Tempo-Free Suburbia

2009: The Return to Chaotic Final Fours

2009-03-17T17:33:00.001-07:00

Here's just a quick look at something that I found peering through past wheelings and dealings of recent tournaments:

Years 2004-2008

- First off, this whole idea that "parity is alive and well in college basketball. We have seen a shift" is a little strong to say. Last year 4 number 1's made the final 4 and the year before it was two 1's and two 2's. Hardly a trend shift before we've even seen how this tournament plays out, but no doubt, a different year from the last two.

- Now compare the previous two years to the two years before that and finally back to 2004 regarding total seed counts in the final four:

2008 - 4 (All four number 1's)
2007 - 6 (Florida repeat year)
2006 - 20 (George Mason and no number 1's made it)
2005 - 11 (MSU and Louisville outside of the top 3 seeds)
2004 - 8 (two 2's, a 3 and a 1 in this one)

So, just looking at those recent numbers, there appears to be a good amount of variance. Is there one particular variable that perhaps we can apply a broad stroke to look at what created the crazy (2006) vs. the expected (2008).

When in doubt, let's look towards the greatness of efficiency margin.

As avid followers of all things tempo-free, you by now understand the importance of looking at a team's efficiency margin.
Most recently, Mr Gasaway posted this year's conference numbers for tourney teams here
Also, in the past we've looked at effiency margins of winners/losers/upsets here and here

In those past analysis, we compared the top 3 seed lines, as a way to evaluate the overall "power" of that year's top teams.

Let's reorganize the tourney year's by the average efficiency margin of the teams 3 seed and higher.

Again, all of these numbers are courtesy of the king of TFS, kenpom.com
All numbers are overall season-long numbers, including non-conference but weighted for Strength-of-schedule.

Year	Seed Total	Eff. Margin
2008	4	.33
2007	6	.33
2004	8	.29
2005	11	.28
2006	20	.26

Just eye-balling, you can see the nice dependent order of the numbers.
Apply a quick test and you get a correlation coefficient of -.893.
-1 would be a perfectly negative correlation (every change in eff. margin has an exact change in seed totals)
Very very small data set, but it has given me a reason to expand back to 1999.
That will be coming shortly.

Stop back for the final analysis.

2009's numbers?
.27 average efficiency margin within the top 3 seed lines.
Slide rule linear test (aka, extremely rough) results in a total of 14 for the seed total of this year's final 4.

Oh boy. Hang on tight.

There's just one quick thing to pull from this early analysis.
While the general position has been that this year's tournament should be pretty wide open, and that this season has been extremely wide open (just look at the conference tournaments), this quick look backs up that position with a little bit of history and numbers.

Updated past stats

2009-03-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

I've awakened from the dead.

Updates to this Post about seed results will be coming soon as I do my own research and post it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have Ourselves a Battle

2008-11-22T15:35:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-15T10:53:00.000-08:00

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

2008-03-18T08:00:00.000-07:00

*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

2008-03-12T18:22:00.001-07:00

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

2008-02-22T13:46:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-02-15T07:54:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-07T21:45:00.001-08:00

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

2008-02-04T11:58:00.000-08:00

Fixed. 2/6/08

2008 ACC Tempo-Free Stats

2008-02-01T10:51:00.000-08:00

**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

2008-01-31T14:25:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-31T14:16:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-29T09:33:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-24T07:34:00.000-08:00

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%

Tuesday Night Action

2007-11-28T06:52:00.000-08:00

Let's take a look at the close BigTen/ACC challenge games (as there were some duds as well)

Georgia Tech 79 at Indiana 83
Stats were pretty even across the board as Indy put up 1.13 PPP vs. Gtech's 1.07 in a back and forth tussle played out over 74 possessions. Eric Gordon would impress me one minute, and then dumbfound me the next. His 1.34 PPWS were superb, getting 29 points on 14 FGA and 16 FTA, but he turned the ball over 8 times and had 2 assists and no steals to show for it. No doubt this kid is great off the dribble, he just lacked a little discipline at times. The Hoosiers were helped by an 18 attempt edge at the free throw line, mostly added on in the last minute.

Purdue 58 at Clemson 61
KC Rivers bucket with just over 30 seconds proved to be the game winner in a game that saw the biggest lead at 5 points for both teams.
Overall, the game saw some average to sub-average shooting, with the Boilermakers at 42% efg and the Tigers at 52% efg. Purdue ended at 2 for 12 from three-point land for the night. The .81 vs. .85 PPP was delivered by 19 turnovers for Purdue to 20 for Clemson in this 72 possession battle. Raymond Sykes led the charge with this gem: in 18 minutes he had 5 turnovers, 2 points and 2 fouls. Nevertheless, a big holding of serve at home for the ACC.

Bonus-game highlight:

Maryland-Eastern Shore 44 at West Virginia 110
I just couldn't resist taking a look at this one. Here's the stats:
West Virginia shot 70% efg on the way to 1.41 PPP in a 78 possession blowout. MD-Eastern Shore shot 27% in getting only .56 points on each possession. They turned the ball over on a third of their possessions and only grabbed 29% of their misses. Out of the 78 possessions, they only made 14 field goals. Counter this with the Mountaineers 45 made field goals. 13 players saw time for West Virginia, all with at least 7 minutes. Joe Alexander had the line of the night:
In 24 minutes of play, he posted 22 points, 8 boards, 4 assists, 2 blocks and 1 turnover.

Butler at it Again

2007-11-26T15:04:00.000-08:00

A lot of happenings over the long, glorious food-infested weekend, so I'll at least get a quick shot out there to highlight Butler's huge start for a second year in a row.

In taking down Michigan, Virginia Tech and Texas Tech, in that order, the Bulldogs of Butler put on quite an offensive efficientizling show:

Michigan game: 79-65. 1.34 points-per-possession while hurling up 32 three's against 55 total shots. Yes, over 58% of their shots came from treyland. But when you shoot 53% from there, en route to a 61% efg, then by all means, keep shooting.

Vtech game: 84-78 in OT. 1.21 PPP on a more human 42% 3pt shooting to go with 58% efg in a faster 70 possession OT game.

Texas Tech game: 81-71. 1.42 PPP!! Straight stats for ya: 67% 3pt shooting on 24 threes out of 60 total shots. 77% efg. You read that correctly. They only needed 47 total shots and 11 free-throws to get to 81 in a 57 possession game. Just unreal.

More side dishes: Their turnover percent went hand-in-hand with their shooting: 12%, 13% and 12% in their games respectively, keeping their TO's in the single digits.

AJ Graves shooting 3's: 5 for 10 against the Wolverines. 4 for 13 against Vtech and 6 for 8 against Texas Tech for an over 48% average during the Tourney. The Senior from Switz City will continue to loft them up and more often than not, will have a good night shooting.

If we want to take a "Glass is half empty" approach, they allowed 1.10, 1.12 and 1.25 PPP respectively in the tourney, far above their season average of .96.

Starting Fresh for 2007

2007-11-21T09:25:00.000-08:00

Time to jump right into the pool. There's no better way.

UCLA - 68 MSU - 63
Here we had two Goliaths looking for a good resume-building victory last night in Kansas City. Michigan St. shot surprisingly well (56% efg vs. UCLA's pedestrian 42%) but it was UCLA that made the most of it's missed opportunities. Anytime you're rebounding over 50% of your misses on the offensive end, you're allowed to shoot a little under your average. No doubt UCLA has not shot well thus far (only at 47% efg for the season), they are averaging an over 42% offensive rebounding %.
***correction*** Michigan St. turned it over on 28% of their possessions, led by Kevin Lucas' 4 TO's in just 22 minutes of play in a slow 64 possession contest. UCLA scored 1.06 points-per-possession while MSU was held under .98 for the game.

Duke - 79 Illinois - 66
Duke continues to impress with a quickness on and off the ball that we haven't seen in a few season. The Illini offense was held in check, shooting only 35% efg and posting .97 PPP against Duke's 1.16 PPP and blistering 63% efg. Gerald Henderson was the Beast of the Game, getting 23 points out of 15 field goals for 1.22 PPWS.
One thing to note is Duke's increase in tempo from last year's sluggish pace. They're already averaging around 74 possessions per game, up from last year's 66.

Marquette - 91 Oklahoma St - 61
The Golden Eagles shot the barn down(62% efg), defended well (OK St. got .83 points a possession) and kept the pace up to get 91 points in a 73 possession game.
Wesley Matthews led the 5 Eagles in double digits while getting 13 points only 6 shots from the field and 5 for 5 free-throw shooting. Ousmane Barro was keeper the glass, getting 10 boards in only 18 minutes of play.
The victory sets up a tasty rematch of last year's duel in which Dominic James showcased the tall glass of talent that he possesses.

Let's see what happens with a much-improved Blue Devils squad.

Good to be back in this thing. I'll be out of town, but posts will regain strength next Monday.

Things to look forward to after the 1st month in:

Who's tempo is shifting?
Boards, what are they?
A wish list for stats

Rumblings...

2007-11-15T13:08:00.000-08:00

Getting ramped back up for another season of Tempo-Free fantasy. I've been a little caught up in some other workings, so the season has been rolling and the tempo-free stats have been swirling in a vat, waiting to be plucked and perused.

At the latest, this should be up and running full speed after T-day, but I hope to get a few posts rolling this weekend.

Thanks for stopping back, it should be yet another good year.

2007 Tempo Free Stats

2007-03-31T18:49:00.000-07:00

2007 All put together in one easy to catch fish barrel:

ACC 2007

Big East 2007

Big South 2007

Big 12 2007

Big 10 2007 (Big 10 Wonk Site)

CAA 2007

Conference USA 2007

MVC 2007

Mountain West 2007

Pac 10 2007

SEC 2007

Apologies....

2007-03-30T07:43:00.000-07:00

Had a little situation come up. Sorry for lack of posting.
Enjoy the weekend. Great games ahead.

I'll be posting about once a month after the tourney.

Ahhh, March

2007-03-20T06:58:00.000-07:00

What a weekend. Yes, some days were better than others, but really, can you beat the past 4 days?? Had a great time at the Spokane regional.
Got to see the Winthrop upset and the absolute domination of Texas from USC, along with spending 11 hours in the arena on Friday watching basketball.

Here's a brief recap of the picks:

Pitt - Wright St. - 120 o/u
79 - 58 over

Wazzu - Oral Roberts - 120 o/u
70 -54 over

Butler - Old Dominion - 123 o/u
57-46 under
Nevada - Creighton - 133 o/u
77-71 over (ot game) was at 118 at the end of reg.

Boston College - Texas Tech - 136 o/u
84-75 over

Arizona - Purdue - 136 o/u
63 -72 under

So, overall for the first round, ended up at 4-2, with a 1 point loss, and an OT saver.
By the way, in case you were wondering, yes, the Tennessee-Long Beach St. game covered the over of 170 points.
Salukis barely covered the over with their Holy Cross game. Yes, the over was at 109.
For the first round, here's the Vegas numbers (based on lines from Thursday) for games featuring teams seeded 3 through 14
16 teams covered their spreads(yes, lots of blow outs) vs. 7 underdogs staying close and 1 push.
11 games covered the over vs. 13 games under.

Obviously the Kansas and Florida games covered their overs.

Preview and other oddities coming today or tomorrow.

And it begins....

2007-03-15T06:21:00.000-07:00

Well, I think we've all beaten the brackets to death. Time to play out the damn thing.
Good luck.

I'll be in Spokane for the regional this weekend starting tomorrow, so hopefully I'll have some PC access in order to post some tempo-free oddities from the greatest first two rounds of any sporting event.

Just for the hell of it, out of my 20+ brackets, my true "money" Final Four has:

Florida
Kansas
Gtown
Tex A&M

With Kansas beating A&M in the final.

The reality? Kansas bombs in the 2nd along with Florida losing to Jackson St. Can't wait!! I don't like Florida, but it's too scary to lay it all on U-dub or the Ducks or Maryland. I've seen all of them too much. I think next I just won't watch any games. Oh wait....

These Pretzels are Making Me Thirsty

2007-03-14T14:44:00.000-07:00

Just when you think the tempo-free world is ascending ever closer to that utopia we all clamour for, the USA Today let's out a giant turd on the pavement.

In today's age, we've got the Blue Ribbon giving every conceivable tempo-free stat on each team's sheet.

You've got pretty much every writer and talk-head over at ESPN at least mentioning some stat from time to time (big thanks to Fraschilla and Glockner)

Hell, even the Sports Guy Simmons has gotten into it, referencing the Wonk in continuing his week-long berating of the Big Ten's pace. (I had to agree on the Big Ten's variance of pace vs. other conferences. Quality of play? We'll see)

But, then the USA Today decides to take us back a few decades, with
this piece of analysis.

What they did was essentially total up the 3pt%, 2pt% and FT% of a player, and rank them based on that. It's about the same as looking in your wallet, seeing that you have a third of your bills in 1's, a 3rd in 5's and a 3rd in 50's, but just comparing the number of bills that you have vs. your friend's wallet.

Using this "perspective", which player is the better overall shooter?

Player A
70% 3pt shooting
30% 2pt shooting
60% FT shooting

Player B
30% 3pt shooting
40% 2pt shooting
90% FT shooting

In this article's eyes, these two players are equal shooters. There is no weight given to the fact that a 3pt is worth, well duh, 3 points and that a free throw only gives you 1 point.
One other troubling fact, is that there is no weight given based on the player's frequency of each type of shot; it's not a blended average.

A better picture of quality shooters is this piece over at Ken Pom, as effective Field Goal % blends in the frequency of each shot with it's given point total.

Obviously that one stat doesn't tell the whole picture, but at least it's closer to being *accurate.

*still trying to figure out what that means

Tale of an Upset

2007-03-14T09:28:00.000-07:00

Well, we took care of solidifying your Final Four and your Champion with Tempo-Free validity. Now let's try and squeak in some of those pesky early round upsets. Take a look below at all of the 1st and 2nd round upsets involving a team at least 4 seeds below beating the higher seed. You can see, more or less, the "Davids" hold a fairly solid efficiency margin and shoot well enough and they hang onto the ball a good amount of the time. The "Goliaths" aren't anywhere near as efficient as our averages for Final Four teams. Overall, I can't say that the data can really "open up any doors", but it's just interesting to see the stats associated with a "giant-killer" and with a pretender.

Averages for 2004, 2005 and 2006

2004-2006	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
Underdog	67.2	1.1	0.93	0.17	51%	20%	33%	47%	47%	22%	31%
Favorite	68.4	1.14	0.92	0.22	52%	20%	36%	47%	47%	21%	30%

2006

Seed	2006	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Texas A&M	65.2	1.07	0.87	0.2	51%	20%	30%	47%	47%	27%	32%
5	Syracuse	70	1.09	0.93	0.16	50%	21%	37%	46%	46%	22%	34%
.
14	Northwestern St.	69.7	1.04	0.99	0.05	52%	22%	37%	48%	48%	24%	35%
3	Iowa	66.5	1.04	0.83	0.2	48%	22%	31%	44%	44%	21%	28%
.
13	Bradley	71.3	1.07	0.89	0.18	49%	21%	34%	45%	45%	23%	30%
4	Kansas	69.9	1.11	0.84	0.28	52%	22%	37%	43%	43%	24%	31%
.
13	Bradley	71.3	1.07	0.89	0.18	49%	21%	34%	45%	45%	23%	30%
5	Pittsburgh	66.3	1.13	0.89	0.25	51%	20%	38%	46%	46%	19%	26%
.
12	Montana	68.2	1.09	1.01	0.08	55%	19%	32%	50%	50%	20%	31%
5	Nevada	67.8	1.08	0.92	0.16	50%	19%	35%	45%	45%	20%	30%
.
11	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.06	0.94	0.12	49%	20%	37%	49%	49%	22%	28%
6	Oklahoma	64.9	1.12	0.96	0.16	51%	22%	43%	50%	50%	21%	27%
.
7	Georgetown	59.4	1.16	0.92	0.24	53%	19%	35%	48%	48%	20%	29%
2	Ohio St.	67.5	1.11	0.9	0.22	54%	18%	29%	47%	47%	20%	30%
.
11	George Mason	64.3	1.09	0.9	0.19	54%	20%	30%	44%	44%	20%	30%
6	Michigan St.	66.8	1.14	0.96	0.18	53%	21%	34%	50%	50%	19%	29%
.
11	George Mason	64.3	1.09	0.9	0.19	54%	20%	30%	44%	44%	20%	30%
3	North Carolina	72.6	1.16	0.9	0.26	54%	23%	40%	46%	46%	20%	29%
.
10	Wichita St.	64.9	1.11	0.94	0.17	50%	20%	34%	47%	47%	19%	27%
2	Tennessee	72.8	1.17	0.95	0.22	54%	18%	30%	53%	53%	24%	33%

2005

Seed	2005	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.11	0.94	0.17	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	24%	33%
5	Alabama	64.2	1.19	0.95	0.25	56%	19%	34%	47%	47%	17%	28%
.
12	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.11	0.94	0.17	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	24%	33%
4	Boston College	65.8	1.15	0.93	0.21	49%	20%	40%	47%	47%	21%	33%
.
11	UAB	71.8	1.08	0.94	0.14	51%	18%	30%	50%	50%	27%	37%
6	LSU	67.5	1.14	0.97	0.17	52%	19%	34%	51%	51%	18%	27%
.
7	West Virginia	64.3	1.16	0.97	0.19	53%	18%	28%	51%	51%	23%	34%
2	Wake Forest	70	1.25	0.96	0.29	56%	20%	40%	50%	50%	20%	30%
.
14	Bucknell	64.1	1.01	0.93	0.08	51%	24%	30%	45%	45%	24%	31%
3	Kansas	67.1	1.17	0.91	0.26	53%	21%	35%	44%	44%	20%	31%
.
10	North Carolina St.	64	1.16	0.93	0.23	53%	19%	31%	49%	49%	23%	35%
2	Connecticut	71.7	1.13	0.88	0.25	50%	21%	42%	43%	43%	17%	28%
.
13	Vermont	65.5	1.11	0.97	0.14	51%	18%	34%	47%	47%	19%	26%
4	Syracuse	66.9	1.15	0.95	0.21	52%	20%	40%	45%	45%	21%	35%

2004

Seed	2004	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Manhattan	67	1.09	0.94	0.15	49%	18%	33%	46%	46%	24%	32%
5	Florida	67.5	1.18	0.95	0.23	56%	21%	29%	48%	48%	19%	31%
.
9	UAB	72.1	1.09	0.91	0.18	51%	19%	32%	48%	48%	27%	36%
1	Washington	75.2	1.13	0.97	0.16	52%	19%	32%	52%	52%	22%	34%
.
12	Pacific	65.6	1.08	0.96	0.11	53%	21%	29%	46%	46%	19%	32%
5	Providence	67.2	1.13	0.91	0.22	52%	22%	36%	48%	48%	22%	35%
.
10	Nevada	70.4	1.12	0.88	0.24	49%	18%	36%	46%	46%	20%	28%
2	Gonzaga	68.2	1.19	0.92	0.27	57%	19%	37%	44%	44%	18%	28%
.
7	Xavier	65.6	1.16	0.9	0.26	51%	19%	33%	47%	47%	21%	30%
2	Mississippi St.	70.5	1.19	0.92	0.27	52%	21%	40%	47%	47%	23%	30%
.
8	Alabama	66	1.16	0.94	0.22	51%	19%	32%	48%	48%	20%	31%
1	Stanford	66.4	1.11	0.86	0.26	53%	21%	37%	44%	44%	21%	27%

How Does Vegas Know So Much?

2007-03-13T11:13:00.000-07:00

They're up by a dozen. There's 15 seconds left. The score is sitting nicely at 75-63. The over/under was at 139.5. You like your spot on that $20 under bet. The rest of the sportsbook like's their spot too. The leaders are slowly just bringing the ball up, the game is sealed. There's no way they're taking a shot, and there's no way that you're losing your bet. You start walking towards the counter to claim your reward, when you hear the groans. The screams. The "what the $%#@ are they doing?". You turn and look as the leading team is just finishing a wide open lay-up, for no reason, except to give you the betting equivalent of a kick in your balls for the next 24 hours.

Ahhh, Vegas and March Madness. A marriage that hopefully has many years ahead of it. Like all relationships, it has its quarrels, it's money issues, it's offspring (see: the 100+ betting insight websites).

Well, let's just throw a few picks out there, utilizing some handy tempo-free stats and some second-guessing from myself.
I look at pace, shooting %, offensive and defensive efficiency and the spread between the "strength" of each team to determine the most likely pace of the game if there's a large spread.

Some games that jump out to cover the over:

Pitt - Wright St. - 120 o/u
Wazzu - Oral Roberts - 120 o/u
Butler - Old Dominion - 123 o/u
Nevada - Creighton - 133 o/u
Boston College - Texas Tech - 136 o/u
Arizona - Purdue - 136 o/u

Games that I would watch just to see if they could touch the over.

Tennessee - Long Beach St.
Both teams run in the 72 possession a game range, and averaging 1.15 and 1.10 ppp respectively with a bad defense on the part of LBS (1.05 ppp allowed). Vegas is calling 170 as the over. Let's see it.

Maryland - Davidson
Almost the exact same pace and stat discrepancy as the Tennessee game. Over under is at 156 however because Davidson also carries some weight on D.

Some other interesting Vegas line notes:

- No confidence in Wazzu. Only 6 point favorites in their 3-14 game as opposed to Texas A&M being a 13.5 point favorite. I don't have historical spreads, but I would venture to guess that that's pretty damn low for a 3 seed. And you know what, it's not even that far off. Two 2000 point scorers for Oral Roberts? Yikes
- Arkansas is actually the favorite at a few books. I've got them listed here as 1 point underdogs. I believe Montana was a 12 seed favorite last year, correct?
- Staying true to form, 3 of the 4 8-9 games are favored by the 9 seed.
- Southern Illinois - Holy Cross game over/under is at 109, and I still don't think they'll hit it. They both run in the low 60's, and aren't all that great on offense, but have solid defensi. 40-38, here we come!

Good luck to all you Vegas venturers this week.

I'm sure I'll go 0 for 6 on the first round.

By the way, great story here from ESPN writer Gene Wojciechowski from the offices of the Las Vegas oddsmakers.

Stop with the insanity!!

2007-03-12T06:25:00.000-07:00

Just a quick thought on people's arguments over bubble teams:

Answer: Who have you played, who have you beaten and who did they beat.

This answer can be applied to the following five rants/complaints for bubble teams:

1. History. "Winning 20 games and 10 games in conference guarantees a bid every year". Unbalanced league and non-conference schedules make this point moot
2. "My team is over .500 in conference". See response to question 1.
3. "My team is on a roll right now"
4. "Our conference had 6 teams last year, there's no way there should be less this year"
5. "Our conference had 2 teams in the final four last year, there should be a lot more from our conference this year because of that"

No question you can make valid arguments on who Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St., Florida St. etc have beaten compared to the likes of Illinois, Stanford, Arkansas, etc. Just please, stop with those 5 reasons for excluding or including a team in the tournament.

Statistical salutations to follow later today. On with the greatest 3 weeks of the year! ******updated******** Well, here's some quick thoughts actually:

See previous posts below for previous year's quick snapshot of tempo-free bran flakes.
Here's how the top 5 seeds look this year:

2007 NCAA Tournament Bracket Tempo-Free Snapshot

Seed	2007	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
1	North Carolina	73	1.23	0.84	0.39	55%	19%	39%	46%	46%	22%	30%
1	Kansas	69.6	1.18	0.81	0.37	54%	20%	38%	43%	43%	24%	30%
1	Florida	66.4	1.23	0.87	0.36	59%	21%	37%	45%	45%	20%	29%
1	Ohio St.	65.4	1.22	0.86	0.35	54%	18%	35%	46%	46%	21%	32%
2	Georgetown	60.2	1.24	0.88	0.35	57%	23%	40%	44%	44%	20%	33%
2	Wisconsin	64.3	1.17	0.85	0.32	52%	18%	36%	46%	46%	22%	29%
2	UCLA	64.3	1.18	0.87	0.31	54%	18%	34%	48%	48%	23%	30%
2	Memphis	69.4	1.16	0.86	0.3	52%	19%	39%	43%	43%	24%	32%
3	Texas A&M	65.6	1.2	0.86	0.34	56%	19%	34%	43%	43%	22%	30%
3	Pittsburgh	62.9	1.19	0.9	0.28	53%	18%	37%	46%	46%	19%	32%
3	Oregon	67	1.19	0.93	0.26	53%	19%	36%	49%	49%	22%	32%
3	Washington St.	60.9	1.12	0.9	0.22	52%	16%	27%	46%	46%	22%	31%
4	Maryland	72.9	1.15	0.86	0.29	53%	21%	36%	43%	43%	23%	36%
4	Texas	68.5	1.22	0.94	0.28	52%	17%	37%	48%	48%	20%	34%
4	Southern Illinois	61.8	1.09	0.87	0.21	52%	22%	32%	48%	48%	24%	29%
4	Virginia	69	1.14	0.94	0.2	51%	19%	37%	47%	47%	19%	32%
5	Virginia Tech	64.4	1.15	0.91	0.24	51%	16%	34%	48%	48%	22%	34%
5	Butler	59.3	1.18	0.94	0.24	53%	15%	30%	46%	46%	21%	33%
5	Tennessee	72.5	1.15	0.93	0.22	51%	19%	34%	52%	52%	25%	36%
5	Southern California	67.8	1.12	0.91	0.21	53%	21%	30%	45%	45%	21%	34%

And seeds 6 through 12:

Seed	2007	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
6	Duke	65.6	1.14	0.85	0.29	53%	23%	36%	46%	46%	22%	30%
6	Notre Dame	71.1	1.21	0.93	0.28	54%	18%	37%	47%	47%	21%	31%
6	Louisville	64.9	1.15	0.88	0.27	50%	19%	37%	45%	45%	22%	34%
6	Vanderbilt	67.5	1.16	0.96	0.2	53%	18%	29%	51%	51%	21%	33%
7	Indiana	65.5	1.19	0.92	0.27	52%	19%	36%	47%	47%	22%	33%
7	Boston College	64.7	1.19	0.97	0.22	53%	21%	38%	49%	49%	18%	37%
7	Nevada Las Vegas	66	1.12	0.93	0.19	51%	16%	35%	48%	48%	23%	35%
7	Nevada	67.2	1.17	1	0.17	55%	19%	37%	46%	46%	17%	30%
8	Kentucky	67.5	1.18	0.91	0.27	54%	21%	34%	47%	47%	19%	32%
8	Arizona	69.1	1.2	0.95	0.25	53%	20%	38%	51%	51%	17%	31%
8	Marquette	68.7	1.14	0.91	0.23	50%	21%	39%	47%	47%	24%	35%
8	Brigham Young	68.6	1.16	0.97	0.19	55%	19%	36%	49%	49%	19%	29%
9	Michigan St.	62.1	1.14	0.87	0.26	52%	24%	41%	44%	44%	20%	30%
9	Villanova	66.8	1.15	0.89	0.26	49%	20%	40%	48%	48%	23%	32%
9	Purdue	67.9	1.11	0.88	0.23	52%	21%	35%	48%	48%	24%	33%
9	Xavier	67.5	1.18	0.95	0.23	56%	19%	36%	48%	48%	21%	33%
10	Georgia Tech	68.3	1.19	0.91	0.27	55%	22%	41%	50%	50%	24%	32%
10	Creighton	63.7	1.14	0.91	0.23	51%	20%	34%	48%	48%	22%	31%
10	Gonzaga	68.1	1.15	0.96	0.19	55%	19%	34%	47%	47%	19%	30%
10	Texas Tech	65.7	1.12	0.96	0.16	51%	17%	29%	52%	52%	23%	36%
11	Stanford	66.8	1.11	0.92	0.18	50%	21%	37%	46%	46%	17%	29%
11	Virginia Commonwealth	65.8	1.15	1	0.15	52%	17%	36%	51%	51%	24%	32%
11	Winthrop	63.1	1.1	0.96	0.14	55%	20%	35%	47%	47%	21%	28%
11	George Washington	67.7	1.05	0.94	0.11	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	25%	35%
12	Illinois	62.8	1.07	0.85	0.22	50%	21%	38%	46%	46%	23%	30%
12	Arkansas	67.4	1.11	0.89	0.22	52%	22%	35%	47%	47%	20%	33%
12	Old Dominion	67.1	1.08	0.93	0.14	50%	18%	35%	47%	47%	21%	29%
12	Long Beach St.	72	1.1	1.05	0.05	52%	19%	35%	51%	51%	22%	34%

And not to be left out, seeds 13-16

13	Davidson	72.7	1.1	0.96	0.14	49%	25%	39%	45%	45%	26%	31%
13	New Mexico St.	70.6	1.07	0.99	0.09	54%	23%	35%	52%	52%	23%	30%
13	Holy Cross	63.3	1.01	0.93	0.08	51%	19%	27%	49%	49%	21%	34%
13	Albany	64.9	1.03	1.03	0.01	47%	18%	32%	53%	53%	21%	28%
14	Oral Roberts	67.3	1.06	0.97	0.09	49%	23%	35%	47%	47%	23%	33%
14	Miami Oh	59.2	1.04	0.95	0.09	53%	22%	30%	45%	45%	20%	32%
14	Wright St.	63.6	1.04	0.95	0.08	56%	21%	29%	49%	49%	19%	34%
14	Pennsylvania	69.3	1.07	0.99	0.08	54%	22%	34%	53%	53%	22%	32%
15	Texas A&M Corpus Chris	68.9	1.11	1.05	0.05	49%	19%	34%	50%	50%	19%	35%
15	Belmont	67.4	1.04	0.99	0.05	53%	22%	33%	43%	43%	20%	35%
15	Weber St.	66.2	1	1.04	-0.04	48%	23%	32%	48%	48%	22%	38%
15	North Texas	70.2	0.99	1.03	-0.04	50%	24%	33%	49%	49%	26%	35%
16	Niagara	69.3	1.05	1.08	-0.02	48%	22%	31%	49%	49%	19%	32%
16	Central Connecticut	64.6	1.02	1.04	-0.03	47%	22%	35%	50%	50%	20%	37%
16	Eastern Kentucky	62	0.99	1.03	-0.04	51%	21%	30%	54%	54%	27%	45%
16	Florida A&M	68.2	0.98	1.11	-0.13	49%	23%	33%	54%	54%	22%	36%
16	Jackson St.	70.8	0.95	1.12	-0.17	45%	20%	33%	60%	60%	27%	35%

Save the Children, Cover your Eyes!! Oh the Humanity!

2007-03-09T07:02:00.000-08:00

ACC Bracket? It just got demolished. Pac10? Down goes Frazia!! March is starting off pretty strong. Thank you's go to those early low-major conference championships that started the month off right. If the past 2 weeks are any indication, this tourney is shaping up to be one of the most highly-contested, wide-open fields in a long time.

To continue our look back at potential bracket-busters from the "power" conferences:

ACC
Florida St. followed suit with the rest of the ACC, knocking off it's "higher" seeded rival. Of course, I failed to really single out Al Thornton as being the biggest key to the team who might carry this team into the tourney himself. How'd they look tempo-free style?
Well, we asked them to launch more three's, which they didn't exactly do, but they did shoot 43.8% on their way to 55% efg and 1.06 points-per-possession on offense. Their D, as expected didn't exactly "lock-down" the Tigers, allowing the same 55% efg and 1.05 points-per-possession in this 63 possession game. In fact, when you look at the stats, they got beat in almost every area. But it was the clutch performances from Thornton that obviously sealed the deal. Let's see what they change for UNC's explosive defense.

Big12
Missouri blew any hope that they had of stealing a bid in their 97-83 loss to Baylor yesterday. Well, they held Baylor to only 9 offensive rebounds for a 23% offensive rebounding rate, a strong improvement from their season average, but it didn't matter as Baylor just lit up the nylon. They shot 71% efg, going 60% from beyond the arc on their 15 attempts. Oh, they also had 32 free-throw attempts, but only sank 20 of those. Baylor's 1.23 ppp vs. Missouri's 1.05 ppp powered them to the 14 points victory in this extremely fast 79 possession game. Game balls go to Curtis Jerrells and Henry Dugat, who combined for 56 points on 21 of 28 shooting, going 6 for 8 from the 3-pt line. They also both hauled in 10 boards and dished out 8 assists.

SEC
We asked the Hogs to limit their turnovers, and reap the benefits of their stellar shooting. Did they answer the call? With vengeance!!! Only giving away the ball a lowly 4 times in a 64 possession game, good for a 6% turnover rate! The shooting department kept up their bargain, hitting 54% efg on their way to a 1.29 ppp average vs. The Gamecocks .82 ppp. Even with the good shooting, they rebounding 41% of their misses and kept South Carolina at a 26% offensive rebounding rate. Balanced scoring (4 were in double digits) was led by Darian Townes 16 points in only 22 minutes of play on 9 shot attempts, good for a 1.53 ppws. A match up with Vandy looms today, a team they beat by 15 just a week ago.

Pac10
Washington took care of business yesterday, but came up short against a solid Washington St. Cougars squad. Almost eerily, they allowed their average of 55% efg and of course, limited Wazzu's second chances, only giving up a 24% offensive rebounding rate. But, they couldn't shoot as well (48% efg) and turned it over 22% of the time vs. Wazzu's expected 13% in this Wazzu-pace dictated game of 63 possessions. Wazzu finished at 1.18 ppp vs. Washington's 1.02 average. Balanced scoring by Wazzu (double digits for 4 guys) was led by Taylor Rochesties 20 points on 9 shots and 7 for 7 free throw shooting. Watch for a deep NIT run from this young, but athletic crew.

Looking back

2007-03-07T20:42:00.000-08:00

Taking a quick look back at what we were hoping for from Providence tonight.

Turnovers? Well, they were slightly under their season in-conference average of 24%, turning it over 15 times in this 67 possession game for a 22% rate. Sharaud Curry was the biggest instigator, coughing it up 6 times in 34 minutes of play.
Obviously, the turnovers were somewhat of a moot point as West Virginia shot the lights out, hitting 54.8% of their 31 attempted three's on the way to a 64.8% efg shooting average and 92 points in the average-paced game. They also took care of the ball, only giving it up 8 times during the game.

The Mountaineers poured in an astounding 1.37 points-per-possession vs. the Friars highly respectable 1.18 ppp.

Providence's post-season journey now resides in the NIT. West Virginia probably still will need a victory over Louisville to bump back into the picture.

MWC 2007 Tempo Free Stats

2007-03-07T09:54:00.000-08:00

Mountain West!!

Final 2007 Tempo Free Stats

I finally was able to work with the data on this one.

Yes, I was just as amazed as you probably were to see how "poorly" (all-relative) Air Force shot in-conference compared to their early season run of incredible shooting. I double checked the numbers just to make sure. If you want to check it out, see the conference numbers.

For a great stats/links database, check out this site

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Wyoming	69.2
2. San Diego State	69.1
3. TCU	67.6
4. New Mexico	67.5
5. Colorado State	67.5
6. BYU	66.5
7. UNLV	66.4
8. Utah	65.4
9. Air Force	59.3

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. BYU	1.18
2. UNLV	1.09
3. Utah	1.07
4. Air Force	1.07
5. New Mexico	1.06
6. Colorado State	1.05
7. Wyoming	1.02
8. San Diego State	0.99
9. TCU	0.93

Effective FG %

1. BYU	59%
2. Colorado State	55%
3. Utah	54.8%
4. Air Force	53.5%
5. New Mexico	52.3%
6. UNLV	50.4%
7. Wyoming	49.2%
8. San Diego State	48.1%
9. TCU	46.8%

2-pt Shooting %

1. BYU	54.4%
2. Colorado State	54.1%
3. Air Force	52.5%
4. Wyoming	51.9%
5. Utah	51.4%
6. San Diego State	49.4%
7. UNLV	48.1%
8. New Mexico	48.1%
9. TCU	44.4%

3-pt Shooting %

1. BYU	45.7%
2. Utah	40.7%
3. New Mexico	38.9%
4. Colorado State	38.1%
5. UNLV	36.6%
6. Air Force	36.4%
7. TCU	34.4%
8. San Diego State	29.8%
9. Wyoming	28.9%

Turnover %

1. UNLV	17.2%
2. New Mexico	17.2%
3. Air Force	17.7%
4. San Diego State	18.8%
5. BYU	18.9%
6. Wyoming	19.9%
7. Utah	22.8%
8. TCU	23.9%
9. Colorado State	25.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. UNLV	32.8%
2. Colorado State	32.6%
3. BYU	32.2%
4. TCU	30.3%
5. San Diego State	28.8%
6. Utah	27.7%
7. New Mexico	27.1%
8. Wyoming	25.7%
9. Air Force	20.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. BYU	0.14
2. Air Force	0.1
3. UNLV	0.05
4. San Diego State	0.05
5. Colorado State	-0.01
6. Wyoming	-0.05
7. New Mexico	-0.06
8. Utah	-0.09
9. TCU	-0.12

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

1. San Diego State	0.95
2. Air Force	0.97
3. BYU	1.03
4. UNLV	1.04
5. TCU	1.05
6. Colorado State	1.06
7. Wyoming	1.08
8. New Mexico	1.13
9. Utah	1.15

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. San Diego State	49%
2. UNLV	49.6%
3. BYU	49.9%
4. Wyoming	50.3%
5. Air Force	50.3%
6. Colorado State	51%
7. TCU	53.9%
8. New Mexico	56.7%
9. Utah	58.4%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. UNLV	45.8%
2. Colorado State	47.3%
3. San Diego State	48.3%
4. Wyoming	50.2%
5. BYU	50.5%
6. Air Force	51.7%
7. TCU	51.8%
8. Utah	52.8%
9. New Mexico	56.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Air Force	31.9%
2. BYU	32.3%
3. San Diego State	33.4%
4. Wyoming	33.7%
5. UNLV	37.7%
6. New Mexico	38%
7. TCU	38.3%
8. Colorado State	38.8%
9. Utah	45.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. Air Force	24.1%
2. San Diego State	23%
3. TCU	22.7%
4. UNLV	21%
5. New Mexico	20.6%
6. BYU	18.6%
7. Colorado State	18.2%
8. Wyoming	17.4%
9. Utah	16.8%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Utah	81.3%
2. Colorado State	78.3%
3. BYU	77.9%
4. Wyoming	76.5%
5. TCU	75.3%
6. Air Force	74.9%
7. New Mexico	74.6%
8. San Diego State	72.3%
9. UNLV	71%

All Stats Final

2007-03-07T09:36:00.000-08:00

Pac-10 has finally been updated on their site. Their stats are now final along with the Big 12 courtesy of Okie St. and Nebraska finishing up on Monday.

Eric Maynor, MVP for a night

2007-03-06T07:17:00.000-08:00

Talk about a guy just taking over a game for his team, Eric Maynor's last 2 minutes are right up there with the Reggie Miller's 1995 Eastern Conference semifinals 8 points in 8.9 second splurge.

Hopefully you caught it last night. The two steals, the and-1's, the clutch free throws. 9 straight points from the veteran guard to lead the team from a 5 point deficit in the last 2 minutes.

Played before the first sell-out crowd in CAA tourney history, this was a classic Monday night match-up.

The week is just getting warmed up....

Who's Busting Who??

2007-03-05T15:42:00.000-08:00

As we get set for some major-conference tourney action, there's always the possibility of some meddling sub-par or below-bubble major to make a run and steal a bid from the Missouri St. and Drexel's of the world. Here's just a few snapshots of some teams that much like Michigan St, could greatly benefit from fixing just one or two glaring weaknesses in time for this weekend's slate of games.

Big East
Providence - Currently turning the ball over 24.1% of the time but they are shooting well (51.6 efg%) and aren't bad, just merely average on defense (1.02 ppp allowed). If they could bring their turnover rate down to average (20.4%) levels, they would be averaging 1.10 ppp vs. their current 1.03. Watch if Geoff McDermoott and Sharaud Curry can limit their give-aways. The road begins with an overrated Mountaineers squad, and then a hot-but-vulnerable Louisville team.

Big 12
Missouri - Overall, Mike Anderson's defense isn't all that bad, his team is just giving up far too many second chance points, allowing over 30% offensive rebounding for their opponents. They force a good number of turnovers (22.8%) and keep their opponents under 47% from 2-pt, but give up 38% on 3's. They shoot well (51.3% efg) and also hold onto the ball (19.1% to rate). Locking down the defensive boards could be a key that helps this young, undersized team make a run. A match-up against a hobbled-Durant can only help the cause.

ACC
Florida St - This team "might" be in, depending on who you ask. Of course, making a nice run in the toughest of tough ACC tourney-fields would help boost their chances on Sunday. Where can they improve? Their solid offense (1.10 ppp, 52.4% efg, 19.6% turnover-rate) is offset severely by a lack of defense (1.09 ppp allowed, 53% efg and only 19.5% turnover rate forced). This team can shoot the three (40% in-conference) and are also a great free-throw shooting team (5th best in the nation), two elements that are key come tourney time. Probably too late in the season to drastically improve your defense, but with 3-pt shooting like that, they might as well increase their 3-pt shot frequency from their current rate of 1 out of ever 3 shots. Maybe not Princeton levels, but closer. A tough draw in the tourney may be a blessing in disguise.

SEC
Arkansas - The hogs are in a similar spot as Providence, as they are a solid shooting team (52.1% efg) but just cough up far too many turnovers (23.2% of possessions). Their defense is actually better than average at .99 points-per-possession allowed and they hold opponents to under 46% efg shooting. This team, like the Seminoles, is probably looking in from the outside at the moment as far as NCAA position goes, but a strong run to the finals could pop them back in, and leave some other noteworthy teams out. Limit the bloodbath of turnovers (I'm looking at you Gary Ervin and Sonny Weems), and they may have a shot at making a run. Dropping the turnover rate to a respectable number of 19.9%, and their offensive efficiency rises from 1.01 to 1.05 points-per-possession. I think they will gladly take those three points in what should be a easier-than-expected draw to the finals.

Pac10
Washington - A team that most pundits have labeled as a "bubble-bursting" Pac10 tourney team, this collection of young athletic folk could very easily piece it all together and make a run to the final. They rebound the heck out of the ball on the offensive end (36.1% rate, also 2nd nationally at 42.1%) and they only allow their opponents to get a measly 21.3% of their misses back. But, they're allowing 55% efg shooting and almost 1.10 points a possession on defense. Can the average (50.4% efg) shooting improve and can they clamp down on their opponents shots? Tune in on Wednesday to find out. They probably have the *easiest road to the finals of the 1st round Pac10 teams.

*all relative!! East-coast bias shmias.

Final stats are concluded

2007-03-05T13:37:00.000-08:00

Well, besides the snow-ravaged Big 12 finishing up tonight.
Conference tourney outlooks will be posted tonight.

2007-02-28T12:09:00.000-08:00

JB, shoot an email over.

Quick update...

2007-02-28T10:20:00.000-08:00

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!!

2007-02-26T08:30:00.000-08:00

	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

2007-02-22T19:28:00.000-08:00

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??

2007-02-20T11:04:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-02-20T08:02:00.000-08:00

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

Bubble? What Bubble?

2007-02-19T13:11:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-16T06:46:00.000-08:00

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"

2007-02-14T09:01:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-02-09T14:45:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-02-08T23:14:00.000-08:00

Quick recap of what's going on here

Big South Tempo Free Stats

2007-02-08T23:03:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-08T22:41:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-08T11:42:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-02-06T04:00:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-01T09:01:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-01T09:00:00.000-08:00

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%

2006 Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-31T18:40:00.000-08:00

All 2006 Tempo-free stats in one convenient aisle:

SEC 2006

ACC 2006

Conference USA 2006

Pac 10 2006

Big East 2006

Big 12 2006

Pace, Tempo and the Cooks that Make It

2007-01-31T10:46:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

Average Pace (possessions per 40 minutes)

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

Standard Deviation of Pace

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

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

Big East Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-31T09:19:00.000-08:00

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

Final 2007 Season Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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

2006 Big East Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-31T09:18:00.000-08:00

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

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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

Out of town...

2007-01-30T10:13:00.000-08:00

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

***UPDATE***

MVC tempo free stats have now joined the ranks.

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

Thanks for stopping by.

Missouri Valley Conference - MVC Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-30T10:10:00.000-08:00

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

Games through END OF REGULAR SEASON

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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

Pac 10 Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-30T10:08:00.000-08:00

Final 2007 Season Tempo Free Stats

(It's about time...)

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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

SEC Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-26T09:29:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

(Stats are final for 2007 Season)

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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

2006 Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-26T09:27:00.000-08:00

All 2006 Tempo-free stats in one convenient aisle:

SEC 2006

ACC 2006

Conference USA 2006

Pac 10 2006

Big East 2006

Big 12 2006

Big 12 Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-26T09:22:00.000-08:00

The boys of the Big 12...

Final 2007 Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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

2006 Big 12 Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-26T09:21:00.000-08:00

For the 2005-2006 season

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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

ACC Tempo Free Stats

2007-01-26T09:20:00.000-08:00

Final 2007 season numbers.

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

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

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

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

Effective FG %

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

2-pt Shooting %

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

3-pt Shooting %

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

Turnover %

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

Offensive Rebounding %

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

Efficiency Margin

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

Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

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

Effective Shooting % Allowed

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

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

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

Turnover % Forced

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

Defensive Rebounding %

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