North Carolina 83, Louisville 73
I hate to say it, but an absolutely brilliant game out of Hansbrough. To open the second half, as Louisville was starting to make a run, he made two extremely tough shots- one a fall away jumper, the other a very improbable layup after which he ended up on the floor. On the strength of five minutes of unusually intelligent Louisville basketball- not turning the ball over, taking decent shots, getting back in transition- an Earl Clark free throw tied it with 10:21 left. Hansbrough took over after that, with a combination of long jumpers and free throws. The other big shot belonged to Lawson, who hit a 3 to put UNC up 6 with 5 minutes left.
Not surprisingly, the turnovers really killed Louisville. In the second half, their shot selection improved, and they were getting the ball inside rather than throwing up shots from the perimeter. Unfortunately, getting the ball inside isn't very helpful if you travel after doing so, which Earl Clark managed to do three times.
The announcers for this one were comical. Dick Enberg does not know where he is, and at one point claimed that Hansbrough, with 9 assists, was nearing a triple double. He'd made a reasonable mistake, accidentally looking at Lawson's line, but anyone who was paying attention would've realized that there was no way Hansbrough had 9 assists. Enberg didn't. Bilas, who's usually decent, fell in love with Hansbrough just the same as every other announcer, yelling about how his heart and will as he was hitting 18-footers. Tonight, Hansbrough's dominant performances gave him a chance to take it to a whole new level, and he jumped at the opportunity. TH has come a very long way over the last three years, which is something that should be noted and complemented, rather than repeating the same meaningless praises. We know he plays hard. We get it.
Not to take anything away from Hansbrough, but it could've been a lot different. He was guarding Padgett, and could have been called for multiple fouls- something even Enberg noticed- in the second half. A turning point, which I believe happened when UNC was up 5 with about 3 minutes left, was when Hansbrough looked like he bumped Padgett, but instead the ref said that Padgett stepped out, and Carolina got the ball back.
The Cardinals just don't play like a very "well coached" team. They turned the ball over 37 times in their final two games, and shot 9/16 from the line tonight. Especially in the first half, they took way too many outside shots, which is not new. Williams, Smith, and Sosa combined to shoot about 35% from 3 this year, but that doesn't stop them from shooting. I understand they like to press a lot, but some of the baskets they gave up in transition, with the UNC guards getting behind the Louisville defenders, were inexcusable. It's hard to argue with Pitino's success, but I don't think this year's team was one of his better coaching jobs.
UCLA 76, Xavier 57
UCLA did not play well in the first half, at all. Xavier had multiple easy dunks inside, the Bruins kept turning the ball over, and Shipp was throwing up shots that weren't hitting anything. The fact that they were up 9 at the half did not bode well for the Musketeers, and UCLA pulled away after the break. Collison has been incredible- he made all three 3s he attempted, and is now 10/15 from deep in the tournament. Shipp was awful again (1/7 from the floor), but Mbah a Moute and Westbrook both showed up for a change, and that was enough for the Bruins to advance to their third straight Final Four.
There is now a 48% chance that all four #1 seeds reach San Antonio.
Update: Doug Gottlieb has informed us that Texas is the favorite tomorrow. He finishes his rant by saying, "I got Texas playing at home." Okay, sure, but what if they were playing in Houston?
Showing posts with label Xavier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Xavier. Show all posts
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Elite 8 Preview: Saturday
There are only seven games left in the season, which is somewhat depressing. Hopefully, we have some fantastic games ahead of us. The two tonight each have that potential.
For each team I've listed the "Best Final Four odds", which are the best odds you could find two weeks ago. The "Real Final Four odds" are the odds you would've gotten if you'd bet on that teams' money line in each game.
(1) UCLA -6.5 vs. (3) Xavier
6:40pm EST
Best Final Four odds: UCLA -140, Xavier +1100
Real Final Four odds: UCLA 53.2% (-138), Xavier 6.4% (+1327)
Yesterday, Gasaway pointed out the parallels between last year's Ohio St. team, and UCLA this season. Both teams came into the tournament as top seeds with lofty expectations, and both struggled in rounds two and three. The Buckeyes had no trouble with Memphis in the Elite 8, and reached the championship game before losing to Florida.
Despite the sample size of one, it's an interesting comparison. That both teams revolved around a point guard and a big man doesn't hurt. I do think last year's Tennessee team was better than WKU this year; they did reach the Sweet 16, but the Hilltoppers only beat Drake and San Diego on their way there.
The Bruins are also still dealing with these lingering injury issues. It's far from clear that Mbah a Moute is healthy, as he's combined for 9 points and 10 turnovers in their last two games. They survived A&M without a third guy stepping up (check out the box score; it was really absurd), but they are going to need Shipp and/or Westbrook to have solid games to get past Xavier.
Drew Lavender is the guy everyone loves to talk about (he's short, if you hadn't heard), but Josh Duncan has gotten the Musketeers here, averaging almost 21 points in the first three tournament games. X has the bodies to stop Love inside, but I'm not sure who on this UCLA team the 5'7 Lavender will be able to defend.
(1) North Carolina -6 vs (3) Louisville
9:05 pm EST
Best Final Four odds: UNC -125, Louisville +350
Real Final Four odds: UNC 46.6% (-101), Louisville 11.1% (+700)
Finally.
These two have combined to win their first six games by 158 points. This is especially impressive considering the East was considered the most difficult region, although I suppose a large part of that was because it contained these two squads.
It's arguably the best offense in the country against what might be the best defense, but they get it done in different ways. UNC is so good because of all the offensive rebounds, and all the free throws- there's one guy who I think is pretty good at both of these things, but I can't seem to remember his name. Louisville held its opponents to the seventh lowest eFG in the country, which is interesting since they only person on Carolina that really qualifies as a "shooter" is Ellington (Danny Green fit that description for the first have against Wazzu, but doesn't qualify otherwise.)
On offense, Louisville relies on the inside games of Earl Clark, David Padgett, and Derrick Caracter. Their only real outside threat is McGee, although that doesn't stop Williams, Smith, and Sosa from jacking up plenty of threes as well. They need to get the ball inside to Padgett both because this is how they can score, and they can look to get Hansbrough into foul trouble. If they run the offense through him, rather than having their guards throw up ill advised shots from the perimeter, they can win this game.
As you're surely noticed, all the #1 seeds are still alive. We're four games away from the "doomsday" scenario of all four reaching San Antonio. Each is favored this weekend, but the lines only give a 1 in 4 chance to all four of them advancing.
For each team I've listed the "Best Final Four odds", which are the best odds you could find two weeks ago. The "Real Final Four odds" are the odds you would've gotten if you'd bet on that teams' money line in each game.
(1) UCLA -6.5 vs. (3) Xavier
6:40pm EST
Best Final Four odds: UCLA -140, Xavier +1100
Real Final Four odds: UCLA 53.2% (-138), Xavier 6.4% (+1327)
Yesterday, Gasaway pointed out the parallels between last year's Ohio St. team, and UCLA this season. Both teams came into the tournament as top seeds with lofty expectations, and both struggled in rounds two and three. The Buckeyes had no trouble with Memphis in the Elite 8, and reached the championship game before losing to Florida.
Despite the sample size of one, it's an interesting comparison. That both teams revolved around a point guard and a big man doesn't hurt. I do think last year's Tennessee team was better than WKU this year; they did reach the Sweet 16, but the Hilltoppers only beat Drake and San Diego on their way there.
The Bruins are also still dealing with these lingering injury issues. It's far from clear that Mbah a Moute is healthy, as he's combined for 9 points and 10 turnovers in their last two games. They survived A&M without a third guy stepping up (check out the box score; it was really absurd), but they are going to need Shipp and/or Westbrook to have solid games to get past Xavier.
Drew Lavender is the guy everyone loves to talk about (he's short, if you hadn't heard), but Josh Duncan has gotten the Musketeers here, averaging almost 21 points in the first three tournament games. X has the bodies to stop Love inside, but I'm not sure who on this UCLA team the 5'7 Lavender will be able to defend.
(1) North Carolina -6 vs (3) Louisville
9:05 pm EST
Best Final Four odds: UNC -125, Louisville +350
Real Final Four odds: UNC 46.6% (-101), Louisville 11.1% (+700)
Finally.
These two have combined to win their first six games by 158 points. This is especially impressive considering the East was considered the most difficult region, although I suppose a large part of that was because it contained these two squads.
It's arguably the best offense in the country against what might be the best defense, but they get it done in different ways. UNC is so good because of all the offensive rebounds, and all the free throws- there's one guy who I think is pretty good at both of these things, but I can't seem to remember his name. Louisville held its opponents to the seventh lowest eFG in the country, which is interesting since they only person on Carolina that really qualifies as a "shooter" is Ellington (Danny Green fit that description for the first have against Wazzu, but doesn't qualify otherwise.)
On offense, Louisville relies on the inside games of Earl Clark, David Padgett, and Derrick Caracter. Their only real outside threat is McGee, although that doesn't stop Williams, Smith, and Sosa from jacking up plenty of threes as well. They need to get the ball inside to Padgett both because this is how they can score, and they can look to get Hansbrough into foul trouble. If they run the offense through him, rather than having their guards throw up ill advised shots from the perimeter, they can win this game.
As you're surely noticed, all the #1 seeds are still alive. We're four games away from the "doomsday" scenario of all four reaching San Antonio. Each is favored this weekend, but the lines only give a 1 in 4 chance to all four of them advancing.
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]
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Home/Away Splits In March
The comments of the "Original Bracketology" post are really excellent. David pointed out what looks like a trend in the data from teamrankings.com. They have separate home and road ratings for each team, dating back to 98-99. He noticed that teams with good home rankings, but poor road marks, tend to fail pretty spectacularly in March:
I collected data on the top six seeds in each region from the '99-'06 tournaments (excluding '01, since the teamrankings.com data is incomplete). On the right are the expected wins for each seed. This gives us a baseline to fairly assess the wide range of teams that we are looking at.
Using this, we can see how each team did compared to their expectation. For example, if a #1 seed wins two games, they're -1.04. But if a 6 seed reaches the Sweet Sixteen, they're +0.75.
Next, taking David's idea, I took the teams with the biggest differentials between their home and away rankings. There are 168 teams in the sample, so let's look at the top and bottom 10%. Here are the teams with great home ranks that were awful on the road:
This is pretty amazing. 15 of these 17 teams won fewer games than expected*. The average "vs Exp W" is -0.50, which is remarkable. Let's look at the other end of the spectrum; teams with weak home ratings, that were good on the road:
It's not as extreme, but we do see the opposite trend. These teams win an average of 0.24 more games than we would expect.
This trend is both anecdotally and statistically significant. I did a regression using these 168 teams. The independent variables were their home and away ranks, and with the dependent variable (what we're trying to predict) being tournament wins. Since a lower rank should lead to more wins, we would expect both estimates to be negative. Here are the results:
The minuscule P-Values show that both variables are statistically significant.
The absolute value of "Away" is 58% larger than that of "Home". Clearly, a team's road performance is a much better predictor of tournament success than what it does on it's home floor.
What does this all mean? Well, let's apply it to this year. Since the data only considers the top six seeds, we'll stick to that- conveniently, that's what I covered in the Bracketology post. So, of those 24 teams, who has the most dramatic home/road splits?
I think sufficient attention has been paid to the first team on this list. I'm not at all surprised that Notre Dame has a significant split- they were 9-0 at home in the Big East, but only 5-4 away from South Bend.
Xavier was a little surprising, but understandable. They are 16-1 at home, with their only loss coming to Tennessee. Their road record is 7-4- none of these opponents have been particularly good, and they lost to the best one, Arizona St., by 22 back in December.
It should be noted that these two teams have the second and third largest differentials, but they're not huge. So I'd say it's a slightly negative indicator, but nothing to be too worried about. This does not apply to Vanderbilt, obviously.
The second half of the list is interesting as well. Washington St. has been tremendous on the road, with wins over Baylor, Gonzaga, USC, Arizona St., Oregon, Cal, and Washington. To this point, they've been held back by their disappointing 5-4 home record in the Pac-10. This is a dangerous team.
I am surprised that Drake appears here. I suppose road wins against Butler, Illinois St., Creighton, and Bradley help. I am still not sold on them, but maybe my skepticism is misplaced.
Update: I forgot to include Michigan St., because I didn't have them as a top 6 seed. In reality, they're probably a 6 right now. They are 3rd in the home rankings, and 59th away; they'd be right behind Vandy.
*Because of the weird distribution of wins (each year, one team wins six, one wins five, two win four, four win three, and so on), 65% of teams are below their expected wins. In our example, 88% of the teams in the first table (bad road teams) won less games than expected, while for the second table (good road teams) only 47% won less than expected. This confirms what is displayed in the average (road success is a better indicator than home games), but it's important to have a relevant baseline.
"I looked for all teams in that span that were:This is obviously not a very large sample, but it does look like there's something here.
A) ranked 20th or better at home
B) ranked 51st or worse on the road
C) seeded 1 through 6
Year #Seed Team (Home/Away) - Result
----------------------------------------------------------
2006 #3 Iowa (2/53) - 1st round upset
2005 #6 LSU (15/51) - 1st round upset
2003 #6 Missouri (17/57) - 2nd round loss to #3 seed
2002 #6 Texas Tech (17/51) - 1st round upset
2001 #5 Virginia (4/56) - 1st round upset"
I collected data on the top six seeds in each region from the '99-'06 tournaments (excluding '01, since the teamrankings.com data is incomplete). On the right are the expected wins for each seed. This gives us a baseline to fairly assess the wide range of teams that we are looking at.
Using this, we can see how each team did compared to their expectation. For example, if a #1 seed wins two games, they're -1.04. But if a 6 seed reaches the Sweet Sixteen, they're +0.75.
Next, taking David's idea, I took the teams with the biggest differentials between their home and away rankings. There are 168 teams in the sample, so let's look at the top and bottom 10%. Here are the teams with great home ranks that were awful on the road:
This is pretty amazing. 15 of these 17 teams won fewer games than expected*. The average "vs Exp W" is -0.50, which is remarkable. Let's look at the other end of the spectrum; teams with weak home ratings, that were good on the road:
It's not as extreme, but we do see the opposite trend. These teams win an average of 0.24 more games than we would expect.
This trend is both anecdotally and statistically significant. I did a regression using these 168 teams. The independent variables were their home and away ranks, and with the dependent variable (what we're trying to predict) being tournament wins. Since a lower rank should lead to more wins, we would expect both estimates to be negative. Here are the results:
The minuscule P-Values show that both variables are statistically significant.The absolute value of "Away" is 58% larger than that of "Home". Clearly, a team's road performance is a much better predictor of tournament success than what it does on it's home floor.
What does this all mean? Well, let's apply it to this year. Since the data only considers the top six seeds, we'll stick to that- conveniently, that's what I covered in the Bracketology post. So, of those 24 teams, who has the most dramatic home/road splits?
I think sufficient attention has been paid to the first team on this list. I'm not at all surprised that Notre Dame has a significant split- they were 9-0 at home in the Big East, but only 5-4 away from South Bend.Xavier was a little surprising, but understandable. They are 16-1 at home, with their only loss coming to Tennessee. Their road record is 7-4- none of these opponents have been particularly good, and they lost to the best one, Arizona St., by 22 back in December.
It should be noted that these two teams have the second and third largest differentials, but they're not huge. So I'd say it's a slightly negative indicator, but nothing to be too worried about. This does not apply to Vanderbilt, obviously.
The second half of the list is interesting as well. Washington St. has been tremendous on the road, with wins over Baylor, Gonzaga, USC, Arizona St., Oregon, Cal, and Washington. To this point, they've been held back by their disappointing 5-4 home record in the Pac-10. This is a dangerous team.
I am surprised that Drake appears here. I suppose road wins against Butler, Illinois St., Creighton, and Bradley help. I am still not sold on them, but maybe my skepticism is misplaced.
Update: I forgot to include Michigan St., because I didn't have them as a top 6 seed. In reality, they're probably a 6 right now. They are 3rd in the home rankings, and 59th away; they'd be right behind Vandy.
*Because of the weird distribution of wins (each year, one team wins six, one wins five, two win four, four win three, and so on), 65% of teams are below their expected wins. In our example, 88% of the teams in the first table (bad road teams) won less games than expected, while for the second table (good road teams) only 47% won less than expected. This confirms what is displayed in the average (road success is a better indicator than home games), but it's important to have a relevant baseline.
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.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Final Four Odds
Sportsbook has posted Final Four odds for 25 teams (H/T: Rob). Before the brackets come out, it is very difficult to handicap this kind of thing, because a team's chances are so dependent on both their seed and their draw. That is not going to stop me from trying, obviously.
The first column is the team's projected seed. These are mostly just taken from Parrish, but I made a few slight adjustments. That is followed by the team name, and their odds at Sportsbook. The last two columns are what I think their true chance of making the F4 is, along with what their odds should be in that case.
Odds I consider to be very good wagers are in green. Good wagers are in blue, and terrible wagers are in red. The black odds range from neutral to poor. Here is the first half:
Memphis being +200 really surprised me. They are almost certainly going to be a 1 seed, meaning they have a pretty easy path to the S16 (giving them about an 80% chance of making it that far). They will then be significant favorites against the 4/5 seed they will likely play, and again favorites in the Elite 8. Clearly Sportsbook has UCLA, UNC and Kansas as the top 3 teams in the country, and I don't disagree with that assessment. But I don't think Memphis is that far behind, and they will likely have seeding on their side.
Seeding plays an very big role in this. I know they don't have the reputation of Duke or Texas, but Xavier is just as good as those teams, and they will likely all be 2 seeds- there should not be such a large discrepancy in their odds.
Stanford is in a similar situation, except it is likely that they will have a 3 seed rather than a 2. That makes them not quite as attractive as Xavier, but at +650, it's still worth considering.
No 3 seed should be +300. You know I must feel that way if I have Louisville at +344. The four games you have to win are just too difficult. Assuming you get past the 14, you still have to beat a 6, a 2, and a 1, in theory. Except for the elite teams in the nation, nobody has better than a 25% chance of doing that. And Georgetown does not fall under the category of "elite team" this year.
UConn, a likely 4/5 seed, at +400 is even worse. They will play a 4/5 in the second round, and then the top two seeds after that. A 20% chance of winning those three games? Not even close.
On to the longshots:
Most of these are terrible. The Arizona and Kansas St. odds are particularly brutal. These are teams that will likely end up in 8-9 games, where their chances are barely better than a toss-up. Then, in the second round, they face a top seed. Kansas St. should be about +800 to reach the Sweet 16, not the F4.
Wisconsin at +800 is intriguing. They are a 3 seed, and a legit one at that. Barring a huge upset, they are going to finish 16-2 in the Big Ten. I know the B10 isn't very good this year, but unless you think it is really atrocious, the conference's best team at 8:1 to reach the F4 seems pretty good.
The odds for Marquette and Purdue are probably about right, but stick out because the others are so bad. I do not think Sportsbook gave seeding enough weight in their analysis. It is completely unreasonable for an 8 seed to have better odds than a 3, unless that 8 seed is about 15 points better, which is certainly not the case with Arizona and Purdue. It is highly unlikely that the Boilermakers lose their first round game against a 14. Taking that into account, you are getting about 18:1 that they will beat a 6 seed that is probably equally talented, and then two teams that are better than them. It's unlikely, but +2200 is not bad for them.
P.S.- 15 of you have voted on the Indians' under? I hope you guys aren't betting on this stuff, because you *clearly* don't know what you are talking about.
The first column is the team's projected seed. These are mostly just taken from Parrish, but I made a few slight adjustments. That is followed by the team name, and their odds at Sportsbook. The last two columns are what I think their true chance of making the F4 is, along with what their odds should be in that case.
Odds I consider to be very good wagers are in green. Good wagers are in blue, and terrible wagers are in red. The black odds range from neutral to poor. Here is the first half:
Memphis being +200 really surprised me. They are almost certainly going to be a 1 seed, meaning they have a pretty easy path to the S16 (giving them about an 80% chance of making it that far). They will then be significant favorites against the 4/5 seed they will likely play, and again favorites in the Elite 8. Clearly Sportsbook has UCLA, UNC and Kansas as the top 3 teams in the country, and I don't disagree with that assessment. But I don't think Memphis is that far behind, and they will likely have seeding on their side.Seeding plays an very big role in this. I know they don't have the reputation of Duke or Texas, but Xavier is just as good as those teams, and they will likely all be 2 seeds- there should not be such a large discrepancy in their odds.
Stanford is in a similar situation, except it is likely that they will have a 3 seed rather than a 2. That makes them not quite as attractive as Xavier, but at +650, it's still worth considering.
No 3 seed should be +300. You know I must feel that way if I have Louisville at +344. The four games you have to win are just too difficult. Assuming you get past the 14, you still have to beat a 6, a 2, and a 1, in theory. Except for the elite teams in the nation, nobody has better than a 25% chance of doing that. And Georgetown does not fall under the category of "elite team" this year.
UConn, a likely 4/5 seed, at +400 is even worse. They will play a 4/5 in the second round, and then the top two seeds after that. A 20% chance of winning those three games? Not even close.
On to the longshots:
Most of these are terrible. The Arizona and Kansas St. odds are particularly brutal. These are teams that will likely end up in 8-9 games, where their chances are barely better than a toss-up. Then, in the second round, they face a top seed. Kansas St. should be about +800 to reach the Sweet 16, not the F4.Wisconsin at +800 is intriguing. They are a 3 seed, and a legit one at that. Barring a huge upset, they are going to finish 16-2 in the Big Ten. I know the B10 isn't very good this year, but unless you think it is really atrocious, the conference's best team at 8:1 to reach the F4 seems pretty good.
The odds for Marquette and Purdue are probably about right, but stick out because the others are so bad. I do not think Sportsbook gave seeding enough weight in their analysis. It is completely unreasonable for an 8 seed to have better odds than a 3, unless that 8 seed is about 15 points better, which is certainly not the case with Arizona and Purdue. It is highly unlikely that the Boilermakers lose their first round game against a 14. Taking that into account, you are getting about 18:1 that they will beat a 6 seed that is probably equally talented, and then two teams that are better than them. It's unlikely, but +2200 is not bad for them.
P.S.- 15 of you have voted on the Indians' under? I hope you guys aren't betting on this stuff, because you *clearly* don't know what you are talking about.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Handicapping The Top Line
Joe Lunardi published an article today looking at which teams could possibly end up as #1 seeds. The way he sees it, there are seven schools fighting for four spots. Here are the percentage chances that he gives each team of securing a top seed:
Memphis: 85%
Tennessee: 60%
UCLA: 60%
North Carolina: 55%
Duke: 45%
Kansas: 45%
Texas: 40%
This was obviously before Texas' win in Manhattan tonight (thanks for nothing, Bill Walker), so they're probably a little higher.
First of all, these only add up to 390%. Either Lunardi can't add, or he thinks there's a 10% chance a team like Xavier sneaks onto the top line. I tend to think it's the former; if he thinks Xavier has a 10% chance at a 1 seed, he should have said so.
I agree that Memphis is the most likely. They're clearly a 1 right now, and it is extremely unlikely that they lose before the C-USA tournament- according to Pomeroy, they have a 85% chance of winning their final four conference games. They are then hosting the C-USA tournament, so it would be quite a shock if they lost there. Even with this, it's possible that they stay on the top line with a loss. 85% looks about right; I might even go as high as 90%.
I would say the rest of the percentages look about right as well. UCLA and Tennessee are clearly the front runners after Memphis. Texas is now in good position to finish 14-2 in the B12; I think they're probably the fourth most likely at this point. I'm not quite sure what to make of UNC, with Lawson missing so much time.
Along with Xavier, Stanford and Louisville are two other teams worth watching. The Cardinal clearly doesn't belong on the time line at this point, but they have the opportunity to make some noise, playing at USC and UCLA to finish out the Pac-10 season. If they sweep those, as well as their home games against the Washington schools this weekend, they'll finish 15-3 in the Pac-10, and hold at least a share of the conference title. If they then win the tournament, you have to think they'd receive strong consideration for a 1 seed. It's a longshot, but one worth considering.
Louisville is in a similar situation. If they take care of Notre Dame and Villanova at home, and then win @Georgetown, they'll finish 15-3 in the Big East. If they do this, and then win the conference tournament, they would have a case. This is actually a more likely scenario than Stanford's, since Louisville winning @Georgetown is much more likely than Stanford winning on the road against both USC and UCLA.
Memphis: 85%
Tennessee: 60%
UCLA: 60%
North Carolina: 55%
Duke: 45%
Kansas: 45%
Texas: 40%
This was obviously before Texas' win in Manhattan tonight (thanks for nothing, Bill Walker), so they're probably a little higher.
First of all, these only add up to 390%. Either Lunardi can't add, or he thinks there's a 10% chance a team like Xavier sneaks onto the top line. I tend to think it's the former; if he thinks Xavier has a 10% chance at a 1 seed, he should have said so.
I agree that Memphis is the most likely. They're clearly a 1 right now, and it is extremely unlikely that they lose before the C-USA tournament- according to Pomeroy, they have a 85% chance of winning their final four conference games. They are then hosting the C-USA tournament, so it would be quite a shock if they lost there. Even with this, it's possible that they stay on the top line with a loss. 85% looks about right; I might even go as high as 90%.
I would say the rest of the percentages look about right as well. UCLA and Tennessee are clearly the front runners after Memphis. Texas is now in good position to finish 14-2 in the B12; I think they're probably the fourth most likely at this point. I'm not quite sure what to make of UNC, with Lawson missing so much time.
Along with Xavier, Stanford and Louisville are two other teams worth watching. The Cardinal clearly doesn't belong on the time line at this point, but they have the opportunity to make some noise, playing at USC and UCLA to finish out the Pac-10 season. If they sweep those, as well as their home games against the Washington schools this weekend, they'll finish 15-3 in the Pac-10, and hold at least a share of the conference title. If they then win the tournament, you have to think they'd receive strong consideration for a 1 seed. It's a longshot, but one worth considering.
Louisville is in a similar situation. If they take care of Notre Dame and Villanova at home, and then win @Georgetown, they'll finish 15-3 in the Big East. If they do this, and then win the conference tournament, they would have a case. This is actually a more likely scenario than Stanford's, since Louisville winning @Georgetown is much more likely than Stanford winning on the road against both USC and UCLA.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Bracketology Breakdown, Take 2
I am using Lunardi again this week, since Parrish hasn't updated his bracket in five days. If Parrish updates his in Wednesday, I will probably discuss that as well.
This week I have included the best preseason futures odds for each team, and the site at which they could be found.
Texas- #1 seed, Pomeroy #8 overall, 75:1 preseason odds (Sportsbook)
With wins over Tennessee (neutral), UCLA (away) and Kansas (home), a 10-2 conference record, and a 23-4 overall mark, the Longhorns have certainly built quite a resume. Similar to Tennessee win on Saturday, I think tonight's game against Kansas St. will essentially determine whether Texas ends up this high. The Wildcats have been dominant at home, 6-0 in the B12 with an average margin of victory of 21 points. A win would put them at 11-2 in the conference, with four huge victories on their resume, and no particularly bad losses. With three winnable games left (@TTU, vs. Nebraska and Ok. St.), they would be in great position to stay on the top line. A loss would drop them back down to a 2, and short of winning out through the B12 tournament, they would be unlikely to get back here.
Xavier- #2 seed, Pomeroy #15, 150:1 preseason odds (VIP)
Hey everybody- an A-10 team is currently in line to get a #2 seed. Is there a reason more people aren't talking about this? The last time a non-BCS school (excluding powerhouses Gonzaga and Memphis) was seeded this high was 2004, when St. Joe's was a top seed, eventually losing to Oklahoma St. in the regional final. Xavier certainly deserves their lofty seeding- they've gone 12-1 in the #8 conference in the country, with an average margin of victory of nine points.
Could they end up as a 1 seed? It's possible, but unlikely. Tennessee's win over Memphis put them in great position to enter the tournament as a top seed, and things are looking good for the one-loss Tigers as well. It seems likely that either Texas or Kansas well end up on the top line, assuming one of them wins the B12 tournament. UNC, UCLA and Duke all have their eyes on a top seed as well. It seems like Xavier's best shot would be for UNC and Duke to split their regular season finale and tournament matchups, and for UCLA to lose in the Pac-10 tournament. In that case, if Xavier wins out, I think they have a chance at a #1 seed.
Washington St.- #7 seed, Pomeroy #12, 40:1 preseason odds (Sportsbook)
This seems a little harsh, doesn't it? They're third in the Pac-10 at 9-6, but their weak non-conference SOS (RPI #234) really kills them. What's strange is they notched impressive road victories against Baylor and Gonzaga as part of that. Problem is, they also played Eastern Washington, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi Valley St., The Citadel, Idaho St., and North Carolina A&T. Still, they did go 12-0 before Pac-10 play. They play at the northern California teams this weekend- if they can split those two, I think they'll end up higher than this.
Butler- #6 seed, Pomeroy #44, 200:1 preseason odds (Sportsbook)
Let's see- the other current #6 seeds are Clemson, Kansas St., and Gonzaga. If you're a 3 seed in the second round, would your rather play one of those teams, or Butler, whose best win is either Ohio St. at home or @SIU. Right. The Bulldogs lost on national TV on Saturday, but in reality they've been struggling all month. It's true that they were 6-0 in February, but four of those Horizon league wins were by five points or less, and a fifth was in OT. With two home games and then their conference tournament, Butler will likely win out, but that won't make them one of the 24 best teams in the nation.
I'll let the Atlanta poll run until 11ET, but the Baltimore poll is now up as well. Their total of 65 is the lowest number this year, by the way.
This week I have included the best preseason futures odds for each team, and the site at which they could be found.
Texas- #1 seed, Pomeroy #8 overall, 75:1 preseason odds (Sportsbook)
With wins over Tennessee (neutral), UCLA (away) and Kansas (home), a 10-2 conference record, and a 23-4 overall mark, the Longhorns have certainly built quite a resume. Similar to Tennessee win on Saturday, I think tonight's game against Kansas St. will essentially determine whether Texas ends up this high. The Wildcats have been dominant at home, 6-0 in the B12 with an average margin of victory of 21 points. A win would put them at 11-2 in the conference, with four huge victories on their resume, and no particularly bad losses. With three winnable games left (@TTU, vs. Nebraska and Ok. St.), they would be in great position to stay on the top line. A loss would drop them back down to a 2, and short of winning out through the B12 tournament, they would be unlikely to get back here.
Xavier- #2 seed, Pomeroy #15, 150:1 preseason odds (VIP)
Hey everybody- an A-10 team is currently in line to get a #2 seed. Is there a reason more people aren't talking about this? The last time a non-BCS school (excluding powerhouses Gonzaga and Memphis) was seeded this high was 2004, when St. Joe's was a top seed, eventually losing to Oklahoma St. in the regional final. Xavier certainly deserves their lofty seeding- they've gone 12-1 in the #8 conference in the country, with an average margin of victory of nine points.
Could they end up as a 1 seed? It's possible, but unlikely. Tennessee's win over Memphis put them in great position to enter the tournament as a top seed, and things are looking good for the one-loss Tigers as well. It seems likely that either Texas or Kansas well end up on the top line, assuming one of them wins the B12 tournament. UNC, UCLA and Duke all have their eyes on a top seed as well. It seems like Xavier's best shot would be for UNC and Duke to split their regular season finale and tournament matchups, and for UCLA to lose in the Pac-10 tournament. In that case, if Xavier wins out, I think they have a chance at a #1 seed.
Washington St.- #7 seed, Pomeroy #12, 40:1 preseason odds (Sportsbook)
This seems a little harsh, doesn't it? They're third in the Pac-10 at 9-6, but their weak non-conference SOS (RPI #234) really kills them. What's strange is they notched impressive road victories against Baylor and Gonzaga as part of that. Problem is, they also played Eastern Washington, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi Valley St., The Citadel, Idaho St., and North Carolina A&T. Still, they did go 12-0 before Pac-10 play. They play at the northern California teams this weekend- if they can split those two, I think they'll end up higher than this.
Butler- #6 seed, Pomeroy #44, 200:1 preseason odds (Sportsbook)
Let's see- the other current #6 seeds are Clemson, Kansas St., and Gonzaga. If you're a 3 seed in the second round, would your rather play one of those teams, or Butler, whose best win is either Ohio St. at home or @SIU. Right. The Bulldogs lost on national TV on Saturday, but in reality they've been struggling all month. It's true that they were 6-0 in February, but four of those Horizon league wins were by five points or less, and a fifth was in OT. With two home games and then their conference tournament, Butler will likely win out, but that won't make them one of the 24 best teams in the nation.
I'll let the Atlanta poll run until 11ET, but the Baltimore poll is now up as well. Their total of 65 is the lowest number this year, by the way.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Best Wins Of The Year
Tonight's craziness inspired me to compile the following list of the best wins to date this season. This isn't a list of the biggest upsets, or most impressive blowouts- it's the wins that will look best to the selection committee, three weeks from now.The spread for each game is in parenthesis. Those are just for reference though- that didn't really factor into the list at all.
1. Tennessee 66, Memphis 62 (TEN -6.5)
Prior to this, Memphis had won their three big home games (Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga) by an average of 12 points, and had won 47 straight at the FedEx Forum. All their streaks ended tonight, as the Volunteers surprisingly outrebounded the Tigers by 15. Chris Lofton shot just 2/11 from the floor, but Tyler Smith (6/11, 16 pts), Wayne Chism (13 pts, 3/5 from 3, even banked one in), and JP Prince (5/8, 13 pts) picked up the slack offensively. It should be noted that freshman Derrick Rose was extremely impressive, carrying the Memphis offense at times. Although asking out of the game because he was winded with five minutes left was kind of weak.
2. Maryland 82, North Carolina 80 (UNC -18)
This was a real shocker, and remains UNC's only loss with Ty Lawson. The Terps are tough when their bigs, Bambale Osby and James Gist, are playing well. That's what happened here, as they combined for 34 points and 18 boards. But the key was Maryland's defense (which Osby and Gist certainly contributed to)- they held Carolina to 42.4% eFG%, tying their lowest mark of the year.
3. Texas 63, UCLA 61 (UCLA -10)
I originally had USC's win @UCLA here, before realizing that Mbah a Moute sustained a concussion in the first half of that one. The Bruins were at full strength against the Longhorns, but were held to 6/21 from beyond the arc. DJ Augustin uncharacteristically had six turnovers, but did shoot 8/15 from the field (19 points). Damion James added 19 points and 10 boards.
4. Tennessee 82, Xavier 75 (XAV -3.5)
Bet you didn't expect to see this one here. In 15 other home games, Xavier has outscored their opponents by an average of 24 ppg. Think about that for a second- the average score of their home wins is 82-58. Despite being outrebounded 37-25 in this one, the Volunteers took 13 more shots from the field- this was made possible by 21 Xavier turnovers. Lofton (3/12, 9 pts) was off in this one, too. But, similar to tonight, T. Smith, Chism and Prince picked up the slack, combining for 47 pts on 19/31 shooting.
5. Connecticut 68, Indiana 63 (Indiana -8.5)
This was easily the most impressive victory during UConn's 10-game win streak, which ended this afternoon. Playing without Jerome Dyson (who returns on Tuesday) and Doug Wiggins, the Huskies outrebounded Indiana, 41-26, and held them to 37% shooting (although they did shoot 11/20 from 3). Hasheem Thabeet had an extremely odd line for a man his size (7'3)- 38 minutes, only 5 rebounds, but 12 points on 6/7 shooting. Jeff Adrien and Stanley Robinson helped him out on the boards, with 11 rebounds apiece.
Photo: Yahoo!
The Arizona over got 27 of 48 votes (56%). Atlanta is up now, and will be up until there are at least 45 votes. I think that's the best way to do it on the weekends.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Theoretical Futures Odds
I'm still unclear as to why, but while looking at some college basketball futures odds tonight I decided it would be a really bright idea to make my own. So, below are the odds I have come up with on 48 teams winning the tournament. They are presented in the same format as a normal betting site; Kansas' 5:1 odds mean I think they have roughly a 1 in 6 chance of winning it all.
There is no house advantage on these- they add up to 100.0084%. That's the best I could do.
So there you have it. Based on this, I see three teams that are good bets right now- Louisville (25.5:1, The Greek), Indiana (45.5:1, Greek), and Xavier (80:1, BetUS).
Edit: Well if half the team quits, there probably isn't much value in the Hoosiers.
Also, looking at these odds again, I'm not thrilled with having such a big separation between UNC and Duke. Both those teams are very difficult to figure, but it should probably be closer than that.
There is no house advantage on these- they add up to 100.0084%. That's the best I could do.
So there you have it. Based on this, I see three teams that are good bets right now- Louisville (25.5:1, The Greek), Indiana (45.5:1, Greek), and Xavier (80:1, BetUS).Edit: Well if half the team quits, there probably isn't much value in the Hoosiers.
Also, looking at these odds again, I'm not thrilled with having such a big separation between UNC and Duke. Both those teams are very difficult to figure, but it should probably be closer than that.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
This Week's Links (2/18-2/22)
The St. Louis under won, 39-14 (74%). Arizona is up now; we're going alphabetically the rest of the way.
Baseball Prospectus 2008 comes out on Monday. Probably the best $13.17 you'll spend this year. Unless Xavier (80:1 at BetUS) wins it all.
Very old, but this Russell Westbrook dunk against Cal was absolutely filthy.
Baseball Musings predicts how many R/G each team will score in '08. A commenter alertly notes, "Looks like another long year for Matt Cain."
STF interviews SI's Luke Winn.
Ozzie Guillen, being awesome:
Silver adjusts PECOTA for strength of schedule. Seattle's prediction descends even lower. 85 wins. Right.
With Leather was on the foxnews.com front page. Also from WL:
Baseball Prospectus 2008 comes out on Monday. Probably the best $13.17 you'll spend this year. Unless Xavier (80:1 at BetUS) wins it all.
Very old, but this Russell Westbrook dunk against Cal was absolutely filthy.
Baseball Musings predicts how many R/G each team will score in '08. A commenter alertly notes, "Looks like another long year for Matt Cain."
STF interviews SI's Luke Winn.
Ozzie Guillen, being awesome:
‘’Then if you’re a nice guy, they are going to treat you the same way. [Expletive] it, be an ####### then. I would rather be an ####### winning than be a nice guy [expletive] losing. Give me an ####### who can win, don’t give me a nice guy who can [expletive] lose.’"
ESPN jumped the gun on the UAB-Memphis game. How does that happen? Is it really so difficult to wait two minutes?
Silver adjusts PECOTA for strength of schedule. Seattle's prediction descends even lower. 85 wins. Right.
With Leather was on the foxnews.com front page. Also from WL:
"Seriously, if I said that Raul Ibanez could run down a routine fly ball, I'd punch myself in the face, because I'd be lying."Derek Jeter: a below average fielder!? Man, what are they smoking down at Penn?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Checking In
A couple weeks ago I had two posts (linked below) examining the biggest discrepancies between the AP poll and the Pomeroy ratings. Today I'm going to go back and see how these teams have done since. First, those who were...
"Under the Radar"
Marquette
Then: AP #13, Pomeroy #3
Since: 3-3
Now: AP #16, Pomeroy #9
I was very wrong on this one. Marquette added two more ugly road losses to their resume, at the hands of Louisville and Connecticut. It looked like they might be turning around after they finally got a conference road win against Cincinnati on Saturday, but then they turned around and got blown out at home by Louisville tonight. Definitely not a top ten team, and both of their current rankings will fall after tonight's game is factored in.
Xavier
Then: AP #20, Pomeroy #9
Since: 4-1
Now: AP #13, Pomeroy #10
Xavier was definitely underranked at 20, and may still be at 13. They surprisingly lost @Temple by 19, but have been excellent since, beating a shorthanded Dayton team by 26 at home, and winning @UMass by 12. They have three of their next four on the road, so it might be tough to stay this high in the polls, but luckily that doesn't really matter. Lunardi currently has them as a 3 seed in the NCAAs- they will likely end up as a 3 or 4, and are certainly not a team I'd want to face.
Drake
Then: AP #26, Pomeroy #15
Since: 6-0
Now: AP #15, Pomeroy #25
This is interesting. Drake's win streak has reached 18, allowing them to move all the way up to 15th in the AP. Yet they've fallen ten spots on Pomeroy's ratings, since each of their last six wins have come by ten points our less. They also have a very difficult upcoming schedule, with visits to Illinois St., Southern Illinois and Northern Iowa in the next two weeks. I bet they'll lose one or two of those, and fall back under the radar until March. Lunardi currently has them as a 3- I'd be surprised if they stay that high, they'll probably end up at 4 or 5.
Wisconsin
Then: AP #17, Pomeroy #6
Since: 5-1
Now: AP #8, Pomeroy #5
The Badgers are the best team in the Big Ten. I don't see all that much room for debate at this point. Michigan St. has suffered borderline embarrassing losses against Iowa and Penn St. Indiana somehow lost to UConn at home, and then lost @Wisconsin by 13. Meanwhile the Badgers are 8-1, with their only loss coming at a surprisingly tough Purdue team. They do have five of their last nine on the road (although the last one is @Northwestern, which barely counts), but should be able to scure at least a 3 seed in March.
And the teams I was quite critical of:
"They're Not That Good"
Vanderbilt
Then: AP #16, Pomeroy #65
Since: 2-3
Now: AP #23, Pomeroy #75
Vandy is still ranked? Seriously? Let's look at their SEC road games:
1/12 Kentucky; lost 79-73 in OT
1/17 Tennessee; lost 80-60
1/27 Florida; lost 86-64
1/30 Mississippi; lost 74-58
They're 3-4 in a weak SEC because they've beaten South Carolina, LSU, and Auburn at home. I honestly have no idea how they are still 23rd in the AP, and 20th (!) in the ESPN poll.
Dayton
Then: AP #14, Pomeroy #44
Since: 1-4
Now: Zero AP votes, Pomeroy #69
Dayton has been really bad. They've lost to UMass, Xavier, Richmond and Rhode Island by an average of 16 points.
The Flyers do have a good excuse. They've been without freshman Chris Wright (broken ankle) for this entire stretch, and Charles Little (broken foot) missed the Xavier and Richmond games. Little is back now, but Wright won't return until March. Their schedule down the stretch isn't bad- they've gotten all their difficult road games out of the way- but they're down to a 10 seed in the latest Bracketology, and that 25-point win against Pitt seems like a distant memory.
Villanova
Then: AP #25, Pomeroy #73
Since: 2-5
Now: Zero AP votes, Pomeroy #89
This overrated post was pretty solid. Villanova has been the worst of the three- after getting demolished by St. Joe's on Monday night, they've now lost five straight. At 3-6 in the Big East, they won't make the tournament unless they catch fire down the stretch. They were certainly never one of the 25 best teams in the country, that was a product of going 10-1 against a weak (#216 in the country) non-conference schedule.
"Under the Radar"
Marquette
Then: AP #13, Pomeroy #3
Since: 3-3
Now: AP #16, Pomeroy #9
I was very wrong on this one. Marquette added two more ugly road losses to their resume, at the hands of Louisville and Connecticut. It looked like they might be turning around after they finally got a conference road win against Cincinnati on Saturday, but then they turned around and got blown out at home by Louisville tonight. Definitely not a top ten team, and both of their current rankings will fall after tonight's game is factored in.
Xavier
Then: AP #20, Pomeroy #9
Since: 4-1
Now: AP #13, Pomeroy #10
Xavier was definitely underranked at 20, and may still be at 13. They surprisingly lost @Temple by 19, but have been excellent since, beating a shorthanded Dayton team by 26 at home, and winning @UMass by 12. They have three of their next four on the road, so it might be tough to stay this high in the polls, but luckily that doesn't really matter. Lunardi currently has them as a 3 seed in the NCAAs- they will likely end up as a 3 or 4, and are certainly not a team I'd want to face.
Drake
Then: AP #26, Pomeroy #15
Since: 6-0
Now: AP #15, Pomeroy #25
This is interesting. Drake's win streak has reached 18, allowing them to move all the way up to 15th in the AP. Yet they've fallen ten spots on Pomeroy's ratings, since each of their last six wins have come by ten points our less. They also have a very difficult upcoming schedule, with visits to Illinois St., Southern Illinois and Northern Iowa in the next two weeks. I bet they'll lose one or two of those, and fall back under the radar until March. Lunardi currently has them as a 3- I'd be surprised if they stay that high, they'll probably end up at 4 or 5.
Wisconsin
Then: AP #17, Pomeroy #6
Since: 5-1
Now: AP #8, Pomeroy #5
The Badgers are the best team in the Big Ten. I don't see all that much room for debate at this point. Michigan St. has suffered borderline embarrassing losses against Iowa and Penn St. Indiana somehow lost to UConn at home, and then lost @Wisconsin by 13. Meanwhile the Badgers are 8-1, with their only loss coming at a surprisingly tough Purdue team. They do have five of their last nine on the road (although the last one is @Northwestern, which barely counts), but should be able to scure at least a 3 seed in March.
And the teams I was quite critical of:
"They're Not That Good"
Vanderbilt
Then: AP #16, Pomeroy #65
Since: 2-3
Now: AP #23, Pomeroy #75
Vandy is still ranked? Seriously? Let's look at their SEC road games:
1/12 Kentucky; lost 79-73 in OT
1/17 Tennessee; lost 80-60
1/27 Florida; lost 86-64
1/30 Mississippi; lost 74-58
They're 3-4 in a weak SEC because they've beaten South Carolina, LSU, and Auburn at home. I honestly have no idea how they are still 23rd in the AP, and 20th (!) in the ESPN poll.
Dayton
Then: AP #14, Pomeroy #44
Since: 1-4
Now: Zero AP votes, Pomeroy #69
Dayton has been really bad. They've lost to UMass, Xavier, Richmond and Rhode Island by an average of 16 points.
The Flyers do have a good excuse. They've been without freshman Chris Wright (broken ankle) for this entire stretch, and Charles Little (broken foot) missed the Xavier and Richmond games. Little is back now, but Wright won't return until March. Their schedule down the stretch isn't bad- they've gotten all their difficult road games out of the way- but they're down to a 10 seed in the latest Bracketology, and that 25-point win against Pitt seems like a distant memory.
Villanova
Then: AP #25, Pomeroy #73
Since: 2-5
Now: Zero AP votes, Pomeroy #89
This overrated post was pretty solid. Villanova has been the worst of the three- after getting demolished by St. Joe's on Monday night, they've now lost five straight. At 3-6 in the Big East, they won't make the tournament unless they catch fire down the stretch. They were certainly never one of the 25 best teams in the country, that was a product of going 10-1 against a weak (#216 in the country) non-conference schedule.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Under the Radar
I thought it would be interesting to contrast the latest AP rankings with the current Pomeroy ratings (explained here) to see where the largest discrepancies lie. Today I'll look at teams that haven't gotten as much attention as they deserve; tomorrow, teams that aren't as good as their AP rankings might indicate.
Marquette; AP #13, Pomeroy #3
I was initially surprised to see Marquette this high in Pomeroy's rankings, but now I get it. They don't have any marquee wins, but their resume is impressive in more subtle ways. There are two main characteristics that cause teams to be underrated by the AP poll, and Marquette has both.
1. "Quality" losses
Marquette has lost two games. In November, Duke beat them by four in Hawaii. Then, a week ago, they lost at West Virginia by 15. Neither of these are bad losses; everybody knows about Duke, but West Virginia is very good as well. According to Pomeroy, Marquette has played the 23rd most difficult schedule in the country.
2. Destroying teams
The AP voters mostly look at whether you win or lose, rather than how much you win or lose by. When we're trying to predict a team's future performance, doing this is ignoring some important information. Three of Marquette's victories are good examples of this:
11/20 Oklahoma St. (N), 91-61
1/3 Providence (H), 96-67
1/12 Notre Dame (H), 92-66
Having beaten these three teams, none of which are ranked, isn't particularly impressive. But beating them by an average of 28 points bodes very well for Marquette as they continue Big East play.
Xavier; AP #20, Pomeroy #9
Xavier has lost at Miami (OH) and Arizona St., and at home against Tennessee. The fact that they lost to ASU by 22 is a concern, but the concern is lessened when you look at their final three non-conference games:
12/31 Kansas St. (H), W 103-77
1/3 Virginia (H), W 108-70
1/6 Auburn (A), W 80-57
To me, even more impressive than the average MOV of 29 points was how Vegas dealt with these games. They were favored by 9 against K State, 9.5 against UVA, and 9 @ Auburn. Each of these lines were higher than I would have expected. The books clearly didn't want a lot of money on Xavier in these games, and the results explained why. Dayton has gotten most of the attention, but Xavier is the best team in a very strong A-10.
Drake; AP #26, Pomeroy #15
The Bulldogs lost at St. Mary's in their second game of the season, which is understandable, as St. Mary's is undefeated at home this year. Drake has since run off 13 straight victories, and are getting dangerously close to the Top 25. Their two most impressive non-conference wins came in beating a very good Duquesne team by four, and beating Iowa St. by 35. But it's been their MVC games that have allowed them to rise in Pomeroy's rankings, as they've started off 5-0, winning each game by an average of 11.4 points.
Wisconsin; AP #17, Pomeroy #6
The main reason that Wisconsin is only #17 is they were 40th in the preseason poll. It would be difficult to move up higher than 23 spots while losing twice over the first couple months of the season. But what's important is that those were quality losses; @Duke, and against Marquette at home. Their win @Texas is very impressive; it's also their only win that has come by less than 10 points. They haven't had much trouble in their first three Big Ten games, easily beating Michigan, Iowa and Illinois.
Marquette; AP #13, Pomeroy #3
I was initially surprised to see Marquette this high in Pomeroy's rankings, but now I get it. They don't have any marquee wins, but their resume is impressive in more subtle ways. There are two main characteristics that cause teams to be underrated by the AP poll, and Marquette has both.
1. "Quality" losses
Marquette has lost two games. In November, Duke beat them by four in Hawaii. Then, a week ago, they lost at West Virginia by 15. Neither of these are bad losses; everybody knows about Duke, but West Virginia is very good as well. According to Pomeroy, Marquette has played the 23rd most difficult schedule in the country.
2. Destroying teams
The AP voters mostly look at whether you win or lose, rather than how much you win or lose by. When we're trying to predict a team's future performance, doing this is ignoring some important information. Three of Marquette's victories are good examples of this:
11/20 Oklahoma St. (N), 91-61
1/3 Providence (H), 96-67
1/12 Notre Dame (H), 92-66
Having beaten these three teams, none of which are ranked, isn't particularly impressive. But beating them by an average of 28 points bodes very well for Marquette as they continue Big East play.
Xavier; AP #20, Pomeroy #9
Xavier has lost at Miami (OH) and Arizona St., and at home against Tennessee. The fact that they lost to ASU by 22 is a concern, but the concern is lessened when you look at their final three non-conference games:
12/31 Kansas St. (H), W 103-77
1/3 Virginia (H), W 108-70
1/6 Auburn (A), W 80-57
To me, even more impressive than the average MOV of 29 points was how Vegas dealt with these games. They were favored by 9 against K State, 9.5 against UVA, and 9 @ Auburn. Each of these lines were higher than I would have expected. The books clearly didn't want a lot of money on Xavier in these games, and the results explained why. Dayton has gotten most of the attention, but Xavier is the best team in a very strong A-10.
Drake; AP #26, Pomeroy #15
The Bulldogs lost at St. Mary's in their second game of the season, which is understandable, as St. Mary's is undefeated at home this year. Drake has since run off 13 straight victories, and are getting dangerously close to the Top 25. Their two most impressive non-conference wins came in beating a very good Duquesne team by four, and beating Iowa St. by 35. But it's been their MVC games that have allowed them to rise in Pomeroy's rankings, as they've started off 5-0, winning each game by an average of 11.4 points.
Wisconsin; AP #17, Pomeroy #6
The main reason that Wisconsin is only #17 is they were 40th in the preseason poll. It would be difficult to move up higher than 23 spots while losing twice over the first couple months of the season. But what's important is that those were quality losses; @Duke, and against Marquette at home. Their win @Texas is very impressive; it's also their only win that has come by less than 10 points. They haven't had much trouble in their first three Big Ten games, easily beating Michigan, Iowa and Illinois.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Blogpoll: Week Nine
Everybody's votes are here (Google Doc); the final ballot is as follows:
Please excuse me for not getting too excited about UNC. They beat a Clemson team that is not that good by two in OT. They would have lost if Clemson managed better than 14/27 from the line. If the Tigers make a couple more FTs, UNC loses and they're down to 6th in the poll.
Meanwhile, all UCLA did this week was beat both Stanford and Cal rather easily on the road. I moved them up from 5 to 4 because of this.
After beating Pepperdine by 37, I have Memphis' chances of going 31-0 up to 32%.
The biggest discrepancy between my ballot and the compilation is with Ole Miss. I have them 20th, while they're 13th here. They play @Tennessee at 8pm; if they win, I'll certainly move them way up. And if they make a game of it, I won't drop them too far, as that would be the most impressive part of their resume to this point.
I also stubbornly have Texas higher than any of the 13 other voters. They destroyed St. Mary's, and those Tennessee and UCLA wins are looking more impressive by the day. If Texas played Ole Miss on a neutral court tomorrow, I'm pretty confident that the Longhorns would emerge victorious.
I understand why Xavier is 22nd; they have three losses (including getting blown out by 22 @Arizona St.), and the only name team they've beaten is Indiana. But after their performance in their last four games, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find 20 better teams in the country. (Pomeroy's rankings, which I should do a rundown of sometime soon, agree with this, as Xavier is 5th.)
Please excuse me for not getting too excited about UNC. They beat a Clemson team that is not that good by two in OT. They would have lost if Clemson managed better than 14/27 from the line. If the Tigers make a couple more FTs, UNC loses and they're down to 6th in the poll.Meanwhile, all UCLA did this week was beat both Stanford and Cal rather easily on the road. I moved them up from 5 to 4 because of this.
After beating Pepperdine by 37, I have Memphis' chances of going 31-0 up to 32%.
The biggest discrepancy between my ballot and the compilation is with Ole Miss. I have them 20th, while they're 13th here. They play @Tennessee at 8pm; if they win, I'll certainly move them way up. And if they make a game of it, I won't drop them too far, as that would be the most impressive part of their resume to this point.
I also stubbornly have Texas higher than any of the 13 other voters. They destroyed St. Mary's, and those Tennessee and UCLA wins are looking more impressive by the day. If Texas played Ole Miss on a neutral court tomorrow, I'm pretty confident that the Longhorns would emerge victorious.
I understand why Xavier is 22nd; they have three losses (including getting blown out by 22 @Arizona St.), and the only name team they've beaten is Indiana. But after their performance in their last four games, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find 20 better teams in the country. (Pomeroy's rankings, which I should do a rundown of sometime soon, agree with this, as Xavier is 5th.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
