.8%
10. Notre Dame	70.5%
11. Marquette	70.1%
12. St. John's	69.8%
13. Connecticut	69.5%
14. Providence	69.2%
15. Syracuse	68.5%
16. Georgetown	67.3%

2006 Big East Tempo Free Stats

2006, year of the Beast!! Big East 2006 Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Syracuse	69.8
2. Marquette	69.3
3. Connecticut	68.8
4. Providence	68
5. Pittsburgh	67.7
6. Villanova	67.2
7. Cincinnati	67.2
8. Seton Hall	66.5
9. Louisville	66.2
10. Notre Dame	65.3
11. Rutgers	65.1
12. St. John's	64.2
13. West Virginia	63.6
14. USF	62.5
15. DePaul	62
16. Georgetown	58.5

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Notre Dame	1.15
2. West Virginia	1.1
3. Villanova	1.1
4. Georgetown	1.1
5. Connecticut	1.1
6. Marquette	1.07
7. Pittsburgh	1.06
8. Rutgers	1.05
9. Providence	1.04
10. Seton Hall	1.04
11. DePaul	1.04
12. Cincinnati	1.01
13. Syracuse	0.99
14. Louisville	0.99
15. St. John's	0.91
16. USF	0.9

Effective FG %

1. Notre Dame	53.1%
2. Marquette	52.8%
3. West Virginia	52.7%
4. Georgetown	52.4%
5. Pittsburgh	51.2%
6. Connecticut	50.6%
7. DePaul	48.7%
8. Rutgers	48.5%
9. Providence	48.2%
10. Syracuse	48.2%
11. Villanova	48%
12. Seton Hall	47.7%
13. Louisville	46.6%
14. Cincinnati	44.9%
15. St. John's	44.6%
16. USF	44.6%

2-pt Shooting %

1. West Virginia	54.9%
2. Georgetown	52.1%
3. Pittsburgh	50.6%
4. Connecticut	50.6%
5. DePaul	49.1%
6. Syracuse	48.7%
7. Marquette	47.4%
8. Providence	47.1%
9. Notre Dame	46.4%
10. Seton Hall	45.9%
11. St. John's	45.5%
12. Cincinnati	44.3%
13. Louisville	43.9%
14. USF	43.6%
15. Rutgers	43.2%
16. Villanova	41.7%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Marquette	41.5%
2. Notre Dame	41.2%
3. Villanova	38.5%
4. Rutgers	38.5%
5. Georgetown	35.4%
6. Pittsburgh	35.1%
7. Seton Hall	34.5%
8. Providence	34%
9. Connecticut	33.9%
10. West Virginia	33.8%
11. Louisville	33.6%
12. DePaul	31.8%
13. Syracuse	31.5%
14. USF	31.2%
15. Cincinnati	31%
16. St. John's	27.8%

Turnover %

1. West Virginia	11.9%
2. Notre Dame	16%
3. Villanova	16.5%
4. Cincinnati	16.8%
5. Seton Hall	17.4%
6. Rutgers	17.4%
7. DePaul	17.7%
8. Louisville	19.5%
9. Georgetown	19.8%
10. Marquette	20.2%
11. Pittsburgh	20.3%
12. Providence	20.6%
13. Connecticut	20.6%
14. Syracuse	21.3%
15. USF	24.7%
16. St. John's	25.4%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Connecticut	42.2%
2. Providence	37.1%
3. St. John's	34.4%
4. Georgetown	34.2%
5. Syracuse	33.5%
6. Pittsburgh	33.3%
7. Cincinnati	33.3%
8. Villanova	33.1%
9. DePaul	31.9%
10. Notre Dame	31.5%
11. USF	31.2%
12. Marquette	30.9%
13. Seton Hall	29.7%
14. Louisville	28.5%
15. Rutgers	27.3%
16. West Virginia	20.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. Connecticut	0.14
2. Villanova	0.08
3. Georgetown	0.08
4. West Virginia	0.06
5. Pittsburgh	0.06
6. Notre Dame	0.03
7. Marquette	0.03
8. Rutgers	-0.01
9. Seton Hall	-0.03
10. Louisville	-0.03
11. Cincinnati	-0.03
12. DePaul	-0.04
13. Providence	-0.06
14. Syracuse	-0.07
15. St. John's	-0.09
16. USF	-0.14

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Connecticut	0.96
2. Pittsburgh	1
3. St. John's	1
4. Louisville	1.02
5. Villanova	1.02
6. Georgetown	1.02
7. West Virginia	1.03
8. Marquette	1.04
9. Cincinnati	1.04
10. USF	1.04
11. Rutgers	1.06
12. Syracuse	1.07
13. Seton Hall	1.07
14. DePaul	1.08
15. Providence	1.09
16. Notre Dame	1.12

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut	42.3%
2. St. John's	47.4%
3. Marquette	47.5%
4. USF	47.7%
5. Pittsburgh	48%
6. Louisville	48.2%
7. Cincinnati	48.4%
8. Georgetown	48.6%
9. Rutgers	48.7%
10. DePaul	49.9%
11. Providence	50.3%
12. Notre Dame	50.6%
13. Syracuse	51%
14. Seton Hall	51.4%
15. Villanova	51.8%
16. West Virginia	52.9%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut	40.7%
2. Cincinnati	44.9%
3. Louisville	45.8%
4. Marquette	46.5%
5. Pittsburgh	46.6%
6. USF	46.6%
7. St. John's	46.9%
8. Syracuse	47%
9. Providence	47.1%
10. Notre Dame	47.1%
11. Rutgers	47.6%
12. DePaul	47.9%
13. Villanova	48.2%
14. Georgetown	49.4%
15. Seton Hall	50.3%
16. West Virginia	52.5%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut	30.2%
2. Georgetown	31.5%
3. St. John's	32.2%
4. Marquette	32.7%
5. USF	33.3%
6. Pittsburgh	33.6%
7. Rutgers	34.1%
8. Louisville	35%
9. Seton Hall	35.6%
10. West Virginia	35.9%
11. DePaul	35.9%
12. Cincinnati	36.7%
13. Providence	37.8%
14. Notre Dame	38.3%
15. Syracuse	38.6%
16. Villanova	39.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. West Virginia	23.6%
2. Villanova	23.4%
3. Louisville	21.1%
4. Syracuse	20.9%
5. Seton Hall	20.5%
6. Georgetown	19.8%
7. Cincinnati	19.3%
8. Providence	18.8%
9. St. John's	18.7%
10. Marquette	18.6%
11. USF	18.5%
12. Rutgers	18.1%
13. Pittsburgh	17.6%
14. DePaul	17.2%
15. Connecticut	16.4%
16. Notre Dame	13.9%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. St. John's	76.4%
2. Pittsburgh	75%
3. Villanova	74.8%
4. Rutgers	73.9%
5. Notre Dame	73.1%
6. Seton Hall	72.2%
7. Louisville	72.1%
8. Georgetown	72.1%
9. USF	70.9%
10. Syracuse	70.6%
11. Cincinnati	68.9%
12. Connecticut	68.5%
13. DePaul	68.4%
14. Marquette	68.1%
15. Providence	67.5%
16. West Virginia	67.2%

Out of town...

I'm back now, but a little behind. I've posted Pac10 current numbers at least. The rest of the conferences will be up later today.

***UPDATE***

MVC tempo free stats have now joined the ranks.

Just remember, all conference stats are for in-conference games only. A brief explanation of what I'm doing.

Thanks for stopping by.

Missouri Valley Conference - MVC Tempo Free Stats

MVC Stats are now up!!!! Here's to balanced-schedule leagues!!

Games through END OF REGULAR SEASON


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Missouri State	66.8
2. Bradley	66.6
3. Drake	65.4
4. Evansville	63.9
5. Illinois State	63
6. Wichita State	62.9
7. Creighton	62.4
8. Northern Iowa	62.2
9. Indiana State	61.3
10. Southern Illinois	60.9

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Missouri State	1.11
2. Creighton	1.1
3. Bradley	1.08
4. Wichita State	1.06
5. Drake	1.06
6. Evansville	1.05
7. Southern Illinois	1.04
8. Northern Iowa	1.03
9. Illinois State	1.01
10. Indiana State	0.93

Effective FG %

1. Creighton	55.2%
2. Missouri State	55.1%
3. Bradley	54.3%
4. Evansville	53.6%
5. Southern Illinois	52.9%
6. Illinois State	52.5%
7. Wichita State	51.8%
8. Northern Iowa	51.1%
9. Drake	47.8%
10. Indiana State	45.2%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Creighton	54.3%
2. Southern Illinois	52.7%
3. Missouri State	51.9%
4. Wichita State	51.1%
5. Bradley	50.7%
6. Illinois State	50.1%
7. Northern Iowa	49.9%
8. Evansville	48.3%
9. Drake	48.1%
10. Indiana State	41.7%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Evansville	41.3%
2. Missouri State	40.7%
3. Bradley	39.4%
4. Creighton	37.7%
5. Illinois State	37.6%
6. Northern Iowa	35.5%
7. Wichita State	35.4%
8. Southern Illinois	35.4%
9. Indiana State	33.5%
10. Drake	31.4%

Turnover %

1. Bradley	15.6%
2. Drake	18.3%
3. Missouri State	19.7%
4. Indiana State	19.8%
5. Wichita State	20%
6. Northern Iowa	20%
7. Evansville	21.3%
8. Southern Illinois	22.2%
9. Creighton	22.4%
10. Illinois State	22.9%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Drake	33.9%
2. Creighton	29.1%
3. Missouri State	29%
4. Wichita State	28.9%
5. Southern Illinois	28.8%
6. Illinois State	27.4%
7. Northern Iowa	24.5%
8. Evansville	24.4%
9. Indiana State	24.2%
10. Bradley	22.4%

Efficiency Margin

1. Missouri State	0.11
2. Creighton	0.1
3. Southern Illinois	0.1
4. Bradley	0.01
5. Northern Iowa	0
6. Wichita State	-0.01
7. Evansville	-0.04
8. Illinois State	-0.07
9. Drake	-0.08
10. Indiana State	-0.13

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Southern Illinois	0.94
2. Missouri State	0.99
3. Creighton	0.99
4. Northern Iowa	1.03
5. Wichita State	1.06
6. Indiana State	1.07
7. Bradley	1.08
8. Illinois State	1.08
9. Evansville	1.09
10. Drake	1.15

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Southern Illinois	48.4%
2. Creighton	49.1%
3. Missouri State	49.6%
4. Northern Iowa	49.7%
5. Indiana State	51.6%
6. Wichita State	51.7%
7. Evansville	52.4%
8. Illinois State	52.9%
9. Bradley	54.4%
10. Drake	58.6%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Northern Iowa	45.9%
2. Southern Illinois	46.1%
3. Creighton	47%
4. Missouri State	48.5%
5. Wichita State	49.5%
6. Illinois State	50.3%
7. Evansville	51.2%
8. Indiana State	51.7%
9. Drake	54%
10. Bradley	54.7%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Indiana State	34.2%
2. Missouri State	34.3%
3. Creighton	35.1%
4. Southern Illinois	35.5%
5. Bradley	36%
6. Evansville	36.1%
7. Wichita State	37.1%
8. Northern Iowa	37.3%
9. Illinois State	38.5%
10. Drake	43.1%

Turnover % Forced

1. Southern Illinois	23.8%
2. Bradley	23.2%
3. Wichita State	20.4%
4. Creighton	20.2%
5. Drake	20.1%
6. Illinois State	19.8%
7. Missouri State	19.6%
8. Indiana State	18.8%
9. Evansville	18.4%
10. Northern Iowa	17.4%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Missouri State	82.9%
2. Southern Illinois	82.2%
3. Illinois State	80.4%
4. Northern Iowa	79.7%
5. Evansville	79.5%
6. Wichita State	77.6%
7. Drake	77.4%
8. Creighton	77.1%
9. Indiana State	72.8%
10. Bradley	70.6%

Pac 10 Tempo Free Stats

Final 2007 Season Tempo Free Stats

(It's about time...)


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Arizona	67.1
2. Washington	67
3. USC	65.1
4. Oregon State	64.9
5. Stanford	64.6
6. Oregon	64
7. California	63.8
8. UCLA	63.3
9. Washington State	59.7
10. Arizona State	57.9

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Arizona	1.13
2. Oregon	1.11
3. UCLA	1.1
4. USC	1.08
5. Washington State	1.06
6. Washington	1.05
7. Stanford	1.05
8. California	1.03
9. Oregon State	0.94
10. Arizona State	0.94

Effective FG %

1. USC	55%
2. UCLA	53.7%
3. Arizona	53.2%
4. Washington State	51.9%
5. Oregon	51.5%
6. California	51%
7. Washington	50.6%
8. Stanford	50.2%
9. Oregon State	46.3%
10. Arizona State	46.2%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Arizona	53.4%
2. UCLA	53.2%
3. USC	52.3%
4. Washington State	50.8%
5. California	50.2%
6. Washington	49.1%
7. Stanford	48.7%
8. Oregon State	48.5%
9. Oregon	47.5%
10. Arizona State	46.1%

3-pt Shooting %

1. USC	40.9%
2. Oregon	37.7%
3. Washington	36.5%
4. UCLA	36.5%
5. Washington State	36.3%
6. Stanford	35.9%
7. Arizona	35.1%
8. California	34.7%
9. Arizona State	31%
10. Oregon State	28%

Turnover %

1. Washington State	15.5%
2. Oregon	17.4%
3. California	17.4%
4. UCLA	18.1%
5. USC	18.2%
6. Arizona	19.2%
7. Oregon State	20%
8. Washington	21.6%
9. Stanford	22%
10. Arizona State	22.7%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Washington	36.1%
2. Arizona	35.4%
3. Stanford	35.1%
4. UCLA	31.8%
5. Oregon	31.7%
6. Arizona State	30.8%
7. Oregon State	28.6%
8. USC	25.5%
9. California	24.1%
10. Washington State	21.5%

Efficiency Margin

1. UCLA	0.15
2. Washington State	0.1
3. Arizona	0.06
4. USC	0.06
5. Stanford	0.03
6. Oregon	0.01
7. Washington	-0.03
8. California	-0.09
9. Arizona State	-0.12
10. Oregon State	-0.18

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

1. UCLA	0.95
2. Washington State	0.96
3. USC	1.02
4. Stanford	1.02
5. Arizona	1.06
6. Arizona State	1.06
7. Washington	1.08
8. Oregon	1.1
9. California	1.12
10. Oregon State	1.12

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Washington State	45.3%
2. Stanford	45.9%
3. USC	48.6%
4. UCLA	48.7%
5. Arizona State	50.8%
6. Arizona	52.5%
7. Oregon	53.5%
8. Washington	54.2%
9. Oregon State	55%
10. California	55.8%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Washington State	43.8%
2. Stanford	44.4%
3. USC	46.7%
4. UCLA	46.7%
5. Arizona State	49.3%
6. Arizona	51.7%
7. Oregon	53.7%
8. Washington	54.2%
9. Oregon State	54.9%
10. California	56.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Washington State	32%
2. Stanford	33.3%
3. USC	34.5%
4. Arizona State	35.3%
5. Oregon	35.4%
6. Arizona	35.9%
7. Washington	36.1%
8. UCLA	36.3%
9. California	36.3%
10. Oregon State	36.9%

Turnover % Forced

1. Arizona State	21.6%
2. UCLA	21.5%
3. Oregon State	20.3%
4. Oregon	19.7%
5. Washington State	19.7%
6. USC	19.5%
7. California	18.9%
8. Washington	18.6%
9. Arizona	17.1%
10. Stanford	15.5%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Washington	78%
2. UCLA	75.9%
3. Arizona State	74.7%
4. California	74.1%
5. Stanford	73.9%
6. Washington State	72.7%
7. Arizona	72%
8. Oregon State	71%
9. USC	69.3%
10. Oregon	69%

SEC Tempo Free Stats

I'll begin simply posting tempo-free stats for the other major (including MVC) conferences (except the Big Ten which has plenty of good tempo-free analysis already. Keep in mind, all of these numbers are in-conference numbers only. I feel it's a great way to

1. Compare conference teams between each other with "similar" opponents and
2. Compare the varying conference styles between each other
3. Gather a different perspective as to why "such and such" is occurring to your team
4. Validate or un-de-validate claims that you may have regarding your particular conference

It should be noted (as you already know) that in conferences that don't do a full round robin (every major one but the MVC and Pac10), you may see a slight imbalance of the numbers due to scheduling differences. Just keep that in mind when you see numbers throughout the season.

So, on to the numbers. I've got the SEC up first. In the next few days I'll have the ACC, Big East, Big 12 and MVC (in no particular order)

*****Update 2/20/07- mid-majors, a la their recent success, are making appearances as well. As are the 2006 stats of the conferences. Just see them on the right column ****

(Stats are final for 2007 Season)


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Tennessee	71.1
2. Auburn	70.8
3. Arkansas	69.1
4. Mississippi State	69
5. Ole Miss	68.1
6. Vanderbilt	67.2
7. Kentucky	66.7
8. Florida	66.5
9. Georgia	65.9
10. Alabama	65.8
11. LSU	64.3
12. South Carolina	63.6

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Florida	1.13
2. Kentucky	1.1
3. Mississippi State	1.1
4. Vanderbilt	1.09
5. Tennessee	1.06
6. Georgia	1.05
7. Ole Miss	1.04
8. Alabama	1.04
9. Auburn	1.03
10. South Carolina	1.02
11. Arkansas	1.01
12. LSU	0.98

Effective FG %

1. Florida	56.9%
2. Kentucky	56%
3. Vanderbilt	53.4%
4. Arkansas	52.1%
5. Tennessee	52%
6. Mississippi State	51.7%
7. Georgia	50.5%
8. Auburn	50.4%
9. Ole Miss	49.5%
10. South Carolina	49%
11. LSU	48%
12. Alabama	47.9%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Kentucky	56.5%
2. Florida	55.6%
3. Arkansas	51.6%
4. Tennessee	51.1%
5. Mississippi State	50.8%
6. Vanderbilt	49.7%
7. Ole Miss	49.7%
8. Georgia	48.4%
9. Auburn	48.2%
10. LSU	48.2%
11. Alabama	46.5%
12. South Carolina	44.7%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Florida	39.8%
2. Vanderbilt	38.8%
3. Kentucky	36.8%
4. South Carolina	36.7%
5. Auburn	36.4%
6. Georgia	35.8%
7. Tennessee	35.5%
8. Mississippi State	35.5%
9. Arkansas	35.4%
10. Alabama	33.9%
11. Ole Miss	32.8%
12. LSU	31.7%

Turnover %

1. Ole Miss	16.2%
2. South Carolina	16.9%
3. Mississippi State	17.9%
4. Vanderbilt	18.6%
5. Tennessee	19%
6. Georgia	20.9%
7. Kentucky	21%
8. Alabama	21%
9. Auburn	21.1%
10. Florida	21.3%
11. LSU	22.4%
12. Arkansas	23.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Alabama	35.7%
2. Georgia	34.8%
3. LSU	33.2%
4. Mississippi State	32.3%
5. Florida	31.8%
6. Kentucky	30.7%
7. Auburn	30%
8. Tennessee	29.9%
9. Arkansas	29.8%
10. Vanderbilt	29%
11. Ole Miss	28.7%
12. South Carolina	27%

Efficiency Margin

1. Florida	0.13
2. Kentucky	0.08
3. Mississippi State	0.05
4. Arkansas	0.03
5. Tennessee	0.01
6. Georgia	0.01
7. Vanderbilt	0
8. Ole Miss	0
9. Auburn	-0.04
10. LSU	-0.05
11. Alabama	-0.08
12. South Carolina	-0.13

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

1. Arkansas	0.99
2. Florida	1
3. Kentucky	1.03
4. LSU	1.03
5. Georgia	1.04
6. Tennessee	1.05
7. Mississippi State	1.05
8. Ole Miss	1.05
9. Auburn	1.07
10. Vanderbilt	1.09
11. Alabama	1.12
12. South Carolina	1.15

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Arkansas	46.2%
2. Florida	48.1%
3. LSU	49.4%
4. Mississippi State	50.4%
5. Kentucky	50.6%
6. Georgia	51.8%
7. Alabama	52.1%
8. Tennessee	53.1%
9. Vanderbilt	53.4%
10. Ole Miss	53.7%
11. Auburn	53.9%
12. South Carolina	54.2%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Arkansas	45.3%
2. Mississippi State	46.7%
3. LSU	47.1%
4. Georgia	47.4%
5. Kentucky	48.9%
6. Florida	50.1%
7. Auburn	51.2%
8. Vanderbilt	51.7%
9. South Carolina	52.7%
10. Ole Miss	52.8%
11. Tennessee	53.3%
12. Alabama	53.6%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Georgia	39.3%
2. Auburn	39.1%
3. South Carolina	38%
4. Mississippi State	37.8%
5. Vanderbilt	37.2%
6. Ole Miss	37%
7. LSU	36%
8. Kentucky	35.4%
9. Tennessee	35.2%
10. Alabama	33%
11. Arkansas	32.1%
12. Florida	29.3%

Turnover % Forced

1. Tennessee	23.7%
2. Ole Miss	23.1%
3. Vanderbilt	21.4%
4. Mississippi State	20.8%
5. Auburn	19.7%
6. Georgia	19.5%
7. Kentucky	19.1%
8. LSU	18.9%
9. Arkansas	18.4%
10. South Carolina	18.4%
11. Alabama	18.2%
12. Florida	17.7%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Georgia	77.6%
2. Florida	76.9%
3. Ole Miss	76.2%
4. LSU	75.4%
5. Auburn	75.3%
6. Kentucky	73.2%
7. Arkansas	71.9%
8. Mississippi State	71.6%
9. Vanderbilt	70.3%
10. Tennessee	68.9%
11. Alabama	67.8%
12. South Carolina	67.4%

2006 Tempo Free Stats

All 2006 Tempo-free stats in one convenient aisle:

SEC 2006

ACC 2006

Conference USA 2006

Pac 10 2006

Big East 2006

Big 12 2006

Big 12 Tempo Free Stats

The boys of the Big 12...

Final 2007 Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Colorado	72.6
2. Kansas	71.6
3. Missouri	71.1
4. Texas	67.8
5. Baylor	67.4
6. Oklahoma State	67.1
7. Kansas State	66.5
8. Iowa State	66
9. Texas A&M	65.7
10. Texas Tech	64.5
11. Oklahoma	63.6
12. Nebraska	62.5

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Texas	1.16
2. Texas A&M	1.14
3. Kansas	1.13
4. Kansas State	1.05
5. Texas Tech	1.05
6. Missouri	1.04
7. Baylor	1.03
8. Oklahoma	1.03
9. Nebraska	0.99
10. Oklahoma State	0.99
11. Colorado	0.94
12. Iowa State	0.91

Effective FG %

1. Kansas	55.5%
2. Texas	55%
3. Texas A&M	54%
4. Missouri	51.3%
5. Nebraska	49.6%
6. Texas Tech	49%
7. Oklahoma State	48.9%
8. Baylor	48.8%
9. Colorado	48.1%
10. Kansas State	48%
11. Oklahoma	47%
12. Iowa State	44.6%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Kansas	53.1%
2. Missouri	51.5%
3. Texas A&M	50.2%
4. Texas	48.6%
5. Colorado	47%
6. Baylor	46.8%
7. Oklahoma State	46.2%
8. Nebraska	45.7%
9. Oklahoma	45.7%
10. Iowa State	45.3%
11. Texas Tech	45.1%
12. Kansas State	44.6%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Texas	43.7%
2. Texas A&M	43%
3. Kansas	41.8%
4. Texas Tech	38.9%
5. Oklahoma State	36.6%
6. Kansas State	36.4%
7. Nebraska	36.1%
8. Baylor	34.6%
9. Missouri	33.9%
10. Colorado	33.7%
11. Oklahoma	33.1%
12. Iowa State	29%

Turnover %

1. Texas Tech	17.4%
2. Texas A&M	17.6%
3. Texas	17.9%
4. Kansas State	19.1%
5. Missouri	19.1%
6. Nebraska	19.6%
7. Kansas	19.7%
8. Oklahoma	19.8%
9. Baylor	20.6%
10. Oklahoma State	22%
11. Iowa State	22.9%
12. Colorado	24.3%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Baylor	33.9%
2. Kansas	33.3%
3. Oklahoma	33%
4. Kansas State	32.6%
5. Texas	32.5%
6. Oklahoma State	29.8%
7. Colorado	29.5%
8. Texas A&M	29.5%
9. Iowa State	29.1%
10. Missouri	27.1%
11. Texas Tech	26.6%
12. Nebraska	23%

Efficiency Margin

1. Kansas	0.24
2. Texas A&M	0.15
3. Texas	0.11
4. Kansas State	0.03
5. Oklahoma	0.03
6. Missouri	0
7. Texas Tech	-0.01
8. Nebraska	-0.08
9. Oklahoma State	-0.09
10. Iowa State	-0.1
11. Baylor	-0.11
12. Colorado	-0.18

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Kansas	0.89
2. Texas A&M	0.99
3. Oklahoma	1
4. Iowa State	1.01
5. Kansas State	1.02
6. Missouri	1.04
7. Texas	1.05
8. Texas Tech	1.06
9. Nebraska	1.08
10. Oklahoma State	1.09
11. Colorado	1.12
12. Baylor	1.14

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	43.8%
2. Texas A&M	45.8%
3. Iowa State	47.8%
4. Oklahoma	48.3%
5. Texas	49.5%
6. Kansas State	49.7%
7. Missouri	50.1%
8. Nebraska	51.8%
9. Texas Tech	52.6%
10. Oklahoma State	53.1%
11. Baylor	53.7%
12. Colorado	54.2%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	42%
2. Texas A&M	43.1%
3. Texas	44.4%
4. Iowa State	44.8%
5. Missouri	46.7%
6. Nebraska	47%
7. Oklahoma	48.3%
8. Oklahoma State	49.2%
9. Baylor	50.5%
10. Kansas State	51.9%
11. Texas Tech	51.9%
12. Colorado	52.1%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas State	30%
2. Kansas	31%
3. Oklahoma	32.1%
4. Texas A&M	33.8%
5. Texas Tech	35.9%
6. Iowa State	37.4%
7. Missouri	38.2%
8. Colorado	38.6%
9. Texas	39%
10. Nebraska	39.1%
11. Baylor	40%
12. Oklahoma State	40.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. Missouri	22.8%
2. Texas Tech	22.1%
3. Kansas	21.8%
4. Kansas State	20.8%
5. Nebraska	20.4%
6. Oklahoma	20.4%
7. Oklahoma State	20.3%
8. Texas A&M	19.2%
9. Baylor	18.3%
10. Texas	18.3%
11. Iowa State	18.2%
12. Colorado	17.7%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas	80.9%
2. Texas A&M	79.4%
3. Colorado	76.6%
4. Oklahoma	76.3%
5. Oklahoma State	74.8%
6. Kansas State	73.8%
7. Iowa State	73.3%
8. Baylor	72.7%
9. Nebraska	72.5%
10. Missouri	70%
11. Texas Tech	69.2%
12. Texas	68.9%

2006 Big 12 Tempo Free Stats

For the 2005-2006 season



Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Iowa State	71.9
2. Colorado	70.2
3. Kansas	70.2
4. Baylor	67.3
5. Missouri	67.2
6. Texas Tech	67.1
7. Oklahoma State	66.5
8. Kansas State	65.3
9. Nebraska	65.1
10. Texas	63.5
11. Texas A&M	63.5
12. Oklahoma	63.3

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Texas	1.15
2. Oklahoma	1.08
3. Kansas	1.07
4. Iowa State	1.06
5. Colorado	1.03
6. Texas A&M	0.99
7. Kansas State	0.98
8. Nebraska	0.97
9. Oklahoma State	0.97
10. Texas Tech	0.95
11. Missouri	0.94
12. Baylor	0.93

Effective FG %

1. Texas	53.6%
2. Kansas	52.7%
3. Oklahoma	51.7%
4. Oklahoma State	49.9%
5. Texas A&M	49.7%
6. Iowa State	48.9%
7. Missouri	47.5%
8. Baylor	47.4%
9. Kansas State	47.1%
10. Texas Tech	46.8%
11. Colorado	46.5%
12. Nebraska	45.2%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Kansas	51.1%
2. Oklahoma State	49.9%
3. Oklahoma	49%
4. Texas	48.8%
5. Texas A&M	48.2%
6. Iowa State	47.1%
7. Missouri	46.8%
8. Kansas State	44.7%
9. Texas Tech	43.5%
10. Colorado	43.4%
11. Nebraska	42.2%
12. Baylor	40.9%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Texas	41.7%
2. Oklahoma	38.7%
3. Baylor	38.4%
4. Texas Tech	38%
5. Kansas	37.8%
6. Kansas State	36.4%
7. Iowa State	35.2%
8. Texas A&M	35%
9. Colorado	34.2%
10. Nebraska	33.8%
11. Oklahoma State	33.3%
12. Missouri	32.6%

Turnover %

1. Iowa State	16.7%
2. Colorado	19.3%
3. Texas	19.7%
4. Texas A&M	20.5%
5. Texas Tech	20.9%
6. Kansas	22.5%
7. Oklahoma	22.5%
8. Baylor	22.7%
9. Kansas State	22.8%
10. Nebraska	23.5%
11. Missouri	23.6%
12. Oklahoma State	25.6%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Texas	38.3%
2. Oklahoma	38%
3. Colorado	35.8%
4. Kansas	35%
5. Kansas State	34.4%
6. Nebraska	33.6%
7. Missouri	30.5%
8. Oklahoma State	30.2%
9. Iowa State	30.1%
10. Texas A&M	26.4%
11. Baylor	25.5%
12. Texas Tech	25.3%

Efficiency Margin

1. Texas	0.24
2. Kansas	0.18
3. Oklahoma	0.06
4. Texas A&M	0.02
5. Colorado	-0.01
6. Iowa State	-0.01
7. Kansas State	-0.02
8. Oklahoma State	-0.03
9. Nebraska	-0.06
10. Texas Tech	-0.08
11. Baylor	-0.14
12. Missouri	-0.14

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Kansas	0.88
2. Texas	0.91
3. Texas A&M	0.97
4. Kansas State	1
5. Oklahoma State	1
6. Oklahoma	1.02
7. Nebraska	1.03
8. Texas Tech	1.03
9. Colorado	1.04
10. Iowa State	1.06
11. Baylor	1.08
12. Missouri	1.08

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	44.1%
2. Texas	44.5%
3. Kansas State	46.3%
4. Oklahoma State	48.6%
5. Colorado	48.7%
6. Texas Tech	48.8%
7. Oklahoma	48.9%
8. Nebraska	49.1%
9. Texas A&M	49.7%
10. Baylor	50.3%
11. Missouri	53.2%
12. Iowa State	54.9%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	39.6%
2. Texas	43%
3. Kansas State	43.6%
4. Oklahoma	44.6%
5. Nebraska	44.9%
6. Texas A&M	45.1%
7. Texas Tech	46.4%
8. Colorado	46.5%
9. Oklahoma State	46.6%
10. Baylor	48.1%
11. Iowa State	53.8%
12. Missouri	54.3%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Texas	31.5%
2. Missouri	33.9%
3. Kansas State	34.2%
4. Colorado	35.5%
5. Kansas	35.7%
6. Oklahoma State	36%
7. Texas Tech	36.3%
8. Baylor	36.9%
9. Iowa State	38%
10. Nebraska	38%
11. Oklahoma	39.5%
12. Texas A&M	40%

Turnover % Forced

1. Texas A&M	25.6%
2. Iowa State	25.5%
3. Kansas	24.5%
4. Oklahoma State	21.9%
5. Texas Tech	21.9%
6. Texas	21.1%
7. Oklahoma	20.8%
8. Missouri	20.4%
9. Nebraska	20.1%
10. Kansas State	19.7%
11. Colorado	19.6%
12. Baylor	18.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Texas A&M	76.7%
2. Oklahoma	74.9%
3. Texas	74.8%
4. Kansas	74.2%
5. Nebraska	73.1%
6. Iowa State	72.5%
7. Oklahoma State	71.6%
8. Kansas State	70.3%
9. Colorado	70%
10. Baylor	69%
11. Missouri	67.7%
12. Texas Tech	65.5%

ACC Tempo Free Stats

Final 2007 season numbers.


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. North Carolina	74.7
2. Maryland	72.3
3. Wake Forest	71.4
4. Virginia	69.1
5. Georgia Tech	68.1
6. Clemson	67.8
7. Duke	67.3
8. NC State	66.9
9. Florida State	66.2
10. Boston College	65.6
11. Miami	65.5
12. Virginia Tech	64.8

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. North Carolina	1.12
2. Florida State	1.1
3. Boston College	1.09
4. Virginia Tech	1.09
5. Georgia Tech	1.07
6. Maryland	1.06
7. Miami	1.06
8. Virginia	1.04
9. Duke	1.04
10. Clemson	1.01
11. NC State	1.01
12. Wake Forest	0.95

Effective FG %

1. NC State	53.1%
2. North Carolina	52.9%
3. Boston College	52.6%
4. Duke	52.6%
5. Georgia Tech	52.5%
6. Florida State	52.4%
7. Virginia Tech	51%
8. Maryland	50.7%
9. Clemson	50.6%
10. Virginia	48.9%
11. Wake Forest	47.6%
12. Miami	47%

2-pt Shooting %

1. North Carolina	53.8%
2. Boston College	53.6%
3. Georgia Tech	52.9%
4. Duke	51.9%
5. NC State	51.9%
6. Clemson	50.8%
7. Virginia Tech	50.4%
8. Maryland	49.5%
9. Florida State	48.7%
10. Wake Forest	45.7%
11. Virginia	45.6%
12. Miami	44.8%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Florida State	39.9%
2. NC State	37%
3. Maryland	36.6%
4. Duke	36.1%
5. Virginia	36%
6. Virginia Tech	35.6%
7. Miami	34.6%
8. Georgia Tech	34.4%
9. Wake Forest	34.4%
10. Boston College	33.7%
11. Clemson	33.6%
12. North Carolina	33.3%

Turnover %

1. Virginia Tech	16.2%
2. Miami	17.2%
3. North Carolina	18.7%
4. Maryland	19.5%
5. Clemson	19.5%
6. Florida State	19.6%
7. Virginia	20.4%
8. Boston College	21.7%
9. Georgia Tech	22.2%
10. Duke	22.2%
11. Wake Forest	22.2%
12. NC State	22.5%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Georgia Tech	35.8%
2. North Carolina	34.9%
3. Boston College	34.2%
4. Miami	34.2%
5. Virginia	32.5%
6. Florida State	32.2%
7. Maryland	31.8%
8. Duke	31.7%
9. Clemson	31.5%
10. Wake Forest	29.5%
11. Virginia Tech	27.4%
12. NC State	23.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. North Carolina	0.17
2. Maryland	0.06
3. Duke	0.04
4. Virginia	0.02
5. Boston College	0.02
6. Virginia Tech	0.01
7. Florida State	0.01
8. Georgia Tech	0.01
9. Clemson	-0.02
10. NC State	-0.1
11. Miami	-0.12
12. Wake Forest	-0.12

Defensive Numbers



Points per possession Allowed

1. North Carolina	0.95
2. Duke	0.99
3. Maryland	1
4. Virginia	1.02
5. Clemson	1.04
6. Georgia Tech	1.06
7. Boston College	1.07
8. Virginia Tech	1.08
9. Wake Forest	1.08
10. Florida State	1.09
11. NC State	1.11
12. Miami	1.17

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Virginia	46.1%
2. North Carolina	47.8%
3. Maryland	47.9%
4. Virginia Tech	49.7%
5. Duke	50%
6. NC State	51.2%
7. Boston College	51.3%
8. Florida State	52.9%
9. Clemson	53%
10. Wake Forest	53%
11. Georgia Tech	53.3%
12. Miami	57.2%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Virginia	44%
2. North Carolina	45.4%
3. Virginia Tech	48.1%
4. Duke	48.2%
5. Maryland	48.4%
6. NC State	49.4%
7. Boston College	50.3%
8. Florida State	52.5%
9. Clemson	53.1%
10. Georgia Tech	54.1%
11. Wake Forest	54.2%
12. Miami	55.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland	31.1%
2. Wake Forest	33.8%
3. Virginia	33.9%
4. Georgia Tech	34.4%
5. Clemson	34.9%
6. Virginia Tech	35.4%
7. North Carolina	35.6%
8. Florida State	35.7%
9. Boston College	35.9%
10. Duke	37.4%
11. NC State	37.5%
12. Miami	40%

Turnover % Forced

1. Clemson	24.5%
2. Georgia Tech	23%
3. Duke	21.9%
4. North Carolina	21.1%
5. Maryland	20.9%
6. Wake Forest	20.1%
7. Florida State	19.5%
8. Virginia Tech	19.2%
9. Miami	18.8%
10. Virginia	17.7%
11. Boston College	17.6%
12. NC State	17.1%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Miami	77.4%
2. Duke	76.8%
3. Wake Forest	75.9%
4. North Carolina	75.7%
5. Georgia Tech	74.8%
6. Virginia	71.9%
7. Florida State	71.8%
8. Virginia Tech	70.6%
9. Boston College	68.8%
10. Maryland	68%
11. Clemson	67.3%
12. NC State	66.5%

ACC 2006 Tempo Free Stats

Just for some perusing to fulfil your appetite.
I'll start posting 2006 season numbers for all of the in-conference games.
Feel free to relive, compare or simply disregard them.

ACC 2006 season


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Maryland	74.5
2. Duke	73.9
3. North Carolina	72
4. Florida State	70.3
5. Georgia Tech	69.8
6. Clemson	69.6
7. Wake Forest	67.6
8. Virginia	66.4
9. Virginia Tech	65.8
10. NC State	65.4
11. Miami	62.9
12. Boston College	62.5

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Duke	1.12
2. North Carolina	1.11
3. NC State	1.11
4. Boston College	1.1
5. Miami	1.08
6. Wake Forest	1.05
7. Florida State	1.04
8. Virginia Tech	1.02
9. Georgia Tech	1
10. Virginia	0.99
11. Clemson	0.99
12. Maryland	0.96

Effective FG %

1. NC State	55.6%
2. Duke	55.4%
3. North Carolina	54.1%
4. Florida State	52.3%
5. Boston College	51.7%
6. Georgia Tech	51.2%
7. Wake Forest	49.2%
8. Virginia Tech	48.9%
9. Clemson	48.4%
10. Miami	48.4%
11. Maryland	45.7%
12. Virginia	45.5%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Duke	52.1%
2. North Carolina	51.3%
3. NC State	51.3%
4. Boston College	51%
5. Florida State	50%
6. Virginia Tech	49.3%
7. Clemson	48.3%
8. Georgia Tech	47.4%
9. Miami	46.5%
10. Wake Forest	46%
11. Virginia	44.4%
12. Maryland	44.2%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Georgia Tech	41.4%
2. Duke	40.9%
3. NC State	40.5%
4. North Carolina	40%
5. Florida State	38.8%
6. Wake Forest	37.4%
7. Boston College	35.5%
8. Miami	35%
9. Maryland	34.6%
10. Clemson	32.4%
11. Virginia	31.8%
12. Virginia Tech	31.8%

Turnover %

1. Virginia Tech	16.6%
2. Miami	17.7%
3. Duke	20.1%
4. NC State	20.3%
5. Boston College	20.7%
6. Virginia	21.6%
7. Clemson	21.7%
8. Wake Forest	21.8%
9. Florida State	22.2%
10. Maryland	23.2%
11. North Carolina	23.5%
12. Georgia Tech	25.8%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Boston College	35.7%
2. Miami	35.4%
3. Clemson	34.5%
4. Wake Forest	34.4%
5. Maryland	33.9%
6. Duke	33.2%
7. Virginia Tech	33.1%
8. Virginia	32.1%
9. Florida State	32%
10. North Carolina	31.7%
11. Georgia Tech	31.6%
12. NC State	28.5%

Efficiency Margin

1. North Carolina	0.13
2. Duke	0.13
3. NC State	0.03
4. Boston College	0.02
5. Florida State	0.01
6. Miami	0
7. Clemson	-0.01
8. Virginia Tech	-0.04
9. Maryland	-0.05
10. Georgia Tech	-0.06
11. Virginia	-0.07
12. Wake Forest	-0.08

Defensive Numbers



Points per possession Allowed

1. North Carolina	0.98
2. Duke	0.99
3. Maryland	1.01
4. Clemson	1.01
5. Florida State	1.03
6. Virginia	1.06
7. Virginia Tech	1.06
8. Georgia Tech	1.06
9. Boston College	1.08
10. Miami	1.08
11. NC State	1.08
12. Wake Forest	1.14

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. North Carolina	46.3%
2. Duke	46.9%
3. Maryland	48.3%
4. NC State	48.5%
5. Georgia Tech	50.6%
6. Virginia	51.1%
7. Boston College	51.9%
8. Florida State	52.4%
9. Miami	52.4%
10. Clemson	52.5%
11. Wake Forest	52.9%
12. Virginia Tech	53.8%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland	42.9%
2. North Carolina	46.2%
3. Duke	46.5%
4. Boston College	47.8%
5. Florida State	47.9%
6. Miami	48%
7. Georgia Tech	49.1%
8. NC State	49.2%
9. Wake Forest	49.4%
10. Virginia	50.8%
11. Virginia Tech	51.9%
12. Clemson	51.9%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. North Carolina	31%
2. NC State	31.2%
3. Duke	32.6%
4. Virginia	34.5%
5. Georgia Tech	36.2%
6. Clemson	36.2%
7. Virginia Tech	38.2%
8. Maryland	39.1%
9. Wake Forest	39.3%
10. Boston College	39.9%
11. Miami	39.9%
12. Florida State	40.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. Clemson	25.9%
2. Virginia Tech	24.3%
3. Florida State	24%
4. Miami	23.4%
5. Maryland	21.9%
6. Duke	21.9%
7. Georgia Tech	21%
8. Boston College	20.2%
9. North Carolina	18.6%
10. Wake Forest	18.4%
11. NC State	18.2%
12. Virginia	17.8%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Virginia	74.2%
2. Georgia Tech	74.2%
3. North Carolina	72.6%
4. Clemson	72.2%
5. Wake Forest	72%
6. Miami	70.3%
7. Virginia Tech	69.6%
8. Florida State	69.2%
9. Boston College	68.8%
10. NC State	68.5%
11. Maryland	67%
12. Duke	64.2%

I Want Numbers!!!

Some other things to take care of (trying to pull other conference data) so the recaps will be short and sweet, with only tempo-free stats to fill your mind:

Oregon 77 Washington 89
Oregon shot well (63% efg vs. 57% efg) in this Indy 500 style 73 possession game that felt faster than that. High 25% turnover rate for the Ducks and once again bad defensive rebounding (giving up 43% offensive rebounding) along with attempting half as many free-throws as the home team. Washington finished with 1.22 points-per-possession vs. the Ducks' 1.06

UCLA 62 California 46
Big road win for the Bruins in this Ursa Major match in which they shot 53%efg vs. Cal's 41% brickfest. In addition, UCLA hauled in 37% of their misses, and only gave up 19% of Cal's misses back to them. This slow 57 possession game saw efficiencies of 1.09 for UCLA and a dreadful .81 for the Bears.

Oregon St. 55 Washington St. 70
The Cougs took care of business at home on 52% efg and limiting the Beavers to just .84 points a possession in this "fast" (for Wazzu) game of 65 possessions. Oregon St. took 15 more shots than Wazzu, but managed 15 less points than the boys in Pullman. Big home match this Saturday for the red and white.

USC 50 Stanford 65
Stanford did what it needed to do to take steps towards an NCAA berth in an ugly-tempo-free match on 53% efg and limiting the Trojans to only 31% efg. The Cardinal had 20 turnovers in this 72 possession game for a less-than-nice 28% turnover rate. This kept the scoring down, and resulted in efficiencies of a porous .69 ppp for USC and .88 ppp for Stanford.


Big big added stats coming soon!!!! Fear not you east-coast and midcoast and high-plain folks, Tempo-free goodness is coming to a conference near you!!!!

A Slurry of Salacious Games in Store

First, to last night:

Arizona St. 47 Arizona 71
The Wildcats took care of business as expected, but did so in a 15 possession slower game than what they've been averaging.
This 55 possession game saw some "expected" effective shooting and efficiency from Arizona (59% efg and 1.29 points-per-possession) and a predicted poor performance from the Sun Devils at 44% efg and .85 ppp. If the 'Cats weren't hitting nylon, they were grabbing 10 of their 25 misses on the night, led by Chase Budinger's 5 offensive boards, for a stellar 24% individual rate. He also led all scorers with 21 points on 12 shots for a 1.37 points-per-weighted shot average.


On to tonight's festivities:

Some big steps back or forward can be taken with this week's slate of games (well, in this strong of a Pac10, I guess every weekend means a lot).

UCLA and Oregon can really distance themselves with at least a split, if not more on their road swings to the Bay area and the Apple state respectively.
Or they could easily lose both, and really make the Pac10 leader board a jumbled mess for all to grab.

Oregon at Washington
Huskies are almost essentially out of the NCAA picture, unless they run the table, starting with the home stand against the Oregon schools. Aaron Brooks, after his infamous elbow will be finishing off his suspension by sitting out this game. No one probably predicted that the Ducks would've preferred him to sit out this over sitting out the Wazzu game.
Washington will run big and attempt to get Maarty Leunen in foul trouble early in order to make Coach Ernie Kent really stretch the effectiveness of his already-shallow bench. A big plus for Oregon, is that Tajuan Porter has improved his play as of late, and will be called on to shoulder some of the void left from Brooks' absence.


Oregon St. at Washington St.
The Cougs shouldn't have an issue with the Beaver's visit to Pullman, in the first home match as a ranked team in 57 years. Wazzu is leading the league in efficiency marginthanks to an offense that doesn't turn the ball over and a defense that is only allowing .93 points to be scored each possession. On the other end, Oregon St. is last in efficiency margin, giving up a huge .18 more points per possession than they're putting in. This shouldn't be a problem for the Cougs as long as they don't look ahead to their big showdown on Saturday


UCLA at California
Two similarly efficient offenses face off against two very different defensi. UCLA's claim to fame this season has been it's staunch effort against some high-powered offenses and the numbers back it up. A second-best .95 ppp allowed along with a second best-20.9% turnover rate. While they're roughly middle of the pack in shooting percentage allowed, they are hauling in those misses at an astounding 79.9% defensive rebounding rate. Cal isn't exactly a solid offensive rebounding team either. This is a good test to for the Bears to boost their NCAA profile

USC at Stanford
In a similar NCAA boat as Cal, Stanford and USC desperately need to start adding some more marquee wins to their resume after somewhat lax pre-conference schedules. Nick Young and Taj Gibson will have a little more work to keep their high PPWS numbers up against the presence of the Lopez brothers. On the other end, the Cardinal have been inconsistent as of late, shooting 44% and 67% efg in their split at the Oregon schools last weekend. Going up against an extremely strong shooting defense in USC will probably expose that weakness even more unless they can improve the ball rotation using their bigs.
Either way, one of these teams is adding a strong W to their list.

Wildcats Looking to Spark

A must win tonight, and on paper, what should be an easy win for Arizona over their in-state rivals.
While The Sun Devils would love to keep it slow the Wildcats will be running and gunning trying to get their offense back in line after a tough road stretch in the brutal La La land. The very fact that Wazzu got out of there with a split is even more impressive now.
Arizona is no doubt a pretty solid lock for the NCAA's, but I doubt after their impressive start, they'd be happy with anything less than a 4 seed.

With a nice soft game at home tonight, this may just be the spark they need leading up to their showdown against UNC on Saturday.

Pac 10 PPWS Leaders

Here's the top 20 Points-per-weighted shot producers in the Pac10. Stats are for all games. Working on conference-only numbers right now.
Games are through 1/21/2007

Darren Collison, UCLA	1.32
Mustafa Shakur, Arizona	1.31
Bryce Taylor, Oregon	1.3
Daven Harmeling, Washington State	1.29
Ivan Radenovic, Arizona	1.28
Taj Gibson, Southern California	1.27
Chase Budinger, Arizona	1.25
Jeff Pendergraph, Arizona State	1.25
Abdoulaye N'Diaye, Southern California	1.25
Nick Young, Southern California	1.23
Ryan Anderson, California	1.23
Malik Hairston, Oregon	1.23
Ryan Appleby, Washington	1.22
Aaron Brooks, Oregon	1.21
Lawrence Hill, Stanford	1.21
Mac Hopson, Washington State	1.2
Quincy Pondexter, Washington	1.19
Arron Afflalo, UCLA	1.18
Omar Wilkes, California	1.18
Derrick Low, Washington State	1.17

Lute Olsen, oh my!!!

Quite a weekend in sports.
Here's the rundown of the Pac10 games.
Updated Pac 10 Tempo Free Stats are now posted.

Washington 47 Washington St. 75
Huskies continue their downward spiral as the boys from the east side continue there rise. Wazzu shot 60% efg and only the turned the ball over 6 times in this slow 63 (for the Huskies) possession game that was obviously dictated by the Cougs. Wazzu was led by Kyle Weaver who posted a 1.72 ppws with 17 points, 4 assists, 2 steals and 8 boards. Washington only shot 34% efg on its way near the bottom of the Pac10 while Wazzu clipped at a 1.19 points-per-possession efficiency compared to Washington's .75 ppp.

Arizona 69 UCLA 73
Arizona lost it's 3rd Pac10 game in a row under Lute Olson for the first time since his inaugural season in 1983. The Bruins kept the pace slower (67 possessions) than the Wildcats would have preferred and also out shot them 55% vs. 42%. With 5 guys averaging over 55% efg on the season, Arizona has shot 42%, 42% and 51% over the past 3 losses. It didn't help the cause that 'Zona only shot 20% on their 15 attempts.

Arizona St. 49 USC 58
Nick Young and Taj Gibson provided most of the Trojans' offense, with Young getting 18 points on 1.27 ppws, and Taj Gibson adding 11 points and grabbing 21% of available defensive rebounds. Both teams weren't exactly efficient in this 59 possession game with USC almost at a point a possession and the Sun Devils at .83 ppp. Offensive rebounds were hard to come by (28% for the visitors vs 22% for USC) and they both only shot around 45% efg. USC commanded a 19 free throw attempt edge that overcame their poor offensive performance.

California 84 Oregon 92
Compare this game to the USC-Zona St. game, and it's a completely different picture. This medium paced game (66 possessions) saw efficiency of Stephen Hawking proportions!! 1.27 ppp for Cal and 1.39!!! for the Ducks. Cal shot 62% efg to Oregon's 68% average and both teams kept their turnovers low at 18% vs. 14% as the Ducks mounted a tremendous 2nd half comeback. The Ducks got beat yet again on the offensive glass (41% vs. 33%) but their starters all poured in double digit scoring, led by Malik Hairston's 1.92 ppws on 19 points and only 8 attempts to get there. Brooks led the total numbers with 22 points while dishing 6 assists and hitting 4 of his 5 threes.


Stanford 67 Oregon St. 56
The Cardinal shot extremely well (67%) but coughed up an inordinate amount of gimmes (31% turnover rate on 18 tosses) in a slow 59 possession game. (Side thought: What happened to the lightning "fast" pace of Pac10 play???? 59, 59, 66, 67 and 63 possession games????? I want my horse races!!!!)
Lawrence Hill dropped in 5 of 9 threes on his way to 24 points. Stanford also had a 13 attempt advantage from the charity line and hauled in a big chunk of their few misses at a 40% offensive rebounding rate. To see the difference in efficiency, look no further than the line of field goal attempts: Stanford 38, Oregon St. 61. Not a way to win a game if you're missing that many chances.

Oh what a night

Cal 77 Oregon St. 74
The Beavers' Jack McGillis' 3 went through, but he let it go after the buzzer as Cal held off a 6 point comeback from the home squad.
Both teams were extremely efficient in this 63 possession game (1.21 ppp for Cal, 1.16 for O St.).
Great shooting on both sides (63% vs. 61%) as Eric Vernheisel posted 13 points in only 26 minutes of play on 5 field goal attempts for a homicidal 2.18 points-per-weighted shot. Marcel Jones did his best for the Beavers, draining 29 points for a 1.58 ppws average, his second best point total of the season. Cal took care of business before it's big road game in Eugene.


Stanford 59 Oregon 66
Another close win for the Ducks in a game that they probably would have given away last year. Oregon shot poorly, and was dominated in the paint for the first half of the game. Stanford recorded 10 blocks, or in other words, almost 20% of all attempted Ducks shots were blocked. Yikes. But, they overcame this by getting the big Lopez boys in foul trouble by driving to the lane more often. This kept Stanford small and also gave Oregon a 23 free throw attempt advantage in which they made 81% of them. Brooks led the game with 18 points, despite shooting 4 for 13. Stanford missed some easy looks and only made 21% of their threes. Oguchi's shot from the corner was the key shot of the game.


Arizona St. 73 UCLA 80
No problem holding serve at home for the Bruins before their big one on Saturday. They held the Sun Devils to .95 ppp and only 13 points in the second half while posting another sub-par 1.03 ppp themselves. The game was extremely slow, as expected at only 58 possessions and was uncharacteristically ugly in the turnover field, 26% recorded by both teams. Mbah a Moute had 5 of those turnovers, but he hauled in 14 total boards, 7 offensive to post a salacious 30% offensive rebounding percentage and hauling in 32% of Arizona St.'s misses while he was on the floor.


Arizona 73 USC 80
Big win for the Trojans against an Arizona team that has now lost one game each of the past three weeks. USC shot well, 58% efg, led by Nick Young posting 1.37 ppws while getting 30 points and hauling in 8 rebounds. On the other side, Arizona shot extremely poorly, only 42% efg with Jawann Mclellan dropping a .5 ppws turd on the court on 1 of 7 shooting from the floor. This after he's been averaging over 1.2 ppws in the Pac10. The game was fast as expected at a nice 77 possession clip. USC also cradled the ball like a small puppy, only giving up 16% of their possessions in turnovers. Not bad in a 100 yard dash of a game.

Where are they going now?

In a fairly wide-open Pac10 field this year (8 legitimately can still make the NCAA, 5 have real shots at winning the conference), it's good to try and see how conference play has affected a team's stats. Any indication of future play can help. If a team's numbers are inflated due to their schedule strength, we'd like to dig that up, shake it around and beat it like a dirty old rug.

When comparing total pre-conference numbers to Pac10 play, here's just some numbers that pop out:

Of course, offensive efficiency will drop as you enter conference play, but the Bruins has dropped the most.
After cruising at 1.20 ppp pre-conference, UCLA is running at 1.06 ppp in Pac10 play.
USC has actually increased, .05 points a possession to 1.12. .05 may seem like a drop in the bucket, but with a 68 possession-on-average game, that translates into 3.4 points a game. I'm guessing they will gladly keep those 3.4 points in their 2 points win over Oregon.

On the same note, defensive efficiency will also drop (well, rise in points-per-possession allowed), however the biggest change has been Oregon, going from .9 ppp to 1.08 (facing UCLA, Arizona and USC will do that to you).
Also up there are Washington (.96 to 1.14), Arizona (.95 to 1.11) and Stanford (.92 to 1.08).
Washington St. has held steady, only going from .89 to .96 ppp.

As a cause of the Trojans increase in efficiency, USC is shooting 5.2% better in Pac10 play compared to their 53% effective FG% posted pre-conference. Thank Taj Gibson's 66.7% efg and Nick Young's 61.4% efg for that improvement.

Even better, they're turning the ball over 6.1% less in conference play. They were turning it over 24% of the time pre-conference!

Oregon wasn't great pre-conference on the offensive glass (38%), but now they're over 10% worse in conference so far. Marty Leunen can only do so much to help the cause on the boards.

UCLA meanwhile has improved their defensive rebounding by over 13%. They are currently at an incredible 84.3% rate, almost 8% better than the next highest team.

I'll post this data shortly....




Quick previews for tonight:

Stanford at Oregon
Get the ball into the hands of Lawrence Hill (58%efg, only 11% Turnover rate) and the Cardinal have at least a shot to keep it close.
Ducks have 4 guys (including limited games Hairston) shooting over 55% efg. Wowzers.

California at Oregon St.
Beavers need to force Cal into at least the 23% turnover average that Oregon St. has been forcing to have a chance. Cal has limited their exposure, only giving up 17% overall. They lost the one game that they went over 23%.

Arizona at USC
A big home win potentially for the Trojans. Look for this game to move, and potentially hit the 150's in total points. We'll see if USC's improved shooting can keep up. Oh, Arizona has 5 guys over 55% efg by the way.

Arizona St. at UCLA
Both teams will keep this one slow. UCLA better not look ahead to Saturday.