2009: The Return to Chaotic Final Fours

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.

Planting the NCAA Seeds

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

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

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

Finalists in Bold. Champions in italics.

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

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


All Final Four Teams

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

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

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

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

2006

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

2005

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

2004

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