During last season the College Basketball SBPI (SportsBoss
Power Index) made its debut after 2 years of analysis, jiggering & vigorous
back-testing – how well did it do with ATS winners?
Unbelievable, as we will outline here through
multiple entries specifically on the topic.
We are starting with the 2010 NCAA Tournament, but have the results from
all tournament since & would be happy to share those with feedback.
What is the College Basketball SBPI? It’s a comprehensive system for college
basketball teams that grades performance in 10 offensive & defensive
categories, adjusts those raw figures for SOS, then slots teams into their
proper power ratings.
First up let’s take a look at the 2010 NCAA Tournament using
the SBPI ranks & power ratings for those seasons, comparing those “lines”
to what Vegas closed at, and grading our plays.
We have graded every play that had a 0.6 point or greater variance
between our line & Vegas closing # - and you will see how solid the results
are. Why show the results of an NCAA
Tournament? Well it removes many of the
other variables we use when handicapping during the regular season – each team
needs a win to advance so we can generally expect a team to give its best
effort – it does not always translate to such, but it’s the situation that
removes the most other variables we utilize.
Legend:
SBPI Rank: where
each team’s power rating slotted them that specific season
SBPI Rating: true
strength of a team. The difference
between teams SBPI Rating is the spread we project for a matchup between the
two schools
SBPI Line: simply
the difference between each team’s SBPI rating (“-“equals favorite)
Vegas Line: the
closing line on each game
SBPI Pick:
identifies the side the SBPI directs us to playing based on comparing SBPI Line
vs. Vegas Line
Here is the Midwest Region:
|
SBPI
|
SBPI
|
Vegas
|
SBPI
|
||||
|
Rank
|
Rating
|
Seed
|
Line
|
Line
|
Pick
|
Grade
|
|
|
4
|
93.7
|
KANSAS
|
1
|
-27.9
|
-25
|
KANSAS
|
LOSS
|
|
264
|
65.8
|
LEHIGH
|
16
|
||||
|
53
|
81.9
|
UNLV
|
8
|
||||
|
45
|
83.4
|
N.
IOWA
|
9
|
-1.5
|
-1
|
-
|
|
|
17
|
88.1
|
MICHIGAN
STATE
|
5
|
-12.7
|
-13
|
-
|
|
|
121
|
75.4
|
NEW
MEXICO ST
|
12
|
||||
|
23
|
86.6
|
MARYLAND
|
4
|
-8.4
|
-9.5
|
HOUSTON
|
LOSS
|
|
95
|
78.2
|
HOUSTON
|
13
|
||||
|
21
|
86.8
|
TENNESSEE
|
6
|
-3.0
|
-3
|
-
|
|
|
42
|
83.8
|
SAN
DIEGO STATE
|
11
|
||||
|
28
|
85.6
|
GEORGETOWN
|
3
|
-7.8
|
-13.5
|
OHIO
|
WIN
|
|
98
|
77.8
|
OHIO
|
14
|
||||
|
70
|
80.6
|
OKLAHOMA
|
7
|
-2
|
GEORGIA TECH
|
WIN
|
|
|
30
|
85.6
|
GEORGIA
TECH
|
10
|
-5.0
|
|||
|
19
|
87.7
|
OHIO
STATE
|
2
|
-16.7
|
-17.5
|
UCSB
|
WIN
|
|
182
|
71.0
|
UCSB
|
15
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
93.7
|
KANSAS
|
1
|
-10.3
|
-11
|
KANSAS
|
LOSS
|
|
45
|
83.4
|
N.
IOWA
|
9
|
||||
|
17
|
88.1
|
MICHIGAN
ST
|
5
|
-1.5
|
|||
|
23
|
86.6
|
MARYLAND
|
4
|
-1
|
MICHIGAN ST
|
WIN
|
|
|
21
|
86.8
|
TENNESSEE
|
6
|
-9
|
-9
|
-
|
|
|
98
|
77.8
|
OHIO
|
14
|
||||
|
30
|
85.6
|
GEORGIA
TECH
|
10
|
||||
|
19
|
87.7
|
OHIO
STATE
|
2
|
-2.1
|
-7
|
OHIO STATE
|
WIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45
|
83.4
|
N.
IOWA
|
9
|
||||
|
17
|
88.1
|
MICHIGAN
STATE
|
5
|
-4.7
|
-1.5
|
MICHIGAN ST
|
WIN
|
|
21
|
86.8
|
TENNESSEE
|
6
|
||||
|
19
|
87.7
|
OHIO
STATE
|
2
|
-0.9
|
-4.5
|
TENNESSEE
|
WIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
88.1
|
MICHIGAN
STATE
|
5
|
-1.3
|
|||
|
21
|
86.8
|
TENNESSEE
|
6
|
-2
|
MICHIGAN ST
|
WIN
|
|
Next up is the West Region, winner of which would play
Midwest Region winner Michigan State in the Final Four:
|
SBPI
|
SBPI
|
Vegas
|
SBPI
|
||||
|
Rank
|
Rating
|
Seed
|
Line
|
Line
|
Pick
|
Grade
|
|
|
35
|
84.8
|
SYRACUSE
|
1
|
-16.5
|
-15.5
|
SYRACUSE
|
WIN
|
|
222
|
68.3
|
VERMONT
|
16
|
||||
|
73
|
80.3
|
GONZAGA
|
8
|
||||
|
32
|
85.2
|
FLORIDA
STATE
|
9
|
-4.9
|
-1
|
FLORIDA STATE
|
LOSS
|
|
11
|
89.2
|
BUTLER
|
5
|
-9.8
|
-2.5
|
BUTLER
|
WIN
|
|
82
|
79.4
|
UTEP
|
12
|
||||
|
48
|
82.4
|
VANDERBILT
|
4
|
-8.3
|
-2.5
|
VANDERBILT
|
LOSS
|
|
140
|
74.1
|
MURRAY
STATE
|
13
|
||||
|
7
|
90.3
|
XAVIER
|
6
|
-3.8
|
-1.5
|
XAVIER
|
WIN
|
|
25
|
86.5
|
MINNESOTA
|
11
|
||||
|
20
|
87.0
|
PITTSBURGH
|
3
|
-11.3
|
-9.5
|
PITTSBURGH
|
WIN
|
|
113
|
75.7
|
OAKLAND
|
14
|
||||
|
29
|
85.6
|
BYU
|
7
|
-0.6
|
-5
|
FLORIDA
|
LOSS
|
|
33
|
85.0
|
FLORIDA
|
10
|
||||
|
3
|
95.3
|
KANSAS
STATE
|
2
|
-27.6
|
-15
|
KANSAS STATE
|
WIN
|
|
238
|
67.7
|
NORTH
TEXAS
|
15
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
84.8
|
SYRACUSE
|
1
|
-4.5
|
-6.5
|
GONZAGA
|
LOSS
|
|
73
|
80.3
|
GONZAGA
|
8
|
||||
|
11
|
89.2
|
BUTLER
|
5
|
-15.1
|
-4
|
BUTLER
|
LOSS
|
|
140
|
74.1
|
MURRAY
STATE
|
13
|
||||
|
7
|
90.3
|
XAVIER
|
6
|
-3.3
|
|||
|
20
|
87.0
|
PITTSBURGH
|
3
|
-2
|
XAVIER
|
WIN
|
|
|
29
|
85.6
|
BYU
|
7
|
||||
|
3
|
95.3
|
KANSAS
STATE
|
2
|
-9.7
|
-4
|
KANSAS STATE
|
WIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
84.8
|
SYRACUSE
|
1
|
-6
|
BUTLER
|
WIN
|
|
|
11
|
89.2
|
BUTLER
|
5
|
-4.4
|
|||
|
7
|
90.3
|
XAVIER
|
6
|
||||
|
3
|
95.3
|
KANSAS
STATE
|
2
|
-5
|
-5
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
89.2
|
BUTLER
|
5
|
||||
|
3
|
95.3
|
KANSAS
STATE
|
2
|
-6.1
|
-3.5
|
KANSAS STATE
|
LOSS
|
On to the other side of the Field of 64 – first up let’s
look at the East:
|
SBPI
|
SBPI
|
Vegas
|
SBPI
|
||||
|
Rank
|
Rating
|
Seed
|
Line
|
Line
|
Pick
|
Grade
|
|
|
12
|
88.8
|
KENTUCKY
|
1
|
-16.2
|
-18.5
|
EAST TENN ST
|
LOSS
|
|
157
|
72.6
|
EAST
TENN ST
|
16
|
||||
|
9
|
89.9
|
TEXAS
|
8
|
-7.5
|
-5.5
|
TEXAS
|
LOSS
|
|
49
|
82.4
|
WAKE
FOREST
|
9
|
||||
|
39
|
84.2
|
TEMPLE
|
5
|
-7.3
|
-3
|
TEMPLE
|
LOSS
|
|
105
|
76.9
|
CORNELL
|
12
|
||||
|
16
|
88.3
|
WISCONSIN
|
4
|
-10.4
|
-10.5
|
-
|
|
|
97
|
77.9
|
WOFFORD
|
13
|
||||
|
13
|
88.5
|
MARQUETTE
|
6
|
-0.5
|
-1
|
-
|
|
|
18
|
88.0
|
WASHINGTON
|
11
|
||||
|
26
|
86.3
|
NEW
MEXICO
|
3
|
-13.6
|
-8.5
|
NEW MEXICO
|
LOSS
|
|
156
|
72.7
|
MONTANA
|
14
|
||||
|
10
|
89.9
|
CLEMSON
|
7
|
-1.6
|
-2
|
-
|
|
|
15
|
88.3
|
MISSOURI
|
10
|
||||
|
2
|
96.7
|
WEST
VIRGINIA
|
2
|
-28.2
|
-17
|
WEST VIRGINIA
|
WIN
|
|
216
|
68.5
|
MORGAN
STATE
|
15
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
88.8
|
KENTUCKY
|
1
|
-6.4
|
-9.5
|
WAKE FOREST
|
LOSS
|
|
49
|
82.4
|
WAKE
FOREST
|
9
|
||||
|
105
|
76.9
|
CORNELL
|
12
|
||||
|
16
|
88.3
|
WISCONSIN
|
4
|
-11.4
|
-4.5
|
WISCONSIN
|
LOSS
|
|
18
|
88.0
|
WASHINGTON
|
11
|
-1.7
|
-2
|
-
|
|
|
26
|
86.3
|
NEW
MEXICO
|
3
|
||||
|
15
|
88.3
|
MISSOURI
|
10
|
||||
|
2
|
96.7
|
WEST
VIRGINIA
|
2
|
-8.4
|
-6
|
WEST VIRGINIA
|
WIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
88.8
|
KENTUCKY
|
1
|
-11.9
|
-8
|
KENTUCKY
|
WIN
|
|
105
|
76.9
|
CORNELL
|
12
|
||||
|
18
|
88.0
|
WASHINGTON
|
11
|
||||
|
2
|
96.7
|
WEST
VIRGINIA
|
2
|
-8.7
|
-4.5
|
WEST VIRGINIA
|
WIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
88.8
|
KENTUCKY
|
1
|
-4
|
WEST VIRGINIA
|
WIN
|
|
|
2
|
96.7
|
WEST
VIRGINIA
|
2
|
-7.9
|
|||
Finally, here is the South, winner of which would play East
Region winner West Virginia in the Final Four:
|
SBPI
|
SBPI
|
Vegas
|
SBPI
|
||||
|
Rank
|
Rating
|
Seed
|
Line
|
Line
|
Pick
|
Grade
|
|
|
1
|
100.0
|
DUKE
|
1
|
-32
|
-24
|
DUKE
|
WIN
|
|
231
|
68.0
|
ARKANSAS
PB
|
16
|
||||
|
14
|
88.4
|
CALIFORNIA
|
8
|
-1.8
|
-1
|
CALIFORNIA
|
WIN
|
|
24
|
86.6
|
LOUISVILLE
|
9
|
||||
|
5
|
91.7
|
TEXAS
A&M
|
5
|
-10.9
|
-2.5
|
TEXAS A&M
|
WIN
|
|
69
|
80.8
|
UTAH
STATE
|
12
|
||||
|
6
|
90.3
|
PURDUE
|
4
|
-9.4
|
-4.5
|
PURDUE
|
WIN
|
|
66
|
80.9
|
SIENA
|
13
|
||||
|
44
|
83.6
|
NOTRE
DAME
|
6
|
-2.5
|
OLD DOMINION
|
WIN
|
|
|
27
|
86.0
|
OLD
DOMINION
|
11
|
-2.4
|
|||
|
22
|
86.7
|
BAYLOR
|
3
|
-11.5
|
-10
|
BAYLOR
|
LOSS
|
|
125
|
75.2
|
SAM
HOUSTON
|
14
|
||||
|
57
|
81.6
|
RICHMOND
|
7
|
-0.3
|
-1
|
ST MARYS
|
WIN
|
|
63
|
81.3
|
ST
MARYS
|
10
|
||||
|
8
|
90.2
|
VILLANOVA
|
2
|
-23.1
|
-16.5
|
VILLANOVA
|
LOSS
|
|
247
|
67.1
|
ROBERT
MORRIS
|
15
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
100.0
|
DUKE
|
1
|
-11.6
|
-7
|
DUKE
|
WIN
|
|
14
|
88.4
|
CALIFORNIA
|
8
|
||||
|
5
|
91.7
|
TEXAS
A&M
|
5
|
-1.4
|
-2
|
PURDUE
|
WIN
|
|
6
|
90.3
|
PURDUE
|
4
|
||||
|
27
|
86.0
|
OLD
DOMINION
|
11
|
||||
|
22
|
86.7
|
BAYLOR
|
3
|
-0.7
|
-4
|
OLD DOMINION
|
LOSS
|
|
63
|
81.3
|
ST
MARYS
|
10
|
||||
|
8
|
90.2
|
VILLANOVA
|
2
|
-8.9
|
-4
|
VILLANOVA
|
LOSS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
100.0
|
DUKE
|
1
|
-9.7
|
-8
|
DUKE
|
WIN
|
|
6
|
90.3
|
PURDUE
|
4
|
||||
|
22
|
86.7
|
BAYLOR
|
3
|
-5.4
|
-4.5
|
BAYLOR
|
WIN
|
|
63
|
81.3
|
ST
MARYS
|
10
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
100.0
|
DUKE
|
1
|
-13.3
|
-4.5
|
DUKE
|
WIN
|
|
22
|
86.7
|
BAYLOR
|
3
|
||||
Lastly, here is how the Final Four bracket worked out:
|
SBPI
|
SBPI
|
Vegas
|
SBPI
|
||||
|
Rank
|
Rating
|
Seed
|
Line
|
Line
|
Pick
|
Grade
|
|
|
17
|
88.1
|
MICHIGAN
ST
|
5
|
||||
|
11
|
89.2
|
BUTLER
|
5
|
-1.1
|
-1.5
|
-
|
|
|
2
|
96.7
|
WEST
VIRGINIA
|
2
|
||||
|
1
|
100.0
|
DUKE
|
1
|
-3.3
|
-2.5
|
DUKE
|
WIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
89.2
|
BUTLER
|
5
|
||||
|
1
|
100.0
|
DUKE
|
1
|
-10.8
|
-7
|
DUKE
|
LOSS
|
Here were the ATS records per the SBPI plays laid out above:
|
RECORDS
|
||
|
1ST
|
15-11-6
|
57.7%
|
|
2ND
|
7-7-2
|
50.0%
|
|
S16
|
7-0-1
|
100.0%
|
|
E8
|
3-1-0
|
75.0%
|
|
F4
|
1-0-1
|
100.0%
|
|
TITLE
|
0-1-0
|
0.0%
|
|
TOTAL
|
33-20-10
|
62.3%
|
In addition to cashing 62.3% of the 63 NCAA Tournament games
that season the SBPI posted a PERFECT 7-0 ATS mark when it had one team favored
while Vegas was on other side! Including
that point along with what we see above – the SBPI posted an 11-2 mark in the
Sweet 16 & deeper rounds showing it is extremely accurate when slotting how
“strong” these teams truly are, especially when we get to the “cream of the
crop” teams that advance deep versus playing “lines” in the earlier rounds.
All the NCAA Tournaments since then (only ones we tested in
this fashion) have a similar ATS winning percentage – and if asked for specific
tournaments we would be happy to share those results.
Starting next week we will begin our countdown of the Top
100 College Basketball teams according to SBPI of the last 12 seasons.
Thanks for reading, if you have any questions please feel
free to reach out.
Email me directly: boss@thesportsboss.com
Visit my website: www.thesportsboss.com
Follow me on Twitter: @SportsBoss
Leave comments here on the blog
COPYRIGHT: THE SPORTSBOSS, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment