yardbarker
RealGM Basketball

Oregon State Beavers ArticlesOregon State Beavers Articles

Early Season Tournaments: Brackets, Observations, And Odds: Part 1

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.

Preseason NIT Printable Bracket

Nov 12-13, 21-23

 

Virginia

9.6%

Fairfield

0.3%

Delaware

1.2%

Pennsylvania

0.0%

Kansas St.

28.8%

Lamar

0.0%

North Texas

4.4%

Ala.-Huntsville

0.0%

Michigan

19.7%

IUPUI

0.0%

Cleveland St.

0.7%

Bowling Green

0.1%

Pittsburgh

28.6%

Fordham

0.0%

Lehigh

2.0%

Robert Morris

4.6%

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.

2K Sports Classic Printable Bracket

Nov 15-16

 

Oregon St.

12.0%

Alabama

48.2%

Purdue

16.5%

Villanova

23.4%

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.

Charleston Classic Printable Bracket

Nov 15-18

 

Colorado

10.9%

Dayton

5.4%

Boston College

0.6%

Baylor

42.5%

Charleston

7.2%

St. John's

8.5%

Auburn

4.4%

Murray St.

20.5%

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.

Puerto Rico Tipoff Printable Bracket

Nov 15-18

 

Oklahoma St.

13.3%

Akron

6.1%

Tennessee

33.5%

NC Asheville

0.1%

Penn St.

3.2%

NC State

36.4%

Massachusetts

5.7%

Providence

1.7% 

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.

Coaches vs Cancer

Nov 16-17

 

BYU

13.2%

Florida St.

29.4%

Notre Dame

32.3%

St. Joseph's

25.1% 

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.

Paradise Jam Printable Bracket

Nov 16-19

 

George Mason

3.0%

Mercer

6.2%

New Mexico

69.0%

Illinois Chicago

0.1%

Connecticut

10.6%

Wake Forest

2.1%

Iona

6.0%

Quinnipiac

3.1%

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.

Hall of Fame Tip-Off Printable Bracket

Nov 17-18

 

Rhode Island

0.3%

Ohio St.

76.9%

Washington

11.7%

Seton Hall

11.1%

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 Many Facets & Unpredictability Of March Madness

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.

-- Joe Posnanski

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.

Recruiting And Player Development, 2012 Edition

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.”

Conference Play Means Scouting Reports

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.

The Anti-Recruiting Tool

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.

Relative Value Losers, Pac-12 And Horizon League Notes

Using Relative Value to identify teams that will struggle to repeat their 2011 success, along with looks at the Pac-12 and Horizon.

College Coaching Series Part 6

In this edition, we look at pace for all BCS coaches, with the Big 12 and SEC expected to play at the fastest rate in the nation.

College Coaching Series Part 4

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.

State Of College Coaching 2011 – Part 1

Only 10 BCS conference coaching jobs changed this offseason, but it is still an opportune time to update the coaching tree.

Counting All-Pac-10 Representatives

Arizona and UCLA rank a distant first and second in terms of represenation on the First Team All-Pac-10.

 

Basketball Wiretap Headlines

    NBA Wiretap Headlines

      NCAA Wiretap Headlines

        MLB Wiretap Headlines

          NFL Wiretap Headlines

            NHL Wiretap Headlines