March Madness New Stat – The Makinen Game Grade Forecast:
While filling out the projected brackets prior to the 2023 NCAA tournament using my four sets of strength ratings, it occurred to me that the Power Ratings & Effective Strength Ratings were quite similar as usual in terms of which teams were strongest for the season. This is explainable in that one of them plays a formidable role in developing the other. They are also “body of work” ratings. It was this thought that led me a year ago to develop a new statistical metric for measuring teams, and I did it by rendering GAME GRADES for each team’s board games throughout the year. I took these grades and, using a baseline for the fewest board games for teams throughout the country (this year: 24 games), I employed a simple forecasting technique going back and analyzing those grades, which, of course, included relevant opponent strength, location, and injury variables which I regularly track.
The metric produced an expected performance level for the next game or set of games. To make it clear what was being calculated, I decided to call this new strength rating the MAKINEN GAME GRADE FORECAST. Those of you who were on VSiN for the 2024 tourney or just recently for the conference tournaments may have noticed the acronym GGF on the strength ratings charts. Hopefully, the grades helped you find some success. To me, the figures give you another indication of which teams are most/least ready to make a run this year. In my opinion, the GGF gives a better idea of how teams are currently playing or how specifically they can be expected to play in their next game(s) using a sound statistical method.
With the method and reasoning for the new metric explained, I have listed below the GGFs for the tournament’s 68 teams, ranked in order of strength. I will be again analyzing the results this year, and if proven reliable, I will try to begin employing them routinely in my work for VSiN in a variety of sports. These are similar to my other strength ratings in that you can get a good indication of a team’s relative strength against an opponent by simply comparing the two numbers and adding any home or road court points to determine a point spread. Note that I have applied NEUTRAL/ROAD court ratings on top of their raw GGF figures to get a more accurate projection for the tournament.
As a reference point to how this number differs from the Effective Strength Rating, for instance, the top-ranked team, Duke, has a GGF 3.1 points higher than its Effective Strength Rating, a sign that the Blue Devils are playing as good as they have all season heading into the tournament. Interestingly, as you can see, four of the top seven teams are all from the West Region, including #12 seed Colorado State.
If you’re curious as to how these numbers fared in last year’s NCAAs, UConn, the eventual champion, was easily #1 on this list. In addition, 11 of the top 14 and 13 of the top 19 teams wound up being the makeup of the Sweet 16. We’ll see how it turns out this year. Good luck!
2025 Tournament Teams ranked by GGF
1. DUKE (East #1): 30.3
2. FLORIDA (West #1): 29.9
3. ALABAMA (East #2): 25.3
4. GONZAGA (Midwest #8): 24.8
5. ST JOHN’S (West #2): 22.6
6. MARYLAND (West #4): 22.4
7. COLORADO STATE (West #12): 21.7
8. MICHIGAN STATE (South #2): 21
9. HOUSTON (Midwest #1): 20.2
10. CLEMSON (Midwest #5): 19.6
11. TENNESSEE (Midwest #2): 19.
12. MISSOURI (West #6): 19.5
13. AUBURN (South #1): 19.1
14. TEXAS TECH (West #3): 18.7
15. NORTH CAROLINA (South #11): 18.5
16. UC SAN DIEGO (South #12): 18.3
17. BYU (East #6): 18
18. KENTUCKY (Midwest #3): 17.8
19. WISCONSIN (East #3): 17.1
20. ST MARY’S (CA) (East #7): 16.8
21. IOWA STATE (South #3): 16.3
22. OREGON (East #5): 16.3
24. UCLA (Midwest #7): 16.1
25. VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH (East #11): 16.1
26. LOUISVILLE (South #8): 15.1
27. ARIZONA (East #4): 14.8
28. ARKANSAS (West #10): 14.6
29. OKLAHOMA (West #9): 14.5
30. NEW MEXICO (South #10): 14.4
31. GEORGIA (Midwest #9): 14.2
32. CONNECTICUT (West #8): 14.1
35. LIBERTY (East #12): 13.4
37. CREIGHTON (South #9): 13.2
38. XAVIER (Midwest #11): 13.2
39. TEXAS A&M (South #4): 12.2
40. HIGH POINT (Midwest #13): 12.2
42. PURDUE (Midwest #4): 12
43. MARQUETTE (South #7): 11.8
44. BAYLOR (East #9): 11.8
45. OLE MISS (South #6): 11.5
47. MCNEESE STATE (Midwest #12): 11.2
50. DRAKE (West #11): 10.4
51. ROBERT MORRIS (East #15): 10.2
52. MICHIGAN (South #5): 10.1
54. UTAH STATE (Midwest #10): 9.5
55. MEMPHIS (West #5): 9.3
56. NEBRASKA-OMAHA (West #15): 9.2
58. WOFFORD (Midwest #15): 9
62. ILLINOIS (Midwest #6): 8.6
63. KANSAS (West #7): 8.6
64. MISSISSIPPI STATE (East #8): 8.6
67. MONTANA (East #14): 8.4
70. TROY (Midwest #14): 8.2
71. UNC-WILMINGTON (West #14): 8.1
72. SAN DIEGO STATE (South #11): 8
81. YALE (South #13): 7.4
85. TEXAS (Midwest #11): 6.7
88. GRAND CANYON (West #13): 6.4
94. BRYANT (South #15): 6
110. VANDERBILT (East #10): 4.6
115. LIPSCOMB (South #14): 4.1
124. AKRON (East #13): 3.2
155. AMERICAN (East #16): 0.9
160. SIU EDWARDSVILLE (Midwest #16): 0.5
165. ALABAMA STATE (South #16): 0.2
187. MOUNT ST MARY’S (East #16): -1.3
213. NORFOLK STATE (West #16): -2.5
255. ST FRANCIS (PA) (South #16): -5.2
