Flaws revealed in losses by top Big East teams

In a span of 72 hours, each of the Big East’s top four teams — squads that once fit neatly on the top two seedlines of most NCAA Tournament projections — lost. In and of themselves, the losses for West Virginia, Syracuse, Georgetown and Villanova won’t do anything to affect their NCAA Tournament acceptance and will do little to affect their seeding, but what they did do was reveal potentially fatal flaws, which are often overlooked as teams pile up wins.

 

West Virginia: The Mountaineers’ 98-95 overtime loss at Pittsburgh was the most excusable of the defeats suffered by the Big East’s top four on this holiday weekend, but it was also West Virginia’s second-straight loss. It may come as a surprise to some that it’s WVU’s defense and not its offense that has been mostly to blame in the team’s five defeats.

 

Efficiencies Defense
Opponent PPP PPP eFG Turn Reb FTR 2PT% 3PT%
at Purdue 0.987 1.225 0.536 0.111 0.318 0.411 0.545 0.333
at Notre Dame 1.130 1.164 0.616 0.150 0.180 0.558 0.533 0.538
vs. Syracuse 1.065 1.080 0.622 0.300 0.458 0.578 0.667 0.333
vs. Villanova 1.044 1.142 0.618 0.251 0.460 0.431 0.600 0.455
at Pittsburgh 1.165 1.202 0.508 0.098 0.274 0.536 0.500 0.346
Composite 1.078 1.163 0.580 0.182 0.338 0.503 0.569 0.401

 

You can see that West Virginia is allowing 0.085 points per possession more than it is scoring in its five losses. The main culprit is field-goal defense. Despite the Mountaineers’ notable length, they are allowing opponents to make 40 percent of their 3-pointers and 57 percent of their 2-pointers in these defeats. For the season, West Virginia is ahead of only the comparatively tiny Marquette and Providence squads in 2-point defense among Big East teams. Read More »


Bracket Junkie: An unholy mess

Printable Version of Bracket »

 

Bracketing Challenges: Well, it finally happened. After relatively smooth bracketing so far this season, I ran into a bunch of problems trying to separate teams from the same conference. The Big East and ACC grouped teams in the 2-3-6-7-10-11 seeds; the Big 12 grouped in the 1-4-5-8-9 seeds. Therefore, I had to move a record five teams up and five teams down by one seedline. We don’t know how common this is for the NCAA Tournament committee because it doesn’t reveal this information like I do, but I would guess it happens with 2-4 teams per year. I’m hopeful that these uneven distributions work themselves out by mid-March.

 

It’s important to note that Cincinnati was moved from its true seedline of No. 10 because three of the spots where the Bearcats could have played already had a Big East team in the eight-team pod. In the other spot, the No. 7 seed was Xavier, a team that Cincinnati plays every year. The NCAA prefers to avoid those rematches early in the tournament, and that’s especially the case since UC-XU is a notorious rivalry.

 

Breakdown: One of the surprising parts of this bracket to many of you might be Michigan State’s position as a No. 3 seed after its loss to Wisconsin. MSU was being propped up by that undefeated conference record, and now that it’s no longer, we can evaluate the Spartans on their paltry list of quality victories. Michigan State has just two wins against top-50 RPI teams — Gonzaga and Wisconsin at home, and Sparty has yet to play Ohio State or Purdue. The Boilermakers are now a No. 2 seed even though they’ve actually played an easier conference schedule than MSU so far, but they have four top-50 wins, including Tennessee and West Virginia out of conference. Read More »


Do road L’s, defensive meltdowns mean no Final Four for Duke?

After a very public humiliation in front of millions of viewers, thousands of fans at the Verizon Center and the President of the United States against Georgetown on Saturday, Duke will be back in action in Durham on Thursday, hosting Georgia Tech. Though some of the Blue Devils’ recent performances may make it absurd to ask, I wonder whether Duke’s play means it’s fighting against trends to make its first Final Four since 2004. The Blue Devils still rank second in Ken Pomeroy’s rankings, and the team that’s finished second in the rankings has made the Final Four four times in the last six years and won the title twice — Florida in 2007 and Connecticut in 2004 — but a couple of trends are evident.

 

I’m approaching this from two directions — bad defensive games and road play. I want to see whether the last 24 Final Four teams have had defensive games or road records to match Duke’s this season. The Blue Devils have twice — against North Carolina State and Georgetown most recently — allowed opponents to score at least 1.2 points per possession. The Blue Devils are also 1-4 on the road this season. Let’s look at these two issues separately and in the light of how past Final Four participants have fared. Read More »


Bracket Junkie: Loving the Lobos

Printable Version of Bracket »

 

Breakdown: Perhaps the most difficult aspect to building this bracket was finding that last No. 3 seed. Out of Purdue, Kansas State, Duke, Texas and West Virginia, it was clear that two of them would be No. 2 seeds and three would be No. 3 seeds, but there was no obvious choice to fill out that third line. Just like in the last projection, I went with New Mexico over Brigham Young and any other team — Wisconsin, Tennessee, Baylor, Temple, Ohio State, Georgia Tech — that might have had a claim.

 

The good thing is that none of those teams had a very strong claim at that spot. New Mexico was the choice because its five wins against top-50 teams was more than any other team that hadn’t been bracketed, except Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh, which also have five. New Mexico’s record (20-3), combined with a head-to-head win over Brigham Young, a six-game winning streak and a 10th ranking in my seeding model put the Lobos over the top. I’m not sure what the Selection Committee would do if presented this scenario, but the only other teams I could see them bracketing here are BYU, who — again — has lost to New Mexico head-to-head, or Ohio State, if the Buckeyes were given a complete pass for losses suffered when Evan Turner was injured. Read More »


Bracket Junkie: Plenty of movement, but none from Big Blue

Printable Version of Bracket »

 

Notes: First, automatic bids for each conference are determined by conference record with tiebreakers broken by rank in our BTI model, not by head-to-head or other conference tiebreakers. Of course, every conference except for the Ivy League determines its ultimate automatic bid with a tournament, so conference tiebreakers really don’t matter much for our purposes. Second, there is one potential regular-season rematch in the first two rounds, and that’s in the South where Kentucky and Connecticut could meet. There was already a Big East team in the other three spots where a No. 9 seed could go, and the priority is keeping teams on their true seedlines over avoiding rematches.

 

Breakdown: In the end, I guess all of this was just bluster. The point of this bracket projection — even in January — is to accurately determine what the Selection Committee would do if it had to select and seed the field today. With that as the overriding standard, I found myself unable to move Texas or Duke ahead of Kentucky for the last No. 1 seed. If I wanted to make a bracket of what should happen, we’d have an entirely different projection. UK is still just 13th in the BTI seeding model, but that is a seeding model based on an entire season of play and pro-rated for what’s happened so far. This is a bracket based on less than three months of play, and so sometimes we’re left with guesswork. My best guess is that Kentucky would get the nod over Duke and Texas right now. Read More »


Balancing the quality win vs. the loss

Sometime early on Friday morning — around 2 a.m. — I will publish my second Bracket Junkie of the season, and I already expect a split between my projection and popular opinion. That split was partly in evidence last week, when Kentucky was not the top overall seed in my bracket despite being the lone undefeated team remaining.

 

After a loss to South Carolina in Columbia on Tuesday, the Wildcats have dropped to 13th in the model I use to seed teams. That equates to the top No. 4 seed. How can a one-loss team out of the SEC project as a No. 4 seed? The answer is quality wins — or a lack thereof.

 

Let’s briefly compare two teams with similar profiles: Kentucky and Brigham Young. The Wildcats are 0-0 against RPI top-25 teams; the Cougars are 0-1 (losing Wednesday night at New Mexico). UK is 2-0 against teams rated 26-50 in the RPI; BYU is also 2-0. Kentucky is 3-1 against teams rated 51-100; Brigham Young is 5-1. Neither team has a loss to an opponent ranked outside the RPI’s top 100 — Kentucky is 14-0; BYU is 12-0. The difference between the two teams is one BYU loss at New Mexico — inarguably a tougher game than any UK has played this season to date — and two extra top-100 wins for the Mountain West leaders. Read More »


Bracket Junkie: Another year, another first projection

Printable Version of Bracket »

 

Breakdown: This is our first projection of the season, as I like to wait until most teams have at least four conference games under their belts. It’s not until about now that you can really get a good gauge on a team. Everything up until now is primarily guesswork. Even so, there is a lot on this bracket that will look strange come March. The question is what. The answers will be revealed over the next seven weeks. One predictions: the Colonial Athletic Association will have fewer than three teams in the field.

 

For a frame of reference, in our first projection last season on Jan. 25, Kentucky and Florida were No. 6 seeds, and Georgetown was a No. 7; none of those three made the NCAAs. On the other hand, the Nos. 1-5 seeds all made the NCAAs. The four teams that ended the season as No. 1 seeds were 1, 1, 2 and 3 in our first projection. Ten of the teams seeded on the first four lines of last year’s first projection ended up as top-four seeds by March. So, there is perhaps more stability than one might expect. Read More »


Back on winning side, Purdue proves pundits’ shrillness

It was nice to see Purdue emerge from its “freefall” on Tuesday night with an impressive performance in a win over Illinois. It wasn’t nice because I’m rooting for the Boilermakers but nice because the performances of JaJuan Johnson, Kelsey Barlow and John Hart will hopefully quiet some of the shrill voices chiming in on Purdue’s shortcomings after a three-game losing streak.

 

Around the college basketball world on Saturday, folks were wringing their hands about the Boilermakers’ losing streak. SI’s Seth Davis called it a freefall, the folks on ESPN questioned the Final Four pedigree of Purdue, and people on the Big Ten Network could not get through a sentence without bemoaning the effect of Lewis Jackson’s injury on the Boilermakers.

 

As often happens, despite all the analysis, the pundits danced around the truth while missing it. The first issue is putting too much meaning into the streak. Purdue played three strong teams, two on the road. A 1-2 record in that stretch would not have been out of the ordinary, so 0-3 shouldn’t have been cause for panic. Several famous teams of recent vintage have only been saved from the same fate by friendly scheduling. Read More »