It’s never satisfying to root for a man to get fired when that man has put his heart and soul into his job. Everyone that follows athletics knows that the coaching industry is different. If you don’t do your job well coaching a high-profile college basketball program, you get fired. Other than a few low-level major conference teams (i.e. Northwestern, Baylor) you don’t get to keep your job by being average. So, Tommy Amaker is gone. I find myself engaging in a bit of a semantics battle with myself. On one hand, I am thrilled that Michigan basketball will have a chance to return to glory. On the other hand, I’m remorseful that a man who put UM first for six years is out of a job. To clear up any misconceptions as to which wins out in my mind, though, it’s 98/2 in favor of being thrilled.
In the two days since Amaker was fired, writers around the country have thrown out virtually every name imaginable as a possible replacement. Last month, I posted a list of the top 26 candidates for the Michigan job should Amaker be fired. Most of the names on that list are being bandied about now among others. I did not include coaches in their first year with their perspective programs (i.e. Tony Bennett WSU, Anthony Grant VCU) since coaches rarely coach at a school for one season. Bennett and Grant would have been in the top ten had I not excluded first-year coaches. Hopefully, Bill Martin has enough foresight to consider them and likewise, hopefully either would be willing to leave their current program after one season.
My preference for the hire would be a coach that is unique in his abilities (someone who has immediately influenced a program) and a coach that is relatively young. Mike Montgomery, Lon Kruger and Rick Majerus could probably come to Michigan and get the program running again. The problem is that fairly soon into their tenure, Michigan will have to go through another coaching hire when those coaches inevitably retire. The problem with hiring a young coach is the “Amaker Factor.” There weren’t many people back in 2001 that didn’t think Amaker could get things done. However, if you look at things more closely now, the Amaker hire was more of a prayer than it was a solid basketball hire. Amaker hadn’t accomplished much in his career. His big asset was his tutelage under Coach K.
If Michigan is going to hire another young coach, it has to look at what the coach accomplished on his own. In year one at VCU, Anthony Grant led his team to the best finish any school has ever had in the Colonial Conference as well as a first round win over Duke in the NCAA Tournament. In year one at Washington State, Tony Bennett led his team to a 26-8 record and a #3 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Washington State went 11-17 last year. There is a huge difference between hiring a young coach with a good pedigree and hiring a coach with sound accomplishments. Hopefully, Bill Martin has seen the impact of choosing the wrong one.
This would be my short list of candidates:
The Fat and Happy:
Billy Gillispie Texas A&M
Gillispie is from the south. He’s already created a powerhouse at Texas A&M. I can’t imagine he’d be interested in leaving that to inherit another underachieving program up north.
Tom Crean Marquette
Crean has a good thing going at Marquette. I would not be surprised if he felt Marquette was a better gig than Michigan. However, I don’t believe there is any doubt as to which program has the higher ceiling.
The Mid-Majors:
Gregg Marshall Winthrop
Marshall has been quietly running a fantastic mid-major program at Winthrop for some time now. His first round upset of Notre Dame validated his credentials even more.
Todd Lickliter Butler
Lickliter has Butler in the Sweet Sixteen with victories over Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Gonzaga, and Maryland. He will undoubtedly be near the top of Bill Martin’s list.
Chris Lowery S. Illinois
Lowery is a young coach with a reputation for being a very good recruiter. He has S. Illinois in the Sweet Sixteen after storming through the Missouri Valley Conference during the regular season.
The Inexperienced:
Anthony Grant VCU
I don’t think Grant and Amaker are comparable. When Michigan hired Amaker, he was a “name.” Grant revitalized the VCU program in just one season with an athletic pressing defense. He may not be the next Coach K but I don’t think there is any doubt that his abilities extend beyond pedigree.
Tony Bennett Washington State
Bennett did one of the more impressive coaching jobs I have ever seen in college basketball. Washington State was 11-17 in 2005-06. Bennett led WSU to a 27-8 record this season in his first year. I’m sure there were some other factors involved (i.e. the return of injured players and the maturation of players) but what he did was impressive no matter how you spin it.
Like any hire, you want to get it right the first time. Any coach that I mentioned in my post last month could probably get the job done. This is a “shoot for the Moon and if you miss you still be among stars” scenario. Michigan has nothing to lose in terms of looking at every conceivable lead. I’m just thrilled that Michigan Basketball will be heading in a new direction. This is the point at which the possibilities for success are endless. I remember feeling this way six years ago. Hopefully, this will turn out a bit different.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Arkansas gives hope to all the undeserving
For the most part, the NCAA Selection Committee did a very fine job selecting the 34 at-large teams. Since the Committee and I agreed on 33 of the 34 at-large selections, you might have guessed that I would have complimentary things to say following Selection Sunday. In a way, it actually made last season’s atrocious job look even worse. For instance, how does Air Force not get in after getting in last year? Don’t get me wrong—Air Force did not deserve a bid this season after choking away its season over the last couple weeks. However, Air Force’s 2007 resume was vastly more impressive than its 2006 resume. The ’06 squad had zero wins over NCAA Tournament teams. The ’07 squad had five. The ’06 squad had an RPI of 50. The ’07 squad had an RPI of 30. The ’06 squad had three wins in the RPI80. The ’07 squad had six wins in the RPI80. Air Force was only the beginning of the Selection Committee’s faux pas’ last year. Thankfully, the committee only made one such mistake this year—albeit an extremely glaring one.
I’m not as bothered this season simply because there weren’t any teams that didn’t make it that really belonged. Sure, there were six or seven teams that had beefs but they all had their chance to avoid the “bubble” and they all failed to cement their status as a “lock”. The reason why I was so disgruntled last season was because there were so many teams that should have made it over teams that did make it. This year, there is just one team that had no business making it. Any number of the six or seven “bubble” teams that did not make the field would have been fine. The only choice the committee could have made to make it not fine would be the team it ended up choosing: the Arkansas Razorbacks.
How this team garnered an at-large invitation is beyond me. The popular belief has been that Arkansas earned its spot in the tournament by embarking on a five game winning streak near the end of the season. I suppose a five-game winning streak could be impressive if it weren’t against a collection of average to below-average SEC teams. Since when did beating Mississippi St. twice, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt twice constitute a brutal, season defining stretch? What troubles me is that the head of the Selection Committee, Gary Walters, said that Arkansas was in before it even played in the SEC Championship game unless NC State upset North Carolina in the ACC Championship game. That makes me think that instead of waiting to see if Arkansas stole an automatic bid away from another team (i.e. Syracuse, Kansas St., Drexel), the Committee just decided it would just throw Arkansas in and not have to worry about it. You’ll never get anyone on the committee to admit that but that is the only sane explanation that I can come up with to justify Arkansas’ inclusion. Or, maybe the fact that the SEC had a representative in the ears of the Selection Committee while the Big East chose not to had something to with it.
Arkansas wasn’t even on the radar one week ago. That is why their five-game winning streak bothers me so much. It’s not as if Arkansas was 50/50 a week ago and then won five games in a row. That would at least be somewhat acceptable. Arkansas was headed to the NIT and everyone knew it—except, of course, the Selection Committee. How can a team that was universally slated to the NIT earn an at-large bid by winning five games in a row against a group of teams with an RPI no better than 47? A lot has been made of Arkansas’ march to the SEC Championship game. Few teams in NCAA history had an easier route to a major conference championship game. Yet somehow, Arkansas parlayed a modest five-game winning streak and a blow-out loss in the SEC Final into an NCAA bid.
As far as I’m concerned, any of the following teams were better choices than Arkansas: Syracuse, Drexel, Kansas St., and West Virginia. Like I said earlier, I don’t really feel bad for any of those teams because none of them had stellar seasons. But, it’s not fair to them that a team got in with an inferior resume. Since I had Syracuse in the tournament, I obviously feel they had the best resume of the bunch. So, I’ll do a little Arkansas-Syracuse comparison. I cannot come up with a single reason why Arkansas should be in over Syracuse other than having a better RPI.
Arkansas
Arkansas lost to 9 of 11 SEC teams.
No team in the SEC West made the Tournament with the exception of Arkansas AND there was only one team lower in the SEC West standings than Arkansas. How does that happen?
Arkansas only beat three tournament teams (Vandy (2) and Southern Illinois).
Arkansas went from Nov 23 to March 3 without beating a single NCAA Tournament team. I'm guessing that the 2006 Air Force team is the only other at-large selection to have such a futile streak.
Arkansas went 4-6 against Tournament teams.
Arkansas had one victory inside the RPI 45.
Arkansas was essentially awarded an at-large bid for finishing the season on a five-game winning streak which culminated in a thumping at the hands of Florida. The five game winning streak came against the powerhouse lineup of Mississippi St., Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi St. It’s too bad every bubble team can’t finish the season with a five-game stretch like that to cement a bid.
Four other SEC teams made the NCAA Tournament other than Arkansas. Arkansas only had to play each team once. Yet, Arkansas still only managed a 7-9 conference record. Compare that to Georgia which finished 8-8 in the conference while playing NINE games against the SEC teams that are in the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas had 12 conference games against teams that didn’t make the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas went 2-8 in true road games.
Arkansas was 6-4 in its last ten.
Arkansas went 9-10 after Jan 9.
Before Arkansas was bailed out by an incredibly easy SEC Tournament draw, it had finished the season on a 6-9 stretch.
Syracuse
Syracuse lost to 6 of 15 Big East teams.
Syracuse finished 5th in the Big East—tied with Marquette and one spot ahead of Villanova.
Syracuse beat five tournament teams including the Big East regular season and tournament champ Georgetown.
Syracuse went 5-5 against NCAA Tournament teams.
Syracuse had three victories in the RPI22
Syracuse went 11-6 after Jan 7.
Syracuse was 7-3 in its last ten.
Syracuse had nine conference games against teams that didn’t make the Tournament
Syracuse went 5-4 in true road games.
I’m not as bothered this season simply because there weren’t any teams that didn’t make it that really belonged. Sure, there were six or seven teams that had beefs but they all had their chance to avoid the “bubble” and they all failed to cement their status as a “lock”. The reason why I was so disgruntled last season was because there were so many teams that should have made it over teams that did make it. This year, there is just one team that had no business making it. Any number of the six or seven “bubble” teams that did not make the field would have been fine. The only choice the committee could have made to make it not fine would be the team it ended up choosing: the Arkansas Razorbacks.
How this team garnered an at-large invitation is beyond me. The popular belief has been that Arkansas earned its spot in the tournament by embarking on a five game winning streak near the end of the season. I suppose a five-game winning streak could be impressive if it weren’t against a collection of average to below-average SEC teams. Since when did beating Mississippi St. twice, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt twice constitute a brutal, season defining stretch? What troubles me is that the head of the Selection Committee, Gary Walters, said that Arkansas was in before it even played in the SEC Championship game unless NC State upset North Carolina in the ACC Championship game. That makes me think that instead of waiting to see if Arkansas stole an automatic bid away from another team (i.e. Syracuse, Kansas St., Drexel), the Committee just decided it would just throw Arkansas in and not have to worry about it. You’ll never get anyone on the committee to admit that but that is the only sane explanation that I can come up with to justify Arkansas’ inclusion. Or, maybe the fact that the SEC had a representative in the ears of the Selection Committee while the Big East chose not to had something to with it.
Arkansas wasn’t even on the radar one week ago. That is why their five-game winning streak bothers me so much. It’s not as if Arkansas was 50/50 a week ago and then won five games in a row. That would at least be somewhat acceptable. Arkansas was headed to the NIT and everyone knew it—except, of course, the Selection Committee. How can a team that was universally slated to the NIT earn an at-large bid by winning five games in a row against a group of teams with an RPI no better than 47? A lot has been made of Arkansas’ march to the SEC Championship game. Few teams in NCAA history had an easier route to a major conference championship game. Yet somehow, Arkansas parlayed a modest five-game winning streak and a blow-out loss in the SEC Final into an NCAA bid.
As far as I’m concerned, any of the following teams were better choices than Arkansas: Syracuse, Drexel, Kansas St., and West Virginia. Like I said earlier, I don’t really feel bad for any of those teams because none of them had stellar seasons. But, it’s not fair to them that a team got in with an inferior resume. Since I had Syracuse in the tournament, I obviously feel they had the best resume of the bunch. So, I’ll do a little Arkansas-Syracuse comparison. I cannot come up with a single reason why Arkansas should be in over Syracuse other than having a better RPI.
Arkansas
Arkansas lost to 9 of 11 SEC teams.
No team in the SEC West made the Tournament with the exception of Arkansas AND there was only one team lower in the SEC West standings than Arkansas. How does that happen?
Arkansas only beat three tournament teams (Vandy (2) and Southern Illinois).
Arkansas went from Nov 23 to March 3 without beating a single NCAA Tournament team. I'm guessing that the 2006 Air Force team is the only other at-large selection to have such a futile streak.
Arkansas went 4-6 against Tournament teams.
Arkansas had one victory inside the RPI 45.
Arkansas was essentially awarded an at-large bid for finishing the season on a five-game winning streak which culminated in a thumping at the hands of Florida. The five game winning streak came against the powerhouse lineup of Mississippi St., Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi St. It’s too bad every bubble team can’t finish the season with a five-game stretch like that to cement a bid.
Four other SEC teams made the NCAA Tournament other than Arkansas. Arkansas only had to play each team once. Yet, Arkansas still only managed a 7-9 conference record. Compare that to Georgia which finished 8-8 in the conference while playing NINE games against the SEC teams that are in the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas had 12 conference games against teams that didn’t make the NCAA Tournament.
Arkansas went 2-8 in true road games.
Arkansas was 6-4 in its last ten.
Arkansas went 9-10 after Jan 9.
Before Arkansas was bailed out by an incredibly easy SEC Tournament draw, it had finished the season on a 6-9 stretch.
Syracuse
Syracuse lost to 6 of 15 Big East teams.
Syracuse finished 5th in the Big East—tied with Marquette and one spot ahead of Villanova.
Syracuse beat five tournament teams including the Big East regular season and tournament champ Georgetown.
Syracuse went 5-5 against NCAA Tournament teams.
Syracuse had three victories in the RPI22
Syracuse went 11-6 after Jan 7.
Syracuse was 7-3 in its last ten.
Syracuse had nine conference games against teams that didn’t make the Tournament
Syracuse went 5-4 in true road games.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Final NCAA Tournament Projections 2007
I’m going to save further analysis until I have sufficient time to address why I have certain teams in the tournament and why I don’t. I just returned from the Big Ten Tournament (did not stay for the Championship game) so I am a bit pressed for time.
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 Oregon
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC UNLV
9 WAC New Mexico St.
10 A-10 George Washington
11 Colonial VCU
12 MAC Miami (OH)
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt North Texas
16 Horizon Wright St.
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Maryland
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Boston College
35 At-Large Georgia Tech
36 At-Large Virginia
37 At-Large Virginia Tech
38 At-Large Tennessee
39 At-Large Kentucky
40 At-Large Vanderbilt
41 At-Large Butler
42 At-Large S. Illinois
43 At-Large Michigan St.
44 At-Large Wisconsin
45 At-Large Indiana
46 At-Large Illinois
47 At-Large Purdue
48 At-Large USC
49 At-Large Arizona
50 At-Large UCLA
51 At-Large Washington St.
52 At-Large Stanford
53 At-Large BYU
54 At-Large Xavier
55 At-Large Nevada
56 At-Large Old Dominion
57 At-Large Syracuse
58 At-Large Villanova
59 At-Large Marquette
60 At-Large Louisville
61 At-Large Notre Dame
62 At-Large Pittsburgh
63 At-Large Texas Tech
64 At-Large Texas A&M
65 At-Large Texas
The Last Five “Out” (in no particular order)
1). Air Force
2). Kansas St.
3). Drexel
4). Missouri St.
5). West Virginia
The Stanford Dilemma
The Selection Committee will have a dilemma on its hands with Stanford. The Cardinal went 4-6 in its last ten games including a 1-4 stretch to end the season. However, its last two losses were against USC and Arizona in overtime so it’s not as if Stanford had been playing poorly. Also, few teams in college basketball can even come close to matching Stanford’s quality of wins this year. Here is a list of the teams that Stanford beat along with the RPI of those teams (all of which are likely at-large selections):
#2 UCLA
#21 Oregon
#26 Washington St.
#40 USC
#53 Texas Tech
#54 Virginia
Combine those wins with the fact that a) Stanford finished 10-8 in a stacked Pac-10 and, more importantly, Stanford didn’t lose a single game this season to a team outside of the RPI100. In my opinion, there is no way any one of the five “out” teams above can compete with Stanford’s resume. Although, I am skeptical of the Selection Committee’s ability to figure this out. There already seems to be a collective agreement among the “experts” that Stanford is “out”. That would be ridiculous, IMO.
The # 1’s and #2’s
I don’t want to get too much into guessing the seeds for the tournament but, I’ll give you the number one seeds as I see them.
#1’s:
Ohio St.
Florida
UCLA
North Carolina
#2’s:
Kansas
Wisconsin
Georgetown
Memphis
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#30 Air Force
#35 Arkansas
#36 Missouri St.
#38 Bradley
#41 Florida St.
#43 Drexel
#45 Utah St.
#46 Clemson
#48 Alabama
#49 Oklahoma St.
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#65 Stanford
#54 Virginia
#53 Texas Tech
#53 Georgia Tech
#51 Syracuse
#47 Vanderbilt
#44 Purdue
#40 USC
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Louisville
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (7)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (2)
UNLV
BYU
CAA (2)
VCU
Old Dominion
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 Oregon
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC UNLV
9 WAC New Mexico St.
10 A-10 George Washington
11 Colonial VCU
12 MAC Miami (OH)
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt North Texas
16 Horizon Wright St.
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Maryland
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Boston College
35 At-Large Georgia Tech
36 At-Large Virginia
37 At-Large Virginia Tech
38 At-Large Tennessee
39 At-Large Kentucky
40 At-Large Vanderbilt
41 At-Large Butler
42 At-Large S. Illinois
43 At-Large Michigan St.
44 At-Large Wisconsin
45 At-Large Indiana
46 At-Large Illinois
47 At-Large Purdue
48 At-Large USC
49 At-Large Arizona
50 At-Large UCLA
51 At-Large Washington St.
52 At-Large Stanford
53 At-Large BYU
54 At-Large Xavier
55 At-Large Nevada
56 At-Large Old Dominion
57 At-Large Syracuse
58 At-Large Villanova
59 At-Large Marquette
60 At-Large Louisville
61 At-Large Notre Dame
62 At-Large Pittsburgh
63 At-Large Texas Tech
64 At-Large Texas A&M
65 At-Large Texas
The Last Five “Out” (in no particular order)
1). Air Force
2). Kansas St.
3). Drexel
4). Missouri St.
5). West Virginia
The Stanford Dilemma
The Selection Committee will have a dilemma on its hands with Stanford. The Cardinal went 4-6 in its last ten games including a 1-4 stretch to end the season. However, its last two losses were against USC and Arizona in overtime so it’s not as if Stanford had been playing poorly. Also, few teams in college basketball can even come close to matching Stanford’s quality of wins this year. Here is a list of the teams that Stanford beat along with the RPI of those teams (all of which are likely at-large selections):
#2 UCLA
#21 Oregon
#26 Washington St.
#40 USC
#53 Texas Tech
#54 Virginia
Combine those wins with the fact that a) Stanford finished 10-8 in a stacked Pac-10 and, more importantly, Stanford didn’t lose a single game this season to a team outside of the RPI100. In my opinion, there is no way any one of the five “out” teams above can compete with Stanford’s resume. Although, I am skeptical of the Selection Committee’s ability to figure this out. There already seems to be a collective agreement among the “experts” that Stanford is “out”. That would be ridiculous, IMO.
The # 1’s and #2’s
I don’t want to get too much into guessing the seeds for the tournament but, I’ll give you the number one seeds as I see them.
#1’s:
Ohio St.
Florida
UCLA
North Carolina
#2’s:
Kansas
Wisconsin
Georgetown
Memphis
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#30 Air Force
#35 Arkansas
#36 Missouri St.
#38 Bradley
#41 Florida St.
#43 Drexel
#45 Utah St.
#46 Clemson
#48 Alabama
#49 Oklahoma St.
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#65 Stanford
#54 Virginia
#53 Texas Tech
#53 Georgia Tech
#51 Syracuse
#47 Vanderbilt
#44 Purdue
#40 USC
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Louisville
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (7)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (2)
UNLV
BYU
CAA (2)
VCU
Old Dominion
Monday, March 05, 2007
NCAA Tournament Projections (Week of March 5)
There were some big-time choke jobs in college basketball last week. San Diego St. had an at-large bid seemingly wrapped up before inexplicably losing to Utah. Oklahoma St. simply needed to beat Baylor and Nebraska in its last two games but Mario Boggan got himself suspended for the Baylor game which OSU promptly lost. Kudos to Sean Sutton for choosing integrity over an NCAA Tournament bid because that’s what his suspension of Boggan ended up meaning. Michigan had a bid-clinching win in hand against #1 Ohio St. before falling apart at the end of the game. Alabama blew any chance it had at making the tournament by losing to Mississippi St. to cap a 2-5 finish to its season. While those teams were throwing their seasons away, Georgia Tech seems to have entered the 65-team field with authority having beaten North Carolina and Boston College to climb to 8-8 in the ACC.
I am fairly confident with regards to which teams will make up 63 of the 65 spots. The last two spots are going to depend on the conference tournaments. Teams like Kansas St. and DePaul will have a chance to validate themselves to the committee. If Nevada, Xavier, Butler, and Memphis don’t win their conference tournaments, then that will eliminate an opening. Likewise, if any of the teams that I don’t have projected from the major conferences win their conference tournament, then that will also eliminate a bid. There are teams that look to be safely in the tournament that could be out of luck if craziness presides this week.
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
Changes from last week:
In: Georgia Tech and VCU/George Mason winner
Out: Missouri St. and San Diego St.
(Automatic bids in Bold)
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial VCU/George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt Western Kentucky
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Marist
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Vermont
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Duke
33 At-Large Virginia
34 At-Large Michigan St.
35 At-Large Virginia Tech
36 At-Large Maryland
37 At-Large Boston College
38 At-Large BYU
39 At-Large Tennessee
40 At-Large Kentucky
41 At-Large Louisville
42 At-Large Drexel
43 At-Large Ga. Tech
44 At-Large Villanova
45 At-Large Marquette
46 At-Large West Virginia
47 At-Large Illinois
48 At-Large Pittsburgh
49 At-Large Notre Dame
50 At-Large Syracuse
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Texas A&M
53 At-Large Texas Tech
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Purdue
57 At-Large Arizona
58 At-Large Oregon
59 At-Large Washington St.
60 At-Large USC
61 At-Large UNLV
62 At-Large Vanderbilt
63 At-Large Old Dominion
64 At-Large Stanford
65 At-Large S. Illinois
My projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be five or more teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets, if not more.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. West Virginia
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 38
SOS: 98
W/L: 20-8
Record vs. RPI50: 2-6
Quality wins: Villanova, DePaul, and UCLA
Bad losses: @ Cincinnati
I really have no idea what the Selection Committee will do with West Virginia. The Mountaineers have two wins over tournament teams. That is way too low for any team to feel confident about receiving a bid. I’m guessing that the next mid-major to unexpectedly win a conference tournament will bump West Virginia out of the field.
2. Drexel
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 83
SOS: 96
W/L: 22-6
Record vs. RPI50: 3-4
Quality wins: @ Villanova, @ Syracuse, @ Hofstra, and @ Creighton
Bad losses: @ Pennsylvania, @ Rider, and @ William & Mary
Creighton winning the MVC Tournament definitely helped Drexel’s profile. Drexel won at Creighton earlier in the year. George Mason’s run in the CAA Tournament has also helped Drexel since Drexel defeated George Mason, too. What didn’t help Drexel was not making it to the CAA Tournament semi-finals. I do think an impressive road record and a number of quality wins will be enough to get Drexel an invitation.
3. Illinois
RPI rating: 35
Pomeroy rating: 22
SOS: 36
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-8
Quality wins: Bradley (neutral), Missouri (neutral), Indiana, Michigan St., and Michigan
Bad losses: @ Iowa
Illinois is hiding behind its 9-7 Big Ten record. That really is all it has in the name of compelling reasons to receive an at-large bid. Illinois is also benefiting from the fact that there are so many “bubble” teams that have wasted opportunities to solidify a bid. There is no doubt in my mind that if Illinois loses its first game in the BTT, it will be out.
4 Stanford
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 53
SOS: 23
W/L: 18-11
Record vs. RPI50: 5-6
Quality wins: Texas Tech, @ Virginia, Washington St., USC, UCLA, and Oregon
Bad losses: California and Santa Clara
Stanford is a lot like Georgia Tech and Texas Tech. They all have very impressive wins without gaudy overall records or conference records. The candidates for at-large bids are so weak that I don’t think a team with as many good wins as Stanford will be left out. Stanford’s low RPI will be troubling to the Selection Committee but no team that I have projected “out” of the tournament can compete with the six wins I have listed above.
5. Purdue
RPI rating: 45
Pomeroy rating: 26
SOS: 48
W/L: 20-10
Record vs. RPI50: 4-6
Quality wins: Virginia, DePaul (neutral), Illinois, Michigan St. and Indiana
Bad losses: @ Indiana St. and @ Minnesota
Two different college basketball experts will likely have two totally different views on Purdue. One person may be impressed by Purdue’s relatively impressive group of non-conference wins (Virginia, DePaul, Missouri, and Oklahoma) while another may be repulsed by the ease of Purdue’s Big Ten schedule. Purdue got to play Northwestern, Penn St. and Minnesota twice each which is a huge asset in the Big Ten. At the same time, Purdue only had to play Wisconsin, Michigan St., and Illinois once. There is no doubt in my mind that had Purdue had Michigan St. or Michigan’s Big Ten schedule, the Boilermakers would have been under .500 in the conference. I’m sure that the Selection Committee will be aware of that. Purdue must win its first game in the BTT or it’s out.
On the outside looking in:
1. Missouri St.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 43
SOS: 38
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: Wisconsin (neutral), Bradley, @ Bradley
Bad losses: @ Evansville, Northern Iowa, and @ St. Louis
IMO, Missouri St. was the first victim of a conference tournament upset. Neither VCU nor George Mason was going to get an at-large bid so that squeezes one team out of the tournament field. Missouri St. was, by far, the third best team in the MVC. Unfortunately for MVC, Creighton was by far the second best team. There is such a large gap between Creighton and Missouri St. that I think the Selection Committee will feel comfortable making a cutoff between those schools.
2. Kansas St.
RPI rating: 59
Pomeroy rating: 51
SOS: 95
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 1-5
Quality wins: USC (neutral) and @ Texas
Bad losses: @ Nebraska, @ Colorado St., and @ New Mexico
This one is a 50/50 toss-up. A 10-6 conference record has been enough to get a team from a major conference an at-large bid 99% of the time. Very few of those schools had schedules as easy as KSU’s though. If I had to make an argument for KSU, I would have a hard time doing so. The Wildcats haven’t beaten anyone of note in the conference with the exception of one win over Texas. This is a team that benefited from, quite possibly, the easiest major conference schedule of all-time. KSU’s resume doesn’t compare favorably to any of the at-large teams, let a lone a team like Michigan who has no chance of an at-large bid. Ten conferences wins is a magic number. For that reason—and that reason only—KSU has to be near the top of the “bubble” list.
3. San Diego St.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 77
SOS: 78
W/L: 19-9
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: California, Air Force, BYU, and UNLV
Bad losses: @ Western Michigan, Wyoming and @ Wyoming
Unbelievable. I was in shock when I saw that San Diego St. lost to Utah last week. All SDSU had to do was beat Utah and it would have been headed to the NCAA Tournament. No single loss was more damaging to any team in the NCAA this season. The only chance SDSU has now is to knock off one of the Mountain West’s big three and reach the finals of the MWC Tournament. It’s possible but unlikely. SDSU blew it big time.
4. Appalachian St.
RPI rating: 62
Pomeroy rating: 87
SOS: 156
W/L: 22-7
Record vs. RPI50: 3-2
Quality wins: Virginia (neutral), Vanderbilt (neutral), @ VCU, and @ Davidson
Bad losses: @ Wake Forest, Elon, @ NC Greensboro, @ Furman, and College of Charleston (neutral)
Appalachian St. has the bad combination of being a mid-major with a poor RPI. Some major schools can get away with a poor RPI but mid-majors almost always need an impressive RPI to garner consideration. Appalachian St. has some good wins but they are outnumbered by the amount of bad wins. I think this team would have received an at-large bid had it not lost three games to teams with an RPI of 190 or worse.
5. DePaul/Clemson/Oklahoma St./Massachusetts/Michigan/Alabama/Florida St.
I’m not going to bother with the statistical breakdown of these teams. None of these teams have a real good shot at making the tournament. Any team that loses its first conference tournament game will be out. Michigan needs to make it to the BTT Semi-Finals. DePaul needs three wins (two if one of them is against a very good team). Oklahoma St. needs to make the Big XII Championship game. Alabama needs to do the same in the SEC. Massachusetts needs to make the A10 Championship game. Clemson and Florida St. need to get to the ACC Semi-Finals. None of those things are guarantees for a bid. They are merely requirements to stay in contention.
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#36 Clemson
#38 Missouri St.
#42 Alabama
#44 Bradley
#47 Florida St.
#48 Arkansas
#52 Oklahoma St.
#53 Michigan
#55 San Diego St.
#56 Massachusetts
#59 Kansas St.
#60 Mississippi
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#58 West Virginia
#57 Stanford
#54 USC
#50 Syracuse
#46 Drexel
#45 Purdue
#43 Virginia
#41 Louisville
#40 Texas Tech
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Vanderbilt
#35 Illinois
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (8)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
W. Virginia
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (3)
Air Force
UNLV
BYU
CAA (3)
George Mason/VCU
Old Dominion
Drexel
I am fairly confident with regards to which teams will make up 63 of the 65 spots. The last two spots are going to depend on the conference tournaments. Teams like Kansas St. and DePaul will have a chance to validate themselves to the committee. If Nevada, Xavier, Butler, and Memphis don’t win their conference tournaments, then that will eliminate an opening. Likewise, if any of the teams that I don’t have projected from the major conferences win their conference tournament, then that will also eliminate a bid. There are teams that look to be safely in the tournament that could be out of luck if craziness presides this week.
My tournament projections are based on putting in the teams that deserve to be in the tournament regardless of conference affiliation and/or mid-major/major status. The Selection Committee did a horrific job last season so I will no longer try to guess what it is going to do. If I picked teams based on which teams I think the Committee will put in, I would have to intentionally pick teams that I don’t feel deserve a bid since that seems to be what the Committee does. Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
Changes from last week:
In: Georgia Tech and VCU/George Mason winner
Out: Missouri St. and San Diego St.
(Automatic bids in Bold)
1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Ohio St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Creighton
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial VCU/George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt Western Kentucky
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Marist
18 Big Sky Weber St.
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Long Beach St.
21 OVC Eastern Kentucky
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Texas A&M Corpus Christi
26 Northeast Central Connecticut St.
27 AEC Vermont
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Jackson St.
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Duke
33 At-Large Virginia
34 At-Large Michigan St.
35 At-Large Virginia Tech
36 At-Large Maryland
37 At-Large Boston College
38 At-Large BYU
39 At-Large Tennessee
40 At-Large Kentucky
41 At-Large Louisville
42 At-Large Drexel
43 At-Large Ga. Tech
44 At-Large Villanova
45 At-Large Marquette
46 At-Large West Virginia
47 At-Large Illinois
48 At-Large Pittsburgh
49 At-Large Notre Dame
50 At-Large Syracuse
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Texas A&M
53 At-Large Texas Tech
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Purdue
57 At-Large Arizona
58 At-Large Oregon
59 At-Large Washington St.
60 At-Large USC
61 At-Large UNLV
62 At-Large Vanderbilt
63 At-Large Old Dominion
64 At-Large Stanford
65 At-Large S. Illinois
My projected field assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be five or more teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets, if not more.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. West Virginia
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 38
SOS: 98
W/L: 20-8
Record vs. RPI50: 2-6
Quality wins: Villanova, DePaul, and UCLA
Bad losses: @ Cincinnati
I really have no idea what the Selection Committee will do with West Virginia. The Mountaineers have two wins over tournament teams. That is way too low for any team to feel confident about receiving a bid. I’m guessing that the next mid-major to unexpectedly win a conference tournament will bump West Virginia out of the field.
2. Drexel
RPI rating: 46
Pomeroy rating: 83
SOS: 96
W/L: 22-6
Record vs. RPI50: 3-4
Quality wins: @ Villanova, @ Syracuse, @ Hofstra, and @ Creighton
Bad losses: @ Pennsylvania, @ Rider, and @ William & Mary
Creighton winning the MVC Tournament definitely helped Drexel’s profile. Drexel won at Creighton earlier in the year. George Mason’s run in the CAA Tournament has also helped Drexel since Drexel defeated George Mason, too. What didn’t help Drexel was not making it to the CAA Tournament semi-finals. I do think an impressive road record and a number of quality wins will be enough to get Drexel an invitation.
3. Illinois
RPI rating: 35
Pomeroy rating: 22
SOS: 36
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-8
Quality wins: Bradley (neutral), Missouri (neutral), Indiana, Michigan St., and Michigan
Bad losses: @ Iowa
Illinois is hiding behind its 9-7 Big Ten record. That really is all it has in the name of compelling reasons to receive an at-large bid. Illinois is also benefiting from the fact that there are so many “bubble” teams that have wasted opportunities to solidify a bid. There is no doubt in my mind that if Illinois loses its first game in the BTT, it will be out.
4 Stanford
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 53
SOS: 23
W/L: 18-11
Record vs. RPI50: 5-6
Quality wins: Texas Tech, @ Virginia, Washington St., USC, UCLA, and Oregon
Bad losses: California and Santa Clara
Stanford is a lot like Georgia Tech and Texas Tech. They all have very impressive wins without gaudy overall records or conference records. The candidates for at-large bids are so weak that I don’t think a team with as many good wins as Stanford will be left out. Stanford’s low RPI will be troubling to the Selection Committee but no team that I have projected “out” of the tournament can compete with the six wins I have listed above.
5. Purdue
RPI rating: 45
Pomeroy rating: 26
SOS: 48
W/L: 20-10
Record vs. RPI50: 4-6
Quality wins: Virginia, DePaul (neutral), Illinois, Michigan St. and Indiana
Bad losses: @ Indiana St. and @ Minnesota
Two different college basketball experts will likely have two totally different views on Purdue. One person may be impressed by Purdue’s relatively impressive group of non-conference wins (Virginia, DePaul, Missouri, and Oklahoma) while another may be repulsed by the ease of Purdue’s Big Ten schedule. Purdue got to play Northwestern, Penn St. and Minnesota twice each which is a huge asset in the Big Ten. At the same time, Purdue only had to play Wisconsin, Michigan St., and Illinois once. There is no doubt in my mind that had Purdue had Michigan St. or Michigan’s Big Ten schedule, the Boilermakers would have been under .500 in the conference. I’m sure that the Selection Committee will be aware of that. Purdue must win its first game in the BTT or it’s out.
On the outside looking in:
1. Missouri St.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 43
SOS: 38
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: Wisconsin (neutral), Bradley, @ Bradley
Bad losses: @ Evansville, Northern Iowa, and @ St. Louis
IMO, Missouri St. was the first victim of a conference tournament upset. Neither VCU nor George Mason was going to get an at-large bid so that squeezes one team out of the tournament field. Missouri St. was, by far, the third best team in the MVC. Unfortunately for MVC, Creighton was by far the second best team. There is such a large gap between Creighton and Missouri St. that I think the Selection Committee will feel comfortable making a cutoff between those schools.
2. Kansas St.
RPI rating: 59
Pomeroy rating: 51
SOS: 95
W/L: 21-10
Record vs. RPI50: 1-5
Quality wins: USC (neutral) and @ Texas
Bad losses: @ Nebraska, @ Colorado St., and @ New Mexico
This one is a 50/50 toss-up. A 10-6 conference record has been enough to get a team from a major conference an at-large bid 99% of the time. Very few of those schools had schedules as easy as KSU’s though. If I had to make an argument for KSU, I would have a hard time doing so. The Wildcats haven’t beaten anyone of note in the conference with the exception of one win over Texas. This is a team that benefited from, quite possibly, the easiest major conference schedule of all-time. KSU’s resume doesn’t compare favorably to any of the at-large teams, let a lone a team like Michigan who has no chance of an at-large bid. Ten conferences wins is a magic number. For that reason—and that reason only—KSU has to be near the top of the “bubble” list.
3. San Diego St.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 77
SOS: 78
W/L: 19-9
Record vs. RPI50: 3-5
Quality wins: California, Air Force, BYU, and UNLV
Bad losses: @ Western Michigan, Wyoming and @ Wyoming
Unbelievable. I was in shock when I saw that San Diego St. lost to Utah last week. All SDSU had to do was beat Utah and it would have been headed to the NCAA Tournament. No single loss was more damaging to any team in the NCAA this season. The only chance SDSU has now is to knock off one of the Mountain West’s big three and reach the finals of the MWC Tournament. It’s possible but unlikely. SDSU blew it big time.
4. Appalachian St.
RPI rating: 62
Pomeroy rating: 87
SOS: 156
W/L: 22-7
Record vs. RPI50: 3-2
Quality wins: Virginia (neutral), Vanderbilt (neutral), @ VCU, and @ Davidson
Bad losses: @ Wake Forest, Elon, @ NC Greensboro, @ Furman, and College of Charleston (neutral)
Appalachian St. has the bad combination of being a mid-major with a poor RPI. Some major schools can get away with a poor RPI but mid-majors almost always need an impressive RPI to garner consideration. Appalachian St. has some good wins but they are outnumbered by the amount of bad wins. I think this team would have received an at-large bid had it not lost three games to teams with an RPI of 190 or worse.
5. DePaul/Clemson/Oklahoma St./Massachusetts/Michigan/Alabama/Florida St.
I’m not going to bother with the statistical breakdown of these teams. None of these teams have a real good shot at making the tournament. Any team that loses its first conference tournament game will be out. Michigan needs to make it to the BTT Semi-Finals. DePaul needs three wins (two if one of them is against a very good team). Oklahoma St. needs to make the Big XII Championship game. Alabama needs to do the same in the SEC. Massachusetts needs to make the A10 Championship game. Clemson and Florida St. need to get to the ACC Semi-Finals. None of those things are guarantees for a bid. They are merely requirements to stay in contention.
Highest rated RPI teams projected “out” of the tournament
#36 Clemson
#38 Missouri St.
#42 Alabama
#44 Bradley
#47 Florida St.
#48 Arkansas
#52 Oklahoma St.
#53 Michigan
#55 San Diego St.
#56 Massachusetts
#59 Kansas St.
#60 Mississippi
Lowest rated RPI teams projected “in” the tournament as at-large selections
#58 West Virginia
#57 Stanford
#54 USC
#50 Syracuse
#46 Drexel
#45 Purdue
#43 Virginia
#41 Louisville
#40 Texas Tech
#39 Old Dominion
#37 Vanderbilt
#35 Illinois
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (7)
UNC
Duke
BC
Virginia
Va. Tech
Maryland
Ga. Tech
Big East (8)
Pittsburgh
Villanova
Marquette
W. Virginia
Notre Dame
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
SEC (4)
Florida
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Pac-10 (6)
UCLA
Arizona
Oregon
WSU
USC
Stanford
Big XII (4)
Kansas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Texas
Big Ten (6)
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St.
MVC (2)
S. Illinois
Creighton
MWC (3)
Air Force
UNLV
BYU
CAA (3)
George Mason/VCU
Old Dominion
Drexel
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Year of the Bondo
At the risk of jumping the gun, I think this could be the year Jeremy Bonderman breaks through as a league-wide force in MLB. Bonderman has been lauded in recent years for his “talent”. Most notably, Curt Schilling said that if he were to start a team from scratch, Bonderman would be one of his five starters. That is high praise coming from a pitcher that is what many people feel Bonderman could become if everything works out perfectly. Bonderman’s slider is already considered one of the best in the game. Even still, his shortcomings are well noted—probably even more noted than his strengths. He doesn’t (or hadn’t by the end of ’06) have an effective third pitch. He is susceptible to giving up big innings. He often leaves his fastball over the heart of the plate. He only pitches as well as his last pitch. As soon as things start to unravel, things only seem to get worse. Fortunately for Bonderman, all of those things are fixable. It is possible—not likely but possible nonetheless—that those things were worked out over this past winter. It is more likely that it will take a few years to iron out those glitches.
I don’t have any sound data to back this up but I am pretty sure that Bonderman is the most popular answer to the recent marketing-inspired question/phenomenon, “Who’s your Tiger?” That’s my answer and I know a lot of people that echo the same response. Bonderman is one of those rare athletes that develops a huge following before reaching their potential. “Bondermania” started picking up steam two years ago when “Bondo” won 11 games before the All-Star break in ‘05. His All-Star game snub did not go over well in Detroit. But, a weak second half and an up and down 2006 have left Tigers fans begging for consistency. Personally, following Bondo’s starts has me on an emotional rollercoaster. Every “up” is followed by a “down.” In fact, there are some nights when I know I’m not in the mood to handle a Bondo meltdown so I don’t even watch. As unpredictable as Bondo has been, he can be equally as brilliant. His series-clinching performance against the Yankees was so mesmerizing that it captivated two stadiums filled to capacity. I didn’t even get a chance to watch it. I relied solely on the couple in front of me at the UM/MSU game who were listening to the game via radio. That was as euphoric a scene as this sports fan has ever seen (other than the mayhem that was Charles Woodson's punt return against OSU in '97). The only thing that could compete with being at Comerica Park for the event might be sitting with 111,000 people in disbelief. Bondo had a perfect game through five (only one other player has done that in the post-season over the last 20 years) against one of the best lineups ever assembled. If that doesn’t thrust Bondo into the big-time, then I don’t know what will.
A lot of Tigers fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when Dave Dombrowski managed to reach an agreement on an extension with Bonderman. That assures Bonderman will be with the franchise for the foreseeable future—and if his standing among other greats at the age of 24 is any indication, that could be a very successful foreseeable future. Here is how he stands among the great pitchers of the last 20 years in terms of wins by the age of 25:
Jeremy Bonderman 45 + ’07 Total
Greg Maddux 61
Roger Clemens 52
Pedro Martinez 48
Tom Glavine 33
Curt Schilling 4
Randy Johnson 0
If Bonderman can win 17 games in 2007, he’ll be ahead of every pitcher on the list—a list that is made entirely of future Hall of Famers. The encouraging thing is that, like the above pitchers at the age of 25, Bonderman hasn’t reached his prime yet. I’m inclined to believe that Bondo’s first four seasons have set the stage for his coming out party in season five. He has improved every season of his four-year career. His 2006 numbers featured career bests in Wins, Innings, ERA, HR’s allowed, K’s, Games Started, and Losses. For a 23-year old, Bonderman’s 2006 season has to go down as very good. As long as Bonderman continues the trend of constant improvement, his 2007 season should be stellar.
There has been a lot made of the need for Bondo to develop an effective third pitch. Bonderman himself admits that he’ll never reach “ace” status without it. Google “Bonderman needs an effective third pitch” for a slew of confirmations. Unfortunately, the notion that Bondo needs another pitch is true. I would bet that the vast majority of Bonderman’s struggles have come as a result of the batter being able to narrow his next pitch down to two choices. Span those two choices over seven innings and you have the makings for a lot of bad things. To Bondo’s credit, he has had to pitch brilliantly just to stay afloat with those two pitches. A third pitch would just make him nasty in the Johan Santana mold.
It is very easy to like Bonderman. I think that’s why he—and not any other Tiger—has been chosen as the people’s Tiger. He started off his career under the worst possible circumstances. He became the first US born player to be drafted as a junior in High School only to be publicly ridiculed in Moneyball for being a monumental mistake made by Oakland GM Billy Beane. He was traded to the worst franchise in MLB at the age of 19. He lost 19 games in his rookie year (could have been 20 if he wasn’t benched the last week of the season) with one of the worst teams ever assembled. What makes him so likeable is how he responded to those things. In 2005, he became the youngest opening day starter (22) in MLB since 1986. He has improved in each of his four seasons without as much as a single gripe. He has openly professed his desire to play in Detroit. Nothing has come easy for Bondo which makes his success that much more gratifying for Tigers fans.
I don’t have any sound data to back this up but I am pretty sure that Bonderman is the most popular answer to the recent marketing-inspired question/phenomenon, “Who’s your Tiger?” That’s my answer and I know a lot of people that echo the same response. Bonderman is one of those rare athletes that develops a huge following before reaching their potential. “Bondermania” started picking up steam two years ago when “Bondo” won 11 games before the All-Star break in ‘05. His All-Star game snub did not go over well in Detroit. But, a weak second half and an up and down 2006 have left Tigers fans begging for consistency. Personally, following Bondo’s starts has me on an emotional rollercoaster. Every “up” is followed by a “down.” In fact, there are some nights when I know I’m not in the mood to handle a Bondo meltdown so I don’t even watch. As unpredictable as Bondo has been, he can be equally as brilliant. His series-clinching performance against the Yankees was so mesmerizing that it captivated two stadiums filled to capacity. I didn’t even get a chance to watch it. I relied solely on the couple in front of me at the UM/MSU game who were listening to the game via radio. That was as euphoric a scene as this sports fan has ever seen (other than the mayhem that was Charles Woodson's punt return against OSU in '97). The only thing that could compete with being at Comerica Park for the event might be sitting with 111,000 people in disbelief. Bondo had a perfect game through five (only one other player has done that in the post-season over the last 20 years) against one of the best lineups ever assembled. If that doesn’t thrust Bondo into the big-time, then I don’t know what will.
A lot of Tigers fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when Dave Dombrowski managed to reach an agreement on an extension with Bonderman. That assures Bonderman will be with the franchise for the foreseeable future—and if his standing among other greats at the age of 24 is any indication, that could be a very successful foreseeable future. Here is how he stands among the great pitchers of the last 20 years in terms of wins by the age of 25:
Jeremy Bonderman 45 + ’07 Total
Greg Maddux 61
Roger Clemens 52
Pedro Martinez 48
Tom Glavine 33
Curt Schilling 4
Randy Johnson 0
If Bonderman can win 17 games in 2007, he’ll be ahead of every pitcher on the list—a list that is made entirely of future Hall of Famers. The encouraging thing is that, like the above pitchers at the age of 25, Bonderman hasn’t reached his prime yet. I’m inclined to believe that Bondo’s first four seasons have set the stage for his coming out party in season five. He has improved every season of his four-year career. His 2006 numbers featured career bests in Wins, Innings, ERA, HR’s allowed, K’s, Games Started, and Losses. For a 23-year old, Bonderman’s 2006 season has to go down as very good. As long as Bonderman continues the trend of constant improvement, his 2007 season should be stellar.
There has been a lot made of the need for Bondo to develop an effective third pitch. Bonderman himself admits that he’ll never reach “ace” status without it. Google “Bonderman needs an effective third pitch” for a slew of confirmations. Unfortunately, the notion that Bondo needs another pitch is true. I would bet that the vast majority of Bonderman’s struggles have come as a result of the batter being able to narrow his next pitch down to two choices. Span those two choices over seven innings and you have the makings for a lot of bad things. To Bondo’s credit, he has had to pitch brilliantly just to stay afloat with those two pitches. A third pitch would just make him nasty in the Johan Santana mold.
It is very easy to like Bonderman. I think that’s why he—and not any other Tiger—has been chosen as the people’s Tiger. He started off his career under the worst possible circumstances. He became the first US born player to be drafted as a junior in High School only to be publicly ridiculed in Moneyball for being a monumental mistake made by Oakland GM Billy Beane. He was traded to the worst franchise in MLB at the age of 19. He lost 19 games in his rookie year (could have been 20 if he wasn’t benched the last week of the season) with one of the worst teams ever assembled. What makes him so likeable is how he responded to those things. In 2005, he became the youngest opening day starter (22) in MLB since 1986. He has improved in each of his four seasons without as much as a single gripe. He has openly professed his desire to play in Detroit. Nothing has come easy for Bondo which makes his success that much more gratifying for Tigers fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
