Vegas Watch

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.

First off- Luke Winn incorporated the home/road splits into a post for his Tourney Blog. His take on it is definitely worth a read. I swear, I have nothing against Vanderbilt- it just so happens that Siena was great on the road, and quite poor at home.

On to the Midwest preview. In the table below, the second column is the chance I think each team has of winning the region. This was done partially by taking Pomeroy's numbers into account, but mostly by my own judgments. The next column is what the odds should be. The third column is the best odds I've found, followed by their location.

Portland St. is 51:1 just to beat Kansas. Why anyone would bet on them to win the entire region is entirely beyond me.

The odds of everyone outside of the top four are really, really bad. USC is a good team. But to get to the Final Four, their four opponents could potentially be Kansas St., Wisconsin, Georgetown, and Kansas. The idea that they have a 1 in 13 chance of beating those four teams is absurd.

I'm a Wisconsin believer. They're 29-4, and have won 23 of their last 25 (both losses coming to Purdue). They are fourth in Pomeroy's ratings. That's probably a little excessive, but I still think 10:1 is quite good. The Sportsbook line is also an outlier- they're no better than 6:1 anywhere else.

I'm higher on Kansas than most. I think they are the best team in the nation- some others agree, but most do not. I would not bet on them at even money to win the region, since I think you could probably get better odds betting on each individual game. But that's not a bad line.

I have it as 90% that Kansas, Georgetown, or Wisconsin emerge from the Midwest. I think that's fair. This is partially because they're really good, but also a product of seeding. They just have it easier than the other than the other teams- that's a privilege they've earned, but a significant advantage nonetheless.

There's no doubt that USC-Kansas St. is a compelling first round matchup. But I would advise against picking either team to beat Wisconsin. First, the Badgers may not have the pro prospects, but they're better than either of those teams. But the main reason is each team's first round matchup. Who's going to win the USC-KSU game? I have no idea. It's about a toss up (USC is favored by 2.5). I'm much more confident that Wisconsin (-11) will take care of CS Fullerton. That's an important thing to keep in mind when filling out your bracket- not just the chance that USC beats Wisconsin, but the relative chances either team has of getting that far.

If Kansas, Clemson, Wisconsin, and Georgetown do end up reaching Detroit, the second weekend will be quite something.

Pick: Kansas
Upset (has to be at least a 6 point underdog): Siena, obviously
Scary team (four seed or lower): Clemson

Related: Bracket Winners and Losers [Basketball Prospectus]

Here are the Pomeroy percentages for each team advancing to each round of the Big 12 tournament, which begins on Thursday.

Kansas will be a 1/2 seed in the big tourney. Texas will be a 2/3 (with an outside chance at a 1). Oklahoma is in, and probably an 8 right now; they could play their way up if they beat Texas in the semis.

Baylor, at 20-9 (9-7) with a RPI of 31, is in as of now. However, a loss to Colorado (3-13 in the B12...not in) would likely put them back on the bubble.

Kansas St. has been the topic of some bubble talk, probably because people want an excuse to talk about Beasley. Their non-conference was pretty bad (10-4, and their best win was Cal at home), but it would have to be really bad to negate 10-6 in this conference. The win against KU likely put them over the top; without it, they are 9-7, without a signature win, and feeling quite uncomfortable on Sunday. It's worth noting that they have a pretty ugly home/road split (17th at home, 52nd on the road), which does not bode well for their chances of making a run. The fact that the format is five-on-five, rather than two-on-two, also works against them.

Texas A&M won the preseason NIT, but did nothing else out of conference, and was only 8-8 in the Big 12. A loss to Iowa St. in the first round would be crushing; a win against Kansas St. to advance to the semis would take them off the bubble. If neither of those things happen, they should get in.

I haven't made too many adjustments to Pomeroy's percentages, beyond knocking Kansas St. down slightly (#13 in the nation? Not quite).

There's not much here- even the best odds, selected from various sites, add up to 134%.

KU at -120 isn't bad. They don't have a great draw (Texas has an easier road to the finals), but have the advantage of being significantly better than everyone else.

Related: Conference Tourney Mini-Previews: Big 12 [Rush the Court]
Related: Super Bullish on KU, Part II [The Money Line Journal]

Last week's post about consistency was pretty complicated- my head starts to hurt if I think about that stuff for too long. Today's post is quite the opposite. This is simply how teams have fared against the spread in conference play- their average ATS, rather than the standard deviation of that average.

In some sense this shows how each team has done against expectations, but that's not entirely true. As the season progresses, those expectations are adjusted, and that influences the spread. To consistently cover, you have to improve with these expectations-it's not enough to just be better than people thought you were going to be, since they will catch on eventually.

This first table is the top 10 teams against the spread this year, measured by point margin. I have also included a column showing how much you would've won if you had bet $100 on that team in every game, at -110 juice. Through games of 3/3.


The Boilermakers are unmatched in both metrics, as they're an incredible 13-3 ATS in the Big Ten. This will happen when you're expected to go to the NIT, and end up with a protected seed in the NCAAs. In their first eight conference games, they were favored by an average of 1.8 points, and outscored their opponents by an average of 6.25 ppg. In the second half, those numbers were 2.9 and 9.5. That's a pretty good recipe for covering in 81% of your games. (Edit: Well, down to 76% after last night.)

It's kind of strange to see the Beasley-Walkers on this list. They absolutely destroyed expectations in their first five conference games, going 5-0 against the spread and covering by an average of 14.7 ppg. But after that fifth win, against Kansas, people started to pay attention. Since then, they're only 3-6 ATS, and their average is -0.9. They're not sneaking up on anybody anymore, for obvious reasons.

Louisville is better than people think? Really? I never would've guessed.

It really is amazing to see a team as widely respected as UCLA on this list. They've been favored by an average of 9.3 ppg in conference games, but won by an average of 12. They've been brilliant on the road, covering in seven of nine games.

Wisconsin's combination is a little odd. That is caused by losing ATS by a half point twice, and a single point once. Winning by 25 @Penn St. doesn't hurt either.

Now for the disappointments:

Ole Miss was 13-0 in non-conference play, ascending as high as 15th in the ESPN poll. But seven of those wins were by single digits, and they came against the 164th most difficult schedule in the country. Regardless, people thought they were good- they've been favored by an average of 3.0 ppg in SEC play. Unfortunately for them, they've been outscored by 3.1 ppg on their way to a 5-9 SEC record.

Incredibly, Texas A&M appears on this list despite beating Texas Tech by 44 last week (they were favored by 9). They've had an extremely strange year- a -14.9 average ATS in their first four games, +7.0 in their next five, then -9.4 in their final five. In fact, their updated consistency number is 17.7, which makes them easily the least consistent team among those in the power conferences.

It is difficult to go 4-11 ATS when you're getting an average of 13.9 ppg, but Oregon St. has managed to do just that. Although I guess it's not that difficult if you go winless in conference play and lose by an average of 18.9 ppg. The distribution of talent in the Pac-10 was truly amazing this year. Washington has the second worst RPI at 104; the Beavers are 257th. Or, if you prefer tempo-free stats, the difference between 1 and 9 is about the same as the difference between 9 and 10.

A week ago, Texas Tech wouldn't have been anywhere near this list- in fact, they would've been close to the overachievers list, at +2.21. But when you lose two games by a combined 102 points, well, things go south pretty quickly.

The ATS data for the teams that didn't make these lists can be found here.

Photo: Lafayette Online.

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.

In mainstream sports reporting, the term "consistent" is entirely meaningless. When Joe Morgan says, "He's the most consistent hitter on the ballclub", he is telling us absolutely nothing (I think he really means *best*, but that's a discussion for another day). In coverage of college basketball over the next month, we will be bombarded with discussion of how team X has to be more "consistent" to make a deep run. It's all BS.

"Consistency" does have an actual, significant application however, and can be interesting when discussed intelligently. First off, it's important to note that being consistent is not necessarily a good thing. If you're a 12 seed playing in the first round, the last thing you want is to consistently play to the level of a 12 seed. If you do this, you will lose almost every time. It would be in your best interest to play like a 6 seed half the time, and like one that belongs in the NIT the other half. If you have inferior talent, it is to your advantage to be inconsistent.

The opposite is true when the situation is reversed. Kansas, the team that currently sits atop the Pomeroy ratings, would greatly benefit by being more consistent. On some nights they absolutely destroy teams (KU 84, Nebraska 49), but on others they play far below their talent level (Oklahoma St. 61, KU 60). The Jayhawks would benefit greatly from being more consistent and playing to their true level of talent every night- they'd almost never lose.

With that being said, the following is my attempt to quantify how consistent the 73 BCS teams have been this year. Simply put, all I've done is calculated the standard deviation of a team's performance against the spread.

It is important to note that this is very different from how each team has performed against the spread (or against expectations). That can be measured with the average of their performance against the spread- for example, UCLA has beaten the spread of their games by an average of 2.3 ppg. That is interesting in itself, and I'll have a post about it later this week, but is irrelevant when discussing consistency.

What I'm measuring here is how consistent each team has been in its performance against the spread (ATS). For example, if team X plays six games and beats the spread by 5 points in each, their average ATS is 5, and the standard deviation is 0. If team Y plays five games, covers by 9 three times, and covers by 1 the other three, their average ATS is still 5, but the standard deviation is 4.4. Clearly, team X has been more consistent than team Y, and this shows in the standard deviation.

Using this method, here are the 12 most consistent teams thus far in conference play (a lower number means a higher consistency):


When you think about this year's Indiana team, I doubt "consistent" is the first word that comes to mind. But on the court, they've been exactly that. They've played right to expectations (6-7-1 ATS), and done so reliably- all but one of Indiana's Big Ten games have been within nine points of the spread. With all the drama surrounding this team, it's anybody's guess how this will translate into March, but their talent level (a 4 seed) is pretty clear.

A second solid Big Ten team also makes the list, that being Purdue. They've gotten here in a very different fashion than the Hoosiers, going 11-3 ATS, and outperforming the spread by an average of 5.3 ppg. The Boilermakers have consistently exceeded expectations, beating the spread by between 3 and 8 points in 7 of their 14 conference games.

The third consistent tournament lock is Stanford. They've beaten the spread by an average of 2.1 ppg, and have been within 10 of that number in all but one of their Pac-10 games. This indicates that the projected #3 seed will have no trouble in the first couple rounds, but the odds are stacked against the Cardinal pulling off two upsets on the second weekend to reach the Final Four.

Now, the most inconsistent teams:

Two teams that are surprisingly high in the Pomeroy ratings- Marquette (10) and Kansas St. (11), appear here. The Wildcats' standing is pretty clear- they are world beaters at home (+15.6 average ATS, even after last night), but weak on the road (-3.3 average ATS). Even so, it's hard to know which team will show up in the tournament. When I think of a team that's extremely inconsistent- capable of beating just about anybody, or losing to Texas Tech, Kansas St. is the first team that comes to mind.

Marquette is another interesting case. After starting off Big East play 3-7 ATS, they have covered in their last six games. They lost their first three conference road games by an average of 17 points, but are 4-1 away from the Bradley Center since. Either they are very inconsistent, or they have improved as the season has progressed. Regardless, this is a team capable of making a run in March, and is likely underseeded as a 5.

The consistency numbers for the 49 teams that did not make these lists can be found here.

Photo: Yankees Chick.

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.

One of the great things about college hoops is that the polls don't actually matter, as there's that little tournament at the end of the season. In light of this, I thought I'd do another overrated/underrated type post, but use the latest Bracketology rather than the polls.

The teams in green are those that I think should/will get better seeds, and the teams in red are currently too high. I've included their projected Bracketology seed, their Pomeroy ranking, and their National Championship odds at Sportsbook.

UCLA- #2 seed, Pomeroy #3 overall, 9:2 at Sportsbook
Are we really going to go through this again? Last year UCLA got screwed out of a one seed, although they did get to stay in California through the first four rounds and ended up reaching the Final Four. UCLA has had some injury problems- Collison missed the first six games, Mbah a Moute has missed four Pac-10 games, Mata-Real has missed a couple games. Despite this, they are 10-2 in what might be the top conference in the country. Even with the three losses, I think they're at least in the "top team in the country" conversation, and really don't see how they can be behind...

Tennessee- #1 seed, Pomeroy #15 overall, 12:1 at Sportsbook
If the Volunteers beat Memphis, sure, put them up on the top line. But right now, I'm just not seeing it. It's true that they're 10-1 in the SEC, but the SEC isn't very good. Tennessee has also been fortunate to have just one loss, as they've won their last four SEC road games by an average of only 4 points, against powerhouses such as LSU and UGA. The good news is that this will probably take care of itself- if Tennessee beats Memphis, they'll deserve their 1 seed, and a loss would likely drop them down to the second line.

Louisville- #4 seed, Pomeroy #8 overall, 18:1 at Sportsbook
Perception is slowly starting to catch up to reality with Louisville- they are finally ranked (23rd) in the ESPN poll this week. It's possible that they doesn't deserve higher than this based on their current resume, but you'd be hard pressed to find 12 more talented squads. Their Pomeroy rating is actually held down a bit, since they struggled without Padgett and Palacios early in the year, starting the season 5-3. With road games against Pitt and Georgetown, the rest of their schedule is challenging, but I expect them to be at least a 2 or 3 seed when the actual brackets are unveiled.

Purdue- #3 seed, Pomeroy #22 overall, 75:1 at Sportsbook
When a projected 3 seed is still 75:1 to win it all, something is off. These aren't old odds either- Sportsbook updated these futures on Monday. Even I am starting to become a believer in the "Baby Boilers", who have now won 11 straight B10 games. Still, this is probably their peak, as they visit Bloomington on Tuesday night. It's certainly possible that they continue to prove everyone wrong, but I think the end up being a 4 or 5 seed on Selection Sunday.

Kansas St.- #4 seed, Pomeroy #6 overall, 30:1 at Sportsbook
Beating Missouri by 37 sure helps your Pomeroy rank. Everybody knows that Beasley scored 40 points, but did you realize he did that in 27 minutes? Projected out to a full 40 minutes, that's 59 points. He might get paid to play basketball some day. This is a scary team, but they're yet to prove themselves on the road. Interestingly, freshman guard Jacob Pullen has a 3:1 assist-to-turnover ratio in B12 home games, but has just seven assists and eight turnovers in conference road games. They have winnable games at Nebraska and Baylor this week, before hosting UT on Big Monday. I don't know what seed they end up getting, but I certainly wouldn't want them as a 4 in my region.

The Tampa over ended up getting 49 of 66 votes (74%). If we do one of these each weekday, and one each weekend, we can finish all 30 before the season starts. Mariners poll is up now.