When Rich Rodriguez brought his superstar Strength & Conditioning Coach (Mike “The Animal” Barwis) with him from West Virginia, everyone knew that Michigan’s doughnut-soft bodies were in for a restructuring. Barwis expects offensive and defensive linemen to run as much as everyone else. They don’t get breaks because they’re 300+ lbs. Justin Boren—a five-star sophomore legacy who happens to be one of those 300+ guys—apparently doesn’t like to run. And by “doesn’t like to run”, I mean he would rather quit football, desecrate the Michigan football program, and transfer to Ohio St. instead of running.
I don’t have an issue with a college football player transferring out of a program. It happens all the time and it happens to Michigan every year. There are a million acceptable reasons to transfer and I’m pretty sure that whatever Boren’s reason is can be found among those “million.” His decision to transfer isn’t the problem. It’s the vindictive way in which he managed to handle it. Boren’s dad said of his son’s decision, "We wanted to have this go away quietly”. They wanted it to go away so quietly that they issued a press release which no transferring college athlete ever does and said things like, “I have great trouble accepting that those family values have eroded in just a few months.”
Those of you who have ever had a Michigan football player in one of your classes know that the chances Justin Boren wrote that press release himself hovers around 10%. Whoever wrote it—whether it be his dad or someone else close to him—took a shot that was in incredibly poor taste. There were a number of former football players who held a grudge against the Athletic Department for not reeling in Les Miles after Lloyd Carr retired. I can only guess that many of those same players were disgusted to see Michigan overhaul its entire football program by allowing Rodriguez to install the spread-offense. Desmond Howard has made comments on how Michigan shouldn’t have hired Rodriguez and he is definitely not the only one. I’m guessing Mike Boren can be counted among that group as well. It’s rarely a surprise to anyone when a college athlete wants to transfer. However, it really not a surprise when the kid who is transferring is the son of one of those disenchanted ex-football players. I’m pretty sure that explains the potshot on the way out about “eroding family values.” I’m also pretty sure that explains Mike Boren’s attempts to get Ohio St. to take in his son. I’m not sure there has ever been a Michigan football starter who transferred to Ohio St. It just doesn’t happen.
Anyone who paid any attention whatsoever to the comments made by Rodriguez’s former football players at West Virginia knows that Rodriguez and his players are extremely close. They vouched for his program and his values. Many of them have come to Ann Arbor to continue working out in anticipation for the NFL Draft. The whole state of West Virginia was infatuated with Rodriguez until he left for bluer pastures. So “eroding family values” in just two months screams of desperation. It’s perfectly OK to transfer. It’s not even close to OK when you try to hurt the reputation of your former school on the way out by bringing into question the values of the head coach. That is a low blow even by college football standards. The Boren’s should be ashamed of themselves—which I can assure you that they most certainly are not—for turning an innocent desire to transfer into an unprovoked attack on the Michigan football program. Boren’s actions are infinitely more reprehensible than someone like Eric Gordon or Brandon Inge. Gordon changed his mind while he was still in high school. Inge--albeit incredibly misguided--is simply upset about diminished playing time. Boren quit his team, disparaged it on the way out, and is openly seeking refuge with the arch-rival. At least Michigan will know who the least conditioned player on Ohio St’s O-Line is when they play the Buckeyes in 2009.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Inge is exhausting
I was able to hold off on three prior attempts to write about the incredibly annoying Brandon Inge but I have failed miserably at holding off on a fourth attempt. Inge has whined and sulked his way from the New Year all the way through spring training disgruntling even his most avid supporters. The Detroit Tigers blogosphere has previously addressed this topic en mass and I probably don't have a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said in one form or another. Jim Leyland has done his best to quash the situation by saying things like, “His attitude is tremendous. Our relationship is tremendous. He'll leave camp happier and a bit more at ease, and he deserves that." I appreciate what Leyland is trying to do here but I cry “foul.” The Tigers are days away from starting the season and this is what Inge had to say about his good fortune at being named a starter for the first two weeks of the season due to Curtis Granderson’s broken hand, “I'm glad I'm playing, but it's for two weeks". That sentence would’ve been acceptable without the “but” and everything after it.
Inge has expressed his displeasure at being a back-up third baseman, back-up catcher and everything else involving the word “backup” all the while saying he just wants what’s best for the team. While the rest of the Tigers were absolutely ecstatic about the arrival of Miguel Cabrera, Inge has been a “wet blanket”. I have read on numerous occasions how Inge’s comments are understandable for a professional athlete because it’s in his nature to be ultra-competitive thus there’s no way he could or should be happy about losing his job. That’s fine. Inge doesn’t have to be happy about not starting. However, there is a huge difference between not being happy and letting everyone know it. I’m guessing if the majority of Americans expressed themselves in a similar way at their place of employment, they would be reprimanded at the very least and possibly fired. It is totally unprofessional to openly discuss your dissatisfaction at your company especially when said dissatisfaction is because the company is moving in a better direction at your expense. It becomes even more unprofessional when said company keeps paying you the money you were promised. There is nothing OK about how Inge has handled this situation. He didn’t lose his job. He still makes $6.2 million for one of the best baseball teams in the league. One thing is for certain, if you’re going to complain as much as Inge has, you better be frickin’ good—and Inge is not.
Despite Inge’s obvious displeasure, the Tigers have bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes. They’ve attempted to trade him on numerous occasions. They’ve tried him out at a number of positions to increase his chances of seeing the field. They’ve let him say things like, “I don’t want to catch” without telling him to shut up. I’m not sure what Inge thinks is fair treatment but the Tigers have been too understanding, in my opinion. Leyland gave a paradoxical quote that underscores just how understanding the Tigers have been. Leyland said, “Read the paper this morning. It’s obvious. He does not want to catch. I’m not going to force somebody to catch. He’s doing all the right things, saying all the right things. He’s a professional. He’s one of my favorites. I want him to play third base somewhere everyday. Is that going to happen? I have no clue.” Again, I appreciate Leyland’s intentions here but there are a number of things that speak to Inge’s unprofessionalism in that quote. First, Leyland says to read the paper to find out that its obvious that Inge doesn’t want to catch. Why is Inge taking his case to the media? Then, Leyland says that Inge is “doing all the right things, saying all the right things.” Huh? That’s not even remotely believable. Since when does, “I don’t want to catch” constitute saying and doing all the right things? Inge should feel fortunate that the Tigers don’t just dump him or trade him to a bottom-feeder. Does Inge really think there’s an abundance of MLB teams looking for a starting third baseman who carries around a .241 batting average?
Any knowledgeable baseball fan knew a long time ago that Inge was a liability in the Tigers lineup. He is lucky that the Tigers were willing to put up with his porous offense for as long as they did. He has “back-up” skills and it wasn’t until last December that the Tigers addressed his deficiencies by bringing in Cabrera. Inge is not a man with leverage. He is a terrible hitter by almost any measure. There is no hiding his 85 OPS+ which is an appalling number at any position let alone a corner infield position. His career OBP is a putrid .304. His K to BB ratio is an abominable 3 to 1. He makes the occasional spectacular play in the field but there is no way his defense makes up for his wretched offense.
The biggest beef I have is Inge’s inability to keep his negative comments to himself. He has to know that Cabrera is one of the best things to happen to the Tigers in decades. Inge gets paid to be a good teammate and perform when called upon. Nowhere in his contract does it state that he is to be a starter. I totally understand that nobody wants to take a diminished role but Inge won’t play for the Tigers forever. The team will explore trade options and he will likely play for a different team in the somewhat-near future. I fault Inge big-time for not seeing the big picture. There is pretty close to a 100% chance that Inge will get an opportunity to battle for a starting position sometime, somewhere in the future. In the intermediate, he is the #1 reserve at virtually every position which means he’ll get his fair share of at-bats. The fact that Inge will be the Opening Day-starter in centerfield is proof of that. I just wish he could appreciate the opportunity rather than take it for granted. Maybe next time he can simply say, “I’m glad I’m playing” and save the “but” for an ungrateful clown in another city.
Inge has expressed his displeasure at being a back-up third baseman, back-up catcher and everything else involving the word “backup” all the while saying he just wants what’s best for the team. While the rest of the Tigers were absolutely ecstatic about the arrival of Miguel Cabrera, Inge has been a “wet blanket”. I have read on numerous occasions how Inge’s comments are understandable for a professional athlete because it’s in his nature to be ultra-competitive thus there’s no way he could or should be happy about losing his job. That’s fine. Inge doesn’t have to be happy about not starting. However, there is a huge difference between not being happy and letting everyone know it. I’m guessing if the majority of Americans expressed themselves in a similar way at their place of employment, they would be reprimanded at the very least and possibly fired. It is totally unprofessional to openly discuss your dissatisfaction at your company especially when said dissatisfaction is because the company is moving in a better direction at your expense. It becomes even more unprofessional when said company keeps paying you the money you were promised. There is nothing OK about how Inge has handled this situation. He didn’t lose his job. He still makes $6.2 million for one of the best baseball teams in the league. One thing is for certain, if you’re going to complain as much as Inge has, you better be frickin’ good—and Inge is not.
Despite Inge’s obvious displeasure, the Tigers have bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes. They’ve attempted to trade him on numerous occasions. They’ve tried him out at a number of positions to increase his chances of seeing the field. They’ve let him say things like, “I don’t want to catch” without telling him to shut up. I’m not sure what Inge thinks is fair treatment but the Tigers have been too understanding, in my opinion. Leyland gave a paradoxical quote that underscores just how understanding the Tigers have been. Leyland said, “Read the paper this morning. It’s obvious. He does not want to catch. I’m not going to force somebody to catch. He’s doing all the right things, saying all the right things. He’s a professional. He’s one of my favorites. I want him to play third base somewhere everyday. Is that going to happen? I have no clue.” Again, I appreciate Leyland’s intentions here but there are a number of things that speak to Inge’s unprofessionalism in that quote. First, Leyland says to read the paper to find out that its obvious that Inge doesn’t want to catch. Why is Inge taking his case to the media? Then, Leyland says that Inge is “doing all the right things, saying all the right things.” Huh? That’s not even remotely believable. Since when does, “I don’t want to catch” constitute saying and doing all the right things? Inge should feel fortunate that the Tigers don’t just dump him or trade him to a bottom-feeder. Does Inge really think there’s an abundance of MLB teams looking for a starting third baseman who carries around a .241 batting average?
Any knowledgeable baseball fan knew a long time ago that Inge was a liability in the Tigers lineup. He is lucky that the Tigers were willing to put up with his porous offense for as long as they did. He has “back-up” skills and it wasn’t until last December that the Tigers addressed his deficiencies by bringing in Cabrera. Inge is not a man with leverage. He is a terrible hitter by almost any measure. There is no hiding his 85 OPS+ which is an appalling number at any position let alone a corner infield position. His career OBP is a putrid .304. His K to BB ratio is an abominable 3 to 1. He makes the occasional spectacular play in the field but there is no way his defense makes up for his wretched offense.
The biggest beef I have is Inge’s inability to keep his negative comments to himself. He has to know that Cabrera is one of the best things to happen to the Tigers in decades. Inge gets paid to be a good teammate and perform when called upon. Nowhere in his contract does it state that he is to be a starter. I totally understand that nobody wants to take a diminished role but Inge won’t play for the Tigers forever. The team will explore trade options and he will likely play for a different team in the somewhat-near future. I fault Inge big-time for not seeing the big picture. There is pretty close to a 100% chance that Inge will get an opportunity to battle for a starting position sometime, somewhere in the future. In the intermediate, he is the #1 reserve at virtually every position which means he’ll get his fair share of at-bats. The fact that Inge will be the Opening Day-starter in centerfield is proof of that. I just wish he could appreciate the opportunity rather than take it for granted. Maybe next time he can simply say, “I’m glad I’m playing” and save the “but” for an ungrateful clown in another city.
Friday, March 21, 2008
A little Michigan basketball optimism
I realize that this is an unlikely time to discuss the future of Michigan basketball. Most of you are probably celebrating the fact that the season is finally over. Not to mention, the NCAA Tournament is under way which is considerably more exciting than watching a team that shoots 31% from three-point range throw up 23 three-point attempts per game. Naturally, Kent’s wicked-awful, 10-point first half against UNLV yesterday inspired me to write about Michigan hoops so blame it on the Golden Flashes. On the surface, it would appear that Michigan basketball fans have every reason to be going through a state of basketball depression. Michigan’s final game against Wisconsin in the Big Ten Tournament was soul-crushing. To lose is one thing. To score 34 points is something completely different. So, there is plenty to be discouraged about. However, I think there is a lot to be encouraged about as well.
I’m not sure John Beilein could’ve picked a school with a worse personnel-fit to run his offense than Michigan. Beilein needs shooters, passers, and cutters. Michigan has none of that. In fact, I’m not sure what Michigan actually has. This was a “learning” year but the roster was so ill-equipped to run Beilein’s offense that four “learning years” would not be enough to turn this team into a contender. Thankfully, the right personnel appear to be on the way. At first glance, Beilein’s ’08 recruiting class looks awful. And, for most schools, it would be awful. For Michigan, it’s a program-saver. Michigan has four players coming in who are perfect for Michigan’s offense. Two are precision shooters from Indiana. Michigan had three players jack up 100+ three-point attempts this season and none shot better than 32%. Stu Douglass and Zack Novak will immediately become the best shooters on the team and it won’t be close. I’m guessing something closer to 38% for them which would be a huge upgrade. Think Butler—a team littered with 38% three-point shooters. Ben Cronin is a 7’1 space-eater who is an excellent defensive-post presence. He will team with Ekpe Udoh to make it an incredibly difficult endeavor to score on Michigan in the post. Udoh is already, far and away, the most prolific shot-blocker in the Big Ten. Laval Lucas-Perry is a point-guard who transferred from Arizona. He will give Michigan a formidable 1-2 punch with Kelvin Grady. Michigan is in dire need of ball-handlers and good decision-makers. Perry will immediately make Michigan more efficient with the basketball. Having the right "pieces" will make Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims vastly more effective. They won't have to masquerade as good three-point shooters and perimeter players. They'll be allowed to create which will free up shots for players who can actually shoot.
The type of player that Beilein needs to win games is much different than Michigan fans are used to. It’s going to take some time to get comfortable with “pieces” rather than “highly-rated recruits.” Let’s be honest, it’s not like the latter was falling from the sky in Ann Arbor anyways. Beilein’s first recruiting class is going to be ranked near the bottom of the Big Ten but he is four for four in finding players who will allow Michigan’s efficiency to improve leaps and bounds. It’s no surprise to anyone that Michigan won’t be expected to make the NCAA Tournament next year. But, I believe next season will be the final building block for an NCAA Tournament bid in ’10. That team should truly resemble a John Beilein product and hopefully next season will be the last time—for a long time—that we’ll have to settle for moral victories. Michigan will be better defensively, offensively, and it will have more depth. I can’t say that sounds too bad. It’s easy to get caught up in the short-term and proclaim the Michigan basketball re-building effort a failure. We’ve been through this before with Amaker and nothing ever came of it. But, everyone knew that Beilein would have totread-water nearly drown through the first couple years with a roster ill-equipped to run his offense. There is absolutely no reason to be less optimistic now than the day Beilein was hired. Don’t let the “Debbie Downers” cloud the big picture. This year was a necessity for Michigan to get back to winning games and next year will be more of the same with flashes of cohesion sprinkled in.
I’m not sure John Beilein could’ve picked a school with a worse personnel-fit to run his offense than Michigan. Beilein needs shooters, passers, and cutters. Michigan has none of that. In fact, I’m not sure what Michigan actually has. This was a “learning” year but the roster was so ill-equipped to run Beilein’s offense that four “learning years” would not be enough to turn this team into a contender. Thankfully, the right personnel appear to be on the way. At first glance, Beilein’s ’08 recruiting class looks awful. And, for most schools, it would be awful. For Michigan, it’s a program-saver. Michigan has four players coming in who are perfect for Michigan’s offense. Two are precision shooters from Indiana. Michigan had three players jack up 100+ three-point attempts this season and none shot better than 32%. Stu Douglass and Zack Novak will immediately become the best shooters on the team and it won’t be close. I’m guessing something closer to 38% for them which would be a huge upgrade. Think Butler—a team littered with 38% three-point shooters. Ben Cronin is a 7’1 space-eater who is an excellent defensive-post presence. He will team with Ekpe Udoh to make it an incredibly difficult endeavor to score on Michigan in the post. Udoh is already, far and away, the most prolific shot-blocker in the Big Ten. Laval Lucas-Perry is a point-guard who transferred from Arizona. He will give Michigan a formidable 1-2 punch with Kelvin Grady. Michigan is in dire need of ball-handlers and good decision-makers. Perry will immediately make Michigan more efficient with the basketball. Having the right "pieces" will make Manny Harris and DeShawn Sims vastly more effective. They won't have to masquerade as good three-point shooters and perimeter players. They'll be allowed to create which will free up shots for players who can actually shoot.
The type of player that Beilein needs to win games is much different than Michigan fans are used to. It’s going to take some time to get comfortable with “pieces” rather than “highly-rated recruits.” Let’s be honest, it’s not like the latter was falling from the sky in Ann Arbor anyways. Beilein’s first recruiting class is going to be ranked near the bottom of the Big Ten but he is four for four in finding players who will allow Michigan’s efficiency to improve leaps and bounds. It’s no surprise to anyone that Michigan won’t be expected to make the NCAA Tournament next year. But, I believe next season will be the final building block for an NCAA Tournament bid in ’10. That team should truly resemble a John Beilein product and hopefully next season will be the last time—for a long time—that we’ll have to settle for moral victories. Michigan will be better defensively, offensively, and it will have more depth. I can’t say that sounds too bad. It’s easy to get caught up in the short-term and proclaim the Michigan basketball re-building effort a failure. We’ve been through this before with Amaker and nothing ever came of it. But, everyone knew that Beilein would have to
Monday, March 17, 2008
Dayton is the biggest "snub" ever
If you guessed that this post was going to be my obligatory, “Rats. The Selection Committee blew it again.”-post, then you’re correct. I don’t ever want to sound like "sour grapes" simply because the committee picked a team that I didn’t agree with. If the committee had good reason to select any number of teams, then I have no problem being wrong on a projection. In fact, despite projecting Villanova, Kentucky, Kansas St., and Baylor into the tournament, I wouldn’t have been upset if the committee went in a different direction. Those teams have pretty weak resumes. What I can’t accept—at least without putting up a meaningless fight anyways—is when the committee makes a terrible decision. That terrible decision this year came in the form of giving a bid to Oregon. There is no doubt in my mind that Oregon got in for one reason and one reason only: because Arizona did. The committee very likely could not rationalize putting Arizona in over Oregon when Oregon beat Arizona twice and finished with a better record in the Pac 10. That is/was a huge gaffe in reasoning. The committee’s job is to look at the “body of work”. Arizona’s RPI and SOS were considerable better than Oregon’s. That is why Arizona got in. Oregon’s candidacy should have nothing to do with Arizona’s.
Terrible resume = At-large bid
Oregon had a borderline-terrible season. Since December 12, Oregon has gone 10-12. Oregon hasn’t been an above .500 team over the last four months. The season only lasts five months. To put to rest any notion that Oregon was good before December 12, it had a non-conference RPI of 67. This team wasn’t good in non-conference play and it wasn’t good in conference play. It went 1-8 versus UCLA, Washington St, Stanford, and USC. It lost to Oakland University and Nebraska in non-conference play. Oregon’s RPI is 58 which is the lowest of any at-large selection. Oregon was also 6-10 at road/neutral sites. This team doesn’t have any strong points on its resume. The only thing that anyone can say about Oregon is that it beat Arizona twice. Getting a bid was bad enough. I mean, it was simply an awful decision. Even worse than that, though, is that somehow Oregon got a nine (!!!) seed. How could any reasonable collection of ten people come to that conclusion? Oregon not only had, by far, the worst resume of any team in the field, it had a worse resume than a number of teams that didn’t make the field. Where does this nine seed come from? Even if I was assigned to argue for Oregon’s inclusion as a 9-seed in a debate, I couldn’t do it. I don’t believe such an argument exists.
If not Oregon, then who?
Other than, “anyone”, my answer is clearly and unequivocally, “Dayton.” In my opinion, omitting Dayton from the tournament should constitute a failing grade for the committee. The Flyers’ resume is so much better than Oregon’s that it’s borderline fact. I would love to hear someone attempt to prove that Oregon’s resume is better than Dayton’s. I’ll listen to any arguments. If all you can come up with is, “Oregon finished .500 in the Pac 10 and Dayton finished .500 in the A-10”, then you’ll have to do better than that. Dayton holds so many more advantages over Oregon that the “conference strength” argument gets blown away. Dayton’s non-conference RPI was #4. It beat Louisville and Pittsburgh in non-conference play. Dayton jumped out to 14-1 to start the season before losing Chris “Top Flight” Wright to injury. In Wright's absence, Dayton beat Temple, St. Joe’s, Charlotte and Rhode Island all of which have RPIs of 77 or better. Dayton finished with an RPI of 32 and a SOS of 33. The Selection Committee has long stated that it takes into consideration the impact of injuries when it makes its selections. Its inclusion of Arizona this year is one such example. Dayton was set to have Wright back this week after nearly playing in the A-10 Tournament. There is absolutely no question that with Wright, Dayton is one of the top 15 or 20 teams in the country. Even without him for half the season, it managed to finish 26 spots ahead of Oregon in the RPI. Dayton had more wins in the RPI 100 and fewer wins against teams with an RPI of 200 or higher. Dayton had more wins, fewer losses, and a better road/neutral record. By just about any conceivable measure, Dayton’s resume is superior to Oregon’s.
Not surprisingly, the committee has not been able to say anything that even remotely resembles solid reasoning as to why Oregon was included or why Dayton was excluded. This is how the committee chair explained Oregon’s inclusion…
“• On Oregon being in: "They had three really good wins against the top 100 on the road. Where you play is important. Quite frankly, the strength of schedule was pretty good.""
Yeah, "the SOS was pretty good" except it wasn’t better than Dayton’s. Where you play is important? Oregon was 6-10 in road/neutral site games with “really good wins” on the road against Kansas St. and Arizona—two teams that barely made it into the tournament. I can only guess that the third “really good win” was on the road against Cal which finished 16-15 with an RPI of 92. Dayton beat Louisville on the road. Dayton also beat Miami (OH) (RPI 73) on the road which compared to a win at Cal has to be classified as "really, really good."
The chairman went on to say about Arizona…
"• Arizona in: "The Wildcats were 16-6 with Nic Wise and Jerryd Bayless, and their strength of schedule [was high]. When they weren't in the lineup they were a different team.""
The above statement tells me that the Selection Committee really had no insight whatsoever into comparing Dayton to Oregon and Arizona. Dayton was 13-1 with Charles Little and Chris Wright with wins over six RPI 100 teams. An injury exemption to Arizona doesn’t make any sense if the same exemption is not given to Dayton especially since Dayton had to play Xavier (#9 in the RPI) three times without Wright. Dayton finished with a better RPI than Oregon and Arizona despite its injuries.
Then the chairman goes on to say this about Baylor…
"On Baylor getting in as a No. 11: "It wasn't close. They did it all on the court.""
It wasn’t close? How could it not be close? Forget that Villanova was the last team in as the only at-large team with worse than an 11-seed (meaning Baylor was very close to not getting in), saying that Dayton isn’t close to Baylor is simply ridiculous. Dayton had a better record, better RPI, better SOS, and more victories over teams in the RPI 15, 25, 50, and 100, and managed to do all of that without its best player for half of the season. Baylor might have deserved a bid but it was certainly not at Dayton’s expense.
Truly Shameful
Dayton’s omission isn’t just really bad because Oregon got its spot. It’s really bad because Dayton had a better resume than Oregon, Villanova, Arizona, Kentucky, Kansas St., St. Joe’s, S. Alabama, St. Mary’s, Texas A&M, and Mississippi St all of which received at-large bids. Complaining about this won’t accomplish anything because nobody cares. But, the Selection Committee should have to answer for this. I didn’t see a single commenter/interviewer ask the chairman about Dayton’s omission. The committee probably feels pretty good about itself but it shouldn’t. Dayton deserved to be in the tournament and just about every measurable factor supports that. If the committee wanted Oregon in so badly, then it should’ve kept Arizona out. The only argument for Oregon’s inclusion is via Arizona’s inclusion. That is a lousy line-of-thinking. The committee should be ashamed.
Terrible resume = At-large bid
Oregon had a borderline-terrible season. Since December 12, Oregon has gone 10-12. Oregon hasn’t been an above .500 team over the last four months. The season only lasts five months. To put to rest any notion that Oregon was good before December 12, it had a non-conference RPI of 67. This team wasn’t good in non-conference play and it wasn’t good in conference play. It went 1-8 versus UCLA, Washington St, Stanford, and USC. It lost to Oakland University and Nebraska in non-conference play. Oregon’s RPI is 58 which is the lowest of any at-large selection. Oregon was also 6-10 at road/neutral sites. This team doesn’t have any strong points on its resume. The only thing that anyone can say about Oregon is that it beat Arizona twice. Getting a bid was bad enough. I mean, it was simply an awful decision. Even worse than that, though, is that somehow Oregon got a nine (!!!) seed. How could any reasonable collection of ten people come to that conclusion? Oregon not only had, by far, the worst resume of any team in the field, it had a worse resume than a number of teams that didn’t make the field. Where does this nine seed come from? Even if I was assigned to argue for Oregon’s inclusion as a 9-seed in a debate, I couldn’t do it. I don’t believe such an argument exists.
If not Oregon, then who?
Other than, “anyone”, my answer is clearly and unequivocally, “Dayton.” In my opinion, omitting Dayton from the tournament should constitute a failing grade for the committee. The Flyers’ resume is so much better than Oregon’s that it’s borderline fact. I would love to hear someone attempt to prove that Oregon’s resume is better than Dayton’s. I’ll listen to any arguments. If all you can come up with is, “Oregon finished .500 in the Pac 10 and Dayton finished .500 in the A-10”, then you’ll have to do better than that. Dayton holds so many more advantages over Oregon that the “conference strength” argument gets blown away. Dayton’s non-conference RPI was #4. It beat Louisville and Pittsburgh in non-conference play. Dayton jumped out to 14-1 to start the season before losing Chris “Top Flight” Wright to injury. In Wright's absence, Dayton beat Temple, St. Joe’s, Charlotte and Rhode Island all of which have RPIs of 77 or better. Dayton finished with an RPI of 32 and a SOS of 33. The Selection Committee has long stated that it takes into consideration the impact of injuries when it makes its selections. Its inclusion of Arizona this year is one such example. Dayton was set to have Wright back this week after nearly playing in the A-10 Tournament. There is absolutely no question that with Wright, Dayton is one of the top 15 or 20 teams in the country. Even without him for half the season, it managed to finish 26 spots ahead of Oregon in the RPI. Dayton had more wins in the RPI 100 and fewer wins against teams with an RPI of 200 or higher. Dayton had more wins, fewer losses, and a better road/neutral record. By just about any conceivable measure, Dayton’s resume is superior to Oregon’s.
Not surprisingly, the committee has not been able to say anything that even remotely resembles solid reasoning as to why Oregon was included or why Dayton was excluded. This is how the committee chair explained Oregon’s inclusion…
“• On Oregon being in: "They had three really good wins against the top 100 on the road. Where you play is important. Quite frankly, the strength of schedule was pretty good.""
Yeah, "the SOS was pretty good" except it wasn’t better than Dayton’s. Where you play is important? Oregon was 6-10 in road/neutral site games with “really good wins” on the road against Kansas St. and Arizona—two teams that barely made it into the tournament. I can only guess that the third “really good win” was on the road against Cal which finished 16-15 with an RPI of 92. Dayton beat Louisville on the road. Dayton also beat Miami (OH) (RPI 73) on the road which compared to a win at Cal has to be classified as "really, really good."
The chairman went on to say about Arizona…
"• Arizona in: "The Wildcats were 16-6 with Nic Wise and Jerryd Bayless, and their strength of schedule [was high]. When they weren't in the lineup they were a different team.""
The above statement tells me that the Selection Committee really had no insight whatsoever into comparing Dayton to Oregon and Arizona. Dayton was 13-1 with Charles Little and Chris Wright with wins over six RPI 100 teams. An injury exemption to Arizona doesn’t make any sense if the same exemption is not given to Dayton especially since Dayton had to play Xavier (#9 in the RPI) three times without Wright. Dayton finished with a better RPI than Oregon and Arizona despite its injuries.
Then the chairman goes on to say this about Baylor…
"On Baylor getting in as a No. 11: "It wasn't close. They did it all on the court.""
It wasn’t close? How could it not be close? Forget that Villanova was the last team in as the only at-large team with worse than an 11-seed (meaning Baylor was very close to not getting in), saying that Dayton isn’t close to Baylor is simply ridiculous. Dayton had a better record, better RPI, better SOS, and more victories over teams in the RPI 15, 25, 50, and 100, and managed to do all of that without its best player for half of the season. Baylor might have deserved a bid but it was certainly not at Dayton’s expense.
Truly Shameful
Dayton’s omission isn’t just really bad because Oregon got its spot. It’s really bad because Dayton had a better resume than Oregon, Villanova, Arizona, Kentucky, Kansas St., St. Joe’s, S. Alabama, St. Mary’s, Texas A&M, and Mississippi St all of which received at-large bids. Complaining about this won’t accomplish anything because nobody cares. But, the Selection Committee should have to answer for this. I didn’t see a single commenter/interviewer ask the chairman about Dayton’s omission. The committee probably feels pretty good about itself but it shouldn’t. Dayton deserved to be in the tournament and just about every measurable factor supports that. If the committee wanted Oregon in so badly, then it should’ve kept Arizona out. The only argument for Oregon’s inclusion is via Arizona’s inclusion. That is a lousy line-of-thinking. The committee should be ashamed.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Final NCAA Tournament Projections
I have no problem admitting right off the top that I stand little chance of predicting a perfect NCAA Tournament field. There isn’t a whole lot separating the last few teams being considered for at-large bids. The problem isn’t that I can’t figure out how to separate the teams. The problem is that I can’t figure out how the Selection Committee is going to separate the teams. For one, the fact that the Selection Committee chairman is the Athletic Director at George Mason makes me a little nervous that there might be some Colonial Athletics Association (CAA) favoritism going on. VCU could get a much-needed boost from that. I’m also discouraged that there is no representative from the Big XII which means there might not be enough people fighting for Kansas St. I really have no idea how much credence to give the makeup of the committee. There is supposed to be no bias or favoritism. Committee members are supposed to leave the room when their team is being discussed. However, that doesn’t prevent members from putting up a fight against other teams that are up against their team for a bid. I didn’t consider the committee’s makeup at all last season. And, I don’t think it’s going to change my projections this season. Just don’t be shocked if things go against Kansas St. or for VCU.
I have a pretty good idea of the “bubble” teams that will receive serious consideration. I’m going to assume St. Mary’s, Kentucky, Mississippi St., and S. Alabama are “in” which could be a mistake but a mistake I’m willing to live with. So, that leaves seven spots left with 12 potential teams to take those spots. I put together a comparison of those 12 teams in 12 different categories. I assigned point values 12-1 in each category. The team finishing first in each category got 12 points. The team finishing last got one point. Here are the overall results…
Arizona-----------99.5
Dayton------------95.5
Texas A&M--------95
St. Joe's-----------85.5
Baylor-------------83.5
Villanova--------74.5
Kansas St.-------72
UMASS-----------71
Ohio St.----------70
Oregon-----------70
VCU---------------64.5
Va. Tech-----------55
Before I did this comparison, I had Arizona, Dayton, Texas A&M, St. Joe’s, and Baylor “in” the tournament. So, I am going to stick with those teams. That leaves two spots remaining. Notice in bold the proximity of the next five teams. The committee could rationalize their way into choosing any of those teams. However, I think Kansas St. and Villanova are the two best choices of that group. Kansas St. has a few subtle advantages over the rest of the group. It has Michael Beasley who everyone wants to see in the tournament. It has a 10-6 conference record. It plays in the Big XII which is the third toughest conference. Also, it was left out of the tournament last season wit a 10-6 conference record. The committee would have to be soulless to do that to a school two years in a row. Some of the factors I just mentioned aren’t supposed to matter. However, I would be surprised if they didn’t matter. So, with an extreme amount of trepidation, I am going with Kansas St. as the second-to-last team in the tournament. Villanova’s resume is superior to the rest of the group so it will be my last team in.
Notice VCU and Va. Tech are way behind. Neither team deserves a bid and despite Seth Greenberg’s comments to any detractors, I am not “certifiably insane”—rather vaguely familiar with logic and reasoning. Va. Tech had zero wins against the RPI 50 before the ACC Tournament and a non-conference SOS of 138. Plus, Va. Tech only had to play Duke, N. Carolina, Clemson, and Maryland once each in the regular season. That might be the easiest ACC conference schedule of all-time and it still was only good enough for a 9-7 record. Va. Tech might get in because of its ACC-affiliation but that would be a travesty. Few teams in the RPI 75 have accomplished less than Va. Tech.
One final note: I neglected to include Illinois St. in this comparison. I went back afterwards to get an estimate of how ISU would've fared and ended up with a 66.5. "The Valley" hasn't had less than two bids in 10 years. I hesitate picking against that track record but I don't think ISU's resume is there. I could see Va. Tech, VCU, and Illinois St. receiving bids for various reasons but none of them are related to their resumes.
FINAL PROJECTIONS FOR THE 2008 NCAA TOURNAMENT
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Georgia (!!!)
3 Big East Pittsburgh
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Wisconsin
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC UNLV
9 WAC Boise St.
10 A-10 Temple
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC San Diego
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Siena
18 Big Sky Portland St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Fullerton
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Cornell
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot American
25 Southland Texas Arlington
26 Northeast Mount St. Mary's
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Mississippi Valley St.
31 MEAC Coppin St.
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large St. Mary's
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large Miami FL
36 At-Large Duke
37 At-Large Marquette
38 At-Large Georgetown
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Notre Dame
41 At-Large Connecticut
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large Villanova
44 At-Large Stanford
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large USC
48 At-Large Oklahoma
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Baylor
53 At-Large Purdue
54 At-Large Michigan St.
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Kentucky
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Mississippi St.
60 At-Large Tennessee
61 At-Large Dayton
62 At-Large St. Joe's
63 At-Large Xavier
64 At-Large S. Alabama
65 At-Large BYU
Last "in"
Kansas St.
Villanova
Dayton
Baylor
St. Joe's
Mississippi St.
Last "out"
UMASS
Ohio St.
Illinois St.
VCU
Oregon
Va. Tech
I have a pretty good idea of the “bubble” teams that will receive serious consideration. I’m going to assume St. Mary’s, Kentucky, Mississippi St., and S. Alabama are “in” which could be a mistake but a mistake I’m willing to live with. So, that leaves seven spots left with 12 potential teams to take those spots. I put together a comparison of those 12 teams in 12 different categories. I assigned point values 12-1 in each category. The team finishing first in each category got 12 points. The team finishing last got one point. Here are the overall results…
Arizona-----------99.5
Dayton------------95.5
Texas A&M--------95
St. Joe's-----------85.5
Baylor-------------83.5
Villanova--------74.5
Kansas St.-------72
UMASS-----------71
Ohio St.----------70
Oregon-----------70
VCU---------------64.5
Va. Tech-----------55
Before I did this comparison, I had Arizona, Dayton, Texas A&M, St. Joe’s, and Baylor “in” the tournament. So, I am going to stick with those teams. That leaves two spots remaining. Notice in bold the proximity of the next five teams. The committee could rationalize their way into choosing any of those teams. However, I think Kansas St. and Villanova are the two best choices of that group. Kansas St. has a few subtle advantages over the rest of the group. It has Michael Beasley who everyone wants to see in the tournament. It has a 10-6 conference record. It plays in the Big XII which is the third toughest conference. Also, it was left out of the tournament last season wit a 10-6 conference record. The committee would have to be soulless to do that to a school two years in a row. Some of the factors I just mentioned aren’t supposed to matter. However, I would be surprised if they didn’t matter. So, with an extreme amount of trepidation, I am going with Kansas St. as the second-to-last team in the tournament. Villanova’s resume is superior to the rest of the group so it will be my last team in.
Notice VCU and Va. Tech are way behind. Neither team deserves a bid and despite Seth Greenberg’s comments to any detractors, I am not “certifiably insane”—rather vaguely familiar with logic and reasoning. Va. Tech had zero wins against the RPI 50 before the ACC Tournament and a non-conference SOS of 138. Plus, Va. Tech only had to play Duke, N. Carolina, Clemson, and Maryland once each in the regular season. That might be the easiest ACC conference schedule of all-time and it still was only good enough for a 9-7 record. Va. Tech might get in because of its ACC-affiliation but that would be a travesty. Few teams in the RPI 75 have accomplished less than Va. Tech.
One final note: I neglected to include Illinois St. in this comparison. I went back afterwards to get an estimate of how ISU would've fared and ended up with a 66.5. "The Valley" hasn't had less than two bids in 10 years. I hesitate picking against that track record but I don't think ISU's resume is there. I could see Va. Tech, VCU, and Illinois St. receiving bids for various reasons but none of them are related to their resumes.
FINAL PROJECTIONS FOR THE 2008 NCAA TOURNAMENT
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Georgia (!!!)
3 Big East Pittsburgh
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Wisconsin
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC UNLV
9 WAC Boise St.
10 A-10 Temple
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC San Diego
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Siena
18 Big Sky Portland St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Fullerton
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Cornell
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot American
25 Southland Texas Arlington
26 Northeast Mount St. Mary's
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Mississippi Valley St.
31 MEAC Coppin St.
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large St. Mary's
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large Miami FL
36 At-Large Duke
37 At-Large Marquette
38 At-Large Georgetown
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Notre Dame
41 At-Large Connecticut
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large Villanova
44 At-Large Stanford
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large USC
48 At-Large Oklahoma
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Baylor
53 At-Large Purdue
54 At-Large Michigan St.
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Kentucky
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Mississippi St.
60 At-Large Tennessee
61 At-Large Dayton
62 At-Large St. Joe's
63 At-Large Xavier
64 At-Large S. Alabama
65 At-Large BYU
Last "in"
Kansas St.
Villanova
Dayton
Baylor
St. Joe's
Mississippi St.
Last "out"
UMASS
Ohio St.
Illinois St.
VCU
Oregon
Va. Tech
Thursday, March 13, 2008
"Yes" and "No" to NCAA Tournament Expansion
"No"
I’m torn about the idea of expanding the NCAA Tournament. On one hand, adding a few play-in games—or even a half-round—might bring more excitement to March Madness. On the other hand, it’s difficult to find 34 at-large teams that even have a chance of winning a 64-team tournament as it is. Many coaches support expansion but don’t be fooled by their reasoning. Coaches know that job security is tied to “tournament appearances.” So, it would seem that more teams in the tournament would equate to better job security. I don’t necessarily think adding teams to the current 64-team field would take away anything. I just don’t think it adds a whole lot either. Take this year’s “bubble” for example. By most accounts, the following teams are probably not going to make the tournament: Syracuse, Florida, Oregon, Mississippi, Arizona St., VCU, UAB, St. Joe’s, Villanova, Maryland, and Va. Tech. These are the teams that an expansion would be designed to help. But, do we really need a tournament diluted with these sorts of teams? With Syracuse’s loss on Wednesday, there probably won’t be a team in this group with an RPI better than 50. These eleven teams have a combined 26 victories in the RPI 50 and 31 losses outside of the RPI 100. That’s terrible. The NCAA Tournament is fine the way it is. Plus, people already complain that the college basketball regular season doesn’t mean anything which is a notion that I think is bunk. Adding weak teams might actually make that true.
"Yes"
While I don’t have a problem keeping a majority of the bubble teams out of the tournament, there is one thing I’ve always had a problem with. I don’t like the way mid-majors “crash the party” in a bad way seemingly every year. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as it is to keep pretending that the winner of the SWAC should play in the NCAA Tournament over, say, a Mississippi-team that is 5-4 versus the top 50. Granted, I kind of like the whole idea that “even the little guy gets a shot” in the tournament but the little guy never wins. George Mason reached the Final Four in 2006 but it had a pre-tournament RPI of 26 and would’ve received an at-large bid anyway. That’s hardly the definition of “a little guy.” Last year, Belmont, Eastern Kentucky, Weber St., Central Connecticut, Jackson St., and Florida A&M made the tournament with a combined record of 0-23 against the RPI 100. Those teams weren’t just going to miraculously win six consecutive games in a stacked tournament—or even one. Everyone knows that. However, it’s a tradition that I’m willing to live with it.
What I’m not willing to accept is what happened this year with the West Coast Conference. Gonzaga won the WCC regular season championship. St. Mary’s finished one game back and, by most accounts, is a near-lock for the NCAA Tournament. Unfortunately for all of the bubble teams out there, San Diego—a team that was definitely not going to receive a bid—won the WCC Tournament. It’s very rare that a team from a major conference that wasn’t already going to receive an at-large bid wins the conference championship. That sort of thing happens quite often in the mid-majors. Last year, it happened in the WAC, A-10, and the Horizon League. Sure, it adds excitement. But, it also adds an element of unfairness. Since Nevada, Xavier, and Butler failed to win their conference tournaments against extremely weak competition, three “deserving” bubble teams were kept out of the tournament. Mid-majors—even the best—cannot be counted on to take advantage of their weak conferences come tournament time. We’ve already seen it happen this year as S. Alabama, Gonzaga and potentially VCU will get at-large bids after getting bounced from their tournaments. That number will likely rise over the next few days. One solution would be to give an exemption each time this happens. For instance, instead of saying, “tough luck” last season to Syracuse, Air Force, and Drexel, the Selection Committee would’ve added those teams to the tournament forming three additional play-in games. Their opponents in these play-in games could go one of two ways. One way to do it would be to pit the three added teams against the three teams who unexpectedly won their conference tournaments. The better way to do it would be to pit the three added teams against the three teams that failed to win their weak mid-major conference tournaments. Either way works better than allowing the mid-majors to squeeze out at-large spots.
Rams "playing possum"?
This wasn’t a good year for the Colorado St. basketball program and I’m not just talking about the men’s team. Both the men’s and women’s basketball teams went 0-16 in conference play. I can’t imagine this has ever happened before. It’s hard enough for one team to go winless in conference play. What do you suppose the odds were that either team would win a game in the Mountain West Conference Tournament? In 32 conference games, these two teams lost 32 times so I’m pretty sure the answer to that is pretty close to nil. What do you suppose the odds were that both teams would win a game in the MWC? Only Rudiger Gamm knows the real answer to that question but I’m pretty sure it was zero percent. Well, not only did both teams win in the MWC Tournament but, thus far, they are a combined 3-0 having beaten teams with a combined 25 conference wins. The CSU Women’s team even beat Utah which was 16-0 (!!!) in the MWC. I’m pretty sure a 0-16 team has never beaten a 16-0 team from the same conference. There are so many amazing aspects to this story that I can’t stop thinking about it. How do men’s and women’s teams from the same school both go 0-16 in conference play? How do both teams then win games in their conference tournament? How does a 0-16 team beat a 16-0 team? Maybe these guys (and girls) took “playing possum” to the ultimate level. Bret “The Hitman” Hart—and of course Gorilla Monsoon—would be proud.
I’m torn about the idea of expanding the NCAA Tournament. On one hand, adding a few play-in games—or even a half-round—might bring more excitement to March Madness. On the other hand, it’s difficult to find 34 at-large teams that even have a chance of winning a 64-team tournament as it is. Many coaches support expansion but don’t be fooled by their reasoning. Coaches know that job security is tied to “tournament appearances.” So, it would seem that more teams in the tournament would equate to better job security. I don’t necessarily think adding teams to the current 64-team field would take away anything. I just don’t think it adds a whole lot either. Take this year’s “bubble” for example. By most accounts, the following teams are probably not going to make the tournament: Syracuse, Florida, Oregon, Mississippi, Arizona St., VCU, UAB, St. Joe’s, Villanova, Maryland, and Va. Tech. These are the teams that an expansion would be designed to help. But, do we really need a tournament diluted with these sorts of teams? With Syracuse’s loss on Wednesday, there probably won’t be a team in this group with an RPI better than 50. These eleven teams have a combined 26 victories in the RPI 50 and 31 losses outside of the RPI 100. That’s terrible. The NCAA Tournament is fine the way it is. Plus, people already complain that the college basketball regular season doesn’t mean anything which is a notion that I think is bunk. Adding weak teams might actually make that true.
"Yes"
While I don’t have a problem keeping a majority of the bubble teams out of the tournament, there is one thing I’ve always had a problem with. I don’t like the way mid-majors “crash the party” in a bad way seemingly every year. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as it is to keep pretending that the winner of the SWAC should play in the NCAA Tournament over, say, a Mississippi-team that is 5-4 versus the top 50. Granted, I kind of like the whole idea that “even the little guy gets a shot” in the tournament but the little guy never wins. George Mason reached the Final Four in 2006 but it had a pre-tournament RPI of 26 and would’ve received an at-large bid anyway. That’s hardly the definition of “a little guy.” Last year, Belmont, Eastern Kentucky, Weber St., Central Connecticut, Jackson St., and Florida A&M made the tournament with a combined record of 0-23 against the RPI 100. Those teams weren’t just going to miraculously win six consecutive games in a stacked tournament—or even one. Everyone knows that. However, it’s a tradition that I’m willing to live with it.
What I’m not willing to accept is what happened this year with the West Coast Conference. Gonzaga won the WCC regular season championship. St. Mary’s finished one game back and, by most accounts, is a near-lock for the NCAA Tournament. Unfortunately for all of the bubble teams out there, San Diego—a team that was definitely not going to receive a bid—won the WCC Tournament. It’s very rare that a team from a major conference that wasn’t already going to receive an at-large bid wins the conference championship. That sort of thing happens quite often in the mid-majors. Last year, it happened in the WAC, A-10, and the Horizon League. Sure, it adds excitement. But, it also adds an element of unfairness. Since Nevada, Xavier, and Butler failed to win their conference tournaments against extremely weak competition, three “deserving” bubble teams were kept out of the tournament. Mid-majors—even the best—cannot be counted on to take advantage of their weak conferences come tournament time. We’ve already seen it happen this year as S. Alabama, Gonzaga and potentially VCU will get at-large bids after getting bounced from their tournaments. That number will likely rise over the next few days. One solution would be to give an exemption each time this happens. For instance, instead of saying, “tough luck” last season to Syracuse, Air Force, and Drexel, the Selection Committee would’ve added those teams to the tournament forming three additional play-in games. Their opponents in these play-in games could go one of two ways. One way to do it would be to pit the three added teams against the three teams who unexpectedly won their conference tournaments. The better way to do it would be to pit the three added teams against the three teams that failed to win their weak mid-major conference tournaments. Either way works better than allowing the mid-majors to squeeze out at-large spots.
Rams "playing possum"?
This wasn’t a good year for the Colorado St. basketball program and I’m not just talking about the men’s team. Both the men’s and women’s basketball teams went 0-16 in conference play. I can’t imagine this has ever happened before. It’s hard enough for one team to go winless in conference play. What do you suppose the odds were that either team would win a game in the Mountain West Conference Tournament? In 32 conference games, these two teams lost 32 times so I’m pretty sure the answer to that is pretty close to nil. What do you suppose the odds were that both teams would win a game in the MWC? Only Rudiger Gamm knows the real answer to that question but I’m pretty sure it was zero percent. Well, not only did both teams win in the MWC Tournament but, thus far, they are a combined 3-0 having beaten teams with a combined 25 conference wins. The CSU Women’s team even beat Utah which was 16-0 (!!!) in the MWC. I’m pretty sure a 0-16 team has never beaten a 16-0 team from the same conference. There are so many amazing aspects to this story that I can’t stop thinking about it. How do men’s and women’s teams from the same school both go 0-16 in conference play? How do both teams then win games in their conference tournament? How does a 0-16 team beat a 16-0 team? Maybe these guys (and girls) took “playing possum” to the ultimate level. Bret “The Hitman” Hart—and of course Gorilla Monsoon—would be proud.
Monday, March 10, 2008
"Projections" has sweaty palms
Next Sunday is “Go Time!”
Feel free to check in next Sunday before the Selection Show to see my final “projections.” I should have them up by mid-afternoon since a). any remaining games likely won't have any impact on the field and b). I'll only be posting the projections so it won't take me long to put a post together. Hopefully I can nail all 65 teams (31 of which are automatic qualifiers). I came close last year missing a perfect projection by one. If I am lucky enough to get all the picks right, then I might just have to retire the "projections" column. In the likely event that I don’t get all 65 teams correct, you’ll have to put up with this nonsense again next year.
Best freshmen class of all-time?
I haven’t been alive—or coherent—long enough to know the answer to this question but if there has been a better class than the 2007 freshmen crop, I would love to hear about it. The 2008 NBA Draft should provide a cornucopia of riches for lottery teams as there are franchise players abound. Everyone knows about Michael Beasley who is not only the best freshman—and overall player—in the country this season, he might be the greatest freshman in college basketball history. He will undoubtedly go #1 to whichever team is lucky enough to win the lottery. Miami is dreaming of a D-Wade/Matrix/Beasley lineup and Minnesota is dreaming about an Al Jefferson/Beasley frontcourt for the ages. For those who haven’t gotten a chance to see Beasley play, a comparison to Tim Duncan isn’t so far off. There are some major differences between the two. Beasley isn’t as big as Duncan which is definitely an advantage for TD. On the flip side, Beasley is more athletic and has more range than Duncan. If it came down to it, I bet most NBA scouts would take Beasley’s skill-set over Duncan’s circa 1997. That is saying a lot since TD is easily one of the ten greatest basketball players in NBA history.
The rest of the ’07 freshmen crop is outstanding. Derrick Rose and Eric Gordon are 2a and 2b when it comes to NBA talent and readiness. Gordon is like a 6’4 Charles Barkley who plays shooting-guard. He can jump out of the gym and has range to match. Rose is a 6’3 point guard with freakish athleticism. Jerryd Bayless is another point guard with a fantastic repertoire. Kevin Love is an extremely skilled big-man with an NBA ready frame. Long before this class made it to college, O.J. Mayo was considered, far and away, the best recruit in the class. He’s probably no better than the 5th or 6th best prospect at this point but that’s because the rest of the group has been so good. Mayo has led USC to the brink of the NCAA Tournament averaging 21 ppg while shooting 41% from 3-point range. DeAndre Jordan is easily the most unheralded of the group but he is a 7-foot superstar in the making. In some years, he would be the #1 pick in the draft.
In fact, Beasley, Gordon, Rose, Bayless, Mayo, and Jordan may have all gone #1 overall in the ’01, ’05, and ’06 drafts. This has the makings to be the most prolific NBA Draft of all-time. At the very least it should rival ’03, ’99, ’96, and ’84 as the best drafts ever. The 2007 freshmen class is so deep and talented that it will likely not only dominate the 2008 NBA Lottery but the 2009 NBA Lottery as well. The following players will be in the running as top ten selections next season if they opt to stay in school for one more year: Anthony Randolph, J.J. Hickson, Blake Griffin, Donte Green, James Harden, Austin Daye, Kosta Koufos, Patrick Patterson, Davon Jefferson, James Johnson, Bill Walker, and Jonny Flynn.
Feel free to check in next Sunday before the Selection Show to see my final “projections.” I should have them up by mid-afternoon since a). any remaining games likely won't have any impact on the field and b). I'll only be posting the projections so it won't take me long to put a post together. Hopefully I can nail all 65 teams (31 of which are automatic qualifiers). I came close last year missing a perfect projection by one. If I am lucky enough to get all the picks right, then I might just have to retire the "projections" column. In the likely event that I don’t get all 65 teams correct, you’ll have to put up with this nonsense again next year.
Best freshmen class of all-time?
I haven’t been alive—or coherent—long enough to know the answer to this question but if there has been a better class than the 2007 freshmen crop, I would love to hear about it. The 2008 NBA Draft should provide a cornucopia of riches for lottery teams as there are franchise players abound. Everyone knows about Michael Beasley who is not only the best freshman—and overall player—in the country this season, he might be the greatest freshman in college basketball history. He will undoubtedly go #1 to whichever team is lucky enough to win the lottery. Miami is dreaming of a D-Wade/Matrix/Beasley lineup and Minnesota is dreaming about an Al Jefferson/Beasley frontcourt for the ages. For those who haven’t gotten a chance to see Beasley play, a comparison to Tim Duncan isn’t so far off. There are some major differences between the two. Beasley isn’t as big as Duncan which is definitely an advantage for TD. On the flip side, Beasley is more athletic and has more range than Duncan. If it came down to it, I bet most NBA scouts would take Beasley’s skill-set over Duncan’s circa 1997. That is saying a lot since TD is easily one of the ten greatest basketball players in NBA history.
The rest of the ’07 freshmen crop is outstanding. Derrick Rose and Eric Gordon are 2a and 2b when it comes to NBA talent and readiness. Gordon is like a 6’4 Charles Barkley who plays shooting-guard. He can jump out of the gym and has range to match. Rose is a 6’3 point guard with freakish athleticism. Jerryd Bayless is another point guard with a fantastic repertoire. Kevin Love is an extremely skilled big-man with an NBA ready frame. Long before this class made it to college, O.J. Mayo was considered, far and away, the best recruit in the class. He’s probably no better than the 5th or 6th best prospect at this point but that’s because the rest of the group has been so good. Mayo has led USC to the brink of the NCAA Tournament averaging 21 ppg while shooting 41% from 3-point range. DeAndre Jordan is easily the most unheralded of the group but he is a 7-foot superstar in the making. In some years, he would be the #1 pick in the draft.
In fact, Beasley, Gordon, Rose, Bayless, Mayo, and Jordan may have all gone #1 overall in the ’01, ’05, and ’06 drafts. This has the makings to be the most prolific NBA Draft of all-time. At the very least it should rival ’03, ’99, ’96, and ’84 as the best drafts ever. The 2007 freshmen class is so deep and talented that it will likely not only dominate the 2008 NBA Lottery but the 2009 NBA Lottery as well. The following players will be in the running as top ten selections next season if they opt to stay in school for one more year: Anthony Randolph, J.J. Hickson, Blake Griffin, Donte Green, James Harden, Austin Daye, Kosta Koufos, Patrick Patterson, Davon Jefferson, James Johnson, Bill Walker, and Jonny Flynn.
Projections
Here is how I view the field right now (at-large bids are sorted by conference):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Tennessee
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Michigan St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC BYU
9 WAC Utah St.
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC St. Mary’s
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Marist
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Northridge
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Cornell
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Lafayette
25 Southland Sam Houston St.
26 Northeast Wagner
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Alabama St.
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large Miami FL
36 At-Large Syracuse
37 At-Large Marquette
38 At-Large Pittsburgh
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Notre Dame
41 At-Large Connecticut
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large Oregon
44 At-Large Stanford
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large USC
48 At-Large Oklahoma
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Baylor
53 At-Large Purdue
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Ohio St.
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Mississippi St.
60 At-Large Kentucky
61 At-Large Mississippi
62 At-Large Massachusetts
63 At-Large Dayton
64 At-Large Illinois St.
65 At-Large UNLV
Changes from last week:
In: Ohio St., Oregon, Syracuse, and Mississippi
Out: UAB, Florida, Va. Tech, and Maryland
*I don't look at other projections—Lunardi's included—at any point in the season. Everything I do is based on researching each team's resume. My projections are based on who I think will be there based on the results of games played and the difficulty of remaining schedules. This isn’t a “if the season ended today”-deal.
This projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. 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.
Last five “in” (no particular order)
1). Arizona
I can’t rationalize keeping Arizona out at this point even with an 8-10 conference record. TV pundits love to play the “in” or “out” game when discussing the tournament bubble. The problem is that you can’t just look at a team’s resume and say, “Weak resume= no tournament.” The field is graded on a curve. Teams with questionable resumes can make the tournament if there aren’t better options available. It’s one thing to make a statement like, “Arizona doesn’t deserve to make the tournament” but for that to be true, you have to come up with a team that deserves to be in over Arizona. Va. Tech and Maryland certainly don’t. New Mexico doesn’t. Villanova and St. Joe’s don’t. So, until a few spots get erased by conference tournament-upsets, Arizona remains in the field. I do have one problem that I’m having a difficult time resolving. Arizona lost to Arizona St. twice. Arizona St. also has a better record in the same conference. There is a huge discrepancy in the RPIs which is why Arizona gets the nod but Arizona St. should be one of the final five or six teams in the bubble discussion if it can win a game or two in the Pac-10 Tournament. Arizona will beat Oregon St. (0-16 conference record) in the first round of the P10 Tournament which will set up a make or break game against Stanford in the second round. A win there probably gets ‘Zona in to the tournament. A loss would do the opposite unless the rest of the bubble teams fail to impress as well.
2). Oregon
I expect Oregon to get bounced from the Pac 10 Tournament in expedited-fashion so its candidacy might not be an issue next week. However, it’s tough to ignore Oregon. Like ASU, Oregon beat Arizona twice and has a better conference record. Unlike ASU, Oregon’s RPI is actually respectable. Its still a ways behind Arizona’s but the Ducks are good enough to be in the tournament at this point. One comparison that I do not want to have to make is if the last spot in the tourney came down to Oregon and Arizona. However, Oregon would have to get by Washington St. in its first game in the P10 Tournament for that to be an issue.
3). Syracuse
Syracuse—like Arizona and Oregon—is only in the discussion because there just aren’t many teams worthy of the last few at-large bids. In most years, Syracuse’s resume would only be good enough to be one of the last few teams passed over by the committee. At this point, Syracuse has to be one of the at-large teams. Upsets in conference tournaments might change that but right now, the ‘Cuse is in. The first round of the Big East Tournament conveniently pits Syracuse against Villanova effectively eliminating the loser from at-large contention. Its too bad sorting out the rest of the bubble isn’t this easy. A “bubble tournament” would go a long way in ending Selection Sunday injustice and--not as ideal--suspense.
4). Mississippi
Mississippi might not get into the tournament but if that happens, I think it’ll be because of perception and not because of merit. Mississippi finished 7-9 in the SEC after a horrible start. The Rebels boast an RPI of 42 along with five wins in the RPI 50. Va. Tech and Maryland have a combined total of zero wins in the RPI 50. Mississippi has a legitimate chance at playing its way into the tournament. It should have no problem dispatching Georgia in the first round of the SEC Tournament. That would set up a make or break second round affair with Kentucky. If Mississippi can beat Kentucky, I think it’ll sneak into the field.
5). Texas A&M
The Aggies have a Syracuse-like resume—their RPIs are 47 and 46 respectively—that will be difficult to distinguish from the rest of the bubble teams. They finished 8-8 in the Big XII. Their key non-conference wins were against Ohio St. and Oral Roberts. They did manage to beat Texas, Oklahoma, and Baylor but lost to all three as well. An early loss in the conference tournament by any of the five teams on this list would likely be a deathblow to any tourney chances. Texas A&M should have no problem picking up a win in the Big XII Tournament as it faces Iowa St. in the first round. A win over Kansas St. in the second round would pretty much lock things up. A loss would leave the Aggies in the precarious situation of hoping there aren’t many unforeseen automatic qualifiers.
First five “out” (no particular order)
1). New Mexico
A totally undeserving team like New Mexico gets admitted into the tournament every year. Whether it’s UAB ’05 or Air Force ’06—they combined for zero wins against the RPI 50 but still managed at-large bids—the Selection Committee always makes at least one totally inexplicable decision. New Mexico very well could be that decision this year. Unlike the UAB and Air Force teams, New Mexico actually has a win in the RPI 50 albeit one. New Mexico is 3-4 in the top 100. No team with only three wins in the RPI 100 deserves an at-large bid, ever.
2). Va. Tech
One team that I wouldn’t mind seeing New Mexico get an at-large big ahead of would be the Hokies. Va. Tech’s resume is deplorable. It boasts zero wins in the RPI 50 and zero non-conference wins in the RPI 125. The combination of “ACC team” and “+.500 conference record” makes this a Selection Committee darling but even the biggest ACC fan couldn’t rationalize Va. Tech getting a bid with such a crummy resume. Because the ACC is the ACC, I think if Va. Tech wins two games in the ACC Tournament it’ll be escorted to the NCAA Tournament as a VIP. Va. Tech would likely need to beat Miami FL and North Carolina for that to happen which would leave...
3). Maryland
I’m not sure whether Maryland has a better resume than Va. Tech. The Terps went 0-2 against Va. Tech this season but at least Maryland beat a top 50 team and an incredibly good one at that. Maryland’s win at North Carolina ranks as one of the most impressive wins by any team this season. Still, Maryland’s resume is atrocious. The Terps lost to a number of bad teams including Missouri, Boston College, Ohio, and American. Unfortunately, they don’t have the marquee wins to make up for those losses. Maryland only needs to beat Boston College and Clemson to pick up two victories in the ACC Tournament but Sunday's devastating loss to Virginia means Maryland will have to march all the way to the ACC Chmapionship Game to have a shot at a bid.
4). Villanova
Villanova is close but loses out “head-to-head” to too many bubble teams to be in the field at this point. Syracuse and St. Joe’s have slightly more impressive resumes with better RPIs and better wins. Nova also has three bad losses to Rutgers, DePaul, and Cincinnati. Villanova gets its shot against Syracuse in the first round of the Big East Tournament. The winner of that game gets Georgetown in the second round for a chance to put an end to any speculation.
5). St. Joe’s
There were a number of choke-jobs in the A-10 but only Rhode Island’s failure to capitalize on a 20-4 start can rival St. Joe’s losing to Duquesne, St. Louis, and LaSalle down the stretch. A win over any of those 100+ RPI-teams probably would’ve been enough. Instead, St. Joe’s needs a miracle. Fortunately for the Red Hawks, that miracle could come in the form of a nicely set-up bracket in the A-10 Tournament. St. Joe’s gets Fordham in the first round. A win there would bring a match-up in the second round against Richmond (Richmond is the #4 seed, St. Joe’s is the #6 seed!). A win there would set-up a colossal showdown against Xavier just an hour away from the St. Joe’s campus. The first two games should be easy wins. A win over Xavier would likely send St. Joe’s to the tourney.
Top Seeds
#1 Seeds
Tennessee
Memphis
UCLA
North Carolina
#2 Seeds
Texas
Duke
Georgetown
Kansas
#3 Seeds
Vanderbilt
Wisconsin
Xavier
Louisville
#4 Seeds
Drake
Connecticut
Notre Dame
Stanford
#5 Seeds
Washington St.
Purdue
Butler
BYU
#6 Seeds
Michigan St.
Indiana
Clemson
Marquette
#7 Seeds
Pittsburgh
Gonzaga
UNLV
Oklahoma
#8 Seeds
Miami FL
Massachusetts
Mississippi St.
Kent St.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Tigers could coast into playoffs with a strong start
Before the Tigers took the field in 2007 to defend their American League Championship, one could’ve predicted potential disappointment because of the “red herring” that was the second half-schedule. Of course, most Detroiters were still too much in shock that the Tigers weren’t the worst team ever anymore to care about something as trivial as “the second-half schedule.” Unfortunately, said schedule featured 43 games against teams that were above .500 the previous season. There were few breaks in the slate as the Tigers only played 13 games against teams with fewer than 75 wins in ’06. If Detroit was healthy for that part of the schedule, it may have been able to sneak into the playoffs. However, the difficulty of the schedule combined with a number of key injuries (losing Sheffield for that stretch ended up being the deal-breaker, IMO) made for an incredibly disappointing end to 2007.
Contrast that to the 2008 schedule and it appears that the schedule-maker noticed the raw deal that the Tigers were dealt in ’07 and made amends. I would venture to say that the second-half schedule for 2008 is even easier than the 2007 second-half schedule was difficult. In the final 67 games this season, the Tigers only play 17 games against teams that were above .500 last season. That’s 26 fewer than in the second-half of 2007. Even more incredible is that the Tigers play 41 games in the latter half of the season against teams that won fewer than 75 games in 2007. That’s 28 more than last season. The Tigers will see an extreme shift in second-half schedule difficulty from last season and I think that will make this season much more successful. The second-half of the MLB season is notorious for the “grind” of playing through the summer months and mounting injuries. The Tigers had no chance against those factors last season. Even a few key injuries likely wouldn’t be enough to derail the Tigers from finishing strong in 2008.
This is good news for a number of obvious reasons. However, the “best” reason is that it puts the Tigers in a win-win situation for the first-half of 2008. If the Tigers play good baseball and find themselves close to the division lead at the All-Star break, then they will be in excellent position to pull away from the field as they get into the easy part of the schedule. If things fall apart for one reason or another in the first half, the Tigers can rest easy knowing that they will have the opportunity to take advantage of a weak schedule post-All-Star break. The Tigers could also have the luxury of resting their starting pitching near the end of the season if they’re able to pull away from the pack.
Usually the best team wins in baseball but if teams are close enough in talent (i.e. Cleveland and Detroit in ’07), the schedule can play a huge factor in which team moves on to the postseason. It feels good to have that on our side this time around.
Contrast that to the 2008 schedule and it appears that the schedule-maker noticed the raw deal that the Tigers were dealt in ’07 and made amends. I would venture to say that the second-half schedule for 2008 is even easier than the 2007 second-half schedule was difficult. In the final 67 games this season, the Tigers only play 17 games against teams that were above .500 last season. That’s 26 fewer than in the second-half of 2007. Even more incredible is that the Tigers play 41 games in the latter half of the season against teams that won fewer than 75 games in 2007. That’s 28 more than last season. The Tigers will see an extreme shift in second-half schedule difficulty from last season and I think that will make this season much more successful. The second-half of the MLB season is notorious for the “grind” of playing through the summer months and mounting injuries. The Tigers had no chance against those factors last season. Even a few key injuries likely wouldn’t be enough to derail the Tigers from finishing strong in 2008.
This is good news for a number of obvious reasons. However, the “best” reason is that it puts the Tigers in a win-win situation for the first-half of 2008. If the Tigers play good baseball and find themselves close to the division lead at the All-Star break, then they will be in excellent position to pull away from the field as they get into the easy part of the schedule. If things fall apart for one reason or another in the first half, the Tigers can rest easy knowing that they will have the opportunity to take advantage of a weak schedule post-All-Star break. The Tigers could also have the luxury of resting their starting pitching near the end of the season if they’re able to pull away from the pack.
Usually the best team wins in baseball but if teams are close enough in talent (i.e. Cleveland and Detroit in ’07), the schedule can play a huge factor in which team moves on to the postseason. It feels good to have that on our side this time around.
Monday, March 03, 2008
"Projections" grabs an offensive board
Kevin Borseth is My Hero
Not only do I disagree with the incredibly insane Tony Kornheiser that Michigan Women’s Basketball Coach Kevin Borseth should be fired, I think Borseth deserves a raise! Borseth nearly self-combusted during a post-game rant after Michigan blew an 18-point lead against Wisconsin last week. Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon lamented the tirade on PTI by saying Borseth’s rant had “no theme.” That’s like saying Rick Majerus doesn’t have a vice. The theme of the rant was--without question--“offensive rebounds.” Borseth has taken a lot of flack across the country for his outburst but watch the video and tell me that’s not a guy who is committed to—and passionate about—his job. I don’t know much about Borseth, but I do know that I’d hire him for pretty much anything after seeing his fervor. It was already obvious that Borseth had revitalized the Michigan Woman’s Basketball team. Michigan was 3-13 in the Big Ten last year. It is 9-8 in the Big Ten this season. However, after seeing him get that worked up over offensive boards, it’s no wonder his team is fighting for an at-large bid in the NCAA Tournament. This wasn't a guy being a jerk swearing his way through a meltdown. This is a guy who is as frustrated as any human has ever been in the history of the universe because his team lost and he didn’t think it deserved such a fate. Kornheiser gets paid to stay idiotic things like, “fire this guy for showing passion” but I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the folks in the Michigan Athletic Department are tickled to death to have Borseth running the woman’s basketball team. At least this guy understands that.
No Favorite
Early in the college basketball season, it appeared there were eight teams that had separated themselves from the rest of D-1 basketball. N. Carolina, Duke, Memphis, Kansas, Georgetown, UCLA, Texas, and Tennessee appeared to be the only teams with realistic shots at winning the NCAA Tournament. I’m not sure I agree with that anymore. I have no problem envisioning a team from the following group winning the tournament: Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Connecticut, Louisville, Michigan St., Marquette, and Stanford. The odds of any one of those teams winning the championship are pretty slim but, as a group, I think the odds are pretty good. Over the last two weeks, the top teams have looked beatable. Vanderbilt took down Tennessee. Duke lost to Wake Forest, Miami FL and nearly lost to NC State. Kansas lost to Oklahoma St. Texas lost to Texas Tech. Georgetown lost to Syracuse and very nearly lost to Marquette. I’m guessing that N. Carolina will be the chic pick come Selection Sunday. However, I don’t think the field has been this wide-open in my lifetime. This means we can expect two things come March: 1). The NCAA Tournament will be crazier than Gary Busey and 2). The person who knows the least about college basketball will win your pool again.
Not only do I disagree with the incredibly insane Tony Kornheiser that Michigan Women’s Basketball Coach Kevin Borseth should be fired, I think Borseth deserves a raise! Borseth nearly self-combusted during a post-game rant after Michigan blew an 18-point lead against Wisconsin last week. Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon lamented the tirade on PTI by saying Borseth’s rant had “no theme.” That’s like saying Rick Majerus doesn’t have a vice. The theme of the rant was--without question--“offensive rebounds.” Borseth has taken a lot of flack across the country for his outburst but watch the video and tell me that’s not a guy who is committed to—and passionate about—his job. I don’t know much about Borseth, but I do know that I’d hire him for pretty much anything after seeing his fervor. It was already obvious that Borseth had revitalized the Michigan Woman’s Basketball team. Michigan was 3-13 in the Big Ten last year. It is 9-8 in the Big Ten this season. However, after seeing him get that worked up over offensive boards, it’s no wonder his team is fighting for an at-large bid in the NCAA Tournament. This wasn't a guy being a jerk swearing his way through a meltdown. This is a guy who is as frustrated as any human has ever been in the history of the universe because his team lost and he didn’t think it deserved such a fate. Kornheiser gets paid to stay idiotic things like, “fire this guy for showing passion” but I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the folks in the Michigan Athletic Department are tickled to death to have Borseth running the woman’s basketball team. At least this guy understands that.
No Favorite
Early in the college basketball season, it appeared there were eight teams that had separated themselves from the rest of D-1 basketball. N. Carolina, Duke, Memphis, Kansas, Georgetown, UCLA, Texas, and Tennessee appeared to be the only teams with realistic shots at winning the NCAA Tournament. I’m not sure I agree with that anymore. I have no problem envisioning a team from the following group winning the tournament: Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Connecticut, Louisville, Michigan St., Marquette, and Stanford. The odds of any one of those teams winning the championship are pretty slim but, as a group, I think the odds are pretty good. Over the last two weeks, the top teams have looked beatable. Vanderbilt took down Tennessee. Duke lost to Wake Forest, Miami FL and nearly lost to NC State. Kansas lost to Oklahoma St. Texas lost to Texas Tech. Georgetown lost to Syracuse and very nearly lost to Marquette. I’m guessing that N. Carolina will be the chic pick come Selection Sunday. However, I don’t think the field has been this wide-open in my lifetime. This means we can expect two things come March: 1). The NCAA Tournament will be crazier than Gary Busey and 2). The person who knows the least about college basketball will win your pool again.
Projections
Here is how I view the field right now (at-large bids are sorted by conference):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Tennessee
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Michigan St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC BYU
9 WAC Utah St.
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial VCU
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC St. Mary’s
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Marist
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Northridge
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Cornell
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Lafayette
25 Southland Sam Houston St.
26 Northeast Wagner
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South NC Asheville
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Alabama St.
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large Maryland
36 At-Large Va. Tech
37 At-Large Miami FL
38 At-Large Pittsburgh
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Notre Dame
41 At-Large Connecticut
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large Marquette
44 At-Large Stanford
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large USC
48 At-Large Oklahoma
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Baylor
53 At-Large Purdue
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Florida
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Mississippi St.
60 At-Large Kentucky
61 At-Large Dayton
62 At-Large Massachusetts
63 At-Large UAB
64 At-Large Illinois St.
65 At-Large UNLV
Changes from last week:
In: Illinois St., Florida, UAB
Out: New Mexico, Villanova, St. Joe’s
*I don't look at other projections—Lunardi's included—at any point in the season. Everything I do is based on researching each team's resume. My projections are based on who I think will be there based on the results of games played and the difficulty of remaining schedules. This isn’t a “if the season ended today”-deal.
This projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. 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.
Last five “in” (no particular order)
1). Dayton
Dayton is one of the numerous teams that must go 2-0 this week to have any shot at an at-large bid. The Flyers get St. Bonaventure on the road and St. Joe’s at home. Two wins would get them to 8-8 in the A-10 with wins over Louisville, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, Temple, and St. Joe’s and—more importantly—an RPI in the top 30. Last week I wrote that the bubble was enormous. One week later, Dayton is one of the only true bubble teams.
2). Va. Tech/Maryland
I would hate to see either of these teams get an at-large bid. They have combined to beat one team in the RPI 50. Neither team has a non-conference win in the RPI 100. Those are horrendous things to have on a resume. The only thing these teams have going for them is that they may finish above .500 in the ACC. If there aren’t many conference tournament-upsets this year, there are going to be a number of sorry teams that receive at-large bids starting with these two. This is the year to root for Wright St, Western Kentucky and the like to steal automatic bids.
3). Texas A&M
The Aggies are in trouble. They must avoid going 0-2 this week. Playing at Baylor and home against Kansas will make that a difficult task. A split in the final week of the regular season will put them at 8-8 in the Big XII. Even then, there still aren’t many impressive wins on the resume. This team will likely need to go 2-0 this week or make some noise in the Big XII Tournament to have any shot at a bid.
4).Illinois St.
With its win at S. Illinois this week, Illinois St. pretty much guaranteed that it would be the second team out of the MVC if the conference gets multiple bids. There is no question that ISU is the second best team in the conference. Its RPI, conference record, and head-to-head edge over S. Illinois says so. Illinois St. would have to screw up big-time in the Valley Tournament to miss out on a bid.
5). UAB
UAB is in a similar position. It is the second best team in Conference-USA. Houston’s horrible loss to East Carolina over the weekend made it pretty easy to separate UAB and Houston. UAB has the better RPI, conference record, and the head-to-head advantage. The real question is whether C-USA will get a second bid. UAB would have to make it to the finals of the C-USA Tournament to even have a chance and even then, UAB has zero wins in the RPI 50.
First five “out” (no particular order)
1). Rhode Island
Rhode Island needs to beat Charlotte on Saturday to get to 8-8 in the A-10. A loss is a deal-breaker. A win merely gets URI in the discussion. Victories over UAB, Syracuse, and Dayton and an RPI in the high 40s won’t be enough. The Rams will need to make a run in the A-10 Tournament.
2). S. Illinois
We’re getting into teams that really have no chance other than winning their conference tournament. S. Illinois would need to reach the finals of the Valley Tournament to even have a prayer. Even then, it would boast 14 losses. An at-large bid is as likely at this point as David Archuleta not winning American Idol.
3). Ohio St.
As horrible as Ohio St. has played recently, it will have two games to make or break its at-large hopes. Unfortunately, those two home games are against Purdue and Michigan St. As unlikely as two wins are, a sweep would probably put OSU in the tournament. Stranger things have happened.
4). St. Joe’s
Replace Ohio St, Purdue and Michigan St. with St. Joe’s, Xavier and Dayton and the previous paragraph fits here verbatim.
5). Syracuse
Replace Ohio St., Purdue and Michigan St. with Syracuse, Seton Hall, and Marquette and two paragraphs previous fits here verbatim.
Top Seeds
#1 Seeds
Tennessee
Memphis
Duke
North Carolina
#2 Seeds
Texas
UCLA
Georgetown
Kansas
#3 Seeds
Vanderbilt
Wisconsin
Xavier
Connecticut
#4 Seeds
Purdue
Louisville
Notre Dame
Stanford
#5 Seeds
Marquette
Drake
Indiana
Michigan St.
#6 Seeds
Butler
Washington St.
Clemson
Pittsburgh
#7 Seeds
BYU
Gonzaga
UNLV
USC
#8 Seeds
Oklahoma
Massachusetts
Arkansas
St. Mary’s
Big Games this Week
Monday
Pittsburgh @ West Virginia
Tuesday
Wake Forest @ Virginia Tech
Purdue @ Ohio St.
UNLV @ New Mexico
Arkansas @ Mississippi
Wednesday
Texas A&M @ Baylor
Mississippi St. @ Vanderbilt
Tennessee @ Florida
Thursday
Xavier @ St. Joe’s
Stanford @ UCLA
Friday
None
Saturday
St. Joe’s @ Dayton
North Carolina @ Duke
Baylor @ Texas Tech
Kansas @ Texas A&M
Louisville @ Georgetown
Marquette @ Syracuse
UAB @ Memphis
Stanford @ USC
Sunday
Va. Tech @ Clemson
Michigan St. @ Ohio St.
Florida @ Kentucky
Just for the heck of it...
Michigan got a raw deal on the "transfer exchange rate." I have no problem admitting that I enjoyed watching Robbie Reid fire up all 222 of his 3-point attempts in 1999 when Louis Bullock and Reid were the only scoring threats on the team. Seriously, Reid deserves an award for shooting seven 3s per game over an entire season. However, the list of players who have transferred to Michigan over the years is pretty pathetic. At least Michigan was able to win a game of "hot potato" with North Carolina with respect to Makhtar Ndiaye. Wake Forest was the big winner in the Ndiaye sweepstakes, though, because he never actually played for the school.
Transferred from Michigan
Rich McIver to Texas
Albert White to Missouri
Olivier Saint-Jean to San Jose St.
Willie Mitchell to UAB
Leon Derricks to U of D Mercy
Leland Anderson to Providence
Sam Mitchell to Cleveland St.
"Rainmaker" Baker to Florida Gulf Coast University
Chuck Bailey to U of D Mercy
Bobby Crawford to Rice
Brandon Smith to San Diego St.
Kevin Gaines to Houston
Dommanic Ingerson to UC Santa Barbara
Makhtar Ndiaye to North Carolina
Transferred to Michigan
Robbie Reid from BYU
Zack Gibson from Rutgers
Makhtar Ndiaye from Wake Forest
Laval Lucas-Perry from Arizona
J.C. Mathis from Virginia
* These lists are from memory so if you remember anyone I missed, please pass them along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
