There is a lot of information to go through here, so I thought I'd try to compile some of it, as well as add my own opinions. Among the various resources used for this were Katz's top 25, Lunardi's Bracketology, Pomeroy's site, Rivals' Prospect Rankings, and Wikipedia (always). The futures lines were gathered from Bodog, BetUS, Carib, and Sportsbook.
1. North Carolina (4.5-1, BetUS)
Katz #1, Lunardi #1 seed
Last year: 36-3 (14-2), Pomeroy #4. Lost to Kansas in the national semifinal.
Sophomore forward Alex Stepheson is transferring, to some school out west (he hasn't decided). I think the Tar Heels will survive the loss.
Since 2000, four teams have gotten at least 80% of the preseason first place votes in both the AP and ESPN polls, as I'm assuming UNC will. Two of those teams--'06-'07 Florida, and '03-04 UConn--won the title. The other two--'05-06 Duke, and '01-'02 Duke--lost in the Sweet 16. I don't know what that means, other than "Dook is teh suck" but it's interesting.
Carib currently has the Tar Heels at +250 to win the title, which is pretty absurd. What this ends up doing is putting a lot of value in some of the other teams, as you'll see below.
2. UCLA (18-1 at Carib)
Katz #3, Lunardi #2 seed
Last year: 35-4 (16-2), Pomeroy #3. Lost to Memphis in the national semifinal.
Give it up for Ben Howland, everybody. Losing two top 10 picks and still being this loaded is a neat trick. The incoming class, led by Jrue (pronounced Drew) Holiday, is supposed to be the best in the country. Add that to Collison, Shipp, and Aboya, and the pieces are in place for a fourth straight Final Four, which would be an astonishing accomplishment in this day and age.
The Bruins are getting some bonus points here for Howland. You don't have Defensive Efficiencies rankings of 3, 2, and 3 over a three-year stretch by accident. It's too bad, for both team and player, that Mbah a Moute's decided to stay in the draft. He could've been a solid contributor, and might end up going undrafted.
18-1 may be the best value on the board. Even if you don't agree with them at #2, it'd be hard to argue that they're not the second most likely team to get a #1 seed, given the relative weakness of their conference.
3. Pittsburgh (22-1, The Greek)
Katz #2, Lunardi #1 seed
Last year: 27-10 (10-8), Pomeroy #21. Lost to Michigan St. in the second round.
Well, I suppose they're the heavy favorite to win the Big East tournament at the moment.
Katz mentioned that Mike Cook may get a medical redshirt and be allowed to return for another year. That'd be big, since they're already set inside with Young and Blair, and at the point with Fields. It's tough to place them with that unknown, but I suppose that's why you don't rank teams in June.
22-1 isn't bad. The problem is this conference, which is going to be outrageously good. Four teams may end up deserving top two seeds, but that doesn't mean they'll all get them. For that reason, I don't know that I could pull the trigger on any of these Big East futures.
4. Duke (15-1, Carib)
Katz #6, Lunardi #1 seed
Last year: 28-6 (13-3), Pomeroy #8. Lost to West Virginia in the second round.
Considering they have six of their seven top contributors returning, you'd think it would be fairly easy to gauge how good this team is, but I have no idea. By the end of last year, they were much better than the public perception (no mystique!), but worse than their lofty Pomeroy rank. Problem is, that leaves a pretty big gap.
They lose Nelson, but their best recruit is 6'4 "slashing lefty" Elliot Williams, who sounds like an ideal replacement. Although that doesn't help their apparent weakness down low--I don't know if you've heard, but Duke lacked an "inside presence" last year.
I do know I wouldn't take them at 15:1.
5. Connecticut (20-1, Carib)
Katz #15, Lunardi #2 seed
Last year: 24-9 (13-5), Pomeroy #22. Lost to San Diego in the first round.
I was quite surprised to see that Katz has UConn so low. It sounds like they lose Stanley Robinson (Winn says he's "on the brink of academic ineligibility), which would be unfortunate. I really think a lot of the pessimism is caused by their weak finish last year, losing four of their last seven. But that included a two-point loss at Villanova, losing to a very good West Virginia team in the BE tournament, and losing to San Diego in OT without their point guard in the NCAAs. If, on February 20th, you would've told people that Thabeet was coming back, they would've been talking the Huskies up as preseason #1.
One thing UConn could stand to improve is their perimeter defense. With Thabeet inside, they held opponents to 40.4% from 2 (second in the country), but allowed 34.9% from 3 (153rd). Maybe the addition of Rice guard Kemba Walker (Rivals #14) will help in that regard.
6. Louisville (20-1, Carib)
Katz #5, Lunardi #3 seed
Last year: 27-9 (14-4), Pomeroy #6. Lost to North Carolina in the Elite 8.
They lose a lot of bigs--Padgett, Caracter, and Palacios--but are seemingly prepared for that with two Rivals top 20 recruits, 6'9" Samardo Samuels and 6'10" Terrence Jennings, incoming. The backcourt will be very strong, as they have everybody coming back. Earl Clark should make a big impact after electing to return, rather than entering the draft as a likely first round pick.
Maybe a couple guys will get hurt, they'll lose a bunch of games in November and December, and be undervalued for three months. That'd be fun.
7. Memphis (25-1, Carib)
Katz #7, Lunardi #1 seed
Last year: 38-2 (16-0), Pomeroy #2. Lost to Kansas in the national championship.
Like Duke, Memphis is tough to gauge, but for entirely different reasons. We know exactly how good they were last year--second best team in the country. But without Rose, CDR, and Dorsey though, that's not all that helpful.
Anderson, Dozier, Taggart, and Kemp return, joined by 6'5" guard, and Rivals #6 prospect, Tyreke Evans, and two more top 50 recruits. It's not clear how good the returning guys are, because they were only complimentary pieces last year, and recruits are always hard to value. So I'll play it safe and go with Katz here.
8. Texas (30-1, Carib)
Katz #13, Lunardi #3 seed
Last year: 31-7 (13-3), Pomeroy #9. Lost to Memphis in the Elite 8.
They would've been #2 if Augustin had come back, without a doubt.
Mercifully for all parties, Abrams is returning after considering going pro. Mason will take over at the point, which will clearly be a dropoff, although who knows how much. After a breakout 2008, Atchley returns for his senior season. This is a very strong team, which could contend for the title if Mason turns out to be a capable full-time point.
9. Gonzaga (50-1, BetUS)
Katz #9, Lunardi #4 seed
Last year: 25-8 (13-1), Pomeroy #30. Lost to Davidson in the first round.
That first round exit isn't looking so bad now, is it?
The Bulldogs got great news last week, when Pargo announced he'd return to school for his senior year. He returns to a pretty stacked team--a full year from Heytvelt, and everyone else except Pendergraft returning. If they're going to contend for a title, this is their year, as they'll lose (at least) Pargo, Heytvelt, and Downs after this season.
Probably because of their first round loss (and Heytvelt missing time), Gonzaga at 50-1 looks to be the second best value available here.
10. Notre Dame (50-1, Carib)
Katz #4, Lunardi #2 seed
Last year: 25-8 (14-4), Pomeroy #28. Lost to Washington St. in the second round.
They have a very good team coming back, but the defense is still a huge question mark. Notre Dame's Defensive Efficiency rankings over the last three years have been 120th, 49th, and 42nd, respectively. With the same personnel and coach as last year, I have a hard time putting them much higher than this. Should be a fantastic offense, though.
Carib seems to have the same reservations (defense, strong conference) about this team that I do, as their odds are a real outlier among Katz's rankings. If you think they're the fourth best team in the country, it's certainly worth it. Here, it's probably not.
Photo: NCAA.org.
Showing posts with label Duke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duke. Show all posts
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Pre-Preseason College Hoops Top 10
Friday, March 21, 2008
Why I Picked Duke
Schilling obviously talks too much, but the above is one of my favorite quotes from an athlete. The Yankees didn't win games 4 and 5 because they have 26 world championships- they won them because Byung-Hyun Kim made bad pitches to Tino Martinez and Scott Brosius, and they got crushed.
I picked Duke to reach the Final Four not because they're the best team in their region (UCLA is), but because thinking like this was causing very few others to do so. Has anyone actually looked at their resume? You do not go 12-1 against the 12th most difficult non-conference schedule in the country, and then 13-3 in the ACC, if you suck. This is a very good team.
An objective look at the Blue Devils reveals they are very good at things you wouldn't necessarily notice- not turning the ball over, and not allowing their opponents to get looks from 3. It would be difficult to watch a game and come away thinking "Wow, Duke really is great at limiting their opponents' three-point opportunities; I can't think of a team in the country that's better."
I would not be difficult, however, to come away thinking, "The Blue Devils really don't have an 'inside presence', or "Greg Paulus is an [expletive]."
This is why I find articles like this to be so silly.
No. You could go back to any 1 or 2 seed in the history of the NCAA tournament, including all those Duke teams, and after a close first round game, I'm sure at least one player gave a similar quite in every instance. What else would you say? "We had them all along"?"'It's all about winning, whether by one or 100,' Duke's Jon Scheyer said. 'We're relieved. We won our first game, and we're going on.'
There was a time when those words would have been heresy."
"Put simply, the Devils and all their ACC heft and national titles and mystique and aura and NCAA tradition couldn't guard the Bruins...The aura is tinged, the mystique has dissipated."
Do people actually think that in the first round in 2001 Duke beat Monmouth by 43 because they won back-to-back titles in '91 and '92, and that effect carried over?
"This year, with no threatening big man and a team that looks imminently ordinary, what with a bunch of 3-point shooters, Duke was the 2-seed everyone wanted to get."This is what gets me. You can't have it both ways. Was this game close because their mystique played bad defense, or because they don't have Tyler Hansbrough? It's one or the other. And you can't say that their lack of a big man caused them to lose their aura, which caused them to almost lose to Belmont. I don't think I need to explain why that logic is flawed.
"Byrd spread the floor, enticing Duke out to the wing with the danger of 3-pointers, then he sent his players driving to the hoop as though there was no one there. Mostly because there was no one there."Okay. Sure. But did you see the winning basket? Did it look like Henderson had a particularly difficult time getting to the rim? I'm certainly not offering this as a reason, but wouldn't that be as good a time as any to say that Belmont was overwhelmed by Duke's history, and that's the reason nobody stepped in and actually, you know, defended him?
I'm not saying Duke is a great team, or that they'll go all the way. But if/when they lose, it won't be because of mystique and aura- it'll be because they shoot poorly from 3 (as they did on Thursday) and Kevin Love (or whomever) goes off for 28 and 12 against them.
(H/T to TMLJ for the WWL link.)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
2008 Tourney Roundup: Day 1
The first round of the NCAA Tournament is always a strange collection of games. Inevitably, the majority of them are not going to be close. This is what happens when you match the UCLAs and Stanfords of the world against the MVSUs and Cornells. What makes the tournament what it is- and this was particularly obvious today- is when those games aren't close.
It doesn't matter that Duke ended up beating Belmont by 1. Short of Justin Hare's halfcourt heave going in at the buzzer, I can't imagine a more exciting finish than that. None of the other games were particularly memorable- the second closest margin of victory was Texas A&M beating BYU by 5- but can you really complain? On these first two days, it only takes one.
East
Notre Dame 68, George Mason 50
Washington St. 71, Winthrop 40
Those who thought George Mason to win the East at 300:1 was a brilliant wager aren't feeling too bright at the moment. GMU led 7-6 early, but a 17-0 ND run put this one away about before halftime. Luke Harangody had 18 although, strangely, he did not attempt a single 3. Staten Island legend Kyle McAlarney added 15, as the Irish held Mason to 33% from the field.
The Wazzu game was tied at halftime. The Cougars then went on a 38-5 run. Winthrop shot 30.8% from the field, and went 2/8 from the line. This was not surprising- their offense is 228th in the country. The problem was allowing Washington St. to shoot 59%. When your opponent's FG% is almost double yours, it's going to be difficult to emerge victorious.
Midwest
Kansas 85, Portland St. 61
UNLV 71, Kent St. 58
Kansas St. 80, USC 67
Wisconsin 71, CS Fullerton 56
Kansas shot 54% from the field and was 12/25 from 3. They're good.
The Beasley-Mayo showdown took a weird turn when Beasley picked up his second foul four minutes in. KSU's Bill Walker proceeded to take over the game, scoring 17 of his 22 in the first half. Beasley finished with 23 and 11, but this game would have been a lot different without Walker's huge first half. Mayo finished with 20, but was just 6/16 from the field.
South
Michigan St. 72, Temple 61
Pittsburgh 82, Oral Roberts 63
Marquette 74, Kentucky 66
Stanford 77, Cornell 53
The Michigan St. and Pitt games were never particularly close. That will be a very good game on Saturday. Not much to say here.
The last couple minutes of the Marquette-Kentucky game were extremely weird. Kentucky, down 7, twice fouled Dwight Burke (21/41 from the line this year) away from the ball. If this seems like a good strategy, that's because it is. The reason teams don't do this is that it's against the rules. It should have been called an intentional foul, with Burke going to the line and Marquette getting the ball back. Both times, it was called only a personal foul. I still haven't figured out what happened here. Regardless, it didn't effect the outcome of the game, and sets up the previously mentioned Marquette-Stanford matchup on Saturday.
West
UCLA 70, Mississippi Valley St. 29
Texas A&M 67, BYU 62
Purdue 90, Baylor 79
Xavier 73, Georgia 61
West Virginia 75, Arizona 65
Duke 71, Belmont 70
I wasn't kidding when I said MVSU is really bad. They shot 13/66 from the field (19.7%), and 1/14 (7.1%) from 3. They got outrebounded by 21. UCLA had 13 blocks. Strangely, there were only 18 fouls in the entire game.
X looked terrible in every aspect of the game early- turnovers, FTs, threes, Lavender's little floaters. Meanwhile, UGA was hitting everything. Things returned to form in the second half, as the Musketeers closed out the game 25/27 from the line after starting off 2/6. Georgia's logic defying run should not be forgotten- if you had told me a week ago that they'd be up 9 at the half in the NCAAs, I would've looked at you quite strangely.
The Duke game- well, you saw what happened. If you didn't, go watch the highlights. I would imagine that West Virginia will be a popular upset pick over Duke on Saturday. We shall see.
It doesn't matter that Duke ended up beating Belmont by 1. Short of Justin Hare's halfcourt heave going in at the buzzer, I can't imagine a more exciting finish than that. None of the other games were particularly memorable- the second closest margin of victory was Texas A&M beating BYU by 5- but can you really complain? On these first two days, it only takes one.
East
Notre Dame 68, George Mason 50
Washington St. 71, Winthrop 40
Those who thought George Mason to win the East at 300:1 was a brilliant wager aren't feeling too bright at the moment. GMU led 7-6 early, but a 17-0 ND run put this one away about before halftime. Luke Harangody had 18 although, strangely, he did not attempt a single 3. Staten Island legend Kyle McAlarney added 15, as the Irish held Mason to 33% from the field.
The Wazzu game was tied at halftime. The Cougars then went on a 38-5 run. Winthrop shot 30.8% from the field, and went 2/8 from the line. This was not surprising- their offense is 228th in the country. The problem was allowing Washington St. to shoot 59%. When your opponent's FG% is almost double yours, it's going to be difficult to emerge victorious.
Midwest
Kansas 85, Portland St. 61
UNLV 71, Kent St. 58
Kansas St. 80, USC 67
Wisconsin 71, CS Fullerton 56
Kansas shot 54% from the field and was 12/25 from 3. They're good.
The Beasley-Mayo showdown took a weird turn when Beasley picked up his second foul four minutes in. KSU's Bill Walker proceeded to take over the game, scoring 17 of his 22 in the first half. Beasley finished with 23 and 11, but this game would have been a lot different without Walker's huge first half. Mayo finished with 20, but was just 6/16 from the field.
South
Michigan St. 72, Temple 61
Pittsburgh 82, Oral Roberts 63
Marquette 74, Kentucky 66
Stanford 77, Cornell 53
The Michigan St. and Pitt games were never particularly close. That will be a very good game on Saturday. Not much to say here.
The last couple minutes of the Marquette-Kentucky game were extremely weird. Kentucky, down 7, twice fouled Dwight Burke (21/41 from the line this year) away from the ball. If this seems like a good strategy, that's because it is. The reason teams don't do this is that it's against the rules. It should have been called an intentional foul, with Burke going to the line and Marquette getting the ball back. Both times, it was called only a personal foul. I still haven't figured out what happened here. Regardless, it didn't effect the outcome of the game, and sets up the previously mentioned Marquette-Stanford matchup on Saturday.
West
UCLA 70, Mississippi Valley St. 29
Texas A&M 67, BYU 62
Purdue 90, Baylor 79
Xavier 73, Georgia 61
West Virginia 75, Arizona 65
Duke 71, Belmont 70
I wasn't kidding when I said MVSU is really bad. They shot 13/66 from the field (19.7%), and 1/14 (7.1%) from 3. They got outrebounded by 21. UCLA had 13 blocks. Strangely, there were only 18 fouls in the entire game.
X looked terrible in every aspect of the game early- turnovers, FTs, threes, Lavender's little floaters. Meanwhile, UGA was hitting everything. Things returned to form in the second half, as the Musketeers closed out the game 25/27 from the line after starting off 2/6. Georgia's logic defying run should not be forgotten- if you had told me a week ago that they'd be up 9 at the half in the NCAAs, I would've looked at you quite strangely.
The Duke game- well, you saw what happened. If you didn't, go watch the highlights. I would imagine that West Virginia will be a popular upset pick over Duke on Saturday. We shall see.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Regional Previews: West
Same disclaimers as yesterday: For the first round percentages, I averaged the Vegas lines and the Pomeroy numbers. For rounds 2-4, I adjusted the Pomeroy numbers slightly.
UCLA is favored by 32 in the first round. This is a lot, even for a 1-16 matchup. Is this is sign that the oddsmakers like UCLA? No. It is a sign that Mississippi Valley St. is really, really bad- Pomeroy has them 318th out of 341 D1 teams. From his preview: "Mississippi Valley State's chance of a title is one in 600 trillion." Nice.
Everyone is jumping on the Xavier bandwagon in the lower half of this region, since Duke has lost two of their last three games. Look, I love the Musketeers, but this is kind of silly. Duke has lost a couple games- @UNC, and against Clemson on a neutral court. Meanwhile, Xavier has lost two of their last five, both to Saint Joseph's. If you flip their schedule, Duke is probably 4-1 over Xavier's stretch, and Xavier is likely 1-2 over Duke's. Just something to keep in mind.
It was discussed in the East preview that the Sportsbook lines are unusually good because of UNC being so overvalued. Sadly, this does not hold true in the West, as UCLA's odds are more reasonable. There is still one that sticks out, however- the Aggies' Sportsbook odds are twice their true odds. As with Indiana, this is even after knocking down the Pomeroy odds, as I question whether Texas A&M is the 16th best team in the nation (although, looking at the teams below them, they're probably pretty close). Even with this conservative assumption, 60-1 looks great.
The potential match-up with UCLA in the second round will obviously be tough. But it's important to remember that if they get past the Bruins, the region really opens up. This is true for all the 8/9 teams, and probably contributes to the favorable odds. Breaking it down round-by-round, Pomeroy gives the Aggies only a 26% chance of winning in the second round (should they get there), but a 58.4% chance of winning their potential third game. This may be a little high, but I'm not too scared of UConn or Pitt, especially if aTm has already beaten UCLA, thus living up to their lofty Pomeroy rank.
I have not discussed the National Championship odds much. This is primarily because they're almost all terrible. It should be noted that Pomeroy does love Kansas at +525 (The Greek)- his 36.8% puts their true odds at an incredible +171. I honestly do not know what would get you better value in this situation- betting on the Jayhawks in each round, or taking the 5-1 odds. My guess would be the 5-1, but I am not sure.
I had a larger point here- right. Aside from the Jayhawks, almost all the NC odds are worthless. Let's take Indiana as an example. Sportsbook has their Final Four odds at 40-1; the best NC odds for them that I have seen are 125-1. This would imply that they have a 1 in 3 chance of winning the whole thing if they reach San Antonio. Considering that they would almost definitely be underdogs in both games, this is pretty unreasonable. Similar to longshots in conference tournaments, it's another inefficiency in the market- for all but the top teams, there is more value in the F4 odds than the traditional "Hoosiers to win it all" futures.
Somehow, I have barely mentioned #1 seed UCLA to this point. I have heard repeatedly that the Bruins got a great draw. To an extent, this is true- you certainly can't compare this region to the stacked East. But I think this claim is greatly exaggerated. Their first round draw is awesome, but that has very little effect. Texas A&M in the second round is more difficult than usual- in Pomeroy's words, the Aggies "will make UCLA's life interesting". Following this is a likely Sweet 16 game against UConn. I am not the Huskies' biggest fan, but a 4 seed seems to match their skill level. So in the first three games, it's actually more difficult than average.
The main reason people think this is a great draw is the region's "weak" two seed, Duke. But is this really true? Granted, the Blue Devils are a notch below UCLA- I actually think that the four one seeds are also the four best teams in the nation. But Duke isn't a 1, they're a 2. And I think they compare reasonably with the other 2s. Duke may not have won their conference tournament, but neither did Tennessee, and the ACC is miles ahead of the SEC this season. I will talk about this more in the South preview, but I think the perception of Texas would be very different if they played @Kansas during the regular season, rather than hosting the Jayhawks. I can't really argue for the Blue Devils being better than Georgetown- the Hoyas have been pretty impressive over the last month- but really don't think that having Duke as the 2 in their bracket makes UCLA's draw particularly special.
For the same reasons that I advised against picking the USC-Kansas St. winner to beat Wisconsin, I wouldn't be so quick to put the West Virginia-Arizona winner in the Sweet 16. Each could pull the upset, and I think both teams are underseeded as far as talent goes. But that's exactly the problem- they're both good, and they have to play each other in the first round. Meanwhile, Duke is -3600 in their round 1 game against Belmont. There is a reason that Pomeroy- whose ratings agree that the Wildcats and Mountaineers are underseeded- has Duke at 67% to get to the second weekend, while Arizona and West Virginia are each around 16%.
Pick: Duke
Upset (+6 or worse): San Diego
Scary team (four seed or worse): Texas A&M (there's no shortage of these- I also strongly considered WVU and U of A)
Related:
Midwest Region Round 1 Leans [The Money Line Journal]
South Region Round 1 Leans [The Money Line Journal]
UCLA is favored by 32 in the first round. This is a lot, even for a 1-16 matchup. Is this is sign that the oddsmakers like UCLA? No. It is a sign that Mississippi Valley St. is really, really bad- Pomeroy has them 318th out of 341 D1 teams. From his preview: "Mississippi Valley State's chance of a title is one in 600 trillion." Nice.
Everyone is jumping on the Xavier bandwagon in the lower half of this region, since Duke has lost two of their last three games. Look, I love the Musketeers, but this is kind of silly. Duke has lost a couple games- @UNC, and against Clemson on a neutral court. Meanwhile, Xavier has lost two of their last five, both to Saint Joseph's. If you flip their schedule, Duke is probably 4-1 over Xavier's stretch, and Xavier is likely 1-2 over Duke's. Just something to keep in mind.
It was discussed in the East preview that the Sportsbook lines are unusually good because of UNC being so overvalued. Sadly, this does not hold true in the West, as UCLA's odds are more reasonable. There is still one that sticks out, however- the Aggies' Sportsbook odds are twice their true odds. As with Indiana, this is even after knocking down the Pomeroy odds, as I question whether Texas A&M is the 16th best team in the nation (although, looking at the teams below them, they're probably pretty close). Even with this conservative assumption, 60-1 looks great.
The potential match-up with UCLA in the second round will obviously be tough. But it's important to remember that if they get past the Bruins, the region really opens up. This is true for all the 8/9 teams, and probably contributes to the favorable odds. Breaking it down round-by-round, Pomeroy gives the Aggies only a 26% chance of winning in the second round (should they get there), but a 58.4% chance of winning their potential third game. This may be a little high, but I'm not too scared of UConn or Pitt, especially if aTm has already beaten UCLA, thus living up to their lofty Pomeroy rank.
I have not discussed the National Championship odds much. This is primarily because they're almost all terrible. It should be noted that Pomeroy does love Kansas at +525 (The Greek)- his 36.8% puts their true odds at an incredible +171. I honestly do not know what would get you better value in this situation- betting on the Jayhawks in each round, or taking the 5-1 odds. My guess would be the 5-1, but I am not sure.
I had a larger point here- right. Aside from the Jayhawks, almost all the NC odds are worthless. Let's take Indiana as an example. Sportsbook has their Final Four odds at 40-1; the best NC odds for them that I have seen are 125-1. This would imply that they have a 1 in 3 chance of winning the whole thing if they reach San Antonio. Considering that they would almost definitely be underdogs in both games, this is pretty unreasonable. Similar to longshots in conference tournaments, it's another inefficiency in the market- for all but the top teams, there is more value in the F4 odds than the traditional "Hoosiers to win it all" futures.
Somehow, I have barely mentioned #1 seed UCLA to this point. I have heard repeatedly that the Bruins got a great draw. To an extent, this is true- you certainly can't compare this region to the stacked East. But I think this claim is greatly exaggerated. Their first round draw is awesome, but that has very little effect. Texas A&M in the second round is more difficult than usual- in Pomeroy's words, the Aggies "will make UCLA's life interesting". Following this is a likely Sweet 16 game against UConn. I am not the Huskies' biggest fan, but a 4 seed seems to match their skill level. So in the first three games, it's actually more difficult than average.
The main reason people think this is a great draw is the region's "weak" two seed, Duke. But is this really true? Granted, the Blue Devils are a notch below UCLA- I actually think that the four one seeds are also the four best teams in the nation. But Duke isn't a 1, they're a 2. And I think they compare reasonably with the other 2s. Duke may not have won their conference tournament, but neither did Tennessee, and the ACC is miles ahead of the SEC this season. I will talk about this more in the South preview, but I think the perception of Texas would be very different if they played @Kansas during the regular season, rather than hosting the Jayhawks. I can't really argue for the Blue Devils being better than Georgetown- the Hoyas have been pretty impressive over the last month- but really don't think that having Duke as the 2 in their bracket makes UCLA's draw particularly special.
For the same reasons that I advised against picking the USC-Kansas St. winner to beat Wisconsin, I wouldn't be so quick to put the West Virginia-Arizona winner in the Sweet 16. Each could pull the upset, and I think both teams are underseeded as far as talent goes. But that's exactly the problem- they're both good, and they have to play each other in the first round. Meanwhile, Duke is -3600 in their round 1 game against Belmont. There is a reason that Pomeroy- whose ratings agree that the Wildcats and Mountaineers are underseeded- has Duke at 67% to get to the second weekend, while Arizona and West Virginia are each around 16%.
Pick: Duke
Upset (+6 or worse): San Diego
Scary team (four seed or worse): Texas A&M (there's no shortage of these- I also strongly considered WVU and U of A)
Related:
Midwest Region Round 1 Leans [The Money Line Journal]
South Region Round 1 Leans [The Money Line Journal]
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Conference Tourney Odds Recap
Throughout the conference tournament previews, I mentioned how terrible the odds for the longshots were. If any of those teams made a run, you could make a lot more money betting on the money lines in each individual game than you would if you bet on the futures odds at the beginning of the tournament. Conversely, there seemed to be significantly more value in the the odds for the top three or so teams in each tournament.
Over the last few days, I tracked the money lines for each conference tournament game. Using this information, we can determine the "true odds" for each team that reached their conference tournament final- that is, the odds you could've gotten if you bet on their money line each game, rolling the winnings over to the next game. The table below shows these "true odds" for each team, and compares them to the best odds you could've gotten on that team at the beginning of the tourney.
Georgia's run was quite improbable. If you had bet $10 on them to beat Mississippi at +175 in round 1, and rolled that money over all the way to betting on them at +310 to beat Arkansas this afternoon, you would've turned that $10 into $1,725.10. A little better than ending up with $510 if you'd bet on them at 50:1, I'd say. The fact that they had to play three games in two days factors into this discrepancy somewhat, but it's also true that they didn't even have to play the conference's beat team, Tennessee.
The same is true for Pitt; their game-by-game odds were almost twice as good as the pre-tournament 12:1 odds. And there is no disclaimer here- they had the insane task of having to beat Louisville, Marquette, and Georgetown on three consecutive days. At least they were rewarded by being placed in the same pod as Michigan St.
The Illinois lines look strange, since their pre-tournament odds were actually better. This can be explained pretty simply- they ended up being favored in the semifinals, since they played Minnesota after the Golden Gophers upset Indiana. If the Illini had faced the Hoosiers in the semis, that +1888 would've become +2891.
Each of the other teams to reach the final were in the top 3 in their conference. UNC's "true" odds probably would've been closer to EV had they faced Duke in the finals.
As expected, Wisconsin at +200 was excellent. They did benefit slightly from facing Illinois in the final, but they would've been significant favorites against any opponent.
Over the last few days, I tracked the money lines for each conference tournament game. Using this information, we can determine the "true odds" for each team that reached their conference tournament final- that is, the odds you could've gotten if you bet on their money line each game, rolling the winnings over to the next game. The table below shows these "true odds" for each team, and compares them to the best odds you could've gotten on that team at the beginning of the tourney.
Georgia's run was quite improbable. If you had bet $10 on them to beat Mississippi at +175 in round 1, and rolled that money over all the way to betting on them at +310 to beat Arkansas this afternoon, you would've turned that $10 into $1,725.10. A little better than ending up with $510 if you'd bet on them at 50:1, I'd say. The fact that they had to play three games in two days factors into this discrepancy somewhat, but it's also true that they didn't even have to play the conference's beat team, Tennessee.The same is true for Pitt; their game-by-game odds were almost twice as good as the pre-tournament 12:1 odds. And there is no disclaimer here- they had the insane task of having to beat Louisville, Marquette, and Georgetown on three consecutive days. At least they were rewarded by being placed in the same pod as Michigan St.
The Illinois lines look strange, since their pre-tournament odds were actually better. This can be explained pretty simply- they ended up being favored in the semifinals, since they played Minnesota after the Golden Gophers upset Indiana. If the Illini had faced the Hoosiers in the semis, that +1888 would've become +2891.
Each of the other teams to reach the final were in the top 3 in their conference. UNC's "true" odds probably would've been closer to EV had they faced Duke in the finals.
As expected, Wisconsin at +200 was excellent. They did benefit slightly from facing Illinois in the final, but they would've been significant favorites against any opponent.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Conference Tournament Previews: ACC
Here are the Pomeroy percentages for each team advancing to each round of the ACC tournament, which begins on Thursday.
This table is not aware that Lawson missed seven games, obviously.
The seeding of UNC and Duke was discussed here. Clemson is the third ACC team that is a lock for the tournament; they're probably a 6 at the moment. If they beat Maryland and lose to Duke, they should stay there. A loss to the Terps (or BC) would drop them; beat Duke and they should move up to at least a 5.
If Miami avoids an ugly first round loss to NC State, they should get in. They were only 8-8 in the ACC, but 13-1 out of conference, including a win @Mississippi St., and wins over VCU and Providence in Puerto Rico.
Maryland and Virginia Tech are also on the bubble. The Hokies are relying on their questionable 9-7 ACC mark. Their non-conference is pretty ugly; they need to beat Miami/NC State in the quarters to stay in the conversation. Even then, I think they should be out, but it probably depends on where the cut line falls.
Maryland, 8-8 in the ACC and with non-conference home losses to Ohio and American, really has their work cut out for them. Wins over BC and Clemson are a necessity; that would probably get them onto the same level as Virginia Tech.
I've made some noticeable changes to the Pomeroy percentages, in an attempt to account for Lawson's missed time.
VIP has posted some pretty nice odds for all of these tournaments, by the way.
Duke at +350 is fairly ridiculous. Here are the predicted lines, and their implied chance of winning, for their most difficult path:
Fair odds for a team with a 22.3% chance of winning would be +348. Factor in the times that they won't have to face Clemson or North Carolina, and VIP is offering some excellent odds on the Blue Devils.
Clemson and (surprisingly) Virginia Tech are not bad either, if you want to gamble. Clemson's odds are probably so good because of their lackluster play in the last week of the regular season. If you believe in momentum, and teams playing better when they have more on the line, then the Hokies at 30:1 is for you.
This table is not aware that Lawson missed seven games, obviously.The seeding of UNC and Duke was discussed here. Clemson is the third ACC team that is a lock for the tournament; they're probably a 6 at the moment. If they beat Maryland and lose to Duke, they should stay there. A loss to the Terps (or BC) would drop them; beat Duke and they should move up to at least a 5.
If Miami avoids an ugly first round loss to NC State, they should get in. They were only 8-8 in the ACC, but 13-1 out of conference, including a win @Mississippi St., and wins over VCU and Providence in Puerto Rico.
Maryland and Virginia Tech are also on the bubble. The Hokies are relying on their questionable 9-7 ACC mark. Their non-conference is pretty ugly; they need to beat Miami/NC State in the quarters to stay in the conversation. Even then, I think they should be out, but it probably depends on where the cut line falls.
Maryland, 8-8 in the ACC and with non-conference home losses to Ohio and American, really has their work cut out for them. Wins over BC and Clemson are a necessity; that would probably get them onto the same level as Virginia Tech.
I've made some noticeable changes to the Pomeroy percentages, in an attempt to account for Lawson's missed time.
VIP has posted some pretty nice odds for all of these tournaments, by the way.Duke at +350 is fairly ridiculous. Here are the predicted lines, and their implied chance of winning, for their most difficult path:
Fair odds for a team with a 22.3% chance of winning would be +348. Factor in the times that they won't have to face Clemson or North Carolina, and VIP is offering some excellent odds on the Blue Devils.Clemson and (surprisingly) Virginia Tech are not bad either, if you want to gamble. Clemson's odds are probably so good because of their lackluster play in the last week of the regular season. If you believe in momentum, and teams playing better when they have more on the line, then the Hokies at 30:1 is for you.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
#1 Seed Odds
I tried this a couple weeks ago. Lunardi's top seeds have stayed put, but the percentages have changed substantially.
Memphis, 30-1 (16-0), #3 RPI
If they win their tournament, they're clearly a top seed. If they reach the finals and lose, I can't see them falling. If they lose before the finals, and things break against them (Tennessee and UCLA win their tournaments, in particular), then there's a chance. Maybe. They are in very good shape. Chances of #1 seed: 97%
UCLA, 27-3 (16-2), #6 RPI
We have to take that conference record at face value, even if they needed some serious breaks.
If they win in the quarters against Washington/Cal (90%), it'd be tough to deny them. A loss there, coupled with others taking care of business, could make things interesting. Chances of #1 seed: 94%
North Carolina, 29-2 (14-2), #2 RPI
UNC is 15-0 away from home, which is a difficult factoid to top. They have a great draw, needing only to beat Wake/FSU, and then Va Tech/Miami/NC State to reach the ACC tournament final. The 72% of the time they do that, they should be a 1; their resume is still better than Duke's, plus they were missing Lawson for an extended stretch. I think they should be a lock, but there's a chance they fall. Chances of #1 seed: 87%
Tennessee, 27-3 (14-2), #1 RPI
Winning the SEC tournament (50%) would do it. If they lose, they're asking for trouble- Kansas would likely overtake them if they win the Big 12, and Duke could do the same. Honestly, if they can't beat LSU, Arkansas, and Mississippi St. on neutral floors, they really don't deserve it. Chances of #1 seed: 68%
Kansas, 27-3 (13-3), #8 RPI
The first step is to win three games (57%). Their best chance is to sneak ahead of Tennessee (.5*.57=28%). They could surpass one of the other three, but that would require a very strange turn of events. Chances of #1 seed: 36%
Texas, 25-5 (13-3), #5 RPI
Winning the Big 12 (18%) would both give them a boost, and knock out the team directly in front of them. I suppose they could take Tennessee's spot, but I can't see them passing the top three. Chances of #1 seed: 10%
Duke, 26-4 (13-3), #4 RPI
I haven't calculated the ACC numbers yet, but they're around 25% chance to win that tournament. They'd need that to do that, have Kansas and Tennessee lose...and then they'd have to fight it out with Texas. Beating UNC on Saturday night would've been the way to go about this. Chances of #1 seed: 6%
Georgetown, 25-4 (15-3), #7 RPI
The Hoyas are a good example of why you should play real teams in November and December. Playing Memphis was nice, but once they lost that, they assured that they would not have a quality non-con win (Alabama!). That they could go 18-3 against Big East competition and barely even be in the conversation is remarkable. I am including them, but even this might be optimistic. Chances of #1 seed: 2%
Memphis, 30-1 (16-0), #3 RPI
If they win their tournament, they're clearly a top seed. If they reach the finals and lose, I can't see them falling. If they lose before the finals, and things break against them (Tennessee and UCLA win their tournaments, in particular), then there's a chance. Maybe. They are in very good shape. Chances of #1 seed: 97%
UCLA, 27-3 (16-2), #6 RPI
We have to take that conference record at face value, even if they needed some serious breaks.
If they win in the quarters against Washington/Cal (90%), it'd be tough to deny them. A loss there, coupled with others taking care of business, could make things interesting. Chances of #1 seed: 94%
North Carolina, 29-2 (14-2), #2 RPI
UNC is 15-0 away from home, which is a difficult factoid to top. They have a great draw, needing only to beat Wake/FSU, and then Va Tech/Miami/NC State to reach the ACC tournament final. The 72% of the time they do that, they should be a 1; their resume is still better than Duke's, plus they were missing Lawson for an extended stretch. I think they should be a lock, but there's a chance they fall. Chances of #1 seed: 87%
Tennessee, 27-3 (14-2), #1 RPI
Winning the SEC tournament (50%) would do it. If they lose, they're asking for trouble- Kansas would likely overtake them if they win the Big 12, and Duke could do the same. Honestly, if they can't beat LSU, Arkansas, and Mississippi St. on neutral floors, they really don't deserve it. Chances of #1 seed: 68%
Kansas, 27-3 (13-3), #8 RPI
The first step is to win three games (57%). Their best chance is to sneak ahead of Tennessee (.5*.57=28%). They could surpass one of the other three, but that would require a very strange turn of events. Chances of #1 seed: 36%
Texas, 25-5 (13-3), #5 RPI
Winning the Big 12 (18%) would both give them a boost, and knock out the team directly in front of them. I suppose they could take Tennessee's spot, but I can't see them passing the top three. Chances of #1 seed: 10%
Duke, 26-4 (13-3), #4 RPI
I haven't calculated the ACC numbers yet, but they're around 25% chance to win that tournament. They'd need that to do that, have Kansas and Tennessee lose...and then they'd have to fight it out with Texas. Beating UNC on Saturday night would've been the way to go about this. Chances of #1 seed: 6%
Georgetown, 25-4 (15-3), #7 RPI
The Hoyas are a good example of why you should play real teams in November and December. Playing Memphis was nice, but once they lost that, they assured that they would not have a quality non-con win (Alabama!). That they could go 18-3 against Big East competition and barely even be in the conversation is remarkable. I am including them, but even this might be optimistic. Chances of #1 seed: 2%
Friday, March 7, 2008
Friday Bracketology
It is a good thing Gary Parrish updated his bracket, because Lunardi hasn't. It says there's supposed to be an update today; hopefully there will be before I have to leave for the airport.
Xavier is down to a 4. Since when do you lose on the road to a bubble team and drop two lines? They should be flip-flopped with Notre Dame. You know what ND's best road win is? Villa-"8-9 in the Big East"-nova. Second best would be Seton Hall, I guess. Meanwhile, Xavier is 6-2 on the road in the A-10, with wins against UMass, Rhode Island, and Dayton. They also beat Indiana by 15 on a neutral floor. I find this to be completely unreasonable. Xavier really does need to get Lavender healthy, though. His ankle is far from 100%.
Louisville is finally up to a 3. They play @Georgetown tomorrow at noon. I would think that the winner of that game will be on the second line on Monday (the Hoyas are currently a 2).
There's a basketball game in Durham tomorrow night, apparently. It might even be on TV. The winner of that one has to be a 1. If Duke goes 14-2 in the ACC, including a sweep of UNC, they have to be a top seed. They were also 12-1 against the 35th most difficult non-conference schedule in the country, and that one loss came in OT on a 3 at the buzzer.
It doesn't really matter, but UNC has a great draw in this bracket. The 2-4 seeds in their region are Georgetown, Stanford, and Butler (Hibbert vs. the Lopez brothers on the second weekend would be fun, wouldn't it). Unless Carolina has to face a tough 8/9, that's pretty much a free pass to the Elite 8. And once there, their opponent cannot compare with some of the other 2/3 seeds like Kansas, Louisville and Duke.
I have a flight to Chicago in a bit, but if Lunardi updates his bracket soon I will likely write about that as well.
Update: Lunardi has updated his.
His top two lines are the same as Parrish, except for one- Lunardi has Wisconsin as a 2, while Parrish has Georgetown. I have no problem with this, and Georgetown has the opportunity to prove themselves tomorrow against Louisville. I do wonder how much Wisconsin's easy B10 schedule plays into this.
Xavier is a 3, and Notre Dame is a 4. So at least somebody is paying attention.
There is some disagreement on Butler. They are a 6 in Lunardi's a 4 for Parrish. Their #18 RPI splits the difference. Their #35 Pomeroy rank does not. They'll be overseeded regardless, but I'd go with 5 for now.
UConn is the opposite; 6th for Parrish, 4th for Lunardi. I am not a big fan of this team, but a 12-5 BE record, plus a win @Indiana, and their only non-con losses coming against Memphis and Gonzaga, deserves higher than a 6.
Xavier is down to a 4. Since when do you lose on the road to a bubble team and drop two lines? They should be flip-flopped with Notre Dame. You know what ND's best road win is? Villa-"8-9 in the Big East"-nova. Second best would be Seton Hall, I guess. Meanwhile, Xavier is 6-2 on the road in the A-10, with wins against UMass, Rhode Island, and Dayton. They also beat Indiana by 15 on a neutral floor. I find this to be completely unreasonable. Xavier really does need to get Lavender healthy, though. His ankle is far from 100%.
Louisville is finally up to a 3. They play @Georgetown tomorrow at noon. I would think that the winner of that game will be on the second line on Monday (the Hoyas are currently a 2).
There's a basketball game in Durham tomorrow night, apparently. It might even be on TV. The winner of that one has to be a 1. If Duke goes 14-2 in the ACC, including a sweep of UNC, they have to be a top seed. They were also 12-1 against the 35th most difficult non-conference schedule in the country, and that one loss came in OT on a 3 at the buzzer.
It doesn't really matter, but UNC has a great draw in this bracket. The 2-4 seeds in their region are Georgetown, Stanford, and Butler (Hibbert vs. the Lopez brothers on the second weekend would be fun, wouldn't it). Unless Carolina has to face a tough 8/9, that's pretty much a free pass to the Elite 8. And once there, their opponent cannot compare with some of the other 2/3 seeds like Kansas, Louisville and Duke.
I have a flight to Chicago in a bit, but if Lunardi updates his bracket soon I will likely write about that as well.
Update: Lunardi has updated his.
His top two lines are the same as Parrish, except for one- Lunardi has Wisconsin as a 2, while Parrish has Georgetown. I have no problem with this, and Georgetown has the opportunity to prove themselves tomorrow against Louisville. I do wonder how much Wisconsin's easy B10 schedule plays into this.
Xavier is a 3, and Notre Dame is a 4. So at least somebody is paying attention.
There is some disagreement on Butler. They are a 6 in Lunardi's a 4 for Parrish. Their #18 RPI splits the difference. Their #35 Pomeroy rank does not. They'll be overseeded regardless, but I'd go with 5 for now.
UConn is the opposite; 6th for Parrish, 4th for Lunardi. I am not a big fan of this team, but a 12-5 BE record, plus a win @Indiana, and their only non-con losses coming against Memphis and Gonzaga, deserves higher than a 6.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Blogpoll: Week Fifteen
The full blogpoll is here, my ballot was as follows.
So much for Duke as a 1 seed. UCLA, which is favored by 28 against Oregon St. on Thursday, conveniently slides into that West top line for the time being. We'll see if there's another opening after Saturday night.
Kansas State's road struggles continue. Pullen played well (7 assists, 2 turnovers), but Beasley didn't do much until the final 8 minutes. He did get another double-double, which the ESPN broadcasters discussed ad nauseam. Aussie Aleks Maric was tremendous for the Cornhuskers (15 pts, 17 boards), and Steve Harley had backdoor layups all night.
Butler pulled out yet another close one tonight, beating Illinois-Chicago by 5. Parrish has them as a 3 seed; maybe that's warranted (they're 25-2, after all, and I do have them ranked high), but I seriously doubt they're one of the top 12 teams in the country. (Pomeroy's rankings agree.)
Despite what ESPN may lead you to believe, there are games besides Memphis-Tennessee this weekend. Drake-Butler highlights Bracketbusters weekend. Other interesting matchups include UConn-Villanova, Kansas St-Baylor (win a road game!), and Louisville-Pitt.
The Detroit under got 45 of 66 votes (68%). St. Louis poll up now.
So much for Duke as a 1 seed. UCLA, which is favored by 28 against Oregon St. on Thursday, conveniently slides into that West top line for the time being. We'll see if there's another opening after Saturday night.Kansas State's road struggles continue. Pullen played well (7 assists, 2 turnovers), but Beasley didn't do much until the final 8 minutes. He did get another double-double, which the ESPN broadcasters discussed ad nauseam. Aussie Aleks Maric was tremendous for the Cornhuskers (15 pts, 17 boards), and Steve Harley had backdoor layups all night.
Butler pulled out yet another close one tonight, beating Illinois-Chicago by 5. Parrish has them as a 3 seed; maybe that's warranted (they're 25-2, after all, and I do have them ranked high), but I seriously doubt they're one of the top 12 teams in the country. (Pomeroy's rankings agree.)
Despite what ESPN may lead you to believe, there are games besides Memphis-Tennessee this weekend. Drake-Butler highlights Bracketbusters weekend. Other interesting matchups include UConn-Villanova, Kansas St-Baylor (win a road game!), and Louisville-Pitt.
The Detroit under got 45 of 66 votes (68%). St. Louis poll up now.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Blogpoll: Week Thirteen
The full blogpoll is here, my ballot was as follows.
I didn't watch any of the game tonight- I was in the library studying Corporate Finance. I see that Lawson didn't play, and the combined 7/34 shooting of Ginyard, Ellington and Green didn't help matters. Scheyer got six rebounds? That's interesting. Looks like Duke's 39-9 advantage from beyond the arch more than made up for UNC's dominance inside. I don't think people will ever stop saying "Duke has no inside presence"; we'll see how far they can advance despite that.
Drake just keeps on winning. They're up to 20 in a row after coming back to win at Indiana St. last night. The Valley is down a little this year, but starting off 6-0 on the road is difficult no matter what conference you play in. They've now got another big road test on their schedule, as they'll visit Butler on February 23 as part of BracketBusters weekend.
As detailed over at RTC, the Gonzaga-St. Mary's game was pretty incredible on Monday night. Pargo and Mills really took over down the stretch, and St. Mary's got pretty much every call in an extremely hostile (and dark) environment. The Gaels are at Santa Clara next Monday, and their next real test after that will come against Kent St. in another BracketBuster game.
Notre Dame was very impressive tonight (not that I saw the game, but they did win by 26) on the road against Seton Hall. They're starting to shed their reputation of a poor road team- they also won @Villanova a couple weeks ago. They host Marquette on Saturday (a game they really should win), and then play @UConn next week- that should be an excellent game.
Purdue makes their first appearance on my ballot this week. They've started off 9-1 in the Big 10, but now their schedule really gets tough. Their next four games are at Wisconsin, vs. MSU, at Northwestern, and at Indiana. You'd have to consider a split of those four games (so, really, beating Northwestern and winning one of the other three) a success. If they do that, they could very realistically finish 14-4 in the Big Ten, which is almost shockingly good.
I didn't watch any of the game tonight- I was in the library studying Corporate Finance. I see that Lawson didn't play, and the combined 7/34 shooting of Ginyard, Ellington and Green didn't help matters. Scheyer got six rebounds? That's interesting. Looks like Duke's 39-9 advantage from beyond the arch more than made up for UNC's dominance inside. I don't think people will ever stop saying "Duke has no inside presence"; we'll see how far they can advance despite that.Drake just keeps on winning. They're up to 20 in a row after coming back to win at Indiana St. last night. The Valley is down a little this year, but starting off 6-0 on the road is difficult no matter what conference you play in. They've now got another big road test on their schedule, as they'll visit Butler on February 23 as part of BracketBusters weekend.
As detailed over at RTC, the Gonzaga-St. Mary's game was pretty incredible on Monday night. Pargo and Mills really took over down the stretch, and St. Mary's got pretty much every call in an extremely hostile (and dark) environment. The Gaels are at Santa Clara next Monday, and their next real test after that will come against Kent St. in another BracketBuster game.
Notre Dame was very impressive tonight (not that I saw the game, but they did win by 26) on the road against Seton Hall. They're starting to shed their reputation of a poor road team- they also won @Villanova a couple weeks ago. They host Marquette on Saturday (a game they really should win), and then play @UConn next week- that should be an excellent game.
Purdue makes their first appearance on my ballot this week. They've started off 9-1 in the Big 10, but now their schedule really gets tough. Their next four games are at Wisconsin, vs. MSU, at Northwestern, and at Indiana. You'd have to consider a split of those four games (so, really, beating Northwestern and winning one of the other three) a success. If they do that, they could very realistically finish 14-4 in the Big Ten, which is almost shockingly good.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Vegas Power Rankings: ACC
With the big Duke-Carolina showdown in Chapel Hill tomorrow, seems like tonight is as good a time as any for the ACC rankings. As before, these are based on the lines for each game thus far in conference play.
The distribution here is truly incredible. Nine of the 12 teams have a negative rating. Despite the average being 0, the median is -2.2. This is what happens when you have two powerhouses at the top, a decent Clemson team, and then overwhelming mediocrity. Pomeroy pointed out the other day that this situation has led to an unbelievable number of close games.
The expected line for Duke @ UNC is 6.7; the actual opening line is 4. Clearly, this discrepancy is caused by the expectation that Carolina PG Ty Lawson won't play (sprained left ankle).
Despite their current #2 AP ranking, it's taken the general public a surprisingly long time to figure out that the Blue Devils are very good this year. One has to figure this is caused by their lack of a true inside presence- their tallest players, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas, are only 6'8. (I am excluding Zoubek, who has been hurt throughout conference play, and averaged only 11.7 minutes when healthy.)
The betting stats also tell us that Duke has been underrated to this point. Despite being a favorite in each game, their average Wagerline percentage (the approximate proportion of the public that bet on Duke against the spread) is only 55.5%. In comparison, Carolina's average percentage is 59.0%; that's a pretty significant difference. Given this, it's not surprising that Duke is 6-0-1 against the spread in ACC games, while UNC is only 4-3-1.
Lunardi currently has both Duke and UNC as #1 seeds (I would imagine the loser or Wednesdays' game drops a line), and Clemson as a 10. Those are the only three ACC teams currently in, although both Virginia Tech and Maryland are one of the "last four out".
I'd guess they end up getting four teams in. I mean, when the bottom nine play each other, somebody has to win. After Virginia Tech's loss tonight, the frontrunner for that fourth spot is probably Maryland. They are 4-3 in the ACC, including the huge win @UNC. They are 42nd in the Pomeroy ratings, and are predicted to finish 9-7 in conference. Whether that will be good enough is unclear; they lost five games out of conference, and one of them was at home against American.
The distribution here is truly incredible. Nine of the 12 teams have a negative rating. Despite the average being 0, the median is -2.2. This is what happens when you have two powerhouses at the top, a decent Clemson team, and then overwhelming mediocrity. Pomeroy pointed out the other day that this situation has led to an unbelievable number of close games.The expected line for Duke @ UNC is 6.7; the actual opening line is 4. Clearly, this discrepancy is caused by the expectation that Carolina PG Ty Lawson won't play (sprained left ankle).
Despite their current #2 AP ranking, it's taken the general public a surprisingly long time to figure out that the Blue Devils are very good this year. One has to figure this is caused by their lack of a true inside presence- their tallest players, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas, are only 6'8. (I am excluding Zoubek, who has been hurt throughout conference play, and averaged only 11.7 minutes when healthy.)
The betting stats also tell us that Duke has been underrated to this point. Despite being a favorite in each game, their average Wagerline percentage (the approximate proportion of the public that bet on Duke against the spread) is only 55.5%. In comparison, Carolina's average percentage is 59.0%; that's a pretty significant difference. Given this, it's not surprising that Duke is 6-0-1 against the spread in ACC games, while UNC is only 4-3-1.
Lunardi currently has both Duke and UNC as #1 seeds (I would imagine the loser or Wednesdays' game drops a line), and Clemson as a 10. Those are the only three ACC teams currently in, although both Virginia Tech and Maryland are one of the "last four out".
I'd guess they end up getting four teams in. I mean, when the bottom nine play each other, somebody has to win. After Virginia Tech's loss tonight, the frontrunner for that fourth spot is probably Maryland. They are 4-3 in the ACC, including the huge win @UNC. They are 42nd in the Pomeroy ratings, and are predicted to finish 9-7 in conference. Whether that will be good enough is unclear; they lost five games out of conference, and one of them was at home against American.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
This Week's Links (1/28-2/1)
Breaking down some NHL futures odds, and some Super Bowl prop bets that are actually football related.
"Chris Berman Is Somewhat Perturbed With The Help". Very old, but worth watching.
Our old friend Marty Noble, at it again.
Larry Johnson advises a blogger on how to get rich.
Gasaway with a great analysis of conference play thus far. How is Duke still so underrated? (I understand the answer is that they don't have anyone taller than 6'8", but still- it's the Dookies!)
Scott Van Pelt is a funny dude.
Brian Bannister is an interesting dude.
Keith Law's Top 100 prospects. I miss the days of the Indians having a good farm system.
Lozo gets interviewed.
I thought this was pretty funny (Sheehan on the Twins, pre-Santana trade):
"Chris Berman Is Somewhat Perturbed With The Help". Very old, but worth watching.
Our old friend Marty Noble, at it again.
Larry Johnson advises a blogger on how to get rich.
Gasaway with a great analysis of conference play thus far. How is Duke still so underrated? (I understand the answer is that they don't have anyone taller than 6'8", but still- it's the Dookies!)
Scott Van Pelt is a funny dude.
Brian Bannister is an interesting dude.
Keith Law's Top 100 prospects. I miss the days of the Indians having a good farm system.
Lozo gets interviewed.
I thought this was pretty funny (Sheehan on the Twins, pre-Santana trade):
"You can win, in baseball, if you have a donut-hole construction—lots of middle, nothing on the outside. You cannot win as a donut."
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Blogpoll: Week Seven
Everybody's votes are here (Google Doc); the final ballot is as follows:
The Blogpoll has a new #1 this week, after Memphis' impressive 14-point victory over Georgetown. The AP and ESPN polls continue to be useless, as they will keep UNC as a clear #1 until they lose, no matter what.
Pitt moves up seven spots, to #8, after their big win over Duke at the Garden. Pitt has a big game at #25 Dayton on Saturday (8pm ET, ESPN2).
Kansas was #3 on all 12 ballots. This is amazing to me.
The team we had the least agreement on was Texas A&M. They were as high as 6th, but were unranked on one ballot. Both of those seem a little excessive, although I sympathize more with the optimistic view, as I had them 12th.
Vanderbilt comes in at #21; I had them 16th. I know they're undefeated and all, but their resume really isn't that impressive, but they almost lost to Tennessee State last weekend. Their schedule is pretty weak until they play UMass on 1/5, before starting SEC play.
The Blogpoll has a new #1 this week, after Memphis' impressive 14-point victory over Georgetown. The AP and ESPN polls continue to be useless, as they will keep UNC as a clear #1 until they lose, no matter what.Pitt moves up seven spots, to #8, after their big win over Duke at the Garden. Pitt has a big game at #25 Dayton on Saturday (8pm ET, ESPN2).
Kansas was #3 on all 12 ballots. This is amazing to me.
The team we had the least agreement on was Texas A&M. They were as high as 6th, but were unranked on one ballot. Both of those seem a little excessive, although I sympathize more with the optimistic view, as I had them 12th.
Vanderbilt comes in at #21; I had them 16th. I know they're undefeated and all, but their resume really isn't that impressive, but they almost lost to Tennessee State last weekend. Their schedule is pretty weak until they play UMass on 1/5, before starting SEC play.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Blogpoll: Week Six
The full blogpoll can be found here; my ballot was as follows:
There haven't been that many games over the last week and a half because of finals, but that all changes on Saturday, with Georgetown @ Memphis, Tennessee @ Xavier, and Texas @ Michigan St.
#3 might be too high for Kansas. Georgia Tech really isn't that good, yet they almost sent that game to OT. You look at their resume, and the only thing that really qualifies as a quality win is the USC game (and Arizona at home is decent; but they probably should have won that game comfortably, rather than in OT). If Texas wins @Michigan St. on Saturday, they'll definitely be at least 3rd next week. (Man, the Longhorns' schedule is impressive; Spartans on Saturday, then Wisconsin, TCU, and Saint Mary's, then the Big 12. Sadly the UT-KU game isn't until February 11th, and there's only one of them.)
Duke-Pitt at the Garden tonight, which should be pretty good (it better be; I spent way too much on tickets on eBay). Duke is favored by 5.5, which seems about right. Both teams have strong New York followings; I'm sure it'll be a pro-Duke crowd, but I'm interested to see what the Pitt turnout is like.
I am "hosting" this whole blogpoll situation next week, so we'll see how that goes. Oh, and no more finals, so after I get a little sleep things will be back to normal around here. Although I have no idea what qualifies as "normal".
There haven't been that many games over the last week and a half because of finals, but that all changes on Saturday, with Georgetown @ Memphis, Tennessee @ Xavier, and Texas @ Michigan St.#3 might be too high for Kansas. Georgia Tech really isn't that good, yet they almost sent that game to OT. You look at their resume, and the only thing that really qualifies as a quality win is the USC game (and Arizona at home is decent; but they probably should have won that game comfortably, rather than in OT). If Texas wins @Michigan St. on Saturday, they'll definitely be at least 3rd next week. (Man, the Longhorns' schedule is impressive; Spartans on Saturday, then Wisconsin, TCU, and Saint Mary's, then the Big 12. Sadly the UT-KU game isn't until February 11th, and there's only one of them.)
Duke-Pitt at the Garden tonight, which should be pretty good (it better be; I spent way too much on tickets on eBay). Duke is favored by 5.5, which seems about right. Both teams have strong New York followings; I'm sure it'll be a pro-Duke crowd, but I'm interested to see what the Pitt turnout is like.
I am "hosting" this whole blogpoll situation next week, so we'll see how that goes. Oh, and no more finals, so after I get a little sleep things will be back to normal around here. Although I have no idea what qualifies as "normal".
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Blogpoll: Week Two
The full blogpoll can be found here; my ballot was as follows:
This is through Monday's games. Although they won the CBE classic, UCLA is pretty clearly not the best team in the country when Russell Westbrook is playing point guard. Looks like Collison will be back in about a week though.
I flipped a coin between Washington St. and Oregon, and apparently I made the right choice.
It's beginning to look like Duke might actually be good. This worries me. Big game against Marquette tonight; the Golden Eagles beat Oklahoma State by 30 last night.
After watching the second half of their game last night, that might be too high for Michigan State.
UNC wasn't very impressive against Davidson; if Curry hadn't shot 2/12 from three the Wildcats could have easily won that game. Carolina's upcoming schedule is interesting- a potential showdown with Louisville in Vegas on Saturday, and then games in Columbus and Lexington next week.
I like Davidson, but I'm not happy about how they destroyed my school.
I have no idea how good Texas is, I haven't seen them play without Durant yet. They're probably only that high because I really like Augustin. Although they're 13th in the blogpoll, so I guess that's a defensible stance.
This is through Monday's games. Although they won the CBE classic, UCLA is pretty clearly not the best team in the country when Russell Westbrook is playing point guard. Looks like Collison will be back in about a week though.I flipped a coin between Washington St. and Oregon, and apparently I made the right choice.
It's beginning to look like Duke might actually be good. This worries me. Big game against Marquette tonight; the Golden Eagles beat Oklahoma State by 30 last night.
After watching the second half of their game last night, that might be too high for Michigan State.
UNC wasn't very impressive against Davidson; if Curry hadn't shot 2/12 from three the Wildcats could have easily won that game. Carolina's upcoming schedule is interesting- a potential showdown with Louisville in Vegas on Saturday, and then games in Columbus and Lexington next week.
I like Davidson, but I'm not happy about how they destroyed my school.
I have no idea how good Texas is, I haven't seen them play without Durant yet. They're probably only that high because I really like Augustin. Although they're 13th in the blogpoll, so I guess that's a defensible stance.
Friday, November 16, 2007
College Basketball Conference Odds
As the college basketball season has gotten underway, I thought this would be a good time to look at the odds for each of the six BCS conferences. I have included the odds from three sites; Bodog, BetUS, and The Greek. As I write this, the Bodog odds have actually been taken down (possibly just temporarily), but they're a good point of reference regardless.
The next column is the % chance Vegas thinks each team has of winning their conference, derived from the odds. And the final column is the team's line for winning it all (from SportsBetting); I thought that would be useful to compare with the conference %.
Please note that these are to win the regular season conference title. If there's a tie, the team that gets the top seed in the conference tournament is the winner.
As for most conferences, the odds for the bottom half are awful. Georgia Tech at 12:1? Really? I'd say there's probably at least a 90% chance that the conference champ is one of the top five teams here.
Am I missing something here? At this point, wouldn't it make more sense if Indiana was 3:2, and Michigan St. was 3:1? I assume these odds were made before the Spartans' little mishap, and Eric Gordon's impressive debut. The NC odds, and just the general perception of the teams, indicate that Indiana should at least be the co-favorite; 3:1 is definitely too high.
After their first half performance tonight, I'm gonna go ahead and recommend staying away from Michigan at 15:1.
Kansas is the pretty clear favorite here. Collins is out six weeks (should be ready for their Big 12 opener @Nebraska though), but Rush is back, if not 100%. Augustin is getting a lot of hype, and deservedly so (and Abrams can really shoot), but if the incompetent Rick Barnes couldn't win with Durant, how is this year going to be any different?
I haven't seen Beasley play yet, but he certainly made a good first impression; Kansas State at 4:1 is probably the best value here.
The Big East just has too many teams. The bottom four don't even have conference odds at two of the sites, and understandably don't have NC lines either. There's no clear favorite, but Georgetown and Louisville stand out above the rest. It seems very likely that the conference champ ends up being one of those two, but those odds aren't particularly enticing.
UCLA at 7:4 seems really high. I remember them at even money to win the conference last year, and now they actually have a post presence. Isn't replacing Afflalo with Love an upgrade, especially considering the makeup of the rest of the team? The Bodog and BetUS lines for UCLA seem much more realistic to me, and they're also more in line with their NC odds.
Kentucky is wildly overrated with these 2:1 odds. Have they done anything to indicate they're actually going to be good? Didn't think so.
I think Tennessee at 7:4 is a pretty good look here, and all other indicators (both Bodog odds and NC odds) agree with that.
Wow, nobody is better than 100:1 to win it all. We might be looking at another 8-8 SEC West champ. I really have no insight here; none of these teams are very good. Alabama at 5:1 is almost tempting, but they were so bad last year without Steele.
The next column is the % chance Vegas thinks each team has of winning their conference, derived from the odds. And the final column is the team's line for winning it all (from SportsBetting); I thought that would be useful to compare with the conference %.
Please note that these are to win the regular season conference title. If there's a tie, the team that gets the top seed in the conference tournament is the winner.
ACC
Wow, Duke is overrated. 20:1 to win it all...with what post presence? Beyond that, all of these seem about right to me- I guess NC State at 8:1 is probably pretty solid. NC St @ Mich. St. on November 28 should be interesting.
Wow, Duke is overrated. 20:1 to win it all...with what post presence? Beyond that, all of these seem about right to me- I guess NC State at 8:1 is probably pretty solid. NC St @ Mich. St. on November 28 should be interesting.As for most conferences, the odds for the bottom half are awful. Georgia Tech at 12:1? Really? I'd say there's probably at least a 90% chance that the conference champ is one of the top five teams here.
Big 10
Am I missing something here? At this point, wouldn't it make more sense if Indiana was 3:2, and Michigan St. was 3:1? I assume these odds were made before the Spartans' little mishap, and Eric Gordon's impressive debut. The NC odds, and just the general perception of the teams, indicate that Indiana should at least be the co-favorite; 3:1 is definitely too high.After their first half performance tonight, I'm gonna go ahead and recommend staying away from Michigan at 15:1.
Big 12
Kansas is the pretty clear favorite here. Collins is out six weeks (should be ready for their Big 12 opener @Nebraska though), but Rush is back, if not 100%. Augustin is getting a lot of hype, and deservedly so (and Abrams can really shoot), but if the incompetent Rick Barnes couldn't win with Durant, how is this year going to be any different?I haven't seen Beasley play yet, but he certainly made a good first impression; Kansas State at 4:1 is probably the best value here.
Big East
The Big East just has too many teams. The bottom four don't even have conference odds at two of the sites, and understandably don't have NC lines either. There's no clear favorite, but Georgetown and Louisville stand out above the rest. It seems very likely that the conference champ ends up being one of those two, but those odds aren't particularly enticing.Pac-10
UCLA at 7:4 seems really high. I remember them at even money to win the conference last year, and now they actually have a post presence. Isn't replacing Afflalo with Love an upgrade, especially considering the makeup of the rest of the team? The Bodog and BetUS lines for UCLA seem much more realistic to me, and they're also more in line with their NC odds.SEC East
Kentucky is wildly overrated with these 2:1 odds. Have they done anything to indicate they're actually going to be good? Didn't think so.I think Tennessee at 7:4 is a pretty good look here, and all other indicators (both Bodog odds and NC odds) agree with that.
SEC West
Wow, nobody is better than 100:1 to win it all. We might be looking at another 8-8 SEC West champ. I really have no insight here; none of these teams are very good. Alabama at 5:1 is almost tempting, but they were so bad last year without Steele.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
