Count me as part of the ever-increasing group of people who are sick of the ridiculous level of sensationalism that exists in the media. To keep this post from being longer than it already is going to be, I won’t get into the vast instances of the general news media over-blowing stories. I’ll simply focus on the sports media and how it has evolved for the worse since the days when tact existed and “off the record” meant off the record.
Billy Donovan prepared his team all week for a Final Four match-up against a very focused and dangerous UCLA team. Donovan is trying to make history by being the first coach in 15 years to win back to back NCAA Championships. This is a team he loves coaching and hasn’t indicated any interest in anything other than the task at hand. Yet, the headline on ESPN for two straight days was “Cats Got His Tongue”. The “Cats” is obviously a reference to the Kentucky Wildcats who happen to have a high-profile coaching vacancy. The headline also insinuates that Donovan is preoccupied by the Kentucky vacancy at a time when his focus needs to be on his current team. Where ESPN could have easily done a story about various coaches (Donovan among others) that Kentucky could target and the likelihood of Kentucky offering each coach, it chose to make Donovan’s supposed interest the story.
Say what you want about Donovan’s reputation as being a slick recruiter; that hardly makes it OK to orchestrate a story by putting him in an impossible situation. As far as I know, Donovan has not been in contact with Kentucky. He has repeatedly stated that his focus is 100% on trying to win a second National Championship. In fact, if I were Donovan, I would call Kentucky and tell them to back off or they can forget about an interview. It’s not like Donovan makes “chump change” at Florida. Plus, Florida will give him a raise if a) he wins the Championship and b) Kentucky makes overtures which they obviously will. But, that’s for Donovan to decide.
I understand that some people will argue that Donovan brought this on himself because when asked about being a candidate for the Kentucky job, Donovan responded, “There's always going to be speculation and people want to talk, and I can't control that. What I can control is how I choose to focus my time and how my team chooses to focus its time. I think right now our team has great respect for UCLA and our focus is getting ready to play them." A number of Donovan detractors have claimed that he only fueled the speculation by not saying he wasn’t interested in the Kentucky job. While that seems to possess some logic on its face, that argument falls to pieces when you consider the alternative; the alternative, of course, being the route Nick Saban took.
If Donovan did say he wasn’t interested in the Kentucky opening just to get reporters off his back, then when he inevitably does interview with Kentucky, he will be portrayed as a lying, backstabbing, money-grabber. The media has the perfect set up. If you try to do what A-Rod does in New York and give vanilla answers, then you are a “liar”. If you try to do what Gary Sheffield does and speak your mind, you are a “troublemaker”. The media obviously prefers the latter because there are few “meaty” stories with the former.
Big Brother has always been a pseudonym for the government but it almost seems like that moniker is starting to apply to the media. Every answer to every question on every subject is a potential story. Every wrong word or misstep is a chance for someone to be portrayed as a racist or liar. Don’t get me wrong; some instances merit such treatment (i.e. Tim Hardaway). However, for every story that deserves the scrutiny, there are countless others that are simply created by media scribes looking for a juicy scoop. The worst offenders are the college football sideline reporters that ask a coach who is walking off the field in the middle of a winning celebration if he is going to accept a job at another institution. The day a coach says, “why yes, I think I’ll immediately stop celebrating this win and accept the job at State” is the day sideline reporters will stop asking that ridiculous question. That rivals people that don’t use their turn signals as one of my biggest pet peeves.
The media pretty much dictated the way the Donovan situation would play out before Donovan even said anything. It has lambasted folks for lying and telling the truth which is why Donovan refused to do either. Unfortunately for Donovan, the media has proved that it doesn’t need a lie or a truth to blow up a story. It simply needs “a source inside the Kentucky Athletic Department”.
There was a time when I wanted to be in the sports world as a journalist of some sort. I got a chance to do this for a reputable TV station in Detroit. I interviewed Detroit sports celebrities from Tom Izzo to Shane Battier. The most insightful interview I ever had, though, was when I spoke with Aaron Ward after a Detroit/Colorado hockey game. My job was to get a sound bite for the news. Since this was Game 32 of the regular season, I really didn’t have any questions from a fan’s perspective. I had to fain interest by posing questions that I thought a typical media person would ask. Since this was Detroit/Colorado, I asked if the departure of Claude Lemieux had lessened the rivalry. Ward looked at me like I was an idiot and said, “That is a story that you guys in the media created. We don’t even think about that.” As a novice, I kind of took his remark personally since I hadn’t created anything. Then it dawned on me that I was doing exactly what I hated. I didn’t want to ask the question. In fact, I didn’t want to ask Ward any questions. I hate to say it but I had no interest in anything that he could have said. I can only imagine that there are hundreds, if not, thousands of reporters around the country today that are in similar situations. This is just another instance of how the almighty dollar has compromised the integrity of the sports world. ESPN runs a story compromising the integrity of the Final Four for the same reasons that I had to come up with “dummy” questions for Aaron Ward. Both situations were an attempt to create or manufacture a story for ratings.
As a sports fan, there are only a handful of things that interest me about the state of my favorite team during the regular season. I certainly don’t have ten new questions after each of the 82 regular season games. For instance, right now with regards to the Red Wings, I am interested in how Todd Bertuzzi is doing and when Henrik Zetterberg is coming back. As far as game to game stuff, the regular season is meaningless to me at this point. I don’t care how fired up the Wings got after a scuffle against St. Louis in the third period. Yet, there are 20 reporters after every game asking 10 questions just like that to 20 different players. That’s a lot of questions that nobody cares about. With that many questions over 82 regular season games, there are bound to be slip ups and controversies. Anyhow, that experience left a sour taste in my mouth. I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life creating questions that I had no interest in. (Disclaimer—not every interviewer is asking questions to “stir the pot”. Journalists and TV reporters have stories to write and air every day. To make their deadlines, day after day, these people have to ask the “run of the mill” questions to get out the next game recap as quickly as possible. I understand this and I have no problem with it. My beef is when these things are done without tact.)
The hopes and dreams of every sports fan lie in speculation. The media understands this. That is why the media over-speculates things to death. The Donovan situation is a perfect example. People around the country from every fan-base are interested in the Kentucky coaching search. It is a story “with legs.” So ESPN puts the over-sensationalism machine to work. Despite Donovan’s wishes to stay out of the story until after the Final Four (which is only two days from now by the way), ESPN has made him the story without anything substantial from Donovan.
I love speculation. My two favorite things to discuss in sports are speculation and history. Drafts, coaching searches, and the NCAA Selection Show are three of my favorite things to speculate about. What ESPN needs to understand is that speculation can exist without crossing the line. You don’t need to ask Billy Donovan at his Final Four press conference if he is going to take the Kentucky job in order to have a good story. ESPN didn’t do anything wrong by speculating; it did something wrong in the way that it is speculated. I understand that the media’s job is to sensationalize. Media publications are competitive markets just like the car industry or any other free-market industry. The competition has increased to a point where tact has been squeezed out of the equation. Privacy and respect are luxuries of the past. Every police blotter is monitored by a news scribe waiting to report that Athlete X got pulled over for going seven mph over the speed limit.
This isn’t a blanket attack on all things related to sports media. There are reputable journalists in every city and at every news organization. Editors are forced to play “the game” to keep up with the competition. It’s not the fault of any one person or one network. It’s just the way the industry has evolved. Nonetheless, the media has started to cross the line to the point where I don’t even want to read the newspaper or internet sports sites anymore. I’d rather talk to Joe Sportsfan down the road at the local pub about the Cleveland Indians or read a reputable blogger discuss possibilities without directly effecting the outcome of a national sporting event. That last comment might sound a little extreme but I assure you that this sort of unprofessional speculation can influence the outcome of an event.
This Donovan thing has every element of the Larry Brown/Pistons/Knicks debacle of 2005. I don’t have many positive things to say about Larry Brown but the media created that whole situation prematurely when it could have easily waited a week until the Finals were over. The Pistons were preparing to play the Spurs in the NBA Finals and just about every story focused on Brown’s possible desire to leave Detroit for New York. I’m not going to say the Pistons lost because of that. I think the Spurs were the sharper team. But, there are enough people out there that think the Pistons had too much to overcome in the name of the Spurs and the Brown speculation. ESPN, whether it cares or not, is affecting the preparation and focus of the Florida Gators because it can’t wait three days to beat the “Donovan to Kentucky” story to death. Obviously, every other news outlet is doing the same so it’s not solely ESPN’s fault.
This stuff goes on all the time. I’ve been meaning to write about this for some time but I was waiting for a story that got me riled-up enough to invest the requisite effort for a post. We live in world where there is rarely ever an opportunity to turn back once things go beyond a certain point. I suppose there is always a way of turning things around but you can see by the whole “global warming” and the “dependency on foreign oil” things how hard it is to reverse a course. Once the sports media started to participate in its own version of an “arm’s race”, the fate of the sports world was sealed. It’ll just keep getting more annoying to the point that it turns into another version of a Hollywood Gossip magazine—if it isn’t there already. So, I’m OK with filing this under a “rant” and moving on to something happier like how Dwyane will miraculously heal just in time to drop a bomb on the Pistons in the playoffs.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Don't Draft Brady Quinn
I enjoyed doing a mock draft last year. I was able to get familiar with seven rounds worth of NFL draft prospects which, in turn, made the draft that much more interesting to follow. As much as I enjoyed doing the mock draft, I think I'll pass this year. Since there are 70 zillion other mock drafts out there with just as much insight as mine, I’ll save myself the effort. For those of you in need of a mock draft or four to pass the time, you can find one here, here, here and here.
While I won’t be contributing another useless mock draft to the internet world, I will be contributing another useless set of proclamations as to what the Lions should do with the #2 pick in the draft. Despite the laughably poor job the Lions have done in the last few years in the draft, this year they have a chance to make up for it. Unlike years past when there weren’t many reasons to trade up, this draft has five or six franchise-type players (at least teams “think” there are) that every team in the NFL would love to have. As a result, this very well could be the best year ever to hold the #2 pick in the draft.
There is dual irony going on here, though. First, the player that the Lions “should” pick is a wide receiver. Whether Matt Millen can let the past go and take another WR is something we’ll have to wait until Draft Day to find out. I don’t blame him if he’s reluctant to go that route again but it's not like he has anything to lose. Second, while this is a very good year to have the #2 pick in the draft, this is a very poor year in terms of finding a trade partner. Only New England has two first round draft picks and those are too low (#24 and #28) to deal for the second pick in the draft. It is possible that the Lions could make a trade for multiple second round picks. Atlanta could give the Lions two early second-round picks (#39 and #44) along with the #8 pick. That hardly seems good enough for a pick that would almost surely land an All-Pro caliber player. If the Lions can find a team to play the role of the ’99 Saints (loved themselves some Ricky Williams) or the ’89 Vikings (couldn't get enough of Herschel Walker) and give them the farm, then they have to make a deal. Otherwise, the Lions need to keep the pick and take the first “freak” in NFL history that doesn’t have character issues.
I think the Lions have to take Calvin Johnson if a) they don’t receive a trade offer they can’t refuse and b) he really is as good as he looks. Obviously, the latter is the multi-million dollar question. Certainly, the Lions took Charles Rogers and Mike Williams because they thought they were good. Everyone thought they were good. But, the Lions would have to be as certain as a team can be on Johnson’s abilities before deciding to take him. Assuming his personality and athletic prowess are off the charts, Johnson would represent the quickest possible route to respectability for the Lions. I say this simply because few teams in the NFL have had two legitimate #1 receiving threats and not been at least a good team. The only team I can think of is the ’06 Cardinals. The Colts and Bengals have been nearly unstoppable offensively because defenses are helpless in trying to stop their wide receivers and the running game. Even Dominic Rhodes and a worn-down Edgerrin James found room to run with those receiving groups spreading out the defense. Jon Kitna isn’t the long term answer at QB but even he could thrive in a situation similar to what the Colts and Bengals have.
The risk in taking Johnson is primarily the slow pace at which wide receivers mature in the NFL. Even the best receivers usually take a few years to find their niche in the league. The Lions would need Johnson to contribute immediately. The only way I see Johnson being the right choice for the Lions is if he just happens to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest receiver to ever come out of college football. And of course, he is. So, the Lions have a number of extremely difficult decisions to make; the first of which is to decide if they can bring themselves to draft another WR. To be fair--Calvin Johnson isn’t just “another WR.” I believe the Lions are looking at him that way because of their past indiscretions with the position. Ignoring Johnson for those reasons would only compound the mistakes of the past. The old adage goes something like, "burn me once, it's your fault; burn me twice it's my fault." The problem is that Calvin Johnson has never burnt the Lions. Millen and his inability to distinguish good character from bad character is what burned the Lions in 2003 and 2005. Had Millen drafted a different position in those two drafts, there would be no doubt that the Lions would take Johnson this year.
The absolute worst decision the Lions could ever make in this draft is to take a QB at #2. Can anyone say, with confidence, that Brady Quinn will be a better NFL QB than Joey Harrington? There are so many similarities it is scary. I believe the Lions are playing up the Quinn card to entice other teams to trade up. If they are not, however, then they might as well trade the #2 pick to whoever signs Joey Harrington for Harrington. Quinn was unstoppable at Notre Dame when he was playing against the Service Academies. Against teams with a pulse? Not so much. JaMarcus Russell falls into the Mike Williams/Charles Rogers category. The Lions can’t keep picking players that have too many unanswered questions. Calvin Johnson is the safest of picks and Russell is the most dangerous of picks. Quinn or Russell would be a disaster for the Lions.
The rest of the options are intriguing. Since the Lions have 42 running backs, I feel very comfortable saying that they won’t draft Adrian Peterson. Joe Thomas remains an option. NFL fans who know their stuff know that championships are won on the defensive and offensive lines. The Lions have one of the worst lines in the NFL. It stands to reason that they will need to upgrade that position in the very near future. However, for every Orlando Pace, there is a Robert Gallery. That isn’t to say Gallery is terrible. It’s just very harmful to an organization to come up with just an average player with the second pick in the draft at any position. The Lions know this better than anyone. I think there is a good chance that Thomas will be a decent pro at a minimum. However, I also think there is a chance he could end up as the Joey Harrington of offensive linemen. Additionally, the Lions now have 42 offensive linemen so drafting Thomas appears to be less of an option.
Considering the other options, I believe the only correct move for the Lions—should they stay at #2—is to select Calvin Johnson and hope he and Roy Williams can open up holes for the Lions’ 42 running backs. If the Lions can get four second round picks and a swap of first round picks, then I would strongly consider trading out of the #2 pick. The Lions need a lot of help; much more than any one pick can provide. However, if Johnson is really a “can’t miss, once in a generation athlete” then the Lions can’t afford to miss on him. Plus, it’s not as if Millen has anything to lose. Every Lions fan hates him. He has come up empty on virtually every draft since the Millennium. The Lions have been the worst team in NFL history over the last six years. Why should he worry about past draft failures?
Now that you know what I think the Lions “should” do with the second pick; here is what I think they “will” do. I believe that Rod Marinelli—a defense-first guy—would never endorse picking a WR with the #2 pick. I also don’t think the Lions would put the hopes and dreams of the franchise in the hands of another rookie QB. The Lions won’t take Adrian Peterson. Joe Thomas is still an option. In fact, if the Lions don’t trade, I think Thomas will be the pick. I do think the Lions will trade at almost any cost. Marinelli knows the Lions need help everywhere. I think he and Millen have already made the decision to trade down (maybe even twice).
If they play it right, that could be a very lucrative decision. The Lions could conceivably trade down to the #6 spot—draft Gaines Adams—and then trade into a spot in the mid-teens to draft Patrick Willis. However, if Adams and Willis end up being the next Kalimba Edwards and Chris Claiborne, this could turn into a disaster. I am secretly rooting for Calvin Johnson. The Lions have been so bad on offense for so long that I would take an 8-8 team with offensive firepower in a second. But, I’m prepared for the wave of defenders that the Lions will draft come Draft Day. Either way, this is the most exciting thing to happen to the Lions since Barry Sanders last carried the football. Imagine how much more exciting it would be if the Lions hadn’t blown the first pick by beating Dallas for no reason in week 17.
While I won’t be contributing another useless mock draft to the internet world, I will be contributing another useless set of proclamations as to what the Lions should do with the #2 pick in the draft. Despite the laughably poor job the Lions have done in the last few years in the draft, this year they have a chance to make up for it. Unlike years past when there weren’t many reasons to trade up, this draft has five or six franchise-type players (at least teams “think” there are) that every team in the NFL would love to have. As a result, this very well could be the best year ever to hold the #2 pick in the draft.
There is dual irony going on here, though. First, the player that the Lions “should” pick is a wide receiver. Whether Matt Millen can let the past go and take another WR is something we’ll have to wait until Draft Day to find out. I don’t blame him if he’s reluctant to go that route again but it's not like he has anything to lose. Second, while this is a very good year to have the #2 pick in the draft, this is a very poor year in terms of finding a trade partner. Only New England has two first round draft picks and those are too low (#24 and #28) to deal for the second pick in the draft. It is possible that the Lions could make a trade for multiple second round picks. Atlanta could give the Lions two early second-round picks (#39 and #44) along with the #8 pick. That hardly seems good enough for a pick that would almost surely land an All-Pro caliber player. If the Lions can find a team to play the role of the ’99 Saints (loved themselves some Ricky Williams) or the ’89 Vikings (couldn't get enough of Herschel Walker) and give them the farm, then they have to make a deal. Otherwise, the Lions need to keep the pick and take the first “freak” in NFL history that doesn’t have character issues.
I think the Lions have to take Calvin Johnson if a) they don’t receive a trade offer they can’t refuse and b) he really is as good as he looks. Obviously, the latter is the multi-million dollar question. Certainly, the Lions took Charles Rogers and Mike Williams because they thought they were good. Everyone thought they were good. But, the Lions would have to be as certain as a team can be on Johnson’s abilities before deciding to take him. Assuming his personality and athletic prowess are off the charts, Johnson would represent the quickest possible route to respectability for the Lions. I say this simply because few teams in the NFL have had two legitimate #1 receiving threats and not been at least a good team. The only team I can think of is the ’06 Cardinals. The Colts and Bengals have been nearly unstoppable offensively because defenses are helpless in trying to stop their wide receivers and the running game. Even Dominic Rhodes and a worn-down Edgerrin James found room to run with those receiving groups spreading out the defense. Jon Kitna isn’t the long term answer at QB but even he could thrive in a situation similar to what the Colts and Bengals have.
The risk in taking Johnson is primarily the slow pace at which wide receivers mature in the NFL. Even the best receivers usually take a few years to find their niche in the league. The Lions would need Johnson to contribute immediately. The only way I see Johnson being the right choice for the Lions is if he just happens to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest receiver to ever come out of college football. And of course, he is. So, the Lions have a number of extremely difficult decisions to make; the first of which is to decide if they can bring themselves to draft another WR. To be fair--Calvin Johnson isn’t just “another WR.” I believe the Lions are looking at him that way because of their past indiscretions with the position. Ignoring Johnson for those reasons would only compound the mistakes of the past. The old adage goes something like, "burn me once, it's your fault; burn me twice it's my fault." The problem is that Calvin Johnson has never burnt the Lions. Millen and his inability to distinguish good character from bad character is what burned the Lions in 2003 and 2005. Had Millen drafted a different position in those two drafts, there would be no doubt that the Lions would take Johnson this year.
The absolute worst decision the Lions could ever make in this draft is to take a QB at #2. Can anyone say, with confidence, that Brady Quinn will be a better NFL QB than Joey Harrington? There are so many similarities it is scary. I believe the Lions are playing up the Quinn card to entice other teams to trade up. If they are not, however, then they might as well trade the #2 pick to whoever signs Joey Harrington for Harrington. Quinn was unstoppable at Notre Dame when he was playing against the Service Academies. Against teams with a pulse? Not so much. JaMarcus Russell falls into the Mike Williams/Charles Rogers category. The Lions can’t keep picking players that have too many unanswered questions. Calvin Johnson is the safest of picks and Russell is the most dangerous of picks. Quinn or Russell would be a disaster for the Lions.
The rest of the options are intriguing. Since the Lions have 42 running backs, I feel very comfortable saying that they won’t draft Adrian Peterson. Joe Thomas remains an option. NFL fans who know their stuff know that championships are won on the defensive and offensive lines. The Lions have one of the worst lines in the NFL. It stands to reason that they will need to upgrade that position in the very near future. However, for every Orlando Pace, there is a Robert Gallery. That isn’t to say Gallery is terrible. It’s just very harmful to an organization to come up with just an average player with the second pick in the draft at any position. The Lions know this better than anyone. I think there is a good chance that Thomas will be a decent pro at a minimum. However, I also think there is a chance he could end up as the Joey Harrington of offensive linemen. Additionally, the Lions now have 42 offensive linemen so drafting Thomas appears to be less of an option.
Considering the other options, I believe the only correct move for the Lions—should they stay at #2—is to select Calvin Johnson and hope he and Roy Williams can open up holes for the Lions’ 42 running backs. If the Lions can get four second round picks and a swap of first round picks, then I would strongly consider trading out of the #2 pick. The Lions need a lot of help; much more than any one pick can provide. However, if Johnson is really a “can’t miss, once in a generation athlete” then the Lions can’t afford to miss on him. Plus, it’s not as if Millen has anything to lose. Every Lions fan hates him. He has come up empty on virtually every draft since the Millennium. The Lions have been the worst team in NFL history over the last six years. Why should he worry about past draft failures?
Now that you know what I think the Lions “should” do with the second pick; here is what I think they “will” do. I believe that Rod Marinelli—a defense-first guy—would never endorse picking a WR with the #2 pick. I also don’t think the Lions would put the hopes and dreams of the franchise in the hands of another rookie QB. The Lions won’t take Adrian Peterson. Joe Thomas is still an option. In fact, if the Lions don’t trade, I think Thomas will be the pick. I do think the Lions will trade at almost any cost. Marinelli knows the Lions need help everywhere. I think he and Millen have already made the decision to trade down (maybe even twice).
If they play it right, that could be a very lucrative decision. The Lions could conceivably trade down to the #6 spot—draft Gaines Adams—and then trade into a spot in the mid-teens to draft Patrick Willis. However, if Adams and Willis end up being the next Kalimba Edwards and Chris Claiborne, this could turn into a disaster. I am secretly rooting for Calvin Johnson. The Lions have been so bad on offense for so long that I would take an 8-8 team with offensive firepower in a second. But, I’m prepared for the wave of defenders that the Lions will draft come Draft Day. Either way, this is the most exciting thing to happen to the Lions since Barry Sanders last carried the football. Imagine how much more exciting it would be if the Lions hadn’t blown the first pick by beating Dallas for no reason in week 17.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The Big Ten Coaching Carousel
Minnesota fired a shot across the Great Lakes that could prove to be somewhat a double whammy for Michigan. I was as stunned as anyone when I read that Tubby Smith was leaving Kentucky for Minnesota. Smith obviously felt his job security and sanity at Kentucky was poor at best so he struck first before he had to add “fired” to his resume. The real coup here is for Minnesota. The Gophers, like every Big Ten team besides Northwestern and Penn St., feel that their rightful place is in the upper half of the Big Ten basketball standings. A quick look at the last 27 years of the Big Ten reveals why that might be the case. Michigan St., Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Purdue, and Iowa have all made the Final Four over that time. All nine of those schools have also made at least one Elite Eight appearance in the last 20 years in addition to the Final Four appearances. Any one of those schools can reasonably claim that it deserves to be considered a “basketball school” in the Big Ten. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Minnesota reeled in such a big-time coach even though it was widely suggested that the Gophers would have to wait for Michigan to act before it could begin it search.
So while Minnesota has struggled mightily recently, it clearly (and rightfully) views itself on par with Michigan. Hiring Smith not only keeps Michigan from hiring him (something that seems even more likely to have happened now that we know Smith was looking to leave Kentucky), but it also creates an even more high-profile opening than Michigan. Now, Michigan has to play second fiddle to the Kentucky coaching search. That probably won’t hurt Michigan as much in terms of who it brings in as much as it steals Michigan’s thunder. Three days ago, the college basketball world was focused on the NCAA Tournament and the Michigan job search (I was initially surprised at how much attention the Michigan opening received considering how irrelevant the program has been but you can chalk that up to Amaker being a Duke disciple). Now? Not so much. Even more important, the incessant talk of Flip Saunders going to Minnesota might—and I emphasize might—actually die down.
Kentucky will likely be looking for a bigger name than what Michigan is looking at. I suspect Billy Gillispie and Rick Pitino will be the hot names right away. Michigan likely doesn’t have to worry about Kentucky going after Chris Lowery. Nonetheless, any luster that the Michigan job seemed to have picked up from being the only high-profile job available has been squashed by the gaping opening at Kentucky. Well done, Minnesota.
Now, Iowa finds itself in the exact same situation that Minnesota was in just a few days ago. You will be hard pressed to find a university less distraught about losing its coach than Iowa is right now. Steve Alford is the kind of coach that is hard to fire since he’s young, somewhat accomplished, and endorsed by Bob Knight. Yet, Alford has virtually nothing to show for his time in Iowa other than a couple of miracle runs in the Big Ten Tournament. What is shocking about the Alford situation (and the Smith situation too) is that you don’t often see coaches leave a more high profile job for a significantly less prestigious job when their not named Frieder. Both of these instances happened within hours of each other. I do think that Alford and Smith probably saw the “writing on the wall” which aided in their decision.
The problem that Michigan has now with Iowa is that Iowa will probably be satisfied with bringing in a mid-major coach like Lowery. Minnesota was looking for a bigger name. Iowa and Michigan are probably fishing in the same pond at this point. Now that Lowery is out of the NCAA Tournament, you’ll probably see the Michigan coaching search heat up big time. S. Illinois’ departure from the tournament was likely the domino that needed to fall before Bill Martin went full bore on his search. The good news for Michigan fans is that there isn’t one “must have” candidate out there which is why Smith going to Minnesota isn’t such a big deal. Even if Iowa secures Lowery in the next day or two, Michigan should be fine as long as it makes a smart choice.
It dawned on me a few months back that the Big Ten will likely be the premier conference in America in 2-3 years. With Matt Painter bringing in a top five recruiting class at Purdue, the revival of Indiana basketball under Kelvin Sampson, the Oden-izing of Ohio State to go along with Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Illinois, the Big Ten is going to be ultra-competitive. That was before Minnesota hired Tubby Smith and Michigan hires someone better than Tommy Amaker. Let’s assume Iowa makes a solid hire; we’re looking at nine Big Ten programs either on the fast track to success or in a holding pattern of stability. The only school out of the bunch that could see its profile weaken over the next few years is Illinois. Bruce Weber is a good coach but he’s having a difficult time selling the Illinois program to recruits. This sets up for a rare phenomenon where all nine schools (AD, fan base, media) are elated with the direction of their programs. Simple mathematics tells us that nine programs cannot thrive in an 11-team conference all at the same time. This will set up the ultimate “survival of the fittest” in the Big Ten over the next five years. This should be good for Big Ten fans but a nightmare for its coaches. This should also spell the end of the ACC’s dominance in the ACC/Big Ten challenge within the next 2-3 years.
With likely upgrades at Michigan and Iowa, and the arrival of Tubby Smith, the Big Ten now boasts what is arguably the most impressive collection of coaches in the country. Given the importance that coaching plays in having a successful basketball program, this should foreshadow big things for the conference. Here is the list:
The Coaches in the Big Ten
Tom Izzo Michigan St.
Kelvin Sampson Indiana
Tubby Smith Minnesota
Thad Matta Ohio St.
Bruce Weber Illinois
Matt Painter Purdue
Bo Ryan Wisconsin
Bill Carmody Northwestern
Ed DeChellis Penn St.
Chris Lowery Michigan ???
Iowa ???
P.S. Does John Calipari actually teach his players to shoot as many 3s as possible when they’re down by one with less than ten seconds to go or, is that something they came up with on their own?
So while Minnesota has struggled mightily recently, it clearly (and rightfully) views itself on par with Michigan. Hiring Smith not only keeps Michigan from hiring him (something that seems even more likely to have happened now that we know Smith was looking to leave Kentucky), but it also creates an even more high-profile opening than Michigan. Now, Michigan has to play second fiddle to the Kentucky coaching search. That probably won’t hurt Michigan as much in terms of who it brings in as much as it steals Michigan’s thunder. Three days ago, the college basketball world was focused on the NCAA Tournament and the Michigan job search (I was initially surprised at how much attention the Michigan opening received considering how irrelevant the program has been but you can chalk that up to Amaker being a Duke disciple). Now? Not so much. Even more important, the incessant talk of Flip Saunders going to Minnesota might—and I emphasize might—actually die down.
Kentucky will likely be looking for a bigger name than what Michigan is looking at. I suspect Billy Gillispie and Rick Pitino will be the hot names right away. Michigan likely doesn’t have to worry about Kentucky going after Chris Lowery. Nonetheless, any luster that the Michigan job seemed to have picked up from being the only high-profile job available has been squashed by the gaping opening at Kentucky. Well done, Minnesota.
Now, Iowa finds itself in the exact same situation that Minnesota was in just a few days ago. You will be hard pressed to find a university less distraught about losing its coach than Iowa is right now. Steve Alford is the kind of coach that is hard to fire since he’s young, somewhat accomplished, and endorsed by Bob Knight. Yet, Alford has virtually nothing to show for his time in Iowa other than a couple of miracle runs in the Big Ten Tournament. What is shocking about the Alford situation (and the Smith situation too) is that you don’t often see coaches leave a more high profile job for a significantly less prestigious job when their not named Frieder. Both of these instances happened within hours of each other. I do think that Alford and Smith probably saw the “writing on the wall” which aided in their decision.
The problem that Michigan has now with Iowa is that Iowa will probably be satisfied with bringing in a mid-major coach like Lowery. Minnesota was looking for a bigger name. Iowa and Michigan are probably fishing in the same pond at this point. Now that Lowery is out of the NCAA Tournament, you’ll probably see the Michigan coaching search heat up big time. S. Illinois’ departure from the tournament was likely the domino that needed to fall before Bill Martin went full bore on his search. The good news for Michigan fans is that there isn’t one “must have” candidate out there which is why Smith going to Minnesota isn’t such a big deal. Even if Iowa secures Lowery in the next day or two, Michigan should be fine as long as it makes a smart choice.
It dawned on me a few months back that the Big Ten will likely be the premier conference in America in 2-3 years. With Matt Painter bringing in a top five recruiting class at Purdue, the revival of Indiana basketball under Kelvin Sampson, the Oden-izing of Ohio State to go along with Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Illinois, the Big Ten is going to be ultra-competitive. That was before Minnesota hired Tubby Smith and Michigan hires someone better than Tommy Amaker. Let’s assume Iowa makes a solid hire; we’re looking at nine Big Ten programs either on the fast track to success or in a holding pattern of stability. The only school out of the bunch that could see its profile weaken over the next few years is Illinois. Bruce Weber is a good coach but he’s having a difficult time selling the Illinois program to recruits. This sets up for a rare phenomenon where all nine schools (AD, fan base, media) are elated with the direction of their programs. Simple mathematics tells us that nine programs cannot thrive in an 11-team conference all at the same time. This will set up the ultimate “survival of the fittest” in the Big Ten over the next five years. This should be good for Big Ten fans but a nightmare for its coaches. This should also spell the end of the ACC’s dominance in the ACC/Big Ten challenge within the next 2-3 years.
With likely upgrades at Michigan and Iowa, and the arrival of Tubby Smith, the Big Ten now boasts what is arguably the most impressive collection of coaches in the country. Given the importance that coaching plays in having a successful basketball program, this should foreshadow big things for the conference. Here is the list:
The Coaches in the Big Ten
Tom Izzo Michigan St.
Kelvin Sampson Indiana
Tubby Smith Minnesota
Thad Matta Ohio St.
Bruce Weber Illinois
Matt Painter Purdue
Bo Ryan Wisconsin
Bill Carmody Northwestern
Ed DeChellis Penn St.
Chris Lowery Michigan ???
Iowa ???
P.S. Does John Calipari actually teach his players to shoot as many 3s as possible when they’re down by one with less than ten seconds to go or, is that something they came up with on their own?
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Always Exciting Coaching Search
It’s never satisfying to root for a man to get fired when that man has put his heart and soul into his job. Everyone that follows athletics knows that the coaching industry is different. If you don’t do your job well coaching a high-profile college basketball program, you get fired. Other than a few low-level major conference teams (i.e. Northwestern, Baylor) you don’t get to keep your job by being average. So, Tommy Amaker is gone. I find myself engaging in a bit of a semantics battle with myself. On one hand, I am thrilled that Michigan basketball will have a chance to return to glory. On the other hand, I’m remorseful that a man who put UM first for six years is out of a job. To clear up any misconceptions as to which wins out in my mind, though, it’s 98/2 in favor of being thrilled.
In the two days since Amaker was fired, writers around the country have thrown out virtually every name imaginable as a possible replacement. Last month, I posted a list of the top 26 candidates for the Michigan job should Amaker be fired. Most of the names on that list are being bandied about now among others. I did not include coaches in their first year with their perspective programs (i.e. Tony Bennett WSU, Anthony Grant VCU) since coaches rarely coach at a school for one season. Bennett and Grant would have been in the top ten had I not excluded first-year coaches. Hopefully, Bill Martin has enough foresight to consider them and likewise, hopefully either would be willing to leave their current program after one season.
My preference for the hire would be a coach that is unique in his abilities (someone who has immediately influenced a program) and a coach that is relatively young. Mike Montgomery, Lon Kruger and Rick Majerus could probably come to Michigan and get the program running again. The problem is that fairly soon into their tenure, Michigan will have to go through another coaching hire when those coaches inevitably retire. The problem with hiring a young coach is the “Amaker Factor.” There weren’t many people back in 2001 that didn’t think Amaker could get things done. However, if you look at things more closely now, the Amaker hire was more of a prayer than it was a solid basketball hire. Amaker hadn’t accomplished much in his career. His big asset was his tutelage under Coach K.
If Michigan is going to hire another young coach, it has to look at what the coach accomplished on his own. In year one at VCU, Anthony Grant led his team to the best finish any school has ever had in the Colonial Conference as well as a first round win over Duke in the NCAA Tournament. In year one at Washington State, Tony Bennett led his team to a 26-8 record and a #3 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Washington State went 11-17 last year. There is a huge difference between hiring a young coach with a good pedigree and hiring a coach with sound accomplishments. Hopefully, Bill Martin has seen the impact of choosing the wrong one.
This would be my short list of candidates:
The Fat and Happy:
Billy Gillispie Texas A&M
Gillispie is from the south. He’s already created a powerhouse at Texas A&M. I can’t imagine he’d be interested in leaving that to inherit another underachieving program up north.
Tom Crean Marquette
Crean has a good thing going at Marquette. I would not be surprised if he felt Marquette was a better gig than Michigan. However, I don’t believe there is any doubt as to which program has the higher ceiling.
The Mid-Majors:
Gregg Marshall Winthrop
Marshall has been quietly running a fantastic mid-major program at Winthrop for some time now. His first round upset of Notre Dame validated his credentials even more.
Todd Lickliter Butler
Lickliter has Butler in the Sweet Sixteen with victories over Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Gonzaga, and Maryland. He will undoubtedly be near the top of Bill Martin’s list.
Chris Lowery S. Illinois
Lowery is a young coach with a reputation for being a very good recruiter. He has S. Illinois in the Sweet Sixteen after storming through the Missouri Valley Conference during the regular season.
The Inexperienced:
Anthony Grant VCU
I don’t think Grant and Amaker are comparable. When Michigan hired Amaker, he was a “name.” Grant revitalized the VCU program in just one season with an athletic pressing defense. He may not be the next Coach K but I don’t think there is any doubt that his abilities extend beyond pedigree.
Tony Bennett Washington State
Bennett did one of the more impressive coaching jobs I have ever seen in college basketball. Washington State was 11-17 in 2005-06. Bennett led WSU to a 27-8 record this season in his first year. I’m sure there were some other factors involved (i.e. the return of injured players and the maturation of players) but what he did was impressive no matter how you spin it.
Like any hire, you want to get it right the first time. Any coach that I mentioned in my post last month could probably get the job done. This is a “shoot for the Moon and if you miss you still be among stars” scenario. Michigan has nothing to lose in terms of looking at every conceivable lead. I’m just thrilled that Michigan Basketball will be heading in a new direction. This is the point at which the possibilities for success are endless. I remember feeling this way six years ago. Hopefully, this will turn out a bit different.
In the two days since Amaker was fired, writers around the country have thrown out virtually every name imaginable as a possible replacement. Last month, I posted a list of the top 26 candidates for the Michigan job should Amaker be fired. Most of the names on that list are being bandied about now among others. I did not include coaches in their first year with their perspective programs (i.e. Tony Bennett WSU, Anthony Grant VCU) since coaches rarely coach at a school for one season. Bennett and Grant would have been in the top ten had I not excluded first-year coaches. Hopefully, Bill Martin has enough foresight to consider them and likewise, hopefully either would be willing to leave their current program after one season.
My preference for the hire would be a coach that is unique in his abilities (someone who has immediately influenced a program) and a coach that is relatively young. Mike Montgomery, Lon Kruger and Rick Majerus could probably come to Michigan and get the program running again. The problem is that fairly soon into their tenure, Michigan will have to go through another coaching hire when those coaches inevitably retire. The problem with hiring a young coach is the “Amaker Factor.” There weren’t many people back in 2001 that didn’t think Amaker could get things done. However, if you look at things more closely now, the Amaker hire was more of a prayer than it was a solid basketball hire. Amaker hadn’t accomplished much in his career. His big asset was his tutelage under Coach K.
If Michigan is going to hire another young coach, it has to look at what the coach accomplished on his own. In year one at VCU, Anthony Grant led his team to the best finish any school has ever had in the Colonial Conference as well as a first round win over Duke in the NCAA Tournament. In year one at Washington State, Tony Bennett led his team to a 26-8 record and a #3 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Washington State went 11-17 last year. There is a huge difference between hiring a young coach with a good pedigree and hiring a coach with sound accomplishments. Hopefully, Bill Martin has seen the impact of choosing the wrong one.
This would be my short list of candidates:
The Fat and Happy:
Billy Gillispie Texas A&M
Gillispie is from the south. He’s already created a powerhouse at Texas A&M. I can’t imagine he’d be interested in leaving that to inherit another underachieving program up north.
Tom Crean Marquette
Crean has a good thing going at Marquette. I would not be surprised if he felt Marquette was a better gig than Michigan. However, I don’t believe there is any doubt as to which program has the higher ceiling.
The Mid-Majors:
Gregg Marshall Winthrop
Marshall has been quietly running a fantastic mid-major program at Winthrop for some time now. His first round upset of Notre Dame validated his credentials even more.
Todd Lickliter Butler
Lickliter has Butler in the Sweet Sixteen with victories over Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Gonzaga, and Maryland. He will undoubtedly be near the top of Bill Martin’s list.
Chris Lowery S. Illinois
Lowery is a young coach with a reputation for being a very good recruiter. He has S. Illinois in the Sweet Sixteen after storming through the Missouri Valley Conference during the regular season.
The Inexperienced:
Anthony Grant VCU
I don’t think Grant and Amaker are comparable. When Michigan hired Amaker, he was a “name.” Grant revitalized the VCU program in just one season with an athletic pressing defense. He may not be the next Coach K but I don’t think there is any doubt that his abilities extend beyond pedigree.
Tony Bennett Washington State
Bennett did one of the more impressive coaching jobs I have ever seen in college basketball. Washington State was 11-17 in 2005-06. Bennett led WSU to a 27-8 record this season in his first year. I’m sure there were some other factors involved (i.e. the return of injured players and the maturation of players) but what he did was impressive no matter how you spin it.
Like any hire, you want to get it right the first time. Any coach that I mentioned in my post last month could probably get the job done. This is a “shoot for the Moon and if you miss you still be among stars” scenario. Michigan has nothing to lose in terms of looking at every conceivable lead. I’m just thrilled that Michigan Basketball will be heading in a new direction. This is the point at which the possibilities for success are endless. I remember feeling this way six years ago. Hopefully, this will turn out a bit different.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Arkansas gives hope to all the undeserving
For the most part, the NCAA Selection Committee did a very fine job selecting the 34 at-large teams. Since the Committee and I agreed on 33 of the 34 at-large selections, you might have guessed that I would have complimentary things to say following Selection Sunday. In a way, it actually made last season’s atrocious job look even worse. For instance, how does Air Force not get in after getting in last year? Don’t get me wrong—Air Force did not deserve a bid this season after choking away its season over the last couple weeks. However, Air Force’s 2007 resume was vastly more impressive than its 2006 resume. The ’06 squad had zero wins over NCAA Tournament teams. The ’07 squad had five. The ’06 squad had an RPI of 50. The ’07 squad had an RPI of 30. The ’06 squad had three wins in the RPI80. The ’07 squad had six wins in the RPI80. Air Force was only the beginning of the Selection Committee’s faux pas’ last year. Thankfully, the committee only made one such mistake this year—albeit an extremely glaring one.
I’m not as bothered this season simply because there weren’t any teams that didn’t make it that really belonged. Sure, there were six or seven teams that had beefs but they all had their chance to avoid the “bubble” and they all failed to cement their status as a “lock”. The reason why I was so disgruntled last season was because there were so many teams that should have made it over teams that did make it. This year, there is just one team that had no business making it. Any number of the six or seven “bubble” teams that did not make the field would have been fine. The only choice the committee could have made to make it not fine would be the team it ended up choosing: the Arkansas Razorbacks.
How this team garnered an at-large invitation is beyond me. The popular belief has been that Arkansas earned its spot in the tournament by embarking on a five game winning streak near the end of the season. I suppose a five-game winning streak could be impressive if it weren’t against a collection of average to below-average SEC teams. Since when did beating Mississippi St. twice, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt twice constitute a brutal, season defining stretch? What troubles me is that the head of the Selection Committee, Gary Walters, said that Arkansas was in before it even played in the SEC Championship game unless NC State upset North Carolina in the ACC Championship game. That makes me think that instead of waiting to see if Arkansas stole an automatic bid away from another team (i.e. Syracuse, Kansas St., Drexel), the Committee just decided it would just throw Arkansas in and not have to worry about it. You’ll never get anyone on the committee to admit that but that is the only sane explanation that I can come up with to justify Arkansas’ inclusion. Or, maybe the fact that the SEC had a representative in the ears of the Selection Committee while the Big East chose not to had something to with it.
Arkansas wasn’t even on the radar one week ago. That is why their five-game winning streak bothers me so much. It’s not as if Arkansas was 50/50 a week ago and then won five games in a row. That would at least be somewhat acceptable. Arkansas was headed to the NIT and everyone knew it—except, of course, the Selection Committee. How can a team that was universally slated to the NIT earn an at-large bid by winning five games in a row against a group of teams with an RPI no better than 47? A lot has been made of Arkansas’ march to the SEC Championship game. Few teams in NCAA history had an easier route to a major conference championship game. Yet somehow, Arkansas parlayed a modest five-game winning streak and a blow-out loss in the SEC Final into an NCAA bid.
As far as I’m concerned, any of the following teams were better choices than Arkansas: Syracuse, Drexel, Kansas St., and West Virginia. Like I said earlier, I don’t really feel bad for any of those teams because none of them had stellar seasons. But, it’s not fair to them that a team got in with an inferior resume. Since I had Syracuse in the tournament, I obviously feel they had the best resume of the bunch. So, I’ll do a little Arkansas-Syracuse comparison. I cannot come up with a single reason why Arkansas should be in over Syracuse other than having a better RPI.
Arkansas
Arkansas lost to 9 of 11 SEC teams.
No team in the SEC West made the Tournament with the exception of Arkansas AND there was only one team lower in the SEC West standings than Arkansas. How does that happen?
Arkansas only beat three tournament teams (Vandy (2) and Southern Illinois).
Arkansas went from Nov 23 to March 3 without beating a single NCAA Tournament team. I'm guessing that the 2006 Air Force team is the only other at-large selection to have such a futile streak.
Arkansas went 4-6 against Tournament teams.
Arkansas had one victory inside the RPI 45.
Arkansas was essentially awarded an at-large bid for finishing the season on a five-game winning streak which culminated in a thumping at the hands of Florida. The five game winning streak came against the powerhouse lineup of Mississippi St., Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi St. It’s too bad every bubble team can’t finish the season with a five-game stretch like that to cement a bid.
Four other SEC teams made the NCAA Tournament other than Arkansas. Arkansas only had to play each team once. Yet, Arkansas still only managed a 7-9 conference record. Compare that to Georgia which finished 8-8 in the conference while playing NINE games against the SEC teams that are in the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas had 12 conference games against teams that didn’t make the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas went 2-8 in true road games.
Arkansas was 6-4 in its last ten.
Arkansas went 9-10 after Jan 9.
Before Arkansas was bailed out by an incredibly easy SEC Tournament draw, it had finished the season on a 6-9 stretch.
Syracuse
Syracuse lost to 6 of 15 Big East teams.
Syracuse finished 5th in the Big East—tied with Marquette and one spot ahead of Villanova.
Syracuse beat five tournament teams including the Big East regular season and tournament champ Georgetown.
Syracuse went 5-5 against NCAA Tournament teams.
Syracuse had three victories in the RPI22
Syracuse went 11-6 after Jan 7.
Syracuse was 7-3 in its last ten.
Syracuse had nine conference games against teams that didn’t make the Tournament
Syracuse went 5-4 in true road games.
I’m not as bothered this season simply because there weren’t any teams that didn’t make it that really belonged. Sure, there were six or seven teams that had beefs but they all had their chance to avoid the “bubble” and they all failed to cement their status as a “lock”. The reason why I was so disgruntled last season was because there were so many teams that should have made it over teams that did make it. This year, there is just one team that had no business making it. Any number of the six or seven “bubble” teams that did not make the field would have been fine. The only choice the committee could have made to make it not fine would be the team it ended up choosing: the Arkansas Razorbacks.
How this team garnered an at-large invitation is beyond me. The popular belief has been that Arkansas earned its spot in the tournament by embarking on a five game winning streak near the end of the season. I suppose a five-game winning streak could be impressive if it weren’t against a collection of average to below-average SEC teams. Since when did beating Mississippi St. twice, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt twice constitute a brutal, season defining stretch? What troubles me is that the head of the Selection Committee, Gary Walters, said that Arkansas was in before it even played in the SEC Championship game unless NC State upset North Carolina in the ACC Championship game. That makes me think that instead of waiting to see if Arkansas stole an automatic bid away from another team (i.e. Syracuse, Kansas St., Drexel), the Committee just decided it would just throw Arkansas in and not have to worry about it. You’ll never get anyone on the committee to admit that but that is the only sane explanation that I can come up with to justify Arkansas’ inclusion. Or, maybe the fact that the SEC had a representative in the ears of the Selection Committee while the Big East chose not to had something to with it.
Arkansas wasn’t even on the radar one week ago. That is why their five-game winning streak bothers me so much. It’s not as if Arkansas was 50/50 a week ago and then won five games in a row. That would at least be somewhat acceptable. Arkansas was headed to the NIT and everyone knew it—except, of course, the Selection Committee. How can a team that was universally slated to the NIT earn an at-large bid by winning five games in a row against a group of teams with an RPI no better than 47? A lot has been made of Arkansas’ march to the SEC Championship game. Few teams in NCAA history had an easier route to a major conference championship game. Yet somehow, Arkansas parlayed a modest five-game winning streak and a blow-out loss in the SEC Final into an NCAA bid.
As far as I’m concerned, any of the following teams were better choices than Arkansas: Syracuse, Drexel, Kansas St., and West Virginia. Like I said earlier, I don’t really feel bad for any of those teams because none of them had stellar seasons. But, it’s not fair to them that a team got in with an inferior resume. Since I had Syracuse in the tournament, I obviously feel they had the best resume of the bunch. So, I’ll do a little Arkansas-Syracuse comparison. I cannot come up with a single reason why Arkansas should be in over Syracuse other than having a better RPI.
Arkansas
Arkansas lost to 9 of 11 SEC teams.
No team in the SEC West made the Tournament with the exception of Arkansas AND there was only one team lower in the SEC West standings than Arkansas. How does that happen?
Arkansas only beat three tournament teams (Vandy (2) and Southern Illinois).
Arkansas went from Nov 23 to March 3 without beating a single NCAA Tournament team. I'm guessing that the 2006 Air Force team is the only other at-large selection to have such a futile streak.
Arkansas went 4-6 against Tournament teams.
Arkansas had one victory inside the RPI 45.
Arkansas was essentially awarded an at-large bid for finishing the season on a five-game winning streak which culminated in a thumping at the hands of Florida. The five game winning streak came against the powerhouse lineup of Mississippi St., Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi St. It’s too bad every bubble team can’t finish the season with a five-game stretch like that to cement a bid.
Four other SEC teams made the NCAA Tournament other than Arkansas. Arkansas only had to play each team once. Yet, Arkansas still only managed a 7-9 conference record. Compare that to Georgia which finished 8-8 in the conference while playing NINE games against the SEC teams that are in the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas had 12 conference games against teams that didn’t make the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas went 2-8 in true road games.
Arkansas was 6-4 in its last ten.
Arkansas went 9-10 after Jan 9.
Before Arkansas was bailed out by an incredibly easy SEC Tournament draw, it had finished the season on a 6-9 stretch.
Syracuse
Syracuse lost to 6 of 15 Big East teams.
Syracuse finished 5th in the Big East—tied with Marquette and one spot ahead of Villanova.
Syracuse beat five tournament teams including the Big East regular season and tournament champ Georgetown.
Syracuse went 5-5 against NCAA Tournament teams.
Syracuse had three victories in the RPI22
Syracuse went 11-6 after Jan 7.
Syracuse was 7-3 in its last ten.
Syracuse had nine conference games against teams that didn’t make the Tournament
Syracuse went 5-4 in true road games.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Final NCAA Tournament Projections 2007
I’m going to save further analysis until I have sufficient time to address why I have certain teams in the tournament and why I don’t. I just returned from the Big Ten Tournament (did not stay for the Championship game) so I am a bit pressed for time.
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 Oregon
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC UNLV
9 WAC New Mexico St.
10 A-10 George Washington
11 Colonial VCU
12 MAC Miami (OH)
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt North Texas
16 Horizon Wright St.
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Maryland
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Boston College
35 At-Large Georgia Tech
36 At-Large Virginia
37 At-Large Virginia Tech
38 At-Large Tennessee
39 At-Large Kentucky
40 At-Large Vanderbilt
41 At-Large Butler
42 At-Large S. Illinois
43 At-Large Michigan St.
44 At-Large Wisconsin
45 At-Large Indiana
46 At-Large Illinois
47 At-Large Purdue
48 At-Large USC
49 At-Large Arizona
50 At-Large UCLA
51 At-Large Washington St.
52 At-Large Stanford
53 At-Large BYU
54 At-Large Xavier
55 At-Large Nevada
56 At-Large Old Dominion
57 At-Large Syracuse
58 At-Large Villanova
59 At-Large Marquette
60 At-Large Louisville
61 At-Large Notre Dame
62 At-Large Pittsburgh
63 At-Large Texas Tech
64 At-Large Texas A&M
65 At-Large Texas
The Last Five “Out” (in no particular order)
1). Air Force
2). Kansas St.
3). Drexel
4). Missouri St.
5). West Virginia
The Stanford Dilemma
The Selection Committee will have a dilemma on its hands with Stanford. The Cardinal went 4-6 in its last ten games including a 1-4 stretch to end the season. However, its last two losses were against USC and Arizona in overtime so it’s not as if Stanford had been playing poorly. Also, few teams in college basketball can even come close to matching Stanford’s quality of wins this year. Here is a list of the teams that Stanford beat along with the RPI of those teams (all of which are likely at-large selections):
#2 UCLA
#21 Oregon
#26 Washington St.
#40 USC
#53 Texas Tech
#54 Virginia
Combine those wins with the fact that a) Stanford finished 10-8 in a stacked Pac-10 and, more importantly, Stanford didn’t lose a single game this season to a team outside of the RPI100. In my opinion, there is no way any one of the five “out” teams above can compete with Stanford’s resume. Although, I am skeptical of the Selection Committee’s ability to figure this out. There already seems to be a collective agreement among the “experts” that Stanford is “out”. That would be ridiculous, IMO.
The # 1’s and #2’s
I don’t want to get too much into guessing the seeds for the tournament but, I’ll give you the number one seeds as I see them.
#1’s:
Ohio St.
Florida
UCLA
North Carolina
#2’s:
Kansas
Wisconsin
Georgetown
Memphis
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#30 Air Force
#35 Arkansas
#36 Missouri St.
#38 Bradley
#41 Florida St.
#43 Drexel
#45 Utah St.
#46 Clemson
#48 Alabama
#49 Oklahoma St.
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#65 Stanford
#54 Virginia
#53 Texas Tech
#53 Georgia Tech
#51 Syracuse
#47 Vanderbilt
#44 Purdue
#40 USC
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Louisville
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (7)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (2)
UNLV
BYU
CAA (2)
VCU
Old Dominion
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 Oregon
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC UNLV
9 WAC New Mexico St.
10 A-10 George Washington
11 Colonial VCU
12 MAC Miami (OH)
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt North Texas
16 Horizon Wright St.
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Maryland
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Boston College
35 At-Large Georgia Tech
36 At-Large Virginia
37 At-Large Virginia Tech
38 At-Large Tennessee
39 At-Large Kentucky
40 At-Large Vanderbilt
41 At-Large Butler
42 At-Large S. Illinois
43 At-Large Michigan St.
44 At-Large Wisconsin
45 At-Large Indiana
46 At-Large Illinois
47 At-Large Purdue
48 At-Large USC
49 At-Large Arizona
50 At-Large UCLA
51 At-Large Washington St.
52 At-Large Stanford
53 At-Large BYU
54 At-Large Xavier
55 At-Large Nevada
56 At-Large Old Dominion
57 At-Large Syracuse
58 At-Large Villanova
59 At-Large Marquette
60 At-Large Louisville
61 At-Large Notre Dame
62 At-Large Pittsburgh
63 At-Large Texas Tech
64 At-Large Texas A&M
65 At-Large Texas
The Last Five “Out” (in no particular order)
1). Air Force
2). Kansas St.
3). Drexel
4). Missouri St.
5). West Virginia
The Stanford Dilemma
The Selection Committee will have a dilemma on its hands with Stanford. The Cardinal went 4-6 in its last ten games including a 1-4 stretch to end the season. However, its last two losses were against USC and Arizona in overtime so it’s not as if Stanford had been playing poorly. Also, few teams in college basketball can even come close to matching Stanford’s quality of wins this year. Here is a list of the teams that Stanford beat along with the RPI of those teams (all of which are likely at-large selections):
#2 UCLA
#21 Oregon
#26 Washington St.
#40 USC
#53 Texas Tech
#54 Virginia
Combine those wins with the fact that a) Stanford finished 10-8 in a stacked Pac-10 and, more importantly, Stanford didn’t lose a single game this season to a team outside of the RPI100. In my opinion, there is no way any one of the five “out” teams above can compete with Stanford’s resume. Although, I am skeptical of the Selection Committee’s ability to figure this out. There already seems to be a collective agreement among the “experts” that Stanford is “out”. That would be ridiculous, IMO.
The # 1’s and #2’s
I don’t want to get too much into guessing the seeds for the tournament but, I’ll give you the number one seeds as I see them.
#1’s:
Ohio St.
Florida
UCLA
North Carolina
#2’s:
Kansas
Wisconsin
Georgetown
Memphis
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#30 Air Force
#35 Arkansas
#36 Missouri St.
#38 Bradley
#41 Florida St.
#43 Drexel
#45 Utah St.
#46 Clemson
#48 Alabama
#49 Oklahoma St.
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#65 Stanford
#54 Virginia
#53 Texas Tech
#53 Georgia Tech
#51 Syracuse
#47 Vanderbilt
#44 Purdue
#40 USC
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Louisville
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (7)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (2)
UNLV
BYU
CAA (2)
VCU
Old Dominion
Monday, March 05, 2007
NCAA Tournament Projections (Week of March 5)
There were some big-time choke jobs in college basketball last week. San Diego St. had an at-large bid seemingly wrapped up before inexplicably losing to Utah. Oklahoma St. simply needed to beat Baylor and Nebraska in its last two games but Mario Boggan got himself suspended for the Baylor game which OSU promptly lost. Kudos to Sean Sutton for choosing integrity over an NCAA Tournament bid because that’s what his suspension of Boggan ended up meaning. Michigan had a bid-clinching win in hand against #1 Ohio St. before falling apart at the end of the game. Alabama blew any chance it had at making the tournament by losing to Mississippi St. to cap a 2-5 finish to its season. While those teams were throwing their seasons away, Georgia Tech seems to have entered the 65-team field with authority having beaten North Carolina and Boston College to climb to 8-8 in the ACC.
I am fairly confident with regards to which teams will make up 63 of the 65 spots. The last two spots are going to depend on the conference tournaments. Teams like Kansas St. and DePaul will have a chance to validate themselves to the committee. If Nevada, Xavier, Butler, and Memphis don’t win their conference tournaments, then that will eliminate an opening. Likewise, if any of the teams that I don’t have projected from the major conferences win their conference tournament, then that will also eliminate a bid. There are teams that look to be safely in the tournament that could be out of luck if craziness presides this week.
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
Changes from last week:
In: Georgia Tech and VCU/George Mason winner
Out: Missouri St. and San Diego St.
(Automatic bids in Bold)
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial VCU/George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt Western Kentucky
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Marist
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Vermont
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Duke
33 At-Large Virginia
34 At-Large Michigan St.
35 At-Large Virginia Tech
36 At-Large Maryland
37 At-Large Boston College
38 At-Large BYU
39 At-Large Tennessee
40 At-Large Kentucky
41 At-Large Louisville
42 At-Large Drexel
43 At-Large Ga. Tech
44 At-Large Villanova
45 At-Large Marquette
46 At-Large West Virginia
47 At-Large Illinois
48 At-Large Pittsburgh
49 At-Large Notre Dame
50 At-Large Syracuse
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Texas A&M
53 At-Large Texas Tech
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Purdue
57 At-Large Arizona
58 At-Large Oregon
59 At-Large Washington St.
60 At-Large USC
61 At-Large UNLV
62 At-Large Vanderbilt
63 At-Large Old Dominion
64 At-Large Stanford
65 At-Large S. Illinois
My projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be five or more 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, if not more.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. West Virginia
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 38
SOS: 98
W/L: 20-8
Record vs. RPI50: 2-6
Quality wins: Villanova, DePaul, and UCLA
Bad losses: @ Cincinnati
I really have no idea what the Selection Committee will do with West Virginia. The Mountaineers have two wins over tournament teams. That is way too low for any team to feel confident about receiving a bid. I’m guessing that the next mid-major to unexpectedly win a conference tournament will bump West Virginia out of the field.
2. Drexel
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 83
SOS: 96
W/L: 22-6
Record vs. RPI50: 3-4
Quality wins: @ Villanova, @ Syracuse, @ Hofstra, and @ Creighton
Bad losses: @ Pennsylvania, @ Rider, and @ William & Mary
Creighton winning the MVC Tournament definitely helped Drexel’s profile. Drexel won at Creighton earlier in the year. George Mason’s run in the CAA Tournament has also helped Drexel since Drexel defeated George Mason, too. What didn’t help Drexel was not making it to the CAA Tournament semi-finals. I do think an impressive road record and a number of quality wins will be enough to get Drexel an invitation.
3. Illinois
RPI rating: 35
Pomeroy rating: 22
SOS: 36
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-8
Quality wins: Bradley (neutral), Missouri (neutral), Indiana, Michigan St., and Michigan
Bad losses: @ Iowa
Illinois is hiding behind its 9-7 Big Ten record. That really is all it has in the name of compelling reasons to receive an at-large bid. Illinois is also benefiting from the fact that there are so many “bubble” teams that have wasted opportunities to solidify a bid. There is no doubt in my mind that if Illinois loses its first game in the BTT, it will be out.
4 Stanford
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 53
SOS: 23
W/L: 18-11
Record vs. RPI50: 5-6
Quality wins: Texas Tech, @ Virginia, Washington St., USC, UCLA, and Oregon
Bad losses: California and Santa Clara
Stanford is a lot like Georgia Tech and Texas Tech. They all have very impressive wins without gaudy overall records or conference records. The candidates for at-large bids are so weak that I don’t think a team with as many good wins as Stanford will be left out. Stanford’s low RPI will be troubling to the Selection Committee but no team that I have projected “out” of the tournament can compete with the six wins I have listed above.
5. Purdue
RPI rating: 45
Pomeroy rating: 26
SOS: 48
W/L: 20-10
Record vs. RPI50: 4-6
Quality wins: Virginia, DePaul (neutral), Illinois, Michigan St. and Indiana
Bad losses: @ Indiana St. and @ Minnesota
Two different college basketball experts will likely have two totally different views on Purdue. One person may be impressed by Purdue’s relatively impressive group of non-conference wins (Virginia, DePaul, Missouri, and Oklahoma) while another may be repulsed by the ease of Purdue’s Big Ten schedule. Purdue got to play Northwestern, Penn St. and Minnesota twice each which is a huge asset in the Big Ten. At the same time, Purdue only had to play Wisconsin, Michigan St., and Illinois once. There is no doubt in my mind that had Purdue had Michigan St. or Michigan’s Big Ten schedule, the Boilermakers would have been under .500 in the conference. I’m sure that the Selection Committee will be aware of that. Purdue must win its first game in the BTT or it’s out.
On the outside looking in:
1. Missouri St.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 43
SOS: 38
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: Wisconsin (neutral), Bradley, @ Bradley
Bad losses: @ Evansville, Northern Iowa, and @ St. Louis
IMO, Missouri St. was the first victim of a conference tournament upset. Neither VCU nor George Mason was going to get an at-large bid so that squeezes one team out of the tournament field. Missouri St. was, by far, the third best team in the MVC. Unfortunately for MVC, Creighton was by far the second best team. There is such a large gap between Creighton and Missouri St. that I think the Selection Committee will feel comfortable making a cutoff between those schools.
2. Kansas St.
RPI rating: 59
Pomeroy rating: 51
SOS: 95
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 1-5
Quality wins: USC (neutral) and @ Texas
Bad losses: @ Nebraska, @ Colorado St., and @ New Mexico
This one is a 50/50 toss-up. A 10-6 conference record has been enough to get a team from a major conference an at-large bid 99% of the time. Very few of those schools had schedules as easy as KSU’s though. If I had to make an argument for KSU, I would have a hard time doing so. The Wildcats haven’t beaten anyone of note in the conference with the exception of one win over Texas. This is a team that benefited from, quite possibly, the easiest major conference schedule of all-time. KSU’s resume doesn’t compare favorably to any of the at-large teams, let a lone a team like Michigan who has no chance of an at-large bid. Ten conferences wins is a magic number. For that reason—and that reason only—KSU has to be near the top of the “bubble” list.
3. San Diego St.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 77
SOS: 78
W/L: 19-9
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: California, Air Force, BYU, and UNLV
Bad losses: @ Western Michigan, Wyoming and @ Wyoming
Unbelievable. I was in shock when I saw that San Diego St. lost to Utah last week. All SDSU had to do was beat Utah and it would have been headed to the NCAA Tournament. No single loss was more damaging to any team in the NCAA this season. The only chance SDSU has now is to knock off one of the Mountain West’s big three and reach the finals of the MWC Tournament. It’s possible but unlikely. SDSU blew it big time.
4. Appalachian St.
RPI rating: 62
Pomeroy rating: 87
SOS: 156
W/L: 22-7
Record vs. RPI50: 3-2
Quality wins: Virginia (neutral), Vanderbilt (neutral), @ VCU, and @ Davidson
Bad losses: @ Wake Forest, Elon, @ NC Greensboro, @ Furman, and College of Charleston (neutral)
Appalachian St. has the bad combination of being a mid-major with a poor RPI. Some major schools can get away with a poor RPI but mid-majors almost always need an impressive RPI to garner consideration. Appalachian St. has some good wins but they are outnumbered by the amount of bad wins. I think this team would have received an at-large bid had it not lost three games to teams with an RPI of 190 or worse.
5. DePaul/Clemson/Oklahoma St./Massachusetts/Michigan/Alabama/Florida St.
I’m not going to bother with the statistical breakdown of these teams. None of these teams have a real good shot at making the tournament. Any team that loses its first conference tournament game will be out. Michigan needs to make it to the BTT Semi-Finals. DePaul needs three wins (two if one of them is against a very good team). Oklahoma St. needs to make the Big XII Championship game. Alabama needs to do the same in the SEC. Massachusetts needs to make the A10 Championship game. Clemson and Florida St. need to get to the ACC Semi-Finals. None of those things are guarantees for a bid. They are merely requirements to stay in contention.
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#36 Clemson
#38 Missouri St.
#42 Alabama
#44 Bradley
#47 Florida St.
#48 Arkansas
#52 Oklahoma St.
#53 Michigan
#55 San Diego St.
#56 Massachusetts
#59 Kansas St.
#60 Mississippi
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#58 West Virginia
#57 Stanford
#54 USC
#50 Syracuse
#46 Drexel
#45 Purdue
#43 Virginia
#41 Louisville
#40 Texas Tech
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Vanderbilt
#35 Illinois
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (8)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
W. Virginia
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (3)
Air Force
UNLV
BYU
CAA (3)
George Mason/VCU
Old Dominion
Drexel
I am fairly confident with regards to which teams will make up 63 of the 65 spots. The last two spots are going to depend on the conference tournaments. Teams like Kansas St. and DePaul will have a chance to validate themselves to the committee. If Nevada, Xavier, Butler, and Memphis don’t win their conference tournaments, then that will eliminate an opening. Likewise, if any of the teams that I don’t have projected from the major conferences win their conference tournament, then that will also eliminate a bid. There are teams that look to be safely in the tournament that could be out of luck if craziness presides this week.
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
Changes from last week:
In: Georgia Tech and VCU/George Mason winner
Out: Missouri St. and San Diego St.
(Automatic bids in Bold)
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial VCU/George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt Western Kentucky
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Marist
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Vermont
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Duke
33 At-Large Virginia
34 At-Large Michigan St.
35 At-Large Virginia Tech
36 At-Large Maryland
37 At-Large Boston College
38 At-Large BYU
39 At-Large Tennessee
40 At-Large Kentucky
41 At-Large Louisville
42 At-Large Drexel
43 At-Large Ga. Tech
44 At-Large Villanova
45 At-Large Marquette
46 At-Large West Virginia
47 At-Large Illinois
48 At-Large Pittsburgh
49 At-Large Notre Dame
50 At-Large Syracuse
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Texas A&M
53 At-Large Texas Tech
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Purdue
57 At-Large Arizona
58 At-Large Oregon
59 At-Large Washington St.
60 At-Large USC
61 At-Large UNLV
62 At-Large Vanderbilt
63 At-Large Old Dominion
64 At-Large Stanford
65 At-Large S. Illinois
My projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be five or more 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, if not more.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. West Virginia
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 38
SOS: 98
W/L: 20-8
Record vs. RPI50: 2-6
Quality wins: Villanova, DePaul, and UCLA
Bad losses: @ Cincinnati
I really have no idea what the Selection Committee will do with West Virginia. The Mountaineers have two wins over tournament teams. That is way too low for any team to feel confident about receiving a bid. I’m guessing that the next mid-major to unexpectedly win a conference tournament will bump West Virginia out of the field.
2. Drexel
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 83
SOS: 96
W/L: 22-6
Record vs. RPI50: 3-4
Quality wins: @ Villanova, @ Syracuse, @ Hofstra, and @ Creighton
Bad losses: @ Pennsylvania, @ Rider, and @ William & Mary
Creighton winning the MVC Tournament definitely helped Drexel’s profile. Drexel won at Creighton earlier in the year. George Mason’s run in the CAA Tournament has also helped Drexel since Drexel defeated George Mason, too. What didn’t help Drexel was not making it to the CAA Tournament semi-finals. I do think an impressive road record and a number of quality wins will be enough to get Drexel an invitation.
3. Illinois
RPI rating: 35
Pomeroy rating: 22
SOS: 36
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-8
Quality wins: Bradley (neutral), Missouri (neutral), Indiana, Michigan St., and Michigan
Bad losses: @ Iowa
Illinois is hiding behind its 9-7 Big Ten record. That really is all it has in the name of compelling reasons to receive an at-large bid. Illinois is also benefiting from the fact that there are so many “bubble” teams that have wasted opportunities to solidify a bid. There is no doubt in my mind that if Illinois loses its first game in the BTT, it will be out.
4 Stanford
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 53
SOS: 23
W/L: 18-11
Record vs. RPI50: 5-6
Quality wins: Texas Tech, @ Virginia, Washington St., USC, UCLA, and Oregon
Bad losses: California and Santa Clara
Stanford is a lot like Georgia Tech and Texas Tech. They all have very impressive wins without gaudy overall records or conference records. The candidates for at-large bids are so weak that I don’t think a team with as many good wins as Stanford will be left out. Stanford’s low RPI will be troubling to the Selection Committee but no team that I have projected “out” of the tournament can compete with the six wins I have listed above.
5. Purdue
RPI rating: 45
Pomeroy rating: 26
SOS: 48
W/L: 20-10
Record vs. RPI50: 4-6
Quality wins: Virginia, DePaul (neutral), Illinois, Michigan St. and Indiana
Bad losses: @ Indiana St. and @ Minnesota
Two different college basketball experts will likely have two totally different views on Purdue. One person may be impressed by Purdue’s relatively impressive group of non-conference wins (Virginia, DePaul, Missouri, and Oklahoma) while another may be repulsed by the ease of Purdue’s Big Ten schedule. Purdue got to play Northwestern, Penn St. and Minnesota twice each which is a huge asset in the Big Ten. At the same time, Purdue only had to play Wisconsin, Michigan St., and Illinois once. There is no doubt in my mind that had Purdue had Michigan St. or Michigan’s Big Ten schedule, the Boilermakers would have been under .500 in the conference. I’m sure that the Selection Committee will be aware of that. Purdue must win its first game in the BTT or it’s out.
On the outside looking in:
1. Missouri St.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 43
SOS: 38
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: Wisconsin (neutral), Bradley, @ Bradley
Bad losses: @ Evansville, Northern Iowa, and @ St. Louis
IMO, Missouri St. was the first victim of a conference tournament upset. Neither VCU nor George Mason was going to get an at-large bid so that squeezes one team out of the tournament field. Missouri St. was, by far, the third best team in the MVC. Unfortunately for MVC, Creighton was by far the second best team. There is such a large gap between Creighton and Missouri St. that I think the Selection Committee will feel comfortable making a cutoff between those schools.
2. Kansas St.
RPI rating: 59
Pomeroy rating: 51
SOS: 95
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 1-5
Quality wins: USC (neutral) and @ Texas
Bad losses: @ Nebraska, @ Colorado St., and @ New Mexico
This one is a 50/50 toss-up. A 10-6 conference record has been enough to get a team from a major conference an at-large bid 99% of the time. Very few of those schools had schedules as easy as KSU’s though. If I had to make an argument for KSU, I would have a hard time doing so. The Wildcats haven’t beaten anyone of note in the conference with the exception of one win over Texas. This is a team that benefited from, quite possibly, the easiest major conference schedule of all-time. KSU’s resume doesn’t compare favorably to any of the at-large teams, let a lone a team like Michigan who has no chance of an at-large bid. Ten conferences wins is a magic number. For that reason—and that reason only—KSU has to be near the top of the “bubble” list.
3. San Diego St.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 77
SOS: 78
W/L: 19-9
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: California, Air Force, BYU, and UNLV
Bad losses: @ Western Michigan, Wyoming and @ Wyoming
Unbelievable. I was in shock when I saw that San Diego St. lost to Utah last week. All SDSU had to do was beat Utah and it would have been headed to the NCAA Tournament. No single loss was more damaging to any team in the NCAA this season. The only chance SDSU has now is to knock off one of the Mountain West’s big three and reach the finals of the MWC Tournament. It’s possible but unlikely. SDSU blew it big time.
4. Appalachian St.
RPI rating: 62
Pomeroy rating: 87
SOS: 156
W/L: 22-7
Record vs. RPI50: 3-2
Quality wins: Virginia (neutral), Vanderbilt (neutral), @ VCU, and @ Davidson
Bad losses: @ Wake Forest, Elon, @ NC Greensboro, @ Furman, and College of Charleston (neutral)
Appalachian St. has the bad combination of being a mid-major with a poor RPI. Some major schools can get away with a poor RPI but mid-majors almost always need an impressive RPI to garner consideration. Appalachian St. has some good wins but they are outnumbered by the amount of bad wins. I think this team would have received an at-large bid had it not lost three games to teams with an RPI of 190 or worse.
5. DePaul/Clemson/Oklahoma St./Massachusetts/Michigan/Alabama/Florida St.
I’m not going to bother with the statistical breakdown of these teams. None of these teams have a real good shot at making the tournament. Any team that loses its first conference tournament game will be out. Michigan needs to make it to the BTT Semi-Finals. DePaul needs three wins (two if one of them is against a very good team). Oklahoma St. needs to make the Big XII Championship game. Alabama needs to do the same in the SEC. Massachusetts needs to make the A10 Championship game. Clemson and Florida St. need to get to the ACC Semi-Finals. None of those things are guarantees for a bid. They are merely requirements to stay in contention.
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#36 Clemson
#38 Missouri St.
#42 Alabama
#44 Bradley
#47 Florida St.
#48 Arkansas
#52 Oklahoma St.
#53 Michigan
#55 San Diego St.
#56 Massachusetts
#59 Kansas St.
#60 Mississippi
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#58 West Virginia
#57 Stanford
#54 USC
#50 Syracuse
#46 Drexel
#45 Purdue
#43 Virginia
#41 Louisville
#40 Texas Tech
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Vanderbilt
#35 Illinois
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (8)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
W. Virginia
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (3)
Air Force
UNLV
BYU
CAA (3)
George Mason/VCU
Old Dominion
Drexel
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Year of the Bondo
At the risk of jumping the gun, I think this could be the year Jeremy Bonderman breaks through as a league-wide force in MLB. Bonderman has been lauded in recent years for his “talent”. Most notably, Curt Schilling said that if he were to start a team from scratch, Bonderman would be one of his five starters. That is high praise coming from a pitcher that is what many people feel Bonderman could become if everything works out perfectly. Bonderman’s slider is already considered one of the best in the game. Even still, his shortcomings are well noted—probably even more noted than his strengths. He doesn’t (or hadn’t by the end of ’06) have an effective third pitch. He is susceptible to giving up big innings. He often leaves his fastball over the heart of the plate. He only pitches as well as his last pitch. As soon as things start to unravel, things only seem to get worse. Fortunately for Bonderman, all of those things are fixable. It is possible—not likely but possible nonetheless—that those things were worked out over this past winter. It is more likely that it will take a few years to iron out those glitches.
I don’t have any sound data to back this up but I am pretty sure that Bonderman is the most popular answer to the recent marketing-inspired question/phenomenon, “Who’s your Tiger?” That’s my answer and I know a lot of people that echo the same response. Bonderman is one of those rare athletes that develops a huge following before reaching their potential. “Bondermania” started picking up steam two years ago when “Bondo” won 11 games before the All-Star break in ‘05. His All-Star game snub did not go over well in Detroit. But, a weak second half and an up and down 2006 have left Tigers fans begging for consistency. Personally, following Bondo’s starts has me on an emotional rollercoaster. Every “up” is followed by a “down.” In fact, there are some nights when I know I’m not in the mood to handle a Bondo meltdown so I don’t even watch. As unpredictable as Bondo has been, he can be equally as brilliant. His series-clinching performance against the Yankees was so mesmerizing that it captivated two stadiums filled to capacity. I didn’t even get a chance to watch it. I relied solely on the couple in front of me at the UM/MSU game who were listening to the game via radio. That was as euphoric a scene as this sports fan has ever seen (other than the mayhem that was Charles Woodson's punt return against OSU in '97). The only thing that could compete with being at Comerica Park for the event might be sitting with 111,000 people in disbelief. Bondo had a perfect game through five (only one other player has done that in the post-season over the last 20 years) against one of the best lineups ever assembled. If that doesn’t thrust Bondo into the big-time, then I don’t know what will.
A lot of Tigers fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when Dave Dombrowski managed to reach an agreement on an extension with Bonderman. That assures Bonderman will be with the franchise for the foreseeable future—and if his standing among other greats at the age of 24 is any indication, that could be a very successful foreseeable future. Here is how he stands among the great pitchers of the last 20 years in terms of wins by the age of 25:
Jeremy Bonderman 45 + ’07 Total
Greg Maddux 61
Roger Clemens 52
Pedro Martinez 48
Tom Glavine 33
Curt Schilling 4
Randy Johnson 0
If Bonderman can win 17 games in 2007, he’ll be ahead of every pitcher on the list—a list that is made entirely of future Hall of Famers. The encouraging thing is that, like the above pitchers at the age of 25, Bonderman hasn’t reached his prime yet. I’m inclined to believe that Bondo’s first four seasons have set the stage for his coming out party in season five. He has improved every season of his four-year career. His 2006 numbers featured career bests in Wins, Innings, ERA, HR’s allowed, K’s, Games Started, and Losses. For a 23-year old, Bonderman’s 2006 season has to go down as very good. As long as Bonderman continues the trend of constant improvement, his 2007 season should be stellar.
There has been a lot made of the need for Bondo to develop an effective third pitch. Bonderman himself admits that he’ll never reach “ace” status without it. Google “Bonderman needs an effective third pitch” for a slew of confirmations. Unfortunately, the notion that Bondo needs another pitch is true. I would bet that the vast majority of Bonderman’s struggles have come as a result of the batter being able to narrow his next pitch down to two choices. Span those two choices over seven innings and you have the makings for a lot of bad things. To Bondo’s credit, he has had to pitch brilliantly just to stay afloat with those two pitches. A third pitch would just make him nasty in the Johan Santana mold.
It is very easy to like Bonderman. I think that’s why he—and not any other Tiger—has been chosen as the people’s Tiger. He started off his career under the worst possible circumstances. He became the first US born player to be drafted as a junior in High School only to be publicly ridiculed in Moneyball for being a monumental mistake made by Oakland GM Billy Beane. He was traded to the worst franchise in MLB at the age of 19. He lost 19 games in his rookie year (could have been 20 if he wasn’t benched the last week of the season) with one of the worst teams ever assembled. What makes him so likeable is how he responded to those things. In 2005, he became the youngest opening day starter (22) in MLB since 1986. He has improved in each of his four seasons without as much as a single gripe. He has openly professed his desire to play in Detroit. Nothing has come easy for Bondo which makes his success that much more gratifying for Tigers fans.
I don’t have any sound data to back this up but I am pretty sure that Bonderman is the most popular answer to the recent marketing-inspired question/phenomenon, “Who’s your Tiger?” That’s my answer and I know a lot of people that echo the same response. Bonderman is one of those rare athletes that develops a huge following before reaching their potential. “Bondermania” started picking up steam two years ago when “Bondo” won 11 games before the All-Star break in ‘05. His All-Star game snub did not go over well in Detroit. But, a weak second half and an up and down 2006 have left Tigers fans begging for consistency. Personally, following Bondo’s starts has me on an emotional rollercoaster. Every “up” is followed by a “down.” In fact, there are some nights when I know I’m not in the mood to handle a Bondo meltdown so I don’t even watch. As unpredictable as Bondo has been, he can be equally as brilliant. His series-clinching performance against the Yankees was so mesmerizing that it captivated two stadiums filled to capacity. I didn’t even get a chance to watch it. I relied solely on the couple in front of me at the UM/MSU game who were listening to the game via radio. That was as euphoric a scene as this sports fan has ever seen (other than the mayhem that was Charles Woodson's punt return against OSU in '97). The only thing that could compete with being at Comerica Park for the event might be sitting with 111,000 people in disbelief. Bondo had a perfect game through five (only one other player has done that in the post-season over the last 20 years) against one of the best lineups ever assembled. If that doesn’t thrust Bondo into the big-time, then I don’t know what will.
A lot of Tigers fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when Dave Dombrowski managed to reach an agreement on an extension with Bonderman. That assures Bonderman will be with the franchise for the foreseeable future—and if his standing among other greats at the age of 24 is any indication, that could be a very successful foreseeable future. Here is how he stands among the great pitchers of the last 20 years in terms of wins by the age of 25:
Jeremy Bonderman 45 + ’07 Total
Greg Maddux 61
Roger Clemens 52
Pedro Martinez 48
Tom Glavine 33
Curt Schilling 4
Randy Johnson 0
If Bonderman can win 17 games in 2007, he’ll be ahead of every pitcher on the list—a list that is made entirely of future Hall of Famers. The encouraging thing is that, like the above pitchers at the age of 25, Bonderman hasn’t reached his prime yet. I’m inclined to believe that Bondo’s first four seasons have set the stage for his coming out party in season five. He has improved every season of his four-year career. His 2006 numbers featured career bests in Wins, Innings, ERA, HR’s allowed, K’s, Games Started, and Losses. For a 23-year old, Bonderman’s 2006 season has to go down as very good. As long as Bonderman continues the trend of constant improvement, his 2007 season should be stellar.
There has been a lot made of the need for Bondo to develop an effective third pitch. Bonderman himself admits that he’ll never reach “ace” status without it. Google “Bonderman needs an effective third pitch” for a slew of confirmations. Unfortunately, the notion that Bondo needs another pitch is true. I would bet that the vast majority of Bonderman’s struggles have come as a result of the batter being able to narrow his next pitch down to two choices. Span those two choices over seven innings and you have the makings for a lot of bad things. To Bondo’s credit, he has had to pitch brilliantly just to stay afloat with those two pitches. A third pitch would just make him nasty in the Johan Santana mold.
It is very easy to like Bonderman. I think that’s why he—and not any other Tiger—has been chosen as the people’s Tiger. He started off his career under the worst possible circumstances. He became the first US born player to be drafted as a junior in High School only to be publicly ridiculed in Moneyball for being a monumental mistake made by Oakland GM Billy Beane. He was traded to the worst franchise in MLB at the age of 19. He lost 19 games in his rookie year (could have been 20 if he wasn’t benched the last week of the season) with one of the worst teams ever assembled. What makes him so likeable is how he responded to those things. In 2005, he became the youngest opening day starter (22) in MLB since 1986. He has improved in each of his four seasons without as much as a single gripe. He has openly professed his desire to play in Detroit. Nothing has come easy for Bondo which makes his success that much more gratifying for Tigers fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
