Tag Archives: playoffs

by

2012 NBA Playoffs: Conference Finals Preview

And then there were four.  After the Boston Celtics’ glorious though kind of unwatchable Game 7 win, we are left with 4 of the league’s 7 best teams and three of the top four.  Of course this is no surprise given the NBA playoffs spectacular ability to identify the best team – you end up with precious few true surprises.  So with a fairly chalky Final Four, how will this shake out?

Eastern Conference Finals: Miami Heat (4th overall, 6th offense, 4th defense) vs Boston Celtics (7th overall, 24th offense, 1st defense)

Wow, Avery Bradley’s loss is huge.  Given how incompetent he looked for a year and half of his career, this is kind of incredible.  Indeed, as John Hollinger pointed out, even with a rough shooting postseason, Bradley led the Celtics in +/-.  If you remember his sensational block on Dwayne Wade in their regular season encounters – then you can see how Bradley’s loss coupled with Wade’s amazing last couple games in the Indiana series portend to something scary for Boston.  Considering how horrible their offense has been, the Celtics need to lean on their defense and without Bradley that will be hard.  Sure, Chris Bosh’s injury is a slow healer and a high risk one – he won’t be 100% – but LeBron and Wade are clicking so easily now that it is hard to envision the shorthanded Celtics being more than a bug on a windshield.  Heat in 5

Western Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (2nd overall, 1st offense, 10th defense) vs Oklahoma City Thunder (3rd overall, 2nd offense, 8th defense)

The Spurs, with Parker and when not punting games to rest their old guys have won 43 of their last 47 games.  This is obviously phenomenal.  They have had blowouts down the stretch against all of their peers, including Oklahoma City.  However, the Thunder’s body of work is a little better than the Spurs with a slightly better defense.  However, San Antonio’s defense has hunkered down in the postseason – and you’d like to think that Duncan and Splitter mean a tougher interior D than Ibaka – who can block shots but not so much at position defense.  Can the Thunder stop the Spurs’ pick and roll?  It is hard to envision, given how the Spurs can spread you out so completely.  In contrast, the Thunder’s offensive prowess is built into individual ability more than a passing and motion attack.  Harden vs Ginobli, Parker vs Westbrook.  The Thunder thrive on winning 1-on-1 battles, but can they win enough here to hang with the Spurs?  Despite Durant’s brilliance – I just don’t see it.  It is going to be a hell of a series though.  Spurs in 6

by

PLAYOFFS??!! The Big Ten is Talkin PLAYOFFS??!!

Well, the first of the Plus-1 four team playoff ideas has leaked.  That the Big Ten is choosing it is not a surprise, seeing as they want to get ahead of anything that could pillory the Rose Bowl’s sanctity or whatever.  Indeed – their plan is only mildly interesting.  Two national semifinals, hosted at campus sites.  This largely leaves the Rose Bowl in tact – but the other big Bowl Games would have to be discouraged.  It is one thing to have your game’s prestige hijacked by the national title – but another to have four possible games hijacked.  Of course, this plan is in an embryonic state – university presidents will have to make the final call – and probably would not be enacted anytime soon.  However, it is another plan in the foundation of moving college football toward a four team playoff.

Now – a couple folks on Twitter noted other more democratic options – an 8 team field with only conference winners, or a 16 team field with the 11 BCS conference winners.  This makes it feel like a March Madness setup allegedly – but that is silly.  It is the large school at-larges that allow March Madness to work.  I doubt that people want to see a really good team sit at home at the expense of a C-USA team getting a seed.  Sure, they say – win your league , but the leagues are not populated with good teams equally.  I am not making a pro huge mediocre program here – but certainly Alabama should not have been shut out of ANY national title conversation.  Even a 16 team field is 5 at-larges, only 31% of the field – a far smaller proposition than college basketball for one.  Freeing bowls to make their own choices, and having two teams from a conference in the Final Four never killed anybody.  Sure, 4 is a small field, but as Stewart Mandel documents – honestly, how many times has the #4/#5 distinction been THAT big a deal.  Somebody will always be excluded.

That said, the Big Ten idea of campus semifinals is flawed.  First, it would reduce upsets – not that it is a big deal, but good for television.  Second, it would seriously marginalize the bowls which are marginalized to begin with.  The Bowl Structure is flat out not going to change, so no point pretending otherwise.  So instead, take the BCS bowls, roll them into the national title, and give a couple of advantages to the Top 2 teams.  Also, exclude conference runners up from the Top 2 and you are all set.  Will this exclude teams from non BCS leagues?  No.  Boise State has less room for error, but if Boise State was good enough to get to the Top 4, no doubt that a bowl and a TV network would be tickled.  The good news is the playoff is inevitable, just all these silly steps in the middle.

by

College Football Warm Up: Three Years of Results

Last year we examined college football rankings on a week to week systematic basis.  This year, as noted before, the expectation is to do something more like the USCHO’s tournament ranking formula.  We have described the methodology before.  We’ve also mused on what a playoff would look like if college football really did a fair, basketball analogous system.  Considering 68 of 3oo+ get into the basketball tournament, a 24 team tournament with 11 conference champions seemed fair here.  So how does our new ranking system look if we ran the playoff seeding formula using the last three years of data? (region teams listed in order of seed – the Top 2 in each region get byes – top 2 row, bottom 2 rows are the national semifinals)

2008:

  1. GLENDALE: Oklahoma (1), Penn State, Alabama, Pittsburgh, Oregon, Buffalo
  2. MIAMI: Utah (4), Florida, TCU, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, Virginia Tech
  3. NEW ORLEANS: Texas (2), USC, Ball State, Georgia Tech, Oregon State, Troy
  4. PASADENA: Boise State (3), Texas Tech, Ohio State, Cincinnati, Georgia, East Carolina

2009:

  1. GLENDALE: Texas (1), Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Houston, LSU, Troy
  2. MIAMI: Cincinnati (4), Florida, Stanford, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State
  3. NEW ORLEANS:  Alabama (2), Oregon, Iowa, Virginia Tech, BYU, East Carolina
  4. PASADENA: TCU (3), Boise State, Miami-FL, Central Michigan, Penn State, West Virginia

2010:

  1. NEW ORLEANS: Auburn (1), Stanford, Missouri, Texas A&M, Utah, Florida International
  2. GLENDALE: Ohio State (4), Boise State, Nevada, LSU, Nebraska West Virginia
  3. PASADENA: Oregon (2), Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Alabama, Miami-OH
  4. MIAMI: TCU (3), Michigan State, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, South Carolina, Central Florida

In 2008, in a playoff scenario, wow is Oklahoma’s road to the title hard.  An Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma road to the title game is pretty massive.  They should be happy about the bowl system.  With all the teams taking losses in that season particularly, the softer Pasadena region was probably an inevitability.

The most interesting note of last year’s data though is how crazy the Pasadena region would have been.  Oregon would have had a gauntlet to run to get the title game.  Heck, TCU would have not had a picnic either.  Auburn as the top seed interestingly would have had by far the easiest region.

Definitely would be fun to speculate on … if only …

by

On Dirk Nowitzki (Game 1, 2011 West Finals)

Well, this came out of nowhere.  Two teams that engaged in solid defense down the stretch met, and the result was a wild 121-112 back to the 80s shootout.  The numbers coming out of this were incredible.  Kevin Durant scored 40 points on 18 shots, had a TS% for the game of 75.9% and was not even the sickest performance on the court.  That of course was Dirk Nowitzki’s historic 93.9% TS day scoring 48 points on 15 shots.  (24-24 from the line)  There have been a lot of ways to put the game in perspective.  Indeed, the TS% is one way.  Another one I liked was the idea of points per miss.  However, in the history of brutal individual efficiency, what if we add in turnovers to Dirk’s performance.  What this means is that Dirk, could have (theoretically) scored 58 points between the turnovers, and shot attempts.  He got 48 of them, for an 82.8%.  For some perspective Kevin Durant with his 18-19 FT, 18 FGA, and 3 turnovers scored 40 out of 61 points, or 65.6%.  Indeed, below are the percentage of possible points scored for the top 10 scorers in the league this season, and a few other interesting names sprinkled in.

  1. Kevin Durant: 2161 points, 1538 FGA, 675 FTA, 218 TO = 4187 possible points = 51.6%
  2. LeBron James: 2111 out of 4201 = 50.2%
  3. Carmelo Anthony: 1940 of 4023 = 49.0%
  4. Dwayne Wade: 1941 of 3894 = 49.8%
  5. Kobe Bryant: 2078 of 4347 = 47.8%
  6. Amare Stoudemire: 1971 of 4061 = 48.5%
  7. Derrick Rose: 2026 of 4305 = 47.1%
  8. Monta Ellis: 1929 of 4157 = 46.4%
  9. Kevin Martin: 1876 of 3571 = 52.5%
  10. Dirk Nowitzki: 1681 of 3075 = 54.7%

Really Nowtizki is well clear of the field in the ability to not waste chances to score.  Indeed scoping random names in the Top 20 you see Paul Pierce at 53.3% and see just how rare an air he is.  Dirk does not create for his teammates by passing them the ball per se, but he does it by not hogging scoring chances.  It is a talent that exists in negative space, so it’s not fun or sexy – the ability to not do something.  But it is considerable and last night it was on display for the nation.

But, as for the game in total – is there anything of consequence which can be gleaned?  Unlike Game 1 in the East, a lot here did not go to script.  Neither defense will be very proud of its performance.  Both of these teams have shown offensive chops, but in a reasonably paced game (only 93 possessions, around league regular season average), both teams had sterling PPPs. (to put it another way, no team this season average 1.1 points per possession, both teams flew past 1.2 last night).  Oklahoma City gets to the line more than anybody, and sure enough they got 43 free throw attempts in the 93 possessions, which obliterates their season average, while Dallas got to the line a ton 36 times compared to their more piddly .241 per possession (basically they got to the line 14 more times than normal in this game).  Both teams shot well and made their threes – really neither Oklahoma City’s physicality nor Dallas’ zones made any real impression on the other’s offense.

Will this continue?  Oklahoma City we know will keep drawing fouls at this rate, but can Dallas keep it up?  Obviously, officials have something to do with it, but the Thunder’s inability to keep Dallas off the line was huge.  Of course nobody expects Dirk to shoot like this, but the Mavericks are a jump shooting team – it is the non-jump shots that the Thunder need to be worried about.  Dallas got the win, but it is hard to envision them creating contact at yesterday’s rate – even if Dirk can make those midrange jumpers til the cows come home.

by

2011 NBA Power Rankings – Week 14

After a week in which a national television audience got to the see the good, the bad and the ugly of the 2011 Boston Celtics, the rankings.  As always, your methodology can be found here:

Rank Team W L Off Def Road SOS Rating
1 Spurs 40 7 104.302 (3) 96.384 (7) 1.489 2.131 (7) 11.538
2 Heat 34 14 103.592 (4) 95.416 (4) 1.823 1.173 (27) 11.172
3 Celtics 36 11 101.144 (10) 93.778 (2) 1.638 1.291 (25) 10.296
4 Lakers 33 15 104.333 (2) 97.552 (8) 1.677 0.929 (30) 9.387
5 Bulls 33 14 98.403 (19) 92.09 (1) 1.489 1.281 (26) 9.084
6 Magic 31 18 101.82 (9) 96.045 (6) 1.786 1.351 (23) 8.912
7 Hornets 31 18 98.509 (18) 94.636 (3) 1.786 2.298 (4) 7.957
8 Mavericks 32 15 101.129 (11) 97.961 (12) 1.489 2.488 (2) 7.145
9 Nuggets 28 20 104.597 (1) 102.292 (24) 1.677 1.755 (16) 5.738
10 Thunder 30 17 102.438 (7) 100.728 (18) 1.713 2.306 (3) 5.728
11 Knicks 25 22 102.908 (5) 101.281 (19) 1.862 1.695 (18) 5.184
12 Hawks 30 18 99.803 (14) 97.786 (10) 1.896 0.959 (29) 4.871
13 Rockets 22 27 101.957 (8) 101.666 (22) 1.857 2.026 (10) 4.173
14 Sixers 21 26 98.526 (17) 97.715 (9) 1.787 1.419 (22) 4.017
15 Jazz 29 20 100.554 (13) 100.182 (17) 1.714 1.634 (20) 3.72
16 Blazers 25 22 98.82 (15) 98.648 (15) 1.787 1.748 (17) 3.707
17 Grizzlies 25 24 98.067 (20) 98.211 (14) 1.929 1.632 (21) 3.416
18 Bucks 19 27 94.314 (29) 95.453 (5) 1.902 2.548 (1) 3.311
19 Suns 22 24 102.655 (6) 103.722 (28) 1.75 1.918 (15) 2.601
20 Pacers 18 27 95.912 (24) 97.854 (11) 1.711 2.008 (12) 1.778
21 Warriors 20 27 100.574 (12) 103.243 (27) 1.713 2.086 (8) 1.13
22 Bobcats 20 27 95.716 (25) 98.07 (13) 1.787 1.31 (24) 0.744
23 Clippers 19 28 98.541 (16) 101.326 (20) 1.34 2.086 (9) 0.642
24 Pistons 17 31 97.74 (22) 102.761 (26) 1.896 2.278 (6) -0.847
25 Timberwolves 11 36 97.416 (23) 102.397 (25) 1.787 2.016 (11) -1.178
26 Kings 12 33 95.38 (26) 100.048 (16) 1.633 1.138 (28) -1.897
27 Raptors 13 36 98.039 (21) 104.127 (29) 1.857 1.975 (14) -2.256
28 Nets 15 34 95.231 (27) 101.583 (21) 1.857 1.672 (19) -2.823
29 Wizards 13 34 95.044 (28) 101.812 (23) 1.787 1.995 (13) -2.986
30 Cavaliers 8 40 92.659 (30) 104.711 (30) 2.042 2.293 (5) -7.717

Last week, we explored the East playoff picture and the flotsam that had to occupy the last two slots – basically who gets the honor to get punched in the face by Miami or Boston – this week, consider the West standings:

  • The Spurs, at 40-7 have an 8 game lead in the loss column on anyone else.  Really, barring a health related catastrophe, it is foolhardy to discuss anyone else as the top seed.
  • The 2nd position becomes very interesting.  Right now, the Lakers, Jazz, Thunder, Mavericks and Hornets are ALL within 4.5 games.  The swooning Jazz have slipped to 15th in the rankings, 2.5 points behind the rest of our decision set.  So, with both the standings and the numbers shifting against them, we might have to strike them from consideration. (also consider their schedule at 20th ranked now, does not figure to get much easier).  The Lakers have the qualitative case.  Their metrics are the best, and certainly we all expect them to deliver.  However, noting their 30th ranked schedule – most of their tough games are coming – while the Hornets and Mavericks have had easier slates.  I’m not saying the Lakers won’t grab #2, but there is a very solid case to be made against it.  Dallas/New Orleans is a real toss-up.  Honestly, I just think Dallas has more answers and room for error than New Orleans, though the Hornets’ defense has been a bullwark all season.
  • So if the Top 5 are known (SA, LA, OKC, Dal, NO) and Utah seems to be sliding with their #15 rank, how far can the slide go?  Looking at the standings, Denver and Portland take up the 7 and 8 positions for now.  However, if Denver deal Carmelo Anthony, this could fade.  Portland is just trying to deal with their injury issues.  In the above rankings, Denver is #9 while the Blazers are #16, so there is a pretty good case for Denver passing Utah if Melo stays.  Otherwise, it is hard to envision the Jazz sliding out of the Top 8.  If Denver is out, Memphis seems to be clearly the team, despite Phoenix’ record – Memphis’ fundamentals are clearly better, though their schedule could get tougher soon.
by

2010 NFL Playoffs: Wild Card Round

Wow, it HAS been a while, hasn’t it? Anyhoo, Happy New Year to this teeny tiny following here, and I hope that your holidays have been good. Writing from India, obviously great blogging time has been intermittent. (Thus the dearth of power rankings) Of course, there will be posts covering that adventure forthcoming.

However, there is the business at hand, the wild card round and the four matches. With time a wastin before my flight tonight, time to get some wrong picks out there. This way if I am wrong, I have to be accountable – I did not attend Tom Coughlin’s school of blame shifting.

New Orleans Saints (-10.5) at Seattle Seahawks: It is hard for this to not offend my sensibility. The Seahawks of Pete Carroll, by virtue of their location in the truly execrable NFC West, rode a 7-9 record to a home game against the Saints. The Saints are considerable still, though lacking the creds of last year, in particular a decimated running back corps. The defense has been less turnover strong than a year ago. But come on! Even with home field, the Seabags were one of the league’s worst most of the season, and they were debating QBs for the game. The only question is if the Saints cover. Saints 34, Seahawks 17

New York Jets at Indianapolis Colts (-2.5): Rematch of last year’s AFC title game. The Jets are better, the Colts are worse. Now, the Jets have issues running consistently, while Mark Sanchez is beat up at quarterback. The defense is strong though. However the blitz heavy defense is made to order for Peyton Manning if his line can block. And they’ll have to with their injuries at skill positions and their near total inability to run. Peyton can make any prognosticator look bad, but the Jets have to be smarter in their defense this season, especially with a stronger cornerback tandem. Few points but Jets 20, Colts 14

Green Bay Packers at Philadelphia Eagles (-2.5): Rematch of week 1, but this might as well not be. That Eagle team thought Kevin Kolb would be starting. Instead we have the force of nature that is Mike Vick back in the playoffs for the first time in 6 seasons. The Eagles are the most dynamic offense in the league with unmatched big play ability from both passing and running avenues. The Packers have a big play defense and their own force of nature in Aaron Rodgers quarterbacking, but a line that gives him little help, and a total inability to run the football. The Eagles defense makes plays but gives points up, while their return and kicking game require no explanation. Anyway, this is clearly the best game of the weekend. The Eagles do just enough. Eagles 31, Packers 28

Baltimore Ravens (-3) at Kansas City Chiefs: The playoffs are back in Kansas City, which is neat. And this team is in line with what the 90s Martyball teams would love – running hard, passing smart, strong defense. Baltimore clearly is an elite team, especially when they keep the offense focused around Ray Rice like they did in their win over the Saints in Week 15. The defense gets the ink, but they have given up big ground games to opponents much of the year. In a lot of ways this is an offense driven Raven team between Flacco, Rice and their depth at receiver. Baltimore scares me as a Patriots fan but they have to advance first, and the Chiefs might be the wrong matchup. This is no fun without calling a surprise. Chiefs 23, Ravens 20

by

NCAA Power Rankings and BCS Do-Over: Week 8

Another week, another #1 going down – though this is the BCS number one.  If you wanted to use our ratings as a predictive tool, you would have seen this coming, so points for me. (ignore Wisconsin-Iowa cough, cough).  Anyway, with Ohio State getting back on track, and Alabama delivering a strong performance in the Third Week of October, some of the powers we saw early in the year are getting back on track.  Furthermore, we have some new names rising as the quality of schedules start to further define themselves.

One of the misconceptions about all computer ranking models, including this one, is that ONLY the effects of this week move the rankings.  In reality each week provides more information on the body of work.  So in week 2, you play a guy who beat an opponent before by 20 points – that seems like a good win.  But as that guy loses the rest of his games, the true quality of him as an opponent is revealed.  As such, the movements week to week SHOULDN’T just mirror the whim of the polls.  Pollsters, especially coaches, are not remembering what this week reflects on the quality of an earlier result.  As always, 50% of this is scoring margin, 50% is opponent’s scoring margin in other games.

Rank Team W L Margin Sched Rtg SOS Rank
1 Ohio State 7 1 27.2 4.7 31
2 TCU 8 0 25.23 -1.99 90
3 Oregon 7 0 25.11 -4.5 104
4 Missouri 7 0 24.89 4.82 30
5 Nebraska 6 1 23.83 3.62 42
6 Auburn 8 0 23.18 8.93 6
7 Boise State 6 0 22.45 -3.55 101
8 Oklahoma State 6 1 21.95 5.84 22
9 Alabama 7 1 21.72 2.07 56
10 Iowa 5 2 21.28 3.85 37
11 Michigan State 8 0 20.95 3.63 41
12 Oklahoma 6 1 20.66 8.95 5
13 Virginia Tech 6 2 19.63 2.51 55
14 Utah 7 0 19.03 -9.33 118
15 South Carolina 5 2 18.73 6.52 20
16 Stanford 6 1 18.72 1.47 63
17 Miami-FL 5 2 18.72 6.97 17
18 NC State 5 2 18.53 5.68 23
19 USC 5 2 18.47 4.44 34
20 California 4 3 17.6 5.57 24
21 Arizona 6 1 17.52 -0.41 80
22 Illinois 4 3 17.39 10.11 2
23 Florida State 6 1 16.67 -0.51 81
24 Florida 4 3 16.58 7.15 16
25 Pittsburgh 4 3 16.52 6.49 21
26 Hawaii 6 2 16.25 3.72 40
27 Clemson 4 3 15.65 3.44 46
28 LSU 7 1 14.96 3.77 38
29 Mississippi State 6 2 14.74 2.99 53
30 Arkansas 5 2 14.71 5.06 26
31 North Carolina 4 3 14.65 9.11 4
32 Oregon State 3 3 14.49 14.58 1
33 Texas A&M 4 3 13.79 2.76 54
34 Wisconsin 7 1 13.57 0.88 69
35 Georgia 4 4 13.3 1.8 59
36 Nevada 6 1 13.22 -6.71 112
37 UCF 5 2 12.03 -5.47 109
38 Cincinnati 3 4 11.07 4.07 36
39 West Virginia 5 2 10.71 -2.15 93
40 Michigan 5 2 10.48 3.2 49
41 Notre Dame 4 4 10.04 7.79 11
42 Air Force 5 3 9.73 0.98 67
43 Baylor 6 2 9.14 -2.2 95
44 Kansas State 5 2 8.32 1.75 60
45 Northern Illinois 6 2 8.13 -5.34 108
46 San Diego State 5 2 8.11 -7.03 113
47 Kentucky 4 4 7.72 4.13 35
48 Penn State 4 3 7.68 4.46 33
49 South Florida 4 3 7.54 0.18 76
50 Troy 4 2 7.3 -1.08 85
51 Georgia Tech 5 3 7.22 -0.22 79
52 Houston 4 3 6.91 -3.56 102
53 Louisville 4 3 6.65 -2.78 99
54 East Carolina 5 2 6.51 3.44 45
55 Army 4 3 6.15 -2.56 97
56 Temple 6 2 6 -0.81 83
57 Tulsa 4 3 5.84 -4.77 106
58 Texas 4 3 5.15 0.22 75
59 Navy 5 2 5.05 -1.45 89
60 Colorado 3 4 4.34 7.95 10
61 Arizona State 3 4 4.16 0.91 68
62 Iowa State 4 4 4.12 8.18 7
63 Idaho 4 3 3.95 -7.34 115
64 UCLA 3 4 3.84 9.41 3
65 Toledo 5 3 3.69 5.03 27
66 Maryland 5 2 3.49 -1.15 88
67 SMU 4 4 3.36 3.05 51
68 Northwestern 5 2 2.87 -4.63 105
69 Texas Tech 4 3 2.81 0.35 74
70 Rutgers 4 3 2.71 -0.22 78
71 Ole Miss 3 4 2.13 1.21 65
72 Southern Miss 5 2 2.06 -8.16 116
73 Syracuse 5 2 1.79 -5.81 110
74 Connecticut 3 4 1.67 -2.48 96
75 Fresno State 5 2 1.56 -7.23 114
76 Ohio 5 3 1.41 -8.74 117
77 Virginia 3 4 1.2 -2.16 94
78 Washington 3 4 1.14 7.42 12
79 Louisiana Tech 3 4 0.95 3.05 50
80 Western Michigan 3 4 0.2 -3.05 100
81 Boston College 2 5 0.15 5.01 28
82 FIU 2 4 -0.15 1.19 66
83 Indiana 4 3 -1.07 -2.57 98
84 Central Michigan 2 6 -1.1 -1.14 87
85 Tennessee 2 5 -1.18 7.25 15
86 Arkansas State 3 5 -1.34 -2.03 91
87 UAB 2 5 -1.72 3.03 52
88 BYU 3 5 -2.6 6.65 19
89 Purdue 4 3 -2.87 -0.73 82
90 Minnesota 1 7 -2.93 3.25 48
91 Vanderbilt 2 5 -3.94 3.74 39
92 Wake Forest 2 5 -4.21 3.54 43
93 Tulane 3 4 -4.75 1.82 58
94 Miami-OH 4 4 -6.19 1.25 64
95 Kent State 3 4 -6.45 -10.16 120
96 Wyoming 2 6 -6.57 6.97 18
97 Rice 2 6 -7.16 4.65 32
98 UTEP 5 3 -7.5 -13.44 121
99 Marshall 1 6 -7.84 8.12 9
100 Utah State 2 5 -7.88 0.87 70
101 Colorado State 2 6 -7.88 7.31 14
102 MTSU 3 4 -8.14 -9.71 119
103 Bowling Green 1 7 -8.15 0.75 71
104 Duke 1 6 -8.68 3.43 47
105 Washington State 1 7 -8.81 7.38 13
106 Western Kentucky 1 6 -10.13 -1.09 86
107 Buffalo 2 5 -10.82 1.54 62
108 UNLV 1 6 -10.87 4.99 29
109 Florida Atlantic 1 5 -11.08 -2.08 92
110 San Jose State 1 7 -11.91 8.18 8
111 Ball State 2 6 -12.33 -6.48 111
112 Kansas 2 5 -13.3 -0.87 84
113 North Texas 1 6 -14.13 -4.77 107
114 Memphis 1 6 -14.18 5.21 25
115 Eastern Michigan 1 7 -14.29 0.71 72
116 LA-Lafayette 2 5 -14.31 0.48 73
117 LA-Monroe 3 4 -15.51 -3.87 103
118 FCS 7 75 -18.75 1.92 57
119 New Mexico State 1 6 -18.85 1.55 61
120 New Mexico 0 7 -19.03 3.51 44
121 Akron 0 8 -20.97 0.06 77

Stanford’s plunge from 3 to 16 is related to both a meh effort against the pretty terrible Washington State Cougars with scheduling crippling results by previous victims Notre Dame and UCLA in particular.  Oregon of course should have helped them, but Oregon has hung so many blowouts that that schedule component is not helped.

Using the actual conference standings, with our table as a guide to break ties and stuff, we can start improving our BCS prediction complex, as well as fulfill our 24-team playoff concept.  Since you’ve already seen the specifics on how we slot teams, this is how I’d populate the BCS:

  1. National Title Game: TCU vs Oregon
  2. BCS Automatics: Big Ten – Michigan State, Pac 10 – Oregon, ACC – Virginia Tech, Big 12 – Missouri, SEC – Auburn, Big East – Pittsburgh
  3. No Notre Dame, TCU already in National Title Game, Ohio State automatically qualifies with their top 4 rank.
  4. At larges … the Top 14 without Big Ten teams … Nebraska (5), Boise State (7), Oklahoma State (8), Alabama (9), Oklahoma (12), Utah (14) … we need two at-larges, Nebraska and Boise State.  Normally I’d say Alabama.  However, as a practical matter, Auburn and Alabama will be playing each other.  Boise State’s pedigree has been proven, and they most likely will remain an attractive bowl choice.

Slotting the teams, only the Rose Bowl gets the ability to choose a team first, so Ohio State won’t go there.  Nebraska as a future Big Ten though …

  • National Title Game: TCU vs Oregon
  • Rose Bowl: Michigan State vs Nebraska
  • Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs Ohio State
  • Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs Pittsburgh
  • Fiesta Bowl: Missouri vs Boise State

But really, a 24 team playoff is way more fun.  If we did this, the 11 automatic bids:

  • Mountain West: TCU
  • Pac 10: Oregon
  • Big 12: Missouri
  • SEC: Auburn
  • WAC: Boise State
  • Big Ten: Michigan State
  • ACC: Virginia Tech
  • Big East: Pittsburgh
  • Conference USA: Central Florida
  • MAC: Northern Illinois
  • Sun Belt: Troy

The thirteen at-large teams?  Three team max per conference (four teams for 12 team conferences).  Some of these teams will play each other, so I understand that there are inherent flaws.  I also eliminated 3-loss teams from contention for now:

  • Big Ten (2): Ohio State, Iowa
  • Big 12 (3): Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma
  • SEC (2): Alabama, South Carolina
  • MWC (1): Utah
  • Pac 10 (2): Stanford, Arizona
  • ACC (3): Miami-FL, NC State, Florida State

So the 24 teams in order this week:  TCU, Oregon, Missouri, Auburn, Ohio State, Nebraska, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Iowa, Michigan State, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Utah, South Carolina, Stanford, Miami-FL, NC State, Arizona, Florida State, Pittsburgh, Central Florida, Northern Illinois, Troy.  LSU is the glaring omission, as is Wisconsin with the one-losses apiece … but the true body of work does not match the other teams, though some of the individual results “feel” bigger.

by

NCAA Power Rankings and BCS Do-Over: Week 7

Well, another week, another shocker at the top …  of course you would think this would make #2 Nebraska a natural to slide into the number one slot and keep our rankings fairly clean.  You’d be wrong.  The polls, as they do, will reveal a new number one.  Our system reveals a slight difference.  As always, the rankings are 50% a teams’s scoring margin and 50% the scoring margin of the team’s opponents when facing other opponents:

Rank Team W L Margin Sched Rtg SOS Rank
1 Ohio State 6 1 26.33 5.61 25
2 Oregon 6 0 25.43 -3.28 98
3 Stanford 5 1 24.76 6.3 21
4 Missouri 6 0 24.61 2.69 50
5 Auburn 7 0 24.24 8.95 10
6 Oklahoma 6 0 23.92 9.34 7
7 TCU 7 0 23.59 -3.3 99
8 Oklahoma State 6 0 23.4 2.94 49
9 Nebraska 5 1 22.33 0.99 66
10 Iowa 5 1 21.81 1.31 62
11 Boise State 6 0 21.72 -4.28 104
12 Alabama 6 1 21.54 3.54 45
13 Michigan State 7 0 20.63 2.49 52
14 South Carolina 4 2 20.47 9.13 8
15 Virginia Tech 5 2 19.12 4.19 38
16 North Carolina 4 2 19.06 9.35 6
17 NC State 5 2 18.37 5.51 26
18 Florida 4 3 18.33 8.9 11
19 LSU 7 0 17.84 4.56 34
20 USC 5 2 17.82 3.78 43
21 Utah 6 0 17.14 -10.11 119
22 Mississippi State 5 2 17 4.29 36
23 Miami-FL 4 2 16.66 6.78 17
24 Florida State 6 1 16.01 -1.16 86
25 Arizona 5 1 15.89 -0.2 76
26 Oregon State 3 3 15.48 15.56 1
27 Pittsburgh 3 3 15.08 6.71 19
28 Clemson 3 3 15.04 3.13 46
29 California 3 3 14.99 6.03 22
30 Illinois 3 3 14.12 10.46 3
31 Arkansas 4 2 14.04 5.12 28
32 Hawaii 5 2 14.03 4.67 32
33 Michigan 5 2 13.81 6.52 20
34 Notre Dame 4 3 13.7 8.55 13
35 Cincinnati 3 3 13.42 3.92 41
36 Georgia 3 4 13.35 2.57 51
37 San Diego State 4 2 13.26 -2.15 91
38 Texas A&M 3 3 13.25 5.91 23
39 Wisconsin 6 1 12.84 -1.02 85
40 West Virginia 5 1 12.68 -3.16 96
41 UCF 4 2 12.59 -3.33 100
42 Nevada 6 1 12.41 -7.52 114
43 Air Force 5 2 11.43 -2.5 93
44 Baylor 5 2 10.04 -2.21 92
45 Texas 4 2 9.96 3.05 47
46 Kansas State 5 1 9.2 1.28 64
47 Arizona State 3 3 8.96 0.38 72
48 Kentucky 4 3 8.43 2.46 53
49 Georgia Tech 5 2 8.04 -1.96 90
50 Troy 4 2 7.68 -0.69 81
51 Tulsa 4 3 6.3 -4.31 106
52 East Carolina 4 2 5.83 6.75 18
53 SMU 4 3 5.83 1.9 57
54 Army 4 3 5.7 -3.01 94
55 Rutgers 4 2 5.51 -0.66 80
56 Connecticut 3 3 5.47 -3.11 95
57 Penn State 3 3 5.33 4.16 39
58 UCLA 3 3 5.03 5.7 24
59 Colorado 3 3 5.01 8.72 12
60 South Florida 3 3 4.96 -1.71 88
61 Northern Illinois 5 2 4.71 -6.97 113
62 Maryland 4 2 4.55 0.22 73
63 Texas Tech 3 3 4.14 2.35 54
64 Temple 5 2 4.09 1.31 63
65 Northwestern 5 1 4 -6.09 112
66 Idaho 3 3 3.97 -5.36 108
67 Houston 3 3 3.89 -3.61 102
68 Washington 3 3 3.88 6.8 16
69 Navy 4 2 3.71 -0.87 84
70 Fresno State 4 2 3.24 -3.92 103
71 Iowa State 3 4 2.83 8.97 9
72 Toledo 4 3 2.59 5.12 29
73 Louisville 3 3 2.38 -4.29 105
74 Ole Miss 3 3 2.19 -0.64 79
75 Southern Miss 5 2 1.92 -8.29 115
76 Indiana 4 2 0.64 -5.52 109
77 BYU 2 5 0.51 11.8 2
78 Tennessee 2 4 0.45 5.36 27
79 Virginia 2 4 0.36 0.94 68
80 Central Michigan 2 5 0.08 -3.17 97
81 Purdue 4 2 -0.05 -3.39 101
82 Louisiana Tech 3 4 -0.23 1.88 59
83 Ohio 4 3 -0.59 -8.7 117
84 Boston College 2 4 -0.73 4.44 35
85 Minnesota 1 6 -1.31 4.05 40
86 Syracuse 4 2 -1.56 -9.02 118
87 Vanderbilt 2 4 -2.01 4.62 33
88 FIU 2 4 -2.19 -0.86 83
89 UAB 2 4 -2.26 3.03 48
90 Arkansas State 2 5 -2.35 -0.13 75
91 Western Michigan 2 4 -2.55 -0.51 78
92 Wake Forest 2 5 -3.9 3.85 42
93 Miami-OH 4 3 -4.13 1.37 61
94 Wyoming 2 5 -5.03 10.22 4
95 Marshall 1 5 -5.24 9.47 5
96 Utah State 2 4 -5.46 -0.75 82
97 Rice 2 5 -5.91 4.23 37
98 Bowling Green 1 6 -6.13 0.62 71
99 UTEP 5 2 -6.59 -14.8 121
100 Buffalo 2 4 -6.7 1.88 58
101 Colorado State 2 5 -7.34 5.02 30
102 Duke 1 5 -8.35 0.65 70
103 Tulane 2 4 -8.83 1.08 65
104 Florida Atlantic 1 4 -9.2 -1.9 89
105 LA-Lafayette 2 4 -9.94 2.23 56
106 Washington State 1 6 -10.27 7.3 15
107 Kansas 2 4 -10.78 -1.53 87
108 UNLV 1 6 -10.88 4.97 31
109 Kent State 2 4 -11.3 -11.05 120
110 MTSU 2 4 -11.51 -8.68 116
111 Ball State 2 5 -12.23 -6.05 111
112 San Jose State 1 6 -12.85 7.97 14
113 Eastern Michigan 1 6 -12.91 0.87 69
114 Western Kentucky 0 6 -13.68 2.23 55
115 North Texas 1 6 -13.91 -4.55 107
116 LA-Monroe 3 3 -15.39 -5.89 110
117 Memphis 1 6 -15.81 3.58 44
118 Akron 0 7 -19.26 -0.22 77
119 FCS 7 75 -19.26 1.41 60
120 New Mexico State 1 5 -20.47 0.07 74
121 New Mexico 0 6 -23.65 0.98 67

What is interesting is that last week Ohio State’s margin over 2nd place was pretty huge.  The 3.64 point edge between them and 2nd place was the margin between 2nd and 9th place.  This week the margin shrinks to a tiny 0.9.  That 3.64 margin of last week separates 1st from 8th.  Put simply, if you think the field is wide open, you’d be right.

Of course the power rankings will need to be finessed a bit to fit into a fair BCS framework.  Fortunately we have conference standings starting to take shape, so we will use that and the table above to break ties.  For the sake of this exercise, we will ignore non-first place teams as long as possible when thinking about the championship game.

  1. The number one vs number two: Ohio State is the #1, but with them losing their perch at the top of the Big Ten, we will not consider them.  This leaves Oregon and Missouri.
  2. As far as the other BCS conferences?  Iowa represents the Big Ten, Auburn represents the SEC, Virginia Tech for the ACC and Pittsburgh for the Big East (highest rated of the four 1-0 teams – hey someone has to, right?)
  3. TCU is still the non-BCS winner of consequence.  They are ahead of Boise State by basically the margin of being a Mountain West team and not a WAC one.
  4. Ohio State with a Top 3 grade but not an automatic qualifier – gets an automatic spot.  Stanford is the 4th place team but not automatic – so they get a bid.

Only one at-large team are left given the Ohio State inclusion.  Looking at the Top 14, and realizing no other Big Ten or Pac 10 teams can be considered, we are looking at Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Boise State, Alabama, South Carolina.  Of these, we take Oklahoma.

With the Pac 10 and Big 12 losing teams to the national title game, that means the Rose and Fiesta get the first two slotting choices.  Then the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta get priority.  Also for the next 4 Rose Bowls, if the Rose Bowl loses a team, the first time it happens the non-BCS school goes.  The result?

  • BCS Title Game: Oregon vs Missouri
  • Rose Bowl: Iowa vs TCU
  • Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs Stanford
  • Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs Ohio State
  • Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs Pittsburgh

Using these rankings for a pretend 24 team tournament?

Automatic Bids:

  1. Pac 10: Oregon (1)
  2. Big 12: Missouri (2)
  3. SEC: Auburn (5)
  4. Mountain West: TCU (7)
  5. Big Ten: Iowa (10)
  6. WAC: Boise State (11)
  7. ACC: Virginia Tech (15)
  8. Big East: Pittsburgh (27)
  9. Conference USA: Central Florida (41)
  10. Sun Belt: Troy (50)
  11. MAC: Northern Illinois (61)

Thirteen at-larges.  We use the above table, with a 3 team limit, 4 team limit for the 12 team conferences.

  • Big Ten (2): Ohio State, Michigan State
  • Pac 10 (1): Stanford
  • Big 12 (3): Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska
  • SEC (3): Alabama, South Carolina, LSU
  • ACC (3): North Carolina, NC State, Florida State
  • Mountain West (1): Utah

The S-Curve Top 24 seeds, finessing for the Top 2 (and Ohio State not leading the Big Ten)

Oregon, Missouri, Stanford, Ohio State, Auburn, Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Iowa, Boise State, Alabama, Michigan State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, LSU, Utah, Florida State, Pittsburgh, Central Florida, Troy, Northern Illinois

 

by

A Pretend College Playoff

Normally I write about rankings given what we know about the BCS selection process.  But what if we were set free from the BCS.  The BCS is a stupid way to pick the best team in college football – but it is a useful way to make money, and keep 1-A football afloat.  The BCS has never pretended to be fair.  But how could one identify the best team in college football.  Given that now we have Week 6 worth of data, what if we used a playoff format?  Of course, my friend Adam did just that – and since I am not against stealing good ideas, how would his format fit with the system we know today?

Adam’s format idea is a 24 team tournament with 11 automatic bids (duh) and 13 at large spots with no conference getting more than three positions.  This seems like a solid place to start.  That said, I will allow 12 team leagues to have a 4th team.  So, the automatic bids …

  • Big Ten: Ohio State
  • Big 12: Nebraska
  • Pac 10: Oregon
  • SEC: Alabama
  • Mountain West: TCU
  • WAC: Boise State
  • ACC: NC State
  • Conference USA: Central Florida
  • Big East: West Virginia
  • Sun Belt: Troy
  • MAC: Northern Illinois

The thirteen at-large bids?  We’ll defer to the Week 6 rankings – except with the Pac 10 both California and Arizona are viable at-larges, but I took the lower ranked Wildcats due to fewer losses and the head to head win over California earlier this season.

  • Pac-10 (2): Stanford, Arizona,
  • Big 12 (3): Oklahoma State, Missouri, Oklahoma
  • Big Ten (2): Iowa, Michigan State
  • SEC (3): Auburn, LSU, South Carolina
  • ACC (2): Florida State, Virginia Tech
  • MWC (1): Utah

This leaves you with 24 teams.  Creating the pure 24 team ordering per the Week 6 rankings … from 1 through 24:

Ohio State, Nebraska, Oregon, Alabama, Stanford, TCU, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Iowa, Boise State, Auburn, LSU, South Carolina, NC State, Michigan State, Florida State, Arizona, Utah, Virginia Tech, Central Florida, West Virginia, Troy, Northern Illinois

 

 

 

 

by

League Championship Series Previews

Let’s cut to the chase … two potentially great LCS matchups on the table … all four teams have good short series winning ballclubs.

Yankees vs Rangers:

Your ALCS matchup.  The key to the series is the secondary starting pitching, especially now that Texas had to use Cliff Lee to win Game 5 against Tampa.  That said, the Friday ALCS start is of great help as Lee will be ready on full rest for Game 3, setting up a Game 3/7 possibility.  Game 1 becomes a big key with the Yankees running Sabbathia against CJ Wilson presumably for Texas.  The Yankees almost HAVE to claim CC’s starts as he is far and away their most reliable starter to pick off good hitting, which the Rangers are not lacking.  The Yankees are the best baserunner generating team in the league, and can mash any sort of mediocre pitching.  The Rangers back end starters are in trouble here – which makes CJ Wilson’s work all the more important.  Cliff Lee cannot be used more than twice, and the Rangers have to force the second time to occur – this makes it an uphill battle for them.  So in the battle of the team of Nixon vs the team of George Bush Jr, Yankees in 6 is the pick.

Phillies vs Giants

Look at all that starting pitching!  Halladay vs Lincecum, Oswalt vs Cain, Hamels vs Sanchez.  All of these matchups are really restaurant quality – and Halladay is so pitch efficient that the Phillies might be able to bypass their #4 starter, which is not a strength.  Runs will be hard to come by, and so we are left with focusing on offenses.  On that front, there is no comparison.  The Phillies offense lacks the greatness of the last couple of years, but their depth is much better than the Giants, whose best hitter pre-Buster Posey this season was a journeyman fungible corner like Aubrey Huff.  Howard might not have had a great season, but he is a threat.  Utley is terrific, Werth has had a strong season.  It is hard to see how the Giants score enough.  Phillies in 5