|
|
|
Monday, January 29, 2001
Some 'Sweet 16s' sweeter than others
By Joe Lunardi
Special to ESPN.com
|
The pressure is too great. I'm finally giving in. So many readers are anxious for the first ESPN.com bracket projections -- scheduled for Monday, Jan. 22 -- that we have to hold them off with at least an appetizer.
Elsewhere on this site are the weekly "Sweet 16" selections, chosen by a panel of ESPN.com experts (not including yours truly). These picks are entertaining, to be sure, but highly subjective. They also reflect results and schedules of the moment.
My world is not subjective about anything. It mimics the actual work of the NCAA men's basketball committee.
Each Monday for the rest of the season, I will reproduce the so-called "Nitty Gritty Report" used by
committee members in the selection and seeding process. That report is what guides our bracket projections, as well as the often controversial notes and observations which go along with them.
Below is a very, very, very abbreviated version of the "Nitty Gritty Report" using data through Tuesday's games.
Each group of four teams represents a single "seed line" for the hypothetical 64-team NCAA field.
If Selection Sunday were today, this would be our objective Sweet 16. The four additional teams listed are -- for the moment -- the "last four out" of that projected (and protected) group.
No. 1 Seeds
| |
W-L |
Polls |
RPI |
SOS |
Comment |
|
Stanford
|
15-0
|
1/1
|
4
|
43
|
3-0 vs. RPI Top 25 teams
|
|
Duke
|
16-1
|
2/2
|
2
|
17
|
25.9 ppg average victory margin
|
|
Michigan State
|
14-1
|
3/3
|
5
|
24
|
Allowing only 61.7 ppg
|
|
Tennessee
|
16-2
|
4/4
|
1
|
6
|
Loss at UK not unexpected
|
No. 2 Seeds
| |
W-L |
Polls |
RPI |
SOS |
Comment |
|
Kansas
|
13-1
|
5/5
|
3
|
9
|
Still relatively untested
|
|
North Carolina
|
13-2
|
6/6
|
9
|
26
|
Non-conference sked ranks 92nd.
|
|
Wake Forest
|
13-2
|
10/8
|
13
|
51
|
8 wins vs. sub-150 teams
|
|
Syracuse
|
15-1
|
8/9
|
15
|
74
|
Best of a fading Big East?
|
No. 3 Seeds
| |
W-L |
Polls |
RPI |
SOS |
Comment |
|
Florida
|
11-2
|
7/7
|
43
|
181
|
Schedule strength of No. 167
|
|
Georgetown
|
16-0
|
9/11
|
24
|
194
|
Could be among elite with real schedule
|
|
Illinois
|
13-4
|
11/10
|
6
|
4
|
2-4 vs. RPI Top 25 teams
|
|
Wisconsin
|
11-4
|
19/18
|
8
|
3
|
Margin of victory only 3.1 ppg
|
No. 4 Seeds
| |
W-L |
Polls |
RPI |
SOS |
Comment |
|
Iowa
|
14-3
|
14/16
|
7
|
11
|
Big Ten teams Nos. 5-9 on RPI
|
|
Mississippi
|
13-2
|
21/22
|
20
|
71
|
Non-conference sked is No. 128
|
|
Fresno State
|
15-2
|
NR
|
14
|
42
|
Deserving of much more attention
|
|
Texas
|
13-3
|
NR/24
|
12
|
20
|
Belatedly recognized
|
Last Four Out
| |
W-L |
Polls |
RPI |
SOS |
Comment |
|
Arizona
|
10-5
|
17/17
|
16
|
7
|
Returning to form?
|
|
Kentucky
|
10-5
|
NR
|
19
|
18
|
The inevitable has begun
|
|
Cincinnati
|
11-4
|
NR
|
18
|
10
|
Not the same Bearcats
|
|
Maryland
|
12-4
|
12/14
|
62
|
151
|
Non-conference sked ranks 223rd
|
More on the 'January 20'
In last week's discussion of "The January 20" -- a new kind of top 20 as measured by Adjusted Winning Percentage and Adjusted Scoring Margin -- there were some additional statistical categories we had hoped to include.
These are not presented as "leading indicators" for those teams, as was the case with last week's data, but as stats I would categorize as anything from insightful to amusing. When we revisit "The January 20" in February and March, this additional data will be included along with more important measures such as Offensive Quotient and Defensive Quotient.
The "January 20" was selected earlier his month as the set of teams most likely to produce this year's national champion. We are tracking these 20 teams, for better or worse, for the rest of the season.
We won't rank the 20 teams in any of these new categories (other than listing them alphabetically), but they may be illustrative as the season moves along:
Points per shot (pps): The average value of each field goal attempt by a
team.
Free throw ratio: The number of times a team reaches the foul line
relative to its opponents.
Assist-to-field goal ratio: What teams really move the ball? This
measures the percentage of field goals on which a team is credited with
an assist.
Assist-to-turnover ratio: The traditional "point guard stat" is extended
team-wide.
| |
PPS |
FT Ratio |
Assist-to-FG |
Assist-to-TO |
|
Arizona
|
1.37
|
1.26
|
.571
|
1.00
|
|
Cincinnati
|
1.21
|
0.96
|
.471
|
1.09
|
|
Connecticut
|
1.29
|
1.21
|
.529
|
1.02
|
|
Duke
|
1.47
|
1.51
|
.628
|
1.41
|
|
Florida
|
1.46
|
1.33
|
.651
|
1.36
|
|
Georgetown
|
1.29
|
1.20
|
.614
|
1.09
|
|
Illinois
|
1.30
|
1.08
|
.598
|
1.03
|
|
Iowa
|
1.38
|
1.27
|
.572
|
0.89
|
|
Iowa State
|
1.51
|
1.25
|
.517
|
0.97
|
|
Kansas
|
1.39
|
1.17
|
.662
|
1.21
|
|
Maryland
|
1.37
|
1.28
|
.650
|
1.50
|
|
Michigan State
|
1.32
|
1.18
|
.635
|
1.39
|
|
Mississippi
|
1.34
|
1.03
|
.577
|
1.02
|
|
North Carolina
|
1.32
|
1.29
|
.628
|
1.11
|
|
Syracuse
|
1.27
|
0.90
|
.629
|
1.48
|
|
Stanford
|
1.53
|
1.71
|
.627
|
1.34
|
|
Tennessee
|
1.41
|
1.33
|
.625
|
1.06
|
|
USC
|
1.39
|
1.46
|
.562
|
1.01
|
|
Wake Forest
|
1.34
|
1.01
|
.595
|
1.64
|
|
Wisconsin
|
1.32
|
1.20
|
.643
|
1.01
|
It's hard not to notice top-ranked Stanford leads in both Points Per Shot (1.53) and Free Throw Ratio (1.71). The Cardinal are also very healthy in the other two ratios, assists-to-field goals and assists-to-turn overs. Maybe they really are the best team?
Statistical Banter
The mail bag is overflowing once again, so we'll get to a few users' questions today, and a whole bunch more in Thursday's weekly Q&A session.
"Just wanted to pass along a box score for your inspection with a little free-throw oddity. When Western Carolina played at the College of Charleston on Monday night, the visiting Catamounts took only two free throws ... and missed both. The Cougars took eight, making seven for an .875 percentage. I was just curious if there has been another 0-fer from the line this year and if
so, what's the closest to an 0-fer and a perfect performance in the same game this year."
Chopper Johnson
Charleston, S.C.
We have already tracked at least five games this year in which a team did not score from the foul line.
.000; 0-1; La Salle (at California, Dec. 30)
.000; 0-1; Boise State (vs. Troy State, Dec. 22)
.000, 0-2; Maryland-Eastern Shore (at Georgetown, Dec. 22)
.000, 0-5; Siena (at Marist, Dec. 10)
.000, 0-1; Pitt (vs. Nebraska, Dec. 2)
Conversely, the free throw "game of the year" had to be the Mount St. Mary's at Manhattan contest way back on Nov. 21 -- neither team missed from the line!
1.000, 19-19; Manhattan (vs. Mount St. Mary's, Nov. 21)
1.000, 12-12; Mount St. Mary's (at Manhattan, Nov. 21)
In all, 19 teams have been perfect from the line in a single game. Above is the only contest in which two teams did so in the same game.
"I have a remedial RPI question: Is 'strength of schedule' updated throughout the year to reflect the changing strength of a team's early-season opponents? For example, Kentucky smoked North Carolina early in the year. At that time Kentucky was a bad team with a low power rating, so Carolina's strength of schedule would be lowered. Since then, the 'Cats have won a number of games and their rating is quite a bit higher. Is that change retroactively reflected in the Heels' strength of schedule? Or does strength of schedule only reflect the RPI of your opponents at the time you played them?"
Mary Ellen Slater
It's the former. "Strength of Schedule" (SOS) is updated daily throughout the season. In this example, North Carolina will benefit from Kentucky's improvement (as will every team with Kentucky on the schedule).
"Great column last week. Just wanted to make a comment about the Offensive Quotient. It does not seem to take into account that teams who are winning by a lot often sub in their scrubs, only to reduce their overall winning margins. This causes some teams to look worse on the Offensive Quotient. Perhaps there could be diminishing returns for the Offensive Quotient to reflect this, where you gain less for beating the opponent by 51 (instead of 50 above their average) than you gain when
you beat them by 11 instead of 10 above their average. The same could be said for the Defensive Quotient.
Lea Bonnecaze
New York City
A reasonable proposal, I suppose, although the opposite may also be true. Sometimes when a team wins by 50, it may indeed be 50 points better than the opponent. That must also be measured. It's a tough call on what to exclude.
"Your article (last week) was complicated, but very interesting. However, remember that it is January and maybe you are overlooking a few things. First of all, wins against quality opponents, winning percentages, etc., mean nothing in January. What your chart would have told you last year at this time: Wisconsin has no chance; Purdue is mediocre; UNC is a paper tiger; Iowa State is in a weak conference (on paper); and Duke and Stanford are bound for the Final Four. That's why they play the games!"
Arizona and Maryland will at least make the Sweet 16 after getting tougher in conference. If you wanted to name some frauds, try Alabama, Virginia, or be bold and say someone like Florida. It's always easy to kick a Maryland or Arizona, until Maryland wins in Cameron or Arizona tears up the weak Pac-10, which has vastly overrated USC.
Looking forward to your next article."
BMH6243
I couldn't disagree more. Wins against quality opponents are ALWAYS important, whether they occur in January or the 4th of July. Maryland sits on the "fraud" list (at least for now) because the Terps have no such wins to date. You suggest that will change; I'm taking a wait-and-see approach based on their non-conference record. I made similar comments in earlier comments about UVa and UConn; neither is exactly overwhelming their conference competition.
As for Arizona, I believe what the numbers indicated (and what I wrote) is that the Wildcats will indeed be a factor in the national title chase. Maryland? They've got a lot of convincing to do.
Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com. He is also
contributing editor of the Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook,
www.collegebaskets.com. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
Chat with Joe Lunardi, Friday at 2 p.m. ET
Box Score Banter archive
|
|
