Started By
Message
Co-Pilot giving some in-depth projections for Tournament games - sample Auburn/Al St
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:37 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:37 am
Auburn 87, Alabama St. 53
Final Expected Stats
Possessions: 71.4
FG%: Auburn 47.7%, Alabama St. 39.9%
eFG%: Auburn 53.0%, Alabama St. 44.7%
3P%: Auburn 34.0% (7/21), Alabama St. 27.3% (5/18)
Rebounding (Totals & Percentages):
- Offensive Rebounds: Auburn 13 (34.6%), Alabama St. 6 (21.8%)
- Defensive Rebounds: Auburn 28 (78.2%), Alabama St. 21 (65.4%)
Free Throws (FT): Auburn 16/22 (72.7%), Alabama St. 9/15 (60%)
Turnovers (TO): Auburn 9 (12.6%), Alabama St. 14 (19.6%)
Points Per Possession (PPP): Auburn 1.22, Alabama St. 0.74
Auburn entered this game as a high-efficiency offensive team, averaging 1.20 PPP over the course of the season, with a well-balanced offense that excelled in creating high-percentage looks both inside and out. Their effective field goal percentage (53.0%) in this matchup aligned closely with their season-long performance, where they consistently hovered in the top quartile of Division I teams in overall FG% and 3P%.
Rebounding has been a cornerstone of Auburn’s season, with their 34.6% ORB% reflecting their dominance on the offensive boards. This is no surprise given their season-long offensive rebounding rate of 35.2%, which ranked among the best in their conference. Their ability to consistently secure second-chance points wore down Alabama State, who struggled with rebounding all season (a defensive rebounding rate of just 66.5%).
Auburn’s ability to protect the ball was evident, committing just 9 turnovers (12.6% TO rate) in line with their season-long average of 13.2% TO rate, one of the more disciplined marks in their league. In contrast, Alabama State’s offensive inefficiency (19.6% TO rate, season average 18.4%) plagued them throughout this game, limiting their ability to build momentum.
From beyond the arc, Auburn’s 7 made threes at 34.0% reflected their season 3P% of 36.5%, a reliable weapon they used to stretch defenses. Alabama State’s struggles in perimeter defense (allowing opponents to shoot 35.3% from deep) enabled Auburn to capitalize on open looks, contributing to their commanding victory.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 11:53 am
3
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:38 am to SummerOfGeorge
Louisville 71, Creighton 67
Updated Final Expected Stats:
Possessions: 69.4
FG%: Louisville 44.9%, Creighton 44.3%
eFG%: Louisville 51.1%, Creighton 52.2%
3P%: Louisville 32.3% (8/25), Creighton 34.1% (9/25)
Rebounding (Totals & Percentages):
- Offensive Rebounds: Louisville 11 (33.1%), Creighton 9 (27.3%)
- Defensive Rebounds: Louisville 25 (72.7%), Creighton 23 (66.9%)
Free Throws (FT): Louisville 12/16 (75%), Creighton 8/12 (66.7%)
Turnovers (TO): Louisville 10 (14.4%), Creighton 12 (17.3%)
Points Per Possession (PPP): Louisville 1.03, Creighton 0.98
Louisville’s slim victory was fueled by their season-long strength in rebounding and disciplined ball control. Their 33.1% ORB% in this game aligned with their season average of 32.8%, reflecting their ability to consistently generate second-chance points. Meanwhile, Creighton, whose defensive rebounding percentage hovered around 67% for the season, struggled to contain Louisville’s offensive rebounding effort, allowing crucial extra possessions.
Creighton’s offensive efficiency remained strong, as evidenced by their 52.2% eFG%, thanks to their accurate perimeter shooting (**9/25, 34.1% 3P%). This matched their season-long identity as a strong perimeter team, shooting around 37% from deep during the year. However, Louisville’s ability to contain them to just 27.3% ORB%, compared to their season average of 29.5%, prevented Creighton from converting extra opportunities into decisive points.
Turnovers also factored into the outcome, as Louisville committed just 10 turnovers (14.4% TO rate), a consistent characteristic of their season, where they kept their TO rate below 15% in most games. Creighton, on the other hand, saw their season-long TO issues resurface, with a 17.3% rate that led to approximately 4-6 points in favor of Louisville.
At the free-throw line, Louisville’s consistency (12/16, 75%) reflected their season-long aggressiveness in attacking the basket, while Creighton’s missed opportunities (**8/12, 66.7%) underscored their struggles in converting free points all season. These combined factors delivered a tightly contested 4-point win for Louisville.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 11:53 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:39 am to SummerOfGeorge
How about Ole Miss vs UNC?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:54 am to SummerOfGeorge
Michigan 75, UC San Diego 65
Expected Stats
Possessions: 68.6
FG%: Michigan 46.5%, UC San Diego 41.9%
eFG%: Michigan 54.2%, UC San Diego 47.4%
3P%: Michigan 37.3% (8/21), UC San Diego 30.2% (5/17)
Rebounding (Totals & Percentages):
- Offensive Rebounds: Michigan 12 (33.7%), UC San Diego 8 (24.1%)
- Defensive Rebounds: Michigan 27 (75.9%), UC San Diego 23 (66.3%)
Free Throws (FT): Michigan 14/19 (73.7%), UC San Diego 10/14 (71.4%)
Turnovers (TO): Michigan 10 (14.6%), UC San Diego 12 (17.5%)
Points Per Possession (PPP): Michigan 1.10, UC San Diego 0.95
Michigan’s victory reflected their season-long strengths in efficiency and rebounding. Their 54.2% eFG%, boosted by 37.3% 3-point shooting (8/21), highlighted their ability to execute a balanced offensive attack. This performance matched their season eFG% of 54.4%, which ranked among the top in their conference. UC San Diego, while competitive, struggled to elevate their 47.4% eFG%, which was slightly below their season average of 48.0%.
Rebounding was another area where Michigan asserted their dominance, with a 33.7% ORB%, close to their season average of 34%, generating second-chance points. UC San Diego’s poor defensive rebounding rate of 66.3% in this game mirrored their season-long struggles, where they ranked near the bottom of Division I in DRB%.
Turnovers were another decisive factor. Michigan’s season-long TO rate of 14.5% was on full display, as they protected the ball with just 10 turnovers (14.6% rate). UC San Diego’s 12 turnovers (17.5% rate), consistent with their season-long mark, contributed to an estimated 6-8 points off turnovers for Michigan.
Finally, free-throw shooting provided Michigan an edge. Their 14/19 performance (73.7%), consistent with their season average of 74%, gave them the extra cushion needed to secure the win. UC San Diego’s 71.4% free-throw shooting (10/14) reflected their season average but wasn’t enough to bridge the gap.
Overall, Michigan’s execution in rebounding, efficient scoring, and turnovers, all hallmarks of their season-long style of play, led to this controlled 10-point victory.
Expected Stats
Possessions: 68.6
FG%: Michigan 46.5%, UC San Diego 41.9%
eFG%: Michigan 54.2%, UC San Diego 47.4%
3P%: Michigan 37.3% (8/21), UC San Diego 30.2% (5/17)
Rebounding (Totals & Percentages):
- Offensive Rebounds: Michigan 12 (33.7%), UC San Diego 8 (24.1%)
- Defensive Rebounds: Michigan 27 (75.9%), UC San Diego 23 (66.3%)
Free Throws (FT): Michigan 14/19 (73.7%), UC San Diego 10/14 (71.4%)
Turnovers (TO): Michigan 10 (14.6%), UC San Diego 12 (17.5%)
Points Per Possession (PPP): Michigan 1.10, UC San Diego 0.95
Michigan’s victory reflected their season-long strengths in efficiency and rebounding. Their 54.2% eFG%, boosted by 37.3% 3-point shooting (8/21), highlighted their ability to execute a balanced offensive attack. This performance matched their season eFG% of 54.4%, which ranked among the top in their conference. UC San Diego, while competitive, struggled to elevate their 47.4% eFG%, which was slightly below their season average of 48.0%.
Rebounding was another area where Michigan asserted their dominance, with a 33.7% ORB%, close to their season average of 34%, generating second-chance points. UC San Diego’s poor defensive rebounding rate of 66.3% in this game mirrored their season-long struggles, where they ranked near the bottom of Division I in DRB%.
Turnovers were another decisive factor. Michigan’s season-long TO rate of 14.5% was on full display, as they protected the ball with just 10 turnovers (14.6% rate). UC San Diego’s 12 turnovers (17.5% rate), consistent with their season-long mark, contributed to an estimated 6-8 points off turnovers for Michigan.
Finally, free-throw shooting provided Michigan an edge. Their 14/19 performance (73.7%), consistent with their season average of 74%, gave them the extra cushion needed to secure the win. UC San Diego’s 71.4% free-throw shooting (10/14) reflected their season average but wasn’t enough to bridge the gap.
Overall, Michigan’s execution in rebounding, efficient scoring, and turnovers, all hallmarks of their season-long style of play, led to this controlled 10-point victory.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 11:54 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:56 am to SummerOfGeorge
Texas A&M 73, Yale 63
Final Expected Stats
Possessions: 67.8
FG%: Texas A&M 45.3%, Yale 42.0%
eFG%: Texas A&M 51.9%, Yale 47.5%
3P%: Texas A&M 33.0% (6/18), Yale 31.7% (6/19)
Rebounding (Totals & Percentages):
- Offensive Rebounds: Texas A&M 10 (30.3%), Yale 8 (24.7%)
- Defensive Rebounds: Texas A&M 24 (75.3%), Yale 23 (69.7%)
Free Throws (FT): Texas A&M 13/18 (72.2%), Yale 9/12 (75%)
Turnovers (TO): Texas A&M 10 (14.8%), Yale 11 (16.2%)
Points Per Possession (PPP): Texas A&M 1.08, Yale 0.92
Texas A&M’s victory stemmed from their season-long strengths in controlling possessions and dominating physical matchups. Their eFG% of 51.9% in this game was consistent with their season average, driven by strong interior finishing and a steady—though not spectacular—three-point performance (6/18, 33.0%). Yale, while competitive, underperformed slightly on offense, hitting 42.0% of FG and posting an eFG% of 47.5%, which was below their season mark of 49.8%.
Rebounding was a key factor, with Texas A&M grabbing 30.3% of offensive boards, just shy of their season average of 31%, but enough to give them extra scoring opportunities. Yale’s struggles to control the defensive glass (69.7% DRB%) echoed their season-long rebounding issues and limited their ability to prevent second-chance points.
Turnovers also influenced the outcome. Texas A&M’s discipline (10 turnovers, 14.8% TO rate) matched their season-long strength in ball control, while Yale’s 11 turnovers (16.2% rate) were slightly higher than their usual average, costing them critical possessions.
At the free-throw line, Texas A&M converted 13 of 18 attempts (72.2%), capitalizing on their ability to draw fouls and execute. Yale’s 9 of 12 (75%) was solid but not enough to counteract Texas A&M’s aggression. The result was a controlled 10-point win, consistent with Texas A&M’s season-long profile as a physical and efficient team.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 11:58 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:
How about Ole Miss vs UNC?
North Carolina 79, Ole Miss 68
Final Expected Stats
Possessions: 72.2
FG%: Ole Miss 44.1%, North Carolina 46.8%
eFG%: Ole Miss 49.5%, North Carolina 53.7%
3P%: Ole Miss 30.2% (5/17), North Carolina 34.1% (7/20)
Rebounding (Totals & Percentages):
- Offensive Rebounds: Ole Miss 11 (30.1%), North Carolina 15 (37.9%)
- Defensive Rebounds: Ole Miss 25 (62.1%), North Carolina 26 (69.9%)
Free Throws (FT): Ole Miss 12/16 (75%), North Carolina 17/22 (77.3%)
Turnovers (TO): Ole Miss 13 (18.0%), North Carolina 10 (13.8%)
Points Per Possession (PPP): Ole Miss 0.94, North Carolina 1.10
North Carolina’s season-long identity as a fast-paced, dominant rebounding team was on full display in this matchup. Their 37.9% offensive rebounding rate was consistent with their top-tier performance all season (averaging close to 38% ORB%), and it provided crucial second-chance opportunities. Ole Miss, while scrappy, struggled on the boards (30.1% ORB%), reflecting their season-long weakness in rebounding.
Shooting efficiency tipped further in UNC’s favor, as their 53.7% eFG% demonstrated their ability to generate high-quality looks inside and out. Ole Miss, by contrast, posted an eFG% of 49.5%, slightly below their season average. North Carolina’s superior 3-point shooting (7/20, 34.1%) stretched Ole Miss’s defense, while Ole Miss hit just 5/17 threes (30.2%), limiting their ability to close the gap.
Turnovers were another deciding factor. UNC’s disciplined offense (10 turnovers, 13.8% rate) gave them extra possessions compared to Ole Miss’s 13 turnovers (18.0% rate), aligning with Ole Miss’s season-long struggles with ball control.
At the free-throw line, North Carolina’s aggressive attack earned them 22 attempts, converting 17 (77.3%), while Ole Miss managed only 16 attempts, making 12 (75%). This 5-point difference from the stripe padded UNC’s lead, helping them secure an 11-point victory
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:03 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Turnovers (TO): Ole Miss 13 (18.0%), North Carolina 10 (13.8%)
Yeah no. They aren't great defensively and we are great at not turning it over.
Whole thing is BS.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:05 pm to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
Yeah no. They aren't great defensively and we are great at not turning it over.
Yea it's good at calculation but needs direction in how to use the numbers it has. Without it not great.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:16 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Is Co-Pilot a new Ai? I cant keep up, but im trying.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:22 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:09 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Michigan 75, UC San Diego 65
Not listening to logic where my alma mater's concerned. The Trtions are least destined to go down SEC style -- on 20 consecutive Buzz Ball fouls in the paint to Texas A&M in the round of 32.
The embarrassment of Tigerdroppings only having an UC Irvine logo choice will end at Michigan's expense.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 3:13 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News