Updated Team Strength Rankings for the Sweet 16 Round
Last week on VSiN, I introduced a new strength metric I had been developing recently called the Game Grade Forecast. In the article I wrote describing the new rating, I shared the current GGFs for the entire 68-team NCAA Tournament field. With the first weekend of action completed in this year’s bracket, I will now share my updated Strength Ratings as we head into the Sweet 16 action. This will, of course, include the new metric. I will also review the results of the GGF figures I released last week through the first two rounds.
First, however, looking back at how I described the need for a “different” strength rating, I surmised that it seemed to me that the Power Ratings and Effective Strength Ratings I have offered since VSiN’s inception were quite similar in terms of which teams were strongest for the season. This is explainable in that one of them plays a formidable role in developing the other. They are also both “body of work” ratings. Therefore, I started by giving game grades for each team’s schedule log. I then employed a simple forecasting technique, going back and analyzing those grades, which, of course, included relevant opponent strength, location, and injury variables that I regularly track. The metric produced an expected performance level for the next game or set of games.
I think the GGF gives a better idea of how teams are currently playing or how specifically they can be expected to play in their next game(s) using a sound statistical method.
Reviewing the GGFs I shared last week, eight of the top 10 teams in the new rating won both of their games to reach the Sweet 16. Only Auburn & St Mary’s didn’t, with both teams losing in first-round upsets. Additionally, NC State, ranked 19th in GGF as of last Monday, reached the Sweet 16 with its 11 seed. To put the Wolfpack GGF rating in perspective, they were playing at the time as a relative seed on the 5-line, not the 11. Thus, it was not a surprise to see that team overachieving in its seed position.
The Clemson and Alabama metrics were a big surprise here, as their runs from lower ranks on the GGF were unexpected. Quite honestly, those were teams that played much better early in the season, and you will see that even after last week’s results were added in, they are the bottom-ranked teams in my new strength rating.
Below you will find all five of my various strength ratings in order by region. You can get a good indication of a team’s relative strength against an opponent by simply comparing the two numbers to get a theoretical point spread. Note that I have applied NEUTRAL/ROAD court ratings on top of their raw figures to get a more accurate projection for the tournament.
By the way, after closely reviewing these ratings, along some key trends as well as what I witnessed last week, I will be sticking with my original projected Final Four of Connecticut, Arizona, Purdue, and Marquette.
East Region Sweet 16 Strength Ratings
by Power Rating
1. CONNECTICUT (#1): 94.7
2. IOWA STATE (#2): 90.3
3. ILLINOIS (#3): 88.8
4. SAN DIEGO STATE (#5): 84.7
by Effect Strength Rating
1. CONNECTICUT (#1): 23.2
2. IOWA STATE (#2): 20
3. ILLINOIS (#3): 18
4. SAN DIEGO STATE (#5): 13.8
by Bettors’ Rating
1. CONNECTICUT (#1): -23
2. IOWA STATE (#2): -16.4
3. ILLINOIS (#3): -15.8
4. SAN DIEGO STATE (#5): -12.9
by Momentum Rating
1. CONNECTICUT (#1): 26.2
2. IOWA STATE (#2): 21.3
3. ILLINOIS (#3): 20.1
4. SAN DIEGO STATE (#5): 14.1
by Game Grade Forecast
1. CONNECTICUT (#1): 31
2. IOWA STATE (#2): 26.3
3. ILLINOIS (#3): 19.5
4. SAN DIEGO STATE (#5): 15
Midwest Region Sweet 16 Strength Ratings
by Power Rating
1. PURDUE (#1): 93.1
2. TENNESSEE (#2): 90.3
3. GONZAGA (#5): 88.4
4. CREIGHTON (#3): 87.3
by Effect Strength Rating
1. PURDUE (#1): 23
2. TENNESSEE (#2): 20.1
3. GONZAGA (#5): 17.3
4. CREIGHTON (#3): 17.2
by Bettors’ Rating
1. PURDUE (#1): -19.8
2. TENNESSEE (#2): -18.7
3. GONZAGA (#5): -15.3
4. CREIGHTON (#3): -14.8
by Momentum Rating
1. PURDUE (#1): 21.5
2. TENNESSEE (#2): 20.6
3. CREIGHTON (#3): 20.2
4. GONZAGA (#5): 20.1
by Game Grade Forecast
1. GONZAGA (#5): 24
2. PURDUE (#1): 22.2
3. CREIGHTON (#3): 19.8
4. TENNESSEE (#2): 18.7
South Region Sweet 16 Strength Ratings
by Power Rating
1. HOUSTON (#1): 93.2
2. DUKE (#4): 89.2
3. MARQUETTE (#2): 87.9
4. NC STATE (#11): 81.2
by Effect Strength Rating
1. HOUSTON (#1): 24.2
2. DUKE (#4): 18.9
3. MARQUETTE (#2): 17.6
4. NC STATE (#11): 10.2
by Bettors’ Rating
1. HOUSTON (#1): -22.5
2. DUKE (#4): -18
3. MARQUETTE (#2): -16.3
4. NC STATE (#11): -6.8
by Momentum Rating
1. DUKE (#4): 22.7
2. HOUSTON (#1): 22.5
3. MARQUETTE (#2): 19.3
4. NC STATE (#11): 15
by Game Grade Forecast
1. DUKE (#4): 22.6
2. HOUSTON (#1): 21.8
3. MARQUETTE (#2): 19.4
4. NC STATE (#11): 18.6
West Region Sweet 16 Strength Ratings
by Power Rating
1. ARIZONA (#2): 90.2
2. NORTH CAROLINA (#1): 89.6
3. ALABAMA (#4): 87.1
4. CLEMSON (#6): 84
by Effect Strength Rating
1. ARIZONA (#2): 22.7
2. NORTH CAROLINA (#1): 18.9
3. ALABAMA (#4): 18.3
4. CLEMSON (#6): 14
by Bettors’ Rating
1. ARIZONA (#2): -19.5
2. NORTH CAROLINA (#1): -18
3. ALABAMA (#4): -14.8
4. CLEMSON (#6): -11.4
by Momentum Rating
1. NORTH CAROLINA (#1): 20.6
2. ARIZONA (#2): 18.3
3. CLEMSON (#6): 13.4
4. ALABAMA (#4): 11.6
by Game Grade Forecast
1. ARIZONA (#2): 20.1
2. NORTH CAROLINA (#1): 17.5
3. CLEMSON (#6): 15
4. ALABAMA (#4): 8.4
