JB, shoot an email over.

Quick update...

Conference USA 2006 and 2007 season stats now up!
I've been a little pre-occupied with other dealings. Some more regular posting besides updating the stats will commence hopefully by the end of the week.

Championship weeks, you are upon us!!


***Note, for whatever reason, the MVC site does not provide 2006 season stats. I again, apologize for the inconvenience.

Number 1 vs. Number 1....and the Time-Space Vortex has Collapsed!!

	UW	OSU
PPP	.813	.83
EFG %	39.5%	46.7%
TO %	19%	20%
OREB %	34%	18%
2-PT %	37.5%	48.4%
3-PT %	29.4%	28.6%

I'll simply throw up the numbers. Good defense, bad offense or two teams that just know each other too well? You decide.
A nice and easy 59 possession game in Columbus.

Some Corn, Wheat and Water for Your Thursday Night

Sorry, was out of town for a few days, so I will try to catch up on my promise. Final two conferences will be tomorrow hopefully.

(You like that quick 2 second stat posted during the MSU-Wisconsin game? Sometime after the Spartans had spent about a 1:30 period rebounding their 6 misses, they threw up a "41.5% offensive rebounding percentage was 5th best in the nation by MSU" stat. Tack another one up on the tempo-free world)


BIG 12

The Great:
Kansas - Every has lauded (including here) Texas A&M's stout defense, however it's the Jayhawks that have actually produced the better overall numbers, coming on as of the last half-dozen games. .87 points-per-possession allowed is a full 2.2 standard deviations less than the league average of 1.03. (Side note: they're shooting 53.9% from inside the arc, 1.9 stdev's better than the average)

The Ugly:
Colorado - Almost as bad as MSU in league play, the Buffs are turning it over on 25.2% of their possessions, or a full 2.3 stdevs above the average of 20.3%.

Nebraska - While shooting about around the average at 49.5%, they are only hauling in a league-worst 18.5% of their misses, compared to a league average of 30.2%. That amounts to a full 2.5 stdevs off of the mean. Offensive boards? We hardly knew thee.




MVC
Smaller league, less deviations from a mean. Still some interesting notes:

The Great:
Southern Illinois - Much like Kansas, the pride and joy of their league in terms of defensive prowess. Currently, they're sitting at .93 ppp, a full 1.94 stdev's below the 1.05 average. Oh they're also forcing a league-best 23.9% turnover rate, also 1.93 stdev's above the 20% average.

The Ugly:
Drake - Worst defense in the conference is giving up 58% efg against a league average of 52%, 2.14 stdev's above. That's built on a 43.2% 3-pt shooting defense that is 2.44 stdev's above the average of 37%. Better luck by their opponents or a weak perimeter presence?

Indiana St - Take your pick in this offensive-devoid metropolis of poor shooting. .94 points-scored per possession is 2.2 stdev's below the league average of 1.05. 41.7% 2-pt shooting is 2.34 stdev's worse on their way to posting 44.9% efg shooting against a conference average of 52%. That win against Butler feels like it was eons ago.



(Not to degrade any one team... I shouldn't talk as my alma mater is the worst in it's league in just about every known stat. NIT in 2015 baby! Some interesting far extremes nonetheless...)

Who Wants to Be Normal Anyway??

Let's take a look at the aberrations of the "other" 6 leagues. I say other, because the Wonk has illuminated upon the 3 most far-from-normal stats in the Big Ten already.

Why should only the Big 10 get the glory of praising (or humiliating) the utmost best and worst of various statistical abnormalities in their league. On to torch the *rest of the nation!!!



* Rest involves 2 conferences today. 2 more on Wednesday and the final 2 on Thursday. Yes, I apologize, they are the "major" conferences only...



ACC

The Good:
Clemson - Well, when you press, you're bound to get some turnovers, right? 25.6% forced turnover rate is 2.02 standard deviations (stdev) above the average of 20.4%

The Ugly:
Wake Forest - .96 points-per-possession on offense. League average 1.1. Ouch, yes, ouch. (2.1 stdev below)

Miami - Not only do they shoot poorly (46.1 efg%, 2.08 stdev below the 51% avg), but they are "giving" up 41.5% 3 pt shooting. (An awful 2.22 stdev above the average of 35.1%)

The Indifferent:
UNC - 75 possessions per game. League average 68.6. They run. Yes, they run (2.08 stdev above that)


Big East
Larger sample set, means more extremes from the mean

The Good:
Georgetown - Case in point. The most efficient offense in America is indeed 2.49 stdev above the Big East average of 1.02 points-per-possession and are 2.43 stdev better than the 48.9 efg% in conference play, at 1.19 ppp and 60.2% efg!!

Villanova - 19.5% offensive rebounding allowed is a full 3.05 stdev below the average of 28.3% allowed. No one particularly stands out besides Sumpter's 19% defensive board rate that he halls in himself. Balanced out-stretched arms on this team...

The Ugly:
Cincinnati: - Allowing a monstrous 44% 3 pt shooting percentage which is 2.44 stdev above the 34.1% average on their way to allowing 58% efg and 1.13 ppp defensively. It's a cold, dark lonely basement down there....

Small update...

2006 stats also up for SEC and Big East. Never fear MVC, you are next....

Bubble? What Bubble?

Un-pseudo-related to tempo-free musings, I'd just like to share some brief thoughts on bubbles, the media and the fans that put them there.

Every year, as the season winds down, there are always a slew of teams that have been moderately holding around that off the bubble on the bubble position. Mostly because they've won enough games, regardless of the competition or because they chalked up some "wins" early on, that really shouldn't be valued as heavily (i.e. anyone using LSU as a big win).

Then what happens? Well, some of those teams get a "huge" win, and all of the previous flaws are forgotten, and they're immediately locked into NCAA stature. Be wary of these teams, and question always, the true merits of why they're being placed in the way that they are:

West Virginia:

Record: 19-6
RPI: 49
SOS: 115
Vs. RPI 1-25: 2-2
RPI 26-50: 0-3
"Big" (I'm using this term loosely) wins: Villanova, UCLA

Recap: A team that shouldn't have been considered above a slew of other teams gets a home win against a team missing one of it's best players, and immediately, this team is "safe" and has it's "big" win to secure a birth? Show me at least one good road win and I'd reconsider.

Texas:

Record: 19-7
RPI: 46
SOS: 91
Vs. RPI 1-25: 0-3
RPI 26-50: 3-3
"Big" wins: @ Texas Tech, Arkansas, Oklahoma St (who probably couldn't win at Iona)

Recap: Let's not talk about what Durant is doing for Texas on the court, how about what he's doing off the court, as in single handily securing a bid (or higher than deserved seed) simply by his name alone. In the mock Selection Sunday put on by the national writers, Texas apparently was discussed as "a team with great potential":

From Andy Katz's blog:
"If Texas were to be close to making the field, I'm convinced the Longhorns would get in based on their ability to win games, the overall youthful talent on the team led by Kevin Durant and D.J. Augustin, and a desire to see this team entertain. Remember, the chore is to put together the 34 best at-large teams to make a competitive field. Texas has been one of the most competitive teams in the country this season, playing overtime games and late-possession games constantly.
So, when it came time to vote, I had no issue making a plea to our group that Texas would make it a better field. The reality is that I didn't care what the Longhorns' RPI was, nor did I check it, because I know Texas would be a tough team to face for anyone in the bracket. Once again, there's nothing wrong with that logic to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if Texas is discussed in that manner next month."

Well, if that's the case, VMI should be in because I know they'll be a tough team for anybody to run with. Always value Katz's opinions, I just cringe however when profiles, results and the like are thrown out in favor of "gut feelings"

I don't doubt that they'll be in this year, but let's not base it on karma, competitiveness, or the fact that they're 9-3 in conference.



Louisville:

Record: 18-8
RPI: 52
SOS: 41
Vs. RPI 1-25: 1-4
RPI 26-50: 1-2
"Big" wins: well, the obvious two this week. Huge no less, but that's it, nothing more.

Now, is that the profile of a 9/10/11 seed? Perhaps. Heck, Butler has been riding their 3 wins all season long from the comfortable perch of a protected seed. Such a soft bubble this year.... but let's not heap the praise on, bump them up to a 7 all of a sudden and just forget the previous 24 games even happened, especially since they could easily close out the final 3 with wins (St. John's, @ uconn, Seton Hall).



Just three listed here, obviously there's a few others. Feel free to put in your two cents.

I will now return to my little bubble of tempo-free silliness.

Fran Fraschilla, an MLK Jr. for the Tempo-free faithful

Former coach and ESPN college basketball analyst Fran Fraschilla has often been pushing the tempo-free stats ware this season. He'll often give shout outs to Kenpom.com as a trusty stats reference site.
In the "Power Poll 16" for this week, he even threw out a "Georgetown has the most efficient offense in the country, shooting over 60 percent inside the arc and rebounding offensive misses at a 41 percent rate, the seventh highest in the country."

Offensive rebounding rate?? That's what we like to see!

Been a little hectic, so I'll get the updated conference stats up today. Sorry for the delay.

Some teams need some "Roger Federer Advice"

Getting back to my old way of posting (pulling stats out of the air, coming up with convoluted ideas, tempo free stats here, tempo free stats there, etc...)

Some highlight games of last night (home teams? where are you? Hold serve!!!!):


Virginia Tech 81 UNC 80

Yeah, the score was in the 80's but both teams threw up some duds, tempo-free-wise in the Hokies big big upset in Chapel Hill in this 81 possession game. Both teams were pretty much even on the stat sheet, with each posting a 42% efg, a low 12% (vt) and 11% (unc) turnover rate and in the low 30's% in offensive rebounding on the way to averaging 1.00 points-per-possession for vtech and .989 for unc, far below their averages of 1.09 and 1.13 respectively. Zabian Dowdell lead the way with 19 free-throw attempts, 17 of them made and 33 points total for a 1.37 points-per-weighted-shot average. UNC pulled their shooting percentage down with a 3 for 17 brick fest from beyond the arc.


Texas Tech 77 Texas A & M 75

You can see the difference in efficiency between this game and the UNC game, as this one clipped at a much slower 68 possession pace, but both teams almost hit 80 points as Tech averaged 1.13 ppp and A&M was at 1.10 even though turnovers were high (26% vs. 24% for a&m). They both shot well, 57% for the winners and 56% efg for the home team and were fairly in every stat as well, but it was the work of Jarrius Jackson, not just with his buzzer-beater but the total body of work: He hoisted 37% of Tech's shots, but he was making 1.39 points-per-weighted shot on his way to 31 points. The Raiders normal struggle on the offensive glass were non-existent as they hauled in 41% of their available misses, compared to a low 28.3% average they've had in-conference.


Southern Illinois 51 Missouri St. 47

The Salukis further solidified their position as king of the MVC with this "ugly" but complete win away from Carbondale. This 64 possession game, (faster than S. Illinois' usual pace of 60) saw some poor shooting (37% for the Salukis, 43% for the Bears) and an overall low scoring efficiency (.8 ppp for the winners vs. .74 ppp). Randal Falkner lead the way with 20 points on 11 shots, grabbing 12 total boards in a game that definitely lacking in second-chance opportunities (20% offensive rebounding vs. 22%).
Big win nonetheless for the boys from Carbondale.

Kentucky 85 Tennessee 89

In a night when the home teams were dropping their serves, the Vols managed to hold off a pesky Kentucky team behind some effectively efficient offensive displayage. This 74 possession game saw a total of 174 points, with Tennessee hitting 56% efg vs. Kentucky's 64%. However, it was the Vols' care taking of the ball (only 8 turnovers in the game vs. 19 for the 'Cats) that was the difference-maker as they also didn't rebound all that well on the offensive glass (29% vs. 42%), which has been the norm for the Vols.

2006 Tempo Free Stats Coming...

I'm pulling together the 2006 Tempo Free Stats for as many conferences as I can so that you can compare and bemoan the accession or decline of your particular team.
The menu on the right will keep them listed as they're added.

Quick recap of what's going on here

Big South Tempo Free Stats

CAA got up here first, but this was right behind...

Winthrop, as expected, is the dominator of the league on paper as well. Of course, I've always been intrigued by VMI's pace of play.

Final 2007 Big South Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. VMI	95.9
2. Liberty	73.9
3. High Point	73.6
4. Radford	73.6
5. UNC Asheville	70.8
6. Coastal Carolina	70.2
7. Charleston Southern	69.4
8. Winthrop	68.6

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Winthrop	1.12
2. Liberty	1.08
3. High Point	1.08
4. Coastal Carolina	1.07
5. VMI	1.06
6. UNC Asheville	1
7. Radford	0.96
8. Charleston Southern	0.95

Effective FG %

1. Winthrop	57.3%
2. Liberty	55.2%
3. High Point	53.7%
4. Coastal Carolina	51.8%
5. VMI	51.1%
6. UNC Asheville	50.4%
7. Charleston Southern	48.9%
8. Radford	48%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Winthrop	58.4%
2. Liberty	56.1%
3. VMI	55.9%
4. High Point	54%
5. Coastal Carolina	51.6%
6. Charleston Southern	49.3%
7. UNC Asheville	48.8%
8. Radford	48.6%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Winthrop	36.8%
2. UNC Asheville	36.2%
3. High Point	35.4%
4. Coastal Carolina	34.8%
5. Liberty	34.6%
6. Charleston Southern	32%
7. Radford	30.8%
8. VMI	30.7%

Turnover %

1. VMI	17.1%
2. Winthrop	20.1%
3. High Point	20.5%
4. Coastal Carolina	20.9%
5. UNC Asheville	22.7%
6. Liberty	23.1%
7. Radford	23.8%
8. Charleston Southern	24.5%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Coastal Carolina	35.2%
2. Winthrop	32.1%
3. Radford	31.7%
4. UNC Asheville	31.2%
5. Liberty	31%
6. High Point	30.2%
7. Charleston Southern	29.2%
8. VMI	26.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. Winthrop	0.22
2. High Point	0.09
3. Liberty	0.04
4. Coastal Carolina	0.01
5. VMI	-0.03
6. UNC Asheville	-0.05
7. Radford	-0.11
8. Charleston Southern	-0.16

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Winthrop	0.9
2. High Point	1
3. Liberty	1.04
4. UNC Asheville	1.05
5. Coastal Carolina	1.06
6. Radford	1.07
7. VMI	1.09
8. Charleston Southern	1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Winthrop	45.7%
2. High Point	47%
3. UNC Asheville	49.7%
4. Liberty	51%
5. Radford	53.6%
6. Coastal Carolina	53.7%
7. Charleston Southern	55.6%
8. VMI	58.1%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

	44.3%
2. High Point	49.4%
3. Liberty	51%
4. UNC Asheville	51.6%
5. Coastal Carolina	54.3%
6. Radford	54.5%
7. Charleston Southern	54.5%
8. VMI	59.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. High Point	28.1%
2. UNC Asheville	30.7%
	32.2%
4. Liberty	34%
5. Radford	34.6%
6. Coastal Carolina	35%
7. VMI	35.3%
8. Charleston Southern	38.3%

Turnover % Forced

1. VMI	26.3%
2. Coastal Carolina	22.4%
3. Radford	21.6%
4. Winthrop	20.7%
5. High Point	19.9%
6. UNC Asheville	19.9%
7. Liberty	19.4%
8. Charleston Southern	19.3%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Winthrop	83.1%
2. Liberty	80.4%
3. Radford	75.7%
4. UNC Asheville	73.6%
5. Charleston Southern	73.5%
6. High Point	72%
7. Coastal Carolina	69.4%
8. VMI	65.1%

CAA Tempo Free Stats

For a good CAA blog, check out this

Final 2007 Stats


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Old Dominion	66.4
2. Towson	64.5
3. VCU	64.1
4. Hofstra	63.9
5. Delaware	63.5
6. UNC Wilmington	63.1
7. Northeastern	63
8. Georgia State	63
9. Drexel	62.8
10. William Mary	62.5
11. James Madison	62
12. George Mason	60.8

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. VCU	1.2
2. Hofstra	1.14
3. Old Dominion	1.1
4. Towson	1.07
5. Drexel	1.03
6. George Mason	1.03
7. Northeastern	1.02
8. William Mary	1.01
9. James Madison	0.98
10. Georgia State	0.97
11. UNC Wilmington	0.96
12. Delaware	0.95

Effective FG %

1. VCU	54.1%
2. Hofstra	53.1%
3. Towson	52.2%
4. George Mason	51.3%
5. Old Dominion	50.6%
6. Northeastern	50.5%
7. William Mary	50.2%
8. Georgia State	49.4%
9. Drexel	49.3%
10. James Madison	48%
11. Delaware	47.3%
12. UNC Wilmington	47%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Towson	54.9%
2. William Mary	51.5%
3. George Mason	51.5%
4. Old Dominion	49.2%
5. Hofstra	49%
6. VCU	48.9%
7. Drexel	48.6%
8. James Madison	48.5%
9. Georgia State	47%
10. UNC Wilmington	46.9%
11. Delaware	45.9%
12. Northeastern	45.1%

3-pt Shooting %

1. VCU	43.5%
2. Hofstra	41.1%
3. Northeastern	39.3%
4. Georgia State	36.6%
5. Old Dominion	35.5%
6. Drexel	33.9%
7. George Mason	33.8%
8. Delaware	33%
9. William Mary	32.4%
10. UNC Wilmington	31.5%
11. James Madison	31.4%
12. Towson	31.3%

Turnover %

1. Hofstra	15.6%
2. VCU	15.9%
3. Old Dominion	17.5%
4. Towson	17.8%
5. Northeastern	18.8%
6. George Mason	18.9%
7. Drexel	19.7%
8. Delaware	20%
9. William Mary	20.3%
10. James Madison	21.9%
11. UNC Wilmington	22.2%
12. Georgia State	23.1%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. VCU	32.6%
2. Old Dominion	30.7%
3. James Madison	30.6%
4. UNC Wilmington	30.2%
5. George Mason	30.1%
6. Georgia State	29.6%
7. Hofstra	29.3%
8. Drexel	28.4%
9. William Mary	26.7%
10. Towson	26.5%
11. Northeastern	24.5%
12. Delaware	20.9%

Efficiency Margin

1. Old Dominion	0.17
2. VCU	0.15
3. Hofstra	0.09
4. Drexel	0.08
5. George Mason	0.08
6. Towson	0.02
7. Northeastern	-0.02
8. William Mary	-0.04
9. UNC Wilmington	-0.1
10. Georgia State	-0.12
11. James Madison	-0.13
12. Delaware	-0.19

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Old Dominion	0.93
2. Drexel	0.95
3. George Mason	0.95
4. Northeastern	1.04
5. VCU	1.05
6. Hofstra	1.05
7. William Mary	1.05
8. Towson	1.06
9. UNC Wilmington	1.06
10. Georgia State	1.09
11. James Madison	1.12
12. Delaware	1.14

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Old Dominion	44.5%
2. Drexel	45.4%
3. George Mason	46.7%
4. Hofstra	48.2%
5. Northeastern	50.1%
6. UNC Wilmington	50.1%
7. Towson	50.9%
8. William Mary	51.2%
9. Georgia State	51.9%
10. VCU	52.1%
11. Delaware	55.7%
12. James Madison	57.9%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Old Dominion	41.4%
2. Drexel	42.8%
3. George Mason	44.8%
4. Hofstra	48.3%
5. Northeastern	49.9%
6. VCU	50.2%
7. Towson	50.5%
8. UNC Wilmington	50.5%
9. William Mary	50.6%
10. Georgia State	51.4%
11. James Madison	54.4%
12. Delaware	54.8%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Hofstra	32.1%
2. UNC Wilmington	32.9%
3. George Mason	33.1%
4. Northeastern	33.7%
5. Old Dominion	33.8%
6. Towson	34.4%
7. Drexel	34.6%
8. William Mary	34.8%
9. Georgia State	35.3%
10. VCU	37.2%
11. Delaware	38.4%
12. James Madison	41.8%

Turnover % Forced

1. VCU	21.9%
2. Old Dominion	21.9%
3. Drexel	21.2%
4. James Madison	20.9%
5. George Mason	19.7%
6. Towson	19.1%
7. William Mary	18.9%
8. Northeastern	18.8%
9. Georgia State	17.6%
10. Hofstra	17.5%
11. Delaware	17.2%
12. UNC Wilmington	16.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. UNC Wilmington	82.6%
2. Old Dominion	78.8%
3. Towson	77.5%
4. VCU	76.6%
5. William Mary	76.4%
6. James Madison	76.3%
7. Drexel	75.6%
8. George Mason	75.6%
9. Delaware	75.3%
10. Hofstra	75%
11. Northeastern	72.6%
12. Georgia State	71.1%

Beer Pong = Good for your health

Somewhat unrelated-related to the fine state of Basketball, I stumbled upon this from the NC State blogger. For any of you that took part in some version of beer pong during college (99% efg probably), and you're still alive, your immune system is probably capable of handling anything short of the Bubonic plague. And to think, I thought the game was so clean with those cups of anti-bacterial healing water??

Stats will be updated tonight following the games.

Welcome Wonk readers! Questions or thoughts about the conference stats, email me.

Thoughts, Revelations or General Misunderstandings...

Been a little busy lately (why can't this just be a full-time job), but I've got all of the conference stats updated through yesterday's games.

Some interesting tidbits that pop out of the pages:

Big East
Georgetown is better than we all think, and is far and away the most efficient offense in the Big East. Yes they sit in the middle of the pack in total points scored per game, but they only run at 57 possessions a game. 1.19 points-per-possession is .08 points better than the next best team. Their incredible shooting (61.8% efg) is overcoming their less-than-great turnover percentage of 23.9%.

ACC
UNC a brutal force on the defensive end??? Whoda thunk?? The Tar Heels boast a .89 ppp allowed on defense, .05 points better than Duke's "vaunted" D. Numbers that great explain the .22 efficiency margin that they are currently posting. Oh, they're also clipping at a 76.3 possession per game pace. What I would pay to see a match up between UNC and Air Force.


Big 12
Kansas St's surprising (or not if you're a Bob Huggins believer) rise this season has been with a strange collection of stats. They are currently last in 2-pt shooting (an awful 41.9%) but they're rebounding a good portion of their misses (1st in the league at 37.1%). Their D is average (allowing 1.01 ppp) but they've had the benefit of a vile display of shooting from their opponents, as they are only "giving up" 27.7% 3-pt shooting.


SEC
It's common knowledge that Florida is steps ahead of the rest of the jumbled SEC. Heck they're shooting 47.6% from beyond the arc. Next best is Vandy at 39.9%. They're also only giving up 46.2% efg on their way to a "best-in-what-stats-I-post" .23 efficiency margin. And the Tigers? Stuck at the bottom of the offensive efficiency rung at only .95 points a possession scored. NIT is a long way to fall.


MVC
Ahh, the nice medium paced MVC, a spokes-conference for parity! All of the teams range from -.1 to .12 in efficiency margin for a .22 ppp range total. Compare that to .4 in ACC, .34 in the Big East and Big 12, .41 in the Pac 10, .43 in the SEC and .43 Big Ten!! Truly an all out bloodbath-winner-takes-all conference with the Salukis somehow on top despite not being terribly efficient on the offensive end. Their Defense butters their bread with their opponents slowed to a 59.9 possession per game average and only .96 points scored on each of those few and far between possessions. If an opponent has a possession, they're turning the ball back over a league-leading 24.1% of the time.


Pac10
Arizona is still a scary team come Pac10 tourney time as their offense (save for the UNC disaster) can score at will in their horse race of a game. Washington St. of course is holding on to the ball like it's their youngest child, only giving up 13.6% of their possessions to turnovers. UCLA as expected is solid on both sides, shooting well and not giving up much either (3rd in the league in both Efg %)


Big Ten
On to the Wonk!!

Conference USA Tempo Free Stats

Stats through 2/25/07


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. UTEP	73
2. Tulane	70.5
3. Memphis	68.4
4. Houston	67.6
5. Southern Miss	67.5
6. Marshall	67.3
7. Rice	66.6
8. Tulsa	66.2
9. UAB	64.1
10. East Carolina	64
11. UCF	63.4
12. SMU	63.3

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Memphis	1.15
2. Houston	1.06
3. UCF	1.05
4. Rice	1.02
5. Tulane	1.01
6. UTEP	0.99
7. Southern Miss	0.98
8. UAB	0.97
9. Tulsa	0.96
10. SMU	0.93
11. Marshall	0.92
12. East Carolina	0.85

Effective FG %

1. Memphis	53.2%
2. UCF	51%
3. Rice	50.3%
4. Tulane	49.5%
5. Houston	49%
6. UAB	47.3%
7. SMU	46.4%
8. UTEP	46.1%
9. Southern Miss	45.1%
10. Tulsa	44.3%
11. East Carolina	43.3%
12. Marshall	42%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Memphis	51%
2. UAB	49.8%
3. UCF	49.4%
4. Rice	48.2%
5. Houston	47.8%
6. Tulane	47.2%
7. UTEP	44.2%
8. Southern Miss	43.4%
9. SMU	42.9%
10. Marshall	41.8%
11. East Carolina	40.2%
12. Tulsa	39.8%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Memphis	38.2%
2. Tulane	37.9%
3. Rice	36.9%
4. UCF	35.8%
5. Tulsa	35%
6. SMU	34.1%
7. Southern Miss	33.5%
8. Houston	33.4%
9. UTEP	33.3%
10. East Carolina	32.2%
11. UAB	29.3%
12. Marshall	28.2%

Turnover %

1. Houston	16.8%
2. Memphis	17.3%
3. UAB	19.9%
4. UTEP	20%
5. Rice	20.3%
6. Southern Miss	21.1%
7. Tulane	22.5%
8. UCF	22.7%
9. East Carolina	23.2%
10. Marshall	23.5%
11. Tulsa	23.5%
12. SMU	25.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Marshall	36.1%
2. Memphis	35.3%
3. Tulsa	32%
4. Southern Miss	31.9%
5. UCF	31.3%
6. SMU	30.8%
7. UAB	29.6%
8. UTEP	29.6%
9. Tulane	28.9%
10. Houston	26.7%
11. Rice	26.5%
12. East Carolina	25.9%

Efficiency Margin

1. Memphis	0.29
2. Houston	0.06
3. UCF	0.04
4. UTEP	0.02
5. Tulane	0.02
6. UAB	0
7. Southern Miss	0
8. Tulsa	-0.01
9. Rice	-0.02
10. Marshall	-0.08
11. SMU	-0.11
12. East Carolina	-0.23

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Memphis	0.85
2. UTEP	0.96
3. UAB	0.97
4. Tulsa	0.97
5. Southern Miss	0.98
6. Marshall	0.99
7. Tulane	0.99
8. Houston	1
9. UCF	1.01
10. SMU	1.04
11. Rice	1.05
12. East Carolina	1.08

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Memphis	42.2%
2. Tulane	44%
3. Tulsa	44.5%
4. UAB	44.7%
5. Marshall	45.7%
6. UCF	47%
7. Southern Miss	47.2%
8. UTEP	48.1%
9. East Carolina	50.3%
10. Houston	51.3%
11. Rice	51.6%
12. SMU	52%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Tulsa	40.6%
2. Tulane	41.3%
3. Memphis	41.5%
4. UAB	43.7%
5. Southern Miss	44.3%
6. Marshall	44.5%
7. UTEP	45.4%
8. UCF	46.2%
9. Houston	48.8%
10. East Carolina	49.8%
11. Rice	50.1%
12. SMU	52.6%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Memphis	29.1%
2. UAB	30.8%
3. Marshall	31.8%
4. UCF	32.3%
5. SMU	34%
6. Tulane	34.1%
7. East Carolina	34.1%
8. Southern Miss	34.8%
9. UTEP	35.4%
10. Rice	35.9%
11. Tulsa	36%
12. Houston	37.1%

Turnover % Forced

1. Memphis	25.4%
2. Houston	24.9%
3. UTEP	24.6%
4. Rice	22.3%
5. UCF	20.9%
6. Southern Miss	20.5%
7. Marshall	20.1%
8. East Carolina	19.7%
9. UAB	19.6%
10. SMU	19.6%
11. Tulsa	19%
12. Tulane	18.5%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Southern Miss	79.5%
2. Tulsa	78.6%
3. UTEP	76%
4. Houston	75.8%
5. Tulane	75.8%
6. East Carolina	74.9%
7. SMU	74.1%
8. Rice	73.6%
9. Memphis	72.6%
10. Marshall	71.7%
11. UAB	71%
12. UCF	69.1%

2006 Conference USA Tempo Free Stats

2006 Conference-USA Season. Great Defense or putrid offense?? Hmmmm....



Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Memphis	72.7
2. UAB	70.8
3. Houston	68.5
4. SMU	66.4
5. Rice	66
6. Tulsa	65.7
7. Marshall	65.5
8. Tulane	65.1
9. UCF	64.6
10. East Carolina	63.9
11. Southern Miss	62.8
12. UTEP	62.2

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Memphis	1.11
2. UAB	1.07
3. Houston	0.99
4. UCF	0.99
5. UTEP	0.99
6. Rice	0.98
7. Marshall	0.96
8. Southern Miss	0.94
9. SMU	0.93
10. Tulane	0.91
11. Tulsa	0.91
12. East Carolina	0.9

Effective FG %

1. UAB	51.5%
2. Memphis	50.8%
3. UCF	49.1%
4. UTEP	47.7%
5. Tulsa	47.2%
6. Tulane	47%
7. Houston	46.9%
8. Rice	46.8%
9. Marshall	46.2%
10. SMU	45.5%
11. Southern Miss	44.3%
12. East Carolina	41.8%

2-pt Shooting %

1. UAB	50.2%
2. Memphis	49.8%
3. Tulane	48%
4. UTEP	47.4%
5. Rice	46.4%
6. Marshall	45.7%
7. SMU	44.8%
8. Tulsa	44.7%
9. UCF	44.6%
10. Houston	44.3%
11. Southern Miss	43%
12. East Carolina	42.4%

3-pt Shooting %

1. UCF	38%
2. UAB	35.9%
3. Memphis	35.2%
4. Tulsa	34.8%
5. Houston	33.4%
6. Rice	32.5%
7. Southern Miss	32.3%
8. UTEP	32.2%
9. SMU	31.6%
10. Marshall	31.2%
11. Tulane	29.2%
12. East Carolina	27.4%

Turnover %

1. UAB	17.1%
2. Houston	18.6%
3. Memphis	20.1%
4. UTEP	20.7%
5. Southern Miss	22.1%
6. East Carolina	22.2%
7. Marshall	22.6%
8. Rice	23.2%
9. SMU	23.2%
10. UCF	23.5%
11. Tulsa	25.8%
12. Tulane	27.1%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Memphis	38.4%
2. Marshall	32.1%
3. UCF	32.1%
4. East Carolina	30.7%
5. UTEP	30.4%
6. Tulane	30.3%
7. Rice	30.2%
8. Southern Miss	29.8%
9. Houston	29.5%
10. SMU	29.2%
11. UAB	26.5%
12. Tulsa	24.3%

Efficiency Margin

1. Memphis	0.22
2. UAB	0.12
3. UTEP	0.11
4. Houston	0.07
5. UCF	-0.01
6. SMU	-0.04
7. Rice	-0.05
8. Marshall	-0.07
9. Tulsa	-0.07
10. Tulane	-0.08
11. East Carolina	-0.11
12. Southern Miss	-0.12

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. UTEP	0.88
2. Memphis	0.89
3. Houston	0.92
4. UAB	0.95
5. SMU	0.97
6. Tulsa	0.98
7. Tulane	0.99
8. UCF	1
9. East Carolina	1.01
10. Rice	1.02
11. Marshall	1.03
12. Southern Miss	1.06

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. UTEP	44%
2. Memphis	44.3%
3. Houston	45%
4. Tulsa	45.7%
5. SMU	45.9%
6. Tulane	46.5%
7. UCF	47.5%
8. East Carolina	47.8%
9. UAB	48.6%
10. Marshall	49.6%
11. Rice	50.1%
12. Southern Miss	51%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. UTEP	41.8%
2. Tulane	42.4%
3. SMU	43%
4. Memphis	44.1%
5. Houston	45.2%
6. UAB	45.5%
7. UCF	45.6%
8. Tulsa	46.1%
9. East Carolina	48.4%
10. Marshall	50.2%
11. Southern Miss	50.3%
12. Rice	51.3%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Houston	29.8%
2. Memphis	30%
3. Tulsa	30%
4. East Carolina	31.1%
5. Marshall	32.1%
6. Rice	32.3%
7. UTEP	32.5%
8. UCF	34.2%
9. Southern Miss	34.9%
10. SMU	35.2%
11. UAB	36.2%
12. Tulane	37%

Turnover % Forced

1. UAB	27.8%
2. Houston	27%
3. Memphis	24%
4. Marshall	22.1%
5. Southern Miss	21.3%
6. Rice	21.2%
7. East Carolina	21%
8. UCF	20.6%
9. UTEP	20.2%
10. Tulane	20.1%
11. SMU	19.9%
12. Tulsa	19.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Tulsa	82.4%
2. UTEP	80%
3. UCF	78.1%
4. Southern Miss	78.1%
5. Memphis	74.5%
6. East Carolina	73.4%
7. SMU	73.1%
8. Tulane	73.1%
9. Rice	72.8%
10. Houston	72.3%
11. Marshall	70.6%
12. UAB	63.2%