Trent Johnson accepted the head coaching job at TCU this spring, a program transitioning to the Big 12. Johnson previously spent four years at Stanford and four years at LSU. Because the last three years at LSU were less successful, Johnson may have been looking to change jobs before he lost his job. But in looking back at his experience at Stanford and LSU, I am not convinced he was a worse coach at LSU.

The first thing I notice when looking at the players he recruited at both schools is how big a difference one or two players can make. Johnson’s recruiting at LSU was not substantially worse than his recruiting at Stanford, but Johnson was never able to recruit a superstar freshman to LSU of Brook Lopez's caliber. Brook was a high volume, efficient scorer, and the only thing that stopped him from playing more minutes his first season was an early season surgery. But other than Brook Lopez, Johnson hasn’t had any program changing recruits at either school. Anthony Hickey and Robin Lopez were fine freshmen, but they were not truly elite players in their first season.

One place Johnson caught up on recruiting at LSU was in accepting transfers:

In terms of player development, Johnson’s numbers aren’t that different at the two schools. In the next two tables, I look at changes in playing time and efficiency for all returning players. For inherited players, the change in minutes is the difference between the most recent season and the last season under the previous coach. For recruited players, the change in minutes is the difference between the most recent season and the player’s debut season with the team.

I also compare the change in ORtg for the same time period. But since shot volumes can impact efficiency, I adjust this based on the rule that 1% more possession’s used is worth 1.25 points of efficiency. Thus a player that moves from shooting 20% of the time to 24% of the time and keeps the same efficiency tallies a five point increase in his ORtg.

Once again, the player development numbers are not particularly different at the two schools. In both cases, Johnson has been able to take some players who were incredibly inefficient as freshmen (see Mitch Johnson at Stanford and Aaron Dotson at LSU) and turn them into passable major conference players. And plenty of other players from Chris Hernandez to Chris Johnson regressed slightly under Johnson.

So if Johnson was a similar recruiter at the two schools and had similar success at player development, why was his offense so terrible at LSU? There are really two reasons. First, Johnson had substantially more turnover at LSU. Some of that was by design after his recruiting classes flopped miserably, but with little continuity, his players were never put in a position to succeed.

But equally important was the difference in what he inherited. At LSU, Johnson inherited two senior stars (Marcus Thornton and Chris Johnson) and few other efficient players. And once Thornton and Johnson graduated, LSU’s performance fell off a cliff.  But the team he inherited from Mike Montgomery at Stanford was much deeper with efficient players throughout the lineup.

But here is the ultimate problem for Trent Johnson. He does not appear to be recruiting at the level consistent with an NCAA tournament coach. He seems to do a fine job developing players, but he needs to start with good players for that to be an NCAA tournament equation.

And at TCU, despite huge strides in the last year under Jim Christian, there simply isn’t the kind of talent that will typically make the NCAA tournament in a major conference. Even if Johnson does a great job bringing his current players along, that won’t be enough for an NCAA bid. TCU needs a coach who can upgrade the caliber of player in the program, and right now Johnson doesn’t appear to have the track record to do that.

A lot of coaches can make up for a lack of talented offensive players by teaching their players to play elite defense. For example, Bruce Weber and Frank Martin are always going to be on the NCAA tournament bubble by virtue of their defense alone. But Johnson isn’t quite that consistent at teaching defense:

One thing that really seems to make a difference for Johnson’s defensive scheme is having a 7 footer in the middle. His Stanford teams were at their best when they had Brook or Robin Lopez in the middle. And even this year, while Justin Hamilton was not an elite shot-blocker, his size in the middle frustrated numerous LSU opponents. Probably the most likely avenue for Johnson to succeed at TCU will be to find a few more 7 foot post players to anchor his defense, and hope to find a few special offensive players.

Bottom Line

Joining a BCS league can be a recipe for a complete disaster. Last year, Utah had a horrendous season because the caliber of talent on hand was not ready to compete in the Pac-12. (And it was a down year in the Pac-12). I think Johnson is skilled enough to keep TCU from having a disastrous season. He will bring his players along and he now has the experience to motivate players through a difficult season.

But TCU fans will be excited about the jump up to a major conference and expectations will be raised. Johnson won’t be expected to make the NCAA tournament next year, but he will be expected to make the tournament in three or four years. And the historical numbers suggest Johnson will need substantially better recruiting to make that happen.

This spring South Carolina hired Frank Martin and Kansas St. hired Bruce Weber to replace him. I’ve written a lot of words about Martin and Weber in the past. Martin is one of the best coaches at teaching offensive rebounding in the nation. Weber’s teams are constantly competitive but struggle in close games due to an offense that fails to get free throw attempts. Weber’s teams win with some of the best man-to-man defense in the nation. But Frank Martin’s defense is almost equally good. In fact, their tempo free stats were nearly identical at their previous schools:

Martin’s teams were more consistent. His worst team was 44th in the nation in the Pomeroy Rankings, while Weber’s worst team was last year’s Illinois squad which finished 73rd. But Weber’s team achieved a higher peak reaching the national championship in 2005.

Overall these are both incredibly “safe” moves for the two universities to make. Even in their worst seasons, Martin and Weber are going to be in the hunt for an NCAA tournament bid. But what will it take for these coaches to reach a new higher level with their new schools? To answer that question, let’s take a look back.

A Quick Trip Down Memory Lane

First let’s look at how freshmen have performed under each coach. The thing that stands out for Bruce Weber is how terribly inefficient his freshmen have been. This lack of efficiency is startling given the large number of Top 100 recruits Illinois has had on the roster the last few seasons. DJ Richardson had a fabulous freshmen campaign, but over the years, very few of Bruce Weber’s players have been efficient in their first year. (The exceptions tend to be solid three point shooters like Jamar Smith and Tyler Griffey.) Demetri McCamey’s freshmen year was widely praised because of a few huge games, but a 92.7 ORtg while using only 22% of the possessions when on the floor was far from spectacular.

Fr Year = Freshmen Year

PctMin = Percentage of Minutes Played

ORtg = Offensive Rating, Points Produce Per 100 Possessions

PctPoss = Percentage of Possession’s Used when on the Floor

*Bertrand and Carter didn’t even use 25 possessions as freshmen (and Bertrand was a redshirt!)

The next table shows freshmen under Frank Martin. Once again there are a handful of efficient three point shooters (see McGruder and Spradling), but other than Michael Beasley, Frank Martin hasn’t exactly been producing dominant rookies. But the difference between Weber and Martin is that freshmen are rarely horrible under Martin. The lowest ratings under Martin are not nearly as low as the lowest ratings under Weber.

It isn’t about playing time. Martin has given his freshmen more minutes and seen steadier production. And it isn’t all about Michael Beasley. Even without the big man, Martin’s players would be substantially more efficient and earn more minutes on average.

I think the key is style of play. Bruce Weber’s runs a precision shooting-based offense, and few first-year players have the skill set to pull it off. Meanwhile Frank Martin often gets players to fight like crazy for offensive rebounds right off the bat. Frank Martin knows how to teach players a physical style of basketball in a relatively short period of time. And that is great news for South Carolina fans. With a few strong post players, South Carolina can be competitive again in year one.

Though not listed, both coaches gave playing time to seven transfers at their previous school and again Martin’s transfers debuted as the more efficient players. Martin’s incoming transfers played similar minutes to Weber’s transfers, but since Martin has used seven transfers in only five years, Martin obviously recruits and uses transfers more frequently.

Player Development

In the next two tables I look at changes in playing time and efficiency for all returning players. The change in minutes is the difference between the most recent season and the debut season. For inherited players, the change in minutes is the difference between the most recent season and the last season under the previous coach.

I also compare the change in ORtg for the same time period. But since shot volumes can impact efficiency, I adjust this based on the rule that 1% more possession’s used is worth 1.25 points of efficiency. Thus a player that moves from shooting 20% of the time to 24% of the time and keeps the same efficiency tallies a 5 point increase in his ORtg.

I love the table for Bruce Weber because it shows what all college coaches try to do. The seven players with the greatest leaps in minutes played were also among the players with the greatest jumps in efficiency. From Meyers Leonard to Luther Head, the off-season improvement translated into a major increase in playing time.

Meanwhile players that saw their efficiency fall often saw their minutes slip. Nick Smith treaded water on an improving Illinois team and rode the bench. Richard Semrau had medical issues and failed to earn more playing time.

They may have been recruited by Bill Self, but Luther Head, James Augustine, and Deron Williams all improved significantly under Bruce Weber. But Dee Brown’s senior year under Weber was about as effective as his freshmen year under Bill Self. Brown used 5% more possession when on the floor as a senior, but he saw his efficiency fall by almost 7%.

In the next table, I show the player changes for Frank Martin. At first glance, Frank Martin seems to come out ahead of Bruce Weber. After starting at a higher level, Martin’s players show comparable improvements. Even if you throw out Darren Kent, (whose terrible sophomore year under Bob Huggins was more small sample size than anything), the average improvement under Martin is almost as much as the average improvement under Weber.

So what is happening? Why isn’t Martin’s offense substantially superior? If Martin gets substantially better first year performances, and has nearly as many players improve, why isn’t Martin an elite offensive coach? There are really two problems. First, Martin has used more transfers and had more players transfer. That additional roster turnover has meant less time for player development. But the second factor is a little more complex:

The critical fact is that Martin hasn’t been able to assign playing time based on improvement in play.  Rodney McGruder, Dominque Sutton, Fred Brown, and Will Spradling were all solid players as freshmen. They seemed to deserve more playing time as their careers went on. But none of those players took the next step forward. They’ve all earned more minutes because they were good, but no one took the next step and became a superstar.

Instead what you have seen is that the ineffective reserve players have improved under Frank Martin from year-to-year. Backup guard Shane Southwell improved from a horrible to bad passer, and backup guard Martavious Irving improved from a bad to decent three point shooter, but improvements aren’t that critical when they happen for back-up players.

Bottom Line: Bruce Weber’s motion offense takes time. Almost no one steps in and can run it with smooth consistency as a rookie. It doesn’t even matter if you are a top 100 recruit – odds are you will struggle to master the skills in the first year. But Bruce Weber is great at identifying returning players whose skill set has improved and riding those players. From Deron Williams to Warren Carter to Demetri McCamey, Weber always seems to maximize the minutes for his most improved players.

The best thing you can say about Weber is that he usually has the right lineup on the floor. The worst thing you can say is that even with the right lineup, his motion offense often fails. Near the end of his tenure at Illinois, Weber talked about how he was too obsessed with winning now, but that was actually his greatest strength. But rather than wishing that Brandon Paul had been tougher, I think Bruce Weber should look in the mirror and ask a tougher question. If so many players struggle with his “jump-shooting” offense, is it the right offense? Or like John Calipari, should Bruce Weber re-invent his offense to better match the type of personnel he typically manages to recruit?

For Frank Martin, I wouldn’t curse the lack of player development too much. Sometimes getting a player to reach his potential early looks like a lack of player development.  Martin got Dominique Sutton and Rodney McGruder to play well as rookies.  But Sutton was always an under-sized forward, and probably couldn’t get any better in the Big 12. And McGruder was not a consensus Top 100 recruit out of high school (although Rivals and ESPN tagged him as such). McGruder may simply lack the athleticism to become a true college superstar.

But if good players don’t become stars, how can Martin’s team truly compete at the highest level?  The physical offensive play will be enough to make South Carolina relevant again. But Martin had a transcendent college player in Jacob Pullen and he did not make the Final Four or win a Big 12 title. The challenge at South Carolina won’t be winning, but to reach new goals. And it will start by finding a way to develop solid players into efficiency superstars.

Because of the fast pace of both teams, BYU versus Iona has the potential to be one of the most entertaining First Four games of all-time. Also, I am salivating at seeing Missouri’s guards and Florida’s guards potentially clashing in the round of 32. But before I start breaking down the bracket, let’s throw a few quick stats at the wall:

Which Conferences Did the Best?

One thing I like to track during the NCAA tournament is whether conferences are exceeding expectations or falling short. One way to do that is to look at how seeds have performed from 1985 to 2011 and predict an expected number of wins for each conference.

(Note: In all tables I am only counting wins in the Round of 64 and beyond.)

Based on these seed expectations and the seeds received, the Big East should win the most games in the tournament, but the Big Ten is expected to win nearly as many games with three fewer teams.

We can also use this year’s margin-of-victory numbers to form an expectation. In the next table I use Ken Pomeroy’s predicted probabilities. Here we get a slightly different picture. His model expects the Big Ten to win the most games in the tournament, with the ACC earning far fewer wins than their high seeds would indicate:

Team-By-Team

2012 is the year of the clear favorite. It will be virtually impossible for any of the experts who follow college basketball not to pick Kentucky to win the national championship. In terms of the measured statistics like margin-of-victory, in terms of the NBA ready talent on the floor, in terms of 34 games on TV over four months, no one has come close to the Wildcats this season.

But more importantly, there are no clear alternatives to the Wildcats. Again using Ken Pomeroy’s formula, here are the expected wins for each team in the tournament this year:

Rather than showing one clear alternative, the numbers show a great deal of balance between the top seeds.

The Right Side of the Bracket (East and Midwest)

The margin-of-victory crowd is going to love Ohio St., but they might be the only ones. Despite bringing back one of the top post players in the country in Jared Sullinger, one of the top defenders in Aaron Craft, one of the most prolific two-guards in William Buford, and watching Deshaun Thomas emerge into a versatile scoring threat, Ohio St.’s offense has struggled at times this year. Ohio St. has simply not been able to replace the outside shooting of Jon Diebler. And by sharing the Big Ten title and falling to Michigan St. in the conference tournament, very few people are going to be in love with this team. Add in a potential Sweet Sixteen match-up with a Florida St. team that has two wins against Duke and two wins against North Carolina, and Ohio St. will get far less love than these numbers would suggest.

Syracuse is the more traditional favorite, but they are the worst defensive rebounding team in the field, and their offense can look stagnant when they aren’t forcing turnovers. Even a second round match-up against Kansas St. could be a nightmare for Syracuse. Kansas St.’s team is built to crash the glass, and if Angel Rodriguez can simply throw up jump shots (instead of turning the ball over at his normally high rate), Kansas St. might have a chance for an upset.

North Carolina is the choice for people who like NBA talent, but the ACC was so weak this year, the Tar Heels didn’t get their normal share of big games. And when they did play quality teams, they would usually be close. UNC would win 54-51 against Virginia or 69-67 against NC State. Certainly everyone says North Carolina has a lot of NBA ready talent on paper, but unlike Kentucky, it never felt like North Carolina was unbeatable. Ever since the big win over Michigan St. on an aircraft carrier to start the season, they rarely gave off that aura of invincibility. And with John Henson’s injury this weekend, there are additional doubts about the Tar Heels.

If you are scared away by Kentucky’s inexperience, you might like Kansas. The Jayhawks don’t have any amazing freshmen this year because the majority of their recruiting class was declared academically ineligible to start the season. That has left Kansas with a veteran lineup and Bill Self has clearly got the most out of every player on the floor. The once ridiculed Tyshawn Taylor has emerged as a polished superstar and Thomas Robinson emerged into quite possibly the best player in the country.

But when you look at this group of four teams (Syracuse, Ohio St., North Carolina, and Kansas) any honest evaluation would say that it truly is a toss-up. I would unquestionably pick these four teams for the regional finals on that half of the bracket, but I have no idea which of these teams will play in the national title game.

The Left Side of the Bracket (West)

On the other side of the bracket, it is hard not to love what Michigan St. has accomplished this year. But the Spartans got the worst possible second round draw. Memphis has been absolutely demolishing teams lately, winning their last seven games by 18 points or more. Michigan St. may be able to exploit Memphis’ lack of size in the paint better than any team in the nation, but they shouldn’t have to face such a dominant team in the second round. (Oh, and if St. Louis upsets Memphis, they have elite margin-of-victory numbers too.) So even if Michigan St. was a reasonable pick for a deep run based on their performance in the toughest conference in the country this year, the bracket makes the Spartans a very risky bet.

Instead many people will be drawn to the sentimental favorite Missouri. Don’t pick against the Tigers because of their lack of depth. They’ve played smart and avoided foul trouble all year. Don’t pick against the Tigers because of their lack of size. They’ve played bigger teams all year, and they’ve actually struggled more against smaller quicker teams. In fact, I would argue that picking against Missouri is the most unpleasant thing you could possibly do this year. With only 7 scholarship players, this group has developed a type of offensive chemistry that will help you rediscover a love for basketball.

I think part of what made the Missouri offense so good this year was the change of pace. Normally when a player goes to the NBA they realize that the game is much faster. But eventually the game slows down. Well, Missouri is having a slow-down moment. While Missouri still plays at an exceedingly fast-pace relative to most teams, it is much slower than what they played under Mike Anderson. Somehow the game is very calm and controlled for them, while remaining at a fever pitch for opponents.

Ricardo Ratliffe is the perfect example. Teams know that he shoots nearly 70% in the paint so they cannot afford to let him get paint touches, but somehow the Missouri guards are always cutting and using screens and finding a way to get him the ball in scoring position. And Ratliffe probably has the quickest release of any post player in college today. He rarely holds the ball and lets the defense react. He catches the ball and gets it up on the backboard immediately

Having said all that, I’m not in love with Missouri’s draw. Let me get to that:

First, I really like Florida over Virginia. A number of the experts say that Virginia likes to play a pack-line defense and force teams to shoot over the top. Well, Florida is not afraid to shoot over the top. But I actually think that is a little over-rated. Virginia has played the pack-line defense, but still been quick enough to get out on shooters. What concerns me more than anything is how poorly Virginia has played since Assane Sene has gone down. The defense just hasn’t been the same without the 7 footer in the middle, and he is not going to be back for the tournament.

And if Florida advances to face Missouri, that’s a dream match-up on paper. While Missouri has succeeded by playing four guards around Ricardo Ratliffe, that will allow Florida to play four guards around Patric Young. And while Kentucky has almost single-handedly convinced the country that Florida isn’t very good, realistically Florida is almost the mirror-image of Missouri. Missouri might be the favorite, but that game would be very close to a toss-up.

And if Missouri faces Marquette in the Sweet Sixteen, Marquette is another team that has the quickness to stay with Missouri. Plus Buzz Williams clearly takes his scouting to another level in the NCAA tournament. Facing his team after a four day break would be a nightmare.

The Left Side of the Bracket (South)

Duke drew the short straw getting placed in the same region as Kentucky. And the Blue Devils were also clearly the least dominant of the 1 and 2 seeds during the regular season. Give Mike Krzyzewski credit for putting together the right non-conference schedule that got Duke the quality wins they need to be a 2-seed, but even the usually Duke-loving Dick Vitale has said that this is not a vintage Duke team. When Vitale says the Blue Devils might lose in the second round of the tournament, you know they have flaws. Now is probably a good time for me to show another Expected Win chart:

Baylor will be the clear pick to upset Duke for some people based on the large amount of NBA talent on their roster. But as an NBA-centered team, they remind me a lot of recent Texas teams under Rick Barnes. Somehow showing off their game for NBA scouts is more important than winning. Baylor proved some skeptics wrong by beating Kansas in the Big 12 tournament, but if Missouri will make you love college basketball, cheering for Baylor will absolutely drive you nuts. You almost have to beg for Perry Jones III to get a post touch, and while Brady Heslip is a great sharp-shooter, he doesn’t seem to have any feel for when to take threes and when to work the offense.

Dark Horses

- I’ve already written at length about how Wisconsin’s numbers are inflated based on crushing a bunch of small teams early in the season. But I do believe the Badgers are dangerous. My main concern with picking them is that at their slow pace, they open up the door to losing any game. Montana is clearly not in Wisconsin’s league, but in a 58 possession game, against a solid Montana defense, the game will probably be close.

- Wichita St. is the most dominant MVC team since Ken Pomeroy began tracking stats, and they have the kind of 7-foot center in Garrett Stutz that a lot of mid-major teams do not. That is why Seth Davis was professing his love for this team on CBS.

- Vanderbilt absolutely has the talent at every position to beat any team in the country. And they should long savor their win over Kentucky in the SEC final. But the main complaint is that the Commodores have failed to play well against weaker teams. With basically the same lineup they’ve lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament in previous years, and they had many games this season where they struggled with weaker opponents. Sure, I’ll believe you if you say they can beat Syracuse. But can they even get to that game?

- Finally, Florida St. is the team that a lot of people are going to be picking based on the ACC tournament title. But again, they have a potential nightmare match-up if they face Cincinnati. The Bearcats are one of the best teams in the country at forcing steals and Florida St.’s biggest weakness is holding on to the ball. Sure, they might be able to beat Ohio St. But can they even get to that game?

Here are more expected wins in the round of 64 and beyond:

- In case it wasn’t clear how terrible the draw is for Memphis and St. Louis. Memphis has the 9th best Pomeroy ranking, but is 22nd in expected wins. St. Louis had the 15th best Pomeroy ranking, but is 39th in expected wins.

- Southern Miss has some of the worst margin-of-victory stats in the field. Don’t pick them to upset Kansas St.

And here is the last of the list:

Parting Thoughts

- Seth Davis said it well at the end of the selection special, the NCAA committee sent a message that non-conference strength-of-schedule matters. That’s why Iona got in ahead of Drexel. And that’s why Missouri was not a #1 seed. A lot of people will argue with that message. What does non-conference strength-of-schedule have to do with evaluating the quality of a team? Isn’t the goal to pick the best teams? But I’ve been watching this show for 20 years, and the committee has always had this emphasis. They want to incentivize teams to play big games early in the season, and whether it is an explicit criteria or not, it is a criteria.

- I still can’t believe Kevin Harlan weaved in a comment about Peyton Manning during the Arizona vs Colorado Pac-12 final. (Yes, Manning probably won’t be choosing between Denver and Arizona based on the outcome of that game.)

- Finally, only Bob Knight could manage to eat an ice cream cone while calling a college basketball game.