Just yesterday, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany confirmed that the NCAA is going to expand the NCAA basketball tournament field to 96 teams.  While this should come as no shock to anyone, given the long history of the NCAA trying to whore out the tournament and their amateur athletes to make as much money as possible.  And with negotiations coming up for the new TV contract, they feel as if they have to find additional streams of revenue in the tournament to ramp up the bidding.

Let me first admit that the idea that I am about to propose is not entirely mine.  Doug Gottlieb of ESPN is the first person I have heard mention something like this – I just decided to take it to the level of applying the theory to this year’s teams.

So, here is the system I am proposing.  While there is no counterargument as to why this would be better than a 96-team field, comments are always welcome. 

- There are 8 additional teams, and 8 additional games, in the tournament.

- These 8 additional games will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday of the first week of the tournament.

- Here is how you get those 8 teams:

   – Rank order all of the teams

   – Add all 31 automatic bids into the field

   – Add the top 25 at-large teams that do not already have a bid. That takes you to 56 teams

   – Now, take the next 16 teams and have them play each other for the 10 and 11 seeds

So, let’s take a look at what that would have meant this year.  I am going to essentially take the “last 8 in” and “first 8 out” from my database over at RPIbracket.com.  Let’s see what those 8 games would have looked like this year.  Before I start, let me just say that there are some VERY juicy matchups in there.  It is by accident.  I seriously took the last 8 teams in and first 8 teams out, and make one round of games, with the top team on that list playing the bottom team, the second team playing the second from the bottom, etc.

Tuesday

Arizona State at Virginia Tech

Florida at Tennessee

Dayton at Notre Dame

South Florida at Cincinnati

Wednesday

Memphis at Georgia Tech

Ole Miss at UTEP

Louisville at Utah State

Minnesota at Illinois

So, do you think anyone would rather watch that slate of games, or watch the 32 games between teams 33-96?

There is one glitch in my system, but it’s an easy one to fix. The glitch is that, on the surface, a major network would never pay more money for an extra 8 games than they would for an extra 32 games.  The way around that is to split out the first round of play-in games as its own package.

Think about it.  Let the big networks get into a bidding war over the main tournament, and let the niche networks (ESPN, FOX Sports, Versus) get into a bidding war over the 8 play-in games.  The networks don’t want to mess up their Tuesday and Wednesday schedules anyway…but do you think ESPN would want to pay a lot of money to essentially get two nights of tournament basketball, with 16 teams taking part, almost all of them from the power conferences? That was a rhetorical question.

While you could make the same argument about splitting the bidding for the tournament coverage into two packages using the 96-team approach, I am not sure that it would have the same allure for the network or make the same amount of money for the NCAA.  Let’s assume that ESPN is going to win that bidding war.  Do you think they would pay more money for 32 games, 2 or 3 of which might be compelling, or 8 games that would have a pretty good chance of being compelling games matching big name programs every year?

I guess this is another one of those things we will have to put on the ever-expanding “if I were in charge, things would be different” list.

Popularity: 1% [?]

More qualified (and less talented) folks than myself have spent lots and lots of time talking about the fact that North Carolina, UConn, UCLA, Indiana and Arizona are all not in the tournament.  Well, they are just mentioning that the last time that happened was 1966.  Well, here at MOS, we like to provide a little bit deeper analysis.  Sure, most of the time it is for something like this, that no one else cares about, but if it wasn’t for our penchant for the irrelevant, we might actually be generating some revenue…but we have never been about anything other than providing a fresh perspective.  Anyone can write about what everyone else is writing about or go for the lowbrow, let’s be crude and attract traffic (any traffic will do).

At any rate – we are about the sports and about the analysis and about trying to do a good job with it, not about generating as much traffic as possible to the site…although it would help if some of you bastards clicked on the ads once in a while!  I kid…

So, I believe I mentioned something in paragraph 1 about analysis.  So, here it goes. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 1% [?]

After the atrocious performances by Mike Brey, Jay Wright, John Thompson III and Buzz Williams during Day 1 of the NCAA Tournament, lots of the “experts” are scrambling to say something.  The ones that need to show themselves as some kind of pundit will start to lament the Big East as a conference; the ones that are already positioned as a college basketball expert have been taking an even more self-serving approach, feeling a need to not only show how smart they are but how they knew all along that the Big East was overrated.  The fact that not a single one of them said anything about it before 10 PM last night should be irrelevant.

Do not believe the hype.  Not one radio or television sports personality had a single negative thing to say about the Big East before, and now all these guys are coming out of the woodwork.  I have heard some guys get on the case of some teams, but not a single person has talked about the Big East being down or predicted anything like what happened on Thursday.  Here’s what happened – the Big East had a bad day with 1 pretty good team and 2 mediocre teams getting beaten…all of them by teams that have won championships already this year.

So, before we close the casket, let’s take a look at the remaining teams from the Big East: Syracuse, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Louisville and Villanova.  There is absolutely a very good chance that 3 of those teams could be in the Elite Eight, maybe more…and 1 of those teams could make it to Indianapolis, perhaps as many as 3 of them.  That list contains 4 of the Top 20 teams in the country and a team that is coached by Rick Pitino.  Speaking of Pitino, just to review – the other 3 Big East coaches participating in Friday’s action are: Jim Boeheim, Bob Huggins, and Jamie Dixon.  Any of those guys know what they are doing in the tournament?

There is no other analysis necessary…I just wanted to go on the record to let everyone know that I will be the first one to say I was wrong if the Big East continues to fall apart…but if they do not, you know who will be chirping the loudest.

So, one more time through the facts – the Big East still has 4 teams remaining that are in the Top 20 teams in the country and have 3 of the top coaches of all time (Boeheim, Pitino, Huggins) and 2 of the top young coaches in the college game right now (Dixon and Wright) still representing the conference in the tournament, the atrocious performance by Jay Wright and his team on Thursday notwithstanding.

There’s really nothing else to say about it.  The Big East has way too many quality teams left, coached by quality coaches, for some of these morons to start badmouthing the conference.  Of course, bashing of the 3 coaches that lost on Thursday is not only acceptable but highly encouraged.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Well, the official NCAA Tournament Bracket is out, and let me just tell you that it is really a good one this year.  And when I say good, I mean that it’s really a piece of crap just like every other bracket that the selection committee has put out over the years. 

At the risk of losing my press credential for the final in Indy, I have to just tell it like it is.  This is an amateur basketball tournament – most people tend to forget that, but it’s true – and the selection committee continues to conduct themselves in such a manner to make the most money possible out of the tournament. 

Let’s forget for a minute that the tournament is essentially a huge money grab by the largely white establishment, made possible by their pimping out the players, who are largely young men of color.  Sorry to my white brethren, but it’s true.  Everyone knows how wrong it is, and everyone is afraid to write or talk about it it.  Well, everyone but me.  I think I will have to dust off the keyboard some time this week for that column, but since the actions of the buffoons on the selection committee are still hanging in the air like an unclaimed fart, let’s start with them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 1% [?]

College hoops fans – if you wanted another reason to hate A-Fraud, how about this?

Anyway, a more appropriate title for this column might be “Why Our Bracket is the Best”, but that would be a little bit self-serving, even for us.

As always, things are subject to change as the rest of the season and conference tourneys play out, but let’s take a look at the tourney teams from the Big Ten, in the most popular bracket out there (Joe Lunardi from ESPN) and the soon-to-be-not-quite-as-unpopular-as-it-is-now bracket over at RPIBracket.com.

No mud slinging here – I love Lunardi and the service he provides.  In fact, the only problem I have with Joe, and all bracketologists for that matter, is that they are judged by how well they predict the actions of the selection committee, a body that is under express orders to generate as much revenue for the NCAA and its member schools as possible. 

So, let’s just take a look at one of the major conferences in Lunardi’s bracket and my bracket, just to see what makes the selection committee (and therefore all bracketologists) tick.  First, the overall stats for the conference as a whole.

DATA POINT	LUNARDI	RPIBracket.com
Total Bids	5	4
Highest Seed	2	2
Lowest Seed	10	9
Average Seed	5	5

 

I am not sure if there is anything telling there or not, except for the fact that Lunardi has one too many teams in the tournament.  Forget that the team I am about to describe is from a BCS conference for one second, and tell me – does the team described below look like it should be treated as one of the 34 most deserving and at-large-bid–worthy teams in the country?

Record:  18-12

RPI: 73

SOS: 47

Wins Against RPI Top 50: 4

Losses Against RPI Top 51-100: 2

Losses Against RPI Top 101-200: 3

Obviously, the answer is a resounding NO.  Does anyone out there really think that a team with 3 losses against teams that are not in the Top 100 RPI deserves an at-large bid?  Well, I have news for you, my friends – there are going to be at least 2 or 3 teams that meet that criteria in the field of 65 this year, and every single one of them is going to be from a BCS conference.

So, what should we tackle next?  I guess we can start with the team we just discussed briefly above – Illinois.  An absolutely atrocious resume to be getting an at-large bid, and Lunardi has them as a 10 seed.  I am not saying he is wrong, I am just saying that the data does not support the worthiness of Illinois to participate this year.

Not sure how this will play out, but let’s take a look at the 4 teams we share in common.  I think we will find that the only thing that should REALLY matter, the STATS, are on the side of our bracket.  But, the STATS do not line the pockets of the NCAA – the only things that do that are TV revenue and conference bias and east coast bias and juicy matchups and fans travelling to see their teams and spending all kinds of cash – something that the fans of BCS conference teams do very well.  So, without further ado, here we go.

Purdue.  I am shocked by this one, but our bracket actually matches Lunardi here…although I suspect it is because the stats have not caught up with the Boilermakers yet.  If they lose the season finale and do not make enough noise in the Big Ten tourney, I think their drop will be much more precipitous in our bracket than the ones designed around bracketology, or parroting the selection committee, or making money above all else – however you want to look at it.

Ohio State.  First of all, let’s start by saying that it is absolutely hilarious that Ohio State is ranked in the top 10 in both polls.  They have 3 losses against teams with an RPI over 50, one of those against a team with an RPI over 100.  Top 10 teams in the country should not ever lose to a team with an RPI over 100, whether Evan Turner is hurt or not.  We have them right where they belong in our bracket, as a 6 seed, not a 3 seed like they are in everyone else’s bracket.  Then again, we do not subscribe to the moronic practice of running an amateur basketball tournament based on making the largest amount of money possible. 

Suffice it to say, we have 100% confidence that as soon as Ohio State plays a team in the bracket with a seed number lower than 6, Thad Matta will be sitting on his yearly long plane ride…right where he belongs.  Speaking of things about this team that are hilarious – Thad Matta makes $2.5 million per year and his contract does not expire until 2016.  Really, we looked it up.  Besides, the dude looks like this. While we are making fun of A.D.s that give all this money to coaches who almost ALWAYS get bounced out of the tournament by a team inferior to their team, did you know that Rick Barnes also makes over $2 million per year?  It’s true.

Michigan State.  This is the most egregious error by Lunardi and presumably the selection committee.  But the real travesty is that Tom Izzo will make the selection committee look like they know what the hell they are talking about…which they do not.  MSU will end up with a 4 seed, just like they have right now, and they will win their pod and then take the #1 seed in their bracket right to the wire before dropping out of the tournament.  That is all fine and dandy, except for the fact that Michigan State has 3 losses against teams with an RPI > 50, and their own RPI is only 26. 

Based on our algorithm, we have them as a 9 seed.  That would have them (assuming a first-round win) playing the #1 seed in their region 1 game earlier than if they were to receive a 4 seed.  I hope the university enjoys the gift from the selection committee of providing them with whatever revenue they can take from that extra game.

Wisconsin.  Go figure that the team with the second-best RPI in the conference, and the best SOS in the conference, is the team with the fourth-worst seed in the mainstream brackets.  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the three teams with better seeds have vastly more revenue generating potential for the NCAA.  Well, over at RPIBracket.com, where we let the data do the talking, Wisconsin is indeed the Big Ten team with the second-best seed.  Kind of funny how that works out, huh?

Anyway, that’s just a very quick and dirty breakdown of what our current bracket looks like for the Big Ten and how it differs from the mainstream brackets and how it will differ from what the selection committee does this year.  But we absolutely refuse to waver from our promise that we will continue to reward teams with higher seeds in our bracket based strictly on the data and nothing else.

Please feel free to check out our site.  Not only do we have our current bracket out there at any given time, we also have some more information about our process and how it works.  Some of the reading is a little tough, as there is a technical geeky section, but it is pretty easy to see that our bracket, though inaccurate from the standpoint of being able to predict what will happen with the selection committee, is almost certainly a much better approach.

Besides, why would you want to pattern your analysis after a group of people whose sole mission is to squeeze every dime they can out of an amateur basketball tournament?

Popularity: 1% [?]