Crashing The Dance

Coming soon...

This space has been quiet so far, but fear not dear readers. Your first taste of CTD goodness should be coming next week.

Stay tuned.

2011 Final Four matchups

Apologize for the tardiness of this post. The Crashing the Dance household has been fighting off that pesky spring cold.

Virginia Commonwealth vs. Butler

Net Efficiency Margin offense (blue)/defense (red) splits (all charts here are 5-game running average NEM)

After posting a pedestrian 7.9 NEM over their first 32 games, the Rams have blown it up since their March 6 CAA tournament win over George Mason. Their NCAA run has been no fluke; VCU's profile (35.5 overall NEM, 22.0 offensive and -13.5 defensive) has been similar to that of a top five profile. The big question is whether this is their new normal.

Butler has a -15.0 defensive NEM in their postseason games, but that may be a little misleading. The Bulldogs averaged a -35.5 defensive NEM in two of those games (March 8 vs. Wisconsin-Milwaukee and March 24 vs. Wisconsin), but only -5.7 in the others. Too bad for Butler that no other teams from l'état fromage are in the Final Four.

Connecticut vs. Kentucky

Immovable force, meet irresistible object.

Net Efficiency Margin offense (blue)/defense (red) splits (all charts here are 5-game running average NEM)

Kentucky's defense is starting to live up to the Calipari reputation. The Wildcats have posted a defensive NEM of -13.5 during their current ten game winning streak.

The Huskies are the only one of the Final Four teams that hasn't shown a late-season defensive surge. With Kemba Walker's Big East and NCAA tournament performance, they haven't needed it so far. A 23.2 offensive NEM over those nine games will do that for you.

Blue blood matchup for the Final Four

Net Efficiency Margin offense (blue)/defense (red) splits (all charts here are 5-game running average NEM)

I've already shown the neutral effect of Kendall Marshall on UNC's defense compared the positive impact on their offense. The Heels have dropped off a little defensively since then, but are still very solid. There has still been inconsistent offensively, typical of a young team.

Kentucky's chart shows a roller coaster effect, with their offense dropping when their defense peaks and vice versa. Recently they're playing well on both ends of the floor.

The Heels and Wildcats have already played this season, but that game was nearly four months ago. For two teams that are among the least experienced in the country, using that game to assess today's matchup is not terribly useful. Not to mention the fact that Kendall Marshall, who has averaged more than 30 minutes per game since taking over the starting job, played only ten minutes in that game.

VCU: Will the magic continue?

This game could be the ultimate test of the value of a good team on a hot streak against a consistently strong team.

Net Efficiency Margin offense (blue)/defense (red) splits (all charts here are 5-game running average NEM)

VCU has been playing out of their minds offensively in March, and the defense hasn't been too shabby either.

Kansas is now the overwhelming favorite to win the national championship, with Nate Silver's 538 bracket showing their title chances close to 50% going into today. The Jayhawks have played increasingly better in the tournament according to NEM (28.5 vs. Boston University, 42.9 vs. Illinois and 48.3 vs. Richmond).

The last CAA team in the Elite 8 (George Mason in 2006) played that game against UConn a short drive from campus. A VCU win today would be the most surprising upset of this year's tournament, especially with the decided crowd advantage for Kansas, and would be a bigger upset than the last CAA team to make the Final Four.

UConn and Arizona: Peaking at the right time

Connecticut and Arizona can credit their surge to the Elite 8 on their offenses peaking at the right time.

Net Efficiency Margin offense (blue)/defense (red) splits (all charts here are 5-game running average NEM)

While Arizona had a mid-season offensive mini-peak in February, Connecticut's offense was above average but relatively stagnant after their fast start in Maui. Beginning with their loss to Notre Dame just before the Big East tourney, the Huskies have averaged 23.8 offensive NEM with no game below 12. For some perspective, a team averaging 12 offense NEM would rank around 25th nationally.

Connecticut has outpaced the Wildcats defensively all season and so far in the tournament, so I'd give the slight edge to the Huskies. Of course, the way Arizona shredded Duke's top ten defense in the second half Thursday, their own defense may not matter.

Butler: Don't let the eight seed fool ya

Since their February 3 loss at Youngstown State, Butler has won 12 straight games and found themselves one more win from consecutive Final Four trips. As this chart shows, the Bulldogs have done it by playing, well, bulldog defense.

Net Efficiency Margin offense (blue)/defense (red) splits (all charts here are 5-game running average NEM)

The offense has stayed about the same, but the defense has improved significantly since that game. They actually played good D at the beginning of the season, but several bad games in January caused the poor spike in the middle. The last nine games in particular have been solid; their average -13.7 defensive NEM over that stretch is roughly top ten quality.

During the tournament, Butler has relied on their defense to carry them this far. Their 11.8 offensive NEM average during the tournament is the lowest of the eight teams remaining. Of course, defense was also how the Butler did it last season, and that worked out pretty well. They may need the offense to pick it up to beat a more well-balanced Florida team.

2011 Post-Sweet 16 NEM Update

Here are the update combined net efficiency margin (NEM) ratings for the teams that played in the Sweet 16. Results for all teams through the first two rounds can be found here.

Teams are ranked by combined NEM for all games played. Larger numbers are better for total and offensive NEM, and smaller numbers are better for defensive NEM. Shaded teams are still alive going into the Elite 8.

Seed	Region	Team	Games	Total	Off	Def
1	E	Ohio St.	3	135.2	84.9	-50.3
3	W	Connecticut	3	131.0	85.3	-45.7
11	MW	Virginia Commonwealth	3	123.8	93.2	-30.6
1	MW	Kansas	3	122.0	57.1	-64.9
2	SE	Florida	3	109.1	59.2	-49.9
5	W	Arizona	3	96.1	75.9	-20.2
10	MW	Florida St.	3	91.9	20.3	-71.6
8	SE	Butler	3	90.0	35.5	-54.5
2	E	North Carolina	3	88.8	45.3	-43.4
4	E	Kentucky	3	88.0	47.9	-40.1
3	SE	Brigham Young	3	81.9	32.4	-49.5
4	SE	Wisconsin	3	77.3	49.4	-27.9
2	W	San Diego St.	3	74.5	29.4	-45.1
1	W	Duke	3	74.3	72.0	-2.4
11	E	Marquette	3	65.5	22.9	-42.6
12	MW	Richmond	3	62.8	51.3	-11.5

The Sweet Sixteen games demonstrated just how fickle tournament performance can be. The four lowest teams in total NEM through the first two games (Butler, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Arizona) are still alive, while four of the top seven have gone home.

Also, at this time last year three of the four regions were won by the team with worse NEM tournament performance to date. So Connecticut, VCU, Florida, and North Carolina shouldn't count on their tournament performance so far to carry them to Houston.

2011 First Weekend NEM

Here is a complete list of all NCAA Tournament teams with their combined net efficiency margin (NEM) through the first week. (I excluded the First Four games to avoid skewing the totals.) As a reminder, net efficiency margin measures a team's performance in a game in points per 100 possessions (the "efficiency" part) compared to how a hypothetical average team would have performed against the same opponent (the "net" part). Factoring out the tempo and opponent allows comparison of teams' performance from the same baseline. I posted reviews of the best performances from what I like to call rounds one and two earlier.

Teams are grouped by the number of games played, then ranked by their total NEM for the tournament. The numbers are totals across all games. Larger numbers are better for total and offensive NEM, and smaller numbers are better for defensive NEM. Shaded teams are still alive after the first two rounds.

Seed	Region	Team	Games	Total	Off	Def
1	E	Ohio St.	2	111.3	76.9	-34.4
11	MW	Virginia Commonwealth	2	105.0	81.8	-23.2
3	W	Connecticut	2	93.7	59.1	-34.6
8	W	Michigan	2	93.5	54.0	-39.5
10	MW	Florida St.	2	79.4	23.4	-56.0
1	W	Duke	2	78.1	57.9	-20.2
1	MW	Kansas	2	72.8	29.7	-43.1
4	SE	Wisconsin	2	72.6	60.5	-12.1
2	SE	Florida	2	72.2	47.4	-24.8
3	SE	Brigham Young	2	70.2	32.5	-37.7
11	E	Marquette	2	67.3	23.0	-44.3
12	MW	Richmond	2	63.0	50.0	-13.0
2	W	San Diego St.	2	60.9	19.1	-41.7
1	SE	Pittsburgh	2	52.0	37.1	-14.9
5	SE	Kansas St.	2	50.7	44.8	-5.9
8	SE	Butler	2	49.2	33.9	-15.3
13	E	Princeton	1	24.1	14.0	-10.1
6	W	Cincinnati	2	48.0	28.6	-19.4
9	MW	Illinois	2	47.4	23.8	-23.6
4	E	Kentucky	2	46.4	33.3	-13.2
13	W	Oakland	1	22.9	28.3	5.4
5	E	West Virginia	2	45.2	47.6	2.4
3	E	Syracuse	2	44.5	24.7	-19.8
2	E	North Carolina	2	44.0	26.7	-17.2
5	W	Arizona	2	39.9	29.8	-10.0
7	E	Washington	2	39.7	42.1	2.3
10	E	Georgia	1	19.2	11.1	-8.0
7	W	Temple	2	37.2	22.2	-15.0
4	W	Texas	2	35.2	22.6	-12.6
12	W	Memphis	1	17.1	10.0	-7.1
11	SE	Gonzaga	2	33.1	34.8	1.8
7	SE	UCLA	2	29.2	25.2	-4.0
14	SE	Wofford	1	14.2	-1.8	-16.0
10	W	Penn St.	1	13.7	17.4	3.7
9	E	Villanova	1	12.9	-0.2	-13.1
10	SE	Michigan St.	1	11.8	10.9	-0.8
9	SE	Old Dominion	1	11.6	2.4	-9.2
12	SE	Utah St.	1	10.9	13.2	2.3
5	MW	Vanderbilt	1	10.8	27.9	17.1
15	MW	Akron	1	9.6	-11.7	-21.3
3	MW	Purdue	2	19.1	23.7	4.5
15	E	Long Island	1	9.0	4.7	-4.3
12	E	Clemson	1	8.9	22.8	14.0
8	E	George Mason	2	16.2	17.2	1.0
2	MW	Notre Dame	2	13.9	8.0	-5.9
13	MW	Morehead St.	2	12.3	-5.0	-17.3
4	MW	Louisville	1	5.4	-7.4	-12.8
13	SE	Belmont	1	4.8	0.4	-4.4
8	MW	Nevada Las Vegas	1	4.0	5.6	1.6
7	MW	Texas A&M	1	3.5	-2.2	-5.7
16	MW	Boston University	1	2.1	-6.2	-8.3
6	E	Xavier	1	1.3	-8.3	-9.6
14	E	Indiana St.	1	-1.1	3.1	4.2
15	W	Northern Colorado	1	-2.7	-4.6	-1.9
11	W	Missouri	1	-3.0	7.8	10.8
6	SE	St. John's	1	-3.1	12.4	15.5
14	MW	St. Peter's	1	-5.2	-22.4	-17.2
16	SE	NC Asheville	1	-7.6	-10.2	-2.5
16	E	Texas San Antonio	1	-12.8	-8.6	4.2
15	SE	UC Santa Barbara	1	-19.7	-13.2	6.4
6	MW	Georgetown	1	-20.3	-10.3	10.0
14	W	Bucknell	1	-24.4	-7.2	17.2
16	W	Hampton	1	-28.6	-19.3	9.2
9	W	Tennessee	1	-30.3	-23.5	6.8

So you're saying there's a chance?

Nate Silver, formerly with Baseball Prospectus and fresh off moving his 538 political analysis to the New York Times, jumped into the March Madness fray this year. Mr. Silver used a combination of computer power rankings and seeds, with adjustments for geography, injury, and other factors, to generate probabilities for each team reaching a particular round in the bracket.

Now that we're down to a manageable 16 teams, I thought I'd play around with some of his numbers to calculate the probabilities of some interesting results.

These all assume the outcome of each region is independent. I think my math is right, but feel free to correct me if you notice anything wrong.

72.5% probability of a #1 seed winning the championship

18 champs have been #1 seeds - most since seeding began in 1979

23.3% probability of three #1 seeds in the Final Four

Three or more #1 seeds have made it four times since seeding began

19.4% probability of an Ohio State vs. Kansas final

The most likely championship game pairing

12.7% probability of #2 seed winning the championship

Six champs have been #2 seeds - second most since seeding began

10.4% probability of Duke and UNC meeting in the Final Four

Also known as "The Game That Must Not Be Named"

5.7% probability of all-Big Ten final (Ohio State vs. Wisconsin)

Would be the first since Indiana-Michigan in 1976

3.1% probability of #10 seed or lower winning

Villanova (#8 seed) in 1985 is the lowest seed to win the championship

1.2% probability of a rematch of last year's Duke/Butler championship game

A championship game rematch has not happened since 1961 and 1962 (Cincinnati defeated Ohio State both years)

0.7% probability of all-SEC final (Kentucky vs. Florida)

There has never been an all-SEC final, despite ten championships between three teams

0.4% probability of both remaining Big East teams making the Final Four

More likely, there is an 87% chance neither will

While Joe Sheehan's scenario is no longer possible, there are still enough non-Big Six conference teams left to make an impact on the Final Four. But how much impact will they make?

Probability of a non-major team in he Final Four by region

Southeast (BYU or Butler) - 32.4%

West (SDSU) - 31.2%

Southwest (Richmond or VCU) - 14.5%

Probability of three non-majors in the Final Four - 1.5%

Probability of no non-major Final Four teams - 39.8%

Probability of a non-major national champion - 8.9%

Hey, it could happen.

Round of 32 NEM

Sweet 16 previews to come later this week.

All raw efficiency data is from the sublime kenpom.com. I used the ratings through last Sunday's games to make the comparisons. (For my second round reviews, I'll update the ratings through the end of the first round, and so on.)

Best games (by combined total NEM)

	Result				Total NEM
1.	Ohio State	98	George Mason	66	58.6
2.	Kansas	73	Illinois	59	53.9
3.	Duke	73	Michigan	71	53.8
4.	Kentucky	71	West Virginia	63	48.8
5.	Wisconsin	70	Kansas State	65	48.5

Top overall performances

	Team	Opponent	NEM
1.	Ohio State	George Mason	68.3
2.	VCU	Purdue	57.1
3.	Florida State	Notre Dame	51.4
4.	BYU	Gonzaga	50.7
5.	Kansas	Illinois	44.0

Top offensive performances

	Team	Opponent	NEM
1.	VCU	Purdue	56.6
2.	Ohio State	George Mason	54.3
3.	BYU	Gonzaga	33.3
4.	Wisconsin	Kansas State	32.0
5.	Michigan	Duke	30.5

Top defensive performances (lower scores are better)

	Team	Opponent	NEM
1.	Florida State	Notre Dame	-31.4
2.	Kansas	Illinois	-24.7
3.	San Diego State	Temple	-19.8
4.	Richmond	Morehead State	-19.3
5.	Marquette	Syracuse	-19.2