EFFICIENCY PREDICTIONS

• Full Season Prediction … Kansas 88, Niagara 60
• Last 10 Prediction … Kansas 90, Niagara 59
• Vs. Good Prediction … Kansas 90, Niagara 60
• Trendline Prediction … Kansas 89, Niagara 60
• Best 6 Prediction … Kansas 104, Niagara 63

explanation

ADJUSTED GAME EFFICIENCY DATA

[FULL DISCLOSURE: I’m a Kansas fan.] Kansas is one of the hottest teams in country headed into the NCAA tournament. They’ve won 11 straight, and 14 of 15 (with the only loss against Texas A&M in a game they led late). They’ve had 15 straight games with an adjusted offense over 110, and 5 of 6 over 120. They’ve had an adjusted defense below 90 in 10 of 11 games, with the only blip being against Kevin Durant (i.e. forgivable). They’ve had 10 games in a row with an overall rating over .95 (NCAA quality). The biggest concern heading into the tournament is probably experience. Nobody on the roster has won an NCAA tournament game before. I’m not sure if a team with so little tourney experience has ever won the title before, but I’d put my money on NO.

KANSAS PLAYER STATS

ADJUSTED GAME EFFICIENCY DATA

Niagara’s poor offensive performance in their first 8 games can be explained away by the fact that their leading scorer (Charron Fisher) didn’t play. Unfortunately, even with Fisher their offense isn’t stellar, and their defense is below average. Their performance against good teams in the chart is skewed by the inclusion of some non-Fisher games, but even with those removed, their offensive and defensive numbers are only 106.5/103.8, above average but nothing special. Still, they deserve better than the play-in game.

NIAGARA PLAYER STATS

Florida A&M’s offense relies on the efficiency of SR C Rome Sanders. JR G Leslie Robinson is the only other Rattler to combine above-average efficiency with scoring volume.

Turnovers (Florida A&M commits a ton and forces a lot, Niagara does neither) should be the X-factor in the play-in game. Either Niagara’s defense will get a boost from the uncharacteristically high number of opponent giveaways or Florida A&M will get a lot more shots up than normal.

Niagara should dominate the glass. Their rebounding rates (38.6 OR%, 68 DR%) in at-risk games are the (near-)equal of Florida A&M’s rates (39.5 OR%, 67.9 DR%) in MEAC play only.

Even if Florida A&M succeeds in slowing the pace of the game, their propensity to force opponents to shoot a lot of three-point shots plays into Niagara’s strengths. SR F JR Duffey, SR G Lorenzo Miles, and JR G Charron Fisher all shoot at least 36% from behind the three-point line. SR F Clif Brown and FR G Tyrone Lewis aren’t as consistent (~34 3PTFG% from both on the season) but both have multiple games wherein they’ve made three or three three-point shots (Brown moreso before Fisher joined the team).

Niagara didn’t play as difficult a non-conference schedule as did Florida A&M (Maryland, Pittsburgh, Florida, Illinois, Bradley) so their at-risk numbers look better to some degree because of that. However, Niagara, playing in the MAAC as opposed to the MEAC, was better in conference play (+8.6/100 possessions) than Florida A&M (+6.5/100 possessions).

Prediction: Niagara 79 Florida A&M 68

EFFICIENCY PREDICTIONS

• Full Season Prediction … Niagara 79, Florida A&M 73
• Last 10 Prediction … Niagara 81, Florida A&M 72
• Vs. Good Prediction … Niagara 73, Florida A&M 70
• Trendline Prediction … Niagara 75, Florida A&M 67
• Best 6 Prediction … Niagara 85, Florida A&M 75

stats glossary

Points, assists, turnovers, blocks, and steals listed per 100 individual possessions

FLORIDA A&M PLAYER STATS

NIAGARA PLAYER STATS

NIAGARA ADJUSTED GAME EFFICIENCY DATA

Niagara’s poor offensive performance in their first 8 games can be explained away by the fact that their leading scorer (Charron Fisher) didn’t play. Unfortunately, even with Fisher their offense isn’t stellar, and their defense is below average. Their performance against good teams in the chart is skewed by the inclusion of some non-Fisher games, but even with those removed, their offensive and defensive numbers are only 106.5/103.8, above average but nothing special. Still, they deserve better than the play-in game.

FLORIDA A&M ADJUSTED GAME EFFICIENCY DATA

If you’re not careful, you might look at Florida A&M’s graph and think they’re a decent team. But wait, that’s the defensive line above the offensive line. Never a good sign. Sorry, not much to add here, besides what you can see from the graph and numbers.