The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-08-2019 02:17 PM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 02:09 PM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 10:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Final Four teams on average since 2002 finish:
15.77 in adjusted defense, 20.172 in adjusted offense, 8.69 in overall team efficiency... 180.22 in tempo.

57 of the 68 final four teams since 2002 were top 25 in kenpom adjusted defense (84%)
48 of 68 final four teams since 2002 were top 25 in adjusted offense (71%)
41 of 68 were top 25 in both adjusted offense and adjusted defense (60%)

16 of the last 17 National Champions were top 25 in both adjusted offense and adjusted defense. (94%)
The lone outlier was 2014 Connecticut which finished 10th in adjusted defense, but 39th in adjusted offense.

Let's talk about final four outliers. I would consider the true outliers to be teams that have an adjust efficiency outside of the top 40 in either offense or defense. By that definition there have been 14 outliers out of the 68 final four teams. (20.5%)

5 of those 14 had a defensive efficiency outside the top 40, with 2003 Marquette being the worst defensive final four team at 109 (of course they had wade). Only one of these has occurred since 2012, that would be Kansas last year which had a defensive efficiency of 47 (offense of 5).

9 of those 14 had an offensive efficiency outside the top 40 with 2012 Louisville being the lowest at 112. Recently we've seen Loyola get there with an offensive efficiency of 63 (defense was 17), South Carolina with an offensive efficiency of 91 (defense was 3) and Syracuse with an offense of 50 (defense was 18).

Mark, are you a bettor?

First, I appreciate the info. I don't have enough time to dig into all of those matchups. I think it's pretty interesting from a macro perspective.

Second, I'm only asking if you're a bettor because we all know the tournament is about matchups. A good 3-point shooting team will equalize any type of talent discrepancies. The only team in the tournament no one really wants to play because of their defense is Syracuse. You have no idea what you're going to get. It's why, overall, Boeheim hasn't' had as much success as he should've had with his talent. They'll create upsets and then get upset against teams that have no business beating them.

Virginia and Bennett pride themselves on defense but their kryptonite is the 3 point shot. I can't explain why they've had so much success, comparatively speaking, inside the ACC compared to outside, but their last 5 tournament losses are easily explained.

UVA is 21-91 from 3 in those 5 losses. 23%
Their opponents are 37-89 for 42%.

That's it. THat's the ball game right now. UMBC was 12/24 just last year. That's insane for a 16 seed. They just got lucky one game but that's where you can hurt UVA. If UVA wants to make a run, they have to get more 'lucky' with their matchups than other Big time teams because they simply because they do not have the talent than those other teams.

Lastly, I'll add that the talent levels at UC and UVA simply aren't that great compared to the other 'Blue Bloods." In fact, UVA has only had 1 Top 25 Recruiting class in the last 8 years. (UC has 0 but was 26th in 2013.) It's not an exact science but that's why I do at least respect Mick in finding guys he can develop along with Bennett.

Yeah, but the thing is that pretty much everybody's kryptonite is a hot shooting 3 point team. I don't think that's anything unique to Virginia. You usually have to be at least somewhat lucky to win it all or even to get to the final 4 and sometimes a team (or possibly even just one guy) you might not expect just shoots the lights out in a particular game. It's part of what makes the tournament so great ('cept when it happens to our team of course). On any given night...