Previewing The 2016 B.R.A.T.S. Of NCAA Basketball Betting

Joe Gavazzi

Tuesday, January 19, 2016 5:44 PM GMT

We examine "The 2016 B.R.A.T.S." of College Basketball of how they can help us improve our NCAA basketball picks. Don't miss this article and make smarter choices.

The 2016 BRATS of College Basketball
By Joe Gavazzi, Winning Sports Advice
Monday, January 18, 2016

Three weeks ago, I authored an article on “The Deffensive Dandies of College Basketball.” Last week, we switched gears and looked at the other side of the ball, in which I penned an article entitled “The 2016 Smooth Operators of College Basketball.” In that article we examined the offensive side of the ball. The common thread running through each article was that our teams, besides excelling EITHER the offensive or defensive side of the court, had to have a positive rebound margin, positive assist/TO margin, and positive turnover margin. For these are the key statistical indicators which lead to success in choosing NCAA basketball picks. In totaling the ATS records for these teams, we found that each group recorded approximately 60% winners against the point spread. 

This week, we take the analysis one step further in combining offensive efficiency AND defensive efficiency with our key indicators of rebounding, assists, and turnovers. The acronym for this group of teams is termed BRATS.

    (B) alanced offense and defense
    (R) ebound margin
    (A) ssist/TO margin
    (T) urnover margin

In addition, to ensure our analysis takes into account every offensive and defensive aspect of a team’s basketball statistical profile, I insist that to qualify for the BRAT list that our team makes more three pointers at a higher shooting percentage than their opposition. With that being stated, let’s review the columns below and examine the parameters that are necessary for a team to become a College Basketball BRAT. The 70 PPG and 43% represent approximate averages in CBKB for the 2016 season. 

    70 PPG…offensive points scored
    43% or more…offensive field goal percentage
    70 PPG or less…defensive points allowed
    43% or less…defensive field goal percentage
    Positive rebound margin
    Positive assist/TO margin
    Positive net TO margin
    More 3 pointers made at higher percentage than opponent
    
The chart below lists the teams that qualify as our 2016 CBKB BRATS. I have also included a list of the team’s SU record, as well as their ATS record. All scoring numbers and percentages are rounded for ease of use and presentation.

 

TEAM

SU

ATS

OFF

PPG

OFF

FG%

3 PT

MD/%

DEF

PPG

DEF

FG%

3 PT

ALL/%

RBD

MGN

A/TO

MGN

TO

MGN

Ball St

12-5

5-6

70

44

8.0/37

63

39

6.6/34

+3.1

+1.9

+0.1

Boise St

13-5

6-9

77

46

8.1/33

67

43

6.8/32

+1.9

+2.5

+3.0

*Cinci

13-6

6-9

74

44

7.6/35

61

39

7.0/34

+6.5

+4.4

+2.4

Columbia

11-7

3-5

78

45

9.9/38

69

43

7.3/33

+4.7

+3.3

+0.3

UConn

12-5

7-6

76

48

7.2/37

64

38

7.1/31

+3.0

+2.5

+0.7

G Wash

14-4

7-8

76

45

6.8/36

67

41

6.7/31

+5.8

+3.3

+0.2

Houston

14-3

5-6

79

46

6.9/34

67

41

5.8/29

+5.0

+2.2

+2.6

*Iowa

14-3

9-5

81

47

9.1/41

67

40

7.1/30

+1.1

+7.9

+3.9

*Kansas

15-2

11-4

86

49

8.8/45

68

39

6.2/33

+6.0

+5.4

+2.7

Kansas St

11-6

9-5

73

43

5.5/29

66

41

5.5/28

+2.6

+1.4

+1.7

Kentucky

13-4

5-12

77

49

5.6/32

68

41

5.5/32

+7.4

+0.7

+0.8

*Louisville

15-2

9-4

81

49

6.0/35

58

36

5.8/31

+12.6

+1.7

+3.1

Miami Fla

13-3

9-5

80

49

7.4/37

66

41

6.0/33

+5.6

+1.8

+0.8

Michigan

13-5

10-6

78

50

10.9/42

64

42

7.1/35

+1.1

+6.4

+2.4

MTSU

12-5

7-8

71

44

7.8/37

68

41

6.6/33

+2.7

+0.7

+0.5

Morehead

9-8

7-8

70

44

6.3/38

66

43

5.6/35

+2.1

+1.4

+3.3

N Dak St

13-5

5-11

72

45

7.1/34

65

43

5.2/31

+2.6

+1.5

+2.1

*NWestern

15-4

8-8

76

47

8.7/36

65

39

6.6/33

+4.3

+7.3

+0.7

*Providence

15-3

10-7

74

43

6.3/31

67

42

6.2/31

+1.8

+4.4

+3.9

RI

11-7

5-11

71

45

6.7/37

64

43

5.0/34

+4.5

+0.4

+1.0

*St Marys

14-2

12-2

79

53

9.8/45

58

39

5.8/34

+9.2

+9.6

+0.8

*Texas A&M

15-2

7-5

80

47

8.5/39

65

40

7.2/32

+4.6

+6.7

+3.7

UNLV

11-7

8-8

77

45

7.6/35

67

41

6.0/34

+3.2

+1.1

+2.3

*WVU

15-2

10-4

84

47

5.9/31

64

41

4.6/27

+10.4

+1.7

+6.3

*Xavier

16-1

12-5

80

45

7.4/36

66

40

7.4/31

+10.8

+2.6

+1.0

 

I will save you the trouble of totaling the SU/ATS columns by telling you that the combined record of these 25 BRATS is 329-106 SU, 109-147 ATS (56.4%). To point out the importance of the last three columns of the chart, please note that IF THE SUM OF A TEAM’S REBOUND MARGIN, A/TO MARGIN, AND TO MARGIN EXCEEDS 10.0 THE COMBINED POINT SPREAD RECORD IS 94-53 ATS (64%)WINNERS. This list includes the following teams: Cincinnati, Iowa, Kansas, Louisville, Northwestern, Providence, St Marys, Texas A&M, WVU, and Xavier. These teams are represented in the chart above with a star in front of their name.

If your favorite team is not on this list, I suggest that you examine the stats to find out where their deficiencies lie. Here is a list of teams that “just missed” qualifying for the list of BRATS: Arkansas LR, Baylor, Butler, Fresno St, Hawaii, Northern Illinois, Notre Dame, Oregon, Pepperdine, Pitt, South Dakota St, SMU, St Joes, Texas Tech, Villanova, and Virginia. With solid play this week, these teams could easily qualify for the list.

Plans for next week’s article are to examine only the teams that qualify for the last three columns of the list. That is rebound margin, assist/TO margin, and net TO margin. The records of the teams, as you will see, may very well represent the crème of the crop of the current basketball season, indicating how strong those fundamental statistics are in creating a team’s success.