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.

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% [?]

Well, it’s finally happened – we have gotten the 2010 version of the RPI bracket up and running.  For a few reasons, all kind of geeky, we hit a couple of snags.

Then, the first version of the bracket had a couple of significant anomalies in it.  Since it is only our second year, and probably only about the 25th time that we generated the bracket, we didn’t mind taking a quick look at the algorithm to see what we could see.  In case you are interested, we made a slight tweak to it.

So, we are once again poised to (hopefully) help college basketball fans see exactly how the selection committee screws over teams from the non-BCS conferences.  I know, I know – big surprise.  Everyone knows that it is going on, so what’s the point?

Well, the point is that we can, with our proprietary algorithm and bracket, not only quantify the level of the screw-job, but we can tell exactly which teams, based solely on the data, got screwed over…and by how much.

We have a high level of confidence in our algorithm, and the key metric that it spits out for all 347 teams in Division I, the Tournament Index (T.I.).  It is a completely objective jumping-off point for comparisons between and among teams. 

As mentioned on the RPIBracket.com site, there is no room for any bias whatsoever – no big conference bias, no program tradition bias, no revenue generation potential bias, etc. – just the data.  And we don’t just do that for tourney qualification, we do that for seeding as well.  For instance, if you look in our current bracket, you will see that Michigan State is a 10 seed, despite being ranked #14 in the polls.  This is because MSU has lost 2 games against teams ranked 51-100 in the RPI, and their February record was 2-4.  Those happen to be 2 things that our algorithm does not like.  Plus, the Big Ten is not very strong this year compared to other conferences…so you have Ohio State with a 5 seed in our bracket, even though they are a Top 10 team, according to the polls.

While it is a great bonus that there are 2 Big Ten teams that our bracket is not giving respect, that was not our intention.  Besides, there is risk with any system.  For instance, Tom Izzo is capable of elevating his team way beyond what they should be capable of.  Thad Matta, on the other hand, is capable of losing a first round game in the tournament to a grossly inferior team.  Seriously, he is a contender for this year’s Rick Barnes award…although with Barnes himself in the mix, it is tough to see someone else stepping up (down?) and “coaching” their team to an early exit with the same level of proficiency exhibited on a year-in, year-out basis by Rick Barnes.

At any rate, the 2010 version is now live.  It is not perfect, but please feel free to check it out and chime in.  Based on the information in the algorithm, it’s definitely a good basis for comparing two teams, and I am more than happy to share the generalities of the data, if not the algorithm itself.  Also, unlike anyone that calls themselves a bracketologist, I am receptive to criticism and have even tweaked the algorithm in the past based on clearly presented arguments from readers and fans.

Popularity: 1% [?]

This column is my first from my tree stand. I was waiting for a deer to come by and thinking about the Texas-UNC game later…and I decided to see if there was a decent Blackberry app for doing blog posts. I discovered that there are several such apps, so I can now share my atypical thoughts on the first ever basketball game played in Cowboys Stadium.
First of all, let me tell you that I am an unashamed dyed-in-the-wool Tar Heels fan. I read a biography of Dean Smith when I was 8 years old (summer of 1976). I followed the 1976-1677 Tar Heels team with great enthusiasm and cried my 9-year-old eyes out when Al Maguire and his Marquette team beat Carolina in the final. As a West Pointer, I get a little conflicted, and I am sure that most of my fellow Carolina fans would say that my hatred for Coach K lacks the proper amount of vitriol, but I just can’t go all in. My buddy Brian’s dad was Coach K’s roommate at West Point…and Brian went to Duke…and Coach K let Brian brings girls to dinner at his house as a first date. After hearing that Coach K served as a wing man for a kid half his age, based on a long friendship started at my alma mater, I can’t hate him as much as some of my brethern. My buddy Kinky, who has an entire basement full of Carolina gear and memorabilia, including some beautiful carolina blue seats from Carmichael Auditorium, can’t understand, or even fathom, this.
So about the game – as anyone that was reading my stuff back in March will tell you, I do not like Rick Barnes at all…and I am not crazy about Roy Williams, either.
Here is my main problem with both these guys, and lots of other guys as well – they almost never win a game they are supposed to lose. To me, that should be the single most important factor when measuring greatness in a college basketball coach. Anyway, Barnes and Williams are horrible at it. They win most of the games they are supposed to win, but that is it. On very few occasions have they ever inspired a team to rise up and beat a better team. By the way, other current coaches on this list include Calipari, Pitino, Donovan, Howland, Weber, and about 100 more I don’t have time to name.
Something historically special might happen during this game. Do not miss it.
You have one coach (Williams) that is notorious for losing every game he is supposed to lose, and another coach who has a horrible track record coaching in big games. Did I mention that both teams are ranked in the top 10 and that the game is taking place in Jerry Jones’ new football stadium?
It’s tough for me to say, but I think Williams’ near 100% success rate at losing when he is the underdog will supercede Barnes’ penchant for losing big games.
But you definitely want to be watching this one. These are two really good teams that should get up for the challenge and show their skill. Then, when you account for the fact that both coaches might be trying to give the game away, it should be riveting right until the end.
I think there are only 2 options: Carolina in a squeaker, or Texas in a route. You know Barnes will absolutely self destruct trying to coach his way to winning a tight game with this much hype around it. But I think Texas just has some freakishly good athletes and they are going to physically bully Carolina…I mean “knock them down and take their lunch money” kind of a bully. Games like this should go a long way toward toughening up Ed Davis and Tyler Zeller, so it’s not all bad news for my fellow Tar Heels fans. If those two guys can keep progressing and both stay in school, there might be another historically great team wearing Carolina Blue in the next couple of years.
When you factor in 2005 and 2009, that would have to be just about the best 10-year span in college hoops history that did not involve John Wooden, right?
Enjoy your day. I am hunting in a snowstorm, just about my favorite thing in the world that does not involve my wife and/or kids, so I know I will enjoy mine.
Since I might not get to blog about it beforehand, here is tonight’s NFL pick. Gimme Dallas at +8 …and they won’t need any of the 8. Just a hunch – Dallas wins outright.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I have basically said what I thought I needed to say about this year’s tournament, but as I was going back over my notes, there are a few things that have not made it to the blog yet, so I thought I would throw one more article out there.  How’s that for a short intro…no B.S.  Here are the final thoughts:

1.  I Think Gus Johnson’s Act is Getting Tired Already.  For starters, I love Gus Johnson.  When he is doing a game, and it is getting more and more exciting with each passing moment, and he is getting more and more out of control with each passing moment…it probably does not get any better than that in the current sports landscape.  But Gus, can you please reserve that kind of behavior only for moments that deserve it?  When a team trailing by 19 goes on a 5-0 run to cut the lead to 14 points with the other team’s 2 best players on the bench, we don’t need you acting like something exciting is happening, or even ABOUT to happen.  Seriously, doing that kind of thing is not only starting to cheapen what you bring to the table, it is starting to grate against people.

2.  Roy Williams is a Solid Division I Men’s Basketball Coach.  That’s it.  Sorry, but that’s all you get from me, Roy.  You had a team with a legitimate shot at being one of the truly special teams in NCAA history, and you coached them to losses against Boston College, Wake Forest and Maryland.  Granted, you had a little bad luck with Marcus Ginyard going down for the year and with Tyler Zeller being an absolute moron, but you absolutely do not get a free pass for losing to those 3 teams when they don’t even have one player that can start for your team.  You will notice that I have given you a free pass for losing to BC in the ACC Tournament, because Ty Lawson was a spectator and you had already pissed away any chance at real greatness your team had.  Don’t get me wrong, as a huge Tar Heels fan, I like that Roy has kept the magic going…I like the recruits he keeps getting (although an argument could be made that Dean Smith is about 95% responsible for every recruit that comes to Carolina)…and I like the assistant coaches he is able to attract.  But I have never, not one single time in his entire tenure in Chapel Hill, seen him elevate a team beyond its potential.  Not once was there a Tar Heel team that we thought had Sweet Sixteen potential and he took them to the Final Four.  Sure, it’s kind of difficult when you have Final Four potential just about every year, but can we please stop treating this guy like he is one of the top coaches ever?  He just took a team that could have easily been regarded as one of the best 3 or 4 teams in NCAA history and turned them into just another National Champion.

3.  I am Starting to Turn the Corner on Tom Izzo.  Michigan State exceeded their ceiling under the guidance of Tom Izzo.  The mere fact that this happened during the 2008-2009 season puts Tom Izzo on a better “historically great” footing than Roy Williams.  I think Izzo might just be the real deal.  Anyone who has been following the blog knows that in order for me to think a coach is the real deal, he has to elevate his team on a regular basis…not merely meet expectations but exceed them.  And that is EXACTLY what Michigan State did this year.  I am not ready to put Izzo up there with the all-timers yet, but I am suitably impressed with his coaching this year.  To add to his legacy even more, some of his former assistants are starting to make some noise.  Look at what Tom Crean has done and continues to do.  Everyone knew it was going to be a down year for Indiana, but no one knew how bad until the roster started to take shape…a member of the Indiana baseball team, an equipment manager, and a couple of guys that I think I recognized from my local pickup game Sunday mornings at the Indy JCC were all getting minutes as the season progressed.  That team went 1-17 in conference and was competitive in a lot of those games, and they never quit or gave up on one single game along the way.  Crean is a good one…and if he continues to coach his players to exceed their capabilities year after year, he will one day be mentioned with the all-time greats, like I think his mentor Tom Izzo might be as well, based on his performance and the performance of his team this year.

That’s it.  Just a few thoughts that were swimming around my head at one point during the last few weeks of the college basketball season, at least enough so that I thought enough to write them down.

There you have it.  My NCAA notepad for the 2008-2009 season is officially empty.  Well, I think I feel a blog post coming on that is kind of a cautionary tale to Kentucky about their recent hire.  They can ill afford any kind of violation or investigation, and the NCAA is going to send a message very soon that they are going to come down hard on people that bend the rules.

Popularity: 31% [?]

We Have Seen This Kind of Thing Before. The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament is beginning to look an awful lot like the NFL in the early 1990s.  Back then, you just knew that one of a handful of teams was going to taking home the hardware every year:  San Francisco, Any Team in the NFC East Not Named Philly or Phoenix (read HERE for more info), Green Bay, Buffalo, Houston or Pittsburgh.  They were the teams that had the best chance to win because they spent the most money.  Well, it’s kind of like that in college hoops right now…in fact, it has been that way for a good long time.  In fact, let’s look at the most valuable college basketball programs, according to Forbes Magazine.

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 34% [?]

First of all, thanks to John Calipari pulling a Brett Favre for a couple of days, I had to delay this blog post.  As any of you regular readers know, I am a huge fan of the “Random Thoughts” format, as that ensures that I only need to come up with a paragraph or two for each subject, instead of a whole post.  Truth be told, there are at least a couple of things that should warrant their own post, and when appropriate, I have so designated within this post.

Without further ado, here are the random thoughts:

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 41% [?]