I let the Rod Marinelli hiring marinate in my brain for a while so I could soak in all of the positives and/or negatives he brings to the Lions. Over the last two weeks, my feelings have pretty much run the gamut. The only thought that didn’t cross my mind was, “this is an awful hiring.” I suppose that is sufficient enough evidence to convince me that it was a decent hire. Obviously, any time your franchise brings in a first-time head coach, it brings up memories of Marty Mornhinweg. That aside, the Lions needed some new blood. They needed someone who would come to Detroit and get results from underachieving players. Marinelli seems like the kind of guy that will get results or die trying.
Matt Millen was a hard-nosed, physical football player. He went away from that philosophy in hiring Mornhinweg and then Steve Mariucci. He went even further away from that philosophy by drafting four straight offensive skill positions with top 10 picks. Marinelli is everything that Millen’s tenure hasn’t been. He’s defensive-minded. He’s organized. He’s professional. The hiring of Marinelli might signify Millen’s realization that the adage of building championship football teams through the defensive and offensive lines actually holds merit. If anyone doubts that, look no further than the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks. They have arguably the two best offensive lines in the league. They were both in the top five in the NFL in rushing yards for and against. To his credit, Millen did steal Shaun Rogers in the second round of the 2001 draft but Rogers stands as Millen’s only above-average defender obtained via the draft. Millen struck out with Jeff Backus on the offensive line in his only attempt at addressing the lines with a first round pick. That probably speaks ill of Millen’s eye for talent more so than a lack of desire to bring in skilled lineman. Nevertheless, Millen needed to pick a completely different course for the franchise and I believe the hiring of Marinelli did just that.
The Lions appear to be making a conscientious effort to bring in a respected group of coaches and coordinators. Donnie Henderson accepted the defensive coordinator position which is somewhat of a coup considering Henderson has been an up and coming head coaching candidate for the last few years. As good as it is to have Henderson on board; my guess is that the Lions choice for offensive coordinator will have a bigger impact on the success of the franchise. Marinelli will pretty much call the shots on defense so Henderson’s impact will probably be felt in motivation and reinforcement rather than in game-planning. Millen has taken a lot of heat for drafting three straight wide receivers with high first round picks. In hindsight, that turned out to be a terrible strategy but the result wasn’t inevitable. If the picks had performed the way every draft expert and talent evaluator predicted, critics would be singing an entirely different tune. The breakdown was two-fold. The players haven’t lived up to expectations but at the same time, the coaching staff has been abysmal at offensive game-planning. When Millen invested valuable draft picks on receivers, I’m sure he envisioned an on-field return similar to that of the Indianapolis Colts. Instead, his coaching staff gave him something closer to a high school game-plan. If Millen can bring in an offensive coordinator that can make use of that first round talent, and god forbid, make those players better, those picks could still come to fruition.
The only rumor I’ve heard so far about possible offensive coordinators coming to Detroit is Mike Martz. For those of you that are new to my blog, I’ll reiterate that I don’t care too much for Martz as a football mind nor do I like what I’ve seen with regards to his personality. The Lions bringing in Martz as offensive coordinator would be the equivalent of me hiring Kenneth Lay as my investment representative. That’s just something I wouldn’t do. The Rams were a dynasty in the making in 1999. They destroyed teams with a proficient offense and an aggressive defense. Their team was loaded with young, superstar talent. Dick Vermeil retired. Enter Mark Martz and the rest is history. The Rams have been a bumbling mess ever since. Granted, Martz would have far less control as Offensive Coordinator of the Lions than he did as head coach of the Rams. As a result, he would find it more difficult to single handily ruin the Lions as he did the Rams. Even if Martz somehow reformed his personal and professional philosophies and was guaranteed to be the Rasheed Wallace of reformed NFL coaches; that still doesn’t address the fact that Martz is extremely overrated. In the last six years, the Rams never fared better than 22nd in the NFL in rushing attempts. In fact, they finished 26th, 22nd, 32nd, 28th, 30th, and 29th respectively. That doesn’t mesh too well with the idea that championships are won on the offensive and defensive lines. The laughably low number of rush attempts per game could at least somewhat be defended if the Rams were below-average at the running back position. As everyone knows, the Rams have one of the greatest running backs in NFL history in Marshall Faulk. For the last two years, the Rams have had both Faulk and emerging superstar Steven Jackson. Yet, Martz continued to ignore the running game. One of the most frustrating aspects of Mariucci’s tenure was his penchant for ignoring Kevin Jones. Martz would only make the problem worse.
The Patriots have been dubbed a pass-happy team during their Super Bowl runs. Former Offensive Coordinator Charlie Weiss was lauded for his precision-passing game and propensity to throw at any time. Even with Weiss’ affection for the passing game, the Patriots were always mindful of the running game. Over the last five years, the Patriots finished 8th, 28th, 12th, 5th, and 18th in rushing attempts. Despite Weiss’ pass-oriented offense, he never abandoned the need for balance. Martz clearly has had no sense of balance in his play-calling and that certainly wouldn’t change just because he’s coming to Detroit.
I know a lot of people in Detroit probably want Martz on board because he has attained a reputation as an offensive genius. The media has been far more kind to Martz than his record has deserved. There are various sites on the internet that pay tribute to Martz’s miscues over the last six years. Martz suffered a heart-attack this season. When he expressed interest in returning early the Rams fired him. Keep in mind that the Rams have Marc Bulger, Tory Holt, Issac Bruce, Marshall Faulk, Orlando Pace and Steven Jackson on offense. If the Rams didn’t want an offensive “genius” to run that team, then that should speak volumes for how good of a coach Martz really is. If he didn’t run the ball with Faulk, Jackson and Orlando Pace, then he won’t run the ball with Kevin Jones. I guess my point is that Martz has been a disaster as a head coach. If given the choice, I would probably rather have Lloyd Carr calling the Lions offense over Martz. I can’t believe I just said that.
Anyhow, I like the Marinelli hire. The Lions will be aggressive and effective on defense for the first time in my lifetime. The unanswered question is how the offensive will pan out. Millen should bring in a guy with the same philosophies as Charlie Weiss. The key to an effective offense is balance and a reliable running game. The Lions haven’t had that since Scott Mitchell took the same magic potion that Brady Anderson took. Millen’s biggest decision will be the next one he makes. My guess is that whoever his choice for Offensive Coordinator is will be the deciding factor in whether Marinelli ends up being a good hire or not. For those of you that are “up in arms” about the Marinelli hire, it could be worse. You could be a Buffalo Bills fan. Apparently, they were impressed with the way Dick Jauron gracefully went 1-4 without eliciting any semblance of a team pulse after taking over for Mariucci.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
NCAA Tournament projections (week of Jan 30)
The last week has shed quite a bit of light on the college basketball season. Teams like Seton Hall and Temple had big weeks while other teams like Louisville and Wake Forest played their way out of the "projected" tournament field. I made a few changes to my "projected" automatic bids for the weaker conferences. I also added Seton Hall, S. Illinois, Arkansas and California to the at-large teams. They replaced Louisville, Wake Forest, Iowa St., and Missouri St.
Here are the changes I made to the projected automatic bid winners:
MAAC Iona replaces Manhattan
Atl. Sun Lipscomb replaces E. Tenn St.
Northeast C. Connecticut St. replaces Sacred Heart
MCC IUPUI replaces Oral Roberts
MAC Akron replaces Kent St.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West UC-Irvine
21 OVC Samford
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast C. Connecticut St.
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Lipscomb
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Seton Hall
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Vanderbilt
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large GW
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
I haven't listed the 65 teams in order yet. I'll start doing that in a few weeks. The field that I have "projected" now assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. California
The Bears are easily the worst team that I have in the tournament field right now. Nonetheless, their 6-3 conference record could easily reach 9-3 with three easy conference games in a row. The Pac-10 will almost certainly get four bids to the tournament. UCLA, Washington, and Arizona will be three of those teams. Cal or Stanford will be the fourth. Both will likely finish with a +.500 record in the conference but only one will make it. As average as Cal's resume is, Stanford's is even worse.
RPI rating: 72
Pomeroy rating: 56
Quality wins: UCLA, Washington, Akron, San Diego St.
Bad losses: @ Eastern Michigan, Oregon St.
2. Seton Hall
I didn't even have Seton Hall on my "waiting in the wings" list last week. The Pirates were 10-6 with no marquee wins. They were 1-3 in a loaded conference. Throw in the fact that they lost by 53 to Duke and Seton Hall seemed out of luck. That was before this week. No team has made a bigger one-week jump in terms of tournament chances than Seton Hall. They beat N. Carolina St. and Syracuse on the road to improve to 12-6 (3-3). If Seton Hall can just beat the bad teams left on the schedule, they should make the tournament.
RPI rating: 39
Pomeroy rating: 40
Quality wins: @ NC State, @ Syracuse, Manhattan, Iona
Bad losses: @ Richmond, Northwestern
3. Arkansas
Arkansas pulled the choke-job of all choke-jobs yesterday at Kentucky. A win would've pretty much sealed the Razorback's tourney fate. They were up by 18 before falling apart in the second half. It would've been such a disappointment to watch had I not known it was coming. Despite its best efforts to ruin its tourney hopes, I think Arkansas had done enough to date to merit a selection. Arkansas has beaten an impressive array of teams while limiting "bad losses" to just one. How the rest of the season plays out remains to be seen but if Arkansas can finish 9-7 in the SEC, they will probably get in.
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 41
Quality wins: Kansas (neutral site), Missouri St., Vanderbilt
Bad losses: Mississippi St.
4. Colorado
The Buffaloes are quite possibly the luckiest team in college basketball this season. They are the antithesis of Notre Dame which is by far the unluckiest team. Check the bottom of the post for more on Notre Dame's unlucky season. Colorado has exactly zero impressive wins. They've played two "good" teams this year and lost by more than ten in both games. Fortunately for Colorado, they play in the weak Big XII conference where they get a healthy dose of Nebraska, Baylor, Texas A & M, Texas Tech, and Kansas St. among others. That's why the Buffaloes are 15-3 with an RPI lower than St. Joseph's which stands at 9-8. Barring a major disaster, Colorado will make the tournament.
RPI rating: 47
Pomeroy rating: 18
Quality wins: None
Bad losses: @ Colorado St.
5. Wichita St.
I think it's time people start arguing on behalf of the Missouri Valley Conference in a more vocal manner. This conference is definitely making a run at being considered a "major" in college basketball. The MVC has six teams in the RPI top 55. The conference has wins over Iowa, Indiana, LSU, and Xavier just to name a few. The MVC rates ahead of the Pac-10 and just percentage points behind the Big XII in the RPI. Of the top four teams in the MVC, Wichita St. probably has the least impressive resume. They don't have any marquee victories but they've beaten quality opponents without suffering any bad losses. Wichita St. should manage to rack up enough wins to make the tournament assuming the MVC gets the proper respect from the selection committee.
RPI rating: 23
Pomeroy rating:26
Quality wins:@ Bradley, @ Missouri St., Bradley, Missouri St., Northwestern St., Providence, Miami (OH)
Bad losses: none
The teams waiting in the wings:
1. Iowa St.
It would be unfortunate to see Iowa St's impressive wins over N. Iowa and Iowa go to waste but it appears as though that could be the case. Iowa St. stands at 3-4 in the Big XII with bad conference losses to Texas Tech and Texas A & M. If the Cyclones can't beat those teams, then they don't have much of a chance at finishing above .500 in the conference. They have a relatively easy stretch of games coming up. If they can get to .500 in conference, they might get a bid since the Big XII is short on tournament-deserving teams.
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 65
Quality wins: N. Iowa, Iowa, Northwestern St. (neutral site)
Bad losses: Fresno St., Texas Tech, Texas A & M
2. Missouri St.
Missouri St. has the computer ratings to get into the tournament but they don't have the quality wins to merit a selection. They have one win in the RPI top 100 which is a very low number. This team is good enough to win the MVC conference tournament but an at-large bid is probably out of reach unless Missouri St. finishes on a big winning streak.
RPI rating: 41
Pomeroy rating: 48
Quality wins: S. Illinois
Bad losses: none
3. Temple
Temple did its best Seton Hall impersonation this week by catapulting onto the tournament bubble. The Owls were left for dead with a terrible loss to Auburn. However, Don Chaney's crew has won two straight over top 50 teams in Maryland and Xavier. If the Owls can finish 11-5 in the A-10, I think they'll get a bid. However, that means they'll have to go 7-2 in their last nine conference games. I'm not holding my breath.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 76
Quality wins: Miami (FL), Alabama, Xavier, Maryland
Bad losses: Auburn, Massachusetts
4. Bradley
Bradley doesn't have Missouri St's combination of computer rating and record, but I would argue that Bradley has a better set of wins. Bradley could easily win its next four games which would put them among the best bubble teams. If Bradley can finish 18-8, they might just make the tournament.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 43
Quality wins: @ DePaul, W. Kentucky, N. Iowa, Creighton, Missouri St.
Bad losses: @ Loyola Chicago, @ Butler, @ Drake
5. Louisville
The Cardinals are finding out why it was crazy to leave Conference USA. What were they thinking? They would have easily made the tournament with a #5 seed this season if they had just stayed in Conference USA. Memphis certainly isn't griping about anything. Louisville has the players to make a run but the Big East is just too difficult. S. Florida is the only easy out on the schedule and even they have been playing teams tough lately. It would take a miracle for Louisville to turn the season around.
RPI rating: 65
Pomeroy rating: 46
Quality wins: Akron, Miami (FL) (neutral site), @ Providence, Cincinnati
Bad losses: @ St. John's
6 Old Dominion
7 NC Wilmington
8 Stanford
9 Rutgers
10 Miami (FL)
11 Utah St.
12 FSU
13 USC
14 St. Joe's
15 Alabama
16 Kent St.
17 Manhattan
My guess is that Stanford or California will make the tournament. I'm also guessing that the Big XII would get a fifth team as long as that team finishes at .500 in conference. Iowa St. is really the only team that could grab the fifth spot. Alabama and Arkansas look to be battling for the last SEC spot. St. Joseph's and Temple have such high computer ratings that if either goes on a big winning streak, they could easily get an at-large bid despite their current records. Old Dominion has good computer ratings but they don't have a very impressive resume. As inconsistent as Seton Hall has been, it will be hard for them to stay afloat in the Big East. At this point, I'm guessing that either Seton Hall, Rutgers or Louisville will make the tournament. That would give the Big East nine teams.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
Xavier
GW
MVC (4)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Poor Notre Dame
Notre Dame is a solid team. You wouldn't know it from its record but the Irish can play with anyone. The problem is that they can't beat anyone. Notre Dame is 10-8 on the season. Seven of those losses have come to teams in the RPI top 32. Here is how some of those games turned out:
Michigan 71 Notre Dame 67
Pittsburgh 100 Notre Dame 97 (2 OT)
DePaul 73 Notre Dame 67
Syracuse 88 Notre Dame 82
Marquette 67 Notre Dame 65
Georgetown 85 Notre Dame 82 (2 OT)
Villanova 82 Notre Dame 80
The question now is, since Notre Dame didn't manage to beat anyone, will any of these teams be able to claim Notre Dame as a "quality win" in the eyes of the selection committee? Notre Dame's RPI is a paltry 99. Unfortunately for these teams, Notre Dame's season was so unlucky that even the teams that beat them will get nothing for their efforts.
Here are the changes I made to the projected automatic bid winners:
MAAC Iona replaces Manhattan
Atl. Sun Lipscomb replaces E. Tenn St.
Northeast C. Connecticut St. replaces Sacred Heart
MCC IUPUI replaces Oral Roberts
MAC Akron replaces Kent St.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West UC-Irvine
21 OVC Samford
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast C. Connecticut St.
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Lipscomb
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Seton Hall
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Vanderbilt
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large GW
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
I haven't listed the 65 teams in order yet. I'll start doing that in a few weeks. The field that I have "projected" now assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. California
The Bears are easily the worst team that I have in the tournament field right now. Nonetheless, their 6-3 conference record could easily reach 9-3 with three easy conference games in a row. The Pac-10 will almost certainly get four bids to the tournament. UCLA, Washington, and Arizona will be three of those teams. Cal or Stanford will be the fourth. Both will likely finish with a +.500 record in the conference but only one will make it. As average as Cal's resume is, Stanford's is even worse.
RPI rating: 72
Pomeroy rating: 56
Quality wins: UCLA, Washington, Akron, San Diego St.
Bad losses: @ Eastern Michigan, Oregon St.
2. Seton Hall
I didn't even have Seton Hall on my "waiting in the wings" list last week. The Pirates were 10-6 with no marquee wins. They were 1-3 in a loaded conference. Throw in the fact that they lost by 53 to Duke and Seton Hall seemed out of luck. That was before this week. No team has made a bigger one-week jump in terms of tournament chances than Seton Hall. They beat N. Carolina St. and Syracuse on the road to improve to 12-6 (3-3). If Seton Hall can just beat the bad teams left on the schedule, they should make the tournament.
RPI rating: 39
Pomeroy rating: 40
Quality wins: @ NC State, @ Syracuse, Manhattan, Iona
Bad losses: @ Richmond, Northwestern
3. Arkansas
Arkansas pulled the choke-job of all choke-jobs yesterday at Kentucky. A win would've pretty much sealed the Razorback's tourney fate. They were up by 18 before falling apart in the second half. It would've been such a disappointment to watch had I not known it was coming. Despite its best efforts to ruin its tourney hopes, I think Arkansas had done enough to date to merit a selection. Arkansas has beaten an impressive array of teams while limiting "bad losses" to just one. How the rest of the season plays out remains to be seen but if Arkansas can finish 9-7 in the SEC, they will probably get in.
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 41
Quality wins: Kansas (neutral site), Missouri St., Vanderbilt
Bad losses: Mississippi St.
4. Colorado
The Buffaloes are quite possibly the luckiest team in college basketball this season. They are the antithesis of Notre Dame which is by far the unluckiest team. Check the bottom of the post for more on Notre Dame's unlucky season. Colorado has exactly zero impressive wins. They've played two "good" teams this year and lost by more than ten in both games. Fortunately for Colorado, they play in the weak Big XII conference where they get a healthy dose of Nebraska, Baylor, Texas A & M, Texas Tech, and Kansas St. among others. That's why the Buffaloes are 15-3 with an RPI lower than St. Joseph's which stands at 9-8. Barring a major disaster, Colorado will make the tournament.
RPI rating: 47
Pomeroy rating: 18
Quality wins: None
Bad losses: @ Colorado St.
5. Wichita St.
I think it's time people start arguing on behalf of the Missouri Valley Conference in a more vocal manner. This conference is definitely making a run at being considered a "major" in college basketball. The MVC has six teams in the RPI top 55. The conference has wins over Iowa, Indiana, LSU, and Xavier just to name a few. The MVC rates ahead of the Pac-10 and just percentage points behind the Big XII in the RPI. Of the top four teams in the MVC, Wichita St. probably has the least impressive resume. They don't have any marquee victories but they've beaten quality opponents without suffering any bad losses. Wichita St. should manage to rack up enough wins to make the tournament assuming the MVC gets the proper respect from the selection committee.
RPI rating: 23
Pomeroy rating:26
Quality wins:@ Bradley, @ Missouri St., Bradley, Missouri St., Northwestern St., Providence, Miami (OH)
Bad losses: none
The teams waiting in the wings:
1. Iowa St.
It would be unfortunate to see Iowa St's impressive wins over N. Iowa and Iowa go to waste but it appears as though that could be the case. Iowa St. stands at 3-4 in the Big XII with bad conference losses to Texas Tech and Texas A & M. If the Cyclones can't beat those teams, then they don't have much of a chance at finishing above .500 in the conference. They have a relatively easy stretch of games coming up. If they can get to .500 in conference, they might get a bid since the Big XII is short on tournament-deserving teams.
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 65
Quality wins: N. Iowa, Iowa, Northwestern St. (neutral site)
Bad losses: Fresno St., Texas Tech, Texas A & M
2. Missouri St.
Missouri St. has the computer ratings to get into the tournament but they don't have the quality wins to merit a selection. They have one win in the RPI top 100 which is a very low number. This team is good enough to win the MVC conference tournament but an at-large bid is probably out of reach unless Missouri St. finishes on a big winning streak.
RPI rating: 41
Pomeroy rating: 48
Quality wins: S. Illinois
Bad losses: none
3. Temple
Temple did its best Seton Hall impersonation this week by catapulting onto the tournament bubble. The Owls were left for dead with a terrible loss to Auburn. However, Don Chaney's crew has won two straight over top 50 teams in Maryland and Xavier. If the Owls can finish 11-5 in the A-10, I think they'll get a bid. However, that means they'll have to go 7-2 in their last nine conference games. I'm not holding my breath.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 76
Quality wins: Miami (FL), Alabama, Xavier, Maryland
Bad losses: Auburn, Massachusetts
4. Bradley
Bradley doesn't have Missouri St's combination of computer rating and record, but I would argue that Bradley has a better set of wins. Bradley could easily win its next four games which would put them among the best bubble teams. If Bradley can finish 18-8, they might just make the tournament.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 43
Quality wins: @ DePaul, W. Kentucky, N. Iowa, Creighton, Missouri St.
Bad losses: @ Loyola Chicago, @ Butler, @ Drake
5. Louisville
The Cardinals are finding out why it was crazy to leave Conference USA. What were they thinking? They would have easily made the tournament with a #5 seed this season if they had just stayed in Conference USA. Memphis certainly isn't griping about anything. Louisville has the players to make a run but the Big East is just too difficult. S. Florida is the only easy out on the schedule and even they have been playing teams tough lately. It would take a miracle for Louisville to turn the season around.
RPI rating: 65
Pomeroy rating: 46
Quality wins: Akron, Miami (FL) (neutral site), @ Providence, Cincinnati
Bad losses: @ St. John's
6 Old Dominion
7 NC Wilmington
8 Stanford
9 Rutgers
10 Miami (FL)
11 Utah St.
12 FSU
13 USC
14 St. Joe's
15 Alabama
16 Kent St.
17 Manhattan
My guess is that Stanford or California will make the tournament. I'm also guessing that the Big XII would get a fifth team as long as that team finishes at .500 in conference. Iowa St. is really the only team that could grab the fifth spot. Alabama and Arkansas look to be battling for the last SEC spot. St. Joseph's and Temple have such high computer ratings that if either goes on a big winning streak, they could easily get an at-large bid despite their current records. Old Dominion has good computer ratings but they don't have a very impressive resume. As inconsistent as Seton Hall has been, it will be hard for them to stay afloat in the Big East. At this point, I'm guessing that either Seton Hall, Rutgers or Louisville will make the tournament. That would give the Big East nine teams.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
Xavier
GW
MVC (4)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Poor Notre Dame
Notre Dame is a solid team. You wouldn't know it from its record but the Irish can play with anyone. The problem is that they can't beat anyone. Notre Dame is 10-8 on the season. Seven of those losses have come to teams in the RPI top 32. Here is how some of those games turned out:
Michigan 71 Notre Dame 67
Pittsburgh 100 Notre Dame 97 (2 OT)
DePaul 73 Notre Dame 67
Syracuse 88 Notre Dame 82
Marquette 67 Notre Dame 65
Georgetown 85 Notre Dame 82 (2 OT)
Villanova 82 Notre Dame 80
The question now is, since Notre Dame didn't manage to beat anyone, will any of these teams be able to claim Notre Dame as a "quality win" in the eyes of the selection committee? Notre Dame's RPI is a paltry 99. Unfortunately for these teams, Notre Dame's season was so unlucky that even the teams that beat them will get nothing for their efforts.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Go Army! Beat Someone!
From time to time on this blog, I address a situation in sports that I would like to see changed. I guess that’s the aspect of the blog that I like the most. I can take my frustrations, put them into cyberspace and then pretend that all of the important people that have a say in the injustice will eventually come upon my thoughts and right the wrongs. That was the case for my post on the need for a college football playoff and the need for the Pistons get rid of Larry Brown just to name a few. Although, I’m pretty certain nobody within an earshot of anyone important (other than my faithful readers of course) read those posts. I can still hope I guess. This post will be along the same lines. I’ll be pointing out something that I think is haywire and then proposing an idea that would easily fix the problem. As I mentioned above, these are definitely the posts I enjoy the most.
For the longest time, Army and Navy were two of the premier college football programs in the country. They have three National Championships and five Heisman Trophy winners between them. Despite those tangible numbers, the Army and Navy football programs today have more in common with the lost city of Atlantis than they do with the rich history that used to define these programs. Army has been to one bowl game since 1989. Before Paul Johnson arrived at Annapolis in 2002, Navy had been to one bowl game since 1982. Johnson has since righted the Navy ship somewhat but don’t let Johnson’s record fool you. Navy’s program succeeds today because Navy is an independent which gives them the power to schedule the worst teams in college football. Army left Conference USA for the same reason after the 2004 season. The Army athletic department realized that the Black Knights could not consistently win by playing the best teams that a conference has to offer even if that conference was the lowly Conference USA. So, Army followed Navy’s model of success and moved into a position where it could schedule the worst teams in college football. Sadly, that is the only way these once great programs can even remotely taste success in college football today.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the success and subsequent drop-off of the Army and Navy football programs, here is a brief comparison of then and now:
----------Year------Record----Winning %-------
Army 1890-1973 489-208-45 (70%) 3 National Titles; 3 Heisman Winners
Army 1974-2004 135-207-6 (40%) 0 National Titles; 0 Heisman Winners
Navy 1879-1964 428-252-52 (64%) 2 Heisman Winners
Navy 1965-2004 172-266-5 (39%) 0 Heisman Winners
If we could somehow get a hold of Marty McFly’s De Lorean and go back to the beginning, we may have been able to predict Army and Navy’s colossal decline from the college football elite. My grandpa went to Iowa Pre-Flight back when that school was a national football power. As a kid, I remember looking in the record books and wondering what the heck Iowa Pre-Flight was. It sounded like a made up school to me. My grandpa assured me that Iowa Pre-Flight was real and the football team was a force to be reckoned with. He qualified that statement by giving me a little background into the college football landscape at the time. Since the country was engaged in a number of military conflicts in the first half of the 20th century, the academies were often seeing potential students going off to war that had initially shown interest in attending the academies. After a number of years in the war, these veterans would then come back to the schools and enroll as they had previously intended on doing a number of years before. As a result, many of the athletes at the academies were significantly older than the athletes at other schools. The difference between a 27 year old and an 18 year old in football can clearly be seen by taking a quick look at the NFL. 18, 19, and 20 year olds are nowhere to be found in the NFL because they are not physically mature enough to compete with the average 27 year old. Army, Navy, and Iowa Pre-Flight had that advantage back in the early days of college football.
As the US’s involvement in large military affairs died down a bit and the manner in which people signed up and served in the military changed a bit, the advantage of having an older, more mature athlete went away. The academies were then forced to compete against the other schools with athletes that were the same age. At the same time, the “dream” of playing in the NFL became realistic for many of the top college football players. Since the academies required their students to serve in the military for a number of years, the “dream” of playing in the NFL was not compatible with the academies. That brings us to the current state of the academies in the college football world. The same effects occurred with other academy sports like basketball.
Army, Navy, and Air Force have virtually no chance of recruiting any players that are good enough to play in the NFL or NBA. Since the top 500 high school football players all have a decent or realistic shot at playing in the NFL, the academies don’t even get a sniff from those players. As if that weren’t difficult enough, the academies have stringent academic standards that deplete the potential talent pool down even further. The resulting affect is that the academies have to run “gimmick” offenses just to lose gracefully against most D-1 schools. The biggest discrepancies between the academy football teams and other D-1 football teams are the size differentials on the offensive and defensive lines and the speed differential at the skill positions. Every once a while, these schools will find a gem under a rock as was the case with David Robinson and Napoleon McCallum at Navy. Any athlete that desires to play professionally in the NFL or NBA has to fulfill their military obligation before they can move on. The Navy let David Robinson out of his five year military commitment two years early so he could enter the NBA. Robinson’s case was unique though. At 7’1, Robinson’s height made it difficult for him to do much of anything in a naval capacity. McCallum’s path was more indicative of what a current academy athlete would have to follow. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1986. He then spent five years in the Navy before being able to continue on with his football career for the Raiders in 1991. So, even the most highly touted college football prospect that an academy has seen in recent memory had to wait five years before playing professionally. That is a deal-breaker for virtually any highly-skilled football or basketball recruit.
The good news and the aspect that I have the biggest qualm with is the fact that the academies can fix all of this. There is no question that a college football program is just a small sub-group of a University. However, the amount of positive exposure that a football or basketball program can give a University is unquantifiable not to mention the potential monetary benefits that go along with that exposure. I can vouch for this personally. When I was seven years old, I became a big Michigan fan. By the time I was 18, I had seen so many Michigan football games and worn so many Michigan sweatshirts that I might as well have sent in my application at eight years old. I applied to one college out of high school and it was probably never going to be any different. The academies are missing out on that kind of exposure. I wanted to go to Michigan because I had developed an affiliation before I ever became a rational thinker. Nobody develops that kind of relationship with the academies in this day and age. The academies look to find the best and brightest minds that America has to offer. That pool of bright minds could increase exponentially if younger kids could develop an affinity for the academies. The only way that affinity would be available to young sports fans is if the academies became consistent winning programs. I’m not talking about beating up on the worst teams that D-1 has to offer. I’m talking about competing for National Championships and sending players to the pros.
The only way the academies could contend on a national level in college football is to do away with the locked in five-year commitment ONLY for players that are offered a contract in the NBA or NFL. The amount of positive exposure that a top 50 high school athlete could give to West Point or Annapolis as a viable option for America’s youth is considerably more productive than the amount of physical labor that same athlete could do serving in the military. The academies need to be resourceful. They need to understand the best way to use their athletic programs. There would have to be some thought put into waiving the commitments. The academies wouldn’t even necessarily have to waive the five-year commitment. They could move the exempted athlete to the reserves to serve the remainder of the commitment. The academies are smart. They could come up with a fair system. The waiver would probably have to be limited to football and basketball simply because those are the only two sports that have a). the national exposure that could benefit the academies to a degree in which adding the exemption would be worthwhile to the cause of the academy and b). the professional options that could trump what the graduate would have available as an officer. The academies wouldn’t have to change their acceptance standards. Notre Dame is a perfect example of a school that can recruit nationally without compromising the academic requirements of attending that school.
Navy and Army still command respect among college football fans even if it’s just from their once proud histories. My guess is that if the academy leadership amended the commitments for athletes that could move on to the pros, made that amendment public, and then hired a big-time football coach; these academies would be National Championship contenders within five years. The same success could be reached by the basketball programs as well. In fact, the parity in college basketball today would make it much easier for the academy basketball programs to compete. Once upon a time, Bobby Knight and Coach K were on the same coaching staff at West Point. That history, along with the rich football history at West Point, should be celebrated and honored. Those histories could be used as springboards for future success. Instead, people say, “really?” with a confused look on their faces when they find out that Army actually won National Championships or that Army had a coaching staff that featured two of the great college basketball coaches of all-time. Notre Dame certainly hasn’t compromised its legacy by being competitive in football and basketball. Notre Dame embraces its history and uses it as a recruiting tool for its overall student population. Army and Navy should be no different. Do you really think a Notre Dame graduate looks down on his/her degree because the football team is winning and sending superior athletes to the NFL? Next time you run into a Notre Dame alum, they can answer that question for you.
I want to make something clear before I say anything else. For many high school athletes today, being an officer in the military is an excellent fallback option if a professional sports career is not attainable. If a high school player signs up at West Point, completes his four years of football, and finds out that the NFL is not interested for one reason or another, that player could hardly find a better job that combines a fair wage and a resume enhancing job experience than as an officer in the military. My suggestion is not to let all academy athletes out of their commitments. That would be unfair to the non-athletes at these schools. My suggestion is to market the academy sports programs to the best athletes in America by giving them an unbeatable 1-2 option. Once you graduate, if you are good enough to play professionally in the NFL or NBA, you will be permitted to move on and fine tune your craft at the professional level. If you don’t have professional options, you will take one of the most honorable jobs available combined with a more than fair salary. That has to be so much more marketable to elite college athletes than, “if you are good enough to play in the NFL, too bad, you’ll have to wait five years while having virtually no exposure to the rigors of your sport before you can give it a try.”
I realize that the argument that an Academy graduate would make against exempting athletes with a realistic professional career is that it would somehow take away from the greatness of the academies. It would somehow damage the integrity of the academy and consequently cheapen the experience and the degree to have some graduates rewarded with an exemption. While I can understand academy graduates not wanting to look worse, I highly doubt that would be the case at all. On any given roster of a top 25 college football team, there are at most 25 players that will get a contract in the NFL. That would be the case for the top schools like USC or Miami (FL). The number would probably be less for the academies even if they returned to prominence. So, we’re talking about exemptions for 1/6 of the football team at the most. Every other member of the team would have to honor their five year commitment. That would mean close to 15 exemptions for the entire team and maybe three or four per year. In any given year, there are roughly 1,000 graduates from each academy. That would mean that only .4% of the graduates would get an exemption. The number could rise slightly if there are players that could garner a professional contract in basketball. A degree or experience gets cheapened if that degree no longer has the same value in the real world. If every member of the academy is either honoring their commitment to the military or playing in the NFL or NBA (which is the only way they would get the exemption), then I don’t see how that cheapens the academy education or experience. In order to make in the NFL, athletes have to be the best of the best in terms of dedication and commitment. Only the hardest working athletes get a chance to play professionally. That sounds like something that the academies could be proud of. It’s not like the athletes will be getting “off” or “out of their” commitments in the normal sense. I know from first hand experiences that, on average, athletes in the NFL have to work longer and harder than the average military officer from an academy. That’s not a knock on the officers or the academies. That just shows how hard a professional athlete has to work to make it.
The bigger benefit of revitalizing the academy football programs would be the effects this would have on the army and navy as a whole. Academy graduates make up an infinitesimally small amount of the overall force. Yet, West Point, Navy, and Air Force represent each member of their respective forces. When Army does well in football, an army sergeant in Iraq can stick his/her chest out a little farther. Over the last thirty years, the academy football programs have done very little in facilitating pride in the services. The Sgt. Slaughters of the world have no idea what it’s like to see the academy representing his/her specific service accomplish great things in sports. I’m not trying to say that sports are the end all. But, don’t discount the positive effects it has as well. The sports world helped many Americans get back to their everyday lives after 9-11. The same distraction from the everyday grind could be given to hundreds of thousands of service members across the world. Sports gives people something to believe in. I take pride in the accomplishments of my alma mater just as a simple fan. One could only imagine the pride that a service member could have in watching the Army or Navy dominate in an athletic venue. I wouldn’t be surprised if academy graduates were against exemptions for professional athletes but I think it would be somewhat single-minded to do so. There are hundreds of thousands of service members, and millions of sports fans that could experience remarkable highs from watching the academies compete with the best the college sporting world has to offer as they once did. All this could be achieved for exempting as little as three or four graduates per year. That seems like an awfully small price to pay for the potential benefits.
A sports program at a collegiate institution is a recruiting tool for the overall University. It’s a method of exposing your institution to the masses. The University of Michigan doesn’t exist because of football. It doesn’t exist to produce volleyball players or baseball players. Michigan exists for the primary purpose of educating people. Likewise, the academies don’t exist for football. However, Michigan uses its football program to shed the University in an extremely positive light (for the most part anyways). The academies would get the same benefit. A good program will shed your institution in a positive light. A bad program will do nothing for you efforts. It’s a tool. The academies should do everything in their power to use it. The unintended benefits would be the revitalization of a group of football programs that used to run the college football world. The intended benefits would be a much larger pool of highly-qualified potential officers to choose from as well as a morale boost for countless service members. It’s a no-lose situation for everyone involved.
For the longest time, Army and Navy were two of the premier college football programs in the country. They have three National Championships and five Heisman Trophy winners between them. Despite those tangible numbers, the Army and Navy football programs today have more in common with the lost city of Atlantis than they do with the rich history that used to define these programs. Army has been to one bowl game since 1989. Before Paul Johnson arrived at Annapolis in 2002, Navy had been to one bowl game since 1982. Johnson has since righted the Navy ship somewhat but don’t let Johnson’s record fool you. Navy’s program succeeds today because Navy is an independent which gives them the power to schedule the worst teams in college football. Army left Conference USA for the same reason after the 2004 season. The Army athletic department realized that the Black Knights could not consistently win by playing the best teams that a conference has to offer even if that conference was the lowly Conference USA. So, Army followed Navy’s model of success and moved into a position where it could schedule the worst teams in college football. Sadly, that is the only way these once great programs can even remotely taste success in college football today.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the success and subsequent drop-off of the Army and Navy football programs, here is a brief comparison of then and now:
----------Year------Record----Winning %-------
Army 1890-1973 489-208-45 (70%) 3 National Titles; 3 Heisman Winners
Army 1974-2004 135-207-6 (40%) 0 National Titles; 0 Heisman Winners
Navy 1879-1964 428-252-52 (64%) 2 Heisman Winners
Navy 1965-2004 172-266-5 (39%) 0 Heisman Winners
If we could somehow get a hold of Marty McFly’s De Lorean and go back to the beginning, we may have been able to predict Army and Navy’s colossal decline from the college football elite. My grandpa went to Iowa Pre-Flight back when that school was a national football power. As a kid, I remember looking in the record books and wondering what the heck Iowa Pre-Flight was. It sounded like a made up school to me. My grandpa assured me that Iowa Pre-Flight was real and the football team was a force to be reckoned with. He qualified that statement by giving me a little background into the college football landscape at the time. Since the country was engaged in a number of military conflicts in the first half of the 20th century, the academies were often seeing potential students going off to war that had initially shown interest in attending the academies. After a number of years in the war, these veterans would then come back to the schools and enroll as they had previously intended on doing a number of years before. As a result, many of the athletes at the academies were significantly older than the athletes at other schools. The difference between a 27 year old and an 18 year old in football can clearly be seen by taking a quick look at the NFL. 18, 19, and 20 year olds are nowhere to be found in the NFL because they are not physically mature enough to compete with the average 27 year old. Army, Navy, and Iowa Pre-Flight had that advantage back in the early days of college football.
As the US’s involvement in large military affairs died down a bit and the manner in which people signed up and served in the military changed a bit, the advantage of having an older, more mature athlete went away. The academies were then forced to compete against the other schools with athletes that were the same age. At the same time, the “dream” of playing in the NFL became realistic for many of the top college football players. Since the academies required their students to serve in the military for a number of years, the “dream” of playing in the NFL was not compatible with the academies. That brings us to the current state of the academies in the college football world. The same effects occurred with other academy sports like basketball.
Army, Navy, and Air Force have virtually no chance of recruiting any players that are good enough to play in the NFL or NBA. Since the top 500 high school football players all have a decent or realistic shot at playing in the NFL, the academies don’t even get a sniff from those players. As if that weren’t difficult enough, the academies have stringent academic standards that deplete the potential talent pool down even further. The resulting affect is that the academies have to run “gimmick” offenses just to lose gracefully against most D-1 schools. The biggest discrepancies between the academy football teams and other D-1 football teams are the size differentials on the offensive and defensive lines and the speed differential at the skill positions. Every once a while, these schools will find a gem under a rock as was the case with David Robinson and Napoleon McCallum at Navy. Any athlete that desires to play professionally in the NFL or NBA has to fulfill their military obligation before they can move on. The Navy let David Robinson out of his five year military commitment two years early so he could enter the NBA. Robinson’s case was unique though. At 7’1, Robinson’s height made it difficult for him to do much of anything in a naval capacity. McCallum’s path was more indicative of what a current academy athlete would have to follow. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1986. He then spent five years in the Navy before being able to continue on with his football career for the Raiders in 1991. So, even the most highly touted college football prospect that an academy has seen in recent memory had to wait five years before playing professionally. That is a deal-breaker for virtually any highly-skilled football or basketball recruit.
The good news and the aspect that I have the biggest qualm with is the fact that the academies can fix all of this. There is no question that a college football program is just a small sub-group of a University. However, the amount of positive exposure that a football or basketball program can give a University is unquantifiable not to mention the potential monetary benefits that go along with that exposure. I can vouch for this personally. When I was seven years old, I became a big Michigan fan. By the time I was 18, I had seen so many Michigan football games and worn so many Michigan sweatshirts that I might as well have sent in my application at eight years old. I applied to one college out of high school and it was probably never going to be any different. The academies are missing out on that kind of exposure. I wanted to go to Michigan because I had developed an affiliation before I ever became a rational thinker. Nobody develops that kind of relationship with the academies in this day and age. The academies look to find the best and brightest minds that America has to offer. That pool of bright minds could increase exponentially if younger kids could develop an affinity for the academies. The only way that affinity would be available to young sports fans is if the academies became consistent winning programs. I’m not talking about beating up on the worst teams that D-1 has to offer. I’m talking about competing for National Championships and sending players to the pros.
The only way the academies could contend on a national level in college football is to do away with the locked in five-year commitment ONLY for players that are offered a contract in the NBA or NFL. The amount of positive exposure that a top 50 high school athlete could give to West Point or Annapolis as a viable option for America’s youth is considerably more productive than the amount of physical labor that same athlete could do serving in the military. The academies need to be resourceful. They need to understand the best way to use their athletic programs. There would have to be some thought put into waiving the commitments. The academies wouldn’t even necessarily have to waive the five-year commitment. They could move the exempted athlete to the reserves to serve the remainder of the commitment. The academies are smart. They could come up with a fair system. The waiver would probably have to be limited to football and basketball simply because those are the only two sports that have a). the national exposure that could benefit the academies to a degree in which adding the exemption would be worthwhile to the cause of the academy and b). the professional options that could trump what the graduate would have available as an officer. The academies wouldn’t have to change their acceptance standards. Notre Dame is a perfect example of a school that can recruit nationally without compromising the academic requirements of attending that school.
Navy and Army still command respect among college football fans even if it’s just from their once proud histories. My guess is that if the academy leadership amended the commitments for athletes that could move on to the pros, made that amendment public, and then hired a big-time football coach; these academies would be National Championship contenders within five years. The same success could be reached by the basketball programs as well. In fact, the parity in college basketball today would make it much easier for the academy basketball programs to compete. Once upon a time, Bobby Knight and Coach K were on the same coaching staff at West Point. That history, along with the rich football history at West Point, should be celebrated and honored. Those histories could be used as springboards for future success. Instead, people say, “really?” with a confused look on their faces when they find out that Army actually won National Championships or that Army had a coaching staff that featured two of the great college basketball coaches of all-time. Notre Dame certainly hasn’t compromised its legacy by being competitive in football and basketball. Notre Dame embraces its history and uses it as a recruiting tool for its overall student population. Army and Navy should be no different. Do you really think a Notre Dame graduate looks down on his/her degree because the football team is winning and sending superior athletes to the NFL? Next time you run into a Notre Dame alum, they can answer that question for you.
I want to make something clear before I say anything else. For many high school athletes today, being an officer in the military is an excellent fallback option if a professional sports career is not attainable. If a high school player signs up at West Point, completes his four years of football, and finds out that the NFL is not interested for one reason or another, that player could hardly find a better job that combines a fair wage and a resume enhancing job experience than as an officer in the military. My suggestion is not to let all academy athletes out of their commitments. That would be unfair to the non-athletes at these schools. My suggestion is to market the academy sports programs to the best athletes in America by giving them an unbeatable 1-2 option. Once you graduate, if you are good enough to play professionally in the NFL or NBA, you will be permitted to move on and fine tune your craft at the professional level. If you don’t have professional options, you will take one of the most honorable jobs available combined with a more than fair salary. That has to be so much more marketable to elite college athletes than, “if you are good enough to play in the NFL, too bad, you’ll have to wait five years while having virtually no exposure to the rigors of your sport before you can give it a try.”
I realize that the argument that an Academy graduate would make against exempting athletes with a realistic professional career is that it would somehow take away from the greatness of the academies. It would somehow damage the integrity of the academy and consequently cheapen the experience and the degree to have some graduates rewarded with an exemption. While I can understand academy graduates not wanting to look worse, I highly doubt that would be the case at all. On any given roster of a top 25 college football team, there are at most 25 players that will get a contract in the NFL. That would be the case for the top schools like USC or Miami (FL). The number would probably be less for the academies even if they returned to prominence. So, we’re talking about exemptions for 1/6 of the football team at the most. Every other member of the team would have to honor their five year commitment. That would mean close to 15 exemptions for the entire team and maybe three or four per year. In any given year, there are roughly 1,000 graduates from each academy. That would mean that only .4% of the graduates would get an exemption. The number could rise slightly if there are players that could garner a professional contract in basketball. A degree or experience gets cheapened if that degree no longer has the same value in the real world. If every member of the academy is either honoring their commitment to the military or playing in the NFL or NBA (which is the only way they would get the exemption), then I don’t see how that cheapens the academy education or experience. In order to make in the NFL, athletes have to be the best of the best in terms of dedication and commitment. Only the hardest working athletes get a chance to play professionally. That sounds like something that the academies could be proud of. It’s not like the athletes will be getting “off” or “out of their” commitments in the normal sense. I know from first hand experiences that, on average, athletes in the NFL have to work longer and harder than the average military officer from an academy. That’s not a knock on the officers or the academies. That just shows how hard a professional athlete has to work to make it.
The bigger benefit of revitalizing the academy football programs would be the effects this would have on the army and navy as a whole. Academy graduates make up an infinitesimally small amount of the overall force. Yet, West Point, Navy, and Air Force represent each member of their respective forces. When Army does well in football, an army sergeant in Iraq can stick his/her chest out a little farther. Over the last thirty years, the academy football programs have done very little in facilitating pride in the services. The Sgt. Slaughters of the world have no idea what it’s like to see the academy representing his/her specific service accomplish great things in sports. I’m not trying to say that sports are the end all. But, don’t discount the positive effects it has as well. The sports world helped many Americans get back to their everyday lives after 9-11. The same distraction from the everyday grind could be given to hundreds of thousands of service members across the world. Sports gives people something to believe in. I take pride in the accomplishments of my alma mater just as a simple fan. One could only imagine the pride that a service member could have in watching the Army or Navy dominate in an athletic venue. I wouldn’t be surprised if academy graduates were against exemptions for professional athletes but I think it would be somewhat single-minded to do so. There are hundreds of thousands of service members, and millions of sports fans that could experience remarkable highs from watching the academies compete with the best the college sporting world has to offer as they once did. All this could be achieved for exempting as little as three or four graduates per year. That seems like an awfully small price to pay for the potential benefits.
A sports program at a collegiate institution is a recruiting tool for the overall University. It’s a method of exposing your institution to the masses. The University of Michigan doesn’t exist because of football. It doesn’t exist to produce volleyball players or baseball players. Michigan exists for the primary purpose of educating people. Likewise, the academies don’t exist for football. However, Michigan uses its football program to shed the University in an extremely positive light (for the most part anyways). The academies would get the same benefit. A good program will shed your institution in a positive light. A bad program will do nothing for you efforts. It’s a tool. The academies should do everything in their power to use it. The unintended benefits would be the revitalization of a group of football programs that used to run the college football world. The intended benefits would be a much larger pool of highly-qualified potential officers to choose from as well as a morale boost for countless service members. It’s a no-lose situation for everyone involved.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Kobe's Revenge
I woke up Monday morning and turned on ESPNews only to see a news alert in the bottom right hand corner of the screen that said “Pittsburgh vs. Seattle in the Super Bowl” and “Kobe scores 11 points”. Or, at least that’s what I thought it said. My TV is a little warped so it was hard for me to read the small print. Kobe scoring 11 points is no big deal but the only other number it could’ve been was 81. I called my wife into the room and she confirmed it said 81. I felt like a kid waking up on Christmas morning to a boatload of gloriously wrapped presents. I’ve never been the biggest Kobe fan but it could’ve been Brian Cardinal scoring 81 points and I would’ve had the same “kid in a candy store” reaction. Something like an 81-point game literally happens once in a lifetime. By the way, I’d like to personally thank Kobe for putting me in that mood. I don’t experience those moods nearly as much as I’d like. I’d also like to thank Brian Cardinal for not scoring 81 points. I don’t think I would be able to respect the NBA if that happened.
The most impressive aspect of Kobe’s performance was the fact that the Lakers were down by 18 points in the third quarter before Kobe went off. That means that the only real chance the Lakers had of winning was to let only one man shoot every time down the court. Using that strategy, the Lakers went from being down by 18 to winning by 18. That should give you an indication of how unstoppable Kobe was against Toronto in the second half. As one would expect, there were the normal share of people bemoaning Kobe’s shot total and the fact that team basketball was somehow dead. Not coincidentally, many of the antagonists were a part of the Miami Heat organization. Big surprise, eh?
Here are just a few comments made that were clearly meant to downplay the significance of Kobe’s 81 points:
Pat Riley
"Anybody who's got the kind of energy to try to hoist up [nearly] 70 shots is going to score a lot of points," Riley told reporters in Miami, referring to Bryant's 66 field-goal and free-throw attempts. "It's remarkable, the execution and the efficiency, but we've got a lot of guys in this league, if they took 70 shots, they'd score a lot of points." (LA Times online article)
File this comment under the “duh” category. If I took 1,000 shot in an NBA game, I might get 70 points. The problem is that I couldn’t get off 1,000 shots. Likewise, 99.9% of NBA players couldn’t get off 70 total shots even if they tried. Riley seems oblivious to how difficult it is to a). get off 70 (combined) shots while constantly being double and tripled-teamed, b). shoot over 50% from the field under those same conditions, and c). be in a position where the only chance your team has of winning is for you to shoot every time down the floor. Riley clearly outs himself as being bitter for whatever reasons. If any NBA player could win a game single handily by taking 70 shots per game, then every team in the NBA would employ that strategy. Is the object in the NBA to play team ball or to win? There’s no question that the goal is to win at all costs. The only way it’s about team ball is because that generally gives teams a better chance of winning. If not playing team ball gave teams the best chance of winning, then nobody would play team ball. Maybe Riley can show us just how easy it is for someone to score 81 points AND win by letting either Shaq or Dwyane Wade shoot the ball 46 times next game.
Shaquille O’Neal
O'Neal declined to comment. "He told us to get him 50 shots," Walker said, suggesting that O'Neal was fully aware of Bryant's display. (LA Times online article)
This comment made me laugh. The day Shaq has the stamina to get 50 shots is the day that Shaq is playing one on one against me. It’s amazing to me how great these players think they are. If Shaq was such a team player, and he thought he could score 81 points and lead the Heat to victory, wouldn’t he be letting his team down by not doing that? Let’s see it Shaq. In the playoffs last year, Shaq made virtually every shot he took against the Pistons to start each game. The problem for the Heat is that Shaq had to rest after the first quarter just to be able to play in the fourth quarter. Plus, the minute Shaq gets double-teamed, he has NO options other than to pass because he can’t dribble or shoot outside of eight feet. Kobe was constantly being double-teamed the entire second half and Toronto still couldn’t stop him.
Antoine Walker
"I think with the 81 now, no other team or other players will let that happen," he told reporters. "Now guys will foul out trying to stop him from doing that. If someone gets 81 on me, I'm going to clothesline him." (LA Times online article)
Has Antoine Walker heard of the rule in the NBA that permits players to shoot free throws when fouled? Apparently, the answer is no. Unless, of course, Walker would like to allow Kobe to score more than 81 points. Sending him to the free throw line every time he touched the ball would be a sure-fire way of ensuring that. I just read a first hand account by David Robinson about his 71 point game against the Clippers in 1994. Here is what Robinson said to some dude named Bert Rosenthal, “Once my teammates realized that I had such a hot hand, they kept looking for me, trying to get me the ball.The Clippers, of course, were trying hard to stop me. They were fighting, clawing, bumping, grinding, and double- and triple-teaming me to try and keep me from scoring. I had the scratches and bruises to show for it. In fact, I went to the foul line 25 times that night. That's a remarkable number under any circumstances.” According to Antoine Walker, stopping Kobe is as simple as fouling him. It sounds like that philosophy worked wonders for the Clippers.
David Thompson
"With the 3s, I could have easily been in the 80s," Thompson said Monday. "I only took 38 shots. The way I was going, I probably could have been at 80 or 90 (points). I probably would have made seven or eight 3-pointers. “If I took more shots, I would have made five from the field. But 81 points, that's impressive. It takes a great player like that to put up those numbers." (Denver Post online article)
If Kobe was somehow warped back to the 1970’s, he could’ve probably scored 100 points. He is so athletically superior to the average player in the 1970’s that they would have no idea how to guard him. Plus, Kobe only hit seven three pointers. If Thompson wants to say that he would have also made seven three pointers, then that would’ve given him 80 points. For Thompson to say that he would’ve scored 80 or 90 points had there been a three point line, he’s stretching the truth quite a bit. In fact, for Thompson to score 90 points, he would’ve need to make 17 three pointers. That seems reasonable, I guess. Additionally, Thompson’s Nuggets LOST the game in which he scored 73 points. The Raptors knew that Kobe was going to take every shot and still couldn’t keep him from single handily bringing the Lakers back from an 18 point second half deficit. Thompson’s “what if”-game could be played by many other players. The fact of the matter is that he scored 73 points in an era that was much less competitive than today’s era.
Vince Carter
"It is great for the league, for him, just because of the buzz it has created," said Vince Carter, who this season with the Nets tied his career high of 51 points. "The only bad thing about it is younger kids, whose minds are easily warped, are going to think, 'Ohhh! I am going to go out there and do it' instead of the team concept first. That is what is missing, guys understanding how to play as a team. “They (the NBA) want scoring, they want ratings so you are going to get that,” said Carter. (NY Post online article)
The only thing I have to say about this comment is that Carter has gone on record saying that he didn’t play hard in games while he was playing for Toronto. Apparently, Carter felt that was actually helpful for today’s basketball youth to see a player purposefully not try because he was unhappy.
People can say whatever they want about Kobe’s role in breaking up the Lakers dynasty or his conduct that led to allegations of rape in Denver. However, to downplay Kobe’s 81-point performance only exposes people for being ignorant and envious. I just want to make it clear that there is nothing negative, whatsoever, about Kobe’s performance. Kobe’s team was playing so poorly that they were getting blown out by one of the worst teams in the NBA. Kobe’s shooting percentage was an unbelievable 61% on 46 shots. He also shot a blistering 90% from the free-throw line and 54% from the three-point line. Before Kobe took the game over, the Lakers were losing by 18 points. After Kobe’s onslaught, the Lakers ended up winning by 18! It could be argued that no other player in the history of sports has had a greater impact on a single game. Yet, Kobe has been criticized for taking too many shots in that game. I find that criticism to be unbelievable. Had he not taken the game over, the Lakers would’ve lost. Some people are spinning things so violently that they would have you believe that Kobe would’ve been a better team player by letting the Lakers get blown out. If that doesn’t tell you that there will always be people on the other side no matter how ridiculous the other side is, then nothing will.
To put the ridiculous response to Kobe’s performance in perspective, I’d like rehash the game I mentioned above involving David Robinson. The San Antonio Spurs entered the final game of the 1993-94 season firmly entrenched in their playoff position. The Spurs were playing the Clippers who also had nothing to gain from the game. In a purely selfish move, Robinson scored 71 points to pass Shaq to win the scoring title. Kobe’s performance was the antithesis of Robinson’s, yet Kobe has already received considerably more criticism than David Robinson ever did. The Admiral is one of my favorite NBA players of all time. I have no qualms about his 71 point performance. My point is that if nobody made a stink about that purely self-centered performance, then how can anyone slight Kobe’s infinitely more meaningful performance?
My guess is that most sports fans feel the same way that I do. It’s just that the criticism has been enough to actually take away from the performance in my view. If it were just one or two people saying something negative, then I probably wouldn’t care. Regardless, Kobe’s 81-point game was the greatest performance in NBA history. Wilt’s 100 was the equivalent of me dunking on a seven foot rim over and over against my 4th grade neighbors (which I actually did and I loved every minute of it). While Wilt was great, his dominance has to be put into perspective. The “greatest ever” discussions inevitably work their way towards the idea that you have to win championships and be great. Kobe is only 27 and has already accomplished a career’s worth. He has three Championship rings to go with his 81 point game. I have to say I’m quite intrigued with regards to how the rest of Kobe’s career will pan out. All I can say is that nothing would surprise me.
The most impressive aspect of Kobe’s performance was the fact that the Lakers were down by 18 points in the third quarter before Kobe went off. That means that the only real chance the Lakers had of winning was to let only one man shoot every time down the court. Using that strategy, the Lakers went from being down by 18 to winning by 18. That should give you an indication of how unstoppable Kobe was against Toronto in the second half. As one would expect, there were the normal share of people bemoaning Kobe’s shot total and the fact that team basketball was somehow dead. Not coincidentally, many of the antagonists were a part of the Miami Heat organization. Big surprise, eh?
Here are just a few comments made that were clearly meant to downplay the significance of Kobe’s 81 points:
Pat Riley
"Anybody who's got the kind of energy to try to hoist up [nearly] 70 shots is going to score a lot of points," Riley told reporters in Miami, referring to Bryant's 66 field-goal and free-throw attempts. "It's remarkable, the execution and the efficiency, but we've got a lot of guys in this league, if they took 70 shots, they'd score a lot of points." (LA Times online article)
File this comment under the “duh” category. If I took 1,000 shot in an NBA game, I might get 70 points. The problem is that I couldn’t get off 1,000 shots. Likewise, 99.9% of NBA players couldn’t get off 70 total shots even if they tried. Riley seems oblivious to how difficult it is to a). get off 70 (combined) shots while constantly being double and tripled-teamed, b). shoot over 50% from the field under those same conditions, and c). be in a position where the only chance your team has of winning is for you to shoot every time down the floor. Riley clearly outs himself as being bitter for whatever reasons. If any NBA player could win a game single handily by taking 70 shots per game, then every team in the NBA would employ that strategy. Is the object in the NBA to play team ball or to win? There’s no question that the goal is to win at all costs. The only way it’s about team ball is because that generally gives teams a better chance of winning. If not playing team ball gave teams the best chance of winning, then nobody would play team ball. Maybe Riley can show us just how easy it is for someone to score 81 points AND win by letting either Shaq or Dwyane Wade shoot the ball 46 times next game.
Shaquille O’Neal
O'Neal declined to comment. "He told us to get him 50 shots," Walker said, suggesting that O'Neal was fully aware of Bryant's display. (LA Times online article)
This comment made me laugh. The day Shaq has the stamina to get 50 shots is the day that Shaq is playing one on one against me. It’s amazing to me how great these players think they are. If Shaq was such a team player, and he thought he could score 81 points and lead the Heat to victory, wouldn’t he be letting his team down by not doing that? Let’s see it Shaq. In the playoffs last year, Shaq made virtually every shot he took against the Pistons to start each game. The problem for the Heat is that Shaq had to rest after the first quarter just to be able to play in the fourth quarter. Plus, the minute Shaq gets double-teamed, he has NO options other than to pass because he can’t dribble or shoot outside of eight feet. Kobe was constantly being double-teamed the entire second half and Toronto still couldn’t stop him.
Antoine Walker
"I think with the 81 now, no other team or other players will let that happen," he told reporters. "Now guys will foul out trying to stop him from doing that. If someone gets 81 on me, I'm going to clothesline him." (LA Times online article)
Has Antoine Walker heard of the rule in the NBA that permits players to shoot free throws when fouled? Apparently, the answer is no. Unless, of course, Walker would like to allow Kobe to score more than 81 points. Sending him to the free throw line every time he touched the ball would be a sure-fire way of ensuring that. I just read a first hand account by David Robinson about his 71 point game against the Clippers in 1994. Here is what Robinson said to some dude named Bert Rosenthal, “Once my teammates realized that I had such a hot hand, they kept looking for me, trying to get me the ball.The Clippers, of course, were trying hard to stop me. They were fighting, clawing, bumping, grinding, and double- and triple-teaming me to try and keep me from scoring. I had the scratches and bruises to show for it. In fact, I went to the foul line 25 times that night. That's a remarkable number under any circumstances.” According to Antoine Walker, stopping Kobe is as simple as fouling him. It sounds like that philosophy worked wonders for the Clippers.
David Thompson
"With the 3s, I could have easily been in the 80s," Thompson said Monday. "I only took 38 shots. The way I was going, I probably could have been at 80 or 90 (points). I probably would have made seven or eight 3-pointers. “If I took more shots, I would have made five from the field. But 81 points, that's impressive. It takes a great player like that to put up those numbers." (Denver Post online article)
If Kobe was somehow warped back to the 1970’s, he could’ve probably scored 100 points. He is so athletically superior to the average player in the 1970’s that they would have no idea how to guard him. Plus, Kobe only hit seven three pointers. If Thompson wants to say that he would have also made seven three pointers, then that would’ve given him 80 points. For Thompson to say that he would’ve scored 80 or 90 points had there been a three point line, he’s stretching the truth quite a bit. In fact, for Thompson to score 90 points, he would’ve need to make 17 three pointers. That seems reasonable, I guess. Additionally, Thompson’s Nuggets LOST the game in which he scored 73 points. The Raptors knew that Kobe was going to take every shot and still couldn’t keep him from single handily bringing the Lakers back from an 18 point second half deficit. Thompson’s “what if”-game could be played by many other players. The fact of the matter is that he scored 73 points in an era that was much less competitive than today’s era.
Vince Carter
"It is great for the league, for him, just because of the buzz it has created," said Vince Carter, who this season with the Nets tied his career high of 51 points. "The only bad thing about it is younger kids, whose minds are easily warped, are going to think, 'Ohhh! I am going to go out there and do it' instead of the team concept first. That is what is missing, guys understanding how to play as a team. “They (the NBA) want scoring, they want ratings so you are going to get that,” said Carter. (NY Post online article)
The only thing I have to say about this comment is that Carter has gone on record saying that he didn’t play hard in games while he was playing for Toronto. Apparently, Carter felt that was actually helpful for today’s basketball youth to see a player purposefully not try because he was unhappy.
People can say whatever they want about Kobe’s role in breaking up the Lakers dynasty or his conduct that led to allegations of rape in Denver. However, to downplay Kobe’s 81-point performance only exposes people for being ignorant and envious. I just want to make it clear that there is nothing negative, whatsoever, about Kobe’s performance. Kobe’s team was playing so poorly that they were getting blown out by one of the worst teams in the NBA. Kobe’s shooting percentage was an unbelievable 61% on 46 shots. He also shot a blistering 90% from the free-throw line and 54% from the three-point line. Before Kobe took the game over, the Lakers were losing by 18 points. After Kobe’s onslaught, the Lakers ended up winning by 18! It could be argued that no other player in the history of sports has had a greater impact on a single game. Yet, Kobe has been criticized for taking too many shots in that game. I find that criticism to be unbelievable. Had he not taken the game over, the Lakers would’ve lost. Some people are spinning things so violently that they would have you believe that Kobe would’ve been a better team player by letting the Lakers get blown out. If that doesn’t tell you that there will always be people on the other side no matter how ridiculous the other side is, then nothing will.
To put the ridiculous response to Kobe’s performance in perspective, I’d like rehash the game I mentioned above involving David Robinson. The San Antonio Spurs entered the final game of the 1993-94 season firmly entrenched in their playoff position. The Spurs were playing the Clippers who also had nothing to gain from the game. In a purely selfish move, Robinson scored 71 points to pass Shaq to win the scoring title. Kobe’s performance was the antithesis of Robinson’s, yet Kobe has already received considerably more criticism than David Robinson ever did. The Admiral is one of my favorite NBA players of all time. I have no qualms about his 71 point performance. My point is that if nobody made a stink about that purely self-centered performance, then how can anyone slight Kobe’s infinitely more meaningful performance?
My guess is that most sports fans feel the same way that I do. It’s just that the criticism has been enough to actually take away from the performance in my view. If it were just one or two people saying something negative, then I probably wouldn’t care. Regardless, Kobe’s 81-point game was the greatest performance in NBA history. Wilt’s 100 was the equivalent of me dunking on a seven foot rim over and over against my 4th grade neighbors (which I actually did and I loved every minute of it). While Wilt was great, his dominance has to be put into perspective. The “greatest ever” discussions inevitably work their way towards the idea that you have to win championships and be great. Kobe is only 27 and has already accomplished a career’s worth. He has three Championship rings to go with his 81 point game. I have to say I’m quite intrigued with regards to how the rest of Kobe’s career will pan out. All I can say is that nothing would surprise me.
Monday, January 23, 2006
NCAA Tournament projections
Starting today, I will take a look at the teams vying for the NCAA Tournament and predict which teams will be in the field come March. My selections won’t necessarily be how I view the field if the season ended today. For instance, Kansas, Kentucky and Louisville all have horrible computer ratings which would probably keep them out of the tournament if the season ended today. However, I anticipate these teams improving their ratings considerably before Selection Sunday. While my picks will be mostly based on the season to date, my goal is to accurately project who will be there in March, not who should be there if the season ended today. As of now, I’ll be listing teams in no particular order. As the season moves along, I’ll start listing teams in order.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Manhattan
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West UC-Irvine
21 OVC Samford
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Sacred Heart
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun E. Tennessee St.
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Louisville
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large Wake Forest
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Vanderbilt
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Iowa St.
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large GW
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large Missouri St.
This is the easiest time of the year to project the tournament because we can pencil in teams like Nevada, Gonzaga, and Air Force as the recipients of the automatic bids from their conferences. Once March hits and some of these teams lose in their conference tournaments, then it becomes difficult to decide which teams get bumped from the field.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. Louisville
Rick Pitino is in danger of missing the tournament. If Louisville doesn’t go 3-1 in its next four games, then it will be out of the field. Louisville is 1-4 in the Big East with a deplorable RPI rating of 82. The Cardinals have only beaten two teams in the top 100 (Miami Fl and Akron). This very well could be the last week that I have this team in the field.
2. Wake Forest
Wake is also 1-4 in conference play but unlike Louisville, Wake could easily go 4-0 in its next four games. Wake also has the good fortune of playing in the best conference in America where anything less than six bids would be a travesty. Wake is probably the 6th team out of the ACC. Its RPI of 62 will likely rise with the rigors of ACC play. Wake has two good non-conference wins in beating Wisconsin and George Mason. Wake’s fortunes look bleak now but I think they will turn around quickly.
3. Iowa St.
ISU did everything it needed to do in the non-conference. It beat N. Iowa, Iowa, Colorado St., and Northwestern St. However, two bad losses to Texas Tech and Texas A&M have basically derailed ISU’s tourney hopes. If the Cyclones don’t go at least 2-2 in their next four, they will be on the outside looking in.
4. Colorado
There are some teams that I don’t have in the field right now that I think are better than Colorado. However, the Buffaloes understand how to get to the tourney. They are 3-2 in the Big XII and could easily win their next two games. They don’t have a great computer rating but in looking at their remaining conference games, Colorado could easily go 10-6.
5. Missouri St.
To date, the MVC has done enough to get four teams in. I think that’ll change by the end of the season. There will probably only be three bids for the conference. However, as of now, four teams have done enough to get into the tourney. Missouri St. barely edges out S. Illinois for the conference’s fourth and final bid. Missouri St. should win its next four games before embarking on a season-deciding stretch of games to end the season.
The teams waiting in the wings:
The problem with making a case against a team like Louisville, Wake Forest, or Kansas is making the case for another team. I don’t have Louisville in the tournament because of how impressive its been this season. I have them in because no other teams have accomplished enough to merit a selection. That may change in the next week or two but there are only about 36 worthy teams for the 34 at-large bids. Here are the 16 teams (in no particular order) that have at least a small chance of working their way into the field should Louisville continue its slide and other teams falter:
1. Old Dominion
Old Dominion has a respectable resume and up until this past week was almost a lock to get the automatic bid for the Colonial Conference. That was until George Mason made it clear that they were the team to beat. If OD doesn’t win the conference, they might have a good enough resume to get an at-large bid.
2. Arkansas
The SEC is weak this year which makes more than five bids highly unlikely. Arkansas will probably be the odd team out unless they can finish 10-6 or better in the conference. Arkansas has had an impressive non-conference resume in beating Kansas, Missouri, Missouri St., and Texas Tech. Its RPI rating is on the borderline at 43. The Hogs stand at 2-3 in the SEC right now which means they would likely be left out.
3. S. Illinois
Believe it or not, the Missouri Valley Conference is the fifth strongest conference in America according to the RPI. That means they are ahead of the Pac-10 and the Big XII. S. Illinois started out 6-0 in conference play. At that point, I had them winning the MVC’s automatic bid. However, they lost two of three and now stand as the odd team out. I see four MVC teams getting into the tourney. S. Illinois has the least impressive non-conference slate so they are left out. However, a few wins could put this team right back in the field. I have Missouri St. in ahead of S. Illinois because of two things. 1). Missouri St. beat S. Illinois, and 2). Missouri St. has zero bad losses while S. Illinois lost to Monmouth and Alaska-Anchorage.
4. Oklahoma St.
I had OSU in the field before it lost to Colorado on Saturday. In fact, after that game, I switched OSU and Colorado. Those teams along with Iowa St. are so close in terms of resume and ability. I don’t believe the Big XII will get more than five teams into the tourney which means one of those three teams is out if not two. OSU has the worst RPI rating of the three. They have also fizzled in the conference. Iowa St.’s wins over N. Iowa and Iowa are keeping them afloat. If Iowa St. loses to Missouri this week, they will be on the outside looking in.
5. Florida St.
We’re starting to get into the group of teams that really have no chance of getting in. FSU has a high Pomeroy rating at 29 but its RPI rating is 99. This team will be an afterthought in just two weeks as the ACC schedule sends this team packing.
6 Kansas St.
7 NC Wilmington
8 California
9 Rutgers
10 Washington St.
11 Missouri
12 Miami (Fl)
13 USC
14 Notre Dame
15 Alabama
16 Georgia
17 Virginia
Most of these teams will fade away as a result of their conference schedules. The teams that really have a chance of rocketing into contention are Missouri, Miami, NC Wilmington and Georgia/Alabama. I don’t think any of those teams will make the tourney but the conference slate is a whole new season. Teams can erase early season misery by simply going 10-6 in conference. If any of these teams can do that, they may sneak in. NC Wilmington is a different story. Wilmington is a mid-major that will have good computer ratings and an impressive overall record. However, with no good non-conference wins, they will likely have to win the Colonial tournament.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (6)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
Wake Forest
SEC (5)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Louisville
Big 12 (5)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Iowa St.
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (3)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
Xavier
GW
MVC (4)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
Missouri St.
Here are a couple predictions for the end of the season:
-The Big East will get eight teams into the tournament with Louisville or Georgetown not getting in.
-The MVC will get three bids (one automatic and two at-large bids) with Missouri St. being the odd team out.
-The Big XII will only get four bids with Iowa St. and Oklahoma St. both missing the tournament.
-Don’t be surprised if California or Stanford goes 10-6 in the Pac-10 and steals a bid despite a miserable resume.
-If Michigan goes 8-8 in the Big Ten, it’ll make the tourney. If Michigan goes 7-9, it’ll be NIT bound. It seems like a 50/50 proposition either way.
Each week I'll update my projection with an explanation of why I've dropped or added teams to the field.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Manhattan
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West UC-Irvine
21 OVC Samford
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Sacred Heart
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun E. Tennessee St.
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Louisville
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large Wake Forest
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Vanderbilt
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Iowa St.
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large GW
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large Missouri St.
This is the easiest time of the year to project the tournament because we can pencil in teams like Nevada, Gonzaga, and Air Force as the recipients of the automatic bids from their conferences. Once March hits and some of these teams lose in their conference tournaments, then it becomes difficult to decide which teams get bumped from the field.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. Louisville
Rick Pitino is in danger of missing the tournament. If Louisville doesn’t go 3-1 in its next four games, then it will be out of the field. Louisville is 1-4 in the Big East with a deplorable RPI rating of 82. The Cardinals have only beaten two teams in the top 100 (Miami Fl and Akron). This very well could be the last week that I have this team in the field.
2. Wake Forest
Wake is also 1-4 in conference play but unlike Louisville, Wake could easily go 4-0 in its next four games. Wake also has the good fortune of playing in the best conference in America where anything less than six bids would be a travesty. Wake is probably the 6th team out of the ACC. Its RPI of 62 will likely rise with the rigors of ACC play. Wake has two good non-conference wins in beating Wisconsin and George Mason. Wake’s fortunes look bleak now but I think they will turn around quickly.
3. Iowa St.
ISU did everything it needed to do in the non-conference. It beat N. Iowa, Iowa, Colorado St., and Northwestern St. However, two bad losses to Texas Tech and Texas A&M have basically derailed ISU’s tourney hopes. If the Cyclones don’t go at least 2-2 in their next four, they will be on the outside looking in.
4. Colorado
There are some teams that I don’t have in the field right now that I think are better than Colorado. However, the Buffaloes understand how to get to the tourney. They are 3-2 in the Big XII and could easily win their next two games. They don’t have a great computer rating but in looking at their remaining conference games, Colorado could easily go 10-6.
5. Missouri St.
To date, the MVC has done enough to get four teams in. I think that’ll change by the end of the season. There will probably only be three bids for the conference. However, as of now, four teams have done enough to get into the tourney. Missouri St. barely edges out S. Illinois for the conference’s fourth and final bid. Missouri St. should win its next four games before embarking on a season-deciding stretch of games to end the season.
The teams waiting in the wings:
The problem with making a case against a team like Louisville, Wake Forest, or Kansas is making the case for another team. I don’t have Louisville in the tournament because of how impressive its been this season. I have them in because no other teams have accomplished enough to merit a selection. That may change in the next week or two but there are only about 36 worthy teams for the 34 at-large bids. Here are the 16 teams (in no particular order) that have at least a small chance of working their way into the field should Louisville continue its slide and other teams falter:
1. Old Dominion
Old Dominion has a respectable resume and up until this past week was almost a lock to get the automatic bid for the Colonial Conference. That was until George Mason made it clear that they were the team to beat. If OD doesn’t win the conference, they might have a good enough resume to get an at-large bid.
2. Arkansas
The SEC is weak this year which makes more than five bids highly unlikely. Arkansas will probably be the odd team out unless they can finish 10-6 or better in the conference. Arkansas has had an impressive non-conference resume in beating Kansas, Missouri, Missouri St., and Texas Tech. Its RPI rating is on the borderline at 43. The Hogs stand at 2-3 in the SEC right now which means they would likely be left out.
3. S. Illinois
Believe it or not, the Missouri Valley Conference is the fifth strongest conference in America according to the RPI. That means they are ahead of the Pac-10 and the Big XII. S. Illinois started out 6-0 in conference play. At that point, I had them winning the MVC’s automatic bid. However, they lost two of three and now stand as the odd team out. I see four MVC teams getting into the tourney. S. Illinois has the least impressive non-conference slate so they are left out. However, a few wins could put this team right back in the field. I have Missouri St. in ahead of S. Illinois because of two things. 1). Missouri St. beat S. Illinois, and 2). Missouri St. has zero bad losses while S. Illinois lost to Monmouth and Alaska-Anchorage.
4. Oklahoma St.
I had OSU in the field before it lost to Colorado on Saturday. In fact, after that game, I switched OSU and Colorado. Those teams along with Iowa St. are so close in terms of resume and ability. I don’t believe the Big XII will get more than five teams into the tourney which means one of those three teams is out if not two. OSU has the worst RPI rating of the three. They have also fizzled in the conference. Iowa St.’s wins over N. Iowa and Iowa are keeping them afloat. If Iowa St. loses to Missouri this week, they will be on the outside looking in.
5. Florida St.
We’re starting to get into the group of teams that really have no chance of getting in. FSU has a high Pomeroy rating at 29 but its RPI rating is 99. This team will be an afterthought in just two weeks as the ACC schedule sends this team packing.
6 Kansas St.
7 NC Wilmington
8 California
9 Rutgers
10 Washington St.
11 Missouri
12 Miami (Fl)
13 USC
14 Notre Dame
15 Alabama
16 Georgia
17 Virginia
Most of these teams will fade away as a result of their conference schedules. The teams that really have a chance of rocketing into contention are Missouri, Miami, NC Wilmington and Georgia/Alabama. I don’t think any of those teams will make the tourney but the conference slate is a whole new season. Teams can erase early season misery by simply going 10-6 in conference. If any of these teams can do that, they may sneak in. NC Wilmington is a different story. Wilmington is a mid-major that will have good computer ratings and an impressive overall record. However, with no good non-conference wins, they will likely have to win the Colonial tournament.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (6)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
Wake Forest
SEC (5)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Louisville
Big 12 (5)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Iowa St.
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (3)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
Xavier
GW
MVC (4)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
Missouri St.
Here are a couple predictions for the end of the season:
-The Big East will get eight teams into the tournament with Louisville or Georgetown not getting in.
-The MVC will get three bids (one automatic and two at-large bids) with Missouri St. being the odd team out.
-The Big XII will only get four bids with Iowa St. and Oklahoma St. both missing the tournament.
-Don’t be surprised if California or Stanford goes 10-6 in the Pac-10 and steals a bid despite a miserable resume.
-If Michigan goes 8-8 in the Big Ten, it’ll make the tourney. If Michigan goes 7-9, it’ll be NIT bound. It seems like a 50/50 proposition either way.
Each week I'll update my projection with an explanation of why I've dropped or added teams to the field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
