The Cost of Winning: Revised return on investment metric for NCAA basketball

I. Introduction

A few days ago, I wrote up a report in which I investigated the idea of return on investment for Division I basketball programs. To do so, I looked at ten years worth of financial reports from the Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics Data Analysis. I measured each program’s total wins between 2008 and 2017 as a function of the annual programmatic expenses during that span. The resulting metric is called “adjusted return on expenses”, or ROE+.

There were certainly some interesting findings, but they were preliminary and gave an incomplete view of what could be considered “returns” on the investment. The most obvious weakness in the original metric is that it treated every win equally; that is, strength of schedule was not included.

This omission was intentional, as I was more focused on just measuring the raw wins in that introductory piece.

However, the results ended up skewed towards successful teams in small conferences that don’t require as much investment. And while I still consider that to be an interesting dataset, in order to get a better picture of the quality of these wins, strength of schedule needs to be included in the metric. I also wanted to include NCAA Tournament performance into the equation.

II. Revised ROE+ Metric

In order to account for strength of schedule, I used the SOS metric from Sports-Reference. For each season, the SOS results for each team were adjusted to fall between 0 and 1, with a result of 0.500 meaning that a team played a perfectly average schedule. This means that every season, the team with the highest SOS would score 1.00, while the team with the lowest would score 0.001. I adjusted the lower limit so that the team with the lowest SOS would not automatically return an ROE+ score of 0.

Aside from just SOS, it also seemed prudent to include NCAA Tournament performance into the ROE+ measurement. Since tournament success really is the goal of any season, I decided to make this a pretty important feature of the revised metric. To measure the success, I implemented a points system for results in the NCAA Tournament.

  • 0 points – Missed the NCAA Tournament
  • 1 point – Eliminated in the Round of 64/65/68
  • 2 points – Eliminated in the Round of 32
  • 4 points – Eliminated in the Sweet 16
  • 8 points – Eliminated in the Elite 8
  • 16 points – Eliminated in the Final Four
  • 32 points – Eliminated in the Championship
  • 64 points – Won the National Championship

So now, rather than just looking at raw wins, I now have something called “adjusted returns”. What this measures is average wins plus NCAA Tournament points, multiplied by average SOS and winning percentage over the ten-year span of the data. I believe that this measurement more accurately reflects success at the Division I level.

Another change to the metric is on the financial side. Before, I was treating every dollar spent as equal, regardless of the season. However, Division I basketball has become increasingly expensive every year. The national spending average in 2008 was $2.4 million, but that number grew to over $4 million by 2017. So, rather than look at the raw dollars, I’m now using the relative spending average. For example, if a team spent $12 million in 2008, its relative spending would be 500%, or five times the national average. That same $12 million in 2017 would register a relative spending result of 300%, or three times the national average.

Defining terms and metrics in academic prose can be a bit confusing, so here’s a quick summary of the components of the revised ROE+ metric:

  • Adjusted Returns = (Wins + NCAAT points) * SOS * Win %
  • Relative Spending = Expenses / Given Year’s National Average
  • (New) ROE+ = Adjusted Returns / Relative Spending

Here is the revised ROE+ spreadsheet with all of the new information. I hope that it is cleaner and easier to parse for people who want to comb through the data or even use it for their own purposes. Before we get into the rankings, I want to once again credit Sports-Reference and the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis for their data. If you use this information elsewhere, all I ask is that you credit me, Sports-Reference, and the EADA.

II. Conference-Independent Rankings

With all of this in mind, there are, of course, new winners and losers in this measurement. In this installment, I will first take a look at the top and bottom programs in the revised ROE+ rankings. This will be conference-independent; that is, programs who have spent time in multiple programs will be treated as a single entity. I have also broken the numbers down in a conference-dependent way, but I will discuss that a little later.

Below are the top 10 teams in the revised conference-independent ROE+ rankings.

1. Saint Mary’s – 14.81 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 26.3 (0.777 win%, 0.611 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 9
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 12.9
  • Relative Spending Average: 87.2%

2. Harvard – 14.39 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 19.3 (0.645 win%, 0.428 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 6
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 5.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 38.2%

3. Butler – 13.95 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 25.0 (0.717 win%, 0.755 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 77
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 17.7
  • Relative Spending Average: 127.0%

4. North Carolina – 13.91 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 29.2 (0.772 win%, 0.925 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 200
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 35.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 252.6%

5. South Dakota State – 13.84 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 20.6 (0.613 win%, 0.403 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 4
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 5.2
  • Relative Spending Average: 37.5%

6. UNC Asheville – 13.30 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 19.0 (0.582 win%, 0.324 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 3
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 3.6
  • Relative Spending Average: 27.4%

7. Sam Houston State – 12.89 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 20.3 (0.616 win%, 0.301 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 1
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 3.8
  • Relative Spending Average: 29.3%

8. Princeton – 12.64 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 18.5 (0.615 win%, 0.385 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 2
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 4.4
  • Relative Spending Average: 35.1%

9. Yale – 12.32 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 16.8 (0.559 win%, 0.403 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 2
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 3.8
  • Relative Spending Average: 31.1%

10. Green Bay – 12.32 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 19.5 (0.597 win%, 0.528 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 1
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 6.2
  • Relative Spending Average: 50.1%

Like in the previous ROE+ rankings, the top teams in the Ivy League do very well here. As I discussed in the last piece, the Ivy gets a boost from not offering athletic scholarships, which keeps expenses low. Some other teams who dominated low-spending leagues appear once again, such as UNC Asheville, South Dakota State, and Sam Houston State.

A key difference here, though, is the inclusion of some more prominent mid-major and high-major teams. NCAA Tournament performance really helped boost the case for schools like North Carolina and Butler. Even Kansas, with its monstrous 343.7% relative spending average, ranks 24th in the new ROE+ metric, due to its NCAA Tournament successes.

The new formula also allows a team like Saint Mary’s, with its modest spending, high win totals, and above-average SOS, to rocket to the top of the rankings. Even without much NCAA Tournament success to speak of, the Gaels still had a great decade. Green Bay is another program who, somewhat surprisingly, fits this mold. These results, in my mind, capture the essence of the idea of return on expenses: consistently doing more with less.

Conversely, there are a lot of teams who are doing less with more. There are also some teams who are simply doing less than anyone else, regardless of how little they spend. Let’s take a look at the bottom 10 teams in the revised rankings.

339. Rice – 1.74 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 11.3 (0.345 win%, 0.532 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 2.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 119.2%

340. Central Arkansas – 1.63 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 7.3 (0.247 win%, 0.261 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 28.8%

341. Florida A&M – 1.61 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 9.5 (0.303 win%, 0.175 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 31.4%

342. Fairleigh Dickinson – 1.49 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 8.8 (0.288 win%, 0.283 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 1
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.7
  • Relative Spending Average: 48.7%

343. Alcorn State – 1.42 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 9.0 (0.287 win%, 0.097 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.3
  • Relative Spending Average: 17.7%

344. Fordham – 1.40 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 9.1 (0.301 win%, 0.615 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 1.7
  • Relative Spending Average: 120.4%

345. DePaul – 1.30 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 10.0 (0.316 win%, 0.830 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 2.6
  • Relative Spending Average: 202.0%

346. Alabama State – 1.21 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 15.7 (0.499 win%, 0.042 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 2
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.3
  • Relative Spending Average: 27.6%

347. Grambling – 0.59 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 6.6 (0.218 win%, 0.075 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 18.3%

348. Alabama A&M – 0.40 ROE+

  • Average Wins: 10.0 (0.348 win%, 0.027 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 23.0%

Here, we see a lot of low-performing, low-spending teams from conferences such as the SWAC, MEAC, NEC, and Southland leagues. The key measure weighing these teams down is their meager SOS numbers. There are a lot of contributing factors to why they have such low SOS numbers, including the fact that many of these cash-strapped schools have to travel around to be the sparring partner for big-name programs in the early season, all just to keep the lights on. I wrote about the issues of HBCU scheduling last November, if you want to read more about this.

However, we still get some of the more well-known programs from high-major conferences and some of the more prominent mid-majors. DePaul, who was dead-last in the first rankings, still finds itself deep in the hole. Fordham and Rice are other programs who fit the bill here. As discussed in the previous piece, these schools are all in major U.S. cities that also have NBA teams, which may contribute to a lower level of public interest. Consequently, these programs may have a harder time drawing top-level talent to play for them, resulting in disappointing win totals.

III. Conference-Dependent Rankings

Besides those overall rankings, though, I felt that it was worth looking at ROE+ from a conference-dependent standpoint. NCAA realignment was rampant in Division I during the decade in question, so a lot of teams’ financial outlooks changed significantly in this time. Some teams made the jump from mid-major conferences to high-major leagues, which resulted in large spending increases. Some mid-majors made the leap without increasing their bottom line by too much. Others stepped down to lower leagues and began tightening the purse strings.

In order to really grasp which teams delivered the most returns on investment, I also looked at the ROE+ numbers when treating teams who realigned as separate entities. For example, between 2008 and 2017, Colorado played four seasons in the Big 12 and six seasons in the Pacific 12. So for the conference-dependent rankings, Colorado (Big 12) and Colorado (Pacific 12) have separate entries. There are 450 teams in the rankings under these conditions.

I also made the decision to divide the Big East into two separate conferences, because of the massive restructuring of the conference in the wake of the American Athletic Conference’ s creation. I wrestled with whether or not to do this for other leagues who experienced major changes, but ultimately felt that the Big East was a special case.

Here are the top ten teams in the conference-dependent revised ROE+ measure.

1. Butler (Horizon League)18.31 ROE+

  • Seasons: 5
  • Average Wins: 27.8 (0.779 win%, 0.677 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 67
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 21.7
  • Relative Spending Average: 118.7%

2. Saint Mary’s (West Coast Conference) – 14.81 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 26.3 (0.777 win%, 0.611 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 9
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 12.9
  • Relative Spending Average: 87.2%

3. Harvard (Ivy League) – 14.39 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 19.3 (0.645 win%, 0.428 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 6
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 5.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 38.2%

4. North Carolina (Atlantic Coast Conference) – 13.91 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 29.2 (0.772 win%, 0.925 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 200
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 35.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 252.6%

5. South Dakota State (Summit League) – 13.84 ROE+

  • Seasons: 9
  • Average Wins: 20.6 (0.613 win%, 0.403 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 4
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 5.2
  • Relative Spending Average: 37.5%

6. Butler (Atlantic 10 Conference) – 13.50 ROE+

  • Seasons: 1
  • Average Wins: 27.0 (0.750 win%, 0.786 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 2
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 17.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 126.6%

7. UNC Asheville (Big South Conference) – 13.30 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 19.0 (0.582 win%, 0.324 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 3
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 3.6
  • Relative Spending Average: 27.4%

8. Chicago State (Division I Independents) – 13.01 ROE+

  • Seasons: 2
  • Average Wins: 15.0 (0.493 win%, 0.474 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 3.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 27.0%

9. Sam Houston State (Southland) – 12.89 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 20.3 (0.616 win%, 0.301 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 1
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 3.8
  • Relative Spending Average: 29.3%

10. Villanova (new Big East Conference) – 12.88 ROE+

  • Seasons: 4
  • Average Wins: 32.3 (0.883 win%, 0.854 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 70
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 37.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 291.5%

A lot of this list is the same as the conference-independent rankings, but there are some pretty interesting differences. Obviously, Butler’s time as a mid-major was hugely successful, especially when they made two consecutive national championship games while representing the Horizon League. Interestingly, Butler’s spending hasn’t increased very much since that time, even though they are now in the Big East. Their win totals haven’t quite kept up, though. Probably because their strength of schedule has jumped from 0.677 in the Horizon to 0.845 in the new Big East.

One of the biggest surprises here is the presence of Chicago State from their two-season run as an independent Division I team. Over the past few seasons, the Cougars have become one of the least successful teams in the country, but times weren’t always so bad. With decent returns against the backdrop of a very low spending average, they shot up in the rankings. However, their four seasons in the WAC have them ranked 310th out of 450 teams, while their stint in the now-defunct Great West was even worse, registering as 410th. Clearly, being in a conference hasn’t suited Chicago State very well.

Villanova is the last new face in these rankings, using their 2016 championship to vault into such a lofty position. Their adjusted returns of 37.5 during their time in the new Big East is tops in the conference-dependent rankings. Yes, their spending is pretty huge (17th in the nation), but the returns are high enough to overcome that fact. It will be interesting to see if, with the next EADA release, the Wildcats jump into the top ten for conference-independent rankings as well.

441. Alcorn State (Southwestern Athletic Conference)1.42 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 9.0 (0.287 win%, 0.097 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 9.0
  • Relative Spending Average: 17.7%

442. Fordham (Atlantic 10 Conference) – 1.40 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 9.1 (0.301 win%, 0.615 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 1.7
  • Relative Spending Average: 120.4%

443. Rutgers (Big Ten Conference) – 1.38 ROE+

  • Seasons: 3
  • Average Wins: 10.7 (0.329 win%, 0.781 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 2.7
  • Relative Spending Average: 198.1%

444. Longwood (Big South Conference) – 1.34 ROE+

  • Seasons: 5
  • Average Wins: 8.6 (0.264 win%, 0.259 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.6
  • Relative Spending Average: 43.6%

445. South Florida (American Athletic Conference) – 1.26 ROE+

  • Seasons: 4
  • Average Wins: 9.0 (0.283 win%, 0.654 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 1.7
  • Relative Spending Average: 132.0%

446. Alabama State (Southwestern Athletic Conference) – 1.21 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 15.7 (0.499 win%, 0.042 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 2
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.3
  • Relative Spending Average: 27.6%

447. DePaul (Big East Conference) – 1.18 ROE+

  • Seasons: 6
  • Average Wins: 9.7 (0.309 win%, 0.834 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 2.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 212.0%

448. Houston Baptist (Great West Conference) – 1.14 ROE+

  • Seasons: 3
  • Average Wins: 9.7 (0.315 win%, 0.162 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.5
  • Relative Spending Average: 43.3%

449. Grambling (Southwestern Athletic Conference) – 0.59 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 6.6 (0.218 win%, 0.075 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 18.3%

450. Alabama A&M (Southwestern Athletic Conference) – 0.40 ROE+

  • Seasons: 10
  • Average Wins: 10.0 (0.348 win%, 0.027 SOS)
  • NCAA Tournament Points: 0
  • Average Adjusted Returns: 0.1
  • Relative Spending Average: 23.0%

Not shockingly, the four SWAC teams from the conference-independent are still here. So, too, are the high-profile teams like DePaul and Fordham. There are a few interesting additions down here, though.

Houston Baptist had a pretty rough go of things during their time in the Great West Conference. The Huskies are anchored down by their 2011 season, in which they won just five games against a strength of schedule of just 0.129. The entire, brief history that conference is pretty terrible, but Houston Baptist got the worst of it.

Similarly, Longwood had some difficulty adjusting to a conference. After spending some time as an independent, the Lancers joined the Big South Conference and things did not go so well. In five seasons in the Big South, Longwood’s highest win total was 11, while their relative spending average hovered in the low 40s – which is about ten points higher than teams in the lowest-spending leagues in the country.

Perhaps the most notable new entries are Rutgers and South Florida. The Scarlet Knights were never high in these rankings. Their time in the old Big East ranked 366th and their one year in the American Athletic Conference ranked 410th. But things got really bad when they jumped up to the Big Ten, as their spending average jumped up by nearly 50 points, while their win totals dropped by about three wins. South Florida’s spending really didn’t change much between their Big East days and their AAC days, but their average wins plummeted from 14.2 to 9.0, with their SOS falling from 0.873 to 0.654. Performing worse against worse competition is a quick way to the cellar.

IV. Further Study

These results are for entertainment purposes, but I do think that this kind of analysis opens up some interesting questions about how to measure return on investment in college basketball. For example, should other postseason tournaments be included in success metrics? Should conference records be treated separately from non-conference performance? Should revenue also be considered into the equation? What about just looking at coach salaries instead of overall expenses in the program?

All of these questions are interesting topics for further research. I might undertake some of them. The next piece that I’ll be working on regarding NCAA basketball finances is too look at yearly spending patterns by conference to make some determinations about different tiers past just the false dichotomy of “high-major” and “mid-major”.

If you have any requests for research projects in this vein, feel free to send me a message. I will consider these requests and address the ones that I feel are both interesting and possible with the available data. You can stay up to date with this series of pieces by following me on Twitter at @andrewdieckhoff.

I also strongly support anyone else using this data to do their own research. As I said before, please just give credit to me, Sports-Reference, and the EADA reports if you use any of this information.

The Cost of Winning: Measuring return on investment in D1 basketball

You get what you pay for.”

Of course, this is only half true. Often, there is plenty that you get for free and plenty that doesn’t live up to its price tag. This reality can be seen in all walks of life. And in college basketball’s increasingly dystopian world of haves and have-nots, it is very apparent.

Recently, I have become fascinated with the financial reports published by the Department of Education in their annual Equity in Athletics Data Analysis. These reports come in a spreadsheet that looks like a wall of numbers, measuring things such as revenue, total expenses, and operating costs. I wanted a way to distill all of this information into something meaningful.

The question I kept coming back to: Which schools are getting the best return on their investment?

To figure this out, I took the EADA data from the ten most recent years available, spanning from 2008 to 2017. The reports are about two years behind, but I think there’s still much to be gleaned from them. Then, I used datasets made available by Sports-Reference to track total wins and winning percentage by year.

In order to determine the relative return on investment, I looked at each school’s average wins over the ten-year span as a function of how much was spent on the program, measured in millions of dollars. To keep the numbers from being skewed by schools with low win totals and even lower investments, I adjusted the numbers to reflect winning percentage over the decade.

The resultant number is what I call “adjusted return on expenses”, or ROE+. (I am using “expenses” instead of “investment” to differentiate between money spent by the universities and revenue earned.)

For example, let’s look at the midpoint of the data. Dayton spent an average of $4.65 million on its men’s basketball program from 2008 to 2017 and in that time, averaged 23.6 wins per season. By dividing those wins by the average expenses, we get 5.08. Then, that number is adjusted by the overall winning percentage in those ten years – in this case, 0.685. This drops the number down to 3.48, which is the Flyers’ final ROE+ number.

The range of ROE+ measures across 347 Division I programs included in the dataset goes from 13.51 ROE+ at its highest, all the way down to 0.50 ROE+ at its lowest. The mean ROE+ is 4.06, indicating that Dayton gets relatively less bang for its buck than the average Division I program.

Keep in mind that ROE+ measures relative success. There are a finite number of wins available each season, but there is theoretically no limit to the amount of money a school can spend on its program. Therefore, blue bloods that back up the truck to fund their programs are going to score low in this metric. For example, Duke’s 30-win season in 2013 registered a lower ROE+ than Weber State’s 30-win season that same year, because the Blue Devils outspent the Wildcats by nearly $12.5 million for the same number of wins.

A couple additional notes on my analysis:

  • I only looked at EADA figures from a team’s time in Division I
  • The expenses referenced refer to both operating costs (gameday expenses) and other costs, including coaches’ salaries, recruiting expenses, and student aid for scholarship athletes.
  • Strength of schedule is not factored into the analysis
  • For some reason, Kennesaw State did not report to the EADA between 2008 and 2014.
  • The military schools – Air Force, Army, and Navy – are exempt from EADA reporting because they do not receive Title IV funding for student loans. You can read more about this situation in this USA TODAY piece by Brian Schotenboer and Steve Berkowitz.
  • These numbers are two years old, so there’s every chance that your team’s ROE+ number has changed significantly since the last EADA report.

In case you want to play around with the data yourself, or just want to see where your team ranks, here is a link to the spreadsheet. All that I ask is that if you publish any work based on these data, that you reference me, as well as the EADA and Sports-Reference.

If you’re still with me, congratulations! Now we get to the fun part, which is actually identifying the teams that have overachieved and underachieved the most, relative to their school’s investments.

We’ll start first with the ten best ROE+ figures, listed below.

1. Sam Houston State – 13.51 ROE+

  • Average wins: 20.3
  • Winning percentage: 0.616
  • Average expenses: $926,136

2. Stephen F. Austin – 13.05 ROE+

  • Average wins: 24.5
  • Winning percentage: 0.751
  • Average expenses: $1,408,842

3. UNC Asheville – 12.63 ROE+

  • Average wins: 19.0
  • Winning percentage: 0.582
  • Average expenses: $874,903

4. Jackson State – 10.63 ROE+

  • Average wins: 14.2
  • Winning percentage: 0.438
  • Average expenses: $584,864

5. Harvard – 10.35 ROE+

  • Average wins: 19.3
  • Winning perectage: 0.645
  • Average expenses: $1,202,613

6. Princeton – 10.25 ROE+

  • Average wins: 18.5
  • Winning perectage: 0.615
  • Average expenses: $1,110,089

7. South Dakota State – 10.17 ROE+

  • Average wins: 20.6
  • Winning perectage: 0.613
  • Average expenses: $1,238,901

8. Vermont – 9.98 ROE+

  • Average wins: 22.7
  • Winning perectage: 0.668
  • Average expenses: $1,520,776

9. Savannah State – 9.89 ROE+

  • Average wins: 14.2
  • Winning perectage: 0.460
  • Average expenses: $660,492

10. North Dakota State – 9.69 ROE+

  • Average wins: 20.0
  • Winning perectage: 0.625
  • Average expenses: $1,290,271

You may be surprised to see some unfamiliar names here, but keep in mind that schools in the “lowest” Division I conferences will have considerably less overhead. Because there is less revenue coming in for these programs, the expenses have to be kept relatively low. Venues are smaller, coaching contracts are smaller, and so on.

In this list, we can see a few patterns. The clearest indicator of ROE+ success, by definition, is winning a lot of games while spending a small amount of money on the program. So perennial powers in conferences such as the Southland, Big South, America East, and Summit League are well-represented by Sam Houston State, Stephen F. Austin, UNC Asheville, Vermont, South Dakota State, and North Dakota State. The cost of playing in these conferences is lower than other mid-major conferences, so the wins are more valuable.

Similarly, running a program in the Ivy League doesn’t cost quite as much as other conferences around the country. The Ivy merits special mention, though, because of the peculiarity that keeps costs so low league-wide. Schools in this conference don’t offer athletic scholarships, which is one of the key expenses included in the report. So, it shouldn’t be surprising to see the Ivy schools performing well in the ROE+ metric. Six of the eight Ivy League teams are in the top 66 schools. Only Penn and Dartmouth fall lower, due to their low win totals throughout the decade.

The other peculiarity here is that teams such as Jackson State and Savannah State can make this list, despite both finishing under .500 during the decade in question. The simple answer is the fact that these two both fall in the bottom ten with regard to annual expenses. The average yearly win total for the 32 schools that spent less than $1 million annually is 12.4 wins. That both of these teams exceeded this win total explains their presence here.

Of the ten programs with the lowest expenses, seven come from either the SWAC or the MEAC. This, of course, includes Jackson State and Savannah State. The financial and scheduling issues facing these HBCU conferences is well-documented. Their case is an extreme example of how the

ROE+ rewards relative success. That is, their 14 wins per year were much more valuable in these conferences than Oregon State’s 14 wins in the Pac-12, which registers a lowly 1.26 ROE+, the 14th-lowest score in the database.

With that difference in mind, let’s take a look at the other end of the spectrum. Below are the ten programs with the lowest ROE+ scores.

338. Rice – 1.08 ROE+

  • Average wins: 11.3
  • Winning percentage: 0.345
  • Average expenses: $3,601,850

339. South Florida – 1.07 ROE+

  • Average wins: 12.1
  • Winning percentage: 0.372
  • Average expenses: $4,202,693

340. Indiana – 1.04 ROE+

  • Average wins: 19.1
  • Winning percentage: 0.562
  • Average expenses: $10,291,656

341. St. John’s – 0.99 ROE+

  • Average wins: 15.8
  • Winning percentage: 0.483
  • Average expenses: $7,741,544

342. Rutgers – 0.92 ROE+

  • Average wins: 12.5
  • Winning percentage: 0.391
  • Average expenses: $5,333,095

343. Boston College – 0.91 ROE+

  • Average wins: 13.4
  • Winning percentage: 0.413
  • Average expenses: $6,108,657

344. Auburn – 0.81 ROE+

  • Average wins: 14.6
  • Winning percentage: 0.453
  • Average expenses: $8,193,977

345. TCU – 0.76 ROE+

  • Average wins: 14.4
  • Winning percentage: 0.436
  • Average expenses: $8,311,529

346. Fordham – 0.72 ROE+

  • Average wins: 9.1
  • Winning percentage: 0.301
  • Average expenses: $3,803,264

347. DePaul – 0.50 ROE+

  • Average wins: 10.0
  • Winning percentage: 0.316
  • Average expenses: $6,291,660

Looking at these numbers, two patterns emerge: low-performing Power 5 teams and teams in huge municipalities both seem to struggle. Of course, this makes a lot of sense. Let’s look at each pattern a little further.

Playing in the big leagues means that, despite your yearly records, you have to constantly keep up with the Joneses. The venues are (generally) bigger, as are the contracts that you have to pay to coaches. When it comes to expenses, you have to travel down the list to #45 before you find a program that isn’t in the “high-major” category (Power 5 plus Big East and AAC). That team, unsurprisingly, is Gonzaga. The five biggest spenders are Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and Kansas – all either bona fide blue-bloods or schools that have poured a lot of money into developing their basketball identities.

When you compound that high-level basketball with being in a big city, the expenses seem to be higher. The other issue, though, is that many schools that fit this bill have struggled to establish or maintain a strong following in those cities – especially if there is a professional team there.

With the exception of Auburn, each of the teams in the bottom ten of the ROE+ rankings have to compete with an NBA team that is within reasonable driving distance:

  • DePaul – Chicago Bulls
  • Fordham & St. John’s – New York Knicks/Brooklyn Nets
  • TCU – Dallas Mavericks
  • Boston College – Boston Celtics
  • Indiana – Indiana Pacers
  • Rutgers – New York/Brooklyn/Philadelphia 76ers
  • South Florida – Orlando Magic
  • Rice – Houston Rockets

It seems that Indiana may be the one team that really doesn’t quite fit here – the Hoosiers basketball following is unquestionably one of the most devoted. Theirs is simply an issue of underperforming during the ten years covered here. For the other schools, though, it may be difficult for them to attract a solid fanbase due to the fact that the professional game is so accessible in these regions. By extension, it stands to reason that top recruits may be less willing to come to these relatively less-established schools.

Obviously, schools can overcome the combination of major-conference affiliation and NBA proximity. Butler, for example, is the best-performing high-major program in the ROE+ ranks and share a city with the NBA’s Pacers. But it is still interesting to see so many teams near the bottom that fall within these parameters.

To summarize, the figures in the EADA highlight the financial discrepancies between the top and bottom conferences in Division I basketball. However, just because a team spends more (or less) money on its basketball program, that doesn’t guarantee anything with regard to winning games.

If you support a team that excels in one of the lower conferences, you’re one of the lucky ones. Those teams really deliver the best return on investment for their schools. Conversely, if you’re a fan of a high-major team and you get the feeling that you aren’t getting enough bang for your buck, you might be right.

Who is Merrimack? An Early Look at D-I’s Newest Team

Junior guard Juvaris Hayes, a preseason All-American, leads the team in scoring, assists, rebounds, and steals. (Photo credit: Jim Stankiewicz /


In the past twenty years, the NCAA’s top basketball league has experienced a period of expansion, adding a net total of 40 teams since the beginning of the 1999-2000 season. Next season, that number will stay at 40 – though there will still be a new team in the fold.

Gone will be the MEAC’s Savannah State, who are reclassifying after nearly a decade years of athletic and financial struggles. Taking their place will be a Division II program, the Merrimack Warriors, who will join the Northeast Conference as its eleventh member.

Merrimack’s entry into the D1 ranks follows that of Cal Baptist and North Alabama and precedes the ascension of Dixie State and UC San Diego next season. And while winning immediately is not necessarily the norm form programs making the leap, the Warriors will look to emulate the recent early successes of teams like Grand Canyon, Abilene Christian, and Cal Baptist.

Of course, there is a four-year probation period for new programs joining Division I, meaning Merrimack won’t be eligible to win the NEC or participate in the NCAA Tournament next year. Nevertheless, it’s worth giving a quick look to the newest team to join college basketball’s grandest stage.

First, the coach. Joe Gallo, a Merrimack graduate himself, is in the midst of his third season at the helm for the Warriors. His first two years were unmitigated successes, guiding the team to a 39-24 record that includes two trips to the NCAA Division II Tournament. And while this season has not been as good as last year, Gallo currently has his team at 18-9 overall. The Warriors’ conference mark of 13-7 is good for second in the NE10’s Northeast Division. They are likely to be among the 40 at-large bids for the D-II tournament next month.

Gallo has a little bit of D1 pedigree himself. He was an assistant at Robert Morris – soon to be a conference opponent, by the way – from 2012-13 to 2015-16, where he brought in recruits like Marcquise Reed (who is now starring at Clemson). Gallo was on the sidelines as the Colonials took home three NEC titles and nabbed three postseason wins over Kentucky (NIT), St. John’s (NIT), and North Florida (NCAA).

Basically, Gallo is a guy who spent the better part of the past decade helping to build winning programs. Of course, coaches can’t do it on their own. They need talented players to execute their vision. Here’s a look at some of the key players who should be returning in 2019-20.

It all starts with Juvaris Hayes. The 6-foot junior guard won NE10 Rookie of the Year honors in 2017 and followed that up with an All-NE10 First Team nod and a D-II All-American honorable mention a season ago. He’s a good bet to repeat the honor this year after being named a Street & Smith’s All-American in the preseason for the second-straight time.

Hayes is the Warriors’ leading scorer at 18.6 points per game, which is fourth-best in the NE10. He is also a top-ten passer in D-II, averaging over six dishes every night. He also pulls down about six and a half rebounds every game, too. But perhaps his most impressive stat is that he leads all Division II players in steals, with a ridiculous 3.96 swipes per game. In his most recent game, against Bentley, he recorded 17 points, 12 rebounds, eight assists, and seven steals. Yikes.

This guy is going to be hellacious on both ends of the floor in the NEC next season. He may even earn All-NEC accolades. But he’s not going to do it alone.

The Warriors second-best player right now is departing senior Ryan Boulter, but there are still some good pieces that will be coming back. Chief among them are Jaleel Lord and Idris Joyner, who provide two very different types of games.

Lord, currently a junior, is more of a three-point specialist, having knocked down 65 triples this year at a 38.7% clip. Not too shabby. He is also second on the team in steals (though the margin between him and Hayes is quite large). His 10.4 points per game are third on the team behind Hayes and Boulter.

Joyner, on the other hand, plays more like a big despite being just 6-foot-5. The junior forward leads the team in rebounding (6.7 RPG) and blocks (1.7 BPG). His swats number is actually tops in the NE10. And he is an effective scorer, shooting 62.8% on the year.

A little further down the depth chart are guards Khalief Crawford, a sophomore, and Mikey Watkins, a freshman. Crawford has started every game this year, while Watkins provides a big spark off the bench. Senior Troy McLaughlin is the only other Warrior to play in all 27 games this season,

The Warriors have also gotten some decent performances in limited minutes from underclassmen such as Justin Connolly – who will likely be tasked with filling Boulter’s shoes as resident big man at 6-foot-7 – and Devin Jensen, a 6-5 wing who will look to come in and hit threes.

So, will this team be able to compete in the NEC immediately? That remains to be seen. But look at the success that Cal Baptist has had in Year One around their own star, Milan Acquaah. He is on his way to possibly winning WAC Player of the Year. That’s probably the upper limit for Juvaris Hayes.

Joe Gallo has won consistently throughout his short career. With a player like Juvaris Hayes on board, and a pretty solid supporting cast, I would be hesitant to underestimate how dangerous this Merrimack team could be in its first year in the big leagues.

The Best Around: Nation-Leading Stats from Every Conference

Can you guess what odd statistic Indiana leads the country in? You can ask Dwight and Stewie for help.

It’s been a while since I wrote anything, mostly because I’ve been really consumed with bracketology and trying to search for the Holy Grail of Bracket Math. (Spoiler alert: I haven’t found it yet.) But I decided it was high time for a good ol’ deep dive into the leaderboards.

For each of the 32 conferences in D1 ball, I’ve identified a statistic for a team or player from that league that leads the nation. Some of them are relatively mainstream and straightforward. Others required a lot of digging and a little massaging. But the end result, I think, is a pretty interesting look at the varied landscape of NCAA hoops.

If nothing else, you’re gonna learn something. Feel free to immediately forget it.

Tip of the hat to KenPom, Bart Torvik, and Sports-Reference. All of this info comes from those sources. Especially thanks to Bart, whose site’s customization made a lot of the really specific statistics possible.

Anyway, here goes, in alphabetical order because I really have no clue how else I could have ordered this. If you find errors, you can tell me. Or don’t. Follow your heart.


America East – Hartford’s experience

The Hawks are the most experienced team in the country, per KenPom’s metric. At an average of 2.88 years, there isn’t much these players haven’t seen – except for an NCAA Tournament. Hartford is currently in fourth place in the AE, but is a dangerous team to bet against come March. They start five seniors, but not just that – these guys play a lot. In fact, Hartford has the lowest bench usage of any team in America, with just 15.5% of their minutes being played by non-starters. But when your starting five is as experienced as the Hawks’ is, you stick with that.

American – South Florida’s free throw rate

The Bulls are better than anyone at getting to the line, relative to how often they shoot. This effort is led by David Collins, who ranks 34th nationally in free throw rate. He has two teammates, Alexis Yetna and LaQuincy Rideau, who also rank in the top 200. The next step is making the damn free throws. The Bulls are a paltry 63.4% shooting team, ranking 337th in the nation.

Atlantic 10 – St. Joseph’s turnover rate

If you’re looking for ball protection, look no further than the Hawks. Their 13.5% turnover rate is lowest in the country by half a point. But their conservatism with the ball carries over a little too much on the other end of the court. They are one of the worst teams at forcing turnovers, at just 15.4%. That number is 328th among Division I teams and worst in the Atlantic 10.

Atlantic Coast – Virginia’s pace

There were a lot of options for this in the talent-laden ACC, but Virginia’s methodical pace stands out. While Tony Bennett’s offense has been among the nation’s slowest for years now, this season’s team is much more efficient and explosive than in years past. I’ll sneak a bonus one in here. The Cavaliers are also the country’s top team at defending three-pointers, allowing just a 25.8% clip.

Atlantic Sun – Kennesaw State’s three-point attempt rate

This one, unfortunately, might be construed as a bit negative. Or just outright negative. The Owls are pretty bad at a few things, actually. Their effective field goal percentage and two-point percentage are both next-to-last in the country. Which makes it all the more perplexing that this team shoots a lower pecentage of three-pointers than anyone else. Of course, their threes don’t really go in either. KSU is shooting them at a 31.1% rate, so I guess the red light makes a little sense. Still, to spin this positively, this team looks to push the ball inside more than anyone else? Hey, I tried. Moving on.

Big 12 – Texas Tech’s defensive effective field goal percentage

The Red Raiders defense under Chris Beard has been a talking point all season long and the crux of their efficiency is limiting good shots to their opponents. Seems pretty intuitive. The goal of defense, more than anything, is to keep players from scoring. No one does it better than Tech. If they can figure out a way to make the offense a little more potent, the Red Raiders could be playing in the second weekend of the tournament – and maybe further.

Big East – Tyrique Jones’ offensive rebounding percentage

So, this one is a bit of a stretch for the Xavier big man. Jones’ position atop the offensive rebounding leaderboard is dependent on what threshold you use for qualifying players. KenPom has Jones second, while Sports-Reference has him first. Either way, Jones is a force on the glass, grabbing 16.8% of available offensive boards when he’s on the floor. He’s not too shabby on the defensive end either, where his 19.1% is in the 85th percentile nationwide.

Big Sky – Portland State’s offensive rebounding percentage

A little love for my alma mater here! This stat is one of the few bright spots statistically for the Vikings. And boy is it bright. Nobody crashes the glass better than Portland State, which is probably aided by the fact that they are 346th in the country in three-point shooting. (The two-pointers arent much better, at just 235th.) The appetite for boards doesn’t translate to the other end of the floor, but the starters and reserves alike contribue to the Vikings’ #1 ranking in this department.

Big South – Chris Clemons’ scoring

Maybe you’ve heard of this guy? As I’m sure you saw this past weekend, the Campbell guard became just the ninth player in Division I history to cross the 3,000-point threshold. This season has been especially spectacular. Clemons is averaging a mind-boggling 29.8 points per game. One reason for his scoring prowess: he’s shot more free throws this season than anyone else in America.

Big Ten – Indiana’s opponent free throw percentage

This is just a funny stat. Teams are really, really bad at shooting free throws against the Hoosiers. Perhaps that’s due to the crowds at Assembly Hall. Whatever the reason, teams are shooting just 62.7% from the line when they face Indiana. This facet of the game is one the Hoosiers’ strongest, as they are 32nd in defensive free throw rate. So they don’t put teams on the line too often, and when they do, they don’t often convert. Just ask Michigan State, who went 8-for-22 (36.4%) in their recent loss. Maybe it’s all the red?

Big West – Lamine Diane’s usage rate

Fans of basketball on the left coast probably know Diane’s name by now, but he’s still a bit of a kept secret nationwide. Well, that’s not going to be the case much longer if he continues being used with such high frequency. The freshman has provided an enormous amount of offense for a Cal State Northridge that desperately needs it. He is involved on a whopping 37.4% of possessions. This high usage rate has anchored his offensive rating, but Diane leads the country in two-point shooting (both attempted and made).

Colonial – Hofstra’s free throw shooting

Much can be said about the star turn of Hofstra’s all-everything Justin Wright-Foreman – who does lead the country in offensive win shares, per Sports-Reference. But the Pride’s success this season goes well past him. Hofstra is the country’s best free throw shooting team, hitting their shots from the line at a blazing 80.3% rate. That’s nearly ten points higher than the national average. The only player shooting lower than 68% is Stafford Trueheart, who has thankfully only had his (outstanding) name called 11 times so far this season.

Conference USA – Florida International’s pace

If you’re one of those people who complains about Virginia’s slow, “boring” basketball, then maybe FIU is a little bit more your speed. (Pun fully intended.) The Panthers reel off a crazy 78.4 adjusted possessions per game, which is about ten above the national average and nearly 20 more than Virginia gets. They also huck quite a bit of threes, ranking 66th in three-point rate. Sounds like an NBA team, right? Well, the problem is, FIU doesn’t make very many of them. They’re currently 330th in three-point percentage, hitting just over 30% of their deep shots.

Horizon – Antoine Davis’ field goal attempts

Another individual story here. Antoine Davis has been making headlines by hitting a lot of three pointers. So many, in fact, that his 118 made three-pointers is just four away from passing Steph Curry for the most long bombs made by a freshman. His coach (and father) Mike Davis has giving him the permanent green light. Becuase of this, the younger Davis has attempted more shots than anyone in D1 ball this year. Luckily, they’ve been going in at a pretty respectable rate (39.1% 3P).

Ivy League – Penn’s defensive assist ratio

The Quakers’ defense has been slightly above average this year, but they’ve certainly perfected the style of defense they like to play. The fact that they allow very few assists and three-point attempts means that they are often in a man defense. That’s keeping some opponents from getting in a good passing rhythm, such as Villanova and Temple. Those two Big 5 opponents are both in the top 70 for assist rate, but were held to 25% and 30% in their respective losses, well below their season averages.

Metro Atlantic – Cam Young and Jalen Pickett’s epic battle

This one is a pretty recent happening, so it should still be fresh in your mind. But the reason it makes this list – aside from the eye-popping stats they each put up – is that this game produced the two top Game Scores of any D1 contest this season, per Sports-Reference. Cam Young’s 55-point, 10-rebound outburst was the main headline, but Pickett arguably had the better game. The outstanding freshman dropped 46 points and 13 assists and four steals. Perhaps the craziest stat? These guys combined for just three turnovers in a 55-minute game where they each dominated the ball. Amazing stuff.

Mid-American – Jalen Avery’s assist-to-turnover ratio

Avery leads all qualifying seniors (>50% minutes played) in taking care of the ball. The Kent State guard has been effective in small spurts, sporting an offensive rating over 120 at around 16% usage. The main reason for that high number is the fact that he only turns the ball over on about 6% of his possessions. And with a decent assist rate of 18.6%, the numbers work in his favor for the assist-to-turnover ratio. Bonus! He is also among the national leaders in fewest fouls committed per 40 minutes. I don’t think there’s a stat for boneheadedness, but if there were, Avery would probably be very low on that list.

Mid-Eastern – Cletrell Pope’s offensive rebounds

While there are a bunch of guys who grab a higher percentage of offensive rebounds, nobody in the country has snagged more rebounds than this Bethune-Cookman big man. He is second in the country in total rebounds and rebounds per game, but his totals on the offensive end are unmatched. Pope’s averaging 13.4 points and 12.1 rebounds per game in 2018-19, including six games with over 15 boards and two with over 20.

Missouri Valley – Loyola-Chicago’s defensive rebounding

While it has no doubt been a bit of a hangover year for the Ramblers after last season’s Final Four run, it hasn’t been all bad. Loyola is better than anyone at preventing offensive rebounds, only allowing opponents to grab 21% of missed shots. Unfortunately, they don’t have that same passion on their own misses. They are a near-worst 350th in offensive rebounding. They’re pretty much the opposite of the Portland State team I discussed earlier. But Cameron Krutwig has made hay in the defensive paint this year, ranking 23rd among qualified players on KenPom’s defensive rebounding leaderboard.

Mountain West – Nico Carvacho’s rebounds

While players like Tyrique Jones and Cletrell Pope snag lots of offensive boards, and others like Colorado’s Tyler Bey and South Dakota State’s Mike Daum excel at defensive rebounding, nobody is putting the two together quite like Colorado State’s big man. Carvacho’s 13 boards a game are first in the nation by almost a full rebound. He’s not getting much help from his teammates, though, as the Rams rank outside the Top 150 in rebounding on both ends.

Northeast – Raiquan Clark’s around-the-rim game

This is another stretch, but hey, this isn’t the easiest piece to write, OK? The LIU Brooklyn senior has more attempts at the rim than anyone else in the country, per Bart Torvik. His at-the-rim attempts outnumber second-place Ethan Happ’s by 15, though Happ does convert at a better rate. Still, this is the prime reason why Clark is a frontrunner for NEC Player of the Year honors. He also draws quite a bit of fouls playing down low so much, ranking 26th in the country in fouls drawn per 40 minutes and just outside the Top 150 in free throw rate. The Blackbirds know where their bread is buttered.

Ohio Valley – Ja Morant’s assists

Yes, yes. We all love dunks. They’re fun and exciting and blah blah blah. But what really excites me – and I think most serious students of basketball – is Morant’s court vision. The Murray State guard is averagin over ten assists per game and has a ridiculous assist rate of 53.5%. Consider that he is a Top 3 player in terms of usage, but falls outside the Top 100 in shooting rate (field goals attempted per possession). So you can keep the highlight-reel dunks. I’m here for the dimes.

Pacific 12 – Kylor Kelley’s blocks

Sorry, more homer love. Before I get into Kelley, I just want to mention that Noah Dickerson’s free throw rate, Matisse Thybulle’s steal rate, and Tyler Bey’s defensive rebound rate are all also stats where Pac-12 players lead the country. OK, there. Now to Kelley, the JUCO transfer who got a big boost in minutes after an early injury to Gligorije Rakocevic forced him into action. The result? A new Oregon State record for blocks in a season and a block rate of 17.1%. He’s a key reason why opposing offenses are only converting two-pointers at a 46% clip, good for 29th in the land – and why the Beavers sit in second place in the Pac-12.

Patriot – Lehigh’s three-point shooting

One of the reasons that the Hawks are in contention for a Patriot League title is because of their deep threats. Four players on this Lehigh team rank in the Top 100 for three-point percentage. Lance Tejada and Pat Andree are the more prolific pair, while Jordan Cohen and Kyle Leufroy are more accurate. Put it all together and you’ve got a team hitting 44% of their long balls, nearly ten points higher than the national average. It’s also why they’re #3 in effective field goal percentage.

Southeastern – Auburn’s defensive turnover rate

This Auburn team has been inconsistent all year long, but one thing that they always do is force turnovers. They’ve been held under the national average in only four games all year long, all losses. But they are 16-4 when forcing turnovers at a higher-than-average rate. The interesting thing is, this is a team that has a better offense than defense, according to the efficiency ratings. But the bellwether for Auburn’s success definitely comes from its nation-leading turnover rate of 25.8 per 100 possessions. So, if you’re game planning for the Tigers… remind your players to hold onto the ball.

Southern – Fletcher Magee’s free throw shooting

This Wofford team is definitely much more than just Magee, but he’s the centerpiece of the show. And for all the fireworks he provides, including his 103 three-pointers, the purist in me loves the fact that the kid makes his damn free throws. His 95.3% clip on 81-of-85 shots is nearly unheard of in a day when the national average is just 70%. There are worse comparisons to get than Chris Mullin, which is the guy that Magee reminds me of.

Southland – Hayden Koval’s three-point shooting

This was by far the deepest dive for this entire piece. But now I – and you – know that the Central Arkansas sophomore is the nation’s most prolific three-point shooter who also happens to be a 7-footer. While he doesn’t have the accuracy of Chattanooga’s Thomas Smallwood, Koval has made 27 threes on 75 attempts, both of which lead the country among the 84-inches-high club. Besides being a deep threat, Koval also leads the Southland in block percentage during league play. Not a bad combination, if you ask me.

Southwestern – Jeremy Combs’ 25 free throw attempts

The SWAC is not really a bastion of great team statistics, nor is it really one for individual averages. However, one recent game that really sticks out to me is Jeremy Combs’ performance in Texas Southern’s win on Monday against Jackson State. The North Texas-via-LSU transfer put up a nasty 33-point, 17-rebound performance. But what really stood out in the box score was Combs’ ungodly 25 free throw attempts. Per Sports-Reference, that’s the most of any D1 player in a single game this season. He’s stepped up big time as TSU’s top option in the wake of Trayvon Reed’s injury.

Summit – Mike Daum’s defensive rebounds

The Dauminator, as the South Dakota State senior has come to be known, has had quite the college career. He’s played much of this season in the shadow of Chris Clemons, but he is not far behind the Campbell sparkplug in career scoring. Daum should cross the 3,000 point mark soon. But he gets mentioned here because he is not just a scorer. In fact, nobody has pulled down more defensive boards than Daum this season. He’s averaging 25.4 points and 11.6 boards per game this year and should be on his way to another Summit League POY award.

Sun Belt – Kris Bankston’s two-pointers

Despite playing fewer than half of the time, Bankston has made his mark on this Little Rock team. The 6-8 sophomore has been absolutely dynamite down low, scoring on an astonishing 81% of his two pointers (81-for-100). This is why he leads the team in offensive rating. It’s also a big part of why the Trojans rank in the Top 30 for effective field goal percentage and two-point percentage. Bankston is also no slouch on the defensive end, posting a 6.5% block rate that falls just outside the Top 100 nationally.

West Coast – Gonzaga’s effective field goal percentage

Another year in Spokane, another top-notch offense. Mark Few really does play the hits. But this year’s Gonzaga team may be the best he’s ever had. Looking past national POY candidates Brandon Clarke and Rui Hachimura, the Zags have a full arsenal of gunners, including Zach Norvell, Josh Perkins, and Corey Kispert. In fact, only one player on the team who has played over 25% of the available minutes this season has an offensive rating below 118. It’s going to be hard for teams to keep up with this level of firepower, as evidence by Gonzaga’s win over consensus #1 Duke. I’m kinda hoping for a rematch in the national championship, if I’m being honest.

Western – New Mexico State’s depth

Well, I started this piece by talking about a Hartford team that plays the fewest bench minutes in all of college basketball, so it seems fitting that I’ll end it by talking about the deepest team in D1. The Aggies run with about a 13-man rotation, with each of them having played between 18 and 64 percent of the team’s minutes. The craziest thing? There’s very little drop-off on the offensive end when the subs come in. All but one player has an offensive rating over 100 on the year. All told, the Aggies’ bench players have logged 48.4% of the minutes played this year, which is 18 points higher than the national average and three points higher than the second-ranked team.

Twitter Handles for All 353 D1 Teams

I realized over the past week or so that my tweets that included mentions for a specific school got more impressions than those that didn’t. Go figure, right?

What I also found was that finding each school’s Twitter handle was not always easy or intuitive. I would spend more time scouring for a name than actually creating the content. Maybe you’re in the same boat.

So, with that in mind, I buckled down and found every school’s Men’s Basketball twitter handle. A few schools, mostly (if not all) in the SWAC, just use their school’s main Athletics feed for MBB content. I included those too. They are in a handy .xlsx format below:

Twitter Handles for All 353 Division I Programs

I’ve done my best to make sure that these are all official accounts. However, if you find any errors, please let me know! You can comment here or message me on Twitter at @andrewdieckhoff.

Hope this helps!

Blue Ridge Blues: Asheville’s Precipitous Fall

In the heart of North Carolina’s Blue Ridge mountains lays UNC Asheville, where basketball has been thriving for the past two decades… until now. The Bulldogs spent the last twenty-plus years building a consistent winner, but they’ve suddenly fallen off a cliff – a shocking, precipitous drop off one of those Appalachian mountains.

So how did we get here? To answer that, let’s jump all the way back to the 1996-97 season.

That was the year that Eddie Biedenbach took the helm. Biedenbach was a former NC State standout who won All-ACC honors twice as a player in the 1960s. After a brief stint in the NBA, he helped guide the Wolfpack to a national championship in 1974 as an assistant coach. He remained in that post until 1978, when he took his first head coaching job at Davidson. Biedenbach’s time with the Wildcats started poorly, but he parlayed a SoCon regular season title in 1981 into an assistant gig at Georgia. He later returned to Raleigh and was an assistant under Les Robinson.

Then he came to Asheville and built a winner.

The success was immediate. In his first year as head coach at UNCA, the Bulldogs won a share of the Big South regular season title. The next year, they won it outright. However, they couldn’t make it out of the conference tournament, so Asheville’s first NCAA Tournament bid would have to wait. After three straight third-place finishes from 1999 to 2001, the Bulldogs won a share of the Big South yet again in 2002. And just like before, they faltered, losing to 7-seed High Point in the first round. The following year, Biedenbach led the team to an 8-8 finish, good for fifth place.

But then, a light at the end of the tunnel.

The Bulldogs pulled off a huge semifinal upset of Winthrop – then a Big South powerhouse under the tutelage of current Wichita State head coach Gregg Marshall – before cruising past 7-seed Radford in the championship game. For the first time in school history, the Bulldogs went dancing.

The success didn’t last, though. The next season was Biedenbach’s worst at the school, posting a 9-20 record and a 7th-place finish. Then a few more middling years. It came back together in 2008, when Asheville won its fourth regular season title in 12 years. But they missed the tourney yet again, instead forced to settle for the school’s first NIT bid. After two more subpar years, Asheville went to the NCAA Tournament two years in a row in 2011 and 2012.

And they almost made history.

The 16-seeded Bulldogs were leading Syracuse for most of the game before finally falling 72-67. They just barely missed their chance to be UMBC.

Earlier that year, Biedenbach promoted assistant coach Nick McDevitt to associate head coach. The next year, he stepped down after 17 years — and 3 Big South Coach of the Year awards — and left the university. McDevitt, a former guard who played for Biedenbach at Asheville from 1997 to 2001, was named head coach not long after that. After graduating, he immediately joined the Bulldogs’ bench and didn’t leave until 2018.

During his time as head coach, McDevitt’s Asheville squads were extremely successful. In five seasons, UNCA finished in the top 3 four times. The Bulldogs went to the NCAA Tournament in 2016 and won at least a share of the Big South title in both of the last two seasons. In all, McDevitt was 98-66 at Asheville, including a 60-28 mark (.628) in conference play. He won 20-plus games in each of his final three seasons, a first for the program, nabbing his own accolades as the Big South’s best coach in 2017.

That success caught the eye of Middle Tennessee State, who had a vacancy in the spring after Kermit Davis bolted for Ole Miss, where he is currently leading the Rebels to a surprise run at the Big Dance. The Blue Raiders hired McDevitt away, leaving a void on the Asheville bench.

To fill that void, the Bulldogs looked toward Mike Morrell. The longtime assistant served under Shaka Smart for seven seasons at both VCU and Texas. But the head coach was not the only personnel change for Asheville this past spring.

Not by a longshot.

First, UNCA graduated four seniors from last season’s 21-win team, including All-Big South first teamer Ahmad Thomas. The 6-5 guard was second on the team in scoring with 16.5 points per game and was the teams top rebounder. He was also a nuisance on the defensive end, racking up nearly two steals per game. Joining him were Raekwon Miller, Kevin Vannatta, and Alec Wnuk. These three players were key cogs in the rotation. Replacing them was always going to be a tall task.

But then came the curveball.

In April, after McDevitt left and Morrell was hired, the team’s two best returning players transferred out of the program. First out the door was sophomore big man Jonathan Baehre, who left for the greener pastures of the ACC at Clemson. He was the tallest player on the team and provided solid minutes as a starter and off the bench. His absence would certainly be sorely missed. But that was just the first blow.

A few days later, leading scorer MaCio Teague – a sophomore guard who also made the All-Big South first team – announced his plans to transfer to Baylor. This was the one that really gutted the Bulldogs. Teague put up a nice line of 16.7 points, 4.4 rebounds, 2.5 assists, and 1.6 steals per game in 2017-18. He was almost sure to be the focal point of the offense this season. But with McDevitt gone, so too was Teague.

Another player, Drew Rackley, was a reserve for the Bulldogs last year. He also left the program, transferring to the University of Charleston, a Division II school in West Virginia. Rackley went from averaging under 15 minutes per game for Asheville to being UC’s top scorer. He’s currently averaging 23.3 points per game and put up 47 earlier this season. So, clearly there was some talent lost there, too.

When all was said and done, over 94 percent of Asheville’s scoring walked out of Kimmel Arena in March and never came back. In fact, only three players from last year’s team are currently suiting up for the Bulldogs. Two others who sat out last year have also joined in.

OK, so what of the incoming freshman?

There were two major recruits from McDevitt to be considered: Coty Jude and Anthony Crump. The latter decided to follow McDevitt to Middle Tennessee, where he started a few games before a season-ending knee injury. Jude, on the other hand, stayed firm in his commitment to Asheville and has been one of the team’s top performers so far.

Luckily for the Bulldogs, Morrell had gained a reputation under Shaka Smart as a good recruiter and he was able to cobble together a roster for the upcoming season. (That roster, by the way, is the least experienced in all of Division I basketball, according to KenPom’s analysis.) The highlight of the incoming class, outside of Jude, has been Devon Baker. The 6-2 guard out of Dayton leads the team, averaging over 16 points and three assists in nearly 34 minutes per game. He and Jude have started every game. Another freshman, Cress Worthy, has supplied some good minutes as well.

And the returning players? Well, they’ve provided minutes but not much more for Asheville. Sophomore big man Jeremy Peck, who sat out last year after transferring from Drexel, has taken Baehre’s place in the lineup, but he hasn’t made the same contributions on offense. He’s split time at the 5 with senior Donovan Gilmore (the team’s only senior), who likewise hasn’t done much this year. Redshirt freshman Tajion Jones has started every game and is third on the team in scoring with nearly 10 points per game. Sophomore Jalen Seegars has split time with Worthy in the backcourt. The last returning player is LJ Thorpe, who missed the first few weeks of the season with a foot injury, but did score 17 against Vanderbilt.

So, just how bad have things gotten in Asheville?

The word catastrophe comes to mind.

At current, Asheville is one of just four Divison I teams who have yet to beat another D1 school. Their current record is technically 2-15, but those two wins came against non-D1 schools. As far as analytics, they are near the bottom in a number of important statistical categories and efficiency metrics. (The one bright spot is that they are one of the best free throw shooting teams in the country. They are also, unfortunately, one of the worst at getting to the line.)

To put their struggles into better perspective, the Bulldogs are ranked between 345th and 353rd (out of 353 teams, mind you) in each of the six rankings used by the NCAA Selection Committee. They are dead last in the NCAA’s NET rankings, as well as the results-based Kevin Pauga Index.

And the prognosis for the rest of season? Not good.

Ken Pomeroy’s projections don’t have the Bulldogs favored in any of their remaining matchups. Likewise for Bart Torvik’s projections. Both of those sites list the January 30th game against USC Upstate as the best remaining chance for Asheville to get a D1 win this year. (Both have them pegged at a 37% chance of beating the Spartans.)

This is the anatomy of an outright collapse.

In my years of following college basketball, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a sudden fall from first to worst. For a team that has had so much success over the past two decades, it has been truly shocking to see them sink to the bottom of the national ranks.

There is a silver lining, though. As I said before, this is the youngest team in America. Assuming they all stay in Asheville, this team has a chance to grow together. Baker and Jude have stood out in their first year with the program and if Morrell can land a few more talented recruits, the Bulldogs may see the sun again before too long.

But for now, they’re smack-dab in the middle of a free fall from the top of the Blue Ridge mountains.

First Dance: 5 Teams That Could Punch Their First-Ever Tickets

It seems like every season, we say the same thing: “It’s only mid-January, but it already feels like March!” And that feeling has never been so strong perhaps as it has been this week. On Thursday, we saw a ridiculous 13 overtime periods played. On Saturday, it seemed like it was one buzzer-beater after another. If that doesn’t get you psyched for March Madness, nothing will.

But for some teams, March has historically not been such a fun month.

As it stands, 43 of the 353 Division I teams have never had a chance to put on their dancing shoes. Of course, two of them – Cal Baptist and North Alabama – won’t get that chance this year as they toil through the NCAA’s transition period for new teams in the top division. And a healthy number of the other 41 still haven’t found a way to make their programs successful.

But hope abounds for a handful of teams across the country. Let’s take a look at five teams with the best chances to earn their league’s automatic bid for the first time in school history. To do this, I’ll use Bart Torvik’s TourneyCast odds. (In case you aren’t already following him, make sure to add @totally_t_bomb on Twitter ASAP.)

So here we go. Below are five teams from five different leagues that have the best shots at punching their first-ever ticket to the Big Dance.

Abilene Christian (25.3% chance, 2nd in Southland)

The Southland has been the domain of Stephen F. Austin for what feels like forever, but there’s a new face that’s angling to get the bid this year. Abilene Christian is one of the newer D-1 teams, having joined the Southland Conference back in 2013-14. After struggling in the bottom of the league for their first few years, the Wildcats had their best season a year ago. They finished 16-16 and made their Division I postseason debut in the CIT.

Through 17 games, ACU has nearly matched their win total from last season. The Wildcats are 14-3 and are in a three-way tie for second place in the Southland behind Sam Houston State, who beat them 71-68 in Houston. But at the moment, Abilene is the highest-ranked team in my DPI Resume metric. They might not have any real marquee wins – their best is over Pacific, currently #168 in the NET – but this is the best team they’ve had since making the leap to D-1.

The Wildcats have five upperclassmen in their main rotation, led by senior forward Jaren Lewis. One of the keys to their success has been opportunistic defense, especially from guards Payten Ricks and Jaylen Franklin. As a team, ACU is forcing turnovers on nearly 23% of possessions, which is 25th in the nation. They’re also in the Top 100 for effective field goal percentage. Add it all up and the Wildcats have a real shot at their first Big Dance. They are only slightly behind Sam Houston State in the TourneyCast rankings, trailing the Bearkats by just 3.4 percent.

Gardner-Webb (19.3% chance, 3rd in Big South)

The Runnin’ Bulldogs of GWU got off to a slow start this season, but have reeled off nine wins in their past ten games. Gardner-Webb hasn’t been able to get over the hump despite some success in recent years. Before last season, they were bumped out of the Big South Tournament in the semifinals three straight years. Their biggest hurdle: Winthrop, who currently holds a 0.1% edge on the Bulldogs in the TourneyCast projections. The Eagles have ousted GW in three of the past four conference tournaments.

But maybe this year will be different. Of course, there is another team ahead of both Gardner-Webb and Winthrop: Radford. The Highlanders made a name for themselves earlier this year by beating Notre Dame and Texas, but have faltered a bit since. That opens the door for Gardner-Webb to make their first-ever NCAA Tournament. So who will get the job done for the Runnin’ Bulldogs?

Well, it may not be just one guy. GWU has four players currently averaging double figures. Senior David Efianayi and freshman Jose Perez lead the way with 16.8 and 16.0 per game, respectively. Similar to Abilene Christian, this team shoots well (86th in EFG%) and forces turnovers (65th in dTO%). But one of the strongest aspects of their game is their ability to get to the foul line (52nd in FTRate) and to convert those opportunities (72nd in FT%).

Getting past Radford and Winthrop will be no small task, but this year’s Gardner-Webb team may be better-positioned to pull it off than any other in the school’s recent history.

Grand Canyon (19.2% chance, 2nd in WAC)

I’ve been high on the Antelopes all year long, picking them to win the WAC in my season preview. They’ve hit some roadblocks along the way – including Saturday’s absolutely heartbreaking half-court buzzer-beater from chief rival New Mexico State. That game would have been huge for GCU, but just hanging with the Aggies is a statement in and of itself. Dan Majerle has been quietly building a winner since GCU made the jump in 2013-14. He’s boasting a .635 winning percentage and the Antelopes have finished the season at .500 or above in every one of their D-1 campaigns.

But is this the year they break through in the WAC? It just might be. Led by sophomore forward Alessandro Lever – the WAC’s preseason POY – the ‘Lopes are off to a 10-7 start, including a 3-1 mark in the conference. That has them tied for first in the league. And while the Italian big man has performed somewhat under expectations, he’s getting help from his supporting cast. Six players are currently averaging more than eight points per game, including the backcourt duo of Damari Milstead and Carlos Johnson.

Grand Canyon rebounds pretty well, especially on the defensive end (28th in dORB%). They’ve also got a defense that ranks #100 in the KenPom efficiency measure at current. If there’s one glaring weakness for the team, it’s their inability to hit threes (31.7%, 268th). So if Lever can turn things up a notch on the interior, the Antelopes will be a tough out. They trail New Mexico State in the TourneyCast projections by about 20%, but they’ve shown that they can hang with the Aggies.

Purdue Fort Wayne (17.1% chance, 2nd in Summit)

The Summit League looked for all the world like it was going to be a one-team show this season, with South Dakota State running away with the preseason polling. However, the Mastodons have asserted themselves as a dangerous team in the league and their TourneyCast projection reflects that. The Jackrabbits still hold a commanding 60.3% chance to win the league, but PFW is a clear #2 in the conference.

Head coach Jon Coffman has had quite a bit of success in his four previous years at the helm in Fort Wayne. The team has made the postseason in each of those seasons, with one NIT bid to go along with three trips to the CIT. And if they keep playing like they have this year, he should make it a solid five-for-five. But despite winning a share of the Summit League in 2015-16, they were bounced by North Dakota State in the semis of the conference tournament. They also made it to the Summit finals in 2014, before losing to that same NDSU team.

The Mastodons put the Summit League on notice by trouncing South Dakota State, 104-88. Led by a dangerous 1-2 punch of John Konchar and Kason Harrell, Fort Wayne is currently 4-1 in the league, tied for first with the Jackrabbits. They might not have the name recognition that SD State has, but this team is no joke. They play at a high pace (30th in the nation) and are extremely effective shooting the ball (20th in EFG%). Their defense leaves a lot to be desired (287th AdjDE), but they’ve already shown that they can beat the league’s frontrunners.

Bethune-Cookman (16.7% chance, 3rd in MEAC)

Last but not least, we head out to Daytona Beach, where Bethune-Cookman’s hopes are high that they can win the MEAC this year. All indications are that this league is up for grabs in 2019, with five teams projected between 15 and 20% in the TourneyCast rankings. Square in the middle of that pack are the Wildcats. BCU is coming off a season where they finished in a three-way tie for first, although the automatic NIT berth ended up going to since-departed Hampton. The Wildcats were picked to finish first in the MEAC preseason polls this season.

One reason for that is the frontcourt tandem of Shawntrez Davis and Soufiyane Diakite, both of whom were selected to the preseason All-MEAC First Team. And while those players have both missed a few games, the Wildcats have gotten good contributions from center Cletrell Pope and guard Malik Maitland. BCU is extremely experienced – their average 2.45 years rank 7th in the nation, according to KenPom.

The Wildcats are not really great at much statistically when you look at it on a national scale, but they’ve got enough talent and experience that they should be contenders for the MEAC title. They’ve faced two of the tougher teams in their first two league games, falling to NC Central but beating Howard. They certainly need to figure things out on offense, where they rank a dismal 327th in KenPom adjusted offensive efficiency. Getting Davis and Diakite back on the floor should help with that, though. In a league with such a logjam at the top, there’s no reason to count Bethune-Cookman out just yet.

Honorable Mention

Five more teams still searching for that elusive first Big Dance bid are currently in the Top 3 of their league’s respective TourneyCast odds:

  • Utah Valley (17.4%, 3rd in WAC)
  • Sacred Heart (11.4%, 3rd in NEC)
  • Grambling (10.9%, 3rd in SWAC)
  • Omaha (7.2%, 3rd in Summit)
  • Hartford (4.1%, 3rd in America East)

DPI Bracketology: January 7th

Another great weekend of college basketball in the books. Some big upsets — Nevada and Kansas, to be specific — helped to shake things up a bit. Rather than write ad nauseum about it, I’ll just post the updated matchups below, in visual and text forms.

If you have comments, leave them below or send me a message on Twitter @andrewdieckhoff. I’m happy to defend/explain my choices — who knows, you might even convince me that I’m wrong!

(click to enlarge)



Columbia, SC

(1) Duke vs. (16) [St. Francis-Brooklyn vs. Norfolk State]

(8) Purdue vs. (9) Seton Hall

Tulsa, OK

(5) Houston vs. (12) Wofford

(4) Mississippi State vs. (13) South Dakota State

Salt Lake City, UT

(3) Texas Tech vs. (14) New Mexico State

(6) Wisconsin vs. (11) [Ole Miss vs. Butler]

Jacksonville, FL

(7) Nebraska vs. (10) Syracuse

(2) Tennessee vs. (15) Radford



Columbus, OH

(1) Michigan State vs. (16) Lehigh

(8) Louisville vs. (9) LSU

Salt Lake City, UT

(5) North Carolina State vs. (12) Murray State

(4) Oklahoma vs. (13) North Texas

San Jose, CA

(3) Nevada vs. (14) UC Irvine

(6) Indiana vs. (11) [Creighton vs. San Francisco]

San Jose, CA

(7) Cincinnati vs. (10) Texas

(2) Gonzaga vs. (15) Montana



Columbus, OH

(1) Michigan vs. (16) [Texas Southern vs. Stephen F. Austin]

(8) St. John’s vs. (9) TCU

Hartford, CT

(5) Iowa State vs. (12) Lipscomb

(4) Florida State vs. (13) Hofstra

Hartford, CT

(3) Virginia Tech vs. (14) Yale

(6) Villanova vs. (11) Arizona

Tulsa, OK

(7) Iowa vs. (10) Florida

(2) Kansas vs. (15) Northern Kentucky



Columbia, SC

(1) Virginia vs. (16) Rider

(8) Maryland vs. (9) UCF

Des Moines, IA

(5) Kentucky vs. (12) VCU

(4) Ohio State vs. (13) Loyola-Chicago

Des Moines, IA

(3) North Carolina vs. (14) Georgia State

(6) Buffalo vs. (11) Alabama

Jacksonville, FL

(7) Marquette vs. (10) Minnesota

(2) Auburn vs. (15) Vermont



Last Four Safe: Florida, Texas, Syracuse, Alabama

Last Four In: Ole Miss, Creighton, Butler, San Francisco

First Four Out: Arizona State, Utah State, Arkansas, St. Mary’s

Next Four Out: Washington, Northwestern, Clemson, Dayton

Multi-Bid Leagues:

Big Ten: 10

ACC: 8

SEC: 8

Big 12: 6

Big East: 6

American: 3

WCC: 2

DPI Bracketology (12/30)

This season has been a blast so far. We’ve had upsets and comebacks, close games and throttlings, and to be sure, our fair share of surprises. As we close the book on this calendar year, let’s see how the Field of 68 might shake out. I’ll drop the bracket image first and then break it down a bit below.

click to enlarge
South Region – Louisville, KY
  • Columbia, SC
    • (#1) Duke vs. (#16a) Texas Southern / (16d) Norfolk State
    • (#8) Maryland vs. (#9) Arizona State
  • Salt Lake City, UT
    • (#5) Houston vs. (#12) New Mexico State
    • (#4) Kentucky vs. (#13) South Dakota State
  • Salt Lake City, UT
    • (#3) Texas Tech vs. (#14) UC Irvine
    • (#6) Indiana vs. (#11b) Syracuse / (#11c) Alabama
  • Tulsa, OK
    • (#7) TCU vs. (#10) St. John’s
    • (#2) Tennessee vs. (#15) Northern Kentucky

Analysis: The South region features the #1 overall team in Duke. The Blue Devils share a pod with the dangerous Texas Southern team who may have the best chance to repeat UMBC’s feat from last season. This region has the potential for another wild Duke-Kentucky matchup in the Sweet 16, but only if the Wildcats can get past a currently undefeated Houston team (or the dangerous 12 and 13 seeds in their pod). On the bottom half, we could have a huge unstoppable force/immovable object situation if Tennessee’s offense comes toe-to-toe with Texas Tech’s defense. Also, can’t ignore the potential for Romeo Langford to go crazy and carry the Hoosiers into the Sweet 16 (and maybe beyond).

West Region – Anaheim, CA
  • San Jose, CA
    • (#1) Nevada vs. (#16) Abilene Christian
    • (#8) Florida vs. (#9) Kansas State
  • Hartford, CT
    • (#5) Nebraska vs. (#12) Old Dominion
    • (#4) Virginia Tech vs. (#13) Lipscomb
  • Des Moines, IA
    • (#3) Ohio State vs. (#14) Texas State
    • (#6) NC State vs. (#11) Texas
  • San Jose, CA
    • (#7) Oklahoma vs. (#10) Butler
    • (#2) Gonzaga vs. (#15) Montana

Analysis: Here’s the new big change in this edition of the DPI: Nevada on the 1-line for the first time! The Wolf Pack just keep churning out impressive wins and with the MWC looking wayward, there’s a huge chance for Nevada to go undefeated. Even if they slip up once, I still think we could see Eric Musselman’s squad in the top spot. They may have trouble making it out alive, though, with some tough defenses in the 4/5 pod beneath them. Whether Virginia Tech or Nebraska advances, someone is going to give Nevada a big test. Gonzaga seems the best bet to make it to the Elite Eight out of the bottom section of the West. But Ohio State, NC State, and Oklahoma have all exceeded expectations so far. Could one of them make a surprise run to the Final Four? Or will we see a matchup of the West’s best mid-majors

East Region – Washington, DC
  • Columbia, SC
    • (#1) Virginia vs. (#16) Holy Cross
    • (#8) Purdue vs. (#9) Seton Hall
  • Des Moines, IA
    • (#5) Mississippi State vs. (#12) Murray State
    • (#4) Wisconsin vs. (#13) Loyola-Chicago
  • Jacksonville, FL
    • (#3) Auburn vs. (#14) Yale
    • (#6) Buffalo vs. (#11) Minnesota
  • Columbus, OH
    • (#7) Iowa State vs. (#10) LSU
    • (#2) Michigan State vs. (#15) Vermont

Analysis: I’m putting Virginia up on the 1-line because their defense looks as strong as ever and they’ve got some offense to back it up in De’Andre Hunter, Ty Jerome, and Kyle Guy. But both Purdue and Seton Hall are going to be dangerous teams in this pod. Even if they survive, there are future NBAers such as Ethan Happ and Ja Morant waiting on the other side. Bryce Brown and Auburn have lost a little luster but are still a dangerous club; the same can be said for Buffalo. Tom Izzo would have to do a heck of a job keeping his Spartans focused to make it out of this region. But before they can worry about Auburn or Buffalo, they may have trouble getting past Iowa State and their stud Lindell Wigginton. This region would be the one most likely to see big upsets, in my opinion.

Midwest Region – Kansas City, MO
  • Columbus, OH
    • (#1) Michigan vs. (#16b) Rider / (#16c) Fairleigh Dickinson
    • (#8) Cincinnati vs. (#9) Louisville
  • Hartford, CT
    • (#5) Marquette vs. (#12) VCU
    • (#4) Florida State vs. (#13) Wofford
  • Jacksonville, FL
    • (#3) North Carolina vs. (#14) Charleston
    • (#6) Villanova vs. (#11a) Arkansas / (#11d) Utah State
  • Tulsa, OK
    • (#7) Iowa vs. (#10) UCF
    • (#2) Kansas vs. (#15) Radford

Analysis: Last but not least, we have the Midwest Region, headlined by presumptive Big Ten champs, Michigan. Behind Charles Matthews and Ignas Brazdeikis, the Wolverines look poised to return to the Final Four – and perhaps cut down the nets this time. A tough Florida State defense or an electric Markus Howard might await them in the Sweet 16. One the other side, a potential rematch of the 2016 National Championship looms, as UNC and ‘Nova are matched up together. (Assuming Grant Riller and Jarrell Brantley don’t pull off an upset of the Tar Heels.) The biggest threat to Michigan returning to the title game? Kansas and their dynamic duo of Dedric Lawson and Lagerald Vick. And once they get Udoka Azubuike healthy, it may be hard to keep Rock Chalk off the 1-line — and out of the Final Four.

The Bubble
  • Last Four Safe: Butler, LSU, Minnesota, Texas
  • Last Four In: Arkansas, Syracuse, Alabama, Utah State
  • First Four Out: Arizona, Creighton, Ole Miss, Northwestern
  • Next Four Out: Oregon, Providence, St. Mary’s, Vanderbilt
  • The Rest of the Bubble / Projected NIT Seeds 3-8
    • Tier 2: Notre Dame, Washington, Xavier, Dayton, Penn State, Missouri, Colorado, Baylor
    • Tier 3: Temple, Toledo, Miami (FL), Clemson, Georgia Tech, Oregon State, Connecticut, West Virginia
    • Tier 4: Belmont, Rutgers, San Francisco, Fresno State, San Diego, Boston College, USC, Akron

The Long 2: (#48) Toledo and (#86) Penn

In this installment of The Long 2, I’m going to take a look at a couple teams who are actually playing each other today. I’ll give some analysis at the end, as well as the DPI Computer Prediction for the game. In this way, you can treat this like an in-depth preview of the game.

Today, I’m going to look at (#48) Toledo and (#86) Pennsylvania. The Rockets are hosting the Quakers at 2:00 PM ET in Toledo’s Savage Arena.

As I will always do, below I have listed the outside sources that I use to compile these profiles. (Seriously, bookmark all of these pages if you haven’t already. They each offer something unique and significant to the field of college basketball analytics and include some of the best and most creative datasets out there.)



Team Rankings

  • Current DPI Rank: 48
    • 7-day (+/-): 0
    • 14-day (+/-): +2
    • 30-day (+/-): +29
  • Selection Committee Metrics
    • SOR (ESPN): 39
    • BPI (ESPN): 59
    • NET (NCAA): 65
    • KPI (Pauga): 65
    • Ken Pomeroy: 68
    • Jeff Sagarin: 74
  • Other Analytic Metrics
    • All Play % (Haslam): 52
    • T-Rank (Torvik): 73


Team Profile

  • Head Coach – Tod Kowalczyk
    • Years with team: 8
    • Overall record: 153-122 (.556)
    • Conference record: 73-65 (.529)
    • Postseason appearances: 3 (NIT, 2014; CBI, 2017; CIT, 2012)
  • Key Players
    • Jaelan Sanford, Sr., G – 31.8 MPG, 18.0 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 3.3 APG, 88.9% FT
    • Willie Jackson, Jr., F – 26.9 MPG, 11.3 PPG, 10.3 RPG, 1.8 APG, 51.0% FG
    • Nate Navigato, Sr., F – 30.4 MPG, 13.6 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 3.1 APG, 52.6% 3P
    • Luke Knapke, Jr., C – 25.0 MPG, 10.3 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 1.7 APG, 54.5% FG
    • Marreon Jackson, So., G – 27.3 MPG, 8.6 PPG, 4.8 APG, 3.7 RPG, 0.9 SPG
    • Chris Darrington, Sr., G – 16.2 MPG, 10.2 PPG, 75.7 FTRate, 84.9% FT
  • Strengths
    • Shooting free throws (80.3% FT, 2nd)
    • Keeping opponents off the stripe (22.9 dFTRate, 8th)
    • Ball movement (62.3% A/FGM, 12th)
    • Shooting three-pointers (40.0%, 14th)
    • Limiting opponents’ three-pointers (29.0% d3P, 31st)
    • Limiting opponents’ shooting (46.4% dEFG, 54th)
    • Limiting opponents’ offensive boards (25.2% dORB, 61st)
    • Making the most of shots (54.3% EFG, 63rd)
    • Ball control (17.1% TPP, 67th)
  • Weaknesses
    • Forcing turnovers (15.8% dTPP, 322nd)
    • Giving up the ball (7.7% dSPP, 263rd)
    • Getting to the line (31.7 FTRate, 232nd)
    • Blocking opponents’ shots (9.8 Block%, 215th)
    • Turning steals into points (8.95 Pts/Stl Rate, 288th)


Current Resume

  • Record: 11-1 (0-0 Mid-American)
    • Quadrant 1: 0-0
    • Quadrant 2: 0-0
    • Quadrant 3: 4-1
    • Quadrant 4: 6-0
    • Non-Div. I: 1-0
  • Strength of Schedule Ranks
    • Erik Haslam: 274
    • Jeff Sagarin: 285
    • DPI: 291
    • Bart Torvik: 292
    • Ken Pomeroy: 308
    • Kevin Pauga: 311
    • ESPN: 336
  • Best Wins (by KPI Value)
    • vs. UC Irvine, 67-60 (+0.609)
    • @ Marshall, 75-74 OT (+0.523)
    • vs. Louisiana, 77-64 (+0.331)
  • Worst Losses (by KPI Value)
    • @ Wright State, 74-84 (-0.315)


Season Projections

  • KenPom Projected W-L
    • 24-7 (12-6, Mid American)
  • Torvik TourneyCast Odds: 40.9%
    • 18.3% chance for automatic bid (2nd in Mid American)
    • 22.6% chance for at-large bid (2nd in Mid American, 52nd overall)
    • Projected seed: 10.4



Team Rankings

  • Current DPI Rank: 86
    • 7-day (+/-): +10
    • 14-day (+/-): +6
    • 30-day (+/-): +58
  • Selection Committee Metrics
    • SOR (ESPN): 41
    • NET (NCAA): 52
    • KPI (Pauga): 66
    • BPI (ESPN): 77
    • Jeff Sagarin: 91
    • Ken Pomeroy: 100
  • Other Metrics
    • T-Rank (Torvik): 76
    • All Play % (Haslam): 86


Team Profile

  • Head Coach – Steve Donahue
    • Years with team: 4
    • Overall record: 58-43 (.574)
    • Conference record: 23-19 (.548)
    • Postseason appearances: 1 (NCAA, 2018)
  • Key Players
    • AJ Brodeur, Jr., F – 30.3 MPG, 13.8 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 4.0 APG, 52.7% EFG
    • Devon Goodman, Jr., G – 32.6 MPG, 14.7 PPG, 2.6 APG, 1.3 SPG, 61.1% EFG
    • Michael Wang, Fr., F – 19.6 MPG, 12.0 PPG, 4.0 RPG, 65.4% EFG, 40.5% 3P
    • Antonio Woods, Sr., G – 29.9 MPG, 10.0 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.1 APG, 36.7% 3P
    • Bryce Washington, Fr., G – 17.9 MPG, 8.0 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 48.8% 3P, 64.2% EFG
    • Jake Slipe, Sr., G – 22.5 MPG, 7.2 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 1.9 APG, 1.7 SPG, 76.9% 2P
  • Strengths
    • Making the most of their shots (56.7% EFG, 12th)
    • Shooting three-pointers (38.7% 3P, 32nd)
    • Ball movement (58.5% A/FGM, 39th)
    • Shooting two-pointers (55.8% 2P, 47th)
    • Limiting opponents’ three-pointers (31.0% d3P, 65th)
    • Limiting opponents’ free throws (29.5 dFTRate, 78th)
    • Experience (2.01 years, 80th)
    • Forcing turnovers (20.9% dTPP, 88th)
  • Weaknesses
    • Shooting free throws (64.5% FT, 300th)
    • Having shots blocked (6.4 Block%, 280th)
    • Height disadvantage (76.2 inches, 262nd)
    • Depth (28.0% Bench minutes, 250th)
    • Crashing the boards (27.0% ORB, 229th)
    • Ball control (20.0% TPP, 225th)


Current Resume

  • Record: 10-2 (0-0, Ivy)
    • Quadrant 1: 0-1
    • Quadrant 2: 2-1
    • Quadrant 3: 3-0
    • Quadrant 4: 4-0
    • Non-Div. I: 1-0
  • Strength of Schedule Ranks
    • Jeff Sagarin: 172
    • Ken Pomeroy: 181
    • Bart Torvik: 183
    • DPI: 209
    • Kevin Pauga: 215
    • ESPN: 216
    • Erik Haslam: 235
  • Best Wins (by KPI value)
    • vs. Villanova, 78-75 (+0.663)
    • vs. Miami (FL), 89-75 (+0.441)
    • @ New Mexico, 75-65 (+0.318)
    • @ George Mason, 72-71 (+0.251)
  • Worst Losses (by KPI value)
    • vs. Oregon State, 58-74 (-0.134)
    • vs. Kansas State, 48-64 (-0.012)


Season Projections

  • KenPom Projected W-L
    • 22-8 (9-5, Ivy)
  • Torvik TourneyCast Odds: 34.6%
    • 29.9% chance for automatic bid (2nd in Ivy)
    • 4.7% chance for at-large bid (1st in Ivy, 65th overall)
    • Projected seed: 11.9



When Toledo and Pennsylvania meet at Savage Arena on Saturday, the result should be a pretty close game. Let’s take a look at the keys to victory for each team.

Why Toledo Could Win: The Rockets should have the best individual players on the court in Jaelan Sanford and Nate Navigato. However, the latter’s effectiveness may be cut down by Penn’s ability to defend the three-ball. That means that Sanford, Luke Knapke, and Willie Jackson will need to be extra effective inside. The Rockets should use their size advantage to win the battle of the boards. Penn doesn’t allow many assists, so Sanford may find himself in a lot of isolation situations this game. The result could be a big stat line for the senior guard.

Why Penn Could Win: This team shoots the lights out – as long as it isn’t from the free throw line. Toledo has been good so far at not allowing teams to shoot very well, but they haven’t faced many teams as effective as Penn. And while turnovers are often an issue for Penn, the Rockets really don’t force many on their end, so ball control could be better for the Quakers today. The key to this game will be getting AJ Brodeur and Michael Wang involved early and often. They’ll have an even better shot if those two bigs can manage to crash the boards well.

DPI Projection: @Toledo 75, Penn 71