Anyone who's watched college basketball over the past few years has noticed that games are generally close. There are lots of upset every year, even with top 5 teams against unranked opponents. Cornell, an Ivy league school, played then #1 Kansas close and lost by only five points.
Vanderbilt just beat South Carolina by 10 points on the road. Any road win in the SEC is an accomplishment, and a double digit road win is doubly impressive. However I wondered whether South Carolina was just really bad, Vanderbilt was good, or Vanderbilt just played well. And this is interesting.
I checked the "Vegas lines" and Vanderbilt was a 1 point favorite, so winning easily is a great. Then I checked Sagrain ratings to get a computerized view of what they've done so far. Vanderbilt is #21 and South Carolina is #73 so at first it looks like Vanderbilt should win easily and the line is "off". However a close look shows Vanderbilt's rating is only 4.5 point more than South Carolina's. Give South Carolina 4 points for being home, and the "Sagarin line" is Vanderbilt by 1/2 point! That's right a top 25 team plays a team not in the top 70 -- a team hoping for a NIT berth -- and the game is a toss up.
There are some good teams at the top, but the difference between #10 and #100 is just 12 points. The difference between #10, what some might call an elite team and #50, a team on the NCAA tournament bubble is 6 points. And if the #50 team is at home, the difference is 2 points, essentially a toss up.
In the ACC, the difference between the second best team and the worst (12th) team is 8 points. 2nd to 7th are separated by 3 points. That's going to be a wild conference and a wilder tournament. In the Big East, the top 12 teams are separated by 10 points. It's not quite a crapshoot, but most conference games are 60-40 propositions even if there's a big spread in rankings.
It's a good year to bet on middle seeds making a run in the NCAA tournament.
Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basketball. Show all posts
Saturday, January 16
Thursday, January 1
College Bowl Games
Today is January 1st. For the first time in what might be my lifetime, I didn't watch a single minute of college football. I actually watched hockey (the Winter Classic) and baseball (part of Don Larsen's perfect game on the new MLB Network) instead of New Year's Day Bowls.
Which gets to a post I've been kicking around for a few weeks but never typed out about college bowls.
Point 1: I've been really undecided what to think about Vanderbilt being in a bowl. On one hand it's nice that Vanderbilt no longer appears near the top of "longest bowl drought" lists. And a six-win season is the best Vanderbilt has had in a long time so this qualifies as a great year by Vanderbilt standards. On the other hand, it's not like Vanderbilt is actually any good. After starting 5-1, they finished the regular season 6-6 which isn't exactly something to be proud of. Their offense is horrible, their defense is OK. They basically win by not making mistakes and getting some breaks. They may not even be in the top 50 this year heading into bowl season. I'd like being excited that a C and D student got one B on her report card.
Having played the game, it was a lot of fun to watch them on National TV and pull off a big upset. While the line was only 3-4 points, Boston College was a top 25 team and I think 90% of ESPN viewers picked them to win. A guy I know was in a contest where he ranked the bowl games by likelihood of winners and made BC his #1 pick.
Point 2: On the BCS, I had a long talk with Glenn about the selection process and options and we came to a couple of interesting conclusions. There's no good way to decide a three-way tie for a conference or division title when each team has lost to one of the others. And it's a bit disconcerting that who plays for a national championship comes down to the arbitrary selection of which tie breaker rules the conference happens to have in place. I can't argue against the approach utilized by other conferences to "eliminate" the #3 team then look at head-to-head and that approach would likely have put Texas in the championship game. Not sure how the conference strength of victory would have determined a winner. What's really tough is a lot of the computer polls have Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech 1-2-3 so it's very close. I suspect some weird things can happen in the Pac Ten with USC being the dominant team but coming very close to NOT winning the conference title.
What Glenn and I found very interesting is that even though this is a year where there's a good argument that the best team in the nation isn't playing for the National Championship (Texas), the BCS does a better job of ensuring that the best team IS in the championship than a playoff. Let's declare best team to mean if the top 21 teams each played each other 50 times, the team with the best record is the best team. This year is pretty extreme, but even so there's only a 35% chance the best team isn't in the game. It's hard to argue Texas being so much better than Oklahoma and Florida that it wins more than 1/3 of the time. In general, I'd say the best team is left out of the BCS Championship 20% of the time. But if you switch to a 16-team playoff or even an 8-team playoff, the best team missed out of the championship game much, much more often.
Let's be optimistic and say the #1 team has a 100% chance of beating the #16 team, and then a 90% chance of beating the #8/9 team and a 70% chance of winning in the national semifinal against the #4 or 5 team. That would give the team a 37% chance of NOT making the championship. And really it's greater than that since those win % are inflated. Rank your top 8 teams and see if you think the top team would really beat #8 9 times in 10 or #4 70% of the time.
This is the dark side of the beauty of March Madness. While it's good entertainment to see upsets and close games and 64 teams in, it's also almost a crapshoot once you get to the final 16. I believe last year was the first time ever that all 4 #1 seed made it to the Final Four. Quite simply, the more teams you involve, the LESS likely it is that you crown the best team as champion assuming the selection process isn't arbitrary.
Net net, so while I firmly believe Texas got screwed even though I think Oklahoma is better, I much prefer the current system to a 16-team playoff. I would like a 6-team playoff, though it will never happen.
Which gets to a post I've been kicking around for a few weeks but never typed out about college bowls.
Point 1: I've been really undecided what to think about Vanderbilt being in a bowl. On one hand it's nice that Vanderbilt no longer appears near the top of "longest bowl drought" lists. And a six-win season is the best Vanderbilt has had in a long time so this qualifies as a great year by Vanderbilt standards. On the other hand, it's not like Vanderbilt is actually any good. After starting 5-1, they finished the regular season 6-6 which isn't exactly something to be proud of. Their offense is horrible, their defense is OK. They basically win by not making mistakes and getting some breaks. They may not even be in the top 50 this year heading into bowl season. I'd like being excited that a C and D student got one B on her report card.
Having played the game, it was a lot of fun to watch them on National TV and pull off a big upset. While the line was only 3-4 points, Boston College was a top 25 team and I think 90% of ESPN viewers picked them to win. A guy I know was in a contest where he ranked the bowl games by likelihood of winners and made BC his #1 pick.
Point 2: On the BCS, I had a long talk with Glenn about the selection process and options and we came to a couple of interesting conclusions. There's no good way to decide a three-way tie for a conference or division title when each team has lost to one of the others. And it's a bit disconcerting that who plays for a national championship comes down to the arbitrary selection of which tie breaker rules the conference happens to have in place. I can't argue against the approach utilized by other conferences to "eliminate" the #3 team then look at head-to-head and that approach would likely have put Texas in the championship game. Not sure how the conference strength of victory would have determined a winner. What's really tough is a lot of the computer polls have Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech 1-2-3 so it's very close. I suspect some weird things can happen in the Pac Ten with USC being the dominant team but coming very close to NOT winning the conference title.
What Glenn and I found very interesting is that even though this is a year where there's a good argument that the best team in the nation isn't playing for the National Championship (Texas), the BCS does a better job of ensuring that the best team IS in the championship than a playoff. Let's declare best team to mean if the top 21 teams each played each other 50 times, the team with the best record is the best team. This year is pretty extreme, but even so there's only a 35% chance the best team isn't in the game. It's hard to argue Texas being so much better than Oklahoma and Florida that it wins more than 1/3 of the time. In general, I'd say the best team is left out of the BCS Championship 20% of the time. But if you switch to a 16-team playoff or even an 8-team playoff, the best team missed out of the championship game much, much more often.
Let's be optimistic and say the #1 team has a 100% chance of beating the #16 team, and then a 90% chance of beating the #8/9 team and a 70% chance of winning in the national semifinal against the #4 or 5 team. That would give the team a 37% chance of NOT making the championship. And really it's greater than that since those win % are inflated. Rank your top 8 teams and see if you think the top team would really beat #8 9 times in 10 or #4 70% of the time.
This is the dark side of the beauty of March Madness. While it's good entertainment to see upsets and close games and 64 teams in, it's also almost a crapshoot once you get to the final 16. I believe last year was the first time ever that all 4 #1 seed made it to the Final Four. Quite simply, the more teams you involve, the LESS likely it is that you crown the best team as champion assuming the selection process isn't arbitrary.
Net net, so while I firmly believe Texas got screwed even though I think Oklahoma is better, I much prefer the current system to a 16-team playoff. I would like a 6-team playoff, though it will never happen.
Friday, July 4
Sonics gone
...or so it seems.
It was a sad day in Seattle sports. We've known almost from day one that Clayton Bennett's plan was to move the team to OKC, whether he admits it or not. But I really thought they'd play out the lease. It was a sweet deal for the city -- they pocket the lost revenue and then some, but the local (Queen Anne) businesses that benefit from 41 Sonics home days get squat. Actually they get less than squat, they get screwed.
There's so much blame to go around, it's not funny. Bennett is obviously a snake is best described by the old joke -- how do you know when he's lying; answer: his lips move. Howard Schultz, who is a smart businessman was incredibly naive in buying the Sonics and selling to an out of town owner. A lot of people want to blame the city, but I'm of two minds here. Sure the city could have done more for the Sonics. But really spending taxpayer money to subsidize improving Key Arena for the Sonics would have been a bad move. As a whole people are against it and economic studies show it doesn't make sense. And they've already spent a bunch of money on two stadiums that have better draws. So to me, the city is stuck -- they shouldn't get a penny to the Sonics owners, but if they don't the team leaves.
The Schultz suit is still out there, but to me this is one of those suits that has a lot of merit in concept -- it's pretty clear Bennett failed to act in good faith, but in the end he won't win because a court won't reverse a sale two or three years later, after some assets have been sold and the team has moved.
I'm 90% sure Seattle will get another NBA team. The Pacific Northwest is just too large to only have one team. I'm also 90% sure it won't happen in the next 5 years.
It was a sad day in Seattle sports. We've known almost from day one that Clayton Bennett's plan was to move the team to OKC, whether he admits it or not. But I really thought they'd play out the lease. It was a sweet deal for the city -- they pocket the lost revenue and then some, but the local (Queen Anne) businesses that benefit from 41 Sonics home days get squat. Actually they get less than squat, they get screwed.
There's so much blame to go around, it's not funny. Bennett is obviously a snake is best described by the old joke -- how do you know when he's lying; answer: his lips move. Howard Schultz, who is a smart businessman was incredibly naive in buying the Sonics and selling to an out of town owner. A lot of people want to blame the city, but I'm of two minds here. Sure the city could have done more for the Sonics. But really spending taxpayer money to subsidize improving Key Arena for the Sonics would have been a bad move. As a whole people are against it and economic studies show it doesn't make sense. And they've already spent a bunch of money on two stadiums that have better draws. So to me, the city is stuck -- they shouldn't get a penny to the Sonics owners, but if they don't the team leaves.
The Schultz suit is still out there, but to me this is one of those suits that has a lot of merit in concept -- it's pretty clear Bennett failed to act in good faith, but in the end he won't win because a court won't reverse a sale two or three years later, after some assets have been sold and the team has moved.
I'm 90% sure Seattle will get another NBA team. The Pacific Northwest is just too large to only have one team. I'm also 90% sure it won't happen in the next 5 years.
Tuesday, June 17
Why I Don't Watch the NBA
or at least don't watch very much.
Tim Donaghy levels some pretty serious allegations at the league about influencing the outcome of games. Donaghy isn't exactly what we'd consider a fine, upstanding citizen and obviously we should believe this just because he says it's true. However one of three things are true:
We ALL know there different rules for superstars in the NBA. The Piston's "Jordan Rules" was always a double-entendre. Even if the league won't admit it, every TV commentator talks openly about it. The stars get protected -- the fans pay big $ to see them play or watch them on TV and really it's good for the league -- though it's clearly dishonest officiating.
Do I think the NBA is fixed -- predetermined like "pro wrestling"? No. But as far back as the year Jordan retired and the Bulls couldn't get a call, I've wondered if the officiating was totally on the up and up. It's ten+ years and I don't remember the plays, but I remember feeling the Bulls got jobbed. Maybe it's just as subtle as the selection of officials for the game or points of emphasis. Let's say the NBA didn't want the Malone-Stockton Utah Jazz to advance in a playoff series because Salt Lake City is a small city. By assigning referees who call lots of moving screens and let the defense get away with bumping and holding on the pick and roll, they can call the game "fairly" while putting the Jazz at a disadvantage.
I've watched most of the Magic games when I was visiting family in Orlando. And I've checked scores as I've passed by a TV. The one time I actually watched was the last minute of the LA-San Antonio game which solidified my view. It was the game when the San Antonio player was tackled with 1 second to go and prevented from shooting a game-winning or game-tying shot. When many inside and outside the game played it off as "you can't blow the whistle there" or "referees shouldn't decide the game' (ironic) , I wonder how you can honestly let the defense prevent a player from taking a shot.
Did anyone think the Celtics were going to win game 5 yesterday? It may be said half in jest, but with all the hype would the NBA let this be a 5-game series!?!
Tim Donaghy levels some pretty serious allegations at the league about influencing the outcome of games. Donaghy isn't exactly what we'd consider a fine, upstanding citizen and obviously we should believe this just because he says it's true. However one of three things are true:
- Donaghy's statements are 90% truth. Maybe he doesn't remember details exactly or maybe he exaggerated a bit.
- There's some basis to what he says -- some conversations between the league and the officials on how to call specific games, some things he was told though perhaps misunderstood -- but the specific examples are made up or speculation.
- Donaghy made the whole thing up.
We ALL know there different rules for superstars in the NBA. The Piston's "Jordan Rules" was always a double-entendre. Even if the league won't admit it, every TV commentator talks openly about it. The stars get protected -- the fans pay big $ to see them play or watch them on TV and really it's good for the league -- though it's clearly dishonest officiating.
Do I think the NBA is fixed -- predetermined like "pro wrestling"? No. But as far back as the year Jordan retired and the Bulls couldn't get a call, I've wondered if the officiating was totally on the up and up. It's ten+ years and I don't remember the plays, but I remember feeling the Bulls got jobbed. Maybe it's just as subtle as the selection of officials for the game or points of emphasis. Let's say the NBA didn't want the Malone-Stockton Utah Jazz to advance in a playoff series because Salt Lake City is a small city. By assigning referees who call lots of moving screens and let the defense get away with bumping and holding on the pick and roll, they can call the game "fairly" while putting the Jazz at a disadvantage.
I've watched most of the Magic games when I was visiting family in Orlando. And I've checked scores as I've passed by a TV. The one time I actually watched was the last minute of the LA-San Antonio game which solidified my view. It was the game when the San Antonio player was tackled with 1 second to go and prevented from shooting a game-winning or game-tying shot. When many inside and outside the game played it off as "you can't blow the whistle there" or "referees shouldn't decide the game' (ironic) , I wonder how you can honestly let the defense prevent a player from taking a shot.
Did anyone think the Celtics were going to win game 5 yesterday? It may be said half in jest, but with all the hype would the NBA let this be a 5-game series!?!
Monday, May 19
Storm win home opener
The Storm won their home opener Saturday night. After playing even for almost three quarters, they finally figured out the Sky and went on a huge run. The Sky outscored the bench a lot in the final minutes so it was only a six point margin, but the game was essentially a blowout.
It was also a very emotional game as it was the first game since a local group of women calling themselves "Force 10" bought the team from Clayton Bennett. Not only were the fans thrilled to know the Storm would be here long term, but the players brought the new owners to center court to join the post game celebration circle.
The Storm have a chance to be something special this year. When Sheryl Swoopes and Yolanda Griffith are your fourth and fifth best players that's quite a team if they have something left.
It was also a very emotional game as it was the first game since a local group of women calling themselves "Force 10" bought the team from Clayton Bennett. Not only were the fans thrilled to know the Storm would be here long term, but the players brought the new owners to center court to join the post game celebration circle.
The Storm have a chance to be something special this year. When Sheryl Swoopes and Yolanda Griffith are your fourth and fifth best players that's quite a team if they have something left.
Tuesday, March 18
Long time, no blog
Eek. It's been a long time since I've blogged. Lots of stuff happening but unfortunately that leaves me little time to blog. I'll try to catch up with some short posts over the next few days.
Had a very neat experience at the end of February. In 2006 at the Jewish Day School auction, Monica won me the experience to go to a Sonics game with Seattle P-I writer Jim Moore. We finally got it scheduled for Feb 24 to see Kobe Bryant play. (Free tickets to a Sonics game isn't reason enough to go.)
Jim was kind enough to take me out to dinner before the game and we got to chat for an hour or so about Seattle sports, his background -- he actually grew up in a house not far from where we live -- and being a sportswriter. Then before the game, he had a press pass made for me and we got to walk around behind the scenes. I watched as he interviewed Jalen, a six-year-old kid on the Sonics boom squad, and the Jalen's dad. Well, at least I watched until the cheerleaders walked by about four feet away. I don't remember much of the interview after that though dad
was surprisingly level-headed and realistic about his son. The article never did run as far as I could see.
The game was a laugher and Kobe got tossed in the third quarter. But it was the most fun I'd had at a Sonics game in years.
Had a very neat experience at the end of February. In 2006 at the Jewish Day School auction, Monica won me the experience to go to a Sonics game with Seattle P-I writer Jim Moore. We finally got it scheduled for Feb 24 to see Kobe Bryant play. (Free tickets to a Sonics game isn't reason enough to go.)
Jim was kind enough to take me out to dinner before the game and we got to chat for an hour or so about Seattle sports, his background -- he actually grew up in a house not far from where we live -- and being a sportswriter. Then before the game, he had a press pass made for me and we got to walk around behind the scenes. I watched as he interviewed Jalen, a six-year-old kid on the Sonics boom squad, and the Jalen's dad. Well, at least I watched until the cheerleaders walked by about four feet away. I don't remember much of the interview after that though dad
was surprisingly level-headed and realistic about his son. The article never did run as far as I could see.
The game was a laugher and Kobe got tossed in the third quarter. But it was the most fun I'd had at a Sonics game in years.
Monday, March 12
NCAA Tournament
Every year on this weekend, the NCAA committees select and seed the teams for the men's and women's NCAA tournaments. We've come to expect a fair amount of controversy with both the final teams that are in and out, as well as with the seeding process.
Quite honestly I haven't followed college basketball closely enough to make any judgement on what the committee did this year. I do believe that we all should accept that if a team isn't obviously in -- by virtue of performance or winning its conference tournament -- it's at the mercy of the committee. And way too much energy goes into arguing who the 40th or so best team in the country is. Having had it happen to my team, I know how frustrating it is to miss. But the truth is that team had no shot to win anyway and wasn't likely to get past the second round. If you want to be in, don't leave any doubt in the committee's mind.
But one thing I've heard really bothers me. In her ESPN chat tonight and I'd read this last week as well, Judy Southard, chair of the women's committee, said, "We did an incredible amount of research and spent hundreds of hours watching game film." OK, but why and why call this out? If this is a completely objective process why watch the teams play? Isn't it about the numbers (wins, loses, strentgth of schedule, last ten games, RPI, etc.)? Which part of the seeding process is about how good a team looks on tape? No doubt the committee members are fans and enjoy watching basketball as recreation and I do see wanting people in the know making decisions. But having watched the teams play can only make one less objective, especially since if you only see a team once or twice AND you're watching them against top competition, you become negatively biased.
I'm not saying the committee shouldn't watch the teams play. But to go out of your way to watch -- watching film not live TV -- and bragging about it seems to be an admission of subjectively.
Enough whining. Vanderbilt's men's and women's teams are both in the tournament. The women have a #2 seed and a chance to go a long way in the tournament starting on Sunday against Delaware St. The men have a #6 seed and take on George Washington Thursday afternoon. If they win, they get matched with local favorite Washington State.
Go 'Dores!
Quite honestly I haven't followed college basketball closely enough to make any judgement on what the committee did this year. I do believe that we all should accept that if a team isn't obviously in -- by virtue of performance or winning its conference tournament -- it's at the mercy of the committee. And way too much energy goes into arguing who the 40th or so best team in the country is. Having had it happen to my team, I know how frustrating it is to miss. But the truth is that team had no shot to win anyway and wasn't likely to get past the second round. If you want to be in, don't leave any doubt in the committee's mind.
But one thing I've heard really bothers me. In her ESPN chat tonight and I'd read this last week as well, Judy Southard, chair of the women's committee, said, "We did an incredible amount of research and spent hundreds of hours watching game film." OK, but why and why call this out? If this is a completely objective process why watch the teams play? Isn't it about the numbers (wins, loses, strentgth of schedule, last ten games, RPI, etc.)? Which part of the seeding process is about how good a team looks on tape? No doubt the committee members are fans and enjoy watching basketball as recreation and I do see wanting people in the know making decisions. But having watched the teams play can only make one less objective, especially since if you only see a team once or twice AND you're watching them against top competition, you become negatively biased.
I'm not saying the committee shouldn't watch the teams play. But to go out of your way to watch -- watching film not live TV -- and bragging about it seems to be an admission of subjectively.
Enough whining. Vanderbilt's men's and women's teams are both in the tournament. The women have a #2 seed and a chance to go a long way in the tournament starting on Sunday against Delaware St. The men have a #6 seed and take on George Washington Thursday afternoon. If they win, they get matched with local favorite Washington State.
Go 'Dores!
Monday, February 19
Vanderbilt basketball stuns #1 Florida
Had to post on this -- 83-70 on Saturday. It was front page news on ESPN.com for much of the weekend.
Vanderbilt hasn't been a basketball power in my lifetime. A season that ends with an NIT appearance is often a big deal. But not too long ago they used to be a force to be reckoned with at home, even when it wasn't a good year. Memorial Gym is the only one in the nation with the benches on the ends, not the sides and the student section is next to the court which creates a large home court edge. They had a series of upsets of top 5 teams in the 80s and early 90s and typically had only one or two home losses each season. But in the past 10 years, the program has really been down. In fact earlier this year, I harped on the fact that national power ratings had Vanderbilt not even in the top 100. At home, they had lost to noted power Furman ;), had close victories over Lipscomb and Toledo and beat Elon (4-20 and one of the 50 worst division one teams) by only 11. I noted this was embarassing and they should fire the coach.
Somewhere around the new year, this became a new team. They had a close loss on the road at Auburn which was perhaps foreshadowing. Then in the course of two weeks, they beat a ranked Tennessee and Alabama teams (who may have been overrated in retrospect) and went into Rupp Arena and beat Kentucky for the second time ever. They had a clunker at Tennessee but the turnaround hit a peak with the upset of #1 Florida.
What's amazing is that in six weeks this team has gone from playing like a not top 100 team with no post-season hope, to a top 15, or even top 10 team that's a lock for the NCAA tournament. ESPN predicted them as a 5 seed this week, but if they keep playing at this new level, they'd improve on that.
That said, I still think it's time to fire the coach. There's pretty clearly top 15 talent here; how bad do you have to coach to make them play like #115?
P.S. I guess the down period is a bit longer than I think. Vanderbilt is #17 in the AP poll this week, their highest ranking since 1993.
P.P.S. The Vanderbilt baseball team is #3 in the nation.
Vanderbilt hasn't been a basketball power in my lifetime. A season that ends with an NIT appearance is often a big deal. But not too long ago they used to be a force to be reckoned with at home, even when it wasn't a good year. Memorial Gym is the only one in the nation with the benches on the ends, not the sides and the student section is next to the court which creates a large home court edge. They had a series of upsets of top 5 teams in the 80s and early 90s and typically had only one or two home losses each season. But in the past 10 years, the program has really been down. In fact earlier this year, I harped on the fact that national power ratings had Vanderbilt not even in the top 100. At home, they had lost to noted power Furman ;), had close victories over Lipscomb and Toledo and beat Elon (4-20 and one of the 50 worst division one teams) by only 11. I noted this was embarassing and they should fire the coach.
Somewhere around the new year, this became a new team. They had a close loss on the road at Auburn which was perhaps foreshadowing. Then in the course of two weeks, they beat a ranked Tennessee and Alabama teams (who may have been overrated in retrospect) and went into Rupp Arena and beat Kentucky for the second time ever. They had a clunker at Tennessee but the turnaround hit a peak with the upset of #1 Florida.
What's amazing is that in six weeks this team has gone from playing like a not top 100 team with no post-season hope, to a top 15, or even top 10 team that's a lock for the NCAA tournament. ESPN predicted them as a 5 seed this week, but if they keep playing at this new level, they'd improve on that.
That said, I still think it's time to fire the coach. There's pretty clearly top 15 talent here; how bad do you have to coach to make them play like #115?
P.S. I guess the down period is a bit longer than I think. Vanderbilt is #17 in the AP poll this week, their highest ranking since 1993.
P.P.S. The Vanderbilt baseball team is #3 in the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
