Feb 28, 2007

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.

Feb 26, 2007

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

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.

Feb 22, 2007

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.

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...)

Feb 20, 2007

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...


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....

Feb 19, 2007

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.


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.


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.

Feb 16, 2007

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.

Feb 14, 2007

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.

Feb 9, 2007

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.

Feb 8, 2007

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. VMI95.9
2. Liberty73.9
3. High Point73.6
4. Radford73.6
5. UNC Asheville70.8
6. Coastal Carolina70.2
7. Charleston Southern69.4
8. Winthrop68.6

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Winthrop1.12
2. Liberty1.08
3. High Point1.08
4. Coastal Carolina1.07
5. VMI1.06
6. UNC Asheville1
7. Radford0.96
8. Charleston Southern0.95

Effective FG %

1. Winthrop57.3%
2. Liberty55.2%
3. High Point53.7%
4. Coastal Carolina51.8%
5. VMI51.1%
6. UNC Asheville50.4%
7. Charleston Southern48.9%
8. Radford48%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Winthrop58.4%
2. Liberty56.1%
3. VMI55.9%
4. High Point54%
5. Coastal Carolina51.6%
6. Charleston Southern49.3%
7. UNC Asheville48.8%
8. Radford48.6%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Winthrop36.8%
2. UNC Asheville36.2%
3. High Point35.4%
4. Coastal Carolina34.8%
5. Liberty34.6%
6. Charleston Southern32%
7. Radford30.8%
8. VMI30.7%

Turnover %

1. VMI17.1%
2. Winthrop20.1%
3. High Point20.5%
4. Coastal Carolina20.9%
5. UNC Asheville22.7%
6. Liberty23.1%
7. Radford23.8%
8. Charleston Southern24.5%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Coastal Carolina35.2%
2. Winthrop32.1%
3. Radford31.7%
4. UNC Asheville31.2%
5. Liberty31%
6. High Point30.2%
7. Charleston Southern29.2%
8. VMI26.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. Winthrop0.22
2. High Point0.09
3. Liberty0.04
4. Coastal Carolina0.01
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. Winthrop0.9
2. High Point1
3. Liberty1.04
4. UNC Asheville1.05
5. Coastal Carolina1.06
6. Radford1.07
7. VMI1.09
8. Charleston Southern1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Winthrop45.7%
2. High Point47%
3. UNC Asheville49.7%
4. Liberty51%
5. Radford53.6%
6. Coastal Carolina53.7%
7. Charleston Southern55.6%
8. VMI58.1%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

2. High Point49.4%
3. Liberty51%
4. UNC Asheville51.6%
5. Coastal Carolina54.3%
6. Radford54.5%
7. Charleston Southern54.5%
8. VMI59.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. High Point28.1%
2. UNC Asheville30.7%
4. Liberty34%
5. Radford34.6%
6. Coastal Carolina35%
7. VMI35.3%
8. Charleston Southern38.3%

Turnover % Forced

1. VMI26.3%
2. Coastal Carolina22.4%
3. Radford21.6%
4. Winthrop20.7%
5. High Point19.9%
6. UNC Asheville19.9%
7. Liberty19.4%
8. Charleston Southern19.3%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Winthrop83.1%
2. Liberty80.4%
3. Radford75.7%
4. UNC Asheville73.6%
5. Charleston Southern73.5%
6. High Point72%
7. Coastal Carolina69.4%
8. VMI65.1%

CAA Tempo Free Stats

For a good CAA blog, check out this

Final 2007 Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Old Dominion66.4
2. Towson64.5
3. VCU64.1
4. Hofstra63.9
5. Delaware63.5
6. UNC Wilmington63.1
7. Northeastern63
8. Georgia State63
9. Drexel62.8
10. William Mary62.5
11. James Madison62
12. George Mason60.8

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. VCU1.2
2. Hofstra1.14
3. Old Dominion1.1
4. Towson1.07
5. Drexel1.03
6. George Mason1.03
7. Northeastern1.02
8. William Mary1.01
9. James Madison0.98
10. Georgia State0.97
11. UNC Wilmington0.96
12. Delaware0.95

Effective FG %

1. VCU54.1%
2. Hofstra53.1%
3. Towson52.2%
4. George Mason51.3%
5. Old Dominion50.6%
6. Northeastern50.5%
7. William Mary50.2%
8. Georgia State49.4%
9. Drexel49.3%
10. James Madison48%
11. Delaware47.3%
12. UNC Wilmington47%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Towson54.9%
2. William Mary51.5%
3. George Mason51.5%
4. Old Dominion49.2%
5. Hofstra49%
6. VCU48.9%
7. Drexel48.6%
8. James Madison48.5%
9. Georgia State47%
10. UNC Wilmington46.9%
11. Delaware45.9%
12. Northeastern45.1%

3-pt Shooting %

1. VCU43.5%
2. Hofstra41.1%
3. Northeastern39.3%
4. Georgia State36.6%
5. Old Dominion35.5%
6. Drexel33.9%
7. George Mason33.8%
8. Delaware33%
9. William Mary32.4%
10. UNC Wilmington31.5%
11. James Madison31.4%
12. Towson31.3%

Turnover %

1. Hofstra15.6%
2. VCU15.9%
3. Old Dominion17.5%
4. Towson17.8%
5. Northeastern18.8%
6. George Mason18.9%
7. Drexel19.7%
8. Delaware20%
9. William Mary20.3%
10. James Madison21.9%
11. UNC Wilmington22.2%
12. Georgia State23.1%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. VCU32.6%
2. Old Dominion30.7%
3. James Madison30.6%
4. UNC Wilmington30.2%
5. George Mason30.1%
6. Georgia State29.6%
7. Hofstra29.3%
8. Drexel28.4%
9. William Mary26.7%
10. Towson26.5%
11. Northeastern24.5%
12. Delaware20.9%

Efficiency Margin

1. Old Dominion0.17
2. VCU0.15
3. Hofstra0.09
4. Drexel0.08
5. George Mason0.08
6. Towson0.02
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 Dominion0.93
2. Drexel0.95
3. George Mason0.95
4. Northeastern1.04
5. VCU1.05
6. Hofstra1.05
7. William Mary1.05
8. Towson1.06
9. UNC Wilmington1.06
10. Georgia State1.09
11. James Madison1.12
12. Delaware1.14

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Old Dominion44.5%
2. Drexel45.4%
3. George Mason46.7%
4. Hofstra48.2%
5. Northeastern50.1%
6. UNC Wilmington50.1%
7. Towson50.9%
8. William Mary51.2%
9. Georgia State51.9%
10. VCU52.1%
11. Delaware55.7%
12. James Madison57.9%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Old Dominion41.4%
2. Drexel42.8%
3. George Mason44.8%
4. Hofstra48.3%
5. Northeastern49.9%
6. VCU50.2%
7. Towson50.5%
8. UNC Wilmington50.5%
9. William Mary50.6%
10. Georgia State51.4%
11. James Madison54.4%
12. Delaware54.8%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Hofstra32.1%
2. UNC Wilmington32.9%
3. George Mason33.1%
4. Northeastern33.7%
5. Old Dominion33.8%
6. Towson34.4%
7. Drexel34.6%
8. William Mary34.8%
9. Georgia State35.3%
10. VCU37.2%
11. Delaware38.4%
12. James Madison41.8%

Turnover % Forced

1. VCU21.9%
2. Old Dominion21.9%
3. Drexel21.2%
4. James Madison20.9%
5. George Mason19.7%
6. Towson19.1%
7. William Mary18.9%
8. Northeastern18.8%
9. Georgia State17.6%
10. Hofstra17.5%
11. Delaware17.2%
12. UNC Wilmington16.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. UNC Wilmington82.6%
2. Old Dominion78.8%
3. Towson77.5%
4. VCU76.6%
5. William Mary76.4%
6. James Madison76.3%
7. Drexel75.6%
8. George Mason75.6%
9. Delaware75.3%
10. Hofstra75%
11. Northeastern72.6%
12. Georgia State71.1%

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.

Feb 6, 2007

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

Feb 1, 2007

Conference USA Tempo Free Stats

Stats through 2/25/07

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. UTEP73
2. Tulane70.5
3. Memphis68.4
4. Houston67.6
5. Southern Miss67.5
6. Marshall67.3
7. Rice66.6
8. Tulsa66.2
9. UAB64.1
10. East Carolina64
11. UCF63.4
12. SMU63.3

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Memphis1.15
2. Houston1.06
3. UCF1.05
4. Rice1.02
5. Tulane1.01
6. UTEP0.99
7. Southern Miss0.98
8. UAB0.97
9. Tulsa0.96
10. SMU0.93
11. Marshall0.92
12. East Carolina0.85

Effective FG %

1. Memphis53.2%
2. UCF51%
3. Rice50.3%
4. Tulane49.5%
5. Houston49%
6. UAB47.3%
7. SMU46.4%
8. UTEP46.1%
9. Southern Miss45.1%
10. Tulsa44.3%
11. East Carolina43.3%
12. Marshall42%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Memphis51%
2. UAB49.8%
3. UCF49.4%
4. Rice48.2%
5. Houston47.8%
6. Tulane47.2%
7. UTEP44.2%
8. Southern Miss43.4%
9. SMU42.9%
10. Marshall41.8%
11. East Carolina40.2%
12. Tulsa39.8%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Memphis38.2%
2. Tulane37.9%
3. Rice36.9%
4. UCF35.8%
5. Tulsa35%
6. SMU34.1%
7. Southern Miss33.5%
8. Houston33.4%
9. UTEP33.3%
10. East Carolina32.2%
11. UAB29.3%
12. Marshall28.2%

Turnover %

1. Houston16.8%
2. Memphis17.3%
3. UAB19.9%
4. UTEP20%
5. Rice20.3%
6. Southern Miss21.1%
7. Tulane22.5%
8. UCF22.7%
9. East Carolina23.2%
10. Marshall23.5%
11. Tulsa23.5%
12. SMU25.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Marshall36.1%
2. Memphis35.3%
3. Tulsa32%
4. Southern Miss31.9%
5. UCF31.3%
6. SMU30.8%
7. UAB29.6%
8. UTEP29.6%
9. Tulane28.9%
10. Houston26.7%
11. Rice26.5%
12. East Carolina25.9%

Efficiency Margin

1. Memphis0.29
2. Houston0.06
3. UCF0.04
4. UTEP0.02
5. Tulane0.02
6. UAB0
7. Southern Miss0
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. Memphis0.85
2. UTEP0.96
3. UAB0.97
4. Tulsa0.97
5. Southern Miss0.98
6. Marshall0.99
7. Tulane0.99
8. Houston1
9. UCF1.01
10. SMU1.04
11. Rice1.05
12. East Carolina1.08

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Memphis42.2%
2. Tulane44%
3. Tulsa44.5%
4. UAB44.7%
5. Marshall45.7%
6. UCF47%
7. Southern Miss47.2%
8. UTEP48.1%
9. East Carolina50.3%
10. Houston51.3%
11. Rice51.6%
12. SMU52%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Tulsa40.6%
2. Tulane41.3%
3. Memphis41.5%
4. UAB43.7%
5. Southern Miss44.3%
6. Marshall44.5%
7. UTEP45.4%
8. UCF46.2%
9. Houston48.8%
10. East Carolina49.8%
11. Rice50.1%
12. SMU52.6%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Memphis29.1%
2. UAB30.8%
3. Marshall31.8%
4. UCF32.3%
5. SMU34%
6. Tulane34.1%
7. East Carolina34.1%
8. Southern Miss34.8%
9. UTEP35.4%
10. Rice35.9%
11. Tulsa36%
12. Houston37.1%

Turnover % Forced

1. Memphis25.4%
2. Houston24.9%
3. UTEP24.6%
4. Rice22.3%
5. UCF20.9%
6. Southern Miss20.5%
7. Marshall20.1%
8. East Carolina19.7%
9. UAB19.6%
10. SMU19.6%
11. Tulsa19%
12. Tulane18.5%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Southern Miss79.5%
2. Tulsa78.6%
3. UTEP76%
4. Houston75.8%
5. Tulane75.8%
6. East Carolina74.9%
7. SMU74.1%
8. Rice73.6%
9. Memphis72.6%
10. Marshall71.7%
11. UAB71%
12. UCF69.1%

2006 Conference USA Tempo Free Stats

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

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Memphis72.7
2. UAB70.8
3. Houston68.5
4. SMU66.4
5. Rice66
6. Tulsa65.7
7. Marshall65.5
8. Tulane65.1
9. UCF64.6
10. East Carolina63.9
11. Southern Miss62.8
12. UTEP62.2

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Memphis1.11
2. UAB1.07
3. Houston0.99
4. UCF0.99
5. UTEP0.99
6. Rice0.98
7. Marshall0.96
8. Southern Miss0.94
9. SMU0.93
10. Tulane0.91
11. Tulsa0.91
12. East Carolina0.9

Effective FG %

1. UAB51.5%
2. Memphis50.8%
3. UCF49.1%
4. UTEP47.7%
5. Tulsa47.2%
6. Tulane47%
7. Houston46.9%
8. Rice46.8%
9. Marshall46.2%
10. SMU45.5%
11. Southern Miss44.3%
12. East Carolina41.8%

2-pt Shooting %

1. UAB50.2%
2. Memphis49.8%
3. Tulane48%
4. UTEP47.4%
5. Rice46.4%
6. Marshall45.7%
7. SMU44.8%
8. Tulsa44.7%
9. UCF44.6%
10. Houston44.3%
11. Southern Miss43%
12. East Carolina42.4%

3-pt Shooting %

1. UCF38%
2. UAB35.9%
3. Memphis35.2%
4. Tulsa34.8%
5. Houston33.4%
6. Rice32.5%
7. Southern Miss32.3%
8. UTEP32.2%
9. SMU31.6%
10. Marshall31.2%
11. Tulane29.2%
12. East Carolina27.4%

Turnover %

1. UAB17.1%
2. Houston18.6%
3. Memphis20.1%
4. UTEP20.7%
5. Southern Miss22.1%
6. East Carolina22.2%
7. Marshall22.6%
8. Rice23.2%
9. SMU23.2%
10. UCF23.5%
11. Tulsa25.8%
12. Tulane27.1%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Memphis38.4%
2. Marshall32.1%
3. UCF32.1%
4. East Carolina30.7%
5. UTEP30.4%
6. Tulane30.3%
7. Rice30.2%
8. Southern Miss29.8%
9. Houston29.5%
10. SMU29.2%
11. UAB26.5%
12. Tulsa24.3%

Efficiency Margin

1. Memphis0.22
2. UAB0.12
3. UTEP0.11
4. Houston0.07
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. UTEP0.88
2. Memphis0.89
3. Houston0.92
4. UAB0.95
5. SMU0.97
6. Tulsa0.98
7. Tulane0.99
8. UCF1
9. East Carolina1.01
10. Rice1.02
11. Marshall1.03
12. Southern Miss1.06

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. UTEP44%
2. Memphis44.3%
3. Houston45%
4. Tulsa45.7%
5. SMU45.9%
6. Tulane46.5%
7. UCF47.5%
8. East Carolina47.8%
9. UAB48.6%
10. Marshall49.6%
11. Rice50.1%
12. Southern Miss51%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. UTEP41.8%
2. Tulane42.4%
3. SMU43%
4. Memphis44.1%
5. Houston45.2%
6. UAB45.5%
7. UCF45.6%
8. Tulsa46.1%
9. East Carolina48.4%
10. Marshall50.2%
11. Southern Miss50.3%
12. Rice51.3%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Houston29.8%
2. Memphis30%
3. Tulsa30%
4. East Carolina31.1%
5. Marshall32.1%
6. Rice32.3%
7. UTEP32.5%
8. UCF34.2%
9. Southern Miss34.9%
10. SMU35.2%
11. UAB36.2%
12. Tulane37%

Turnover % Forced

1. UAB27.8%
2. Houston27%
3. Memphis24%
4. Marshall22.1%
5. Southern Miss21.3%
6. Rice21.2%
7. East Carolina21%
8. UCF20.6%
9. UTEP20.2%
10. Tulane20.1%
11. SMU19.9%
12. Tulsa19.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Tulsa82.4%
2. UTEP80%
3. UCF78.1%
4. Southern Miss78.1%
5. Memphis74.5%
6. East Carolina73.4%
7. SMU73.1%
8. Tulane73.1%
9. Rice72.8%
10. Houston72.3%
11. Marshall70.6%
12. UAB63.2%