I’ll admit this is a bit random, but I looked to see how a handful of teams from last year did against top 100 competition. Average Margin is simply calculated by adding up all the winning margins, subtracting all the losing margins, and dividing by number of games played. Average rank of opponent just helps to show if a team’s opponents tended to be toward the top or bottom of the top 100.
I have to say that 4 games is a small sample size, but the numbers for 2013-2014 look promising so far. I’ll be interested to look at this again after WSU gets a few more top 100 games under their belt and after enough games are played where we can get a better feel of how good teams like Tennessee and Alabama really are.
(All ranks are based on Ken Pomeroy’s website, kenpom.com)
Team . . . . Games vs top 100 . . . . Average Margin . . . . Average Rank of Opp
2012-2013
WSU . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Louisville . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Indiana . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Gonzaga . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
Duke . . . . . . . . . .22 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Ohio State . . . . .. 19 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Kansas . . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
2013-2014
WSU . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 . . . . . .. . . . . . . 42
I have to say that 4 games is a small sample size, but the numbers for 2013-2014 look promising so far. I’ll be interested to look at this again after WSU gets a few more top 100 games under their belt and after enough games are played where we can get a better feel of how good teams like Tennessee and Alabama really are.
(All ranks are based on Ken Pomeroy’s website, kenpom.com)
Team . . . . Games vs top 100 . . . . Average Margin . . . . Average Rank of Opp
2012-2013
WSU . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Louisville . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Indiana . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Gonzaga . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
Duke . . . . . . . . . .22 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Ohio State . . . . .. 19 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Kansas . . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
2013-2014
WSU . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 . . . . . .. . . . . . . 42
Comment