Kansas at Colorado (Boulder, CO) | | Kansas | Colorado
| | Performance Indicators
| | | Record (conference)
| 20-1 (6-0) | 11-10 (2-5)
| | AP Rank | 1
| NR
| Pomeroy Rating (Updated daily) | 1
| 91
| Consensus Ranking (Updated periodically - avg several computer ratings and polls) | 1
| 109
| Best opponents defeated this season (Ranking from Pomeroy) | @ Kansas State (#9) W 81-79 OT vs Missouri (#15) W 84-65 | vs Baylor (#16) W 78-71 vs Nebraska (90) W 72-60 | RPI (Used for schedule strength, not team strength. Current and forecast RPI from RPIForecast .) | Current: 1 Forecast: 1 | Current: 142 Forecast: 129 | Projected NCAA Tournament Seed (Latest consensus from The Bracket Matrix) | #1 Seed
| Out
| | Prediction Models | | | | Vegas Oddsmakers | Win by 14.5 Est. Projection: 83-69 | | Prediction Tracker (Average of several power ratings) | Win by 15.6 | | | Sagarin Power Ratings (Predictor) | Win by 13.56 | | Pomeroy (Efficiency and Tempo-Adjusted) | Win 86-69 92% chance of victory | | TeamRankings.com (Use home rating for home team, road for road. If fewer than 3 games played at corresponding locations, use "predictive" ratings for both teams but use specific home advantage rather than standard average homecourt advantage for all NCAA teams.) | Win by 11.4 | | Last 7 Games (Venue Adjusted) (Uses team performance and consistency over last 5 home/non-home games, whichever pertains to this game + 2 other most recent games regardless of location. This takes offense and defense into account separately to reflect how consistent teams have played on each end of the court) | Est. Projection: 88-68 86.9% chance of victory | | Similar Opponent (Examines offensive performance against similar defensive teams and defensive performance against similar offensive teams. Threshold for similarity set at efficiencies of 5 pts/100 possessions above or below that of opponent in this game. If necessary, threshold adjusted to find a minimum of three games to analyze for offense and defense.) | Est. Projection: 89-72 84.2% chance of victory | | Weighted Average of All Models Above (40% Vegas + 10% Pred Trckr + 10% SagP + 10% Pom + 10% TmRnk + 10% SimOpp + 10% Last 7) | Win by 15.0 Est. Projection: 84-69
| |
Last 7 Game Projection | | Kansas | Colorado | | Expected Score | 87.6 | 68.3 | | Win | 86.9% | 13.1% | | Win by 3 or less | 3.7% | 3.1% | | Win by 10 or more | 70.5% | 4.8% | Down to the Wire?
Margin of game was less than 1 point in 2.5% of simulated games from "Last 7 Game Analysis." Many of these would be "overtime" games. (Methodology of Last 7 Game Analysis: Here, we look at the last seven venue-appropriate games to see how the teams are performing. If the game takes place on the road for Kansas, for example, the analysis looks at the five most recent non-home games for Kansas. In addition, the two most recent games, regardless of venue, are added. That way, we get a picture of the how the team is performing of late. This season, the analysis also splits offense and defense. Teams often are more or less consistent on one side of the court than the other. This analysis will reflect that. Based on the strength of the opposing offense and defense they've played over the last seven games, each team's offense and defense is evaluated based on strength and consistency. Those numbers are then plugged into a simulation of 8,000 games. The results are what you see in the table.) Similar Opponent Projection | | Kansas | Colorado | | Expected Score | 89.3 | 71.9 | | Win | 84.2% | 15.8% | | Win by 3 or less | 4.5% | 3.9% | | Win by 10 or more | 66.2% | 5.4% | Down to the Wire?
Margin of game was less than 1 point in 2.9% of simulated games from "Last 7 Game Analysis." Many of these would be "overtime" games. (Methodology of Similar Opponent Analysis: Here, we look at games against opponents with similar offensive and defensive profiles to the opponent of interest to see how the teams are performing. For Kansas, we would look at its offensive performances against teams that have a defense that is within 5 pts/100 possessions efficiency above or below that of the opponent in this game. If this does not result in at least three appropriate comparisons, the threshold will be adjusted until it finds three. If there are more than three that are within the original threshold, all of those will be used. The same is done for defense but using offensive profiles of opponents. The analysis splits offense and defense. Teams often are more or less consistent on one side of the court than the other. This analysis will reflect that. Those numbers are then plugged into a simulation of 8,000 games. The results are what you see in the table.) Four Factors Breakdown
Based on the cumulative season boxscore for each team, we can look at the Four Factors to see where each team has derived the bulk of its (dis)advantage in terms of scoring margin versus its opponents to date. For each team, Team 1 is the team itself and Team 2 is its opponents. Here is the breakdown: Colorado | | Team 1 | Team 2 | Advantage | | | eFG% | 54.03% | 50.49% | 78.8 | | | TO Rate | 17.82% | 23.20% | 83.5 | | | OREB% | 24.53% | 36.51% | -86.7 | | | FTA/FGA | 36.14% | 33.72% | 26.2 | FT Pct | | | | | -5.2 | FT Attempts | | Kansas | | Team 1 | Team 2 | Advantage | | | eFG% | 56.17% | 41.25% | 374.1 | | | TO Rate | 18.26% | 20.25% | 30.8 | | | OREB% | 38.82% | 28.45% | 76.3 | | | FTA/FGA | 29.30% | 22.28% | 10.7 | FT Pct | | | | | 78.3 | FT Attempts | | | ANALYSIS: Rebounding is the factor that stands out most because the two teams have opposite signs there, with significant amplitude in either direction. KU should dominate the second-chance game. The single biggest discrepancy though is still eFG%, where the opp eFG% is particularly key. KU shuts down opposition shooting, but CU can't even manage to keep opponents below 50 eFG%. CU games have more free throws on both sides in general, but KU has the clear edge in FT attempts. |
Four Factors Regression AnalysisKenPom.com's "Game Plan" feature shows the Four Factors results for every game a team has played. Below the results, there is a table with correlation coefficients that show how closely related each of the Four Factors is to a team's offensive and defensive efficiency (both for itself and its opponent). Unfortunately, the correlations are based on raw efficiencies, which of course has much less value because a team's true efficiency is significantly affected by the strength of the opponent. Below, I have taken each team's Four Factors results and run a multiple regression analysis with the Four Factors as the variables of interest and the adjusted efficiencies as the outcome of interest to see whether a team's eFG%, for example, is related to its true offensive efficiency. Statistical Significance = There is less than a 10% chance that the relationship between this statistic and the team's adjusted offensive or defensive efficiency is due merely to chance. Four Factors Rank = In ascending order, which of the Four Factors has the lowest chance of being related to efficiency due merely to chance (i.e., best significance). Kansas This team's offensive efficiency (points per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation: 1.22*eFG% - 1.47*TO% + 0.77*OREB% + 48.00 Standard Error: 3.75 This team's defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation: 1.36*OppeFG% - 1.10*OppTO% + 0.64*OppOREB% + 35.00 Standard Error: 2.60 When this team has the ball, the average coefficients of interest (avg of team's own offensive coefficients and opponent's corresponding defensive coefficients) are: eFG%: 1.27 TO%: -1.29 OREB%: 0.67 FTA/FGA: 0.13 Constant: 54.33 | Colorado This team's offensive efficiency (points per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation: 1.30*eFG% - 0.71*TO% + 0.70*OREB% + 34.28 Standard Error: 3.60 This team's defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation: 1.31*OppeFG% - 1.10*OppTO% + 0.57*OppOREB% + 0.13*OppFTA/FGA + 60.65 Standard Error: 2.44 When this team has the ball, the average coefficients of interest (avg of team's own offensive coefficients and opponent's corresponding defensive coefficients) are: eFG%: 1.33 TO%: -0.91 OREB%: 0.67 FTA/FGA: 0 Constant: 34.64 | Factor Significance Comparison The value of the average coefficients above represent how much a team's efficiency is expected to go up or down for each 1% change in that factor. eFG%: Similar impact for both teams, but this is far away the most important single factor for CU TO%: Much more critical for KU than CU, in fact #1 for KU. But still critical for CU. OREB%: Equal for both teams and about half as important as shooting. FTA/FGA: May only matter for KU, and very little at that. | |
Statistical Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis(Note: These are based on raw statistics that are unadjusted for strength of opposition.) | ** Denotes that team with advantage also ranks in Top 50 in that category | | Clear Advantage for Kansas | No Clear Advantage | Clear Advantage for Colorado | | Kansas OREB** | | | | Kansas 2pt FG%** | | | | Colorado OREB | | | | Kansas eFG%** | | | | Kansas FT Rate | | | | Kansas FT% | | | | Kansas PTS/Poss** | | | | Colorado % own 2FGA's blocked** | | | | Kansas % own 2FGA's blocked | | | | | Kansas 3pt FG% | | | | Colorado PTS/Poss | | | | Colorado % Poss STL by Opp | | | | Colorado eFG% | | | | Colorado 2pt FG% | | | | Colorado 3pt FG% | | | | Kansas TO rate | | | | Kansas % Poss STL by Opp | | | | Colorado FT Rate | | | | | Colorado TO rate** | | | | Colorado FT%** | ************************************************************* | Colorado will have above avg % of FG's assisted | | Expect uptempo game | |
Game Projections(Not a prediction. Read more details in "FAQ & Terms" section.) Manual adjustments: Trent Beckley (CU) out due to injury.
Projected Boxscore | Kansas | 85 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Colorado | 68 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Kansas | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PLAYER | MIN | 2FGM | 2FGA | 3FGM | 3FGA | FTM | FTA | PTS | OREB | DREB | TREB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | | Brady Morningstar | 24 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Cole Aldrich | 27 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | | Elijah Johnson | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | Marcus Morris | 24 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Markieff Morris | 16 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Sherron Collins | 32 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 16 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | Thomas Robinson | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Tyrel Reed | 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Tyshawn Taylor | 23 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | Xavier Henry | 28 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | TOTALS | 200 | 21 | 37 | 7 | 17 | 22 | 31 | 85 | 12 | 27 | 39 | 16 | 15 | 7 | 6 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Colorado | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PLAYER | MIN | 2FGM | 2FGA | 3FGM | 3FGA | FTM | FTA | PTS | OREB | DREB | TREB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | | Alec Burks | 33 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 16 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | Austin Dufault | 27 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Cory Higgins | 38 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | | Dwight Thorne II | 25 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Keegan Hornbuckle | 8 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Marcus Relphorde | 30 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | Nate Tomlinson | 31 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | Shane Harris-Tunks | 8 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | TOTALS | 200 | 16 | 37 | 6 | 18 | 18 | 24 | 68 | 8 | 15 | 23 | 13 | 13 | 8 | 2 | Projection Summary | | Projection | Comments | OVERALL RESULTS | | Final Score | KU 85-68 | | Tempo (# poss)
| 71 | | FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES
| | eFG% | KU 58-45% | | | TO Rate (lo better) | CU 21-18% |
| | O-Reb% | KU 44-23%
| | | FT Rate | KU 57-44%
| | Four Factors Overall
| Better shot making, more second-chances and more freebies for KU make for a comfortable margin.
|
| PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played) | | Leading Scorers | KU - Collins, X. Henry Opp - Higgins, Burks | | Highest PSAN-Comp (game impact)
| KU - Aldrich Opp - Burks | | Highest PSAN70-Comp (efficiency)
| KU - Markieff Morris Opp - Burks | | | Highest efficiency vs season-to-date | KU - Taylor, X. Henry Opp - Higgins, Relphorde | | | Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date | KU - Reed, Morningstar Opp - Thorne II, Tomlinson | |
Sports and Numbers ProjectionKansas wins 85-68(all prediction models included/complete) |
|