| NFL | |
|
NFL Mock Draft 2009 Draft of 2009 Lacks Star Power NFL Draft 2009: Getting Started Super Bowl Well Worth Tuning In For
|
| NBA | |
|
Prospects On Center Stage NBA Preview 2008/09: Final Call
|
|
Jumpology: Bracket Breakdown, Part III By Ron Jumper The Bracket is out and it is time to break it down. I liked the placement of the top seeds but, after that, I started to scratch my head at some of the decisions made by the committee. When it came to the small schools, well, let's just say I have a lot on my mind. I have argued many times on the inaccuracy of the RPI, and this year is no different. I think common sense is a much better indicator. Overall, I'll throw the committee a bone and say this was a very unique year so trying to "get it right" was a tall order, using the right combination of qualitative and quanitative methods (qualitative being based on intuition and opinion, while quantitative is based on mathematical formula and historical data). I think they got it right for the most part on getting the best teams in, but I think the seeding in the middle is way off. And the ranting begins: Raw Deals: I believe several teams got a very raw deal with both the seed and the matchup. The Arkansas Razorbacks play Indiana in the first round as the 9 seed. Indiana is far and away the most talented 8 seed I've ever seen. The Hoosiers are 25-7 and ranked 20th, which isn't even a full indicator of how good they were for most of the season. They lost 3 of their last 4, meaning they were 24-4 and ranked 12th at the end of February. To top it off, they would play UNC in Raleigh, NC if they can get by the Hoosiers. Congrats on a good season, Arkansas, but making a run is going to be a tall order. Another team that got a very bad seed is the Butler Bulldogs. How can they go 29-3 with an RPI of 17 and beat Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, Ohio State, Florida State, and Southern Illinois in the non-conference to only get a 7 seed? Though none of those teams made the field, you can't say they didn't try to schedule tough games. To compare, Oklahoma is a 6 and Miami is a 7, despite both of those teams being on the bubble until the last 2 weeks of the season. To top it off, they get to play South Alabama in Alabama. How is that fair? Putting Butler at such a high seed creates a trickle effect as well. Tennessee gets a raw deal because they could potentially play a scary team like Butler in the second round or have to play South Alabama in Alabama. Either way, it isn't an ideal situation for the Vols because they have to play the overall number 1 seed UNC in Charlotte if they get that far anyway. This is where I hate the inconsistencies of the committee, on one hand they live and breathe by the RPI then they don't make the RPI #1 Vols a top seed and actually pair them with the top overall seed in the tournament. I just can't make sense of this whole thing, because there is just no way Tennessee is the 8th best team in the field as the committee indicates. Biggest Stretches: How can bubble teams get such high seeds? Am I missing something? I'll start with Oklahoma, they have a higher seed than Indiana, Butler, and Mississippi State. I'm just dumbfounded at this. The Sooners just can't compare on paper or on the floor with any of those 3. Look at Miami, how can they be a 7 seed and Virginia Tech not even make the field? That is as inconsistent as it gets, in my opinion. I think the Hurricanes are solid, but they should be a 10 or 11 seed, especially if Virginia Tech isn't in the field. Oregon shouldn't even be in the field, much less a 9 seed (more on this later). They should have been the last team in as a 12, as was the case with Villanova. Oregon was 6-9 in conference before winning 3 in a row to finish at .500 in Pac-10 play. They obviously squeezed their way in, so how can they be higher than teams we were confident were going to get a bid all along? Conspiracy Theory: I think the committee did a very poor job with how many mid-majors it put in the field and how the ones that did make the field were seeded. I also think this was done purposely, as I just couldn't come to any other conclusion. Look at how the mid-majors are matched up: 7 Butler vs. 10 South Alabama 8 UNLV vs. 9 Kent State 7 Gonzaga vs. 10 Davidson 5 Drake vs. 12 Western Kentucky Am I the only one that is bothered by this? This could have been avoided so easily, look at the matchups of "big conferences": 8 Indiana vs. 9 Arkansas 5 Clemson vs. 12 Villanova 6 USC vs. 11 Kansas State 7 West Virginia vs. 10 Oklahoma 6 Purdue vs. 11 Baylor 6 Marquette vs. 11 Kentucky 8 Mississippi State vs. 9 Oregon Couldn't they have mixed these up just a little bit, instead of having the small schools knock each other out in the first round? From seeds 5 to 12 (meaning the 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, 8-9) we only have 5 matchups of "big school" vs. "little school" out of 16 games, which is 31%. However, of the 32 teams with a seed between 5 and 12, there are 13 mid-majors and 19 "big schools" so the mid-majors make up 41% of the 32 teams. The potential was there for the committee to have enough mid-majors to match them up with "big schools" in 81% of the games (13 mid-majors and 16 games) but only managed to do so in 31%. There is a 50% difference between what happened and what could have potentially happened. The matchups that did happen likely had to do with the fact they couldn't pair teams from the same conference in the same area. For example, 7 Miami couldn't be in the West because Duke is the 2 seed and so on and so forth. This is why some teams get "bumped up" or "bumped down" to keep teams from the same conference from playing each other. I just hate that the little guys can't be given a shot. There was so much potential to have a great tournament and the possibility for intriguing matchups. Maybe Gonzaga-Arizona, West Virginia-Davidson, or Kent State-Oregon could have been scheduled instead. That is besides the fact that Illinois State and VCU didn't even get in, which I feel the committee will justify by saying that the small schools haven't been advancing. However, digging deeper, it is because they all knocked each other out that they won't be advancing. Scariest High-Seeds (11 or higher): 12 George Mason 13 Siena 11 Kansas State The Patriots have been here before and won't be afraid to compete. They won't be wide-eyed and afraid, especially not against Notre Dame and possibly Washington State in the second round as those teams aren't exactly intimidating. Will Thomas and Folarin Campbell are the familiar names, but the x-factor is Dre Smith because of his streaky shooting. Smith had at least 4 threes in 9 games, including 10-10 from 3 against James Madison. Siena is scary for a few reasons as well. For starters, the MAAC is a much tougher league than people realize with Rider, Niagara, and Marist all being quality clubs. They also upset Stanford and hung tough with Syracuse at Syracuse. Most importantly, they can shoot the 3 (38% as a team). The first-round matchup with Vandy is intriguing because both play fast and shoot 3's, meaning either team could get hot. Kansas State probably isn't going far in the tournament, but anytime you have a Michael Beasley there is always the possibility of an upset or two. I think they lack the shooting and depth to make a serious run, but Beasley might drop 40 and they get a win over USC. Biggest Snubs: Illinois State Virginia Commonwealth Virginia Tech The MVC and CAA have performed very well in the NCAA tournament the last few years so I feel they have earned the respect to no longer be 1-bid leagues. Are you really going to say the Sun Belt and WCC are more deserving of multiple bids? I think not... The ACC is a good conference and has been for a long time, is the Big East really deserving of having twice as many teams in the field? The SEC is supposed to be down and they have 6 teams in, so what is the ACC? In a coma? I look at Arizona State and I say they are a good team, but things didn't fall their way because of the way the system is set up. I hate the RPI more than anyone, but we use it so it is just hard to get in with an RPI of 82. The Sun Devils would have needed more conference wins to feel safe. I compare them to West Virginina and Kentucky, who had 11 and 12 conference wins respectively, because they don't have the tough schedule it isn't enough to just be 9-9 in conference. Most Undeserving At-Large Bids: Oregon Villanova I talked earlier about Oregon so I'll continue with that theme. They lost to Oakland and Nebraska in the non-conference, and the only non-conference win over a team that is currently in the field is Kansas State. I just think it is hard to leave out Virginia Tech, who finished 9-7 in the ACC and came within a hair of beating UNC on a "neutral" floor. I also look at Villanova and scratch my head. I look at losses to NC State and a 22-point thumping by St. Joes in the non-conference plus bad conference losses to Cincinnati, Depaul, and Rutgers. For those that remember, they should have lost to lowly LSU but came back. My biggest argument is that only 3 of their 9 conference wins were against teams that are in the field. Biggest Contrast In Styles: 9 Oregon vs. 8 Mississippi State Oregon wants to spread the floor and shoot 3's, while the Bulldogs play great defense and have a size advantage. 4 Washington State vs. 13 Winthrop The Cougars play so smart and methodical, while Winthrop wants to run wild and speed the game up full speed from baseline to baseline. 7 Miami vs. 10 St. Mary's The Hurricanes have size and athleticism, while the Gaels have neither but they do shoot the lights out and play quality basketball. (On a side note, remember that NCAA tournament is rarely won by the biggest and most athletic teams. There is a stronger correlation between winning and having veteran guards that can knock down 3's and manage the game.) Best Games To Watch: 7 Butler vs 10 South Alabama Watch the deadly Mike Green-A.J. Graves combo. 8 UNLV vs. 9 Kent State Both teams are athletic and like to get out in transition. 6 USC vs. 11 Kansas State Mayo vs. Beasley 4 Vandy vs. 13 Siena Both average 78+ points and shoot a lot of threes. 7 Gonzaga vs. 10 Davidson Old school vs. New school in Mid-Major Land 7 West Virginia vs. 10 Arizona Expect plenty of offense and highlights from Joe Alexander and Jarryd Bayless. Worst Games To Watch 4 Pittsburgh vs. 13 Oral Roberts Both play a grind-it-out, ugly style that could keep this game in the 40's and 50's. 6 Purdue vs. 11 Baylor It's Purdue, what do you expect? 3 Wisconsin vs. 14 Cal State Fullerton The Big Ten is boring, okay... 8 BYU vs. 9 Texas A&M Don't clear out your schedule for this one... 3 Stanford vs. 14 Cornell At least they understand chemistry and engineering... March 17, 2008 |
| NCAA Football | |
|
Be Careful What You Wish For
|
| NCAA Basketball | |
|
Jumpology: My Bracket Jumpology: Scouting The Heavyweights Jumpology: Reviewing The Bracket
|