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%