Archive for March, 2010


More Tournament Thoughts

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season, NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/31/2010

The last time West Virginia was in the Final Four was 51 years ago.  Jerry  West was on the team then.  Jerry West’s son is on the current team.  I don’t have a calculator in front of me, but I think that means that Jerry West had a son when he was about 51 years old.
————-
Generally, I think coaches get too much credit for their teams’ success (and, often, too much blame for their teams’ failures).   When a coach leads his team to glory, people treat the coach like he’s brilliant.  Even when the coach subsequently winds up coaching teams that are mediocre, or even bad, people rarely question whether that coach is among the best.  Think of Bobby Knight, who achieved some great success at Indiana, but then fell off at Indiana, and couldn’t approach that level of success at Texas Tech.  Or think of Billy Donovan, who caught lightning in a bottle at Florida.  He hasn’t proven that he can win with a different group of players, but few question whether Donovan is an excellent coach.

I’m not sure why it is.  The best reason I can think of is that when we grade coaches, we put some of them in an “elite” group, and, once they are there, we don’t really spend time distinguishing among them the way we distinguish among players.  When people talk about John Wall, Evan Turner, or DeMarcus Cousins, the conversation doesn’t just end by saying that they’re all excellent — the conversation turns into a conversation about who is the best / who should be drafted highest.  The point is even clearer when you think about pros.  People don’t just say that Kobe, LeBron, and D-Wade are really good; they argue about which one is the best.  But, with college coaches, people are generally happy to say that someone is one of the best, and stop there — that elite group generally includes Coach K, Jim Boeheim, Roy Williams, Rick Pitino, Donovan, Ben Howland, Tom Izzo, Jim Calhoun, and maybe Huggins, Calipari, and Bill Self (there might be a few others, but that’s generally the crew).  We don’t usually spend much time arguing about whether Roy Williams is a better coach than Billy Donovan, whether Donovan is better than Pitino, whether Pitino is better than Boeheim, etc.

That’s a long-winded way of hoopserving that coaches are often designated as being awesome, and then they aren’t really critically analyzed after that.  And the only reason I’m making this point is to then make the point that Tom Izzo is a freaking machine.  Six Final Fours in 12 years.  Wow.  Props to Tom Izzo from a guy who thinks coaches are too often overrated (and who is incapable of explaining why in fewer than four paragraphs).

———

The funniest dude in the tournament was Steven Pearl on Tennessee.  My man was rocking a mohawk.  He averaged 1.5 points and 1.3 rebounds per game for the season.  And, what a coincidence… he has the same last name as his coach.

Tags: , , ,
Comment

A Hoopservation About Tournament Upsets.

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season, NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/27/2010

Long gone are the days when I make any effort to predict anything that will happen in the NCAA tournament, let alone explain why things are happening.  It’s way too crazy for me to make any sense of.

But, even as surprising as many of the upsets have been, there is one thing about them that is particularly stupefying to me: in almost all of the big upsets, it was the lower-ranked team that had the highest scorer in the game:

When Murray State (a 13 seed) beat Vanderbilt (a 4), Isacc Miles led the game with 17 points.

When Ohio (14) beat Georgetown (3), Armon Bassett led the game with 32 points.

When Saint Mary’s (10) beat Villanova (2), Omar Samham led the game with 32 points.

When Cornell (12) beat Wisconsin (4), Louis Dale was the high scorer with 26 points.

And when Northern Iowa (9) beat Kansas (1), Ali Farokhmanesh tied for the game high with 16.

This is surprising to me, because when I hear people explain why there are more upsets now than there used to be, I generally hear them say that the “mid-major” schools typically have players who stay for 4 years, while the top talent at the “major” schools leaves early.  As the thinking goes, the “mid-majors” have an advantage because they have multiple guys with experience playing together in a particular system, and that experience winds up winning out against superior talent.  That makes sense on its face, but, if it were really the reason for so many upsets, wouldn’t we expect the victorious lower-seeded team to have a bunch of dudes in double digits, rather than having one dude leading them to a victory over a more talented team?

I have no idea why this is happening, and I don’t know what to make of it.  I know this, though… ESPN, CBS, and the other venues that cover college hoops are missing some huge stories.  There are some very talented players on teams that never seem to be on tv.  As a college hoops fan, I feel kind of jipped.  If I had known about Omar Samham at the beginning of the season, I would have been following him closely.  (For reasons that I’d rather not get into, there is a soft spot in my heart for players who have no perceivable muscles, and can’t seem to jump over a stamp.)  But, he wasn’t mentioned in any of the pre-season stories that I read.  Instead, the “experts’” pre-season All-America teams included Willie Warren on Oklahoma, Ed Davis on North Carolina, Craig Brackins on Iowa State, and Jarvis Varnado on Mississippi State.

At least I feel better about one thing… my skills at predicting what will happen stand up quite nicely against the “experts.”

Tags: , ,
Comment

It’s All About The Matchup. Huh?

Filed Under: NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/23/2010

As I’ve blogged a few times, I am unable to make sense of college hoops.  Hoopserving the tournament recently, I’ve heard multiple people say that the upsets can be explained by the “matchup”  — the higher seeded teams lost because they had “bad matchups.”

Pardon me if I’m the only idiot who hears this talk and has no idea what the hell it means, but, um, I hear this talk and have no idea what the hell it means.

If you’re predicting a game, how do you know which team has the “better matchup”?  If one team has experience and the other has talent, who should win?  If one team is strong on the perimeter and the other is strong in the post, who should win?  If one team is athletic and the other team is disciplined, who should win?  What about if one team is good in transition and the other is good in a half-court game?

Maybe I’m missing something, but, in the abstract, it’s impossible to answer any of these questions.   Yet, once the game is over, if the lower-seeded team has won, we say that the “matchup” favored the lower-seeded team.  But, if the higher-seeded team has won, we just say that the team was BETTER.  Huh?

To make it a bit clearer, consider Northern Iowa and Kansas.  Northern Iowa won, and people are saying they were a “tough matchup” for Kansas.  Really?  A tough matchup?  Why don’t we just say they played better?  What made them a “tough matchup” other than the fact that they played their tails off?

So I’m not exposing myself to too much ridicule from whoever is reading this, let me be clear… I’m well aware that every team is vulnerable to certain types of opponents more than others.  But in the grand scheme of things, the better team generally finds a way to impose its style on the weaker team.  Millions of people picked Kansas to win the tournament not because they expected Kansas to play the same type of team for 6 straight games, but because they thought Kansas was the best team, and, therefore, was the team most capable of making whatever adjustments were needed to beat whoever wound up in its path.  If Kansas beat Northern Iowa, we wouldn’t be talking about how it was a “good matchup” for Kansas, we’d just be saying that Kansas is damn good.

When the weaker team wins, it could have something to do with the “matchup,” but, so far as I can tell, it generally has much more to do with the fact that, in a single elimination tournament, made up of teams with primarily 18 and 19 year-olds, playing a sport in which a team can hit a few 3’s and neutralize a talent disadvantage, it is more often than not those things – rather than the “matchup” – that explain the upsets.

And when the better team wins… well, that’s because it’s the better team.

Tags:
Comment

Tournament Thoughts

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season, NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/20/2010

A great couple of days of hoops.  Unfortunately I didn’t get to watch nearly as much as I would have liked.  Some thoughts:

  1. Has anyone ever seen Cole Aldrich and Eric Montross in the same room?  Just curious.
  2. With all due respect to Northern Iowa, I can’t think of a single reason why a recruit would choose Northern Iowa over UNLV. (Let me remind you: the “LV” in UNLV stands for Las Vegas.  Yes.  Las-friggin’-Vegas.  And the “Northern Iowa” in Northern Iowa stands for, yes, NORTHERN-FRIGGIN’-IOWA.)  I have no idea why anyone would choose to go to school in Northern Iowa who could go to school in Las-friggin’-Vegas.  Yet, Northern Iowa beat UNLV.  College hoops is a grazy game.
  3. College hoops is a crazy game.  Have I mentioned that already?  On January 18, the Texas Longhorns – then 17-0 and ranked #1 in the country – lost to Kansas State.  Exactly two months later, on March 18, the Texas Longhorns – then 23-8 and seeded #8 in their region – had their season ended by a lousy Wake Forest team.  If anyone has a sensible explanation for what happened to Texas, I’m interested to hear it.
  4. Even as crazy as college hoops is, one would think that someone who pays for the domain name hoopservations.com, just so he can blog about basketball for the entertainment of all 4 of his friends that read the blog, would be able to make some sensible predictions about what would happen in the tournament.  One would think that if his kept his predictions conservative and predicted, for example, simply that Big East teams would do well in the tournament, he would walk away from the endeavor with some dignity intact.  Well, you’d be wrong.  Thursday was just a disaster for the Big East, with Georgetown, Notre Dame, and Marquette all losing to lower-seeded teams, and Villanova nearly losing to Robert Morris.  (I don’t know who Robert Morris is, but I think he used to go to my camp.  He had two brothers, and a wicked temper, if I recall.  I didn’t realize he started a university.)  Syracuse, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh helped turn things around on Friday, but it’s still shaping up to be a bad year for the Big East.
  5. At one point during yesterday’s Oklahoma State – Georgia Tech game, the announcers referred to “Oliver” and “Miller” from Oklahoma State within a few moments of each other, and, from that point forward, every time I heard one of their names, I remembered this dude.
  6. Interesting article here.
  7. Before this tournament started, there was already writing on the wall telling us that the end of the college basketball world as we know it is here.  North Carolina, UCLA, Indiana, Arizona, and UCONN are all not in it.
  8. At this time every year, I get nostalgic for Harold “The Show” Arceneaux.  If you’re wondering where he’s been since he set the tournament on fire, wikipedia has it covered (of course).  Whenever I think of Harold “The Show” Arceneaux, it reminds me that I know nothing about how NBA GM’s scout talent; Darko Milicic is still in the league, and so is Kwame Brown, but Harold “The Show” Arceneaux never got a real shot.
  9. Whenever I think of Harold “The Show” Arceneaux, it also reminds me that I know almost nothing about the way this country’s system of higher education is set up.   I know that some states have state schools in multiple places.  Usually, those schools are identified by where they are.  For example, in New York, SUNY Binghamton is in Binghamton, SUNY Albany is in Albany, etc.  In California, UCLA is in LA, UC Santa Barbara is in Santa Barbara, etc.  Ok.  So far, so good.  Then, though, I think of Weber State.  I know that there is no “state” named “Weber,” and nothing about the name “Weber State” tells me which “state” it refers to.  I looked it up, and learned that Weber State is in a city (city?  town?  village?) named Ogden, in Utah.  If anyone can explain how a school in Ogden, Utah winds up with the name Weber State, I’m interested in hearing from you.
  10. At this time of year, I feel like we should have a national holiday so people can stop what they’re doing and watch hoops.  If I had a vote, I’d vote to call it Harold “The Show” Arceneaux Day.
Tags: , , ,
Comment

Determining Which Bubble Teams Get In

Filed Under: NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/14/2010

Over the last few days, I’ve been listening plenty to “experts” talking about which teams are on the bubble, and which of those teams should get in.  They talk endlessly about RPI rankings, strength of schedule, wins against the RPI top-50, and the “eye-test,” which is basically their way of saying that nothing else matters if you look at 2 teams and feel strongly that one is better.

For what it’s worth, if I’m ever on the committee, here’s how I’ll decide:

  1. The teams’ records.  For whatever reason, this stat seems to get overlooked.  Of course, a team that plays in a lousy conference and puts up, say, 25 wins, has not accomplished as much as a team that plays in an excellent conference and puts up, say, 23 wins.  But, when talking about bubble teams, the record says a lot.  If a team puts up 23 wins in an excellent conference, that team probably isn’t on the bubble; it’s already in.  Thus, if we’re comparing 2 bubble teams, we don’t have to worry about an excellent team from an excellent conference getting bounced.  Once you take those teams out of consideration, the record is the best indicator of who should go.  If I’m choosing between 2 bubble teams, and one of them has 3 or more wins than the other, my analysis is just about over.
  2. Wins over RPI top-50.  Assuming that the teams have similar records, wins over the RPI top-50 is, in my opinion, the only other measurement that matters.  The team with more wins over the RPI top-50 should be in, assuming that the records are comparable.  I don’t care how many games they played against the RPI top-50, I care about the win total.  If the teams did not play the same number of games against the RPI top-50, that fact will be reflected in the records, which I would have already made the most important factor.  For example, if 1 team played 10 games against the RPI top-50, and the other only played 5, that fact would be reflected in their records.  In other words, if two teams have similar records, and one team is 3-7 against the RPI top 50 while the other is 1-2, I’m going with the team that is 3-7.
  3. The “eye test.”  When all else fails, go to the eye test.
Comment

First-Ever Bids: I’m Over It

Filed Under: NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/11/2010

Earlier this week, the Wofford Terriers clinched a spot in the NCAA Tournament.  If you had asked me a week ago what Wofford Terriers were, I would have guessed that they were a type of pet, or that they were characters from Fraggle Rock that I had trouble remembering.  I most certainly would not have guessed that they were a Division I college basketball team.  But, they are.  And they’re in the NCAA tournament.  For the first time ever.

This is the type of “Cinderella Story” that I could have gotten into a few years ago; I used to enjoy hearing about teams that were going to the tournament for the first time.  Now?  Not so much.

I mean, the tournament has been going on for about 70 years.  65 teams get in every year.  I know that it hasn’t always been that way, but, still… there have been about 3,000 tournament slots available throughout history.  You’re telling me that there are still schools out there that have never gotten one of these slots?  Not one?  Ever?  What have they been doing all this time?

Is there a list of these schools somewhere, or am I just supposed to trust the guys on ESPN, when they tell me that a school is going to the tournament for the FIRST TIME EVER?  This feels like some type of media conspiracy to me, and I’ll need more proof before I believe it.

More importantly, even if I assume it’s true that Wofford College has never made the tournament before, am I supposed to get excited?  (By the way, is Wofford a college?  A university?  An on-line degree program?) Yes?  I’m supposed to get excited?  Just so the students at Wofford can watch their Terriers learn what a Kansas Jayhawk’s foot tastes like?

I might have gotten excited about this a few years ago, but not this year.  Getting a bid to this year’s tournament doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me.

After all… Cornell got one.

Tags:
Comment

Predicting The NCAA Tournament

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season, NCAA, Season Predictions by Tweener — Comments Off
03/08/2010

Well, it’s March. Welcome to the Madness.

Given the state of my finances, it would be extra special to win one of my tournament pools this year. So, I’ve started thinking about how to win even before the brackets are out.

I’m thinking that I’m going to load up on teams from the Big East and Big 12. The Top 10 has seen lots of movement all season, but these two conferences have been well represented throughout; once things kind of sorted themselves out, and people realized that North Carolina did not deserve to be ranked #6 (as it was early in the season), the Big East has been consistently represented by Syracuse, Villanova, West Virginia, and, occasionally, Georgetown, and the Big 12 has been consistently represented by Kansas, Kansas State, and, before its recent tailspin, Texas.

It seems to me that the teams most likely to win games in the tournament are the ones who have faced the most quality opponents during the regular season. This might seem self-evident at first, but it isn’t necessarily true that the teams that win games in the tournament come from the conferences that get the most teams into the tournament. In fact, there’s reason to think the opposite: a conference that gets 7 or 8 teams in probably got a few teams into the tournament that do not have a legitimate shot to win the whole thing, and there’s no reason, in a vacuum, to think that those conferences wind up winning more games than they lose. In other words, no law of nature says that there’s a direct relationship between quantity and quality for the purposes of predicting which conferences will generate winners in the tournament.

So, I did a bit of research, to look into whether the conferences that get the most teams into the tournament generally wind up producing multiple teams that win multiple games. I have 2 conclusions:

  1. Thank God for Wikipedia. What a brilliant site. It has each conference’s record in the tournament for the last few years.
  2. Generally, it seems to be true that conferences that get the most teams in also perform the best in the tournament. Last year, three conferences got 7 teams in each: the ACC, Big East, and Big Ten. Those conferences were 9-6, 17-7, and 9-7, respectively. Quite good. In 2008, the Big East stood out with 8 bids, and an 11-8 record. The Big 12, Pac-10, and SEC all got 6 bids. The SEC wet the bed, with a 4-6 record, but the Big 12 and Pac-10 supported my theory, going 12-5 and 8-6, respectively. In 2007, the ACC led with 7 bids, and finished a mediocre 7-7. The Pac-10, Big Ten, and Big East each got 6 bids, and supported my theory by going 10-6, 9-6, and 7-6. Wikipedia doesn’t have such detailed breakdowns for 2006, but it says that the Big East got 8 teams, and the SEC and Big Ten both got 6. That was the screwy year when George Mason made the Final Four, so it is not necessarily a model of anything. Nonetheless, UCONN and Villanova both made the Elite 8 out of the Big East, and Florida and LSU both made it out of the SEC.

This year, when the brackets come out, I’m loading up on teams from the Big East and Big 12. There are certainly exceptions to the general rule that teams from the best conferences are the safest teams to pick when the brackets come out, but it seems to be as reliable a predictor of success as any other. If anyone knows of any others, I hope you’ll share them… I need the cash.

Comment

Time For A HoopservaCATION

Filed Under: Uncategorized by Tweener — Comments Off
03/03/2010

I’m heading where the air is warm and the sun is shiny for a couple of days.

So, if you log on and see that I haven’t updated the site, don’t think it’s because I found something better to do with my time than blog about a sport I don’t play particularly well. No, it’s because I’m relaxing on a beach.

I’ll be back with more Hoopservations on Monday, March 8th.

Comment