Well, everyone has their own ideas about how to fix the BCS. So I thought I would step back and take a political look at the system. I ask ahead of time: please pardon the flaws in this analogy.
College Football is the greatest sport on the planet. It is unique. It is exciting. Every Saturday, millions of fans across the country dedicate 3-5 hour blocks to watch, attend, and lose their voices cheering for their favorite teams. Some of us extreme addicts block out 12 hours, but that's another story. We love our college football. We all recognize that college football is not perfect, but it's still awesome. Now there is one aspect of college football that a lot of people don't like: the way the National Championship is decided.
America is the greatest country on the planet. For centuries, we have been the standard of freedom in the world. Everyday, millions of Americans are choosing how to live their lives, some wisely, others not so much. But everyday, people LIVE and BREATH and EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOM to choose. Every year, millions of people come here, some floating down a river in a tire, some clinging to the bottom of trucks, some doing it legally. The theme is: we all love America. We are not a perfect country, but there is no other place I'd rather live and breath and exercise my freedom. There are some things that ought to change.
College football, like America, needs several small changes to be implemented. We don't need some far reaching, complete overhaul: just a few changes. It didn't become the best sport by doing everything wrong, just as America didn't become the greatest country by having all of the wrong ideas. College football doesn't need to be more like collegiate lacrosse or NFL football, just as America doesn't need to be more like France or England. College football needs to be college football. America needs to be America.
You may not like the bowl system, it may not be fair, it doesn't give everyone a chance to win the National Championship, etc. It does, however, give 64 teams the chance to play a bonus game every year. Over half of the teams in NCAA football have a chance to improve themselves after the regular season. You may not like America because not every one gets to be a millionaire, or fly in a corporate jet on business trips, etc. But American capitalism benefits profitable enterprises and its employees, it allows the economy to grow, and it allows people the freedom to pursue their dreams if they choose to. It allows most everybody to live above poverty, and the majority of people to live comfortably (and then some). What other country can make that claim? It allows everyone the opportunity to improve themselves.
Instead of crying about the things College Football doesn't do, let's celebrate all the wonderful things that it does do. The system may not be perfect, but it's still the best sport there is. Don't try to make it more like France!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The SEC
Here are a few questions and answers about the SEC this year. By the way, the traditional best conference in America will probably take a back seat to the Big 12 again.
1. Will anybody be able to dethrone Florida as the SEC champion? Absolutely. In 2010. Maybe. They have a few potential weaknesses. First, Tim Tebow could easily get hurt with the running he does. Second, this will be Urban Meyer's first year as a head coach without Dan Mullen, who took over at Mississippi State. Mullen was even with Meyer when both were assistants at Notre Dame. Third, they have some great rush ends, but sometimes they abandon the run game. Teams should be able to run off-tackle occasionally on them. That's all I got. I would REALLY be surprised if they weren't in the NC game. I know I'm not alone. I see 2 losses at the absolute most, realistically 11-1 (they have plenty of games they COULD lose, they'll probably drop one), but the West doesn't have a hope in the SEC Title game.
2. Who will rise up in the west? Ole Miss. Why? The schedule is kind. I think they have a good team, but they will benefit the most from an "easy" schedule. The nonconference is a joke. I didn't know it was legal to play two I-AA teams (SE Louisiana and Northern Arizona). At Memphis and home against UAB rounds out the schedule. They don't play Florida. They get Alabama, Tennessee, and LSU at home. The only trouble they've got is at South Carolina and possibly at Auburn. They will probably go into the SEC title game at 11-1, in the top 10, looking like they belong in a BCS game. They'll leave at 11-2 and looking like the Gators little whipping boy.
3. Can Alabama repeat what they did last year? Not likely. 5th year senior QB, gone. Solid O-line, needs to be replaced. Julio Junes, standout WR, trying to recover from sports hernia surgery (which doesn't always work out). The defense should be spectacular. They do have a pretty favorable schedule as well, but I think Saban takes a step backwards this year, before taking two steps forward in 2010. 10 wins isn't out of the question, but I think Ole Miss comes out as victor over Bama head-to-head, and that will be the difference in the West.
4. Can Vandy extend its consecutive bowl streak to two? No. The stars aligned for the Commodores last year. Senior leadership. Had a few upsets. Schedule lined up nicely. This year, the schedule isn't so nice. The receivers lack the playmaking ability that carried them through games last year. How is 5-7 for optimism?
5. Which new coach in the conference will have the best season? You have Gene Chizik at Auburn, Lane Kiffin at Tennessee, and Dan Mullen at Mississippi State. Gene Chizik has the best team, but he's the worst of the coaches. Lane Kiffin can definitely bring Tennessee back to where it was in the 90's, but it will take time. He is probably the best of the coaches, but walked into a mess of a situation. Within 3 years, they will give Florida a viable threat in the East. Dan Mullen has a decent squad in as weak an SEC West as there has been in a long time. Very few first-time head coaches succeed in their first year. He had a great mentor, we will see how good of a student he is! I think Kiffin has the best season, followed by Mullen, and Chizik was just a mistake. Auburn fans will be reliving the glory days of Tuberville for the foreseeable future.
1. Will anybody be able to dethrone Florida as the SEC champion? Absolutely. In 2010. Maybe. They have a few potential weaknesses. First, Tim Tebow could easily get hurt with the running he does. Second, this will be Urban Meyer's first year as a head coach without Dan Mullen, who took over at Mississippi State. Mullen was even with Meyer when both were assistants at Notre Dame. Third, they have some great rush ends, but sometimes they abandon the run game. Teams should be able to run off-tackle occasionally on them. That's all I got. I would REALLY be surprised if they weren't in the NC game. I know I'm not alone. I see 2 losses at the absolute most, realistically 11-1 (they have plenty of games they COULD lose, they'll probably drop one), but the West doesn't have a hope in the SEC Title game.
2. Who will rise up in the west? Ole Miss. Why? The schedule is kind. I think they have a good team, but they will benefit the most from an "easy" schedule. The nonconference is a joke. I didn't know it was legal to play two I-AA teams (SE Louisiana and Northern Arizona). At Memphis and home against UAB rounds out the schedule. They don't play Florida. They get Alabama, Tennessee, and LSU at home. The only trouble they've got is at South Carolina and possibly at Auburn. They will probably go into the SEC title game at 11-1, in the top 10, looking like they belong in a BCS game. They'll leave at 11-2 and looking like the Gators little whipping boy.
3. Can Alabama repeat what they did last year? Not likely. 5th year senior QB, gone. Solid O-line, needs to be replaced. Julio Junes, standout WR, trying to recover from sports hernia surgery (which doesn't always work out). The defense should be spectacular. They do have a pretty favorable schedule as well, but I think Saban takes a step backwards this year, before taking two steps forward in 2010. 10 wins isn't out of the question, but I think Ole Miss comes out as victor over Bama head-to-head, and that will be the difference in the West.
4. Can Vandy extend its consecutive bowl streak to two? No. The stars aligned for the Commodores last year. Senior leadership. Had a few upsets. Schedule lined up nicely. This year, the schedule isn't so nice. The receivers lack the playmaking ability that carried them through games last year. How is 5-7 for optimism?
5. Which new coach in the conference will have the best season? You have Gene Chizik at Auburn, Lane Kiffin at Tennessee, and Dan Mullen at Mississippi State. Gene Chizik has the best team, but he's the worst of the coaches. Lane Kiffin can definitely bring Tennessee back to where it was in the 90's, but it will take time. He is probably the best of the coaches, but walked into a mess of a situation. Within 3 years, they will give Florida a viable threat in the East. Dan Mullen has a decent squad in as weak an SEC West as there has been in a long time. Very few first-time head coaches succeed in their first year. He had a great mentor, we will see how good of a student he is! I think Kiffin has the best season, followed by Mullen, and Chizik was just a mistake. Auburn fans will be reliving the glory days of Tuberville for the foreseeable future.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Way Too Early Mountain West Conference Predictions
So, we don't know much about transfers, incoming freshmen, and, in some cases, who will even start at QB for a lot of MWC teams. But knowing what I know about these programs, I'm going to make a few statements and predictions about the MWC's 2009 football season.
1. The main hope for a BCS bid rests with TCU. They will be the class of this league this season. It is definitely not a 3-horse race as most "experts" predict, though it might be a two-horse race (if BYU can survive a final stretch at Wyoming, at New Mexico, home against Air Force, and the Holy War). Even at 11-1, TCU would have a compelling argument to get into the BCS. They have two road games at ACC opponents. A split there and an undefeated run through the conference would probably be enough to warrant a bid, possibly even over a 13-0 Boise State team, or wins at Virginia and Clemson would allow for a loss at BYU. The two toughest games on the schedule are probably going to be at Clemson and at BYU. Keep in mind they will most likely play a total of 8 bowl qualifiers throughout the season.
2. Utah will be more hurt by loss of coaches than by loss of personnel. They will have size on the lines and speed on the perimeter, as usual. The defense will be solid, as usual. The offense will be sporadic, as usual. The main difference will be the coaching staff (and the loss of Louie Sakoda): 3 coaches are in their first year at the University of Utah, and they lost 4 coaches, including the offensive and defensive coordinators. Ludwig took the same position at California, after a few weeks at Kansas State. Anderson took the head job at Utah State (which is a sweet deal: he is walking into a talented team, within 2 years they will be bowling), where he is playing at Utah the first week of the season. Utah has a much tougher schedule this year, and a less-talented team. You do the math. I think 8-4 would be considered a successful year for them.
3. Colorado State and Air Force will create a lot of headaches for the "big three" this year. Many people think UNLV might sneak into the top 5 this year, but the schedule isn't very favorable to them, particularly early on in the season. After hosting Oregon State and Hawaii, they travel to Wyoming and rival Nevada before returning home to host BYU and Utah. That will be a very physical stretch for the finesse-minded Rebels. The biggest problem with their schedule is their bye doesn't come until after the 11th game of the season. On similar scheduling notes: Air Force has no bye during the season, Colorado State's bye comes after game 10, while TCU has a bye the 1st week before playing 12 straight games.
4. The 3 new coaches are going to struggle in their first year. The schedules are pretty brutal. The talent level is fairly low. They aren't coming off of good seasons and they aren't bringing in good recruiting classes. They aren't exactly great football schools either. Good luck.
5. BYU fans hoping for a BCS game, buckle up. I wouldn't be disappointed with a 9-3 season. I'd be very happy with 10-2. At 11-1, I wouldn't believe my eyes. And 12-0 puts you in the national championship game. Again, 9-3 would not be a disappointing season. Oklahoma is a National Championship contender, Florida State will compete for the ACC crown, and TCU and Utah are no gimmes either. Air Force and Colorado State will be tough as well.
Finally, my predicted order of finish:
1. TCU
2. BYU
3. Air Force
4. Utah
5. Colorado State
6. UNLV
7. New Mexico
8. Wyoming
9. San Diego State
1. The main hope for a BCS bid rests with TCU. They will be the class of this league this season. It is definitely not a 3-horse race as most "experts" predict, though it might be a two-horse race (if BYU can survive a final stretch at Wyoming, at New Mexico, home against Air Force, and the Holy War). Even at 11-1, TCU would have a compelling argument to get into the BCS. They have two road games at ACC opponents. A split there and an undefeated run through the conference would probably be enough to warrant a bid, possibly even over a 13-0 Boise State team, or wins at Virginia and Clemson would allow for a loss at BYU. The two toughest games on the schedule are probably going to be at Clemson and at BYU. Keep in mind they will most likely play a total of 8 bowl qualifiers throughout the season.
2. Utah will be more hurt by loss of coaches than by loss of personnel. They will have size on the lines and speed on the perimeter, as usual. The defense will be solid, as usual. The offense will be sporadic, as usual. The main difference will be the coaching staff (and the loss of Louie Sakoda): 3 coaches are in their first year at the University of Utah, and they lost 4 coaches, including the offensive and defensive coordinators. Ludwig took the same position at California, after a few weeks at Kansas State. Anderson took the head job at Utah State (which is a sweet deal: he is walking into a talented team, within 2 years they will be bowling), where he is playing at Utah the first week of the season. Utah has a much tougher schedule this year, and a less-talented team. You do the math. I think 8-4 would be considered a successful year for them.
3. Colorado State and Air Force will create a lot of headaches for the "big three" this year. Many people think UNLV might sneak into the top 5 this year, but the schedule isn't very favorable to them, particularly early on in the season. After hosting Oregon State and Hawaii, they travel to Wyoming and rival Nevada before returning home to host BYU and Utah. That will be a very physical stretch for the finesse-minded Rebels. The biggest problem with their schedule is their bye doesn't come until after the 11th game of the season. On similar scheduling notes: Air Force has no bye during the season, Colorado State's bye comes after game 10, while TCU has a bye the 1st week before playing 12 straight games.
4. The 3 new coaches are going to struggle in their first year. The schedules are pretty brutal. The talent level is fairly low. They aren't coming off of good seasons and they aren't bringing in good recruiting classes. They aren't exactly great football schools either. Good luck.
5. BYU fans hoping for a BCS game, buckle up. I wouldn't be disappointed with a 9-3 season. I'd be very happy with 10-2. At 11-1, I wouldn't believe my eyes. And 12-0 puts you in the national championship game. Again, 9-3 would not be a disappointing season. Oklahoma is a National Championship contender, Florida State will compete for the ACC crown, and TCU and Utah are no gimmes either. Air Force and Colorado State will be tough as well.
Finally, my predicted order of finish:
1. TCU
2. BYU
3. Air Force
4. Utah
5. Colorado State
6. UNLV
7. New Mexico
8. Wyoming
9. San Diego State
Monday, March 30, 2009
NCAA Tournament did you know?
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!
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!
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)