Here is your random sports fact for the day:
If Villanova beats UConn in the title game, or if Michigan State beats North Carolina, we will have witnessed a tournament run that has only happened once in the 25 year history of the expanded (64-65 team tournament). The 1997 Arizona Wildcats, led by Miles Simon and Mike Bibby, were the only team in tournament history to defeat 3 number 1 seeds. Sparty and the Wildcats could have that opportunity next Monday, if the cards fall right. In a tournament that has been fairly blah, with no Cinderellas, only 1 real upset (Cleveland State over Wake Forest) and just 2 buzzer beaters (Gonzaga over Western Kentucky and Villanova over Pittsburgh), it is nice to know there is some history that could be made (besides mid majors getting shafted more this year than any year in recent memory). Go Nova!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Quick look at the brackets
1 vs. 16: never happened before, what are the odds you will pick it right when it finally does happen?
2 vs. 15: happens very rarely, but it does happen. It's usually an over-hyped ACC, Big East team against an Ivy League-er or something along those lines. If it were to happen in this field it'd be Binghamton over Duke. That is not a prediction, because I don't think we're in for that rare feat this year.
3 vs. 14: this is pretty infrequent, but it does pop up every couple of years. Kansas was the last victim losing to the Bison (of Bucknell). KU is playing the Bison again (of North Dakota State) and it is played in Minneapolis, which is the closest city to North Dakota. That is also not a prediction.
4 vs. 13: this happens about as infrequently as a 14 beating a 3. Xavier is not as strong this year, Washington drew SEC tournament champion Mississippi State, and Cleveland State played Butler tough in 3 tries, who is nearly as good as Wake Forest. There are 3 possible candidates for this rare upset, and I wouldn't be surprised to see one, but I'm also not picking any.
5 vs. 12: this will happen. First, look at the 12s to see if there are any talented teams. Wisconsin is out. The other three are still viable options, though Northern Iowa might be a little out of their league when compared with Arizona and Western Kentucky. Now look at recent tournament experience: Western Kentucky played and won twice as an 12 seed last year. Arizona has been to the dance 25 consecutive years. Northern Iowa makes frequent trips to the tourney from a mid major conference that has had success in the NCAA tournament. Next look at the 5s to see if there are teams that are overseeded, either due to hype early in the season, a frenetic run down the stretch, or some other unknown reason. Illinois is there because of early hype. Purdue is there because of a good stretch run. Utah is there for some other reason, b/c they didn't play great down the stretch (had a two-game lead with 3 games to go and ended in a 3-way tie for the conference championship) and they didn't get any hype all season, in this sport at least. Arizona over Utah or Western Kentucky over Illinois are your best bets.
6 vs. 11: this inevitably happens. Candidates: Utah State playing Marquette in Boise. Marquette is playing without 4-year starter Dominic James and lost 6 of their last 7 games. VCU is playing UCLA in Philly and this isn't exactly their first dance. UCLA never really got their act together this season after losing so much talent to the NBA. Some people say Temple over Arizona State, but I'm not so sure. They did have a great run through the A-10 tournament, but the A-10 wasn't as strong this year and Arizona State didn't do so bad in the Pac 10 tournament either.
7 vs. 10: sometimes I look at the teams and can't tell who is the 7 and who is the 10. This year, most all of the 7s fell to 7, after being projected higher for most of the season. California and Clemson peaked in late January. Texas peaked in December. Boston College was a constant rollercoaster ride (and probably is seeded too high as a 7 anyway). All of them could lose. USC ran through the Pac 10 tourney, I think they take down BC. Michigan beats Clemson. I'm not willing to call Maryland a winner, they seem to be loaded with talent every year and do just enough to get into the tournament. I think they can win, but I'll give Cal the benefit of the doubt (doesn't matter, either will lose to Memphis on Saturday). I don't see Tubby Smith's Gophers beating A.J. Abrams and the Longhorns either.
8 vs. 9: 9s actually win this game more often than not. So let me tell you the 8s I like: Ohio State, not because I like them but because the game is played in Dayton and I think Siena should probably be a 10 or 11 seed. I also like BYU because I attended there, oh, and because of Jimmer Fredette, who is the rare breed of player that most first-round-exiting BYU teams never had. This is the best BYU team in 25 years. They are better than last year's team that lost to Texas A&M in the final minute, and A&M is not as good a team as they were last year. That's it, I like the other 8s to go down. Tennessee probably should have been a 7 seed, which is bad luck for Oklahoma State in the Orange Bowl. Butler isn't as good as it has been, but they are probably seeded too low as well. Plus LSU isn't very good.
I won't go into second round and beyond. You'll have to figure that one out on your own for now, but I'll give you some thoughts as we advance. I do think that this is the most top heavy the tournament has been in a long time, maybe since I've been following (about 13 years). The 1s and 2s are so far ahead of the 3s and 4s (with the exception of Duke-the worst 2-and Kansas-the best 3-who are fairly even). The 5 seeds and the 11 seeds could all switch places and it wouldn't look all that odd. I think we're in for a bumpy ride early in the tournament, but when the dust settles by the elite 8, I think we'll see 3-4 1s, 2-3 2s, 1-2 3s, and maybe one Davidson/George Mason-like run from a double-digit seed (or maybe from an 8-seed in the West Regional!).
2 vs. 15: happens very rarely, but it does happen. It's usually an over-hyped ACC, Big East team against an Ivy League-er or something along those lines. If it were to happen in this field it'd be Binghamton over Duke. That is not a prediction, because I don't think we're in for that rare feat this year.
3 vs. 14: this is pretty infrequent, but it does pop up every couple of years. Kansas was the last victim losing to the Bison (of Bucknell). KU is playing the Bison again (of North Dakota State) and it is played in Minneapolis, which is the closest city to North Dakota. That is also not a prediction.
4 vs. 13: this happens about as infrequently as a 14 beating a 3. Xavier is not as strong this year, Washington drew SEC tournament champion Mississippi State, and Cleveland State played Butler tough in 3 tries, who is nearly as good as Wake Forest. There are 3 possible candidates for this rare upset, and I wouldn't be surprised to see one, but I'm also not picking any.
5 vs. 12: this will happen. First, look at the 12s to see if there are any talented teams. Wisconsin is out. The other three are still viable options, though Northern Iowa might be a little out of their league when compared with Arizona and Western Kentucky. Now look at recent tournament experience: Western Kentucky played and won twice as an 12 seed last year. Arizona has been to the dance 25 consecutive years. Northern Iowa makes frequent trips to the tourney from a mid major conference that has had success in the NCAA tournament. Next look at the 5s to see if there are teams that are overseeded, either due to hype early in the season, a frenetic run down the stretch, or some other unknown reason. Illinois is there because of early hype. Purdue is there because of a good stretch run. Utah is there for some other reason, b/c they didn't play great down the stretch (had a two-game lead with 3 games to go and ended in a 3-way tie for the conference championship) and they didn't get any hype all season, in this sport at least. Arizona over Utah or Western Kentucky over Illinois are your best bets.
6 vs. 11: this inevitably happens. Candidates: Utah State playing Marquette in Boise. Marquette is playing without 4-year starter Dominic James and lost 6 of their last 7 games. VCU is playing UCLA in Philly and this isn't exactly their first dance. UCLA never really got their act together this season after losing so much talent to the NBA. Some people say Temple over Arizona State, but I'm not so sure. They did have a great run through the A-10 tournament, but the A-10 wasn't as strong this year and Arizona State didn't do so bad in the Pac 10 tournament either.
7 vs. 10: sometimes I look at the teams and can't tell who is the 7 and who is the 10. This year, most all of the 7s fell to 7, after being projected higher for most of the season. California and Clemson peaked in late January. Texas peaked in December. Boston College was a constant rollercoaster ride (and probably is seeded too high as a 7 anyway). All of them could lose. USC ran through the Pac 10 tourney, I think they take down BC. Michigan beats Clemson. I'm not willing to call Maryland a winner, they seem to be loaded with talent every year and do just enough to get into the tournament. I think they can win, but I'll give Cal the benefit of the doubt (doesn't matter, either will lose to Memphis on Saturday). I don't see Tubby Smith's Gophers beating A.J. Abrams and the Longhorns either.
8 vs. 9: 9s actually win this game more often than not. So let me tell you the 8s I like: Ohio State, not because I like them but because the game is played in Dayton and I think Siena should probably be a 10 or 11 seed. I also like BYU because I attended there, oh, and because of Jimmer Fredette, who is the rare breed of player that most first-round-exiting BYU teams never had. This is the best BYU team in 25 years. They are better than last year's team that lost to Texas A&M in the final minute, and A&M is not as good a team as they were last year. That's it, I like the other 8s to go down. Tennessee probably should have been a 7 seed, which is bad luck for Oklahoma State in the Orange Bowl. Butler isn't as good as it has been, but they are probably seeded too low as well. Plus LSU isn't very good.
I won't go into second round and beyond. You'll have to figure that one out on your own for now, but I'll give you some thoughts as we advance. I do think that this is the most top heavy the tournament has been in a long time, maybe since I've been following (about 13 years). The 1s and 2s are so far ahead of the 3s and 4s (with the exception of Duke-the worst 2-and Kansas-the best 3-who are fairly even). The 5 seeds and the 11 seeds could all switch places and it wouldn't look all that odd. I think we're in for a bumpy ride early in the tournament, but when the dust settles by the elite 8, I think we'll see 3-4 1s, 2-3 2s, 1-2 3s, and maybe one Davidson/George Mason-like run from a double-digit seed (or maybe from an 8-seed in the West Regional!).
Bracket math (long but intriguing!)
I thought I’d do a comparison between Joe Lunardi’s (ESPN.com Bracketologist) and Jerry Palm’s (CBSsportsline.com) Selection Sunday morning brackets and the actual bracket. Initially I just wanted to find out how accurate they were, especially making predictions within hours of when the actual bracket was released, when most all of the data was finalized, but it went WAY BEYOND that once I got in to the numbers a little bit. First off, both bracketologists had 63 of the 65 teams in the field correct. The teams they missed on were the same: Arizona (who was given the final at-large bid, theoretically) and Mississippi State (who won an automatic bid); and the teams they had in their places were also the same: Creighton and St. Mary’s.
I also looked at how accurately the experts predicted how the teams were seeded. I only looked at seeds 1-12, since 13-16 only made the field because of automatic bids, where at least some 12s were at-large teams. I don’t expect the experts to put much time and effort into projecting differences between teams that are likely to lose in the first round anyway. Jerry Palm predicted teams with their correct seed 59% of the time. Joe Lunardi got it right 43% of the time. When comparing conference-by-conference, Palm predicted more accurately than, or at least as accurately as, Lunardi in every single conference. ACC: Palm 57%, Lunardi 57%. Big 10: Palm 57%, Lunardi 43%. Big 12: Palm 83%, Lunardi 50%. Big East: Palm 71%, Lunardi 57%. Mid Majors: Palm 54%, Lunardi 38%. Pac 10: Palm 60%, Lunardi 40%. SEC: Palm 50%, Lunardi 0%.
Both experts did the worst at projecting seeding for the Mid Majors and the SEC. They tended to overproject teams from those two groups, meaning the "experts" gave them more generous seeds than the committee. This wasn’t always the case, especially in the cases of Utah and Siena, where projections were under by as much as 3 bids, but in the aggregate they thought the Mid Majors/SEC teams deserved higher bids than what the committee awarded them. The median projection for Mid Majors put them one seed below what the experts said, where the average was only 1/4 of a seed (because Siena and Utah received such higher seeds than projected). Jerry Palm also overprojected the Big 10, where Lunardi only gave too much credit to the two aforementioned groups. The committee awarded more generous seeds to the ACC, Big East, Big 12, and Pac 10 than the experts gave. The difference was around a half a seed per team. In short, BCS conference teams received more favorable seeds than Mid Majors. I believe that the criteria used to judge Mid Majors is inconsistent/biased, and these experts can’t quite grasp exactly how it is judged behind closed doors, probably because they assume it isn't biased when it likely is.
Now the committee usually has several major factors to determine the quality of at-large teams, and how they are prioritized varies by committee member. [I believe it is also prioritized by how it benefits BCS teams.] The biggest is the RPI. Which at-large bids make sense based on RPI? Well, the 4 lowest RPI teams to get at-large bids: Wisconsin 48, Maryland 52, Boston College 57, and Arizona 59. Notice any common traits among those teams? Now, here are teams with better RPIs than ALL 4 of those teams that did not make the field: San Diego State 27, Creighton 41, Illinois State 45, UAB 46, and St. Mary’s 47. How about common traits among those schools? There are also several other similarly-traited schools with RPIs better than Arizona. So, RPI certainly cannot explain these at-large bids.
Usually the second most discussed by the committee (though not this year) is performance in the last 10 games. So let’s look at these 4 at-large teams again: Wisconsin, 7-3; Maryland, 5-5; Boston College, 5-5; and Arizona 5-5. Compare that to the 5 left out of the field: San Diego State, 6-4; Creighton, 9-1; Illinois State, 5-5; UAB, 7-3; and St. Mary’s 7-3. It becomes obvious why the committee chose to ignore this one this year: because it couldn’t justify anybody but Wisconsin.
Next is quality (top 50 RPI) wins: please note; this is a number, not a percentage. I won’t go into all the details of everybody but Arizona was 6-10 against the RPI top 50. St. Mary’s was 2-3. So, total number is 6-2, in favor of Arizona. Here is the first valid argument they have for Arizona. Of course, St. Mary’s actually won a higher percentage of their top 50 games, but that’s not as important, apparently. Really, I think Arizona proved they DIDN’T belong in their 16 tries. St. Mary’s didn’t prove it one way or the other in their 5 games. I would also like to point out that Wisconsin lost to EVERY NCAA tournament team on their schedule except for Michigan. They did win a few games against Big Ten teams that made the tournament (at home), but they also lost to each of those teams (on the road). They lost all of their non-conference games to NCAA Tournament teams, home, road, or neutral.
Sometimes they discuss how teams do as a result of injuries, and if a player was out but will be back for the tournament. That wasn’t discussed this year, because it favored St. Mary’s over the other schools. Other times we hear about conference or preseason tournament performance, because that is the most similar environment to the NCAA tournament. We didn’t hear about that this year either: other than Maryland which lost to eventual ACC champion Duke in the semifinals, the final at-large bids went to teams that exited early from their conference tournaments where SDSU, St. Mary’s, and Illinois State all fell in conference championship games: SDSU to a 5-seed in a game that came down to the final possession and St. Mary’s to a 4-seed when their best player was only in his second game back from injury. Another one is road and neutral site record: another bad one for these 4. Wisconsin was 6-8, Maryland was 5-9, Boston College was 7-7, and Arizona was 5-10 (with only ONE of those wins coming against a team in the top 150 in the RPI). Compare that to the records of SDSU (9-7), Creighton (10-4), Illinois State (10-7), UAB (8-10), and St. Mary’s (12-5). The committee ignored that one too, for obvious reason.
What we did hear about was strength of schedule (which to some degree you have no control over, especially as a middle-of-the-road mid-major who can’t get big teams to play you and don’t have tough conference schedules-see St. Mary's). We did hear about how games in November and December matter just as much as games in February and March. Why is that? Isn’t one of the great things about the NCAA tournament how it rewards improvement over the course of the season? Not when Arizona beat SDSU, Gonzaga, and Kansas in December, but hasn’t done anything in February and March. Maryland defeated Michigan State in November, and won at Michigan in December, and, besides beating UNC in a miraculous comeback at home, they haven’t done much since. St. Mary’s lost at UTEP in November. SDSU, Illinois State, and Creighton all had “embarrassing” losses in November/December. So this year (and probably only for this year) November and December has to be just as important as February and March in order to justify inclusion of certain teams from certain conferences.
In summary, the committee has several factors it looks at, so that it can find at least one factor that allows the BCS schools in. It’s as simple as that! This year they had to reach way back and pull out a new one, never been used before. It is wrong and unfair, and I am glad that Dick Vitale called them out on it. I am calling them out on it too. Selection Committee: explain yourself! I am not saying that San Diego State, Creighton, and St. Mary’s belonged in the tournament over Wisconsin, Maryland, and Arizona, but I’m not not saying it either. Certainly there are as many arguments for the former as there are for the latter. The fact that none of the former three made it and all of the latter three did is enough reason for me to scratch my head, do way too much research, put way too much time into it, and post a REALLY LONG blog article about it. Thanks for reading. I’ll probably post something about my sleeper picks late Wednesday night (I won’t be home until about 9pm Mountain Time), in case you want to make any last minute changes to your bracket (like you picked one of my sleeper teams to win and you decide you’d better not agree with me), check late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning. Most brackets must be submitted by noon Eastern on Thursday.
I also looked at how accurately the experts predicted how the teams were seeded. I only looked at seeds 1-12, since 13-16 only made the field because of automatic bids, where at least some 12s were at-large teams. I don’t expect the experts to put much time and effort into projecting differences between teams that are likely to lose in the first round anyway. Jerry Palm predicted teams with their correct seed 59% of the time. Joe Lunardi got it right 43% of the time. When comparing conference-by-conference, Palm predicted more accurately than, or at least as accurately as, Lunardi in every single conference. ACC: Palm 57%, Lunardi 57%. Big 10: Palm 57%, Lunardi 43%. Big 12: Palm 83%, Lunardi 50%. Big East: Palm 71%, Lunardi 57%. Mid Majors: Palm 54%, Lunardi 38%. Pac 10: Palm 60%, Lunardi 40%. SEC: Palm 50%, Lunardi 0%.
Both experts did the worst at projecting seeding for the Mid Majors and the SEC. They tended to overproject teams from those two groups, meaning the "experts" gave them more generous seeds than the committee. This wasn’t always the case, especially in the cases of Utah and Siena, where projections were under by as much as 3 bids, but in the aggregate they thought the Mid Majors/SEC teams deserved higher bids than what the committee awarded them. The median projection for Mid Majors put them one seed below what the experts said, where the average was only 1/4 of a seed (because Siena and Utah received such higher seeds than projected). Jerry Palm also overprojected the Big 10, where Lunardi only gave too much credit to the two aforementioned groups. The committee awarded more generous seeds to the ACC, Big East, Big 12, and Pac 10 than the experts gave. The difference was around a half a seed per team. In short, BCS conference teams received more favorable seeds than Mid Majors. I believe that the criteria used to judge Mid Majors is inconsistent/biased, and these experts can’t quite grasp exactly how it is judged behind closed doors, probably because they assume it isn't biased when it likely is.
Now the committee usually has several major factors to determine the quality of at-large teams, and how they are prioritized varies by committee member. [I believe it is also prioritized by how it benefits BCS teams.] The biggest is the RPI. Which at-large bids make sense based on RPI? Well, the 4 lowest RPI teams to get at-large bids: Wisconsin 48, Maryland 52, Boston College 57, and Arizona 59. Notice any common traits among those teams? Now, here are teams with better RPIs than ALL 4 of those teams that did not make the field: San Diego State 27, Creighton 41, Illinois State 45, UAB 46, and St. Mary’s 47. How about common traits among those schools? There are also several other similarly-traited schools with RPIs better than Arizona. So, RPI certainly cannot explain these at-large bids.
Usually the second most discussed by the committee (though not this year) is performance in the last 10 games. So let’s look at these 4 at-large teams again: Wisconsin, 7-3; Maryland, 5-5; Boston College, 5-5; and Arizona 5-5. Compare that to the 5 left out of the field: San Diego State, 6-4; Creighton, 9-1; Illinois State, 5-5; UAB, 7-3; and St. Mary’s 7-3. It becomes obvious why the committee chose to ignore this one this year: because it couldn’t justify anybody but Wisconsin.
Next is quality (top 50 RPI) wins: please note; this is a number, not a percentage. I won’t go into all the details of everybody but Arizona was 6-10 against the RPI top 50. St. Mary’s was 2-3. So, total number is 6-2, in favor of Arizona. Here is the first valid argument they have for Arizona. Of course, St. Mary’s actually won a higher percentage of their top 50 games, but that’s not as important, apparently. Really, I think Arizona proved they DIDN’T belong in their 16 tries. St. Mary’s didn’t prove it one way or the other in their 5 games. I would also like to point out that Wisconsin lost to EVERY NCAA tournament team on their schedule except for Michigan. They did win a few games against Big Ten teams that made the tournament (at home), but they also lost to each of those teams (on the road). They lost all of their non-conference games to NCAA Tournament teams, home, road, or neutral.
Sometimes they discuss how teams do as a result of injuries, and if a player was out but will be back for the tournament. That wasn’t discussed this year, because it favored St. Mary’s over the other schools. Other times we hear about conference or preseason tournament performance, because that is the most similar environment to the NCAA tournament. We didn’t hear about that this year either: other than Maryland which lost to eventual ACC champion Duke in the semifinals, the final at-large bids went to teams that exited early from their conference tournaments where SDSU, St. Mary’s, and Illinois State all fell in conference championship games: SDSU to a 5-seed in a game that came down to the final possession and St. Mary’s to a 4-seed when their best player was only in his second game back from injury. Another one is road and neutral site record: another bad one for these 4. Wisconsin was 6-8, Maryland was 5-9, Boston College was 7-7, and Arizona was 5-10 (with only ONE of those wins coming against a team in the top 150 in the RPI). Compare that to the records of SDSU (9-7), Creighton (10-4), Illinois State (10-7), UAB (8-10), and St. Mary’s (12-5). The committee ignored that one too, for obvious reason.
What we did hear about was strength of schedule (which to some degree you have no control over, especially as a middle-of-the-road mid-major who can’t get big teams to play you and don’t have tough conference schedules-see St. Mary's). We did hear about how games in November and December matter just as much as games in February and March. Why is that? Isn’t one of the great things about the NCAA tournament how it rewards improvement over the course of the season? Not when Arizona beat SDSU, Gonzaga, and Kansas in December, but hasn’t done anything in February and March. Maryland defeated Michigan State in November, and won at Michigan in December, and, besides beating UNC in a miraculous comeback at home, they haven’t done much since. St. Mary’s lost at UTEP in November. SDSU, Illinois State, and Creighton all had “embarrassing” losses in November/December. So this year (and probably only for this year) November and December has to be just as important as February and March in order to justify inclusion of certain teams from certain conferences.
In summary, the committee has several factors it looks at, so that it can find at least one factor that allows the BCS schools in. It’s as simple as that! This year they had to reach way back and pull out a new one, never been used before. It is wrong and unfair, and I am glad that Dick Vitale called them out on it. I am calling them out on it too. Selection Committee: explain yourself! I am not saying that San Diego State, Creighton, and St. Mary’s belonged in the tournament over Wisconsin, Maryland, and Arizona, but I’m not not saying it either. Certainly there are as many arguments for the former as there are for the latter. The fact that none of the former three made it and all of the latter three did is enough reason for me to scratch my head, do way too much research, put way too much time into it, and post a REALLY LONG blog article about it. Thanks for reading. I’ll probably post something about my sleeper picks late Wednesday night (I won’t be home until about 9pm Mountain Time), in case you want to make any last minute changes to your bracket (like you picked one of my sleeper teams to win and you decide you’d better not agree with me), check late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning. Most brackets must be submitted by noon Eastern on Thursday.
Monday, March 16, 2009
NIT rundown
Since the NIT starts tomorrow night, I have to give a quick shout out before I post my NCAA commentary. Quickly, to answer a question posted previously, I am in favor of expanding the field of 65 with one play-in game to the field of 68 with 4 play-in games for all 16 seeds. I am operating under the assumption that at least one of the additional 3 spots would be given to a Mid Major team, which probably is not a valid assumption, but I would hope in the spirit of fair play it would occur. If it added Florida, Auburn, and Penn State to this year's bracket I would oppose it.
So, the Mid Majors that got ousted by the NCAA tournament committee have a chance to prove their merit in the NIT, kind of. 3 of the higher profile middies all ended up in the same bracket, with SDSU as the 1 seed, St. Mary's as the 2, and Davidson as a 6. So, only one of them can advance to the Final 4. Compare that with Florida and Penn State's brackets, which don't have any serious mid major contenders (Niagara gets a home game against Rhode Island before traveling to Penn State, then Florida, assuming they win the first two games). Auburn's side of the bracket also appears to give mid majors very little chance to get past the Tigers or Virginia Tech, with Tulsa the only viable threat. The fourth section pits Creighton (1 seed), New Mexico (3), and UNLV (5) with chances to make a run towards Madison Square Garden. The biggest obstacle there is Notre Dame, which gets AT LEAST two home games before having to go on the road at Creighton, assuming they hold serve. Other than being ranked in the top 10 preseason, I don't know what they did to warrant ANY home games in the NIT. With that said, I wouldn't be shocked at all if UAB marches in with Robert Vaden and takes down the Irish.
The MWC has a 1 seed in SDSU, a 3 in New Mexico, and a 5 with UNLV. SDSU should be able to get past Weber State with little difficulty. I think K-State/Illinois State could be a challenge in the second round, and I don't see them surviving through to the Garden. I think Davidson upsets South Carolina, and the winner of the St. Mary's-Davidson game knocks out SDSU.
New Mexico hosts Nebraska the first game. Nebraska did show some flashes of brilliance this season (when playing at home), but I don't think they walk into the Pit and leave victorious. I think they also leave not wanting to ever come back. I think defensively, they would surprise Notre Dame, and they might think they were playing one of those vaunted Big East defenses. They are that good on D. I'm not sure they'll be able to pull that game out on the road, but they'll give ND all they can handle in that game, and will be in a position to win it down the stretch.
UNLV plays at Kentucky. They will not be intimidated. They marched into Kentucky once before this season and beat the overall #1 seed in the NCAA tournament on their home floor, with UNLV's best player in street clothes. I think they can show people just how far Kentucky has fallen. With a win there, Creighton goes down next, then on to Notre Dame or New Mexico. I think they beat Notre Dame, UAB, or Nebraska, but lose if it's at New Mexico.
So there's the MWC rundown in the NIT. My final four is Davidson, Virginia Tech, New Mexico (I know, I said I didn't think they'll win at ND, but I'm going with my gut), and Penn State, with Penn State beating Virginia Tech for the title. Usually, the team that feels they got screwed the most by the selection committee lays an egg in the NIT. That would be St. Mary's this year (and possibly Florida). Of course, some years they just up and win the whole thing anyway. I don't think so with the Gaels, they've got a challenging run ahead of them. Florida obviously has a good chance with home court the whole way through, but they just aren't good, especially in tight games. Other teams to watch out for: South Carolina, despite what most of us believe they still play basketball in SEC country, sort of; Georgetown, they had a bad year but they are still Georgetown; Illinois State, always dangerous, and, as usual, under the radar; and Niagara, who played a close second to NCAA 9-seed Siena all season.
Next up: the numbers behind who got the shaft and who benefited merely from their associations/conferences.
So, the Mid Majors that got ousted by the NCAA tournament committee have a chance to prove their merit in the NIT, kind of. 3 of the higher profile middies all ended up in the same bracket, with SDSU as the 1 seed, St. Mary's as the 2, and Davidson as a 6. So, only one of them can advance to the Final 4. Compare that with Florida and Penn State's brackets, which don't have any serious mid major contenders (Niagara gets a home game against Rhode Island before traveling to Penn State, then Florida, assuming they win the first two games). Auburn's side of the bracket also appears to give mid majors very little chance to get past the Tigers or Virginia Tech, with Tulsa the only viable threat. The fourth section pits Creighton (1 seed), New Mexico (3), and UNLV (5) with chances to make a run towards Madison Square Garden. The biggest obstacle there is Notre Dame, which gets AT LEAST two home games before having to go on the road at Creighton, assuming they hold serve. Other than being ranked in the top 10 preseason, I don't know what they did to warrant ANY home games in the NIT. With that said, I wouldn't be shocked at all if UAB marches in with Robert Vaden and takes down the Irish.
The MWC has a 1 seed in SDSU, a 3 in New Mexico, and a 5 with UNLV. SDSU should be able to get past Weber State with little difficulty. I think K-State/Illinois State could be a challenge in the second round, and I don't see them surviving through to the Garden. I think Davidson upsets South Carolina, and the winner of the St. Mary's-Davidson game knocks out SDSU.
New Mexico hosts Nebraska the first game. Nebraska did show some flashes of brilliance this season (when playing at home), but I don't think they walk into the Pit and leave victorious. I think they also leave not wanting to ever come back. I think defensively, they would surprise Notre Dame, and they might think they were playing one of those vaunted Big East defenses. They are that good on D. I'm not sure they'll be able to pull that game out on the road, but they'll give ND all they can handle in that game, and will be in a position to win it down the stretch.
UNLV plays at Kentucky. They will not be intimidated. They marched into Kentucky once before this season and beat the overall #1 seed in the NCAA tournament on their home floor, with UNLV's best player in street clothes. I think they can show people just how far Kentucky has fallen. With a win there, Creighton goes down next, then on to Notre Dame or New Mexico. I think they beat Notre Dame, UAB, or Nebraska, but lose if it's at New Mexico.
So there's the MWC rundown in the NIT. My final four is Davidson, Virginia Tech, New Mexico (I know, I said I didn't think they'll win at ND, but I'm going with my gut), and Penn State, with Penn State beating Virginia Tech for the title. Usually, the team that feels they got screwed the most by the selection committee lays an egg in the NIT. That would be St. Mary's this year (and possibly Florida). Of course, some years they just up and win the whole thing anyway. I don't think so with the Gaels, they've got a challenging run ahead of them. Florida obviously has a good chance with home court the whole way through, but they just aren't good, especially in tight games. Other teams to watch out for: South Carolina, despite what most of us believe they still play basketball in SEC country, sort of; Georgetown, they had a bad year but they are still Georgetown; Illinois State, always dangerous, and, as usual, under the radar; and Niagara, who played a close second to NCAA 9-seed Siena all season.
Next up: the numbers behind who got the shaft and who benefited merely from their associations/conferences.
Biggest Snub
There's a lot of talk about the biggest snub for the dance. I look at San Diego State for one reason, more so than any of the others. If Utah is a 5-seed, then San Diego State belongs in the tournament. Considering in 3 matchups against one of the top 20 teams (the 5-seeds should all be looked at as top 20 teams if you do the math), they won by 9 at home, lost by 12 on the road, and played them essentially even in a tournament environment, falling by 2 in a game they had the ball in a one-possession game with 5 seconds left. There may be bigger snubs, mostly among the mid-majors (St. Mary's, since they beat San Diego State, and Creighton b/c a similar resume in the Big 12/10 and they get into the tournament), but if Utah deserves a 5-seed, then San Diego State deserves a bid. I would actually argue that it's not SDSU that deserves to be in the tournament but that Utah deserves a more realistic seed (like a 6, possibly a 7). Their resume is not better than 6 seeds West Virginia, Marquette, or Arizona State, even 7 seeds Clemson and Boston College could make as good a case, or better, based on quality wins. As it stands, SDSU got jobbed by the committee for Maryland and a bevy of Big 10 schools.
On a side note, I did crunch some numbers based on the actual bracket and the final predictions from Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm. The results are surprising and will come in my next post.
On a side note, I did crunch some numbers based on the actual bracket and the final predictions from Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm. The results are surprising and will come in my next post.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
MWC Conference Tourney
Play-in game: Air Force has improved, though the record doesn't show it. Colorado State has pretty much stayed the same, though their record doesn't show it. I think Air Force pulls a DePaul out, and wins for the first time in over 2 months.
First Round: BYU wins easy, easier if its against CSU than Air Force, but neither one will be able to do much, BYU is due to start hitting shots. Utah wins big, but not so easy. Big Luke does well in his first game after being named player of the year. Wyoming puts up a fight, but Steve Alford proves why he DESERVED coach of the year. UNLV pulls out a victory against SDSU, finally.
Second Round (I should probably wait to predict this since I'm probably wrong on at least one first round game): UNLV and its homecourt advantage have knocked BYU out in the championship game the previous two years. I think it good luck for the Cougars they get UNLV in the second round, where BYU pulls out the elusive W against UNLV at UNLV. I'm torn on Utah-New Mexico. These are two teams that are built for tournaments. I think Boylen is holding on too tight, but I think his seniors take the lead and pull out the W. Dandridge will outperform the Aussie and show why he deserved POY honors.
Championship Game: Given my above-mentioned scenario, I believe BYU bows out again in the championship game to rival Utah. Borha and Brown both play great in this game.
Here's my thoughts as to possible outcomes of the championship:
BYU: beats anybody coming out of the other side of the bracket, except Utah
Utah: beats anybody coming out of the other side of the bracket, except host UNLV
New Mexico: beats SDSU, loses to BYU and UNLV
SDSU: needs to see TCU staring at them
UNLV: wins the championship, if they get there
Wyoming: beat SDSU, CSU, or AFA (chances of a tourney championship: 1.78%, based on a very scientific method of calculation)
TCU: hoping for some upsets so they can play CSU or AFA
CSU: not this year, or next year for that matter, and I'm not sure the following year is looking too promising either
AFA: in 16 conference games, they didn't win ONE, how could they possibly string together 4 in a row now?
First Round: BYU wins easy, easier if its against CSU than Air Force, but neither one will be able to do much, BYU is due to start hitting shots. Utah wins big, but not so easy. Big Luke does well in his first game after being named player of the year. Wyoming puts up a fight, but Steve Alford proves why he DESERVED coach of the year. UNLV pulls out a victory against SDSU, finally.
Second Round (I should probably wait to predict this since I'm probably wrong on at least one first round game): UNLV and its homecourt advantage have knocked BYU out in the championship game the previous two years. I think it good luck for the Cougars they get UNLV in the second round, where BYU pulls out the elusive W against UNLV at UNLV. I'm torn on Utah-New Mexico. These are two teams that are built for tournaments. I think Boylen is holding on too tight, but I think his seniors take the lead and pull out the W. Dandridge will outperform the Aussie and show why he deserved POY honors.
Championship Game: Given my above-mentioned scenario, I believe BYU bows out again in the championship game to rival Utah. Borha and Brown both play great in this game.
Here's my thoughts as to possible outcomes of the championship:
BYU: beats anybody coming out of the other side of the bracket, except Utah
Utah: beats anybody coming out of the other side of the bracket, except host UNLV
New Mexico: beats SDSU, loses to BYU and UNLV
SDSU: needs to see TCU staring at them
UNLV: wins the championship, if they get there
Wyoming: beat SDSU, CSU, or AFA (chances of a tourney championship: 1.78%, based on a very scientific method of calculation)
TCU: hoping for some upsets so they can play CSU or AFA
CSU: not this year, or next year for that matter, and I'm not sure the following year is looking too promising either
AFA: in 16 conference games, they didn't win ONE, how could they possibly string together 4 in a row now?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Update: MWC Bubble Watch
Locks:
Utah. Pros: a couple of good non-conference wins, a likely MWC regular season championship, and a great RPI. Cons: losses to SW Baptist and Idaho State. In aggregate: pros outweigh the cons, plus the cons were all early in the season. They don't have any good road wins, but it won't matter, they have some good home wins. NCAA Tournament hopes: they have a good tournament roster. They have a solid big guy in the middle, experience across the board, four guys that can shoot the three, and a couple of slashers that can get into the lane. I think they should be able to get a win but I'm not sure about a sweet 16 run, Luke doesn't respond well to short turnarounds. The experience is there, and, though talented for a MWC team, they don't have the depth of talent you see from the type of team they will see in the second round.
BYU. Pros: they have shown they can compete with (though not necessarily beat) the tournament teams on their schedule, they can win on the road and at neutral sites, they have a good RPI, and will likely tie for the MWC regular season championship. Cons: no big non-conference wins. In aggregate: they are a good team, though not a great team, and they will provide an exciting first-round game. They are doing things this year they have never been able to do before: come-from-behind wins (some of those on the road even). NCAA Tournament hopes: with the emergence of Jimmer Fredette as a guy who can take over at the end of a close game, I think they can actually take a tournament game this year and end the streak. Up front, they probably aren't deep or talented enough to knock off a 1, 2, or 3 seed in the second round. With that said, if the 3's are raining, they could beat just about anybody, problem is: that doesn't usually happen two games in a row against high-quality competition. The good news: 8 of the top 9 players are returning for next year, where a sweet 16 run is a better possibility. They can certainly position themselves for a higher seed next year with a 14-2 run through the conference (a little early for 2009-2010 predictions, but what the hey...).
Bubble:
New Mexico. Pros: they have come on strong down the stretch and are playing as well as anybody else in the conference right now. Cons: serious question marks about the non-conference losses, the number is bad in and of itself, but the quality of some of those teams: worse! In aggregate: no good wins out of conference, no good road wins period, but they have a solid, experienced team that could make always surprise somebody because of their tenacity on defense. NCAA Tournament hopes: if they get in, a 12 seed is about as high as they can expect. The good part is that this year will feature the weakest set of 5 seeds we've seen in a while. There just isn't as much difference between the 10th and 40th best teams in the country as there usually is. I think they have to make it to the MWC Championship game to really get considered.
UNLV and San Diego: only one of these teams can get in. They will play on Saturday and next week in the first round of the MWC Tournament. The winner of the tournament game has a chance to make the Big Dance. The loser has no chance. Really, I'm not sure either gets an at-large bid either way. If UNLV doesn't win the conference tournament, that does not bode well as they would have lost a tournament game at home. Why would the committee reward them with another tournament game at a neutral site and expect a better result? San Diego State has nothing on their resume but home wins in conference against UNM and Utah and a road win at UNLV. Good news for SDSU: they have two chances in the next 5 days to prove they are more deserving than UNLV. Good news for UNLV: they are bringing back a lot of talent next year in a much weaker Mountain West Conference. NCAA Tournament hopes: if either team gets in, they are looking at an 11 or 12 seed and a first round exit is definite for SDSU. I think because UNLV has Wink Adams they could always win a game, but I don't think they actually would.
Outlook: to me, it is looking more and more like a two-bid league. I think New Mexico, UNLV, and SDSU probably need to get the automatic bid, while BYU and Utah are just playing for seeding in the tournament. Speaking of seeding for BYU: I think they are most likely looking at a 7 through 10 seed in the East Regional. They can only fall in a couple of the pods in the East and none in the South or Midwest, and I'm not sure the committee wants to put them in the West Regional (where they could be placed in any pod as any seed). Given that there are no dominant teams in the west to seed highly in that regional, the committee wouldn't want to give BYU (or any seed below 4) a "home court" advantage over whoever ends up as the 1-4 seeds. So, I think they end up in the East 7-10, maybe playing in Philly in the first two rounds.
Utah. Pros: a couple of good non-conference wins, a likely MWC regular season championship, and a great RPI. Cons: losses to SW Baptist and Idaho State. In aggregate: pros outweigh the cons, plus the cons were all early in the season. They don't have any good road wins, but it won't matter, they have some good home wins. NCAA Tournament hopes: they have a good tournament roster. They have a solid big guy in the middle, experience across the board, four guys that can shoot the three, and a couple of slashers that can get into the lane. I think they should be able to get a win but I'm not sure about a sweet 16 run, Luke doesn't respond well to short turnarounds. The experience is there, and, though talented for a MWC team, they don't have the depth of talent you see from the type of team they will see in the second round.
BYU. Pros: they have shown they can compete with (though not necessarily beat) the tournament teams on their schedule, they can win on the road and at neutral sites, they have a good RPI, and will likely tie for the MWC regular season championship. Cons: no big non-conference wins. In aggregate: they are a good team, though not a great team, and they will provide an exciting first-round game. They are doing things this year they have never been able to do before: come-from-behind wins (some of those on the road even). NCAA Tournament hopes: with the emergence of Jimmer Fredette as a guy who can take over at the end of a close game, I think they can actually take a tournament game this year and end the streak. Up front, they probably aren't deep or talented enough to knock off a 1, 2, or 3 seed in the second round. With that said, if the 3's are raining, they could beat just about anybody, problem is: that doesn't usually happen two games in a row against high-quality competition. The good news: 8 of the top 9 players are returning for next year, where a sweet 16 run is a better possibility. They can certainly position themselves for a higher seed next year with a 14-2 run through the conference (a little early for 2009-2010 predictions, but what the hey...).
Bubble:
New Mexico. Pros: they have come on strong down the stretch and are playing as well as anybody else in the conference right now. Cons: serious question marks about the non-conference losses, the number is bad in and of itself, but the quality of some of those teams: worse! In aggregate: no good wins out of conference, no good road wins period, but they have a solid, experienced team that could make always surprise somebody because of their tenacity on defense. NCAA Tournament hopes: if they get in, a 12 seed is about as high as they can expect. The good part is that this year will feature the weakest set of 5 seeds we've seen in a while. There just isn't as much difference between the 10th and 40th best teams in the country as there usually is. I think they have to make it to the MWC Championship game to really get considered.
UNLV and San Diego: only one of these teams can get in. They will play on Saturday and next week in the first round of the MWC Tournament. The winner of the tournament game has a chance to make the Big Dance. The loser has no chance. Really, I'm not sure either gets an at-large bid either way. If UNLV doesn't win the conference tournament, that does not bode well as they would have lost a tournament game at home. Why would the committee reward them with another tournament game at a neutral site and expect a better result? San Diego State has nothing on their resume but home wins in conference against UNM and Utah and a road win at UNLV. Good news for SDSU: they have two chances in the next 5 days to prove they are more deserving than UNLV. Good news for UNLV: they are bringing back a lot of talent next year in a much weaker Mountain West Conference. NCAA Tournament hopes: if either team gets in, they are looking at an 11 or 12 seed and a first round exit is definite for SDSU. I think because UNLV has Wink Adams they could always win a game, but I don't think they actually would.
Outlook: to me, it is looking more and more like a two-bid league. I think New Mexico, UNLV, and SDSU probably need to get the automatic bid, while BYU and Utah are just playing for seeding in the tournament. Speaking of seeding for BYU: I think they are most likely looking at a 7 through 10 seed in the East Regional. They can only fall in a couple of the pods in the East and none in the South or Midwest, and I'm not sure the committee wants to put them in the West Regional (where they could be placed in any pod as any seed). Given that there are no dominant teams in the west to seed highly in that regional, the committee wouldn't want to give BYU (or any seed below 4) a "home court" advantage over whoever ends up as the 1-4 seeds. So, I think they end up in the East 7-10, maybe playing in Philly in the first two rounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)