Category: College Basketball

College Basketball Wrap-Up 2024

A collection of thoughts and reflections on this season and the future.

UConn

UConn 2024 is probably the best college basketball team since Duke 2001. When you consider the totality of their accomplishments – overall record, win quality, margin of victory (especially in the tournament), offensive and defensive efficiency, balance and completeness in all phases – I think that statement is justified. I am not going to say they are better than Duke 2001.

Dan Hurley asserted that UConn’s back-to-back was more impressive than 2006-2007 Florida and 1991-1992 Duke, because those teams had essentially the same team coming back whereas UConn had to replace a lot of minutes. He’s right, and I think he has a point.

NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player

With all due respect to Tristen Newton, who is a terrific player and was great in the tournament, the best player in the tournament was clearly Zach Edey. I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually watched the tournament would disagree with that. Why, then, are we beholden to an unwritten rule that the MOP must be from the team that wins the tournament? Is it possibly because that would mess up the made-for-TV moment where the MOP is awarded and interviewed while the championship team is being celebrated?

Well, that’s a dumb reason. Give the MOP to the MOP. If that makes for awkward TV, so be it.

The State of the ACC

It has been well-publicized that the ACC has performed well in the past several NCAA Tournaments, despite being down in the NET and receiving relatively few bids. Other leagues are accused of “manipulating the NET” to boost their conference’s profile.

The truth here is very hard to untangle. I take as much pride as anyone in the ACC’s NCAA Tournament success, but it is a relatively small sample size, and it is dangerous to generalize that the conference is as good as ever based strictly on that. Regarding charges of NET manipulation, I haven’t seen compelling evidence either way. It is true that margin of victory matters in the NET, and I don’t doubt that certain teams, and possibly leagues, are trying to exploit that to their advantage. How much that is actually impacting the NET, I don’t know, because the formula is a secret. And how much weight the selection committee is giving to the NET is also hard to say.

With my bracketology hat on, I don’t see any evidence that the selection committee is considering conference affiliation. They aren’t giving special dispensation to the ACC or to any other league so far as I can tell. They are considering each team individually as best they can, which is really the only fair way to do it.

My general opinion is that there is scarcely a dime’s worth of difference between the ACC and the other Power 5/6 conferences. (Something weird is going on with the Mountain West, but I don’t want to get sidetracked on that right now.) If the ACC has an intangible advantage, I think it’s coaching. A few years ago, you had Roy, Coach K, Boeheim, Bennett, Larranaga, Hamilton… Brownell is an outstanding coach, Mike Young is a very good coach, Capel has shown himself to be a quality coach, Steve Forbes appears to be a good coach, and I guess you can now add Keatts to that list. I don’t think any other conference can match that depth of coaching ability.

Obviously the retirement of K, Roy, and Boeheim changes things somewhat. It remains to be seen whether those programs will be able to maintain their level. Early returns for Scheyer and Hubert Davis are mostly positive, but the shoes they have to fill are so big, it’s much easier for those programs to get worse than it is to get better. Boeheim’s program had already slipped and it’s anybody’s guess what Adrian Autry will be able to do.

Hamilton and Larranaga are both in their mid-70s and have to be nearing the end of the line. Neither of those programs has great tradition to fall back on. You could see them falling back if they don’t make the right hire. Virginia and Tony Bennett also seem to be at a crossroads… he does not seem to have figured out how to build a roster that can execute his style at a high level in the new transfer portal era. Clearly he is a great coach and I would bet on him to figure it out.

Louisville will bounce back. Obviously there is nowhere to go but up from this year, but they have so much tradition, it seems highly probable that they will rebound to at least competitiveness if not excellence. I like what I saw of Damon Stoudamire at Georgia Tech this year although that seems like a tough place to win. I’m also betting on Micah Shrewsberry to succeed at Notre Dame.

Then there’s the addition of Stanford, SMU, and Cal. None of those programs brings great tradition to the league. It’s tempting to think the ACC will “lift” them, but that hasn’t happened with other programs historically. The Andy Enfield hire at SMU is promising, and he said explicitly that he wouldn’t have come had SMU not been going to the ACC. But in general, it seems more likely that these additions will bring the league down than lift it up.

Then there’s the specter of conference realignment, with FSU and Clemson suing the league and rumors abounding about other potential changes.

So for all those reasons, it seems like an unusually unstable and uncertain time for the league. After Duke and Carolina, the second-tier coaching is strong, and between Bennett, Brownell, Capel, Young, Keatts, Forbes, and maybe now Enfield, you’re going to have some teams emerge from that pack and have great success from time to time, as Miami did in 2023 and NC State did this year. But a return to the ACC’s status as the premier basketball conference probably depends on whether Duke and Carolina can continue to be among the top five or so programs in the country, and to a lesser degree, whether Louisville can rebound.

NC State’s Place in History

You knew I would have to talk about the Wolfpack. A lot of superlatives have been sent their way, deservedly so. Jay Bilas described their run as “the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen in college basketball”, which is very strong language, but I don’t think he used that phrase loosely, I think he meant it.

Let’s start with the ACC Tournament. Was NC State the most unlikely champion ever? I think, all things considered, they probably were. The contenders would be:

  • Virginia 1976 (13-11/4-8 going into the tournament, 6th of 7)
  • NC State 1983 (17-10/8-6, tied for 3rd of 8)
  • NC State 1987 (17-13/6-8, 6th of 8)
  • Georgia Tech 1993 (16-10/8-8, 6th of 9)
  • Maryland 2004 (16-11/7-9, 6th of 9)
  • NC State 2024 (17-14/9-11, 10th of 15)

Narrowing it down further, 1983 NC State, 1987 NC State, 1993 Georgia Tech, and 2004 Maryland were all teams that were nationally ranked during the season and had excellent non-conference wins; they were just beaten down by the ACC meat grinder and, in some cases, injuries. This year’s NC State team never sniffed the Top 25, had no good nonconference wins, was never thought of as even being on the NCAA Tournament bubble, and had no injuries to blame it on. So I think the competition really comes down to 1976 Virginia vs. 2024 NC State.

You could make an argument for either of these teams. That Virginia team’s run was no less unexpected than NC State’s run this year, partially because of Virginia’s dismal history in the ACC Tournament. But that was a sneaky good team. They had lost five games to top 10 teams during the season by an average of 3.6 points. It was the type of team that, if kenpom had existed, would have been a Top 40 team with a very bad Luck rating.

Like NC State, 1976 Virginia had to beat the #3, #2, and #1 seeds to win the championship. Of course, NC State had to win two additional games to even get to that point. I think the fatigue aspect of “five games in five days” is probably overblown. The more significant aspect is that those two additional games are two more opportunities to lose. Just to get to the same starting point as Virginia 1976, NC State had to beat a talented if underachieving Louisville team that played its best game of the year followed by a pretty good Syracuse team that had already beaten them twice in the regular season.

In any event, both teams have a case. In terms of win probability, I think NC State 2024 probably had the lowest going-in win probability of any eventual tournament champion in the history of the event. But if you want to argue that Virginia 1976 is the most unlikely champion, I won’t quibble with you. Either way, NC State 2024 is at worst the second-least likely tournament champ in the 70-year history of the tournament.

Then there is the Final Four run. Where does the Wolfpack rank in terms of most unlikely Final Four teams? Well, they were the sixth #11 seed to make it, the others being 1986 LSU, 2006 George Mason, 2011 VCU, 2018 Loyola, and 2021 UCLA. 1986 LSU was a very talented team that was ranked in the Top 25 for a lot of the season. 2006 George Mason, 2011 VCU, and 2021 UCLA received at-large bids, which NC State most definitely would not have. 2018 Loyola received an automatic bid; it’s unclear whether they would have received an at-large bid as they were considered to be on the bubble. So one way to look at it is, the Wolfpack are the only team ever to make the Final Four who was not at-large worthy.

Looking at kenpom rankings going into the tournament, 2011 VCU was #84, 2018 Loyola was #41, and 2021 UCLA was #45. 2024 NC State was #56, and that was after winning the ACC Tournament. Kenpom doesn’t go back to 1986, but there is no doubt whatsoever that LSU would have been much higher than #56, and the same is true for 2006 George Mason.

On the basis of this evidence, I would probably say that 2011 VCU is the most unlikely Final Four team ever. They lost four of their last five regular season games, they didn’t win the CAA Tournament, they were #84 in kenpom, and they were in the First Four, meaning they had to win five games just to make the Final Four. On paper, there was nothing in their record to suggest what was about to happen. What’s more, they didn’t have an easy road, having to beat the #3 and #1 seeds to make the Final Four. (I don’t think it was the most unlikely NCAA Tournament run ever; I would award that to the 15-seed St. Peter’s team from 2022 that made the Elite Eight.)

2021 UCLA was similar. In the First Four, had to win five games to make it, had to beat #2 and #1 on the way.

2018 Loyola got a couple of breaks. They were in the same region as the Virginia team that lost to UMBC. #2 seed Cincinnati also lost in the second round, so the best team the Ramblers had to beat was #3 Tennessee.

To summarize, I don’t think NC State is the most unlikely Final Four team ever, but I would throw them in with 2018 Loyola and 2021 UCLA and say they were one of the four most unlikely.

It’s really the combination of the two highly unlikely events that makes the Wolfpack’s run completely unique in the history of college basketball. You heard lots of comparisons to 2011 UConn, but that UConn team was a much better team. They were ranked in the Top 25 all year. They were #26 in kenpom. They had four wins over Top 10 teams in the regular season. They had a first-team All-American in Kemba Walker. They finished ninth in a 16-team Big East, which is why they had to play five games in five days.

I’ve been working on a series of the 50 greatest teams in ACC history. Yesterday I thought, wait – do I need to stop in midstream and put NC State 2024 on the list? In a sense that seems ridiculous for a team that lost 14 games, but consider this. There are 25 other ACC teams that won the ACC Championship and made the Final Four. Of those 25, all are on my list but one (1997 North Carolina, and they would probably be #51).

It underscores the uniqueness of this team. There isn’t another team like this in the history of college basketball, and there may never be again.

NC State – Other Learnings and Observations

Defense – The most surprising aspect of this run was the improvement on defense. In State’s last nine games, their average adjusted defensive efficiency was 89.5. Extended to a full season, that would have been the third best defense in the country after Iowa State and Houston. The players themselves frequently cited their “connectedness” on defense when asked what sparked this run.

How do you explain this seemingly sudden improvement? I think it was a combination of several things: 1) A tighter, more stable rotation with the same seven players getting all the minutes. They really started to anticipate and trust each other. 2) Exceptional effort. This was visible especially with the perimeter defenders such as Morsell and O’Connell. They were defending max effort on every possession in the postseason. 3) Diarra and Middlebrooks. It’s extremely valuable to have big guys who can protect the rim but are athletic enough to switch onto a guard without creating an obvious mismatch. In the postseason, State really figured out how to turn that into an advantage. 4) Great coaching. Great offense can happen in spite of bad coaching if you have great individual offensive players, but great team defense never happens by accident. 5) Luck with opponents not shooting well. There were a lot of open threes during this run that did not go in.

Intangibles and the Eye Test – I’m a pretty analytical guy. My general approach to trying to analyze basketball tends to start with looking at offensive and defensive efficiency, the Four Factors, kenpom, all that.

If ever there was a testament to the limitations of that approach, this team was it. It was almost laughable as State marched through the NCAA Tournament to see the so-called experts, game after game, pick them to lose. Or reseed the remaining teams and put them at the bottom. And when you peeled back their logic, it was usually based on kenpom.

But when you actually watched the games, it was obvious they were better than the teams they were playing. They completely controlled the games against Texas Tech and Marquette. They were down at half against Duke, but they still looked better, and once they started making shots in the second half, Duke was powerless to do anything about it.

At that point, State’s kenpom ranking had become irrelevant. They bore no resemblance to the team from December and January that compiled a lot of the numbers that went into their kenpom. Especially in the transfer portal era with so much roster turnover, it takes time for a team to come together, and the March team may look very different from the December team. Once State started playing so well in March, suddenly everyone could see what Kevin Keatts had probably seen in his mind’s eye when he put this roster together.

I’m not going to throw away analytics; I’d have to change the name of my blog if I did. There is still a lot of great information embedded in the data. For example, State’s improvement on offense in the second half of the season was evident in the analytics, even if it wasn’t reflected in their win-loss record. But the reductionist analytics approach (which I have been guilty of) that reduces a team to its kenpom Efficiency Margin is a lazy way to analyze basketball, and it cannot accurately assess a team like NC State.

The Mojo– one of my favorite things in sports is watching a team get on a postseason run where they are playing with absolute, 100% confidence, belief, and trust. I call it The Mojo. It’s something intangible, but you know it when you see it. Psychologically, I think it equates to something like ultimate confidence. It’s what happens when a team’s confidence becomes so deeply rooted and unshakable as a result of repeated success that no matter what happens, they maintain complete belief and commitment. The 2023 Braves had The Mojo. 2022 North Carolina got The Mojo. And that’s where I think 2024 NC State got to in the postseason.

One of the characteristics of a team with The Mojo is that it raises individual players to play above themselves. How did DJ Burns and Michael O’Connell suddenly get better in the postseason, 120+ college basketball games into their careers? It’s The Mojo.

The Mojo doesn’t happen overnight. It’s always the result of sustained success. For this team, I think the second half of the Syracuse game is where you started to see it. State dominated that half in an unexpected manner, and that performance set them up with a lot of confidence going into the Duke game. That confidence continued to build with each win. The Virginia game, with the way it ended, gave them a sense that perhaps they were destiny’s team. By the time they got to the Carolina game, they had crossed the threshold from mere confidence to The Mojo. In that sense, I think the five games helped them. Had they just showed up to play Duke without the first two games against Louisville and Syracuse, I doubt they would have won.

Luck – Did State get lucky to win the Virginia game? Well, yes and no.

I think sometimes we confuse improbable with lucky. When Stephen Curry hits a 60-footer, it’s improbable, but it’s not lucky. In fact, it’s actually the opposite of luck. If Curry makes that shot it’s because he’s a great basketball player. Luck would mean that the outcome is essentially random, that a bad player and a good player would have an equal chance. That’s obviously not the case here. Yes, it’s improbable, he probably wouldn’t make it more than one out of twenty, but it’s not lucky.

That’s how I think of the Michael O’Connell shot. It wasn’t lucky. It was a great if improbable shot by a good basketball player. What was lucky was McKneely missing the free throw.

The Margin – I am constantly amazed at how slim the margins are between success and failure at the highest levels of athletics. If the O’Connell shot doesn’t go in, none of this happens. Kevin Keatts wouldn’t be any worse a coach if that shot hadn’t gone in, but think how different the perception would be. How many potential 2024 NC States have there been over the years whose Michael O’Connell shot just didn’t go in?

The Future – What does this run mean for the program going forward? Here are a few thoughts and observations.

Expect State to be overrated going into next year. There is a long history of that with teams that make unexpected postseason runs. Look at Carolina after their 2022 run, or Georgia Tech after their 2004 run, or Duke after their 1978 run, or any number of other examples. It always happens.

I have no idea who will come back. Burns, Horne, and Morsell have no more eligibility. Diarra, Middlebrooks, Taylor, O’Connell, and Dennis Parker have eligibility left, but in this day and age, you really never know. Brandon Huntley-Hatfield from Louisville looks like a good addition. If Diarra and Middlebrooks return, their frontcourt seems set, but they need shooting and scoring in the backcourt.

What State did this year is obviously not repeatable. You can’t count on runs from 9-11 in the ACC to the Final Four to sustain your program. If they continue to hang around .500 in the ACC, they will remain what they had been under Kevin Keatts before this run: a middle-of-the-pack ACC team that is hanging around the NCAA Tournament bubble most years.

The real question is whether Keatts either a) has figured some things out and become a better coach and/or b) can leverage the positive energy created by this run to take the program to another level.

I think we have to acknowledge the possibility that Keatts has just become a better coach, not that he was bad to begin with. He has shown he can construct rosters that can win in the transfer portal era. He has shown he can take a bunch of new guys and make a team out of them. He has shown he can put together a really good defensive team, which he had never done before this year. It has always bothered me that his teams don’t have an obviously recognizable style, but this team shows the positive side of having a versatile team that can win in a lot of different ways. He showed the ability to adapt his style to the personnel he had, most obviously in how they used DJ Burns.

Clearly this run has generated a tremendous amount of positive national attention for the program. Keatts is a likable guy, a players coach. Their team played hard, had fun, and mostly behaved themselves. It certainly looked like a program a lot of players would want to be a part of. They have a level of national prominence at this moment they haven’t seen since the Jimmy V era. The fan base is highly energized. There will be more butts in seats next year. There will be an infusion of NIL money. It seems like a golden opportunity to get and keep higher level players, whether freshman recruits or transfers.

But the window will not stay open for long. Our memories are short. If they revert back to the pre-2024 NC State for the next season or two, all that positive energy will dissipate, and this season will become an anomaly, not the new and improved NC State.

What, specifically, do they need to do? It’s hard to say with exactness, but in general, it needs to feel like the program is elevated above the pre-2024 Keatts-era level. That probably translates into some combination of making the NCAA Tournament (preferably without being on the bubble) and winning a game or two, being in the Top 25 some of the time, and making some noise in the ACC Tournament (which I define as semifinals and beyond).

And with that, I will wrap it up for this college basketball season. I will soon be resuming my march through the 50 greatest teams in ACC history.

How to Pick Teams for the NCAA Tournament

When it comes to NCAA Tournament selection, we seem to be having a moment.

Coaches are up in arms about metrics they don’t understand. Teams who feel they were unfairly left out are spurning NIT bids. Everyone has a suggestion for how to improve the process – change the metrics, change the composition of the selection committee, expand the tournament, stop giving automatic bids… the ideas are flying.

I don’t claim to have final and definitive answers to all that. No matter what system is adopted, a line must be drawn, and teams on the wrong side of the line are not going to be happy about it. But I do think some changes could be made that would increase transparency, increase the perception of objectivity, and thereby reduce the noise. I’m going to group my thoughts under two headings. First, the structure of the tournament as it relates to size and automatic vs. at-large qualifiers; then second, I will dive more deeply into the selection of at-large teams and how that should work.

Structure

The system of awarding automatic bids to conference champions has been in place since the very beginning. Prior to 1975, all Division I conference champions qualified for the tournament, and then there were a few spots reserved for Independent teams. There was no such thing as an at-large bid for a team in a conference; if you weren’t the conference champion, either by winning the regular season or the tournament, then you didn’t make the NCAA Tournament. At this time, there was no seeding. Instead, teams went into predetermined slots in the bracket. So, for example, the West region bracket might have specified that the Pac-8 champion received a bye, and the WCAC champion played the Big Sky champion in the first round.

Starting in 1975, the tournament went through a series of changes that resulted in the current system. The two most fundamental changes were the introduction of at-large bids in 1975 and the introduction of a seeding system in 1979.

The introduction of multiple bids for a single conference is typically associated with the 1974 ACC Tournament in which Maryland, acknowledged by everyone to be one of the best teams in the country, fell in the final to the David Thompson-led NC State team in the “greatest game ever played”. The Wolfpack went on to win the national championship while the Terps went home. The seeming injustice of that for Maryland was the impetus for an expansion of the NCAA Tournament field from 25 teams to 32 and the addition of an at-large bid for certain conferences.

The next major change was the introduction of a seeding system in 1979, along with a further expansion of the tournament field to 40 teams. The expansion to 40 teams necessitated the addition of another round, meaning that some teams would have to play six games to win the tournament, as most do today. Once this step was taken, it was inevitable that the tournament would eventually expand to 64 teams, thereby filling out that first round and ending the practice of teams getting byes. This happened in a series of steps between 1979 and 1985, which was the first 64-team tournament.

The seeding system introduced in 1979 brought an end to the practice of predetermined conference matchups in the bracket and essentially brought the structure of the tournament to its modern form. Since then, the only thing that has changed is the number of teams. From 2001 to 2010, there were 65 teams which resulted in a single play-in game. In 2011, the current number of 68 teams was adopted along with the First Four round in Dayton.

Expansion from 68 teams has been brought up innumerable times over the years, and there is a wide variety of opinions on the topic. The Bigger is Better crowd argues that March Madness is an amazing event, and therefore wider participation would bring more joy to more people. The Status Quo crowd is concerned that diluting the participant pool would diminish the value of the achievement. Expansion would also bring a number of practical challenges – extending the overall length of the event; where and when you would hold the additional games; are fans going to care about and show up for the first round games among teams that aren’t very good; who would get the additional bids; and so on.

One thing that is important to point out about the NCAA Tournament is that most everyone recognizes what an amazing event it is. It generates a tremendous amount of revenue for both the NCAA and for the participating schools, and everyone is leery of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. This explains why the low-major conference champions continue to have a spot in the tournament – because the participation of these teams and the Cinderella narratives that arise generate intense fan interest and therefore money. Otherwise you can bet that the power conferences would cut them out in a heartbeat and have their own tournament.

Over the past several days, I’ve heard a number of half-baked ideas put forward. Eliminate automatic bids? Not going to happen. Conference tournaments are too compelling and too exciting with the “Championship Week” brand and all that. Provide a certain number of guaranteed slots for the major conferences? I don’t see that happening either. Who decides how many slots each conference gets? What happens when the 8th place team from the ACC is better than the 7th place team from the SEC, yet they don’t get in? How would teams be selected within the conferences? With imbalanced conference schedules, that might require a selection committee within each conference. There are just too many issues.

I do think the field will eventually be expanded, but my guess is that it will be done in small increments that won’t fundamentally change the structure of the event. For example, it would be easy enough to go from 68 teams to 72. The First Four would become the First Eight, and you would need a second site in addition to Dayton. Those aren’t radical changes. If you were to go to 80, or even 96, now you’re talking about a lot of additional games. Where would they be played? Would you need to add a fourth weekend to the tournament? Is that too much of a good thing? Again, the tournament is so perfect as it is that you have to be very careful about making changes.

How At-Large Teams Are Selected

Now to get on to what I really want to talk about. This is where the real controversy lies. It seems to me that it boils down to two things: 1) the committee needs to decide and communicate what matters; and 2) the analytics they are using need to measure what matters. All the disagreements can be put under one of those two headings. Either they are disagreements about what matters, or they are disagreements about how what matters is being measured. Let’s take these two in turn.

What Matters

This is where at all starts. Quad 1 wins? Road wins? Bad losses? Non-conference strength of schedule? NET? kenpom? Early-season games? Late-season games? All these are different ways of getting at what matters to the committee.

I would like to suggest that the various views on what matters can all be aligned to one of two fundamentally different views, the Resume View and the Best Teams View. The differences between these two views are quite subtle, but they are crucial nonetheless, and they lie behind a lot of the differences and debates that we hear. Let me try to describe the two views.

FactorResume ViewBest Teams View
The Essential QuestionWho has earned the right to a bid as a result of their wins and losses?Who are the teams most likely to be successful in the tournament?
Main DirectionLooking backward at what you have doneLooking forward at what you will do
Margin of victoryDoesn’t matterMatters
MetricsResults-based (e.g. Quad 1/2/3/4 record, Strength of Record)Predictive (kenpom, BPI, etc.)
TimingAll games count the sameRecent games matter more
Eye TestIrrelevantRelevant
Injuries, Roster ChangesIrrelevantRelevant

Do you understand the difference? Read it again, because this is the vital point. One thing that may be confusing is my assertion that the Best Teams View is essentially forward-looking. But I stand by that. Think about it, when you say that Team A is better than Team B, what do you really mean by that? Well, I say that a statement like that is essentially a prediction. What you really mean is that if Team A and Team B played tomorrow, all other things being equal, you would expect Team A to win. Perhaps they played last week, and Team B won. There is not necessarily a contradiction there, because you are making a forward-looking statement. Of course you are looking backward in the sense that you are drawing upon what Team A has already done, but you are doing so in an attempt to predict what they will do in the future.

Do you see how this shapes the debate? Are we using kenpom, or not? Well, that depends. If you take the Resume View, kenpom becomes irrelevant. If you take the Best Teams View, it may become very relevant, depending on your ideas on how to pick the best teams.

Are recent games more important than November and December games? In the Resume View, the answer is no. It’s about who you played and who you beat, nothing more. In the Best Teams View, recent games are more important, because they are more relevant to how good a team is right now and how they will fare in the tournament.

Best player just tore his ACL? In the Resume View, that doesn’t matter at all. It doesn’t change what you’ve already done. It doesn’t change what you’ve earned by your wins and losses. In the Best Teams View, it matters a lot. You may have been one of the 36 best teams before, but you aren’t anymore.

I hope you can see where I am going with this. Our collective thinking about this topic is so muddled primarily because we have failed to be clear about this distinction. Think about the talking heads and the variety of opinions about the Eye Test, about injury status, about the predictive metrics. What I am saying is that at the root of all that lie presuppositions, maybe unconscious but no less real, that when examined will turn out to be either the Resume View or the Best Teams View.

And I go on to assert that these two views are fundamentally incompatible, and that the selection committee’s basic problem is that they are trying to have it both ways. Either you can take the Resume View or you can take the Best Teams View, but you cannot take both. If the Resume View is right, then throw out the predictive metrics; banish all talk of the Eye Test; weigh every game the same. If the Best Teams View is right, then… well, good luck with that.

Which gets to my own position. I feel strongly that the Resume View is the correct one when it comes to picking at-large teams. Why? Well, it really comes down to this. In the immortal words of Herm Edwards, you play to win the game. That’s the object. Basketball isn’t like figure skating or gymnastics or diving where judges decide who wins based on who looks better. Basketball is about one objective, inarguable thing: who has more points at the end of the game. That’s it. And that’s why we love it. Whether you won by one point or thirty, it doesn’t matter.

Maybe you aren’t that good and got lucky to win your games. Doesn’t matter. Because you play to win the game.

Not only is this the only right and fair way to approach the decision, it also has a number of side benefits. It gets us out of the business of trying to predict the future, which humans are notoriously bad at. It gets us out of the subjective business of eye tests and other such nebulous criteria. It makes the task comparatively simple: whom did you play, where did you play them, and whom did you beat.

How What Matters is Being Measured

Now that we have arrived at the conclusion to rely solely on the Resume View, it may seem that our task is done. It’s simple. Wins are good. Losses are bad. The better the opponent, the better the win; the worse the opponent, the worse the loss. Your resume becomes the sum total of your wins and losses, with every game given equal weight. Throw out the predictive metrics, we don’t need them anymore.

You could envision a simple point system. Beating the best team in the country is 100 points. Beating the worst team in the country is 0 points. Losing to the best team in the country is 0 points. Losing to the worst team in the country is -100 points. That’s overly simplistic, but you get the idea. Add up the point totals for every team, and the top 36 get the at-large bids. Done.

But there is trouble lurking in the statement “the better the opponent, the better the win; the worse the opponent, the worse the loss”. Do you see it? The perceptive reader is saying, wait a second. I thought we just concluded that the whole notion of “better” and “worse” teams is too subjective. But if we are to reward teams more for beating good teams, we need a way to decide how good or bad teams are. Aren’t we back where we started?

In a way, we are; but I think there is a way out. The solution is that rather than banishing predictive metrics completely, we use them indirectly to determine how much credit to assign to a win, and how much debit to assign to a loss. The predictive metrics become the basis for our point system.

And so my radical proposal is this. Do away with the selection committee. No smoke-filled rooms, no subjective decisions. Instead, have a point system that is clear and transparent to everyone. When you win a game, you get points. When you lose a game, you lose points. What determines how many points you get or lose is where the opponent ranks in the predictive metrics. If Auburn is #4 in the predictive metrics and Tennessee is #7, then a win over Auburn is worth more points than a win over Tennessee. And a loss to Tennessee loses more points than a loss to Auburn. Publish the predictive metrics and the game-by-game point values on a website for everyone to see. No more guessing. You know where you stand. If you want more points, win more games against better opponents, and don’t lose games against worse ones.

There is one more devil lurking in the details. Which predictive metric or metrics should we use? Does it bother anyone else that Colorado State is #70 in the ESPN BPI but #38 in kenpom? Do we have any idea why that is the case or which one is right? Is Colorado State the 70th-best team in the country, or the 38th-best? If you’re going to use a system like the one I am suggesting, that difference matters a great deal to the teams that played Colorado State. My guess is that the NCAA doesn’t really understand how the metrics they are using work. They used kenpom, Sagarin, and ESPN BPI because they were available and the sources seemed credible. They are crossing their fingers and hoping that using them together closely approximates the truth. But just throwing more metrics together doesn’t necessarily improve the quality or accuracy of what you are measuring. Instead, you should strive to have one metric that is aligned with what you want to measure.

So that brings me to my final point. The NCAA should appoint a commission to develop their own predictive metric that measures what they want to measure and values what they want to value. Ken Pomeroy is a smart guy, but I’m not going to trust his metric at face value unless I understand how it works. Does the metric weight recent games more, or not? Does it adjust for end-of-game blowouts? How does it adjust for home-court advantage? Does it begin the season with a set of prior assumptions about team quality, or does everyone begin at zero? Pomeroy himself has been reasonably open about these things, and I’m not picking on him. What I’m saying is, the NCAA hasn’t been intentional about whether the way his metric works is they way they think it should work. Have they compared the differences in algorithm between kenpom and the BPI and then decided which they prefer? They should appoint a commission consisting of, yes, analytics gurus, but also analytically-minded coaches, players, and administrators to make decisions about how these things should be valued and create a predictive metric for the NCAA that reflects their values. Publish the algorithm for the predictive metric so that no one is guessing about how it works and so that it can be improved over time.

There you have it. My point of view on how to fix the selection process. Sure to be read by few and adopted by none, but it feels good to get it off my chest.

NC State Tournament Outlook

It won’t surprise anyone that I’ve been thinking a lot about NC State. How exactly did they do what they did last week? Is their improvement real? What should we expect on Thursday?

What happened last week is a good reminder that teams are not static. During the course of the year, there are injuries, there are changes to the rotation, coaches keep coaching and making adjustments, players improve and figure things out, players go through slumps and lose confidence. All of those dynamics affect the team’s performance.

The numbers for NC State tell a story. In the first half of the year, they were a good defensive team and a mediocre offensive team. In the second half of the year, they improved considerably on offense, but regressed on defense. In the ACC Tournament, they put both together. That’s what enabled them to do what they did.

Let’s draw a line after the Syracuse game on January 27. Up to this point in the season, the Wolfpack was 13-7, 5-4 in the ACC. They were ranked #78 in kenpom, #100 in offensive efficiency and #54 in defensive efficiency. They had had several games where they were rotten on offense: Ole Miss, Notre Dame, Carolina, at Virginia, at Syracuse. But they had had a couple of terrific games on defense (Carolina, Virginia) and several others where they were very good (Notre Dame, at BC, Vanderbilt, Wake).

Going into the ACC Tournament, NC State’s overall kenpom ranking hadn’t changed much at 76. But the composition changed a lot. Their offensive ranking had improved from 100 to 69, while their defensive ranking had regressed from 54 to 104. Starting with the Wake Forest game on February 10, the Wolfpack’s average adjusted offensive efficiency rating over their last eight regular season games was 121 points per 100 possessions, with no single game less than 119. For reference, 121 is a Top 10 offense. It’s the level of Gonzaga, Arizona, and Duke.

So NC State clearly had found some things on offense, but it was hard to tell by wins and losses in the second half because a) their defense was inconsistent and b) their schedule was harder.

In the ACC Tournament, somehow it all came together. Offensively, they essentially continued to play at the same level they had been, which again is Top 10. Keeping in mind that 120 is a Top 10-level adjusted offensive rating, their ratings for each game were:

  • Louisville – 125.7
  • Syracuse – 117.2
  • Duke – 116.1
  • Virginia – 121.9
  • Carolina – 128.0 (this was State’s second-highest offensive rating of the year, after their home win over Virginia)

But the really surprising thing is how much their defense improved after the first game against Louisville. Their adjusted defensive ratings were:

  • Louisville – 123.5
  • Syracuse – 90.5
  • Duke – 85.9
  • Virginia – 103.3
  • Carolina – 92.9

Duke was their second-best defensive game of the year, Syracuse was fourth-best, and Carolina was sixth-best.

I don’t have any quantitative analysis that would shed light on why their defense was better. But I did watch the games, and my thought is that it’s a combination of greater effort and focus, improvement by Diarra, and luck.

This is an interesting thing to think about. Would you rather be a good offensive team and an OK defensive team, or an OK offensive team and a good defensive team? The data suggest that offensive-oriented teams typically perform slightly better in the postseason than defensive-oriented. Why is that? My theory is essentially that defensive performance is more dependent on effort, whereas offensive performance is more dependent on skill. And for that reason, defense can be “turned on”, up to a point. But you can’t really “turn on” your offense. If you don’t have good shooters and good passers, no amount of effort is going to make up for that.

Of course there is such as thing as defensive skill as well, and a poor defensive team can’t turn themselves into Virginia just by playing harder. But I do think defensive performance is more variable with effort. Watching NC State this year, I think Morsell and Taylor were capable of being good defenders, but there were games they couldn’t seem to stay in front of anybody. But in the tournament, you could see the exceptional effort. Morsell in particular was really digging in. The increased effort was also evident in transition defense which was visibly improved in the tournament.

Then Mo Diarra started being a rim protector. In State’s last 12 games, Diarra is averaging 1.9 blocks per game, which would be second in the league if he had done it for the whole year. The uncontested layups which seemed so frequent in February were much less frequent in the tournament.

There was some luck, too. From three-point range, Syracuse was 6-19, Duke was 5-20, Virginia was 9-28, Carolina was 8-30. That’s a collective 29%. Some of that was good perimeter defense, yes, but some of it was just guys missing shots that they might make another day. I’m not convinced that State suddenly has a suffocating three-point defense.

Going back to offense… what changed from the first half of the season to the second? As you might expect, it wasn’t just one thing. Jayden Taylor played much better. He had an outstanding run the last six games of the regular season. Diarra also improved on the offensive end, becoming a legitimate threat from three and contributing a few buckets off the offensive glass and even off the dribble as well.

But what really stood out in the tournament was the play of O’Connell and Burns. As for O’Connell, in the regular season he had a total of three double figure scoring games. There were a lot of games where it seemed like he was just out there taking up space. He had some decent assist games, but he also had a lot of games with 3 points and 1 assist in 25 minutes or something like that. Not really making an impact. He had attempted only 25 free throws all year heading into the tournament.

And then he scored double figures in all five games in the tournament, going 9-16 from three, 15-18 from the line, and looking like a completely different player on the offensive end. I don’t really have an explanation for it. O’Connell is not a young player, having played 125 games in his career, and it would be unusual for a player like that to suddenly take a quantum leap forward. He has never been a scorer. He is a career 31% three-point shooter, which is not very good. I don’t know whether the coaches have been on him to shoot more, or if he decided on his own, but he clearly came into the tournament with a more aggressive mindset offensively, and once a few shots started going down, it fed his confidence.

O’Connell’s improved play is directly related to Burns’ performance. Burns has always been a skilled and unique offensive player, but the tournament was the best stretch of his career. I saw two things. One, Taylor’s, O’Connell’s, and even Diarra’s improved offense makes it much tougher to defend Burns. For a good portion of the season, the only real perimeter threat they had was Horne. Taylor was shooting poorly and O’Connell and Diarra weren’t shooting at all. It allowed their defenders to help on Burns with relative impunity. But with Taylor, O’Connell, and Diarra being threats to score, the situation changes completely. Choosing to double-team Burns means leaving a good offensive player open. Most teams therefore chose not to double team Burns, but when they did, he burned them.

That brings me to the other change I saw in Burns. He put a little Tyler Hansbrough in his game, which is to say, he did a better job of using his size and strength to get closer to the basket and get an easier shot. As big and skilled as Burns is, he winds up taking a lot of difficult shots. He shot 52% from the field this year, which is not bad, but it’s not that good either for a guy who is 6’9″ and 300 lbs. I’ve often thought that because he does have such nice touch, he falls in love with that a little bit and takes an 8-footer when he could use his size to get a 3-footer.

Then, too, I think the knowledge that teams weren’t double-teaming him gave him more time to work and get closer to the basket. In the past, he’s had to be mindful of going quickly and getting a shot off before the double team comes. In the tournament, he knew that teams weren’t going to double, and he could take 10 seconds to back a guy down and get a point-blank shot.

So I think all of that worked together to create offensive synergies for the Wolfpack. Will it carry over into the tournament? Anything can happen in a single game, but I think most of the improvements they’ve shown are real and sustainable. They now have 13 straight games with an offensive efficiency of 116 or better, which is outstanding. I’m not convinced that O’Connell will continue to be a threat offensively, but they have enough different ways to score now that I expect them to be a good, Top 20-type offensive team from here on out.

I have no doubt that teams, especially with time to prepare, will try to throw new wrinkles at them. But I will say this. Great offensive basketball is not primarily about being opportunistic and taking what the defense gives you; it’s about running stuff that the other guys know is coming and can’t stop. I think you saw in the tournament that NC State has some of that now. With the emergence of other scorers, the maturation of Burns, and the variety and efficiency of DJ Horne, defenses have to make some very difficult choices. Nothing could be more telegraphed in terms of what is coming than when Burns gets the ball, but the defenses in the tourney were at a loss for what to do about it. Most of them chose to defend Burns one-on-one, and he scored. If they doubled him, he passed to a teammate who was in favorable scoring position. I don’t think that fundamental dilemma is going to change in the NCAA Tournament.

What I am more skeptical of is whether NC State can maintain the defensive efficiency they showed in the tournament. I expect their effort to be excellent, but their fundamentals are shaky. They make mistakes in defending ball screens. They get beaten in transition. They give up back doors. Guys lose assignments for a second and give up open threes. All it’s going to take is a team having a good shooting night. But the way they’re playing offensively, it’s possible they could score enough points to survive a shaky defensive performance.

Watch the officiating as well. I loved the way the ACC Tournament was officiated. The officials let the players play and stayed in the background, which is the way it should be. Keatts’ teams at State, including this year’s team, have been high foul teams. That has hurt them at times, both from guys getting in foul trouble, but also from sending the other team to the line. But other than Horne in the Carolina game, State had no significant foul trouble issues, and they shot 128 free throws in the tournament to their opponents’ 65. If the upcoming games are called more closely, it could hurt State. I expect teams to try very hard to get Burns in foul trouble and get him out of the game. Watch for an early flop on a Burns back down to see if they can get the officials to bite.

I think the biggest stat to watch will be Texas Tech’s three-point shooting. If they shoot 6-for-27, State will win; 11-for-21 and we’ll be headed back to Raleigh. Also watch the foul situation closely. State cannot afford a major imbalance at the free throw line and they can ill afford foul trouble for Horne or Burns.

ACC Standings Outlook 3/7

Had to make a couple of corrections in this version. This time I really do have the tiebreakers figured out. I think.

For the ACC Tournament, keep in mind that 10 seeds and below play on Tuesday; 5 seeds and below play on Wednesday; 1-4 seeds do not play until Thursday.

North Carolina

  • Current Record: 16-3
  • Remaining Games: at Duke
  • 1 Seed (64% chance) With: A win OR (Pitt win AND Clemson loss)
  • 2 Seed (36% chance) With: A loss AND EITHER Pitt loss OR Clemson win

Duke

  • Current Record: 15-4
  • Remaining Games: vs. UNC
  • 1 Seed (36% chance) With: A win AND EITHER Pitt loss OR Clemson win
  • 2 Seed (64% chance) With: 1) A loss OR 2) a Pitt win AND a Clemson loss

Virginia

  • Current Record: 12-7
  • Remaining Games: vs. Georgia Tech
  • 3 Seed (85.5% chance) With: A win OR a Pitt loss.
  • 4 Seed (14.5% chance) With: A loss AND a Pitt win

Clemson

  • Current Record: 11-8
  • Remaining Games: at Wake
  • 3 Seed (5.5% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia loss AND a Pitt win
  • 4 Seed (51.7% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Virginia win AND a Pitt win or 2) a Pitt loss
  • 5 Seed (42.8% chance) With: A loss AND a Pitt win

Pitt

  • Current Record: 11-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. NC State
  • 3 Seed (9% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia loss AND a Clemson loss
  • 4 Seed (34% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia win AND a Clemson loss
  • 5 Seed (26% chance) With: A win AND a Clemson win
  • 6 Seed (12% chance) With: A loss AND a Clemson win
  • 7 Seed (19% chance) With: A loss AND a Clemson loss

Syracuse

  • Current Record: 11-9
  • Remaining Games: none
  • 5 Seed (12% chance) With: a Pitt loss AND a Clemson win.
  • 6 Seed (45% chance) With: 1) a Pitt win AND a Clemson win OR 2) a Pitt loss AND a Clemson loss.
  • 7 Seed (43% chance) With: a Pitt win AND a Clemson loss.

Wake Forest

  • Current Record: 10-9
  • Remaining Games: vs. Clemson
  • 5 Seed (19% chance) With: A win AND a Pitt loss
  • 6 Seed (43% chance) With: A win AND a Pitt win
  • 7 Seed (2.7% chance) With: A loss AND a Virginia Tech loss AND a Florida State loss
  • 8 Seed (15.6% chance) With: A loss AND a Virginia Tech loss OR a Florida State loss BUT NOT BOTH
  • 9 Seed (19.8% chance) With: A loss AND a Virginia Tech win AND a Florida State win AND

Florida State

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Miami
  • 7 Seed (25% chance) With: A win AND a Wake loss
  • 8 Seed (8% chance) With: A win AND a Wake win AND a Virginia Tech loss
  • 9 Seed (56% chance) With: 1) A loss AND an NC State loss OR 2) a win AND a Wake win AND Virginia Tech win.
  • 10 Seed (11% chance) With: A loss AND an NC State win.

NC State

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: at Pitt
  • 8 Seed (2% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia Tech loss AND a Florida State loss
  • 9 Seed (13% chance) With: A win AND EITHER a Virginia Tech loss OR a Florida State loss BUT NOT BOTH
  • 10 Seed (85% chance) With: 1) A loss OR 2) a Virginia Tech win AND a Florida State win

Virginia Tech

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Notre Dame
  • 7 Seed (10.6% chance) With: A win AND a Wake loss AND an FSU loss.
  • 8 Seed (60.5% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Wake win OR 2) A win AND a Wake loss AND an FSU win AND NC State win OR 3) a loss AND an NC State loss AND an FSU loss.
  • 9 Seed (24.8% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Wake loss AND an FSU win AND NC State loss OR 2) A loss AND EITHER an NC State loss OR an FSU loss BUT NOT BOTH
  • 10 Seed (4% chance) With: A loss AND an NC State win AND an FSU win

Boston College

  • Current Record: 7-12
  • Remaining Games: at Louisville
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 13
  • 11 Seed (88% chance) With: 1) A win OR 2) a Notre Dame loss AND a Georgia Tech loss
  • 12 Seed (10% chance) With: A loss AND a loss by either Notre Dame OR Georgia Tech BUT NOT BOTH
  • 13 Seed (1% chance) With: A loss AND a Notre Dame win AND a Georgia Tech win

Notre Dame

  • Current Record: 7-12
  • Remaining Games: at Virginia Tech
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • 11 Seed (6% chance) With: A win AND a Boston College loss
  • 12 Seed (55% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Boston College win OR 2) A loss AND a Georgia Tech loss AND a Miami loss
  • 13 Seed (33% chance) With: A loss AND a loss by either Georgia Tech or Miami BUT NOT BOTH
  • 14 Seed (6% chance) With: A loss AND a Georgia Tech win AND a Miami win

Georgia Tech

  • Current Record: 7-12
  • Remaining Games: at Virginia
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • 11 Seed (5% chance) With: A win AND a Boston College loss AND a Notre Dame loss
  • 12 Seed (13% chance) With: 1) A win AND a loss by either Boston College or Notre Dame BUT NOT BOTH
  • 13 Seed (60% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Notre Dame win AND a Boston College win OR 2) A loss AND EITHER a Notre Dame win OR a Miami loss
  • 14 Seed (22% chance) With: A loss AND a Notre Dame loss AND a Miami win

Miami

  • Current Record: 6-13
  • Remaining Games: at FSU
  • Highest Possible Seed: 12
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • 12 Seed (22% chance) With: A win AND a Notre Dame loss AND a Georgia Tech loss
  • 13 Seed (6% chance) With: A win AND a Notre Dame loss AND a Georgia Tech win
  • 14 Seed (72% chance) With: A loss OR a Notre Dame win

Louisville

  • Current Record: 3-16
  • Remaining Games: vs. BC
  • The Cardinals are locked into the 15 seed.

ACC Standings Outlook 3/5

North Carolina

  • Current Record: 15-3
  • Remaining Games: vs. Notre Dame, at Duke
  • Highest Possible ACC Tourney Seed: 1
  • Lowest Possible ACC Tourney Seed: 2
  • Bye chances: Clinched the double bye.

If the Tar Heels lose to Notre Dame, then the Duke-Carolina game decides the regular season title. If the Tar Heels beat Notre Dame and lose to Duke, that would create a tie. The tiebreaker would come down to walking down the standings and ultimately would depend on who finishes at the top of the Syracuse/Wake/Pitt/Clemson group.

Duke

  • Current Record: 15-4
  • Remaining Games: vs. UNC
  • Highest Possible Seed: 1
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 2
  • Bye chances: Clinched the double bye.

Virginia

  • Current Record: 12-7
  • Remaining Games: vs. Georgia Tech
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 5
  • Bye chances: Have not clinched a double bye. If they finish in a 3-way tie with Syracuse and Pitt, the Cavaliers will be the 5 seed.

Syracuse

  • Current Record: 11-8
  • Remaining Games: at Clemson
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. If Syracuse, Virginia, and Pitt all finish 12-8, the Orange get the 3 seed.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 8 (I think – the tiebreakers are complicated)
  • Bye chances: The Orange have clinched a bye and have a shot at the double bye if they can beat Clemson.

Wake Forest

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. Georgia Tech, vs. Clemson
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. I think Wake wins a 2-way tie with Virginia. There may be other tie scenarios where they finish third.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 9
  • Bye chances: I believe Wake clinched a bye when NC State lost to Duke. Now the worst the Deacs could do is a 3-way tie for 8th place with NC State and Virginia Tech, and I think they would get the 9.

Clemson

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. Syracuse, at Wake
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. Clemson gets the 3 seed if they, Virginia, and Pitt all finish 12-8.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 9. A 2-way tie with Virginia Tech at 10-10. Possibly other tiebreaker scenarios.
  • Bye chances: I believe Clemson has clinched a bye. At least I am not able to find a tiebreaker scenario where they get the 10 seed.

Pitt

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. FSU, vs. NC State
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. Pitt wins a 2-way tie with Virginia at 12-8.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 10
  • Bye chances: I think they could still get the 10 and be playing on Tuesday. For example, if Pitt, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and NC State all finish tied for 7th at 10-10, then I think Pitt is at the bottom of that group on the tiebreakers.

Florida State

  • Current Record: 9-9
  • Remaining Games: at Pitt, vs. Miami
  • Highest Possible Seed: 5. It is possible for them to finish tied for 4th, but I don’t think they can win the tiebreaker. They could get the 5 in a 2-way tie with Clemson, or maybe a 2-way tie with Wake.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 10
  • Bye chances: Cannot get a double bye if I am reading the tiebreakers correctly. And could be playing on Tuesday if they lose their last two games.

NC State

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: at Pitt
  • Highest Possible Seed: 7. A two-way tie with Clemson at 10-10 is one way this can happen. There may be others.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 11. Tiebreaker scenarios that involve Virginia Tech and Florida State generally turn out badly for the Wolfpack.
  • Bye chances: They need a) a win and a Virginia Tech loss or b) two VT losses to avoid playing on Tuesday.

Virginia Tech

  • Current Record: 8-10
  • Remaining Games: at Louisville, vs. Notre Dame
  • Highest Possible Seed: 7. They can finish tied for 6th but don’t have the tiebreakers.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 12, I think. Tiebreakers are complicated.
  • Bye chances: If they win two, they have a good chance to escape playing on Tuesday. If they win one, they need a lot of help.

Notre Dame

  • Current Record: 7-11
  • Remaining Games: at UNC, at Virginia Tech
  • Highest Possible Seed: 9
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: To avoid playing on Tuesday, they need to win their last 2 games, they need Virginia Tech to beat Louisville, and they need FSU or NC State to finish 9-11. They need Virginia Tech in their tiebreaker because they swept the Hokies (or will have, in this scenario).

Boston College

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: at Miami, at Louisville
  • Highest Possible Seed: 10. BC wins a 3-way tie at 8-12 with Notre Dame and Virginia Tech.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: Playing on Tuesday.

Miami

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: vs. BC, at FSU
  • Highest Possible Seed: 10. Miami wins a 3-way tie at 8-12 with Notre Dame and Virginia Tech.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Georgia Tech

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: at Wake, at Virginia
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11. Tiebreakers are generally unfavorable for the Jackets.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Louisville

  • Current Record: 3-15
  • Remaining Games: vs. Virginia Tech, vs. BC
  • Highest Possible Seed: 15
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

ACC Tournament Outlook

North Carolina

  • Current Record: 14-3
  • Remaining Games: vs. NC State, vs. Notre Dame, at Duke
  • Highest Possible Finish: 1
  • Lowest Possible Finish: It is possible for the Tar Heels to finish in a 3-way tie for first with Duke and Virginia, or a two-way tie for second with Virginia. It appears to me that UNC has the tiebreakers, so I don’t think they can be seeded lower than #2.
  • Bye chances: Clinched the double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 1 (alone) – 59%
  • 1 (tie) – 35%
  • 2 (alone) – 6%
  • 2 (tie) – < 1%

Duke

  • Current Record: 12-4
  • Remaining Games: vs. Louisville, vs. Virginia, at NC State, vs. UNC
  • Highest Possible Finish: 1
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 4 (tie)
  • Bye chances: Need one more win to clinch the double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 1 (alone) – 6%
  • 1 (tie) – 35%
  • 2 (alone) – 54%
  • 2 (tie) – 4%
  • 3 (alone) – < 1%
  • 3 (tie) – < 1%
  • 4 (alone) – < 1%
  • 4 (tie) – < 1%

Virginia

  • Current Record: 11-6
  • Remaining Games: at BC, at Duke, vs. Georgia Tech
  • Highest Possible Finish: 1 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 7 (tie)
  • Bye chances: Clinched a single bye. Work to do to secure a double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 1 (tie) – < 1%
  • 2 (alone) – 1%
  • 2 (tie) – 3%
  • 3 (alone) – < 20%
  • 3 (tie) – < 42%
  • 4 (alone) – < 6%
  • 4 (tie) – < 21%
  • 5 (alone) – <1%
  • 5 (tie) – 5%
  • 6 (alone) – < 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 2%
  • 7 (alone) – < 1%
  • 7 (tie) – < 1%

Wake Forest

  • Current Record: 10-7
  • Remaining Games: at Virginia Tech, vs. Georgia Tech, vs. Clemson
  • Highest Possible Finish: 2 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 9 (tie)
  • Bye chances: I’m not 100% sure, but I think Wake has clinched a single bye. While they can finish tied for 9th, I think they have the tiebreakers. Lots of work to do to secure a double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 2 (tie) – < 1%
  • 3 (alone) – 17%
  • 3 (tie) – 32%
  • 4 (alone) – 5%
  • 4 (tie) – 21%
  • 5 (alone) – 3%
  • 5 (tie) – 12%
  • 6 (alone) – 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 6%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Clemson

  • Current Record: 10-7
  • Remaining Games: at Notre Dame, vs. Syracuse, at Wake
  • Highest Possible Finish: 2 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 9 (tie)
  • Bye chances: Need a win or Virginia Tech loss to clinch single bye. Lots of work to do to secure the double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 2 (tie) – < 1%
  • 3 (alone) – 13%
  • 3 (tie) – 26%
  • 4 (alone) – 4%
  • 4 (tie) – 22%
  • 5 (alone) – 5%
  • 5 (tie) – 14%
  • 6 (alone) – 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 9%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 4%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Syracuse

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: at Louisville, at Clemson
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 9 (tie)
  • Bye chances: I’m not 100% sure, but I think the Orange has clinched a single bye. It appears to me that they have the tiebreakers over the teams they could finish tied for 9th with.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone) – < 1%
  • 3 (tie) – 6%
  • 4 (alone) – < 1%
  • 4 (tie) – 8%
  • 5 (alone) – 1%
  • 5 (tie) – 19%
  • 6 (alone) – 3%
  • 6 (tie) – 29%
  • 7 (alone) – 8%
  • 7 (tie) – 17%
  • 8 (alone) – 3%
  • 8 (tie) – 5%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Pitt

  • Current Record: 9-8
  • Remaining Games: at BC, vs. FSU, vs. NC State
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 11
  • Bye chances: Anything is possible. Double bye, single bye, no bye at all.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone or tie) – 7%
  • 4 (alone or tie) – 14%
  • 5 (alone or tie) – 22%
  • 6 (alone or tie) – 26%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 12%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 13%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 5%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – < 1%

NC State

  • Current Record: 9-8
  • Remaining Games: at UNC, vs. Duke, at Pitt
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 11
  • Bye chances: Anything is possible. Three wins gives them a slim chance for a double bye; zero wins and they could very well be playing on Tuesday. One win and a Virginia Tech loss should be enough to avoid Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 4 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 5 (alone or tie) – 4%
  • 6 (alone or tie) – 8%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 13%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 25%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 35%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 12%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 1%

Florida State

  • Current Record: 9-8
  • Remaining Games: at GT, at Pitt, vs. Miami
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 11
  • Bye chances: Anything is possible. Double bye, single bye, no bye at all.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone or tie) – 3%
  • 4 (alone or tie) – 7%
  • 5 (alone or tie) – 15%
  • 6 (alone or tie) – 22%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 18%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 25%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 7%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Virginia Tech

  • Current Record: 7-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Wake Forest, at Louisville, vs. Notre Dame
  • Highest Possible Finish: 5 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 13
  • Bye chances: Double bye is out of reach. Work to do to secure single bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 5 (tie) – < 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 1%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 6%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 16%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 30%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 37%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 10%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Boston College

  • Current Record: 6-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Virginia, vs. Pitt, at Miami, at Louisville
  • Highest Possible Finish: 5 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Double bye is out of reach. Work to do to secure single bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 5 (tie) – < 1%
  • 6 (tie) – < 1%
  • 7 (tie) – 2%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 5%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 12%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 22%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 46%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 9%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 15 (alone) – < 1%

Notre Dame

  • Current Record: 6-11
  • Remaining Games: vs. Clemson, at UNC, at Virginia Tech
  • Highest Possible Finish: 8 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Clinging to a slim chance to get a single bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 8 (tie) – < 1%
  • 9 (tie) – < 1%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 3%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 11%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 40%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 40%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – < 5%
  • 15 (alone) – < 1%

Miami

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: vs. BC, at FSU
  • Highest Possible Finish: 10
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 10 (alone or tie) – 4%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 29%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 50%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 14%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 15 (alone) – < 1%

Georgia Tech

  • Current Record: 5-12
  • Remaining Games: vs. FSU, at Wake, at Virginia
  • Highest Possible Finish: 10
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 10 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 3%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 16%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 26%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – 55%
  • 15 (alone) – 1%

Louisville

  • Current Record: 3-13
  • Remaining Games: at Duke, vs. Syracuse, vs. Virginia Tech, vs. BC
  • Highest Possible Finish: 10 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 10 (tie) – < 1%
  • 11 (tie) – < 1%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – 8%
  • 15 (alone) – 90%

Final Bracket

I’m posting this bracket while the AAC and Big 10 Championship games are still in progress. I wish they would move those earlier in the day. It will be interesting to see what the committee does with Purdue. If Purdue loses, I would move Texas to the top line and drop Purdue to a 2. However, because of the timing of the game, the committee may have to make a final decision before the end of the game. This also impacts Penn State; if they beat Purdue, they deserve to move up to a 9. But again, the committee may not be able to consider that because of timing.

I think Houston is a #1 regardless of the outcome of the AAC game, but if Memphis wins, I would move them up a line and move Miami down.

I’ve spent a lot of time looking at the last few teams and trying to make sense of how the committee might view them. And my final answer is to go with Arizona State as my last team in, for one reason: they have five Quad 1 wins, and not one of them was at home. Their resume has a lot of weaknesses; 5-5 against Quad 2 and a Quad 4 loss is not good, and the computers don’t particularly like them. But when push comes to shove, win quality is more important than any other single factor for the committee, and the Sun Devils have it. I think that will make the difference.

Of course I’m always interested in NC State. Their situation seems to have deteriorated in the past couple of days, probably as the bracketologists reflect on their three losses to Clemson and, consciously or unconsciously, are bothered by the Wolfpack being ahead of the Tigers in the pecking order.

But I still think they’re going to make it. Their 7-4 Quad 2 record is very good, and they have no bad losses. Their wins over Duke, Dayton, Vanderbilt, and Furman have aged well as those teams played well down the stretch.

If you’re watching the Selection Show and you want to know when the moment of truth has arrived, here’s what you do. Get a piece of paper and write down these teams: Rutgers, Mississippi State, NC State, Providence, Oklahoma State, Arizona State, Nevada, Clemson, Pitt. Every time one of them is announced – pay special attention to the 10 and 11 seeds – cross it off. When you’ve crossed off six teams, that’s it. The other three are not going to make it.

Complete Bracket (auto bids in bold):

  1. Kansas, Alabama, Houston, Purdue
  2. Texas, UCLA, Arizona, Gonzaga
  3. Baylor, Marquette, UConn, Xavier
  4. Tennessee, Kansas State, Duke, San Diego State
  5. Texas A&M, Virginia, Indiana, St. Mary’s
  6. Iowa State, Kentucky, TCU, Memphis
  7. Miami, Florida Atlantic, Creighton, West Virginia
  8. Arkansas, Utah State, Michigan State, Missouri
  9. Northwestern, Boise State, Auburn, Maryland
  10. Penn State, Illinois, Iowa, USC
  11. Rutgers, Mississippi State, NC State, Providence, Oklahoma State, Arizona State
  12. College of Charleston, VCU, Drake, Oral Roberts
  13. Kent State, Iona, Louisiana, Furman
  14. Kennesaw State, UC Santa Barbara, Vermont, Grand Canyon
  15. Colgate, Princeton, Montana State, UNC Asheville
  16. Northern Kentucky, Texas A&M Corpus Christi, Howard, Southeast Missouri State, Fairleigh Dickinson, Texas Southern

Last Four Byes: Iowa, USC, Rutgers, Mississippi State

Last Four In: NC State, Providence, Oklahoma State, Arizona State

First Four Out: Nevada, Clemson, Pitt, Vanderbilt

Bracket Update 3/11

With one day left until Selection Sunday, most teams’ fate is sealed. I now have 40 locks, five teams that are Probably In, and five teams in competition for the last spot in the field.

I have to admit a couple of mea culpas. One is, I have “de-locked” Providence, which should never happen. Once a team is a lock, they should stay a lock. But Providence has really fallen apart down the stretch and I now think it’s possible, though unlikely, that they could miss the field.

The other is, I’ve added Vanderbilt to the list of bubble teams. When I looked at it last week, I thought they were too far out to possibly get an at-large bid. With their win over Kentucky, that now seems possible.

On to the lists.

Locks (40):

Big 10 (8) – Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, Maryland, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Penn State

Big 12 (7) – Kansas, Baylor, Texas, Kansas State, TCU, Iowa State, West Virginia

SEC (7) – Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, Auburn

Big East (4) – UConn, Marquette, Xavier, Creighton

ACC (3) – Virginia, Miami, Duke

Pac-12 (3) – UCLA, Arizona, USC

Mountain West (3) – San Diego State, Boise State, Utah State

West Coast (2) – Gonzaga, St. Mary’s

American (2) – Houston, Memphis

Conference USA (1) – Florida Atlantic

Probably In (5):

90% Chance: Rutgers

80% Chance: Mississippi State, NC State

75% Chance: Providence

70% Chance: Oklahoma State

Last Bid:

At this point, there are five teams who could conceivably hear their names called for the last bid: Nevada, Clemson, Vanderbilt, Arizona State, and Pitt. Of the five, only Vanderbilt is still playing. If they win two more games, they are the SEC champions and there is no more debate. Even if they win today against Texas A&M but lose in the final, I think they will get the bid. But let’s assume Vandy loses today. Then I’m going with Clemson, with Vanderbilt, Nevada, Arizona State, and Pitt following in that order.

This is a bit of a gut feel pick. My model says that Nevada has the best resume. But they finished the season really poorly and I think the committee will deduct something for that. I also think there has been a groundswell of support for Clemson from various sources in the media, although maybe that’s just my ACC bias, and that may have an impact on the committee. There may also be an element of unconscious sympathy towards the ACC, especially if they are going to leave Pitt out, as I think they will.

Keep in mind that bid stealing is still possible. Vanderbilt could win the SEC tournament, Ohio State is alive in the Big 10 Tournament, and a couple of teams are still alive in the AAC Tournament who could grab that last bid. If there are multiple bid thefts, I think Oklahoma State is the most likely of the Probables to be left out.

Complete Bracket (auto bids in bold, tickets punched underlined):

  1. Kansas, Alabama, Purdue, Houston
  2. UCLA, Texas, Gonzaga, Arizona
  3. Baylor, Marquette, UConn, Tennessee
  4. Xavier, Kansas State, San Diego State, Virginia
  5. Indiana, St. Mary’s, Texas A&M, Duke
  6. Iowa State, Kentucky, TCU, Miami
  7. Michigan State, Creighton, Northwestern, Florida Atlantic
  8. Arkansas, West Virginia, Memphis, Boise State
  9. Utah State, Missouri, Maryland, Auburn
  10. Illinois, Iowa, Penn State, USC
  11. Rutgers, Mississippi State, NC State, Providence, Oklahoma State, Clemson
  12. College of Charleston, Drake, VCU, Oral Roberts
  13. Kent State, Iona, Yale, Furman
  14. Louisiana, Kennesaw State, UC Santa Barbara, Vermont
  15. Colgate, UNC Asheville, Southern Utah, Montana State
  16. Northern Kentucky, Grambling, Norfolk State, Texas A&M Corpus Christi, Southeast Missouri State, Fairleigh Dickinson

Last Four Byes: Penn State, USC, Rutgers, Mississippi State

Last Four In: NC State, Providence, Oklahoma State, Clemson

First Four Out: Vanderbilt, Nevada, Arizona State, Pitt

Bubble Watch 3/9

Moving off the bubble list yesterday was NC State, who moved to a Lock with their win over Virginia Tech.  Although ironically, NC State beat the Hokies so badly that they knocked them out of the top 75 in the NET – which means the Wolfpack’s win in Blacksburg is no longer a Quad 1.  But it doesn’t matter.  They’re in.

Bubble Team Ranking:

In 6 – Utah State

In 5 – Oklahoma State

In 4 – Nevada

In 3 – Penn State

In 2 – Mississippi State

In 1 – Pitt

Out 1 – Rutgers

Out 2 – Arizona State

Out 3 – North Carolina

Out 4 – Wisconsin

Out 5 – Oregon

Out 6 – Michigan

Out 7 – Clemson

Commentary on today’s games:

Utah State – next game today vs. New Mexico (NET 50)

  • With a win – this is an interesting one, because right now New Mexico is 50 in the NET, which is the cutoff for a Quad 1 win on a neutral court.  But beating them may knock them down in the NET, making it a Quad 2.  The vagaries of the NET.  I’m not quite ready to call the Aggies a Lock with a win here, but they’re headed in that direction.
  • With a loss – by the same logic, if New Mexico wins, they probably will move up in the NET and this becomes a Quad 1 loss for Utah State.  I think they still have a chance and it will depend on what the other teams do.

Oklahoma State – next game today vs. Texas (NET 9)

  • With a win – OSU becomes a lock.
  • With a loss – OSU finishes their regular season at 18-15.  Losing to Texas on a neutral court doesn’t really hurt you, but the Cowboys are on thin ice as it is.  They will be sweating it out on Selection Sunday.

Nevada – next game today vs. San Jose State (NET 96)

  • With a win – this is a Quad 2, just barely.  It helps marginally, I guess, but it’s really more about avoiding the loss.
  • With a loss – Nevada is in trouble if they lose this game.  They too will be sweating it out on Selection Sunday.

Penn State – next game today vs. Illinois (NET 33)

  • With a win – this is a solid Quad 1 opponent.  I can’t say it makes them a Lock, but they would go to the head of the bubble pack, and the other teams would have to do some extraordinary things to keep the Nittany Lions out.
  • With a loss – a Quad 1 loss doesn’t really hurt their resume, but they’re on thin ice as it is.  Probably no better than 50-50 they get in if they lose today.

Mississippi State – next game today vs. Florida (NET 59)

  • With a win – Quad 2 opponent.  Every little bit helps, but certainly doesn’t make them a Lock.
  • With a loss – I don’t like their chances.  It would depend on what other teams do.

Pitt – next game today vs. Duke (NET 25)

  • With a win – I’m not sure my model would agree, but my gut says Pitt is a Lock if they win.  Duke is really playing well right now.  A neutral court win over the Blue Devils is the final validation Pitt needs.
  • With a loss – I really don’t know.  I don’t think they’ll make it, but other Bracketologists have them higher for whatever reason.  They certainly look like a tournament team with the “eye test”, but I’m not sure the committee cares.

Rutgers – next game today vs. Michigan (NET 54)

  • With a win – it’s a Quad 2, but because Michigan is a fellow bubble team, this win has a little more cachet than, say, Nevada beating San Jose State.  But it certainly doesn’t make Rutgers a lock.
  • With a loss – I don’t think they’re going to make it.  I can’t rule it out until I see what everyone else does.

Arizona State – next game today vs. USC (NET 48)

  • With a win – it’s a Quad 1 win for now, but similar to the Utah State comment, the act of beating USC may knock them down enough in the NET so that it’s not a Quad 1 anymore.  Beat them, but don’t beat them badly, I guess.  Regardless, it’s a really good win and would move Arizona State toward the head of this pack of teams right around the cut line.
  • With a loss – similar to Rutgers, I don’t think they’ll make it, but with their four Quad 1 wins, it can’t be ruled out.

North Carolina – next game today vs. Virginia (NET 30)

  • With a win – the Tar Heels move to a 60% chance to make it with a win today.
  • With a loss – they’re done.

Wisconsin (regular season over)

  • The Badgers have no games left to improve their standing.  Could they possibly make it?  I can’t completely remove a team with six Quad 1 wins.  But I would rate their chances at 10% or less.

Oregon – next game today vs. Washington State (NET 69)

  • With a win – a win doesn’t mean much.  Oregon has to do a lot more than beat Washington State if they’re going to make it.
  • With a loss – they’re done.

Michigan – next game today vs. Rutgers (NET 43)

  • With a win – it’s a solid Quad 1 win and will move the Wolverines up considerably in the pecking order, but their situation would still be precarious.
  • With a loss – they’re done.

Clemson – next game today vs. NC State (NET 37)

  • With a win – would be a solid Quad 1 for the Tigers, their third win over NC State, and would help cancel out the Tigers’ bad losses.  But it seems unlikely that this win alone will be enough to get the Tigers in.
  • With a loss – they’re done.

Bubble Action 3/8

Quick update on the six bubble teams in action today.

NC State can move to a Lock on my board with a win over Virginia Tech.

North Carolina and Arizona State are fighting to stay alive. The Tar Heels are definitely done if they lose to BC. Arizona State might still have a faint pulse with a loss to Oregon State, but they would be a long shot.

Oklahoma State and Wisconsin are both in similar positions. They are both around the cut line. You can’t rule them out if they lose today, but you can’t say they’re in if they win either. A loss probably hurts more than a win helps. Both are playing conference rivals who are better than their record would indicate.

Then there’s Pitt. The Panthers play Georgia Tech this afternoon. I say they are out if they lose, but there is a lot of disagreement about Pitt among Bracketologists, and not everyone would agree. But it does seem that the community is coming around a bit to my point of view. Only 73 of the 89 brackets on bracketmatrix.com have them in. Jerry Palm of cbssports.com still has them as a 9 seed, which is a fantasy.