Updated and improved NCAA Basketball Ty Ratings

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
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: