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.
Showing posts with label vanderbilt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vanderbilt. Show all posts
Thursday, January 1
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!
Tuesday, February 20
We're #1
Continuing where the last post left off, and no, I'm not a drunken idiot who thinks his team is #1 beacuse it beat #1.
Vanderbilt's baseball team moved up to #1 in the college baseball poll this week. This is the first time Vanderbilt has been ranked #1 in a major college sport in 14 years. Sorry, women's golf doesn't count.
Go Dores!
Vanderbilt's baseball team moved up to #1 in the college baseball poll this week. This is the first time Vanderbilt has been ranked #1 in a major college sport in 14 years. Sorry, women's golf doesn't count.
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)
