(16) Arkansas-Little Rock vs (16) UNC-Asheville
My pick: UNC-Asheville
Little Rock was a middle of the pack team in the Sun Belt this season, finishing at 7-9 in conference, but beat 4 teams that they were a combined 1-5 against in the regular season to win the Sun Belt tournament. UA-LR only played 1 game against a major conference team this season, an 84-70 loss at Ole Miss in December, and their best win was at home against Tulsa 4 days later. Basically, they were appropriately seeded here as a 16 seed in the play-in game. They do present an interesting case because they led the Sun Belt in three-point shooting percentage (12th nationally, out of 345), but ranked dead last in the Sun Belt, and 12th to last nationally, in two-point shooting percentage. Little Rock's two-point percent (42.1) was a mere 2.4 percentage points better than its three-point percent (39.7), the closest margin in Division 1 basketball. And despite that, only 31.7 percent of their field goal attempts were threes, ranking in the bottom half of the country. UNC-Asheville, on the other hand, is a bad 3-point shooting team (32.9%) that doesn't take very many of them (26.2%, 314th). However, despite winning a similarly-rated conference (Big South), Asheville was a much better team during the regular season. The Bulldogs still had to pull off an upset over Coastal Carolina to win their tournament, but they did finish 11-7 in conference and have a top 100 defense according to Ken Pomeroy's efficiency ratings, thanks in large part to their ability to force turnovers. As far as 16 seed play-in games go, this seems like a pretty big mismatch; Asheville should be able to shut down Little Rock's offense and score enough to win by a comfortable margin.
(12) Clemson vs (12) UAB
My pick: Clemson
I'm not going to lie, I wanted to pick UAB for this game. I wanted the Blazers to show that Clemson did not belong in the tournament. The Tigers' only win over a tournament team in conference was at home against Florida State, their best non-conference win was a neutral-site victory in overtime against Seton Hall without Jeremy Hazell, and they had bad losses to Virginia, NC State, and South Carolina. But I had to admit to myself that UAB is a worse team that had even less reason to make the tournament. They also beat only one tournament team, VCU at home, and didn't have any other victories of note. Clemson's biggest weakness is being forced into turnovers on offense, and UAB is not particularly good at exploiting that. Clemson will be able to ride their defense to a victory over UAB and a date with West Virginia in the true first round of the tournament.
Showing posts with label ncaab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ncaab. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Butler Beats Xavier
I suppose the game doesn't need any more controversy, after what happened with the timing, but I was watching and I noticed that Willie Veasley may have traveled. Now, the fact that I can't tell even after watching multiple replays, probably means I shouldn't bother bringing it up, but that's really what this blog is for: us to write about things that interest us. And this interests me.
If you don't know what happened, you can read the recap and then watch this video to see that it seems like they got the timing question right. (Crib notes version: a Butler player made a layup with just over a second left, but the officials determined the clock had stopped at one point and would have run out between when the ball left the player's hands and when it went through the hoop, if not for the malfunction.)
With just about 4 seconds left, there's a loose ball rebound that Willie Veasley and Gordon Heyward (both from Butler) and a Xavier player scramble after. Veasley gets control of it, but then stands up. The question I have is: was his knee still on the ground when he got control of the ball? (Never mind that it appears as if he rips the Xavier player's arm off to get the ball. That's really speculation, because from the only angle I've seen, it's really impossible to tell where Veasley and the Xavier player's arms are. But that's what it seems like happened to me.)
These pictures, while blurry, show him holding the ball with his knee on the ground. Still, though, the question is, was he bringing it in to get control as he stood up or did he already have control? You'll have to watch the video to understand the pictures, but combined they help with the answer.
Now, I'm again going to ignore a possible foul, this time the fact that the Xavier player then appears to pull Veasley down by his shirt. My second question is, what would have happened if Heyward had shot with, say 0.5 seconds left? Then, after looking at the clock, the officials would have had to say that it didn't count and Butler had lost, because of the inadvertent 1.2-or-so second stoppage. Right? It seems like, as much of a controversy as this was, that would have been exponentially worse.
What do you think about the situation?
If you don't know what happened, you can read the recap and then watch this video to see that it seems like they got the timing question right. (Crib notes version: a Butler player made a layup with just over a second left, but the officials determined the clock had stopped at one point and would have run out between when the ball left the player's hands and when it went through the hoop, if not for the malfunction.)
With just about 4 seconds left, there's a loose ball rebound that Willie Veasley and Gordon Heyward (both from Butler) and a Xavier player scramble after. Veasley gets control of it, but then stands up. The question I have is: was his knee still on the ground when he got control of the ball? (Never mind that it appears as if he rips the Xavier player's arm off to get the ball. That's really speculation, because from the only angle I've seen, it's really impossible to tell where Veasley and the Xavier player's arms are. But that's what it seems like happened to me.)
These pictures, while blurry, show him holding the ball with his knee on the ground. Still, though, the question is, was he bringing it in to get control as he stood up or did he already have control? You'll have to watch the video to understand the pictures, but combined they help with the answer.
Now, I'm again going to ignore a possible foul, this time the fact that the Xavier player then appears to pull Veasley down by his shirt. My second question is, what would have happened if Heyward had shot with, say 0.5 seconds left? Then, after looking at the clock, the officials would have had to say that it didn't count and Butler had lost, because of the inadvertent 1.2-or-so second stoppage. Right? It seems like, as much of a controversy as this was, that would have been exponentially worse.
What do you think about the situation?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Bracket Pool Update
After leading after the first two days of the tournament, Tanya's remarkable Cinderella run finally came crashing down when teams like Wake Forest and Boston College went down early. Her best possible score now stands 10 less than anyone else's, despite her decent 6th place standing at the moment. Cortne and Carly lead the way after the first weekend, while Ryan and Barack surprisingly sit in the basement of the standings.
Group Standings
Name Score Best Possible
1 Cortne 38 70
2 Carly 37 66
3 Paul 36 68
4 Mike 35 64
4 Wendy 35 67
6 Tanya 34 53
7 Barack 32 64
8 Ryan 31 63
Group Standings
Name Score Best Possible
1 Cortne 38 70
2 Carly 37 66
3 Paul 36 68
4 Mike 35 64
4 Wendy 35 67
6 Tanya 34 53
7 Barack 32 64
8 Ryan 31 63
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
March Madness
It's only about 15 hours until the beginning of the tournament, and the first region took way too long, so I'm not going to post breakdowns of all my other picks, but I will show them. And I changed my mind about the East Region, I now have Pittsburgh beating UCLA and making the Final Four.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Bracket Breakdown: East Region
Before games start on Thursday, I'll be posting my breakdowns and picks for each region of the NCAA tournament. Today, I'll start with the East Region:
(6) Georgetown at (3) Baylor- Georgetown plays its first round game of the NIT on Wednesday at 9 on ESPN2. Go Hoyas! And now on to the real bracket.
Round 1:
(1) Pittsburgh over (16) East Tennessee State
Does this really need explaining?
(9) Tennessee over (8) Oklahoma
You would be hard pressed to find two more statistically similar teams matched up in this tournament. The teams are ranked back-to-back in Ken Pomeroy's ratings (32nd and 33rd) and in adjusted offensive efficiency (16th and 17th), and are just one apart in adjusted defensive efficiency (71st and 73rd). I haven't seen Oklahoma State play at all this season, and have only seen Tennessee once, in their win against Georgetown back in November. In an especially take 8-9 matchup, I'll take the Volunteers.
(12) Wisconsin over (5) Florida State
Wisconsin snuck into the tournament despite a six game losing streak in January and once again brings its typical plodding pace to the tournament. The Badgers rank in the top 10 nationally in not turning the ball over, which is the opposite of the turnover-prone Seminoles. Florida State's size and top 15 defense should bother the Badgers' efficient offense, but I think Florida State is getting the typical ACC bump both in its hype and seeding, and I'm making Wisconsin my upset pick in the East region.
(4) Xavier over (13) Portland State
Xavier had a couple of surprising losses (Charlotte, Richmond) near the end of the season, but this team should still have no problem with the Big Sky champions.
(6) UCLA over (11) Virginia Commonwealth
Coming off its upset of Duke a couple years ago, VCU is a very popular upset pick this year. However, UCLA brings one of the top offenses in the country that ranks 6th in effective FG% in the country. And, a look at VCU's schedule shows a team that has played absolutely nobody. They beat only one top 70 opponent (New Mexico back in November), and lost to 5 teams ranked outside the top 100, including three outside the top 200.
(3) Villanova over (14) American
Villanova is a very solid and balanced team that rates well in every major offensive and defensive category. On the year, they beat every team they were supposed to, with the worst of their seven losses coming at home to 26th ranked Georgetown, while also picking up good wins against Pittsburgh, Syracuse twice, and Marquette twice. If that's not enough, Nova will actually be playing on one of its homecourts in Philadelphia, so, despite the Eagles' experience, the Wildcats will win this one.
(7) Texas over (10) Minnesota
Minnesota is a team that struggles on offense and tries to make up for it on defense, as it ranks 20th overall and first in block percentage. On offense, the Gophers have a poor effective field goal % for a tournament team, and commit a huge amount of turnovers. They shoot three pointers especially poorly and do not get to the foul line often. However, Texas has many of the same offensive problems and actually shoots the ball even worse. They do have six wins against tournament teams, though, including UCLA and Villanova, and I give them the edge.
(2) Duke over (15) Binghamton
After just missing out on my Belmont pick over Duke last year, I really want to take Binghamton this year. However, this Duke team is more deserving of its seed than teams in years past both based on statistics and the times I've watched them, so I'm going to use common sense and take the Blue Devils in round one. Duke has a top 20 offense and defense this year, and a team like that just should not lose to Binghamton, which is ranked 162nd and has played two games against teams inside the top 100 this year.
Round 2:
(1) Pittsburgh over (9) Tennessee
I love Pittsburgh as a team, but eventually in the tournament they will run into a referee who calls the game too closely for their style, and they'll be lost without DeJuan Blair. However, this will not be that game; the top offensive rebounding team in the country will dominate on the inside and move on to the Sweet 16.
(4) Xavier over (12) Wisconsin
Xavier is another team with the size and good defense to bother Wisconsin, and this time the Badgers won't be able to handle Xavier, which rebounds the ball much better than Florida State.
(6) UCLA over (3) Villanova
UCLA is an underrated team, and the matchup against Villanova is a good one for them. Their main weaknesses are a lack of height and a failure to guard the three-point line, but Villanova with its three guard set and 33.9% three point shooting will not bother UCLA in those aspects. Also, Darren Collison is a great defender, and if matched up against Scottie Reynolds, I would not be surprised to see him shoot the Wildcats out of the game.
(2) Duke over (7) Texas
I wish I could pick against Duke, but going with my head, they are the logical pick here. Texas is not that good of a team, and for once, as I mentioned before, Duke is actually deserving of its high ranking.
Sweet Sixteen:
(1) Pittsburgh over (4) Xavier
Pittsburgh just might be the best team in the country when Blair is on the court. And I don't see him getting into foul trouble yet.
(6) UCLA over (2) Duke
I've picked Duke too many times already. And this one is close enough for me to finally knock them out.
Elite Eight:
(6) UCLA over (1) Pittsburgh
This pick doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me, but I'm picking the Bruins to continue their Final Four run. The experienced Bruins will go after Blair and get him in foul trouble. If that doesn't happen, it will be tough for the Bruins to control the Panthers' offensive rebounding, but I'm still going to pick UCLA.
(6) Georgetown at (3) Baylor- Georgetown plays its first round game of the NIT on Wednesday at 9 on ESPN2. Go Hoyas! And now on to the real bracket.
Round 1:
(1) Pittsburgh over (16) East Tennessee State
Does this really need explaining?
(9) Tennessee over (8) Oklahoma
You would be hard pressed to find two more statistically similar teams matched up in this tournament. The teams are ranked back-to-back in Ken Pomeroy's ratings (32nd and 33rd) and in adjusted offensive efficiency (16th and 17th), and are just one apart in adjusted defensive efficiency (71st and 73rd). I haven't seen Oklahoma State play at all this season, and have only seen Tennessee once, in their win against Georgetown back in November. In an especially take 8-9 matchup, I'll take the Volunteers.
(12) Wisconsin over (5) Florida State
Wisconsin snuck into the tournament despite a six game losing streak in January and once again brings its typical plodding pace to the tournament. The Badgers rank in the top 10 nationally in not turning the ball over, which is the opposite of the turnover-prone Seminoles. Florida State's size and top 15 defense should bother the Badgers' efficient offense, but I think Florida State is getting the typical ACC bump both in its hype and seeding, and I'm making Wisconsin my upset pick in the East region.
(4) Xavier over (13) Portland State
Xavier had a couple of surprising losses (Charlotte, Richmond) near the end of the season, but this team should still have no problem with the Big Sky champions.
(6) UCLA over (11) Virginia Commonwealth
Coming off its upset of Duke a couple years ago, VCU is a very popular upset pick this year. However, UCLA brings one of the top offenses in the country that ranks 6th in effective FG% in the country. And, a look at VCU's schedule shows a team that has played absolutely nobody. They beat only one top 70 opponent (New Mexico back in November), and lost to 5 teams ranked outside the top 100, including three outside the top 200.
(3) Villanova over (14) American
Villanova is a very solid and balanced team that rates well in every major offensive and defensive category. On the year, they beat every team they were supposed to, with the worst of their seven losses coming at home to 26th ranked Georgetown, while also picking up good wins against Pittsburgh, Syracuse twice, and Marquette twice. If that's not enough, Nova will actually be playing on one of its homecourts in Philadelphia, so, despite the Eagles' experience, the Wildcats will win this one.
(7) Texas over (10) Minnesota
Minnesota is a team that struggles on offense and tries to make up for it on defense, as it ranks 20th overall and first in block percentage. On offense, the Gophers have a poor effective field goal % for a tournament team, and commit a huge amount of turnovers. They shoot three pointers especially poorly and do not get to the foul line often. However, Texas has many of the same offensive problems and actually shoots the ball even worse. They do have six wins against tournament teams, though, including UCLA and Villanova, and I give them the edge.
(2) Duke over (15) Binghamton
After just missing out on my Belmont pick over Duke last year, I really want to take Binghamton this year. However, this Duke team is more deserving of its seed than teams in years past both based on statistics and the times I've watched them, so I'm going to use common sense and take the Blue Devils in round one. Duke has a top 20 offense and defense this year, and a team like that just should not lose to Binghamton, which is ranked 162nd and has played two games against teams inside the top 100 this year.
Round 2:
(1) Pittsburgh over (9) Tennessee
I love Pittsburgh as a team, but eventually in the tournament they will run into a referee who calls the game too closely for their style, and they'll be lost without DeJuan Blair. However, this will not be that game; the top offensive rebounding team in the country will dominate on the inside and move on to the Sweet 16.
(4) Xavier over (12) Wisconsin
Xavier is another team with the size and good defense to bother Wisconsin, and this time the Badgers won't be able to handle Xavier, which rebounds the ball much better than Florida State.
(6) UCLA over (3) Villanova
UCLA is an underrated team, and the matchup against Villanova is a good one for them. Their main weaknesses are a lack of height and a failure to guard the three-point line, but Villanova with its three guard set and 33.9% three point shooting will not bother UCLA in those aspects. Also, Darren Collison is a great defender, and if matched up against Scottie Reynolds, I would not be surprised to see him shoot the Wildcats out of the game.
(2) Duke over (7) Texas
I wish I could pick against Duke, but going with my head, they are the logical pick here. Texas is not that good of a team, and for once, as I mentioned before, Duke is actually deserving of its high ranking.
Sweet Sixteen:
(1) Pittsburgh over (4) Xavier
Pittsburgh just might be the best team in the country when Blair is on the court. And I don't see him getting into foul trouble yet.
(6) UCLA over (2) Duke
I've picked Duke too many times already. And this one is close enough for me to finally knock them out.
Elite Eight:
(6) UCLA over (1) Pittsburgh
This pick doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me, but I'm picking the Bruins to continue their Final Four run. The experienced Bruins will go after Blair and get him in foul trouble. If that doesn't happen, it will be tough for the Bruins to control the Panthers' offensive rebounding, but I'm still going to pick UCLA.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Virginia Tech
With the brackets revealed tonight, there's obviously a lot to talk about regarding who got in, who didn't, what seed they got, etc. But there's one item that I definitely feel very strongly about: Virginia Tech did not deserve a bid. I'm watching Bracketology on ESPN right now, and all of the analysts seem very adamant that Virginia Tech should be in the tournament, based partially (or maybe mostly) on their "run" in the ACC Conference tournament. What was their "run"? One win over Miami and a well-played loss to North Carolina.
To start, I'm going to list the teams they beat this season, their records, and the conference they play in.
Elon (14-19, Southern)
Eastern Washington (11-19, Big Sky)
UNC-Asheville (23-9, Big South)
UNC-Greensboro (19-12, Southern)
George Washington (9-17, Atlantic 10)
Liberty (16-16, Big South)
Hofstra (12-18, Colonial)
St. John's (11-19, Big East)
Charleston Southern (10-20, Big South)
Maryland (18-14, ACC)
Virginia (15-15, ACC)
Boston College (14-17, ACC)
Florida State (19-14, ACC)
Virginia (15-15, ACC)
Maryland (18-14, ACC)
Georgia Tech (15-17, ACC)
Boston College (14-17, ACC)
Wake Forest (17-13, ACC)
Miami (22-10, ACC)
So what stands out about this list? The fact that one, just one, is an NCAA tournament team, and they are only a #7 seed. Their next best win is either against Florida State or their two against Maryland. What about out of conference? Their best win is... UNC Asheville? UNC Greensboro? St. John's? The point is, who cares?! That's their best win outside of conference?! And, as I said, you look in the ACC and you can see they didn't beat any of the top teams (North Carolina, Duke, or Clemson). All in all, Virginia Tech did not prove, in the least, that they could beat good teams.
Now, how about their losses? Let's take a detailed look at those.
Butler (29-3, Horizon)
Gonzaga (25-7, West Coast)
Penn State (15-16, Big Ten)
Old Dominion (17-15, Colonial)
Wake Forest (17-13, ACC)
Richmond (16-14, Atlantic 10)
Georgia Tech (15-17, ACC)
Duke (27-5, ACC)
NC State (15-16, ACC)
Miami (22-10, ACC)
North Carolina (32-2, ACC)
Clemson (24-9, ACC)
North Carolina (32-2, ACC)
Again, what marks this list? Most of them are good teams, which in and of itself is not bad. But what it does show is that Virginia Tech played good NCAA tournament teams and could not beat them (North Carolina twice, Duke, Clemson, Gonzaga, Butler, Miami once), and played bad teams and beat them for the most part. By looking at their specific wins and losses I've concluded that: 1) Virginia Tech's wins were of very low quality and 2) They lost to mostly good teams, but also to some pretty bad ones (Penn State, Old Dominion, Richmond). All of this is supported by a 1-7 record versus the RPI top 50.
Still, that resume isn't awful. They could have a chance to make the tournament. But then I have to look at the other teams they would displace, and the other teams that didn't make it who they would have to be ahead of. Here they are, with their overall records and wins over tournament teams (or ones that just missed) listed.
Oregon: 18-13, Stanford, Arizona State, Arizona twice.
South Alabama: 26-6, Mississippi State.
Saint Mary's: 25-6, Drake, Oregon, Gonzaga.
Arizona: 18-14, Texas A&M, UNLV, USC, Washington State twice.
Kentucky: 18-12, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia twice.
Saint Joseph's: 21-12, Xavier twice, Villanova, Temple, Siena.
Kansas State: 20-11, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas.
Baylor: 21-10, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Mississippi Valley State.
Villanova: 20-12, West Virginia, UConn, Pittsburgh, Temple, George Mason.
Arizona State: 19-12, Xavier, Stanford, USC, Oregon, Arizona twice.
Illinois State: 24-9, none.
VCU: 24-7, none.
Dayton: 21-10, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Temple, Saint Joseph's.
Ole Miss: 21-10, Clemson, South Alabama, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi State.
Ohio State: 19-13, Michigan State, Purdue, UMBC.
From this, we can see that Virginia Tech has among the worst record and the worst quality of wins. All of the power conference teams, which are most comparable, have significantly better wins, while Illinois State, VCU, and South Alabama have much better records. Not only should Virginia Tech not make the tournament, but I would definitely have them behind at least Ole Miss, Arizona State, Ohio State, and Dayton, in addition to all of the teams which actually made it.
But I have yet to address the so-called run Virginia Tech had at the end of season. I'm not sure if the people referring to this are pointing to their last ten games, where they went 5-5, or the ACC tournament, where they finally beat an NCAA team in winning one game and losing another, albeit close. Neither of those stand out and neither pushes Virginia Tech any closer to the tournament after their aforementioned shortcomings. But wait--they were so close against North Carolina. Shouldn't that count for something?
I think this got way too much attention, in part because of Seth Greenberg's animated comments about it after the game. They lost, and that's the end of it. Only in the case of minutely similar cases for inclusion in the tournament should this ever be considered. But let's pretend we are going to look at this. Should we also ignore South Alabama's three-point losses to Vanderbilt and Ole Miss or Villanova's losses to NC State and Georgetown on very questionable foul calls, just to name a few, simply because they weren't on the day before Selection Sunday? No way! So now, if we were to consider these almost wins (AWs), records would have to look like this:
South Alabama: 26-4-2 AW
Virginia Tech: 19-11-2 AW (the second one was last Sunday versus Clemson)
Villanova: 20-10-2 AW
You get the point. This is not a good idea, so throw away the idea of a close loss to North Carolina; it was quite simply another loss for Virginia Tech. I think that this categorically proves why Virginia Tech, despite a solid season, clearly does not deserve to be in the NCAA tournament.
Thanks for reading and sorry for the loooong break. We've both been swamped with work, but now that I'm on break I'll be able to catch up and start writing regular entries, especially once the Twins get their season underway. It's only two weeks away!
To start, I'm going to list the teams they beat this season, their records, and the conference they play in.
Elon (14-19, Southern)
Eastern Washington (11-19, Big Sky)
UNC-Asheville (23-9, Big South)
UNC-Greensboro (19-12, Southern)
George Washington (9-17, Atlantic 10)
Liberty (16-16, Big South)
Hofstra (12-18, Colonial)
St. John's (11-19, Big East)
Charleston Southern (10-20, Big South)
Maryland (18-14, ACC)
Virginia (15-15, ACC)
Boston College (14-17, ACC)
Florida State (19-14, ACC)
Virginia (15-15, ACC)
Maryland (18-14, ACC)
Georgia Tech (15-17, ACC)
Boston College (14-17, ACC)
Wake Forest (17-13, ACC)
Miami (22-10, ACC)
So what stands out about this list? The fact that one, just one, is an NCAA tournament team, and they are only a #7 seed. Their next best win is either against Florida State or their two against Maryland. What about out of conference? Their best win is... UNC Asheville? UNC Greensboro? St. John's? The point is, who cares?! That's their best win outside of conference?! And, as I said, you look in the ACC and you can see they didn't beat any of the top teams (North Carolina, Duke, or Clemson). All in all, Virginia Tech did not prove, in the least, that they could beat good teams.
Now, how about their losses? Let's take a detailed look at those.
Butler (29-3, Horizon)
Gonzaga (25-7, West Coast)
Penn State (15-16, Big Ten)
Old Dominion (17-15, Colonial)
Wake Forest (17-13, ACC)
Richmond (16-14, Atlantic 10)
Georgia Tech (15-17, ACC)
Duke (27-5, ACC)
NC State (15-16, ACC)
Miami (22-10, ACC)
North Carolina (32-2, ACC)
Clemson (24-9, ACC)
North Carolina (32-2, ACC)
Again, what marks this list? Most of them are good teams, which in and of itself is not bad. But what it does show is that Virginia Tech played good NCAA tournament teams and could not beat them (North Carolina twice, Duke, Clemson, Gonzaga, Butler, Miami once), and played bad teams and beat them for the most part. By looking at their specific wins and losses I've concluded that: 1) Virginia Tech's wins were of very low quality and 2) They lost to mostly good teams, but also to some pretty bad ones (Penn State, Old Dominion, Richmond). All of this is supported by a 1-7 record versus the RPI top 50.
Still, that resume isn't awful. They could have a chance to make the tournament. But then I have to look at the other teams they would displace, and the other teams that didn't make it who they would have to be ahead of. Here they are, with their overall records and wins over tournament teams (or ones that just missed) listed.
Oregon: 18-13, Stanford, Arizona State, Arizona twice.
South Alabama: 26-6, Mississippi State.
Saint Mary's: 25-6, Drake, Oregon, Gonzaga.
Arizona: 18-14, Texas A&M, UNLV, USC, Washington State twice.
Kentucky: 18-12, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia twice.
Saint Joseph's: 21-12, Xavier twice, Villanova, Temple, Siena.
Kansas State: 20-11, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas.
Baylor: 21-10, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Mississippi Valley State.
Villanova: 20-12, West Virginia, UConn, Pittsburgh, Temple, George Mason.
Arizona State: 19-12, Xavier, Stanford, USC, Oregon, Arizona twice.
Illinois State: 24-9, none.
VCU: 24-7, none.
Dayton: 21-10, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Temple, Saint Joseph's.
Ole Miss: 21-10, Clemson, South Alabama, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi State.
Ohio State: 19-13, Michigan State, Purdue, UMBC.
From this, we can see that Virginia Tech has among the worst record and the worst quality of wins. All of the power conference teams, which are most comparable, have significantly better wins, while Illinois State, VCU, and South Alabama have much better records. Not only should Virginia Tech not make the tournament, but I would definitely have them behind at least Ole Miss, Arizona State, Ohio State, and Dayton, in addition to all of the teams which actually made it.
But I have yet to address the so-called run Virginia Tech had at the end of season. I'm not sure if the people referring to this are pointing to their last ten games, where they went 5-5, or the ACC tournament, where they finally beat an NCAA team in winning one game and losing another, albeit close. Neither of those stand out and neither pushes Virginia Tech any closer to the tournament after their aforementioned shortcomings. But wait--they were so close against North Carolina. Shouldn't that count for something?
I think this got way too much attention, in part because of Seth Greenberg's animated comments about it after the game. They lost, and that's the end of it. Only in the case of minutely similar cases for inclusion in the tournament should this ever be considered. But let's pretend we are going to look at this. Should we also ignore South Alabama's three-point losses to Vanderbilt and Ole Miss or Villanova's losses to NC State and Georgetown on very questionable foul calls, just to name a few, simply because they weren't on the day before Selection Sunday? No way! So now, if we were to consider these almost wins (AWs), records would have to look like this:
South Alabama: 26-4-2 AW
Virginia Tech: 19-11-2 AW (the second one was last Sunday versus Clemson)
Villanova: 20-10-2 AW
You get the point. This is not a good idea, so throw away the idea of a close loss to North Carolina; it was quite simply another loss for Virginia Tech. I think that this categorically proves why Virginia Tech, despite a solid season, clearly does not deserve to be in the NCAA tournament.
Thanks for reading and sorry for the loooong break. We've both been swamped with work, but now that I'm on break I'll be able to catch up and start writing regular entries, especially once the Twins get their season underway. It's only two weeks away!
Monday, February 11, 2008
53 for 53
Clemson has now traveled to Chapel Hill, North Carolina 53 times... and lost each and every one of those games. It's not even just 53 games in a row, it's 53 losses in 53 tries. They didn't win a game back in 1837 or something; they've simply never won at North Carolina. They have been a perfect 100% at losing. If only they could have done that at the free throw line, where they were 1-7, that might not be true anymore. North Carolina, conversely, made 31 of 36 free throws. So they took 29 more free throws and still missed fewer than Clemson did. But that's neither here nor there, as this got me to thinking about other long losing streaks in sports. Who has shown ineptitude at its finest?
Well, there's been the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who lost 26 games in a row to set the NFL record. But that wasn't just any 26--it was the first 26 games of their existence, including an 0-14 first season. Then there's the Division 1-AA Prairie View A&M Panthers, who managed to pick up right where Columbia had left off. After Columbia finally won in 1988 following a then-record 44 straight losses, Praire View A&M promptly started a losing streak in 1989 that did not end until 1998, adding up to 86 consecutive games. Of course, there is also Cal Tech, whose women's basketball team did not win a conference game for their first five years of existence, and had lost 50 straight overall before winning on January 13th, 2007. However, that was not the longest streak broken at the same school that week; in fact, it wasn't even close. On January 6th, 2007, the men's basketball team won a game over Bard College after 207 consecutive losses! It wasn't all good news, though: the game was non-conference, so their streak of 245 conference losses still stood, as it had for the previous 21 years.
So there are just a few streaks that are glorious for all the wrong reasons. I'm sure there's plenty equally horrific ones I didn't mention, but I just wanted to name a few. Now, imagine you were a fan of one of these teams that went several years without winning a single game.
Well, there's been the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who lost 26 games in a row to set the NFL record. But that wasn't just any 26--it was the first 26 games of their existence, including an 0-14 first season. Then there's the Division 1-AA Prairie View A&M Panthers, who managed to pick up right where Columbia had left off. After Columbia finally won in 1988 following a then-record 44 straight losses, Praire View A&M promptly started a losing streak in 1989 that did not end until 1998, adding up to 86 consecutive games. Of course, there is also Cal Tech, whose women's basketball team did not win a conference game for their first five years of existence, and had lost 50 straight overall before winning on January 13th, 2007. However, that was not the longest streak broken at the same school that week; in fact, it wasn't even close. On January 6th, 2007, the men's basketball team won a game over Bard College after 207 consecutive losses! It wasn't all good news, though: the game was non-conference, so their streak of 245 conference losses still stood, as it had for the previous 21 years.
So there are just a few streaks that are glorious for all the wrong reasons. I'm sure there's plenty equally horrific ones I didn't mention, but I just wanted to name a few. Now, imagine you were a fan of one of these teams that went several years without winning a single game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
