Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have Ourselves a Battle

Perusing around, Bearcats bball blog noted another insanity of tempo free bran flakes:

A 122 possession masterpiece.

Take that VMI.
The battle for tempo supremecy is on.

A Fresh Slate With a Familiar Ally

It's November. There's snow falling at football games.
It's time for delicious match-ups like Virginia Military Institute vs. Kentucky

VMI has always been a favorite here at TFS.

So, it comes as no surprise that they would put up this nugget to start off the season and shock the Wildcat faithful:

VMI 111 - Kentucky 103
93 possession game
Wildcats turned it over on over 26% of their possessions in this track meet.

If this is any indication of the season to come, I think we're in for a good year.

Planting the NCAA Seeds

*This is a post I worked up last year and now I've updated with the 2007 numbers. It's just a helpful guide to see what it takes, flat-out numbers-wise to produce a Final Four team and eventual champion. Picking that random 5-12 upset may score you bonus points, but you'll never be in contention unless you've got the champion, finalists and final four nailed down. *

This takes the stats off of kenpom.com and gives us the basic tempo-free breakdowns of the past 4 tournaments' teams. Obviously, as with all stats, this is isn't anywhere near the end-all be-all, just another tool in the shed to use in trying to fill out that pesky bracket better than your 10 year old neighbor kid.

The first two tables are averages for the 4 years, with the data for each year just below those tables. The first one showcases all Final Four teams and their averages. The second just looks at the top 3 seeds, to get some type of idea of what characteristics a pretender, or contender holds in the top 3 seed lines. The goal always is to get the most teams in your bracket to the final four. Hopefully, this gives a little insight as to what to look for in the "better" and "overrated" top 3 seeded teams this year.

Finalists in Bold. Champions in italics.

(Bonus statistical note: The averages are straight averages, not averages off of the raw numbers. So keep that in mind. It may render these averages completely useless. Maybe not.)

Pos: Possessions/40 minutes
Oeff: Offensive Efficiency. Points-per-possession
Deff: Defensive Efficiency.
Margin: Oeff - Deff
Efg: Effective field goal shooting percentage
TO: Turnover rate (turnovers per 100 possessions)
Oreb: Offensive rebounding rate (offensive rebounds per rebound opportunity)
Defg: Effective FG % allowed
Dto: Turnover rate forced
Doreb: Offensive rebounding % allowed


All Final Four Teams

		Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
		67	1.19	0.87	0.32	55%	20%	36%	46%	46%	22%	30%

Averages for the Top 3 seeds based on their finish (Ex: Final 4 - Averages for all Top 3 seeds that made the final four)

	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
Final 4	66.9	1.21	0.87	0.34	55%	20%	36%	45%	45%	22%	31%
Finalists	67.7	1.2	0.86	0.33	55%	20%	36%	45%	45%	22%	30%
Champions	69.7	1.23	0.87	0.36	56%	20%	38%	45%	45%	20%	30%
Didn't make Final 4	67.9	1.17	0.9	0.27	53%	19%	37%	46%	46%	21%	31%

Seed	2007	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
1	Florida	66.8	1.25	0.87	0.38	60%	21%	38%	45%	45%	19%	28%
1	North Carolina	73.1	1.24	0.86	0.38	54%	18%	40%	47%	47%	21%	30%
1	Kansas	70	1.18	0.82	0.36	55%	20%	38%	43%	43%	24%	30%
1	Ohio St.	65.4	1.24	0.88	0.36	54%	17%	35%	47%	47%	20%	31%
2	Wisconsin	64.4	1.17	0.86	0.31	52%	17%	35%	46%	46%	22%	29%
2	UCLA	64.3	1.17	0.84	0.33	54%	18%	33%	48%	48%	23%	30%
2	Memphis	69.1	1.17	0.87	0.3	52%	18%	40%	44%	44%	24%	32%
2	Georgetown	59.9	1.25	0.89	0.36	57%	22%	40%	44%	44%	19%	34%
3	Oregon	66.9	1.2	0.93	0.27	53%	18%	35%	49%	49%	22%	33%
3	Pittsburgh	63.4	1.18	0.9	0.28	53%	18%	37%	46%	46%	19%	32%
3	Washington St.	60.7	1.13	0.89	0.23	52%	16%	27%	46%	46%	22%	32%
3	Texas A&M	65	1.2	0.87	0.34	56%	18%	34%	43%	43%	22%	30%
Final 4	Florida	66.8	1.25	0.87	0.38	60%	21%	38%	45%	45%	19%	28%
Final 4	UCLA	64.3	1.17	0.84	0.33	54%	18%	33%	48%	48%	23%	30%
Final 4	Georgetown	59.9	1.25	0.89	0.36	57%	22%	40%	44%	44%	19%	34%
Final 4	Ohio St.	65.4	1.24	0.88	0.36	54%	17%	35%	47%	47%	20%	31%

2006

Seed	2006	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
1	Villanova	67.2	1.16	0.89	0.27	49%	17%	36%	47%	47%	23%	31%
1	Connecticut	71.5	1.19	0.89	0.3	52%	20%	42%	43%	43%	18%	31%
1	Duke	72.2	1.18	0.89	0.29	56%	19%	29%	46%	46%	22%	37%
1	Memphis	72.5	1.12	0.87	0.25	51%	21%	41%	43%	43%	23%	30%
2	Texas	65.8	1.18	0.88	0.31	53%	20%	41%	44%	44%	21%	26%
2	Tennessee	72.8	1.17	0.95	0.22	54%	18%	30%	53%	53%	24%	33%
2	UCLA	63.4	1.12	0.84	0.28	53%	22%	36%	46%	46%	22%	29%
2	Georgetown	59.4	1.16	0.92	0.24	53%	19%	35%	48%	48%	20%	29%
3	Iowa	66.5	1.04	0.83	0.2	49%	22%	31%	44%	44%	21%	28%
3	Gonzaga	68.6	1.19	1.01	0.18	52%	18%	34%	49%	49%	18%	31%
3	North Carolina	72.6	1.16	0.9	0.26	54%	23%	40%	46%	46%	21%	29%
3	Florida	68.6	1.19	0.87	0.32	57%	21%	35%	45%	45%	22%	31%
Final 4	Florida	68.6	1.19	0.87	0.32	57%	21%	35%	45%	45%	22%	31%
Final 4	George Mason	64.3	1.09	0.9	0.19	54%	20%	30%	44%	44%	20%	30%
Final 4	UCLA	63.4	1.12	0.84	0.28	53%	22%	36%	46%	46%	22%	29%
Final 4	Louisiana St.	69.4	1.09	0.85	0.24	50%	22%	38%	46%	46%	21%	29%

2005

Seed	2005	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
1	Illinois	64.9	1.23	0.88	0.35	56%	17%	34%	47%	47%	22%	29%
1	Washington	72.9	1.21	0.95	0.26	54%	19%	40%	51%	51%	24%	34%
1	North Carolina	73.7	1.26	0.88	0.38	56%	21%	39%	46%	46%	23%	30%
1	Duke	68.8	1.16	0.86	0.3	52%	19%	37%	42%	42%	22%	35%
2	Oklahoma St.	67.2	1.23	0.94	0.29	56%	20%	35%	50%	50%	22%	29%
2	Wake Forest	70	1.25	0.96	0.29	56%	20%	40%	50%	50%	20%	30%
2	Connecticut	71.7	1.13	0.88	0.25	50%	21%	42%	43%	43%	17%	28%
2	Kentucky	67.2	1.14	0.88	0.26	52%	19%	35%	47%	47%	26%	32%
3	Arizona	69.1	1.2	0.89	0.31	53%	21%	40%	49%	49%	23%	32%
3	Gonzaga	68.2	1.18	0.99	0.19	55%	19%	38%	49%	49%	18%	28%
3	Kansas	67.1	1.17	0.91	0.26	53%	21%	35%	44%	44%	20%	31%
3	Oklahoma	66.8	1.15	0.89	0.26	53%	20%	38%	47%	47%	23%	30%
Final 4	Illinois	64.9	1.23	0.88	0.35	56%	17%	34%	47%	47%	22%	29%
Final 4	Louisville	67.8	1.21	0.9	0.31	55%	20%	37%	45%	45%	23%	30%
Final 4	North Carolina	73.7	1.26	0.88	0.38	56%	21%	39%	46%	46%	23%	30%
Final 4	Michigan St.	67.7	1.21	0.92	0.29	55%	20%	38%	49%	49%	22%	27%

2004

Seed	2004	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
1	St. Joseph's	68	1.18	0.88	0.31	56%	17%	28%	44%	44%	24%	35%
1	Kentucky	68.3	1.16	0.88	0.28	53%	21%	36%	46%	46%	23%	29%
1	Duke	69.8	1.24	0.85	0.38	53%	19%	38%	45%	45%	24%	35%
1	Stanford	66.4	1.11	0.86	0.26	53%	21%	37%	44%	44%	21%	27%
2	Oklahoma St.	66	1.2	0.88	0.33	56%	20%	36%	46%	46%	22%	30%
2	Gonzaga	68.2	1.19	0.92	0.27	57%	19%	37%	44%	44%	18%	28%
2	Mississippi St.	70.5	1.15	0.89	0.26	52%	21%	40%	47%	47%	23%	30%
2	Connecticut	69.6	1.2	0.85	0.35	53%	19%	41%	42%	42%	17%	29%
3	Pittsburgh	61.7	1.12	0.84	0.28	51%	19%	39%	43%	43%	20%	33%
3	Georgia Tech	70.2	1.14	0.85	0.29	53%	21%	31%	44%	44%	27%	34%
3	Texas	66.4	1.17	0.9	0.27	50%	17%	42%	45%	45%	20%	30%
3	North Carolina St.	63.7	1.22	0.92	0.3	53%	20%	31%	47%	47%	22%	32%
Final 4	Oklahoma St.	66	1.2	0.88	0.33	56%	20%	36%	46%	46%	22%	30%
Final 4	Georgia Tech	70.2	1.14	0.85	0.29	53%	21%	31%	44%	44%	27%	34%
Final 4	Duke	69.8	1.24	0.85	0.38	53%	19%	38%	45%	45%	24%	35%
Final 4	Connecticut	69.6	1.2	0.85	0.35	53%	19%	41%	42%	42%	17%	29%

It's been a strange year

Obviously, as you can tell, I haven't been able to stay with this site that much this season for a variety of reasons. I'm going to do a final update tomorrow of the conference stats for 2008.

The best time of the year is just beginning...

Pac 10 Statistical Variation Snapsot

Well, a bunch of numbers were sitting in front of me, so I felt it was time to do some miscellaneous analysis. Below is just a brief snapshot of each team's best and worst stat based on their variation from the average of the conference.

Pac-10 games through 2/18

Arizona
Hits the 3, but they don't pull in their misses. Probably due to their high percentage of shots that are 3's (35%)

Best - 3-pt%. Shooting 40.4%, above the 34.7% average
Worst - Offensive rebounding. Pulling in only 23.9% of their misses vs. 30.7% average.

Arizona St.
Not much variance from the means, but a few telling signs for the Sun Devils.

Best - Forces their opponents to turnover the ball on 20.3% of their possessions vs. the avg of 18.7%
Worst - Offensive rebounding. 25.3% VS. 30.7% average.

Cal
Not much to look at this club. Had to dig for the "best" stat. There were plenty of "worst" stats to look at

Best - 1.09 PPP vs. 1.046 conference average. Yeah, like I said, nothing eye-popping
Worst - Only forcing turnovers on 15.8% of their opponent's possessions vs. conference average of 18.7%. Hence a 1.13 PPP average for their opponents.

Oregon
A snapshot of a team that has significantly dropped from last year.

Best - Shooting 54.3% efg vs. 49.8% average. (better than last year)
Worst - Not forcing turnovers. 15.3% of opponents possessions end in turnovers. Forced 19.7% last year.

Oregon St.
Not much to be proud of this season. Had to really scrape to find a "best"

Best - 17.3% turnover average is at least below the conference average of 18.7%
Worst - Well, the most off-the-mean stat posted, was that of the Beavers' .9 PPP average, vs. the 1.046 average, which during an average 64 possession game works out to 10 points below the average.

Stanford
Defense is the name of the game for this squad in 2008, making up for their sub-par shooting.

Best - 42% efg average allowed, vs. the conference 49.8% average.
Worst - 45.9% efg shooting on the offensive end, vs. the conference average of 49.8%.

UCLA
Beast of the Pac10, balance is what drives the Bruins as their variance on both ends isn't as large as Stanford's.

Best - They grab over 78% of their opponents' misses vs. the average of 69.3%. Second chances, beware!
Worst - As has been documented over at Kenpom.com, opponent 3-pt shooting tends more towards the mean, but their average of 36.5% given up vs. the 34.7% conference avg. is the largest "bad" difference from any average.

USC
If they get a shot off, it goes in more than often. Highlight that "if"

Best - They shoot 56.4% on their 2's, vs. the average of 48.8% conference-wide
Worst - 22.2% of their possessions result in turnovers. This versus the conference average of 18.7%


Washington
Even the Appleby shooting machine can't help their average, but they pull in their misses.

Best - Rebounds 38.1% of their misses vs. 30.7% average. They're helped by only lofting up 26.8% of their shots from beyond the arc
Worst - Only hitting 31.3% of their 3's vs. 34.7% average. Good thing they don't shoot as many.


Washington St.
Bennett has this team dialed into a protective offense and a swarming defense.

Best - Only 16% of their possessions end in turnovers.
Worst - They force their opponents into a turnover 21.8% of the time vs. the 18.7% average.

Don't Turn the Ball over and Look What Happens!

Rutgers 63     West Virginia 81

Just wanted to highlight this bubble game (for WVA) for an example of how a team can manage to shoot 8 percentage points worse than your opposition yet still come out ahead by 18 points.

This medium-paced (sorry for the Sandler reference) contest of 67 possessions saw The Mountaineers post a 1.205 PPP average vs. Rutgers' .937 average. How did they do that when WVA shot only 47% and The Scarlet Knights shot 55%?
West Virginia turned the ball over a paltry 4 times in the game compared to Rutgers' 17 times for a respective 6% to 25% turnover average! Heck, I'll gladly shoot 47% if I know that I'm getting a shot off on 94% of the possessions.
Couple that with Rutgers only grabbing 17% of their misses and you have yourself a rout.

Bonus note: Rutgers shot 44% on 16 three-point attempts

Thursday Night Beast Action

UCLA 67     Washington St. 59

The Bruins continued their march as the definitive beast of the Pac10 with a big win in Pullman tonight while the Cougs continued their downward spiral in the table thanks to a balanced and efficient night from Kevin Love and to an offensive rebounding clinic put on by the entire UCLA team.
This 62 possession game saw UCLA post a 1.09 PPP average vs. Wazzu's sub-par .96. UCLA made up for a poor 25% 3pt shooting night by grabbing over 52% of their total misses and by holding Wazzu to a measly 20% offensive rebounding average.
The game was essentially a draw for 35 minutes until UCLA broke out and climbed to a 9 point lead with just over 3 to go thanks to a two minute span of 3 turnovers and only one attempted (and missed) shot over the course of those 2 minutes for Wazzu.

This game essentially was a snapshot of what UCLA has done all season. Rebound the heck out of you, lock down on D and shoot just well enough to finish off a game.

Numbers

Fixed. 2/6/08

2008 ACC Tempo-Free Stats

**UPDATE*** Thank you Struttin' Wolf for the notices. I found that the macro running the ACC was only sorting and pulling in 10 teams, not the 12. That has been fixed and updated. As I said previously, any tips on data that looks fishy is appreciated as I simply run the macros off of the data from the conference sites, but there's always the possibility that a number gets mis-sorted
***

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Duke	76.1
2. North Carolina	75.6
3. Georgia Tech	72.7
4. Maryland	72.3
5. Wake Forest	72.2
6. Virginia Tech	72.1
7. Miami	69.8
8. Virginia	69.6
9. Boston College	69.6
10. Clemson	68.8
11. Florida State	68.3
12. NC State	67.9

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Duke	1.13
2. North Carolina	1.12
3. Clemson	1.08
4. Maryland	1.05
5. Georgia Tech	1.05
6. Miami	1.05
7. Boston College	1.03
8. Wake Forest	1.03
9. Virginia	0.99
10. NC State	0.99
11. Virginia Tech	0.97
12. Florida State	0.97

Effective FG %

1. Duke	54%
2. Georgia Tech	53.1%
3. Maryland	52.5%
4. Boston College	51.2%
5. Clemson	51.2%
6. NC State	51.1%
7. Wake Forest	50.9%
8. North Carolina	50.7%
9. Miami	48.2%
10. Florida State	48%
11. Virginia	46.6%
12. Virginia Tech	45.6%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Georgia Tech	53.4%
2. Duke	52.7%
3. Maryland	51.4%
4. Wake Forest	50.1%
5. North Carolina	49.6%
6. Clemson	48.6%
7. Boston College	48.1%
8. NC State	48%
9. Virginia Tech	47%
10. Florida State	46.9%
11. Miami	46.6%
12. Virginia	45.1%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Boston College	39%
2. NC State	38.4%
3. Clemson	37.7%
4. Duke	37.2%
5. Maryland	37.1%
6. North Carolina	36.4%
7. Georgia Tech	35%
8. Wake Forest	35%
9. Miami	34.6%
10. Florida State	33.2%
11. Virginia	32.8%
12. Virginia Tech	27.9%

Turnover %

1. Virginia	17.7%
2. Duke	18.1%
3. Clemson	18.8%
4. North Carolina	20%
5. Wake Forest	20%
6. Miami	20.3%
7. Boston College	20.6%
8. Maryland	21.3%
9. Virginia Tech	21.6%
10. Georgia Tech	21.9%
11. Florida State	22.3%
12. NC State	24%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. North Carolina	39.7%
2. Clemson	36.7%
3. Miami	34.2%
4. Virginia Tech	31%
5. Wake Forest	30.6%
6. Georgia Tech	30.5%
7. Duke	30.4%
8. Florida State	29.2%
9. Maryland	29.2%
10. Boston College	28.4%
11. Virginia	28.3%
12. NC State	27.8%

Efficiency Margin

1. North Carolina	0.15
2. Duke	0.14
3. Clemson	0.08
4. Maryland	0.01
5. Georgia Tech	-0.01
6. Virginia Tech	-0.02
7. Miami	-0.02
8. Wake Forest	-0.02
9. Boston College	-0.05
10. Virginia	-0.07
11. Florida State	-0.07
12. NC State	-0.14

Defensive Stats



Points per possession Allowed

1. North Carolina	0.97
2. Virginia Tech	0.99
3. Duke	0.99
4. Clemson	1
5. Florida State	1.04
6. Maryland	1.04
7. Wake Forest	1.04
8. Virginia	1.06
9. Georgia Tech	1.07
10. Miami	1.07
11. Boston College	1.08
12. NC State	1.12

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland	47.5%
2. Clemson	48.2%
3. North Carolina	48.4%
4. Boston College	49.1%
5. Virginia Tech	49.4%
6. Duke	50.6%
7. Miami	50.6%
8. Florida State	51.1%
9. Georgia Tech	51.1%
10. Wake Forest	51.6%
11. NC State	52.9%
12. Virginia	53%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland	45.1%
2. Miami	46.2%
3. Virginia Tech	46.8%
4. Florida State	47.9%
5. North Carolina	48.1%
6. Clemson	49%
7. Boston College	49.7%
8. NC State	50.3%
9. Wake Forest	50.4%
10. Virginia	51%
11. Duke	51.2%
12. Georgia Tech	52.1%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Clemson	30.7%
2. Boston College	31.9%
3. Duke	32.2%
4. North Carolina	32.6%
5. Georgia Tech	32.7%
6. Maryland	35.3%
7. Wake Forest	36.1%
8. Virginia Tech	36.5%
9. Virginia	37.4%
10. Florida State	37.9%
11. Miami	39.1%
12. NC State	40.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. NC State	24%
2. Florida State	22.3%
3. Georgia Tech	21.9%
4. Virginia Tech	21.6%
5. Maryland	21.3%
6. Boston College	20.6%
7. Miami	20.3%
8. North Carolina	20%
9. Wake Forest	20%
10. Clemson	18.8%
11. Duke	18.1%
12. Virginia	17.7%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Virginia Tech	78%
2. Virginia	77.7%
3. North Carolina	76.8%
4. Duke	73.7%
5. Maryland	73.4%
6. Wake Forest	72.8%
7. Miami	70.7%
8. Florida State	70.2%
9. Georgia Tech	69.2%
10. NC State	68.4%
11. Boston College	68%
12. Clemson	66.2%

2008 SEC Tempo-Free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats


Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Tennessee	72.2
2. Ole Miss	69.4
3. Alabama	69.3
4. Arkansas	69.1
5. Florida	69
6. Vanderbilt	68.5
7. Auburn	68.3
8. Georgia	67.7
9. Mississippi State	66.7
10. LSU	66
11. South Carolina	64
12. Kentucky	63.1

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Florida	1.11
2. Tennessee	1.11
3. Auburn	1.08
4. Mississippi State	1.05
5. Vanderbilt	1.05
6. South Carolina	1.04
7. Ole Miss	1.03
8. Arkansas	1.02
9. Kentucky	1.01
10. Alabama	1.01
11. LSU	0.98
12. Georgia	0.96

Effective FG %

1. Mississippi State	54.1%
2. Florida	53.3%
3. Auburn	51.7%
4. Vanderbilt	51.5%
5. Tennessee	51.2%
6. Arkansas	50.3%
7. Kentucky	50.2%
8. South Carolina	49.6%
9. Alabama	48.9%
10. Ole Miss	47.2%
11. LSU	45.7%
12. Georgia	45.3%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Florida	55.6%
2. Mississippi State	54.6%
3. Auburn	50.5%
4. Vanderbilt	50.2%
5. Alabama	49.5%
6. South Carolina	49%
7. Arkansas	48.9%
8. Kentucky	48.8%
9. Tennessee	48.5%
10. LSU	46.2%
11. Georgia	45.4%
12. Ole Miss	45.3%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Tennessee	37.1%
2. Kentucky	35.7%
3. Vanderbilt	35.6%
4. Auburn	35.6%
5. Mississippi State	35.5%
6. Arkansas	35.3%
7. Ole Miss	34.1%
8. South Carolina	33.6%
9. Florida	33%
10. Alabama	31.8%
11. Georgia	30%
12. LSU	29.8%

Turnover %

1. South Carolina	15.5%
2. Auburn	17.9%
3. Ole Miss	18.3%
4. Vanderbilt	18.4%
5. Tennessee	18.5%
6. Florida	18.8%
7. Alabama	19.1%
8. LSU	19.2%
9. Georgia	20.6%
10. Arkansas	20.7%
11. Kentucky	22.9%
12. Mississippi State	23.3%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Ole Miss	36.7%
2. Tennessee	35.2%
3. Mississippi State	33.1%
4. Georgia	32.5%
5. Arkansas	32%
6. Florida	31.8%
7. LSU	31.7%
8. Alabama	30.9%
9. Kentucky	30.5%
10. Auburn	29.1%
11. South Carolina	28.3%
12. Vanderbilt	26.3%

Efficiency Margin

1. Tennessee	0.14
2. Mississippi State	0.09
3. Arkansas	0.05
4. Vanderbilt	0.04
5. Florida	0.03
6. Kentucky	0
7. Alabama	-0.03
8. Ole Miss	-0.05
9. Georgia	-0.06
10. South Carolina	-0.07
11. Auburn	-0.08
12. LSU	-0.08

Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. Mississippi State	0.96
2. Tennessee	0.97
3. Arkansas	0.98
4. Kentucky	1.01
5. Vanderbilt	1.01
6. Georgia	1.02
7. Alabama	1.04
8. LSU	1.06
9. Florida	1.08
10. Ole Miss	1.09
11. South Carolina	1.11
12. Auburn	1.16

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Mississippi State	41.3%
2. Arkansas	45.5%
3. Kentucky	46.3%
4. Tennessee	47.8%
5. Vanderbilt	47.9%
6. LSU	50.6%
7. Alabama	50.7%
8. Ole Miss	51.7%
9. Georgia	52.3%
10. Florida	53.2%
11. South Carolina	53.3%
12. Auburn	58.6%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Mississippi State	39.6%
2. Kentucky	44.5%
3. Arkansas	44.8%
4. Vanderbilt	47.3%
5. LSU	47.9%
6. Alabama	48.2%
7. Ole Miss	50.2%
8. Tennessee	50.4%
9. South Carolina	52.8%
10. Florida	53%
11. Georgia	55.1%
12. Auburn	59%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Tennessee	28.7%
2. Mississippi State	29.8%
3. Arkansas	31.2%
4. Georgia	31.7%
5. Vanderbilt	32.7%
6. Kentucky	33.1%
7. Florida	35.7%
8. South Carolina	36%
9. Ole Miss	36.1%
10. Alabama	36.2%
11. LSU	37.3%
12. Auburn	38.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. Tennessee	23.1%
2. South Carolina	22.2%
3. Alabama	21.1%
4. Auburn	21%
5. Arkansas	19.6%
6. Florida	19.3%
7. Vanderbilt	18.7%
8. LSU	18.5%
9. Kentucky	18.4%
10. Georgia	17.7%
11. Ole Miss	17.2%
12. Mississippi State	16%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Georgia	79.7%
2. Tennessee	76.4%
3. Alabama	74%
4. Ole Miss	73.5%
5. Florida	72.1%
6. Kentucky	72.1%
7. Arkansas	71.5%
8. Vanderbilt	70.6%
9. LSU	70.4%
10. Auburn	69.7%
11. Mississippi State	68.4%
12. South Carolina	62.2%

2008 Big 12 Tempo-Free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Baylor	71.9
2. Kansas State	70.5
3. Missouri	70.3
4. Texas Tech	69.3
5. Kansas	69.1
6. Iowa State	67.7
7. Oklahoma State	64.9
8. Texas	64.6
9. Nebraska	64.3
10. Oklahoma	63.5
11. Texas A&M	63.4
12. Colorado	60.7

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Kansas	1.13
2. Kansas State	1.11
3. Texas	1.1
4. Baylor	1.08
5. Texas A&M	1.05
6. Missouri	1.02
7. Oklahoma State	1.02
8. Oklahoma	1
9. Texas Tech	0.99
10. Colorado	0.97
11. Nebraska	0.97
12. Iowa State	0.91

Effective FG %

1. Kansas	53.1%
2. Colorado	50.7%
3. Missouri	50.6%
4. Kansas State	50.5%
5. Oklahoma State	50.4%
6. Baylor	49.9%
7. Texas A&M	49.4%
8. Texas Tech	48.2%
9. Texas	47.8%
10. Nebraska	47.3%
11. Oklahoma	46.5%
12. Iowa State	45%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Kansas	52.1%
2. Missouri	50.7%
3. Colorado	49.6%
4. Kansas State	49%
5. Texas A&M	48.9%
6. Oklahoma State	47.8%
7. Nebraska	47.1%
8. Baylor	46.5%
9. Texas Tech	45.9%
10. Texas	45.1%
11. Oklahoma	44.9%
12. Iowa State	43.9%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Baylor	37.4%
2. Kansas	37.4%
3. Texas Tech	37%
4. Oklahoma State	36.1%
5. Kansas State	35.7%
6. Texas	35.3%
7. Colorado	35.1%
8. Texas A&M	33.8%
9. Missouri	33.5%
10. Oklahoma	33.1%
11. Nebraska	31.8%
12. Iowa State	31.3%

Turnover %

1. Texas	14%
2. Baylor	17.5%
3. Missouri	18%
4. Texas A&M	18.3%
5. Kansas	18.8%
6. Oklahoma	19.1%
7. Kansas State	19.2%
8. Texas Tech	19.3%
9. Iowa State	19.6%
10. Nebraska	19.7%
11. Colorado	21.3%
12. Oklahoma State	21.6%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas State	38.9%
2. Texas	36.2%
3. Kansas	33.3%
4. Texas A&M	31.8%
5. Oklahoma	31.1%
6. Oklahoma State	27.4%
7. Baylor	27.2%
8. Missouri	26.4%
9. Nebraska	26.1%
10. Texas Tech	23.1%
11. Colorado	22.1%
12. Iowa State	21.8%

Efficiency Margin

1. Kansas	0.2
2. Kansas State	0.12
3. Texas	0.1
4. Texas A&M	0.04
5. Baylor	0.01
6. Oklahoma State	-0.02
7. Nebraska	-0.05
8. Texas Tech	-0.05
9. Missouri	-0.06
10. Oklahoma	-0.09
11. Iowa State	-0.1
12. Colorado	-0.14

Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. Kansas	0.93
2. Kansas State	0.99
3. Texas	1
4. Iowa State	1.01
5. Texas A&M	1.01
6. Nebraska	1.02
7. Texas Tech	1.03
8. Oklahoma State	1.04
9. Baylor	1.07
10. Missouri	1.08
11. Oklahoma	1.08
12. Colorado	1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	44.5%
2. Texas	44.9%
3. Iowa State	48%
4. Texas A&M	49%
5. Oklahoma State	49.2%
6. Baylor	49.4%
7. Kansas State	50.7%
8. Nebraska	50.7%
9. Oklahoma	50.7%
10. Missouri	50.9%
11. Texas Tech	50.9%
12. Colorado	51.3%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	42.4%
2. Iowa State	45%
3. Texas	45.2%
4. Texas A&M	46%
5. Oklahoma State	46.8%
6. Kansas State	47.4%
7. Oklahoma	48.1%
8. Baylor	48.7%
9. Missouri	49.6%
10. Nebraska	50.5%
11. Colorado	50.7%
12. Texas Tech	52.2%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Texas	29.5%
2. Kansas	32.2%
3. Texas Tech	32.3%
4. Baylor	34.1%
5. Nebraska	34.1%
6. Colorado	35%
7. Missouri	35.9%
8. Oklahoma State	36.5%
9. Texas A&M	36.7%
10. Iowa State	36.8%
11. Oklahoma	37.6%
12. Kansas State	38.5%

Turnover % Forced

1. Nebraska	21.8%
2. Kansas State	21.6%
3. Oklahoma State	21.1%
4. Texas Tech	20.1%
5. Missouri	19.8%
6. Iowa State	18%
7. Kansas	17.9%
8. Texas	17.7%
9. Colorado	17.4%
10. Baylor	17.2%
11. Oklahoma	16.7%
12. Texas A&M	16.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas	80.2%
2. Texas A&M	78.8%
3. Baylor	78.6%
4. Nebraska	78%
5. Kansas State	77.3%
6. Oklahoma	76.8%
7. Iowa State	76.1%
8. Oklahoma State	73.6%
9. Texas Tech	73.1%
10. Colorado	71.2%
11. Texas	70.3%
12. Missouri	70%

Big East 2008 Tempo-free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Notre Dame	72.7
2. Syracuse	69.7
3. Seton Hall	69.6
4. Marquette	69.3
5. Villanova	69.1
6. Connecticut	67.3
7. DePaul	67.2
8. Louisville	67.1
9. Rutgers	66.9
10. Providence	66.8
11. St. John's	65.4
12. West Virginia	64.6
13. Cincinnati	64.3
14. USF	63.8
15. Pittsburgh	63.5
16. Georgetown	62.8

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Notre Dame	1.1
2. Connecticut	1.09
3. Pittsburgh	1.08
4. Marquette	1.07
5. Louisville	1.06
6. West Virginia	1.06
7. Georgetown	1.05
8. Seton Hall	1.04
9. Providence	1.03
10. Syracuse	1.02
11. DePaul	1.02
12. Villanova	1.01
13. USF	1.01
14. Cincinnati	0.99
15. St. John's	0.88
16. Rutgers	0.88

Effective FG %

1. Louisville	52.3%
2. Georgetown	52.2%
3. Providence	50.6%
4. Notre Dame	50.3%
5. Connecticut	50.1%
6. Marquette	49.7%
7. Pittsburgh	49.3%
8. Cincinnati	48.6%
9. Seton Hall	48.3%
10. USF	48%
11. Syracuse	47.7%
12. DePaul	47.7%
13. West Virginia	47.6%
14. Villanova	46.7%
15. Rutgers	45.4%
16. St. John's	42.4%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Louisville	53.5%
2. Georgetown	52.7%
3. Syracuse	49.7%
4. Connecticut	49.7%
5. Pittsburgh	48.9%
6. USF	48.3%
7. Providence	47.1%
8. Marquette	47.1%
9. Cincinnati	47.1%
10. West Virginia	46.8%
11. DePaul	46%
12. Villanova	45.8%
13. Notre Dame	45.7%
14. Seton Hall	45%
15. Rutgers	42.4%
16. St. John's	41.3%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Notre Dame	40.1%
2. Providence	37.8%
3. Marquette	36.4%
4. Seton Hall	36.4%
5. Georgetown	34.3%
6. Connecticut	34.3%
7. Cincinnati	34.3%
8. DePaul	34.1%
9. Rutgers	34.1%
10. Louisville	33.5%
11. Pittsburgh	33.5%
12. West Virginia	32.7%
13. Villanova	32.2%
14. USF	31.3%
15. St. John's	30.2%
16. Syracuse	28.2%

Turnover %

1. West Virginia	15.1%
2. Seton Hall	16.2%
3. Pittsburgh	17.5%
4. Marquette	17.7%
5. DePaul	17.7%
6. Louisville	18.5%
7. Connecticut	18.7%
8. Notre Dame	19.2%
9. USF	20.2%
10. Villanova	20.6%
11. Syracuse	21%
12. Georgetown	21.1%
13. Providence	21.2%
14. Cincinnati	21.4%
15. Rutgers	22.3%
16. St. John's	23.4%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Pittsburgh	36.1%
2. Notre Dame	34.1%
3. Connecticut	34.1%
4. Syracuse	33.7%
5. Marquette	32.1%
6. Providence	32%
7. DePaul	32%
8. USF	31.5%
9. Villanova	31.3%
10. Cincinnati	30.2%
11. St. John's	29.7%
12. West Virginia	29.4%
13. Georgetown	29%
14. Louisville	28.4%
15. Seton Hall	26.9%
16. Rutgers	24.6%

Efficiency Margin

1. Louisville	0.16
2. Georgetown	0.13
3. Marquette	0.1
4. West Virginia	0.08
5. Notre Dame	0.06
6. Connecticut	0.06
7. Pittsburgh	0.04
8. Syracuse	0
9. Villanova	-0.01
10. Cincinnati	-0.01
11. Seton Hall	-0.06
12. Providence	-0.07
13. DePaul	-0.07
14. USF	-0.1
15. St. John's	-0.13
16. Rutgers	-0.19

Defensive Stats


Points per possession Allowed

1. Louisville	0.9
2. Georgetown	0.92
3. Marquette	0.97
4. West Virginia	0.98
5. Cincinnati	1.01
6. St. John's	1.01
7. Syracuse	1.02
8. Villanova	1.02
9. Connecticut	1.03
10. Notre Dame	1.04
11. Pittsburgh	1.04
12. Rutgers	1.07
13. DePaul	1.09
14. Providence	1.1
15. Seton Hall	1.1
16. USF	1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Georgetown	42%
2. Louisville	43%
3. Connecticut	46.1%
4. Cincinnati	46.7%
5. Marquette	46.9%
6. Notre Dame	47.3%
7. Syracuse	48.6%
8. Pittsburgh	49.2%
9. West Virginia	49.5%
10. Villanova	50.1%
11. Providence	50.2%
12. USF	50.9%
13. Rutgers	51.3%
14. Seton Hall	51.4%
15. St. John's	51.7%
16. DePaul	52.6%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut	40.7%
2. Georgetown	41.1%
3. Louisville	42%
4. Notre Dame	46%
5. West Virginia	47.2%
6. Seton Hall	47.6%
7. Rutgers	48.2%
8. Marquette	48.4%
9. Cincinnati	48.4%
10. USF	48.4%
11. Syracuse	48.6%
12. Pittsburgh	48.8%
13. Villanova	48.9%
14. Providence	49.5%
15. St. John's	51%
16. DePaul	52.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Marquette	29.1%
2. Georgetown	29.2%
3. Cincinnati	29.2%
4. Louisville	30%
5. Syracuse	32.4%
6. Notre Dame	33.1%
7. Pittsburgh	33.2%
8. Providence	34.6%
9. Villanova	34.9%
10. DePaul	35.3%
11. St. John's	35.6%
12. West Virginia	36%
13. Connecticut	37.9%
14. USF	38.1%
15. Seton Hall	39.2%
16. Rutgers	39.3%

Turnover % Forced

1. Marquette	24%
2. Villanova	22.6%
3. West Virginia	22.4%
4. St. John's	20.7%
5. Georgetown	20.6%
6. Louisville	20.2%
7. DePaul	20.1%
8. Providence	19.5%
9. Pittsburgh	19.4%
10. Syracuse	19%
11. Seton Hall	19%
12. Cincinnati	18.1%
13. Rutgers	17.6%
14. Notre Dame	16.3%
15. USF	16.2%
16. Connecticut	15.9%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Cincinnati	81.3%
2. St. John's	81.1%
3. West Virginia	77.9%
4. Louisville	76.9%
5. Villanova	75.9%
6. Syracuse	75.5%
7. Rutgers	74.1%
8. Georgetown	73.1%
9. USF	72%
10. Notre Dame	71.8%
11. Marquette	70.1%
12. Pittsburgh	69.7%
13. Connecticut	68.5%
14. Seton Hall	68.4%
15. Providence	68.1%
16. DePaul	67.9%

2008 Pac 10 Tempo-Free Stats

Well, sorry about that. Now that I've returned, I can start posting again. Since we're almost a month into the conference season, time for the first posting of the 2008 Conference Tempo-Free Stats.
The Pac10 (my current residence) have been updated first. The rest will soon follow. If some number looks fishy, please let me know. I had to dust off my program, and so something may have been miscalculated.

Once again, thank you to the conference sites for posting usable data formats and to KenPom and Wonk (now at BBall Prospectus) for initiating this trend into tempo-free wilderness.

Pac 10 2008 Stats
Through 2/27/2008

2007 Stats

Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. California	67.8
2. Washington	67.6
3. Oregon State	65.9
4. USC	65.4
5. UCLA	64.9
6. Arizona	63.6
7. Oregon	63.6
8. Stanford	63.1
9. Arizona State	62.8
10. Washington State	58.6

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. UCLA	1.13
2. Oregon	1.11
3. Arizona	1.08
4. California	1.08
5. Washington State	1.08
6. USC	1.06
7. Stanford	1.05
8. Washington	1.01
9. Arizona State	1
10. Oregon State	0.87

Effective FG %

1. Oregon	55.3%
2. USC	54.7%
3. Arizona	53.1%
4. Washington State	52.8%
5. UCLA	52%
6. Arizona State	51.1%
7. California	50.7%
8. Washington	47.4%
9. Stanford	46.5%
10. Oregon State	40.2%

2-pt Shooting %

1. USC	54%
2. UCLA	52.6%
3. Arizona State	52.1%
4. Oregon	51.9%
5. Arizona	50.7%
6. Washington State	49.8%
7. California	49.2%
8. Washington	47.5%
9. Stanford	45%
10. Oregon State	39%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Oregon	39.9%
2. Washington State	38.9%
3. Arizona	38.3%
4. USC	37.6%
5. California	36.1%
6. Stanford	34%
7. UCLA	33.5%
8. Arizona State	33.2%
9. Washington	31.6%
10. Oregon State	28.5%

Turnover %

1. Washington State	16.2%
2. Arizona	17.5%
3. Oregon State	18%
4. California	18.1%
5. Oregon	18.5%
6. Stanford	18.5%
7. UCLA	18.9%
8. Washington	19.4%
9. Arizona State	20.6%
10. USC	21.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Washington	37%
2. Stanford	36.5%
3. UCLA	36.5%
4. California	29.6%
5. USC	28.4%
6. Oregon State	28.2%
7. Oregon	27.7%
8. Washington State	24.7%
9. Arizona	24.3%
10. Arizona State	22.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. UCLA	0.17
2. Stanford	0.08
3. Washington State	0.08
4. USC	0.05
5. Arizona	0.03
6. Oregon	0.01
7. Washington	-0.02
8. Arizona State	-0.02
9. California	-0.06
10. Oregon State	-0.3

Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. UCLA	0.96
2. Stanford	0.97
3. USC	1.01
4. Washington State	1.01
5. Arizona State	1.02
6. Washington	1.03
7. Arizona	1.05
8. Oregon	1.1
9. California	1.14
10. Oregon State	1.17

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford	43.9%
2. USC	45.5%
3. Arizona State	49.4%
4. UCLA	49.6%
5. Washington	50.3%
6. Washington State	50.7%
7. Arizona	51.5%
8. Oregon	51.7%
9. California	53.9%
10. Oregon State	55.6%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford	42.4%
2. USC	43.7%
3. Arizona State	47.5%
4. UCLA	47.6%
5. Washington	47.9%
6. Washington State	50.3%
7. Arizona	50.9%
8. Oregon	52%
9. California	53.6%
10. Oregon State	54.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford	32.3%
2. USC	32.8%
3. Oregon	34.1%
4. Washington State	34.5%
5. Arizona State	35%
6. Arizona	35.3%
7. California	36.2%
8. Washington	36.7%
9. UCLA	37%
10. Oregon State	38.9%

Turnover % Forced

1. Washington State	22%
2. UCLA	21.2%
3. Arizona State	20.2%
4. Washington	20%
5. Arizona	19.7%
6. Oregon State	19%
7. USC	18.2%
8. Stanford	16.9%
9. Oregon	15.6%
10. California	14.8%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. UCLA	79.3%
2. Washington	77%
3. California	76.7%
4. Washington State	74.1%
5. Stanford	74%
6. Arizona State	73%
7. Oregon	72.8%
8. Oregon State	72%
9. Arizona	71.3%
10. USC	65.9%