March 26, 2006

For the first time since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there will be no number 1 seeds in the Final Four. We will also see a double-digit seed in the Final Four for the first time since 1986. George Mason's run to the Final Four illustrates both the increased competitiveness of the mid-major conferences and the watered down talent level in the major conferences right now. I think it is pretty clear that there are no great teams in college basketball this year. There are no teams like the 2005 versions of North Carolina and Illinois in this year's field. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is good for college basketball that a school like George Mason can compete for a Final Four spot. Not only did they compete, they were clearly the best team in that region over the past two weeks. Obviously, the games have been highly competitive. Of the 12 games played in the third and fourth rounds, four went to overtime and two others were decided with baskets in the final 10 seconds of regulation. The average margin of victory in those 12 games was only 6.5 points per game (the difference is only 4.9 if you do not include the overtimes). That is the lowest since 1993. Here are the averages for the past five years -- 2005: 6.5, 2004: 10.3, 2003: 7.5, 2002: 9.0, 2001: 10.8.

Final Four Participants since 1985 (National Champion in boldface)

As usual, Boston College's season ended with a heartbreaking loss. Of the five keys to the game that I outlined last week, BC accomplished two, failed miserably on two and one was a mixed bag. Here are those keys to the game:

1. Minimize the Three Point Deficit



2. Hope for the Right Refs



3. Sean Marshall Needs to Step Up



4. Free Throws, Free Throws, Free Throws



5. Sean Williams Needs to Play More Minutes

On the positive side, BC played outstanding defense, holding Villanova to just 35% from the field and 21% from the three point line. BC actually had one more three point basket than Nova (a Three Point Surplus). One of the few bad defensive plays the entire night was the mental lapse that gave Villanova the winning basket. Another positive was Sean Williams who played 24 minutes and had 7 points, 7 rebounds and 3 blocks. His block on the last play of the second half was sensational. The mixed results came from Sean Marshall who had 10 early points but couldn't find his shot the rest of the night.

On the negative side, the officiating was a nightmare. As I said last week, the last thing BC needed was "touch foul" refs and that is exactly what they got. BC was ahead by about 15 points early but everything changed when this officiating crew decided to take over the game. Pretty much the entire BC eight man rotation was in foul trouble by the first TV timeout in the second half. The touch foul mentality, however, didn't apply to Villanova players whacking away at Craig Smith most of the night. The "traveling" call on Sean Williams with under a minute left in regulation was as bad a call as you will ever see in a tournament game. About the only call they got right the entire night was the goaltending on Williams that gave Villanova the win (why couldn't they blow that one?). The officiating was far from the only reason that BC lost, however. Free throw problems reared their ugly head once again on Friday. BC made only 8 of 17 from the line including three misses on the front end of a 1 and 1. So essentially, they were 8 of 20 (40%). They also committed too many unforced turnovers. BC has had a hard time all year with the full court press but they actually handled that pretty well. Most of the turnovers were lazy passes in the half court offense or fumbles on the fast break. I have not seen BC turn the ball over like that in the half court offense all season. Timing is everything.

In my opinion, Boston College has had seven Final Four caliber teams since 1984. Those teams played in the NCAA Tournament in 1985, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each of those teams lost heartbreaking games in the second, third or fourth rounds. All of those games were winnable with a minute left in the second half. BC now has the most wins in the NCAA Tournament among teams that have never played in the Final Four.

BC-Villanova wasn't the only game where the referees were an embarrassment. Some of the calls at the end of the UCLA-Gonzaga game were mindboggling. The refs failed to count a continuation basket that hindered UCLA's comeback effort. In the final seconds, they called a ridiculous loose ball foul on Gonzaga's Batista that saved UCLA. Of course, had they not botched the earlier call, UCLA might not have needed saving. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Once again, the Selection Committee failed to balance the regions. The weakest regions always seem to be: (a) the region in the West and (b) whatever region UConn plays in. UConn has two championships largely because of an easy draw to the Final Four in those years. It almost happened again this year. Thank you, George Mason.

Speaking of George Mason, their great performance the past two weeks does not in any way excuse the Selection Committee for bypassing Hofstra and taking George Mason. I am very happy for the George Mason players, coaches and fans but what happened with the Selection Committee makes me sick. One of two things happened: either George Mason's A.D. abused his position on the Committee to get his team in the tournament ahead of Hofstra or the other members on the Committee decided to do a favor for their buddy. When I make my bubble predictions next year, I'll be sure to first check to see who is on the Selection Committee.

Three times in this year's tournament, teams with the same nickname have played: UCLA vs Belmont (Bruins), Villanova vs Arizona (Wildcats) and UConn vs Washington (Huskies).

So much for all of the Big Ten/Big East hype we heard all year. The Big Ten was a Big Flop and the Big East failed to put any of their eight tournament teams in the Final Four. Actually, Villanova and UConn didn't really belong in the Elite Eight. It is looking like an all SEC final but given how things have gone this year, anything is possible. This will be the first year since 2000 that the national champion has not come from the Big East or the ACC. This is the first Final Four appearance by a Pac Ten team since 2001 and the first appearance by an SEC team since 2000. Here is the Final Four breakdown by conference for 2001-2005: ACC 6, Big XII 5, Big Ten 4, Big East 2, Conference USA 2, Pac Ten 1.

March 19, 2006

Four teams seeded 7 or lower advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. The victories by Georgetown and Wichita State qualify as only minor upsets in my book but not many predicted either George Mason or Bradley in the Sweet Sixteen. George Mason advanced by beating two of last year's Final Four participants, Michigan State and North Carolina. Bradley beat the Big XII champs and a Pittsburgh team that advanced to the Big East finals. The number of second round upsets have been fairly consistent in recent years. Since 1998, no less than three and no more than five teams seeded higher than #6 have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. Bradley is the first team seeded 13 or higher to advance to the third round since Oklahoma in 1999. Like the first round, I was struck not so much by the number of upsets but by the competitiveness of the lower seeds. The higher seeds won 11 of 16 games in the second round but LSU, UConn, Villanova and UCLA were all just one shot away from losing to teams seeded 8 or lower.

The Missouri Valley conference certainly proved that it was worthy of the four NCAA bids. Bradley is a long shot to beat Memphis, but Wichita State is even money to advance to the Elite Eight. Exactly half of the teams in the Missouri Valley (2), the ACC (2) and the Big East (4) survived the first two rounds. Two of six SEC teams in the tournament and just one of four from the Big XII advanced to the third round. The biggest collapse came from the Big Ten where all six NCAA participants were eliminated. All year long, ESPN has been bragging about the Big Ten and the Big East. The jury is still out on the Big East, but the Big Ten showed that they are not one of the two or three best conferences. This was not entirely unpredictable. No one in the Big Ten could win on the road this year. That trend continued in the NCAA Tournament.

I cannot stand hearing commentators claim that the Selection Committee was justified in taking George Mason over Hofstra simply because George Mason advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. You can certainly make the argument that both George Mason and Hofstra deserved bids, but there was simply no justification for taking George Mason and not Hofstra. George Mason is in the tournament because their athletic director was on the Committee. I don't care if they win the National Championship. It was a slimy move no matter which way you slice it. Plus, who's to say that Hofstra wouldn't have won two games?

I love the "points off turnovers" graphic that is flashed from time to time on NCAA telecasts. When Duke and UConn play, I think there should be a "points off bad calls" graphic. The refs bailed out UConn again today.

I was quite amused by CBS's game score graphic in the Bradley-Pittsburgh game. CBS uses abbreviations for the school names and in this particular game, the score read "Brad Pitt". That loud sound you heard was Jennifer Aniston's television crashing to the floor.

When is the NCAA going to change the rules and stop allowing players to call timeout while they are in midair about to fall out of bounds? It is ridiculous. In order to call a timeout, a player should be required to have at least one foot on the floor in bounds.

Three teams that have had problems getting through the first two rounds in the recent past played outstanding second round games and advanced. I'm talking about Boston College, Florida and Gonzaga. BC broke a five game second round losing streak on Saturday. Gonzaga had gone four consecutive years without reaching the Sweet Sixteen and lost in three of those years to lower-seeded teams. Florida's recent past has been even more ignominious. In the past five years, the Gators have lost twice in the first round as a #5 seed and three times in the second round to a lower-seeded opponent (once each as 2, 3 and 4 seed).

The Atlanta bracket went pretty much according to plan. Three of the top seeds - Duke, Texas and LSU - advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. The #6 seed West Virginia was only a slightly more popular choice than Iowa in that group of four teams. If not for Duke, this bracket would make for a pretty good football tournament.

There will be a very interesting matchup on Thursday in the Oakland bracket when UCLA battles Gonzaga. UCLA was brilliant in the first game but barely scraped by in the second round. By contrast, Gonzaga nearly lost to Xavier in the first round but won pretty comfortably in the second round. The Zags proved on Saturday that they can beat a good team even when Adam Morrison is not on top of his game. Six Gonzaga players scored in double digits against Indiana. I found it absolutely amazing that Indiana hit 16 three pointers to Gonzaga's two and still lost by ten points. Bradley will attempt to become the first 13 seed to reach the Elite Eight. Teams seed 12 or higher are 1-18 in the third round since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

There are lucky wins, there are incredibly lucky wins and there is UConn's win over Kentucky on Sunday afternoon. A lot of people felt that UConn was a cut above the rest coming into this tournament. I think UConn's first two games in this tournament have proven that they are among the best teams in the country but not any better than the other major contenders. In most years, you could cut the final 16 into three groups: an "A list" comprised of great teams that have the best chance to win it all, a "B list" containing teams with a chance to win the title but not on the level of the A group, and a "C list" comprised of the teams that really have no chance to win it all and very little chance to reach the Final Four. Last year, North Carolina, Duke and Illinois were clearly on the A list. Kentucky may have been in that group as well. This year, I don't think there is an A list. I don't think there are any great teams in the historical sense. There is a B+ list that includes: the four #1 seeds plus UCLA, Gonzaga, Florida, BC, Texas, LSU and maybe Washington. Georgetown and West Virginia are on the B- list with Bradley, Wichita State and George Mason on the C list.

I am glad I am not the only one who was dumbfounded by Tennessee being granted a 2 seed. In the Yahoo Sports Pick 'em game, only 2.8% of the particpants chose Tennessee to advance to the Final Four. Of the other #2 seeds, 23% chose UCLA and 17% chose Ohio State and Texas. It's hard for me to understand how the general public can see something that ten guys who are supposed to experts in their field cannot. UConn's #2 seed last year was pretty bad but the Tennessee seeding decision was far worse. I'm not anti-Tennessee in any way. Bruce Pearl has done a remarkable job this season and they are going to be a force in the future. I'd just like to know what type of temporary insanity caused the Committee to seed them that high.

After nearly throwing away a great season with eight minutes of bad basketball on Thursday, the BC Eagles bounced back and played an outstanding game on Saturday. Montana simply had no answer for Craig Smith who scored 22 points and had 16 rebounds. Jared Dudley scored 20 points and Tyrese Rice ended his shooting slump by going 4 for 6 from behind the three point arc. Sean Williams blocked 5 shots and Louis Hinnant had only one turnover for the second game in a row. The only Eagle that isn't playing well right now is Sean Marshall who is 2 for 10 from the floor with 7 points in the tournament so far. BC didn't exactly slay the dragons in beating Pacific and Montana to reach the Sweet Sixteen, but they deserve a lot of credit for overcoming the fatigue that surely existed after playing three tough ACC games the previous weekend, flying to Boston, flying to Salt Lake and then playing a double overtime game. BC will have six full days of rest before facing Villanova on Friday - at sea level, just one time zone away.

If Boston College keeps winning, there is a decent chance that they will play old Big East foes Villanova, Georgetown and Connecticut in the next three rounds.

BC-Villanova is a tremendous matchup. You have BC's powerful inside game against Villanova's potent outside shooting. Here are the keys to the game for BC:

1. Minimize the Three Point Deficit -- By Three Point Deficit, I am talking about the number of points Villanova scores on three pointers minus the number of points BC scores on threes. During the season, Villanova averaged 9.1 successful three point shots per game compared to 5.8 for BC. This is about ten points per game. BC can probably live with similar numbers on Friday night. If Villanova hits 13 or 14 three pointers, however, it will probably be a long night for the Eagles. BC can offset Villanova's outside shooting advantage if they continue to drain the three pointers themselves. They hit only 26% from behind the arc against Pacific but drilled 47% of their attempts against Montana.



2. Hope for the Right Refs -- I'm not talking about bad calls. I'm talking about how the game is officiated. BC will want to play a physical game with a lot of banging around in the paint. Villanova will hope for more of a fast tempo finesse game. If the referees allow for a physical game, it will be to BC's advantage. If they call every touch foul, BC's chances of winning will sink rapidly because (a) they will not be able to play their usual aggressive style (b) the big men could get into foul trouble and (c) Villanova is an outstanding free throw shooting team and BC is not, so more free throws will probably mean more net points for Villanova. The refs allowed for a physical game on Saturday and BC dominated. It was a bit ridiculous that Craig Smith attempted 23 shots, almost all of them in the paint, and did not go to the free throw line once, but the refs called it that way on both ends of the floor so I have no complaints.



3. Sean Marshall Needs to Step Up -- On the second to last weekend of the regular season, Sean Marshall played a phenomenal game at NC State. He and Sean Williams were the best players on the floor that day. Since then, Marshall has been in a funk. He's not making outside shots and not playing great defense. As BC fans know, Marshall is one of those guys whose confidence ebbs and flows. The good news is that when he gets off to a quick start in a game, he's usually effective the whole night. The extra rest this week will help all of the Eagles physically. It could help Sean Marshall mentally.



4. Free Throws, Free Throws, Free Throws -- I couldn't be happier with BC's 31 for 40 performance in the tournament so far. 77.5% might not be stellar for a lot of teams but for BC, it is outstanding. Jared Dudley is 10 for 10 in the NCAA Tournament and 14 for 14 in his last three games. This needs to continue.



5. Sean Williams Needs to Play More Minutes -- I noticed that the Villanova guards were very comfortable shooting the quick six to eight foot jumper against Arizona on Sunday. The Arizona big men really weren't much of a shot-blocking presence. Sean Williams (and John Oates to a lesser extent) need to make Foye, Ray and Lowry think twice before taking shots within ten feet of the basket. Williams, at times, is even a factor on three point shots.

March 17, 2006

I have to hand it to the lower seeds. I have never seen such competitive first round games from the number 13 through 16 seeds. In a repeat of last year, the low seeds were 2-14 in round one with a 13 seed and 14 seed winning. In 21 the prior years, 35 teams seeded 13 or lower won first round games so two major upsets is pretty close to the norm (which is 1.67 per year). However, six other bottom seeds had a legitimate chance to win with a minute left in their game. Xavier, Davidson, Pacific, Winthrop, Murray State and Penn all could have easily won. Another six teams in the 13 seed and under group were competitive. One of those teams was #16 Albany which led #1 UConn by 12 points midway through the second half. This was easily the best I've ever seen the 16 seeds play. Only two teams, Belmont and South Alabama, were blown out.

I wanted to quantify just how competitive those lower seeds were this year so I looked at the average margin of victory in games won by the higher seeded team over the past nine years. Here's the data:

These numbers really show the increased competitiveness of the lower seeds over time. In 1998 and 1999, the average margin of victory (wins only) for a 1 through 4 seed in the first round was about 23 points per game. From 2000 to 2004, the average margin of victory for the top seeds hovered around 17 (except for 2001). In the past two years, the top seeds have won by an average of less than 13 points per game. The closer games haven't translated to many wins for the underdogs but I fully expect these low seeds to start winning more games in the coming years.

As for the middle seeds 5 through 12, it is hard to call a victory by the lower seed an upset. This year, the 5 seeds, 6 seeds and 7 seeds were all 2-2. Strangely enough the 12 seeds (11-13) have outperformed the 10 and 11 seeds (9-15, 8-16) over the past six years. Historically, the 11 and 12 seeds have had similar success in the first and second rounds. As you would expect, the 8 seeds are 12-12 against the 9 seeds over the past six years.

Conference performance is always a big topic of discussion in the early rounds. The ACC led the way with a 4-0 record while the SEC was a surprising 5-1. The Pac Ten also had a nice first round with a 3-1 record. The Big East was 0-3 on Thursday but bounced back with a 5-0 Friday. The Big XII lost twice with higher seeds but #12 Texas A&M beat #5 Syracuse to give that conference a 2-2 record. The Missouri Valley had mixed results (2-2). The biggest disappointment to many was the Big Ten which was 3-3 and nearly lost Ohio State and Indiana.

Four seed BC probably caught a break when #12 Montana upset #5 Nevada on Thursday. However, as a 4 seed last year, BC appeared to catch a break when #12 seed Wisconsin-Milwaukee beat Alabama in the first round. It was anything but a break. Bruce Pearl's team made 11 three-pointers and was 20 for 22 from the free throw line. BC is a better team this year, but there remains a great possibility for an upset because of the fatigue factor. BC will be playing their fifth game in eight days, they will be coming off an emotional double overtime game and they will have traveled somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000 miles in the past ten days. Add to that the altitude of Salt Lake City which adds to the fatigue.

Second round karma is not on BC's side either. Since 1996, the Eagles are 6-1 in the first round and 0-5 in the second round. BC has an amazing 12-1 record in the first round of the NCAA Tournament since 1970 (13-3 in their history).

One of BC's two biggest weaknesses popped up again on Thursday. At times, the Eagles have had problems defending the perimeter. Pacific got back into the game the other day with a barrage of three-pointers. At one point they were 10 for 19 from the arc. The three point shot ruined BC's ACC title run last Sunday and was the main reason why they were knocked out in the second round last year. On the other side of the coin, BC's other weakness, free throws, was more of a strength on Thursday and really saved them from the upset. BC was 24 for 29 from the charity stripe (83%) including 16 for 16 combined from Tyrese Rice, Jared Dudley and Louis Hinnant. Craig Smith missed four of nine from the line but made the two most important free throws to send the game to a second OT. Smith was his usual unstoppable force (25 points, 13 rebounds) and Jared Dudley was on top of his game (23 points, 5 assists, 4 rebounds and 4 steals). Louis Hinnant continues to play amazing basketball. The senior guard scored 14 points on 5 for 7 from the field and dished out nine assists. He turned the ball over just once. In his last 11 games, Hinnant has 60 assists and only 17 turnovers (a 3.5:1 ratio). BC needs more offense from Sean Marshall and Tyrese Rice if they are going to make a deep run in this tournament. The duo was just 2 for 12 from the field on Thursday.

March 14, 2006

I have been filling out brackets for twenty years and this is easily the most difficult NCAA Tournament to predict. Typically, I have six or seven teams in mind that I think are legitimate Final Four/championship contenders and I have to struggle to trim that number down to four. This year, I'm having hard time finding any clear-cut championship caliber teams. I find myself trying to build up to four teams, rather than trimming my list to four. Also, in a typical year I don't give teams seeded higher than a 4 seed much of a look for a Final Four spot. This year, many of the 5 to 8 seeds are legitimate Final Four contenders. The #8 seeds are Arkansas, George Washington, Arizona and Kentucky. I'm not picking any of those teams in the Final Four, but it wouldn't shock me to see one of them in Indianapolis. Michigan State is a 6 seed. Does anyone think they are not better than 2 seed Tennessee? Pittsburgh is a 5 seed and I'm guessing that as many people will pick the Panthers in the Final Four as will pick Oakland's 2, 3, and 4 seeds, UCLA, Gonzaga and Kansas. I'm pondering it myself. In general, the 4 seeds look as strong, if not stronger, than the 2 seeds. In fact, 4 seed Kansas beat 2 seed Texas just the other day. Even the 1 seeds have weaknesses. Both Villanova and UConn failed to make the Big East finals (each losing to 5 seeds) and Duke went to wire with 4 seed BC in the ACC Championship. I think this year's tournament could be a repeat of last year where we had few major upsets in the first round but there were plenty of upsets (and near upsets) in the second, third and fourth rounds.

I don't normally post predictions because I don't want to get a flood of angry emails if my choices don't pan out. Some people believe that having the stats guarantees success. As I've said in my trends analysis, the stats are a nice tool but who wins in games between similarly-seeded teams really comes down to who is on top of their game on that particular day (who is shooting well that day, who is more tired than normal) and luck (who gets the calls, does the final shot rattle in or rattle out?). Take last year's Elite Eight, for example. Illinois, Louisville and Michigan State advanced to the Final Four but if just one successful shot had missed its mark in each game, Arizona, West Virginia and Kentucky would have been in St Louis. North Carolina won it all but most people think they deserved to lose in the Sweet Sixteen round to Villanova. So I won't post predictions, but I will offer plenty of stats. Here are a few observations followed by some statistical rankings (the top and bottom) for the 65 competitors in this year's tournament.

Conference Tournament Fatigue -- if you have read my NCAA Trends Analysis Part I (link at the bottom of this page), you know that my analysis has shown that teams seeded 3rd or lower who play three or more conference tournament games perform worse in the second round, on average, than the teams who play only one or two games in their conference tourney. Keep in mind that I only analyzed teams from the major conferences. Also notice that I am talking about the second round. The numbers tell me that these teams don't have as much of a problem with fatigue in the first round but that it catches up to them in the second round. Here are some teams that I feel are at risk (this doesn't mean that I am necessarily picking against these teams).

• Syracuse --
The Orange played four emotionally draining games in the Big East Tournament last week. If they get past Texas A&M, they will probably face LSU (the Tigers played only twice in the SEC Tournament). This would be Syracuse's sixth game in a span of about ten days.


• Boston College --
There needs to be an asterisk beside this one because BC's likely second round opponent, Nevada, also played three times last weekend. Still, BC's three games included tight emotional battles with North Carolina and Duke. Nevada's final game was an overtime win over Utah State but they cruised past Idaho and New Mexico State in the prior two games and of course the WAC is no ACC. BC also has to travel across two time zones and play in the high altitude of Salt Lake City. Nevada would also essentially be playing a home game against BC since Nevada borders Utah.


• Florida --
The Gators wrapped up an SEC title on Sunday with a hard-fought win over South Carolina. They could face a second round battle with well-rested Oklahoma. The Sooners played just once in the Big XII Tournament.


• Pittsburgh?? --
The Panthers played four games in four days in the Big East Tournament. They are lucky, though, because their probable second round foe Kansas played three times in three days to win the Big XII. Will that extra game matter? We may find out.

Who's Hot and Who's Not -- Only Gonzaga and Nevada come into the NCAA Tournament riding 10 game winning streaks. A total of 13 teams have won 9 of 10 and another 16 teams have won 8 of 10. Among the 9-1 teams, only Kansas plays in one of the six major conferences. The Jayhawks are 15-1 in their last 16 games. BC is 15-3 since January 14th and two of those losses were by two points to Duke. I think the more interesting list are the teams who have been losing a lot lately. Four teams are 4-6 in their last ten games: Michigan State, Wisconsin, Northern Iowa and West Virginia. Six teams are 5-5 in their last 10 games: Hampton, Seton Hall, NC State, Georgetown, Indiana and Marquette. Wisconsin is a pitiful 5-9 since mid January.

Battle Tested -- I'm not sure that the RPI Top 50 is what it once was. After all, George Mason and Hofstra are in the Top 30. Still, a team's record against tournament caliber competition is an important metric. UConn was an amazing 12-3 against the RPI Top 50. Duke was 9-2 and Villanova was 9-4. Iowa was an impressive 10-5. Washington was 5-1 thanks largely to beating UCLA twice. Michigan State played the most top 50 teams but could manage only a 9-9 record against that group. Arizona's 2-7 record against the RPI Top 50 is certainly a red flag. Kentucky was 3-8. I guess that's why they are both in 8/9 games.

Road Warriors -- Some schools may have a large fan contingent at a tournament game but no one plays on their home court. This is why it makes sense to look a team's road and neutral court record. Duke led the way with a 16-2 record away from Cameron Indoor. Iona was next best at 16-3. Other major conference notables on the positive side are: Villanova (13-3), UConn (11-3), Memphis (11-2), UCLA (10-3), North Carolina (9-3), Florida (11-4), Boston College (12-5) and Texas (11-5). On the flip side, you have some teams that have had a very difficult time winning away from home. The bottom two are Alabama (3-8) and Wisconsin (5-9). Arizona, Seton Hall and Marquette all won less than 43% of their road/neutral games. Bradley, despite being in the Missouri Valley Conference, was only 7-9 away from home.

The Key Stats -- Below you will find stats for the 65 teams participating in this year's tournament. I've given you the top five to ten and the bottom five in each category. If you would like to see all the numbers, I recommend that you visit statfox.com. According to my research in Trends Analysis Part II (link at the bottom of this page), the most important stats are field goal percentage, opponent field goal percentage and rebounding. Free throw shooting produced mixed results.

Note: Rebound Percentage Score is the percentage of offensive rebounds each team collected over the course of the season plus the percentage of defensive rebounds they collected. For example, a team that gets 35% of all possible offensive rebounds and 75% of all possible defensive rebounds would have a score of 1.10 (.35 + .75).

March 12, 2006

As usual, the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Selection Committee did a horrible job of seeding and choosing the final at large teams. The process is obviously more political than analytical. The Committee contradicts itself at every turn. Sometimes wins against the RPI Top 50 matter, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes how you are playing down the stretch matters, sometimes it doesn't. Here are the top five outlandish choices made by the Committee in no particular order.

1. Tennessee Gets a 2 Seed -- In my final analysis, I gave Tennessee a 5 seed and I thought that might be have been generous. The Vols have lost four of their last six games including an SEC Tournament quarterfinal loss to South Carolina. They nearly lost to Vanderbilt in the regular season finale. Given Tennessee's seven losses overall and their recent poor play, it is hard to justify selecting them ahead of conference champions like Florida, Gonzaga, Kansas or Iowa or teams that are playing exceptionally well like BC and North Carolina.



2. George Mason In, Hofstra Out -- These two teams from the Colonial have very similar NCAA Tournament resumes. George Mason was 23-7 overall and 15-3 in the conference. Hofstra was 24-6 overall and 14-4 in the conference. Hofstra was slightly better against the RPI Top 50 (3-2 vs 2-4). They were both 8-2 in their last ten games and had similar road/neutral records. Here's the big difference: Hofstra has played George Mason twice in the past two weeks and won both times. If I'm on the Selection Committee, I can invite them both or leave them both out but there is no logical defense for taking George Mason and not Hofstra. I wondered how this could possibly happen. My research took me to a list of ten people on this year's Selection Committee. Lo and behold, one of them is George Mason Athletic Director Tom O'Connor. Now it all makes sense.



3. Air Force Gets the Nod -- I'm a big supporter of the military but this is ridiculous. Air Force was a bubble team coming into the Mountain West Tournament and they didn't exactly enhance their resume when they lost to 12-17 Wyoming in the conference tournament quarterfinals. Ironically, the Committee raised eyebrows just two years ago when they invited Air Force as an at large participant despite the Falcons' RPI ranking of 70 (the second highest ever for an at large team). I've noticed that a good portion of the most bizarre at-large selections of the past ten years have come from the Mountain West or the WAC. There seems to be a Rocky Mountain bias when it comes to selecting bubble teams.



4. Utah State Gets the Nod -- As for Utah State, their only win of consequence this year was a road win at Nevada. Their best non-conference win came at home against BYU. They finished 11-5 in the WAC. Does anyone really think that Florida State and Cincinnati wouldn't have won more than 11 games in the WAC? The Committee claims that they are looking for the 34 best at-large teams. You could make the argument that Bradley, Wichita State and maybe even George Mason are better than Florida State and Cincinnati. You cannot make the same argument with Air Force or Utah State.



5. BC Gets a 4 Seed, UNC Gets a 3 Seed -- Last year, I renamed the NCAA Selection Committee the "NCAA Tournament / Screw Boston College" Committee. The shoe still fits. I am not really upset that BC is seeded #4. I would not have had a problem with either Kansas or Florida (both conference champs) getting the higher seed. The fact that North Carolina received a better seed than BC is one of the most grotesque examples of popular team bias that I have ever seen. North Carolina and BC came into the ACC Tournament ranked 10 and 11, respectively, in the polls. North Carolina finished only one game ahead of BC in the ACC standings and both teams lost exactly seven games this year. Boston College beat North Carolina in the ACC semifinals yesterday and beat the Heels earlier in the season in Chapel Hill. For this reason, seeding North Carolina ahead of BC is indefensible. Not only was North Carolina given a better seed, they were placed in the Washington DC bracket and will be playing close to home. BC is getting shipped off to Salt Lake City for the first two rounds and will likely be playing what amounts to a road game in the second round (Nevada borders Utah). If BC advances, they be traveling to Minneapolis for the Sweet Sixteen. I am not sure why the Selection Committee believes that it is their job to prop up schools like North Carolina and Connecticut (last year) with seeding upgrades. It makes my blood boil. It appears that the top four factors in seeding are: (1) t-shirt and jersey sales, (2) media popularity of the head coach, (3) on court performance over the past ten years, (4) on court performance in the current year.

Here are some other examples of BC's treatment by the Selection Committee over the past ten years:

• 2005 -- BC finished the season with a 24-4 record and was ranked 9th in both polls. Not only were they given a 4 seed, but they were given the lowest 4 seed (based on the fact that they were in the same region as #1 Illinois). BC lost a heartbreaker in the second round.



• 2003 -- BC finished 10-6 in the Big East and won their Division (the Big East had two divisions then). They finished with 18 wins overall, won 10 of 13 down the stretch and were 9-4 on the road. They did not make the tournament. Two teams that did make it were Alabama (7-9 in the SEC) and NC State (18-12 overall and lost at home to BC that year).



• 2001 -- BC finished the season with a 25-4 record and won the Big East regular season and conference tournament championships. They finished the season ranked 5th in the RPI and 7th in both polls. They were given a 3 seed. Lower-ranked Kentucky (9 losses) and Iowa State were given 2 seeds. BC lost a heartbreaker in the second round.



• 1997 -- BC beat Villanova in the Big East Championship game by 12 points (and it really wasn't that close). Villanova (22-9) was a 4 seed in the East, BC (21-8) was a 5 seed in the West. This wasn't quite as outrageous because Villanova had a much better RPI ranking, but if the situation were reversed, there is no way that BC would have been seeded higher than Villanova. BC lost in overtime in the second round.

Some thoughts on the brackets:

• The potential Duke-George Washington second round game could be very interesting if Pops Mensah Bonsu plays and is healthy enough to be a factor. George Washington's seed is lower than their AP and USA Today ranking.



• California was on the bubble and somehow wound up with a 7 seed. This is very puzzling. That's good news for Texas who is projected to face either Cal or fading NC State in the second round.



• Memphis and Arkansas would be a very interesting second round matchup geographically and basketball-wise. The 1 seeds have their work cut out for them in the second round this year. I already mentioned GW-Duke. Connecticut could play #8 Kentucky. Villanova will play either Arizona or Wisconsin.



• The best potential 4/5 matchup is Kansas-Pittsburgh in the Oakland bracket. Both the Jayhawks and the Panthers could have easily been 3 seeds. The Oakland region is probably the weakest but it is also the most balanced. Any of the top five (Memphis, UCLA, Gonzaga, Kansas and Pitt) could easily make the Final Four. I am going to have a hard time picking a winner from this group. Indiana, Marquette and Arkansas could do some damage as well.



• There is an interesting rematch in the Washington DC Region. #8 Kentucky and #9 UAB will meet in the first round. In 2004, the #8 seeded Blazers upset #1 Kentucky in the second round.



• The Washington DC region includes a group of four with: #2 Tennessee vs #15 Winthrop and #7 Wichita State vs #10 Seton Hall. This is probably the worst group of four teams in the same first/second round bracket that I have seen in the NCAA Tournament. Tennessee at #2 is a joke, Wichita State should not be a 7 seed and #10 Seton Hall barely made the tournament. I wouldn't pick Winthrop in my pool but if a #15 seed is ever going to advance to the Sweet Sixteen, this could be the year. Michigan State and North Carolina have got to be thrilled with this half of the region.



• The last four teams to make the Tournament, in my opinion, are all in the Washington Region: Seton Hall, George Mason, Air Force and Utah State. This region also has (again in my opinion) the weakest #2 and the weakest #7. Is this what the Committee refers to as balance?



• Minneapolis is loaded from top to bottom. I'm not sure about Nevada as a 5 seed but the rest of the region is strong at every seed. This region also has some of the best lower seeds. #10 Northern Iowa was one of the few small conference teams that actually beat a top team out of conference (LSU and Iowa) and #11 Wisconsin-Milwaukee was in the Sweet Sixteen a year ago.

I'll post more analysis and some statistics by Wednesday morning. Let the pools begin!