I’ve updated my NCAA Basketball power rankings and changed them so that they match the format I use for my NBA Power Rankings.
It’s the same calculation I provided last week only condensed, with added information. The first column is the number of Win Score points averaged by each team ABOVE the number of Win Score points averaged by the rest of the country against the same schedule of opponents. The second column is the number of Win Score points each team is allowing BELOW the average number of Win Score points the rest of the country is allowing against the same schedule of opponents. Then, the third column is the “Ty Rating” which combines the first two numbers and produces the number of expected winning percentage points each team is posting ABOVE the expected winning percentage posted by the rest of the country against the same schedule.
This week I added one new twist, which I call the “Inside Ty Rating”. If you understand Win Score, the Inside Ty Rating is simply the “Scoring Efficiency” component of Win Score. Thus, the Inside Ty Rating is simply the number of expected winning percentage points in the Ty Rating that can be attributed to the particular team’s combined success (1) scoring efficiently; and (2) preventing its opponents from scoring efficiently. In this case, a positive score in the first column indicates the team is averaging MORE “efficient points” (Pts – FGAs – .5FTAs) than the rest of the country is averaging against the same schedule, and a negative score in the second column means the team is allowing FEWER “efficient points” than their opponents are scoring against the same opponents.
I provide the Inside Ty Rating for tournament selection informational purposes. I think in a one off situation it is important to realize that Team A struggles to score the ball or Team B is easy to score against. For instance, North Carolina has an extremely high Ty Rating, but a pretty soft “Inside Ty Rating”. That means that North Carolina is thriving on a vast number of additional possessions each game, but that they are comparatively less efficient at actually scoring the ball. Thus, they must outwork their opponents, relative to the rest of the teams near the top. The same holds true for Ohio State.
Kentucky, on the other hand, seems to be the perfect blend of Offense and Defense. It will take a tremendous upset to knock them off.
NCAA Ty Ratings for February 21, 2012
| RANK | WS | DWS | TY | SE | DSE | InsTY | |
| 1 | Kent | 21.9 | 19.5 | 0.705 | 8.1 | -10.9 | 0.325 |
| 2 | UNC | 25.3 | 13.7 | 0.664 | 3.8 | -8.2 | 0.206 |
| 3 | Mich St | 17.6 | 17.7 | 0.602 | 6.1 | -8.7 | 0.254 |
| 4 | Ohio St | 15.6 | 19.3 | 0.595 | 5.1 | -6.3 | 0.196 |
| 5 | Kansas | 16.9 | 16.7 | 0.572 | 7.9 | -7.7 | 0.267 |
| 6 | Syracuse | 19.6 | 13.1 | 0.557 | 7.1 | -6.6 | 0.235 |
| 7 | Miss | 23.6 | 8.6 | 0.549 | 13.1 | -1.1 | 0.243 |
| 8 | New Mex | 14.7 | 15.2 | 0.509 | 5.2 | -8.7 | 0.238 |
| 9 | Florida | 18.3 | 9.6 | 0.476 | 9.8 | -4.1 | 0.238 |
| 10 | UNLV | 20.5 | 6.7 | 0.472 | 7.5 | -4.2 | 0.201 |
| 11 | Wisc | 8.4 | 18.1 | 0.452 | 1.1 | -10.9 | 0.206 |
| 12 | Baylor | 15.9 | 10.3 | 0.447 | 7.3 | -5.7 | 0.223 |
| 13 | Calif | 12.9 | 12.7 | 0.437 | 6.9 | -5.7 | 0.216 |
| 14 | Duke | 16.1 | 9.2 | 0.432 | 9.9 | -4.2 | 0.242 |
| 15 | Gtown | 9.8 | 15.2 | 0.427 | 5.3 | -7.7 | 0.223 |
| 16 | Gonzaga | 13.5 | 11.4 | 0.425 | 5.5 | -4.4 | 0.169 |
| 17 | Indiana | 15.1 | 9.5 | 0.421 | 10.1 | 1.9 | 0.208 |
| 18 | Lville | 10.6 | 13.4 | 0.409 | 2.1 | -8.9 | 0.189 |
| 19 | Memphis | 14.1 | 9.7 | 0.406 | 8.9 | -5.7 | 0.251 |
| 20 | Wch St | 13.8 | 9.9 | 0.405 | 6.8 | -7.4 | 0.243 |
| 21 | Flor St | 7.7 | 15.3 | 0.393 | 4.2 | -7.8 | 0.206 |
| 22 | Texas | 8.9 | 13.9 | 0.391 | 7.5 | -4.2 | 0.201 |
| 23 | BYU | 15.9 | 6.9 | 0.389 | 5.9 | -4.9 | 0.186 |
| 24 | Uconn | 13.3 | 8.9 | 0.379 | 4.3 | -6.9 | 0.192 |
| 25 | St Louis | 6.7 | 15.2 | 0.374 | 4.7 | -5.7 | 0.179 |
| 26 | Michigan | 11.9 | 9.7 | 0.369 | 6.4 | -3.7 | 0.174 |
| 27 | Mquette | 14.4 | 7.5 | 0.359 | 6.4 | -3.9 | 0.179 |
| 28 | Creigh | 15.5 | 4.7 | 0.345 | 11.9 | -3.2 | 0.258 |
| 29 | Kans St | 4.4 | 15.2 | 0.335 | -0.1 | -6.2 | 0.106 |
| 30 | Arizona | 9.6 | 9.9 | 0.333 | 3.6 | -7.4 | 0.189 |
| 31 | Alabama | 5.6 | 13.9 | 0.333 | 1.1 | -7.9 | 0.157 |
| 32 | Virginia | 5.3 | 14.1 | 0.332 | 3.8 | -6.6 | 0.179 |
| 33 | Harvard | 6.5 | 12.3 | 0.321 | 4.9 | -5.3 | 0.175 |
| 34 | W Vrg | 9.9 | 8.9 | 0.321 | 3.5 | -1.3 | 0.084 |
| 35 | NC State | 10.9 | 7.6 | 0.316 | 4.9 | -3.6 | 0.146 |
| 36 | Iowa St | 12.8 | 5.6 | 0.315 | 6.3 | -2.6 | 0.153 |
| 37 | Vbilt | 11.3 | 6.8 | 0.309 | 8.3 | -3.3 | 0.199 |
| 38 | Iona | 14.8 | 2.9 | 0.303 | 7.8 | 1.6 | 0.107 |
| 39 | N Dame | 9.3 | 7.9 | 0.294 | 3.3 | -5.4 | 0.149 |
| 40 | Mid Tn St | 5.6 | 11.2 | 0.287 | 3.6 | -5.2 | 0.152 |
| 41 | Temple | 12.1 | 4.4 | 0.282 | 7.1 | -1.4 | 0.145 |
| 42 | Wyoming | 1.9 | 14.4 | 0.279 | 3.4 | -4.4 | 0.134 |
| 43 | Or Robt | 8.2 | 7.6 | 0.269 | 6.2 | 0.4 | 0.101 |
| 44 | Miss St | 11.1 | 4.5 | 0.267 | 4.6 | -1.5 | 0.106 |
| 45 | L Bch St | 9.6 | 5.9 | 0.265 | 5.1 | -0.4 | 0.096 |
| 46 | SD St | 7.8 | 7.6 | 0.264 | 4.6 | -1.5 | 0.106 |
| 47 | Murr St | 5.4 | 9.7 | 0.259 | 5.4 | -3.2 | 0.148 |
| 48 | Purdue | 7.7 | 7.3 | 0.257 | 0.7 | -1.3 | 0.036 |
| 49 | Minn | 9.9 | 4.9 | 0.253 | 3.9 | -1.9 | 0.101 |
| 50 | Washing | 6.8 | 7.7 | 0.248 | -0.2 | -4.2 | 0.069 |
| 51 | Oregon | 8.1 | 6.2 | 0.245 | 5.5 | -3.7 | 0.158 |
| 52 | Akron | 6.1 | 7.9 | 0.239 | 4.5 | -4.4 | 0.153 |
| 53 | Stanford | 3.7 | 10.2 | 0.238 | 1.7 | -3.7 | 0.094 |
| 54 | Seton Hall | 5.5 | 8.2 | 0.235 | 0.5 | -3.7 | 0.073 |
| 55 | Miami | 7.1 | 5.3 | 0.213 | 3.6 | -5.3 | 0.153 |
| 56 | Nevada | 6.2 | 6.3 | 0.214 | 2.2 | -4.3 | 0.113 |
| 57 | Cinn | 6.9 | 5.3 | 0.209 | -0.6 | -2.8 | 0.039 |
| 58 | Xavier | 6.6 | 5.4 | 0.206 | 2.1 | -6.6 | 0.149 |
| 59 | Drexel | 2.4 | 8.9 | 0.194 | 2.9 | -3.3 | 0.107 |
| 60 | Nwestern | 11.5 | -0.6 | 0.191 | 7.1 | 0.1 | 0.121 |
