Popular Post fasbjd Posted March 13 Popular Post Report Share Posted March 13 Back again with this years version of the Arc of Champions. Brief review, the Arcs are based on analytic data from Bart Torvik's T-rank. This is a little different from last year, which used Ken Pom, and is basically due to a number of factors both functional and practical. Most importantly, it led to a graph with stronger correlation to tourney results. It also has the advantage of ease of separating data on the website while being free to use. It includes data since the '08 season. The main difference in the two sites is how they adjust for SOS. Now to the Arcs - the graph is broken down into 6 sectors. The data below is from the '08-'22 seasons The 1st Sector is the Arc of Champions. Just over 6% of teams fall within this sector (average ~4/year). Of those, 71% of champions since '08 have come from this sector - 47% of finalists, and 38% of Final Four teams. Their average seeding is 1.7 and they average 3.2 tourney wins / team. If your team is located here, their chances of winning the title is 17.2%. If you are a 1 seed in sector 1, your chances of winning the title are 24.3% (versus 19.6% of all 1 seeds). Sector 2 is a larger sector - over 16% of teams come from this sector. The average seed is 4.1, including 17 (now 19 including this year) 1 seeds, and houses a majority of the 2 and 3 seeds. On average, they win 1.9 tourney games / team - on average, finishing in the Sweet Sixteen. 21% of champions come from this sector, along with 36% of the finalists and Final Four teams (including Duke and Villanova from last year). If your teams is located in this sector, their chances of winning the title is 1.9% (just slightly higher than that of a 2 or 3 seed) and making the Final Four is 7%. Sector 3 arc is labelled the Final Four Arc because outside this arc, your chances of a Final Four finish is only 2.8%. Sector 3 houses 21.8% of teams with an average seed of 6.4. The average just under 1 tourney win/team and teams in this arc have a 0.5% chance of winning the title and (despite the name) only ~4% chance of a Final Four. Indiana was located in Sector 3 last year as were Elite Eight team Arkansas and Sweet Sixteen Texas Tech. Sector 4 is where we find the current Indiana team - earlier in the year, we were strongly in the 3, nearly 2, Sector but the defense fell off - in large part correlating with the loss of Xavier Johnson. Historically, 22.5% of teams are from this sector, with an average seeding of 9.3. They average 0.7 tourney wins/team. A champion has never came from this Sector but 2 finalists have, including last year's UNC. Other notable Sector 4 teams from last year include Sweet Sixteen teams Providence (who were also a 4 seed), Michigan, and Iowa State. The final two sectors house the rest of the field - 23.1% of the teams and have never produced a Final Four team. Sector 5 teams have a 3% chance of Elite Eight and ~7% chance of Sweet Sixteen. Sector 6 has produced only 1 Elite Eight team - last year's darling St. Peters. This years Arc is displayed with some color coding - teams in white 1-4 seeds, yellow 5-8 seeds, orange 9-12 seeds, and the rest in pink. Indiana and our first opponent Kent State are highlighted. This year's arc shows 2 clear front runners for the title in Houston (though another Sasser injury may play a role here) and Alabama. As opposed to year's past, there seems to be quite a falling off after those two - 4 seed UConn along with Purdue seem to be the next closest (though both would have to win it with defenses worse than only than the '18 champions Villanova who had a far superior offense) along with 2 seed UCLA. Although there has been a strong call for Kansas to be the top 1 seed, per these analytics, they appear to be the least likely 1 seed to win it this year. As far as Indiana, clearly the defense has to be better to make a splash in the tournament. In addition, the offense is better than only the '13 championship Louisville team that had a crazy good defense. In the short term though, in our block of teams for the road to the Sweet Sixteen, our defense in very comparable to both Kent State and Drake. Offensively, we are quite a bit better than both (particularly Kent State). Miami, however, is a different animal. Defensively, they fall between Penn State and Iowa - amongst the worse in the field. Offensively, they also fall between Penn State and Iowa - amongst the fields most efficient. Not teams we particularly want an opponent compared too! Luckily, they only rank 250th in point distribution from 3 pointers - with a similar 3p shooting % to ours while taking about a third of their shots from long range (ranking 268th where Iowa ranks 182 and Penn State 10). 1 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now