Predicting many future events in one large analysis

Feel free to jump to the conference of your choice by clicking on one of the links below:

 

ACC
Big 12
Big East
Big Ten
Pac-10
SEC
Mid-Majors

 

With the first games that count coming up on Monday night, I figured I’d get my predictions in for all the major conferences and a few select mid-majors. Here are the conference-by-conference predictions with projected league record and postseason fate. It’ll be another four-plus months before I find out how wrong I am — sooner than that with some teams. Though I don’t officially make Final Four and Sweet 16 picks, you can infer them from the seedings.

 

ACC

 

Duke (predicted conference record 11-5; possessions returned — 63.8 percent*): There are concerns at point guard, but they were there last year as well, and while Jon Scheyer isn’t a natural at the position, he’s good enough to get by considering his talent and that of those surrounding him. The loss of Elliott Williams does hurt, but the combination of Scheyer and Kyle Singler plus emerging youngsters should keep Duke at or near the top of the ACC. NCAA No. 2 seed. Read More »


ACC has depth, but will anyone help out UNC come March?

2008-09 in review: A conference that once dominated March has, of late, become a league with one team that dominates March while 11 other teams sit in their dorm rooms and watch. For the third straight season, North Carolina was the only ACC team to reach a regional final. Duke became the only team not named “North Carolina” to make the Sweet 16 since 2006, but the Blue Devils were brusquely dismissed by Final Four-bound Villanova. ACC teams not from Chapel Hill have just a 9-16 NCAA Tournament record in the last three tournaments.

 

Before continuing with the ACC negativity, I must first pay homage to the team of last season, the Tar Heels. UNC perhaps didn’t sail through the ACC season as smoothly as many assumed — in fact, Roy Williams’ team started ACC play 0-2 — but, by the time the NCAA Tournament rolled around, there was nothing stopping the Tar Heels. UNC’s offense was one of the best in recent memory, and only Oklahoma came close to slowing it down in the NCAA Tournament. Behind the inside-outside combination of Ty Lawson and Tyler Hansbrough, and with Wayne Ellington hitting his stride — not to mention about six or seven other players who would start on any team in the country — North Carolina was hardly challenged in winning each NCAA Tournament game by at least 12.

 

At one point or another, three ACC teams besides UNC had the look of a top team last season, but each had their flaws revealed and saw their seasons end in embarrassing March departures. After a 16-0 start to the season, Clemson lost nine of its final 16, including a three-point loss to No. 10 seed Michigan in the first round of the NCAAs. Wake Forest also started 16-0, but the young Demon Deacons then lost five of nine, briefly righted the ship in early March, but fell in the first rounds of the ACC and NCAA tournaments, including a 15-point loss to No. 13 seed Cleveland State. Duke didn’t fall nearly as hard after its 18-1 start, though the Devils did lose four-of-six at one point. Duke was terrific in the ACC Tournament, winning the final over Florida State, and the Devils knocked off a tough Texas team to reach the Sweet 16 but fell by 23 in a wretched display of shooting in Boston.

 

Since the ACC expanded to 12 teams, the league has gone from the best conference in the NCAA Tournament to fifth, ahead of only the SEC among major conferences. This is how the conferences have improved or gotten worse in March since 2006, according to average NCAA Tournament Conference Score.

 

Conference 2000-05 2006-09 Diff
Pac-10 1.08 1.35 0.27
Big East 1.00 1.17 0.17
SEC 1.03 1.02 -0.01
Big 12 1.24 1.11 -0.14
Big Ten 1.33 1.11 -0.22
ACC 1.55 1.04 -0.51

 

It’s not as simple as saying that Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College have killed the ACC, but it’s part of it. While the Big East added top-20 programs in Louisville, Marquette and — they hope soon — Cincinnati, the ACC added something less valuable. Of course, Herb Sendek’s departure from Raleigh, which turned the Wolfpack program into a nightmare (15-33 in conference over the last three seasons) hasn’t helped. Four years is not a sample that will impress any scientist, but the basketball folks in the ACC have to at least worry if the league hasn’t lost its preeminence in exchange for not much gain at all on the football side. (The Pac-10’s improvement is due almost solely to Ben Howland’s turnaround in Westwood.) Read More »


Exit consensus No. 1 player, enter consensus No. 1 team

2008-09 in review: The Big 12 fit comfortably in the middle of the major-conference pecking order last season. Lacking an elite team as the flaws of Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas revealed themselves, the league still had a depth of quality teams that helped it win all six of its first-round NCAA Tournament teams and send two squads to the Elite Eight.

 

The Big 12 also boasted the consensus player of the year last season in Blake Griffin. The athletic big man was unguardable down low, drawing more fouls than any other player in the country. He and freshman point guard Willie Warren helped the Sooners to a 25-1 start, but the Sooners stumbled into the NCAA Tournament. They reached the Elite Eight, nonetheless, losing there to national champion North Carolina by 12 points, the smallest margin of victory in UNC’s march to the title.

 

Missouri was the conference’s breakout team last winter. In Mike Anderson’s third season in Columbia, the Tigers finally got the 40 Minutes of Hell in place, becoming a sweltering pressing team led by DeMarre Carroll. Carroll, Leo Lyons and the rest of the 10-man rotation advanced to the Elite Eight with a 102-point effort against a Memphis team on a 27-game win streak. Read More »


SEC ready to rise again after ugly season

2008-09 in review: It’s not a stretch to write that the SEC experienced the worst season of any major conference this decade with its showing last winter. The league played such a weak non-conference schedule and played so poorly out of conference that four 20-win teams didn’t get a bid to the NCAA Tournament — Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky, Auburn — and no one really complained. In mid-February, the first three of those teams looked like they had a pretty good shot at dancing, but Florida finished 2-4, Kentucky finished 1-5, and South Carolina finished 3-4. Those four teams combined for just six wins in 23 games against top-50 teams.

 

If it wasn’t for Mississippi State’s — umm, not sure “stirring” is the right word — successful run to the SEC title, the SEC would have gotten just two teams into the NCAAs. Even with the third bid, not a single SEC team got a seed better than No. 8, and none were left standing once North Carolina pulled away from LSU on the first Saturday of the tournament. The SEC’s NCAA Tournament Conference Score of 0.33 was the worst of any major conference this decade.

 

What shouldn’t be lost in all of the negativity is the bounceback from LSU. In his first season as head coach, Trent Johnson leveraged Tasmin Mitchell and Marcus Thornton into the Tigers’ second SEC West title in four seasons. The Tigers have won 14, 5, 6 and 13 conference games in the last four seasons — you gotta love consistency. Read More »


Conference previews coming up

When it comes to conference previews for the upcoming college basketball season, we’re still figuring out the best way we can serve you in a way that other publications can’t. So, we’ve decided to stick to our strengths in analysis and statistics crunching to give the reader a different look at each conference.

 

If you want a complete preview of your favorite team, Blue Ribbon is probably the place to go, but we will give you a glimpse at what the numbers are telling us about each conference in ways that most previews won’t.

 

We plan to preview each of the six major conference plus a composite preview on the top mid-major conferences — Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Mountain West and Missouri Valley.

 

We’ll also wrap up our 2009-10 season preview with projected standings for each league and notes on all the major-conference teams, including where we see them headed in March.


Fuzzy math and the impact of recruiting

After looking at who’s coming back among the major-conference teams, it’s time to look at who’s coming in. My method of evaluating the quality of incoming players is admittedly far less scientific than the evaluation of returners, but the lack of useful data points makes that necessarily so.

 

I created a consensus list of top prospects based on two of the publicly available and well-considered prep recruiting sites — Scout and Rivals. Rivals ranks 150 players, while Scout ranks 100. Scout also has positional rankings for many more players, so I used those positional rankings to extrapolate the rankings for 189 players total.

 

Recognizing that the top prospects generally have a much higher impact than lesser ranked prospects, I used a geometric formula to assign points to each of the 189 players. The No. 1 player, John Wall of Kentucky, was worth 200 points to Kentucky’s and the SEC’s composite recruiting class. For an idea of how the curve worked, the No. 100 player, Virginia Tech’s Cadarian Raines, was worth 50 points.

 

This is far from a perfect system, as these rankings — despite being thoroughly considered and vetted by the major Web sites that compile them — have not been shown to be terrific prognosticators. Also, the best second-tier programs, like Boston College, have found a way to field very competitive teams without having many players pop up near the top of recruiting rankings. Therefore, specific player rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. The nugget of knowledge is in the composite. When you combine all the player rankings and begin to evaluate teams — and moreso conferences — you can start to see separation that is meaningful and useful for analysis. Read More »


Who’s got what coming back?

College athletes are distinguished by their class, and each athlete has a finite amount of time — generally four years — to contribute to a team. Because of the rotating nature of classes, graduations and the addition of new recruits, a season becomes quite discrete.

 

In individual sports like pro tennis and pro golf, the short offseason makes the idea of a 2008 season or a 2009 season functionally meaningless for all but record-keepers. One could make a similar case — if not a strong one — for professional soccer where many leagues run from August into the following May and include various cup competitions and breaks during the single season.

 

I bring this up in anticipation of analyzing who’s back and who’s new on the college basketball landscape for the 2009-10 season. When college basketball writers are formulating their previews, they consider how good a team was last year, how much that team lost and what new additions — redshirts, transfers and recruits — might improve the team’s fortunes. I’m going to do the same thing here, only with an attempt to put a finer point on it. Read More »