The Bulls, Knicks, Warriors and Thunder won their first round series, but fell short of reaching the NBA's Final Four. Each team faces a pivotal offseason with many decisions to consider. Read More. Written by Daniel Leroux on May 21, 2013
The event gives front offices the opportunity to evaluate D-League players with the possibility of offering Summer League or training camp invites. Read More.
Tyus Jones, the No. 2 overall recruit for 2014 and an excellent point guard, was selected by Paul Biancardi, Adam Finkelstein and John Stovall. Read More.
While my preseason projections won’t be available until the end of October, I have cranked out the odds for the holiday tournaments based on my rankings. Today’s column looks at who is likely to win each early season tournament, and what storylines to keep an eye on.
Do not hesitate to print out the tournament brackets and follow along as they happen. It is extremely easy to get busy with the Thanksgiving holidays and miss some of the best games of the season. But if you print out these brackets and fill them in, you won’t miss the upsets. Just click on the handy links throughout this document to find the printable brackets.
I’ve already expressed my doubts about Michigan and my faith in Pittsburgh. But Pitt’s second round opponent will be very dangerous. Both Lehigh (led by NCAA hero CJ McCollum) and Robert Morris (led by super-scorer Velton Jones) have the ability to knock off Pittsburgh. These teams have a real chance to win the Patriot League and Northeast Conference, and this is the type of game that can mean the difference between earning a 15 seed and a 13 seed come March.
OSU’s Jared Cunningham, Alabama’s JaMychal Green, Purdue’s Robbie Hummel, and Villanova’s Maalik Wayns are gone, and those players were not only their team’s leading scorers last season, they were the heart of their respective offenses. Which rebuilding team will forge a new identity first? Because Anthony Grant has become a dominant defensive coach, while Craig Robinson has not, Alabama is the favorite here.
There are some big name conference schools here, but this tournament is a dream for fans of mid-major squads. Murray St. won’t be able to duplicate last year’s 31-2 record, but with superstar point-guard Isaiah Canaan returning, Murray St. should have enough to beat Auburn and St. John’s. In fact, they might even face the College of Charleston in the semifinals. This offseason Charleston added head coach Doug Wojcik, a veteran coach who hasn’t been able to get to the NCAA tournament, but a coach who has consistently built strong defensive teams. If Wojcik can get Charleston to play great defense this season, he has enough returning talent to make a run at an NCAA tournament bid. Andrew Lawrence is clearly Charleston’s best returning offensive player, but the real player to keep an eye on is Adjehi Baru. Baru was ranked 37th in the nation out of high school and is one of the highest ranked recruits to ever attend Charleston. And while Baru was a nice complimentary player as a freshman last season, it will be very interesting to see if he can break out as a sophomore.
Of course the clear favorite here is Baylor. Baylor may have lost some key post players to graduation and the NBA, but they have plenty of incoming talent. This will be our first chance to see the highly acclaimed 7’1” freshman Isaiah Austin in action.
Oklahoma St.’s odds aren’t poor because Oklahoma St. is a bad team. The Cowboys add Top 10 freshman Marcus Smart alongside former Top 10 recruit LeBryan Nash. That one-two punch will make Oklahoma St. a likely NCAA tournament team this year. But the Cowboys have a terrible tournament draw. First Oklahoma St. has to face Akron. Akron point guard Alex Abreu may be under-sized, but he’s an extremely talented player, and 7 foot center Zeke Marshall could have played for a number of BCS teams. And while the MAC hasn’t had multiple NCAA bids since 1999, Ohio and Akron are strong enough to break that trend.
Meanwhile Tennessee is a heavy favorite to be the second round opponent. Tennessee may have only finished 19-15 last year, but the Vols played substantially better after Jarnell Stokes joined the team mid-season. And with Trae Golden and Jeronne Maymon becoming efficient scorers for head coach Cuonzo Martin, a lot of people have taken notice. Florida head coach Billy Donovan has gone on the record to say that Tennessee is the team to beat in the SEC this season.
And if Oklahoma St. wins that game, they only have to face NC State in the final, the same NC State team that many people have labeled as the ACC favorite. So no, Oklahoma St. isn’t a bad team. But their path to a Puerto Rico tipoff title is brutal.
If you get tired of the sloppy play by all the new players in November, please don’t miss Notre Dame vs St. Joseph’s in the first round of the Coaches vs Cancer tournament. Both teams return all five starters from last season and have plenty of offensive stars. I’m going to keep writing about the shot-blocking CJ Aiken, super-slasher Carl Jones, and the super-efficient Langston Galloway until St. Joe’s gets more love, but this four team field is wide open.
Notre Dame is the favorite, but I do have one question for Irish fans. Given Scott Martin’s middling efficiency numbers in his career, was it a good thing that the NCAA granted him an additional year of eligibility? Martin made just 26% of his threes and 40% of his twos last year, and while injuries may have contributed to that, it is clear he wasn’t an elite player last year.
Despite a host of mid-major schools, this tournament looks very dull. Mercer and Iona might compete for the ASun and MAAC titles this year, but neither looks like a likely at-large bid.
And still Connecticut’s tournament odds are not great. First NCAA tournament sanctions led to a host of transfers this off-season. Then the Huskies lost Jim Calhoun to retirement. And as we’ve seen in recent seasons, UConn has been a different team when Calhoun is out. He’s a special coach who can elevate the level of his players, and he will not easily be replaced.
Steve Alford’s team might actually be a little better on offense this season. The team loses Drew Gordon at the forward position, but New Mexico also loses AJ Hardeman. And as great an offensive player as Gordon was, Hardeman was a black hole on offense. With Alex Kirk returning from injury to provide that shot-blocking presence in the paint, and all the returning talent at the guard spots, New Mexico deserves more preseason praise.
Washington’s Abdul Gaddy has had an injury filled career, but with Tony Wroten leaving early for the draft, this is Gaddy’s team. The senior point-guard will have to integrate some new pieces throughout the Washington lineup. Seton Hall will have a number of new faces as well, including Georgia Tech transfer Brian Oliver and Southern Illinois transfer Gene Teague. Realistically, the winner of this game will probably be headed to the NIT, but a win against Ohio St. would be a fantastic notch on any NCAA resume. While Ohio St. is the clear favorite thanks to the efficient high volume shooter DeShaun Thomas, there are questions about how the Buckeyes offense will run without Jared Sullinger.
The older I get, the more I see that one of the things I love most about sports is the variety of it, the diversity of it and the CHARACTERS. Men’s tennis is at its best in many years because, for the first time in a long time, the top three or four players all have wildly different styles. The Tim Tebow story was fun on so many levels, but one of those levels was that he was just SO DIFFERENT in how he played — I’d say we are entering a great time for quarterbacks, because Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers and Eli Manning and Drew Brees and Michael Vick and Cam Newton and Tebow and others are not really alike at all.
As a basketball fan, I’ve never understood the division that exists between fans of the NBA and the NCAA. While the NBA has the best basketball players in the world, March Madness is compelling in its own right and as entertaining as anything that happens on the professional level.
In the NBA, the owners of the 30 franchises consider turning a profit and getting an equal shot at the top players a right, regardless of how well (or how poorly) they run their organization and the respective size of their fan-bases. Since every losing team is a few ping pong balls from the rights to a LeBron James, Kevin Durant or Dwight Howard, personnel determines scheme in the NBA.
In contrast, the vast majority of the 344 Division I programs in college basketball have little chance of ever receiving a commitment from a McDonald’s All-American. But instead of petulantly trying to sabotage the sport in a misguided effort to legislate fairness, schools try many creative ways of leveraging the talents of the players they can recruit. As a result, scheme determines personnel in the NCAA.
At Syracuse, Jim Boeheim has made a Hall of Fame career out of running a contrarian scheme, in his case an aggressive 2-3 zone. The Orange traditionally have rosters full of “1.5’s”, 6’3+ combo guards lacking the quickness to defend elite PG’s and the size to defend SG’s, and “3.5’s”, 6’8+ combo forwards lacking the quickness to defend elite SF’s and the size to defend PF’s. However, because Syracuse never plays man defense, the athletic deficiencies of their players are minimized.
So while nearly every NBA team runs a fairly similar system of isolations, pick-and-rolls and man defense, an incredibly diverse array of styles can be found in the college game. On one end of the spectrum, teams like Missouri play four guards and pressure the ball 94 feet for 48 minutes, on the other, teams like Wisconsin run a deliberate motion offense, trying to minimize the number of possessions and shoot at the very end of the shot-clock.
In the NBA, the players are too good for the “40 Minutes of Hell” system (which Mike Anderson has brought to Missouri and Arkansas in the last few years) to be successful. Like Mike Leach’s bizarre pass-happy offense in college football, Anderson’s system, which he learned as a member of Nolan Richardson’s staff in Arkansas in the 1990’s, has philosophical holes that professional athletes can exploit. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make them any less entertaining on the collegiate level.
And with 68 teams set to compete in the NCAA Tournament, there are a lot more surprises in the college game. Even programs ranked in the top-15 like Murray State have barely been on national TV this season.
We have a pretty good idea of how teams like the Pacers and the 76ers match up with the top of the Eastern Conference but not whether an undersized Murray State squad can handle the size of an elite team from a Power Six conference. It’s an open question how Isaiah Canaan’s speed and athleticism translates outside of the Ohio Valley Conference. Non-conference play in college basketball generally ends in late December, so it’s almost impossible to gauge how younger teams like Texas, Washington and Tennessee who have found their groove in the last two months will fare in March.
In the NBA, it’s hard to envision a scenario where Chicago, Miami and Oklahoma City aren’t three of the final four teams left in the playoffs. In the NCAA, as many as two dozen teams have a legitimate shot at making a run at the Final Four.
Of course, in terms of entertainment, none of this makes the NCAA necessarily better or worse than the NBA, just different. But, as Posnanski writes, there’s something to be said for the concept of “different” in the modern sports world. Basketball fans of all stripes should enjoy March Madness; the NBA will still be here in a few weeks.
I used to love to mock McDonald’s All-Americans who were busts in college. But over time I realized how much noise there is in the recruiting rankings. Outside the top-10, players are rarely a sure thing. A few years ago Steward Mandel asked a more provocative question about the recruiting rankings. He asked whether Duke was really getting elite players, or whether Blue Devils recruits only earned their ranking because they had a scholarship offer from Mike Krzyzewski.
Last fall, I came up with a new methodology to address this question. Using player data I looked to see which coach’s recruits have performed at the highest level. And then I looked to see which coach’s players developed the most over their careers. I am now launching the second version of those rankings that includes several important improvements.
- I now include data from the 2011-12 season. There are now 10 years of data in my analysis.
- I now control for shot volume. Last fall North Carolina’s recruits looked inefficient relative to Notre Dame’s recruits because Roy Williams allows his first year players take a high volume of shots while Mike Brey does not. I use the 1 to 1.25 ratio often cited by NBA folks as the proper tradeoff for shot-volume and efficiency.
- I now group freshmen recruits and transfers into the same recruiting category. When I presented the numbers last fall, Stan Heath looked like he was great at player development because his juniors far out-shined his freshmen. But many of his juniors were transfers, not returning players. Thus I now group transfers in with freshmen recruits. (See Recruiting Rank in the table.)
- Of course, if you group freshmen and transfers, then transfer-dominated teams will fly up the recruiting rankings. So I equalize the value of recruits based on the average development between freshmen and junior year. (Or senior year if appropriate, although transfers disproportionately join teams as juniors.)
- Next, I solve what I like to call the Frank Haith dilemma. A number of people have said you can’t evaluate Frank Haith this season because he inherited Mike Anderson’s players. But when you have 10 years of player data at your fingertips as I do, it is pretty easy. For a typical coach with Missouri’s returning roster, average player efficiency would jump by 3.6. But under Frank Haith, average player efficiency has jumped 8.6 points. That may not prove Frank Haith is the right choice in the long-run, but for this season he has more than doubled the player development of an average coach.
In general, instead of looking at the current rating, I now evaluate the average improvement of returning sophomores, returning juniors, and returning seniors. Instead of the current efficiency, I look at the change in efficiency. For those of you that feel that Bruce Weber only went to the Final Four because he had Bill Self’s players, the rankings now reflect that. To the extent Bruce Weber transformed Luther Head into an efficient senior, he gets credit. But to the extent that Roger Powell was already an efficient post player, Weber does not get credit.
- I examine sophomores, juniors and seniors separately because sophomores tend to develop at a much more rapid rate. Then I calculate the three-year player development total, the sum of the development for returning sophomores, returning juniors, and returning seniors for each coach. (See Development Rank in the table.)
- Because a change in a starter’s efficiency is much more important than a change in a bench player’s efficiency, all figures are based on a weighted average. Weights are based on the percentage of the team’s total possessions used on the season.
- For the Recruiting Rank, I believe it only makes sense to incorporate the school where the coach is currently employed. Sean Miller gets a different caliber of player at Arizona than he did at Xavier. (See the column Tenure in the table for the number of years at the current school.) But when looking at how Miller develops players, I think we can learn from how he improved players at Xavier too. Thus the Development Rank includes data at all schools that the coach has been at in the last 10 years. (See the column All in the table for the years of player development data.)
- Next, as a hypothetical exercise, I ask what coach would have the most efficient seniors if he recruited freshmen and they stuck around for four years. I take the recruiting rank plus the three-year development rank, and calculate the efficiency of a fourth year player under the coach. (See Overall Rank in the table.) What the table suggests is that if you combined John Calipari’s recruiting with his player development, he would be the top offensive coach in the nation. Of course this is just a hypothetical exercise. John Calipari has not consistently had the top offensive team in the country at Kentucky because of players leaving for the NBA. But for coaches with normal rates of attrition the exercise makes a lot more sense. Andy Kennedy and Leonard Hamilton have been fairly equivalent, but they have succeeded in different ways. Kennedy has built his offense with recruiting while Hamilton has been more effective at developing returning players into stars.
- Finally, very unusual things tend to happen in a coach’s first year with his new team. (Just ask Tom Crean.) Therefore I give 50% less weight to a coach’s first season in a new job. I also only include coaches with at least three years of tenure in the table, and there are 49 of these in the Power 6 conferences.
Coach
Team
Tenure
All
Recruiting
Rank
Development
Rank
Overall
Rank
John Calipari
Kentucky
3
10
1st
35th
1st
Thad Matta
Ohio St.
8
10
3rd
12th
2nd
Bo Ryan
Wisconsin
10
10
17th
2nd
3rd
Mike Krzyzewski
Duke
10
10
4th
18th
4th
John Beilein
Michigan
5
10
14th
8th
5th
Lorenzo Romar
Washington
10
10
19th
4th
6th
Mike Montgomery
California
4
6
25th
5th
7th
Bill Self
Kansas
9
10
7th
21st
8th
Rick Barnes
Texas
10
10
2nd
37th
9th
Jim Boeheim
Syracuse
10
10
6th
29th
10th
Buzz Williams
Marquette
4
5
26th
9th
11th
Ben Howland
UCLA
9
10
12th
25th
12th
Jay Wright
Villanova
10
10
24th
14th
13th
Tom Izzo
Michigan St.
10
10
20th
19th
14th
Roy Williams
N. Carolina
9
10
5th
40th
15th
Jamie Dixon
Pittsburgh
9
9
13th
32nd
16th
Bob Huggins
W. Virginia
5
9
15th
24th
17th
Kevin Stallings
Vanderbilt
10
10
31st
13th
18th
Jim Calhoun
Connecticut
10
10
18th
26th
19th
Mike Brey
Notre Dame
10
10
10th
38th
20th
Sean Miller
Arizona
3
8
29th
17th
21st
Billy Donovan
Florida
10
10
8th
43rd
22nd
Frank Martin
Kansas St.
5
5
9th
45th
23rd
John Thompson
Georgetown
8
10
22nd
27th
24th
Tony Bennett
Virginia
3
6
33rd
15th
25th
Travis Ford
Okl. St.
4
10
38th
7th
26th
Tubby Smith
Minnesota
5
10
32nd
16th
27th
Matt Painter
Purdue
7
8
37th
10th
28th
Mark Fox
Georgia
3
8
47th
1st
29th
Craig Robinson
Oregon St.
4
6
46th
3rd
30th
Herb Sendek
Arizona St.
6
10
28th
31st
31st
Tom Crean
Indiana
4
10
27th
34th
32nd
Andy Kennedy
Mississippi
6
7
16th
44th
33rd
Leonard Hamilton
Florida St.
10
10
43rd
11th
34th
Ken Bone
Wash. St.
3
7
34th
28th
35th
Johnny Dawkins
Stanford
4
4
30th
36th
36th
Rick Pitino
Louisville
10
10
11th
49th
37th
Scott Drew
Baylor
9
10
23rd
46th
38th
Rick Stansbury
Miss. St.
10
10
21st
47th
39th
Seth Greenberg
V. Tech
9
10
42nd
20th
40th
Bruce Weber
Illinois
9
10
40th
22nd
41st
Bill Carmody
Northwestern
10
10
35th
41st
42nd
Trent Johnson
LSU
4
10
45th
23rd
43rd
Kevin O'Neill
USC
3
4
48th
6th
44th
Anthony Grant
Alabama
3
6
41st
33rd
45th
Darrin Horn
S. Carolina
4
9
39th
42nd
46th
Mick Cronin
Cincinnati
6
9
36th
48th
47th
Doc Sadler
Nebraska
6
8
44th
39th
48th
Stan Heath
USF
5
10
49th
30th
49th
- Cal doesn’t exactly have UCLA’s prestige, but Mike Montgomery chugs along developing players, just as he did at Stanford.
- And Mark Fox has truly been fantastic at getting the most out of his players. Nevada is better this season, but there was clearly a gigantic drop-off when he left the school.
- Rick Barnes is a better recruiter than Bill Self, but he is not nearly as good at player development. But if Barnes' players weren’t leaving for the NBA at such a ridiculous rate, he would probably look very similar to Bill Self.
Many other coaches have struggled:
- What is scary is that Kevin O’Neill has actually been very good at developing players at USC. But the cupboard has been more than bare. NCAA sanctions and a run of injuries will do that.
- Rick Pitino is shockingly low on this list, and I think injuries are a large reason why he has struggled to develop players at Louisville. His success at Louisville has also mostly been fueled on the defensive end of the court.
- Anthony Grant also has his defense to fall back on, but his inability to develop consistent offensive players at Alabama is starting to be a concern.
- Over his tenure at Illinois, Bruce Weber has not been able to get much out of freshmen whether they have a RSCI Ranking next to their name or not.
- Darrin Horn’s player development looks bad at 42nd, and that is giving him credit for what he did developing players at Western Kentucky. If this only included his time at South Carolina, his ranking would be worse.
- Mick Cronin and Stan Heath want you to evaluate them based on the recent trend, not their full tenure. But most of their success has come from defense not offense.
Three thoughts on coaches not listed:
- Penn St.’s Ed Chambers got a late start on the job, had almost no chance to recruit, and has had very little production out of his first year players. (This is why I give 50% weight to a coach’s first season.)
- But Arkansas’ Mike Anderson, Rutgers’ Mike Rice Jr., Iowa’s Fran McCaffery, and Providence’s Ed Cooley are achieving some early recruiting success.
- Because of the team’s overall record, Cuonzo Martin is not getting enough credit, but he has done wonder’s developing Tennessee’s returning players this season.
Two final thoughts on the table:
-All schools suffer some attrition, so I am probably punishing the good recruiters too much in the overall rank column.
- To the extent that the great coaches can get freshmen to reach their potential sooner, they may look like stronger recruiters in my table. “Recruiting Rank” could very easily be called “Recruiting Rank plus First Year Development.”
On the first full weekend of conference play, there were 35 match-ups between BCS conference teams, which means the team that takes their information and executes better usually wins.
There are many ways to build a winning program. John Calipari’s focus on younger players may be the best way to get elite recruits, but it isn’t the only way to build a winning program.
Jim Larranaga is the new head coach at the University of Miami, meaning all BCS positions are now filled and we can look at how each coach ranks in the Four Factors.