Big Ten Geeks

Purpose

2012-07-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

This post has nothing to do with basketball. You've been warned.

True story: I wrote this post yesterday, and just as I finished, I deleted it. It's certainly not necessary or expected (or welcomed, for some I'm sure) for me to comment on the Penn State scandal or the NCAA punishment, and so the threshold for actually sending words out into the ether was just whether or not I had anything interesting to say. Yesterday, I didn't think that I did.

Then I read one opinion. Then another. Both from authors whom initially thought the NCAA had no business in this matter, who later changed their minds. And both articles convince me that a very important point has been missed. Specifically, I cannot figure out what the purpose is behind the NCAA's punishment.

Put aside whether or not the NCAA had "jurisdiction." That's always been a complaint raised by those who use the word without understanding its meaning. Yes, the NCAA has jurisdiction, inasmuch as there's no test that exists for it. Jurisdiction is generally something that we require of our public institutions--such as a police force or a court of law. It's not something we apply to private actors, and certainly not in the context of a voluntary organization. This isn't to say that the NCAA doesn't have boundaries, but those boundaries are set by the laws of the United States and/or Indiana and/or other states in which the NCAA conducts business.

But the fact that the NCAA has jurisdiction to act does not mean that it should. I would go even further, and argue that even armed with jurisdiction and presented with heinous crimes, the NCAA does not need to punish. Punishment makes sense when there's a point. Here, I don't see what the point is.

It goes without saying that what happened at Penn State was deplorable, that men in power abused that power and put the welfare of those who could not protect themselves behind the interests of a football program. That's a terrible thing. Those men deserve to be punished, and those victims deserve to be compensated.

But the NCAA's punishments don't do either of those things. From a punitive standpoint, the sanctions don't touch the men responsible. Those guys are no longer (or soon to be no longer) associated with the Penn State program. To the extent they are alive, they will (and in one case, already have) receive punishments. At least one individual is headed to jail. More will face trial. None of this is the NCAA's doing, mind you. The only arguable way that the sanctions punish any of these men is by scrubbing a record book.

The NCAA sanctions also don't have any deterring effect. When an individual is faced with the choice of whether or not to commit or cover up a heinous crime such as this, I submit that the last thing on his mind is the fate of a football team. The threat of a jail term is certainly a much bigger stick. Were I faced with a two week jail sentence, I'd happily trade my favorite team never winning another game for the opportunity to avoid the slammer. So would any other sane (or just about every insane) person.

Finally, the NCAA's penalties do nothing to compensate victims. To Penn State's credit, it's working with the victims to properly compensate them. Again though, this is happening without the NCAA. Sure, the $60 million fine is to go to organizations that fight child abuse, but it's not a direct payment to victims. And while that's a worthy cause for $60 million, it's not like that money was previously headed to an unworthy cause. Penn State University is, after all, a non-profit educational organization. The NCAA's term that the money cannot be funded through the reduction of scholarships in other sports merely means that the squeeze will come from somewhere else--whether that's faculty salaries, financial aid, or facilities upgrades, it's important to recognize that Penn State is primarily an educational institution (and a good one). Levying a fine on a non-profit institution (that's already set to pay out massive amounts in settlements to the actual victims) isn't something anyone ought to feel good about, even if it were the right thing to do.

The prevailing argument--and the one used by the NCAA--is that the sanctions are meant to reinforce the idea that football should never be elevated to a place above the welfare of the students and community of the university. That's a noble goal, but it's unconnected to the penalties in the second place, and it's disingenuous in the first place. It's unconnected because all of those rabid supporters of Penn State--who elevated a coach to a place above questioning--would have (and in most cases, actually have) turned on him in an instant if they knew he looked the other way when presented with Sandusky's crimes. This wasn't a community-wide conspiracy to endanger children so long as it meant the team played on New Year's Day--it was a handful of terrible men that allowed for the triumph of evil. The good people of State College didn't need an attitude adjustment or a moral compass re-calibration--they needed the facts.

Moreover, the greater goal of the demotion of sports in the collegiate sphere is. as Tim Pawlenty would say, hogwash. I don't think the NCAA is the bogeyman. I've defended the NCAA before, and I'll do it again. But it's a fiction to claim that the NCAA hopes that we can all just stop caring about college sports so much. If one wanted to lower college sports' spot in the pecking order, it's not a difficult task. The NCAA could ban televising all games. It could require that admissions be double-blind, such that there truly is no advantage for athletes in admissions. I'm sure others could think of a dozen different ways to remove money from college sports. And I accept that some solutions might be better than others. Further, I take no position on whether that a drastic de-emphasis of collegiate sports is a worthy cause. My only point here is that to the extent that Penn State football is a Very Big Deal, the NCAA was a complicit partner.

So while I certainly think that the wrongdoers deserve to be punished, and that the victims should be compensated, I'm not so sure that there's much purpose to the NCAA's sanctions. Making sure that a football team stinks for years (decades?) seems like an odd way to help remedy the situation at State College.

Bottom Line Business

2012-03-11T11:56:00.003-07:00

Two coaches were fired this past weekend in the Big Ten, and plenty has been said about them. We should feel sorry for them, we shouldn’t feel sorry for them, and plenty of people are leveraging the newly-opened jobs for a State of the Union of What This Says About College Basketball.

I don’t think either of these terminations means anything significant at all. It’s just two millionaires who won’t be drawing a salary this month. After the past dozen or so economic quarters we’ve had, it’s a minor miracle that such events qualify as news at all. But I have the luxury of this perspective. I’m just a part-time analyst and a full-time fan. I’ll never know these guys, and the only impact they’ll have on me comes in the form of box scores and end-of-season records. That’s how most of us know them. Most of us, but not everyone.

***

Probably the best perk of working with BTN is that every year, I get to sit courtside at the Big Ten Tournament. High definition TVs are really great, but it’s just no substitute for the real thing. Players are sprinting while being bumped, grabbed, and hacked--and usually, no whistles are blown while all of this happens. Up close, it’s easy to see that things like non-moving screens are a fiction of the highest order. In the post, everyone is fouled, it’s just a level of degree. You see how referees are more peacekeepers than officials, how coaches are part-attorney, part-teacher. And it’s amazing to watch a 20-year old tune out thousands of people screaming at the top of their lungs for him to fail. Every one of these guys is an awesome basketball player, and it’s the smallest of margins that separates them.

But the best and most eye-opening part of live action comes from sitting directly in front of the families. If you could fill a stadium of 15,000 player parents for the home team, you’d have the loudest arena in all of sports. Ears would literally bleed. And it’s not just volume, it’s resilience, too. Simply put, they don’t shut up. Whether up by 15 or down by 30, they’re shouting at full volume. Every foul called against one of their own is a hose job, as is every foul gone unnoticed. They plead for their kids to take the ball, to grab the rebound, and when the players do the smallest thing well, the reward is effusive praise. In short, they behave exactly like you expect supportive parents to behave. When you watch the game on TV, you forget the players are only a couple of years removed from being children. When you sit in front of the family section, that reality is jarring.

***

“Mixed emotions” is probably a fair way to describe how most parents feel when sending their kids off to college. As proud as they are, they’re also worried about how their kid will fare on their own. I doubt many parents are ready to fully let go when their son starts unpacking his dorm room, and I suspect that’s no different even if he happens to be a McDonald’s All-American. And while I’m sure many players (and parents) harbor dreams of NBA riches in their futures, the more immediate goal is getting through college, for as long as they decide to stay. And in that respect, a college coach is somewhat of a transitional parent. For 18 years, it’s Mom and Dad telling their son what to do, but once the college athlete is in school, they take orders from the coach. There’s usually a bit more freedom granted by the coach, sure, but to the parents, the issue is the same. This is the man to whom you are entrusting with your son, who you don’t fully trust to navigate the world on his own.

***

And I think that’s why almost no matter the reason for a coach being fired, there are some who will always be saddened by it. These coaches have been trusted by families to help their sons get through the first years of adulthood. That’s a big part of the job, and some might argue the most important. And that’s all well and good, but that’s not what anyone signed up for.

It’s usually the NCAA that’s painted as greedy, but that argument falls flat when one recognizes that almost all of the money the organization collects is ultimately paid out to the schools, much of it in the form of scholastic aid for student-athletes (who, as we’re often reminded, are irrelevantly going pro in something other than sports). If greed exists in college sports, the kingpins are the coaches, especially for men’s basketball and football. They are the individuals who receive the largest checks, after all.

Those checks are funded by ticket sales for people who want to watch the games live, television deals which are in turn funded by advertisements targeted to viewers that want to watch the games at home, and merchandising for both sets of viewers to collect. In other words, coaches are paid by the fans who don’t give one lick about what great father figures they make. They want pretty box scores and won/loss records. And it’s hard to take seriously the fact that such-and-such coach was a good man as a reason he should be retained, because that same coach has previously negotiated for a extremely lucrative contract.

It’s a bottom-line business, and frankly, we should all be OK with that. If it weren’t, if coaches were happily drawing $50,000 salaries to teach life lessons and a little basketball on the side, there would be thousands of athletically-skilled high schoolers that would all have to search for jobs at the factory or the local big box retailer, instead of pursuing higher education. So the tragedy isn’t that nice guys are being fired, but it would be quite sad if they weren’t.

This isn’t to say that every firing is a good one, even from a bottom-line perspective. The grass isn’t always greener, and it all depends on context. They’ll name a court after you at Gardner Webb for performance that will get you fired at Kentucky. Moreover, every coach that’s fired was once seen as a savior of the program by the same people now calling for a change. But whether or not the change ultimately turns out for the better, it’s unequivocally true that it’s appropriate and positive that the fanbase has standards and demands accountability.

***

In some ways, I think coaches are glad to get the axe. Most of the time, the writing has been on the wall, thanks to those meticulously-negotiated buyout packages that tend to delay terminations until just before the torches and pitchforks have been brandished. And I can only imagine how much it sucks to hear 15,000 people that you considered supporters emphatically shower you with boos. Getting away from that, and being paid for the privilege, has to be at least a minor relief.

I first heard Bruce Weber’s name from a girl I was dating. She told me how her school’s team just took down an Indiana team led by Jared Jeffries (this same Hoosier team later beat my alma mater by 31 points). “Floorburn U” was the moniker bestowed on his Southern Illinois teams, and defense was the calling card for his Illinois teams until the past few seasons. I suspect watching his teams graciously escort opposing teams to the rim has worn on Weber more than anything else.

It’s serendipitous that the SIU job happens to be open just when Weber is looking for work. He’s not my team’s coach anymore, but I hope he gets a look there. I have little doubt that he’d be successful once again in Carbondale, where he’s remained an ally to the program. Floorburn U hasn’t been an appropriate nickname for the Salukis in a long time, and I’d like to see SIU Arena packed once again, with chants of “S-I-U!” and “Gray Dog! Brown Dog!” reverberating through the bleachers. So would my former girlfriend, now my wife, who hasn’t been back since the NIT became an unrealistic goal for her team. If Weber does make his way back, we’ll make the trip down and cheer for the Salukis, albeit not as loudly as the parents.

"Ask me if I care"

2011-05-24T12:43:00.000-07:00

As a child, I remember hearing this phrase a lot. By "a lot," I mean more than my own name. To be fair, my mother raised five children so I can understand why she didn't sweat the small stuff. But there may be something genetic to the phrase as well, because I find myself asking the same question with respect to those who clamor for level playing fields when it comes to student stipends.

On the table is the Big Ten's wild hair to increase stipends for athletes in revenue-generating sports, namely, football and men's basketball. The thrust of the opposition to this plan seems to be that if the Big Ten adopts this practice, those athletic departments will be at a significant advantage to schools that do not. As a result, the Big Ten (and any other schools and conferences that will inevitably follow its lead) will secure the nation's finest recruits and henceforth claim a monopoly on national titles from here on out.

The first response I had to this argument was confusion as to how this hypothetical scenario presents any change from our current situation. The last time someone other than a power conference team (or Notre Dame) won the football national championship? That was 1984, when BYU (the Mormon version of Notre Dame) went undefeated. In truth, you really have to go back to the 1920s before you see any "real" mid-majors win championships. And in those days, the Ivy League was a power conference. As for basketball, the last time a mid-major team cut the nets at the Final Four was when UNLV won it all in 1990. Though I think we can agree that there were extenuating circumstances surrounding that team. And before that, the Golden Era of mid-major success was the 1950s and early 1960s, when schools like La Salle, San Francisco, and Loyola (in Chicago) won championships. So if the complaint is that under the Big Ten's proposal, only the power conference schools will win championships, well, that particular complaint comes about 50 years too late.

The second response I had was "who cares?". Brian Cook over at mgoblog asks that question, but I don't think he answers it, instead focusing on the fact that the Big Ten's proposal is not the high monetary hurdle that Gasaway makes it out to be. And I think Brian makes a couple of great points, most significantly that these schools are already paying absurd (non-Wall Street division) sums of money to men who teach other men how to throw a ball into a basket. Say what you will about the rigors of coaching and the virtues of men like Pat Kelsey but at the end of the day that a head coaching job at a Division I university is a job that plenty of people would gladly accept (present company included). It's a notoriously difficult profession to break into--contrary to popular belief, suddenly quitting office jobs at Eli Lilly is not the recommended fast track to a big break--which is another way of saying it's a very coveted job. My point here is simply that schools could certainly afford to cut coach salaries quite a bit before the nation suffers from a basketball coach shortage.

Further, implicit in the opposition line of argument is that we have substantial equality now. While that's true in the context of student stipends, it's demonstrably false everywhere else. It's warm and sunny at UCLA but cold and often dreary in the Midwest. The academic programs at Duke are top notch, with SAT scores that nearly double those found at schools in the SWAC. And there simply is no comparison between the training facilities at power conference schools with those found elsewhere, by and large. The fact is that we are all unequals, right now.

And if we carry that inequality over to student stipends? Well, some schools will follow suit, and others will not. That much is clear. And these stipends will undoubtedly become an additional factor for prospective student-athletes in choosing what college to attend. But so what? It's not like an extra $3,000 would trump all other considerations. Nor is it necessarily true that mid-majors would be too cash-poor to participate in the stipend spree, as Cook points out.

I'm also confused by Gasaway's insistence that "basketball is different" with respect to competitive balance. Seems to me that for every Butler or VCU there is a Boise State or TCU. Though both sports have failed to crown a mid-major as champion, both sports have seen mid-major schools crash the Final Four and BCS bowls in recent seasons. But there is one aspect in which the sports are different--money. A great football program brings in a lot of dough, while a bad one is quite expensive. Thus, I could see why a school with a great basketball team and a mediocre football team (like, say, Butler) might opt to pay out stipends in the former, but not the latter. Considering this comes with a price tag of about $60,000 a year at the high end, I reject any claims of poverty associated with the practice.

Frankly, the argument I thought I would hear is one of slippery slopes--that if an extra $5,000 was OK, what about an extra $10,000? $15,000? $30,000? There's some line-drawing that will have to happen here, and that line will be drawn by the NCAA, an institution with a spotty record of line-drawing.

Additionally, the "competitive balance" argument may also have an impact on the NCAA's protected status under the antitrust laws. Over the past 30 years, "competitive balance" has been the lynchpin for antitrust exemptions for sports leagues. While the NCAA has historically relied on educational goals and pursuits in fending off antitrust challenges, it's possible that the association would wish to preserve an additional layer of protection from the antitrust laws. But that's all conjecture at this point, a bridge to be crossed later. For now, I support adding a modest sum of cash as a real consideration to the high school prospect's college decision.

Captain Renault would be so proud

2011-04-01T06:46:00.000-07:00

I'm not quite sure what to make of the sudden rash of analysis regarding money and the NCAA. On the one hand, it's surely an important issue worthy of our concern. On the other hand, this is not exactly recent news. The income disparity between the NCAA and collegiate athletes has been around for quite some time. If I give the media cycle the benefit of the doubt, perhaps we can pin the recent chatter to the fact that some 11 months ago, the broadcasting rights for the men's basketball tournament were sold for some $10.8 billion. Perhaps last April was the proper time for all the college basketball analysts to collectively navel gaze, but that ignores the plethora of "Gone Fishin'" signs hung by said analysts after all the nets are cut.

But before I delve into the subject, I insist that everyone reading this go read what John Gasaway wrote on the subject just yesterday. Go on, read it. I'll wait.

Gasaway makes many points, but the biggest one seems to be that while the NCAA hauls in quite a bit of money, it gives back the vast majority of that to the schools in the form of hosting other non-revenue championships as well as outright distributions. This is an important point for those who want to hold the NCAA accountable as a solitary bad actor. The NCAA's offices in Indianapolis is not some skull-carved lair and as far as I can tell Mark Emmert does not have mustache he curls as he hatches evil schemes. To the extent that the NCAA is guilty of anything, that guilt must also pass on to the schools.

One complaint going around seems to be that the NCAA has erred by making lots of money off of the student-athletes. Frankly, this does not make sense. Surely, it's obvious to everyone that the NCAA has to make money. The organization does a lot of things--hosting other tournaments, for one, and also for going all Eliot Ness on athletes accepting cash (more on that in a bit). Once we accept that the NCAA has to make money, I don't understand the complaint that it tries to make as much as possible. This is a non-profit organization, after all, it's not like Warren Buffett is lining his pockets with TBS dough. While some NCAA employees are highly paid, that's really a debate about non-profits generally. And believe me, that debate exists, and it's been going on for quite some time. All of this is to say that the NCAA is not unlike other non-profit organizations, in that the ethical lines of executive compensation make us squeamish.

The bigger complaint, however, is that student-athletes are not allowed to capitalize on their talents in a commercial manner. This is where things get interesting. The characterization on this state of things is that the NCAA is "greedy." Once again, this makes no sense. The NCAA did not investigate Reggie Bush in the hopes of collecting his cash. The organization is not acting as a crooked intermediary between the agents and the collegiate players. While there might be a limited possible exception* to this, generally speaking, the NCAA is not made richer vis-a-vis outlawing student-athlete compensation.

On that topic, it's worth noting that Gasaway has previously argued for the student-athlete right to seek compensation. Morally, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Gasaway's argument. In fact, student-athletes are getting paid, right this very second, but yet I anticipate many fans will nonetheless tune in to watch this weekend's championship. For alumni of the school that wins it all, it will be one of the happier moments of their lives. The sport isn't tarnished because athletes cash some checks. It may, however, become tarnished when the penalty for rule-breaking pounds once-proud programs into the ground.

I suspect, however, that Gasaway knows better than believing that because the ethics are workable, that the solution is as well. After all, if allowing student-athletes to make some money did not make the NCAA (and by extension, the schools) any worse off, then why not let them? Mark Emmert does not need the headaches of being attacked by Frontline and HBO, to say nothing of being defended by Gregg Doyel. So why hold out?

I say, blame Justice Stevens:

Moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this "product" with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the "product," athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like. And the integrity of the "product" cannot be preserved except by mutual agreement; if an institution adopted such restrictions unilaterally, its effectiveness as a competitor on the playing field might soon be destroyed. Thus, the NCAA plays a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character, and as a result enables a product to be marketed which might otherwise be unavailable. In performing this role, its actions widen consumer choice -- not only the choices available to sports fans but also those available to athletes -- and hence can be viewed as procompetitive.

To give some background, this excerpt from the Supreme Court came within one of the many antitrust challenges that the NCAA has been fighting off for decades. When you have a collection of entities that decide to join together, make some money, and agree between themselves how to limit employee compensation, you're going to get some antitrust challenges. Further, when it comes to marketable collegiate sports, the NCAA is the only game in town. To be sure, the NCAA is not alone in this behavior. Take a look at the professional leagues, what with their salary caps, rookie payscales, and luxury taxes. All of these instruments are simply a means to limit employee compensation. The preferred antitrust loophole for these leagues is the collective bargaining exception. Because there exists a players union, we'll allow the anticompetitive behavior to continue. The thinking is that so long as the employees have a voice in these matters, they will be treated fairly.

Meanwhile, there is no collegiate players union. In the absence of this, the Supreme Court carved out an exemption based on the idea that so long as collegiate sports was primarily an educational endeavor, then it was subject to less antitrust scrutiny. And in order to make collegiate sports more "collegiate" and less "[commercial] sports," we need the NCAA out there cracking down on player kickbacks. To use the parlance of my industry, this is a legal fiction of the highest order. The takeaway on all of this is that so long as the NCAA is out there busting down doors to ensure that players aren't paid, then antitrust challenges from players will be less successful.

In other words, if the NCAA started allowing the Kemba Walkers of the world to accept cash advances from agents, it risks lawsuits from high school players who complain that the NCAA's rules will not allow their prospective colleges to pay them in exchange for a verbal commitment. In this scenario, money would be taken from the NCAA (remember, that's the schools) and given to players. One would expect that John Calipari's recruiting budget would have to expand quite a bit, and that certainly would come at considerable cost to Kentucky.

That's the problem I have with the problem with amateurism. It's an attempt to leave Pandora's Box slightly ajar. Mind you, I don't necessarily advocate the regulatory framework we're working within, but it's a fool's errand to try and undo three decades of litigation.

So what's the solution? Well, one plausible strategy is to look at who is actually getting rich (with all this money, someone must be), and thinking of how to divert some of those dollars to the players. The prime candidates would seem to be the coaches, with their multi-million dollar salaries and shoe endorsement deals. Alas, restricting those salaries is illegal too. I leave it to others to query how it can be legally problematic for schools to either allow player compensation or restrict coach compensation.

Alas, there is no solution that I think will satisfy everyone. However, there are some things the NCAA can do. For one, it can make sure that kids like Joseph Agnew are not cast aside in the future. Just as player compensation would not be toxic from a moral standpoint, multi-year scholarships will not grind the Earth's rotation to a halt. And sure, it would be nice if the player's families were given assistance to travel to more of their kids' games. And the players' budgets are a bit thin--why not give just a bit more to these kids so that they're not living like poor college kids on top of going to practice all the time? Sure, I was once a poor college kid myself, but I also spent many afternoons napping on the quad or drinking on a sun deck. And hey, to Emmert's credit, he's thinking about doing some of that (compensating players, that is. Not the drinking at inappropriate times.).

The NCAA (and by extension, the member schools) is not greedy nor evil. The structure and rules of the NCAA are not perfect, and unless some enterprising lawyer takes on Supreme Court precedent, they likely never will be. But we can do better. And we should.

* The possible exception being in the form of naming rights for video games and such. Conceivably, a video game maker would have to pay the NCAA as well as the hundreds of athletes depicted in its game. More practically, the more efficient means would be for the NCAA to collect all the money and then cut checks to the players. This still doesn't really solve the complaint that the most marketable athletes are subsidizing others, however.

And we're back

2010-11-01T08:47:00.001-07:00

Back at the Big Ten Network, that is. This time, it starts in the back with Wisconsin.

Breaking Out is Hard to Do

2010-06-29T07:40:00.000-07:00

Over at BP: Breakout Candidates.

You're the best! Around!

2010-05-19T13:54:00.000-07:00

Exploring 2007's dominance over at BP.

We interrupt this non-broadcast

2010-04-27T07:55:00.000-07:00

Moonlighting over at BP.

This space is on hiatus

2009-11-12T06:55:00.000-08:00

You can find us here, however.

But I Can't Work in Fast Food All My Life

2009-11-11T07:56:00.000-08:00

We told you we were moving, and here's the scoop: we're going to be blogging for the BigTenNetwork.com this season (and hopefully, beyond). We hope this is the beginning of a great partnership. But we understand there might be concerns, so here's our best attempts to answer those:

Why the Change? Well, the expectation is that we'll get more readers this way. We're proud of the loyal audience that we have here, but you still have to dig a bit into the tempo-free blogosphere in order to find us. We're hoping that won't be the case once we make the move. We're also secretly hoping we can get Gene Keady to mention "turnover percentage."
Will the Content Change? Heavens no! As a condition for making this change, Mike & I made sure that we weren't going to be mouthpieces for a corporation, and that we could still write what we wanted to about college basketball. If Ohio State doesn't play defense this season, we're going to write about it. And Thad Matta will just have to deal.
What about next year? We don't know yet. I think both sides of this are feeling things out, so think of this season as a trial period. If it doesn't work out, we'll just come back here to bigtengeeks.com. As a sidenote, we'll keep this site up and alive in case you need anything.
So, what do we, the readers, get out of this? There are some things that we're hoping come to fruition as a result of this partnership. For example, we're hoping we can bring some live coverage, highlights, and maybe even get some dialogue out of the BTN.com analysts. And though not related to the partnership, we have some new ideas for the season that we think you'll enjoy. We always want to be improving.
You guys are sellouts. We didn't sell out, we bought in. Seriously though, we genuinely appreciate all of the readers and support we've received. We honestly thought it would just be our friends, and probably not even half of them, that would read this blog. We're truly humbled by the feedback, and we want to especially thank all of those blogs (most of which appear in the sidebar) and major media outlets (thanks, Luke Winn!) that gave us a look, and a link. We won't forget it.

Starting tomorrow, you can find us here. We'll kick off with our predictions on the season. See you then.

And Boom Goes the Dynamite

2009-11-10T06:46:00.001-08:00

Evan Turner became the second player in Ohio State history to record a triple double in the Buckeyes' 100-60 win over Alcorn State. As Mike alluded to yesterday, it's hard to take anything away from early season games like this. That said, OSU posted an offensive efficiency (1.39) that was higher than any figure in any game they played last year. Then again, you knew the Buckeyes were probably going to be good offensively. While we're telling you things you already knew, take note that these Buckeyes can shoot (63.0 eFG last night). Turner's performance (14/17/10) is indeed praiseworthy, but how about Jon Diebler? 22 points on 10 shots (in 24 minutes) - not bad. Box score.

And if you haven't heard, there's a book out that you should buy. I can't quibble with the predictions much. In fact, I expect Gasaway's Indiana Prediction Accuracy Index to improve quite a bit this season.

2009-10 Season Begins - Ohio State vs. Alcorn State

2009-11-09T10:38:00.001-08:00

Amazingly, the 2009-10 regular season is upon us, as the Ohio State Buckeyes prepare to take the floor tonight against the Alcorn State Braves (7pm, Big Ten Network). This game is part of the Coaches vs. Cancer event, which will see the Buckeyes head to New York next week for some marquee match-ups (North Carolina and California/Syracuse). Tonight’s game, however, figures to be little more than a tuneup for Ohio State, as Alcorn was among the worst teams in the nation last season (340^th in Pomeroy rank) and will be forced to give significant minutes to true freshmen (8 of the 15 players on the roster are frosh). Indeed, Alcorn has already lost an exhibition game to NAIA Tougaloo College – by 23 points!

Alcorn’s best returning players are 6’3’’ sharpshooter Jonathan Boyd (103.6 ORtg, 21.6 Shot%, 40.3% from downtown) and 6’8’’ 255 rebounder JaMarkus Holt (80.9 ORtg, 20.7 Shot%, 8.8/16.5 OR/DR). The Braves played very fast last season (6^th nationally in adjusted tempo), and it appears from their exhibition games that new head coach Larry Smith is not changing that approach. This could potentially be the highest scoring game of the season for the Buckeyes, rust aside.

So what numbers should we be watching for from Ohio State? Well, considering the competition level, we won’t be able to divine much from this one game – remember that last year’s early 59-22 shellacking of Samford ranked Ohio State as an elite defensive team for much of the first month, and they only ended up at 65^th nationally in defensive efficiency. David Lighty’s injury had something to do with this, but most of it was simply small sample size. So, with that in mind, we’ll try to view the numbers in an overarching “early season tea leaves” sense, and say that turnovers and rebounds are the Ohio State numbers to watch. These were big weaknesses for the Buckeyes on both ends of the court last season, and improvement in these areas is mandatory if Ohio State hopes to contend for the title in a deep and improved Big Ten. And maybe the biggest reason to watch is to see if Matta is going to make good on his promise to play more man-to-man this season.

All analysis aside, let’s all take a deep breath and appreciate one simple fact – college basketball is back. Hallelujah.

Fun with Rosters!

2009-11-05T08:41:00.001-08:00

With the season fast approaching, we thought we'd utilize the updated 2009-10 rosters (along with a few of last year's conference numbers) for some interesting lists. So, without further ado...

Mixing it up with the trees (best defensive rebounders below 6'3''):

Player	Height	DR%
Talor Battle	6-0	15.4
Devan Dumes	6-2	11.9
Jason Bohannon	6-2	10.8
Trevon Hughes	6-1	10.5
Al Nolen	6-1	10.3

Talor Battle's rebounding is awfully impressive and puts him among the best "little man" rebounders in the nation. Among the top 200 Pomeroy teams from last season, only three players under 6'3'' posted a better DR% than Battle while playing significant minutes - Jared Quayle (Utah State), Alex Renfroe (Belmont), and Lester Hudson (Tennessee Martin). With Renfroe graduated and Hudson in the NBA, Battle could be the best rebounding little man in the nation.

If only I had his height... (worst defensive rebounders above 6'7''):

Player	Height	DR%
Keaton Nankivil	6-8	8.9
Kyle Rowley	7-0	10.8
Mike Tisdale	7-1	11.4
Andrew Brommer	6-9	11.7
Dallas Lauderdale	6-8	11.9

When really tall guys struggle, whether it be in the NCAA Tournament or at the YMCA, men of normal stature (or less) love to speculate as to how dominant they would be with those extra inches. Nevermind that increased height brings its own set of challenges, especially for those still developing their game. Case in point - the only player on this list that is over 20 years old is Lauderdale, who just recently turned 21. It's tough to play a big man with a DR% below 12, but there's still time for these gentlemen to get their mitts on a larger share of caroms.

The slimmest of frames (pounds per 6 feet of height, excluding walk-ons):

Player	Team	Height	Weight	Lbs/6Ft
Tim Frazier	Penn State	6-1	160	158
P.J. Hill	Ohio State	6-1	165	163
Jeremie Simmons	Ohio State	6-2	170	165
Rob Wilson	Wisconsin	6-4	175	166
Talor Battle	Penn State	6-0	170	170
Matt Vogrich	Michigan	6-4	180	171
Darius Morris	Michigan	6-4	180	171
Ryne Smith	Purdue	6-3	178	171
Verdell Jones	Indiana	6-5	183	171

It can be difficult for us normal-sized humans to put a player's weight in perspective. After all, our best frame of reference is our body, which for most of the population measures less than 6 foot in length. So, to give that improved perspective, we've prorated each player's weight into a 6-foot frame. It appears that Penn State and Ohio State have cornered the market on slight-of-frame guards, and I don't think either team would complain (especially Penn State!).

The beefiest of the beefy (pounds per 6 feet of height, excluding walk-ons):

Player	Team	Height	Weight	Lbs/6Ft
Derrick Nix	Michigan State	6-8	280	252
Kyle Rowley	Northwestern	7-0	280	240
Sandi Marcius	Purdue	6-9	261	232
Dallas Lauderdale	Ohio State	6-8	255	230
Ian Markolf	Wisconsin	7-1	270	229
Jarryd Cole	Iowa	6-7	250	228
Ben Cronin	Michigan	7-0	265	227
Brennan Cougill	Iowa	6-9	255	227
Colton Iverson	Minnesota	6-10	258	227
Zisis Sarikopoulos	Ohio State	7-1	265	224
Royce White	Minnesota	6-8	249	224

The same method was used here, pro-rating each player's weight onto a 6-foot frame. The takeaway here: Derrick Nix is a BIG BOY. All that bulk didn't stop Nix from having a successful exhibition debut, scoring 13 points on 6 shots and grabbing 5 boards in 13 minutes. Notice that 7 of the 11 bulkiest players are newcomers to conference play (I'm including Markolf and Cronin) - the Big Ten is getting a lot Bigger this season.

Home States of Big Ten Players (2009-10 official rosters):

We used the home state listed on the online rosters as gospel, so there's no accounting here for players that moved around a lot (D.J. Richardson, for example, is listed as an Illinois native despite playing in Las Vegas his senior year). Note that Illinois and Indiana natives comprise nearly a third of the conference (54 of 166 players), although that's not particularly surprising when you consider that 4 of the 11 teams (36%) are from these states. It's also interesting that there are more players in the conference from outside the United States (10) than from Pennsylvania (8), Wisconsin (7), or Iowa (5). Heck, there's nearly as many players from Texas, New York, or Arizona as there are from Iowa (4 from each). Does the Hawkeye state just not produce much basketball talent, or do they matriculate elsewhere?

Another interesting question: which schools dedicate the biggest chunk of their rosters to in-state talent?

Team	In-state players	Total players	Percentage in-state
Purdue	13	17	76%
Illinois	9	14	64%
Michigan State	9	15	60%
Northwestern	8	15	53%
Ohio State	8	15	53%
Michigan	8	16	50%
Penn State	8	17	47%
Indiana	7	16	44%
Minnesota	6	14	43%
Wisconsin	5	15	33%
Iowa	4	12	33%

Purdue leads in this measure by a wide margin, while their in-state rival Hoosiers are towards the bottom. Clearly, some of Tom Crean's recruiting decisions were driven by the fact that he basically had no roster when he arrived, but it's interesting to see nonetheless. This could show, in some way, the benefit that Purdue has derived from Indiana's recent turmoil (the end of the Mike Davis era and the rocky Kelvin Sampson era). I'd expect Indiana's in-state percentage to increase over the next few years, at the possible expense of Purdue's, as the Hoosiers become bigger players in Indiana recruiting.

Another interesting tidbit - there are eight Big Ten players from Pennsylvania, and every single one decided to, as JoePa would say, "COME TO PENN STATE!!" Nittany Lion fans can watch the entire Big Ten season without ever cheering against a Pennsylvania player - even Iowa, whose state has produced just 5 current Big Ten players, let a player get out-of-state and onto an opposing Big Ten roster (Jason Bohannon at Wisconsin). Wouldn't Iowa fans love to have Bohannon in Lickliter's offense right about now?

None and Done

2009-11-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

For some reason, it seems like the "one-and-done" rule gets a lot of attention this time of year. Certainly I'm guilty of writing about this subject in the fall, and here I am doing it again. But anytime college basketball makes the Times' opinion page, it's going to bring bloggers out of the woodwork. Bissinger and Gasaway probably agree on a few things, but one of them is that one-and-done needs to go. Frankly, I'm of the same opinion. But it strikes me as odd that neither of them follows the money.

Bissinger alleges that Stern's reasons for backing the one-and-done rule (and the proposed "two-and-through") are two-fold. First, it's to protect NBA GMs from themselves. The scars of Kwame Brown and Korleone Young still haven't healed, so the argument goes, and one-and-done is the Sabarnes-Oxley to those Enron-level disasters. Second, Bissinger argues that one-and-done is a sort of handout to the NCAA, forcing superstar high schoolers into collegiate gyms, boosting school revenue.

Gasaway endorses the first line of reasoning, but rejects the second. He points out that the NCAA revenue is largely fixed well in advance of any signatures on letters-of-intent. There's the counterpoint that it doesn't really matter who the great freshmen are, or where they go to school - the NCAA wins if they simply know that every single season, the best high schoolers in the game join the college ranks. And that's fair as well. But even if you accept that the NCAA benefits financially from one-and-done (and given the late Myles Brand's support for one-and-done, I think it's fair to reach that conclusion), you have to wonder why David Stern would want to subsidize the NCAA in this elaborate and complicated manner. I mean, can't he just write a check? He's not above doing that, certainly.

Actually, I think Brand has it right on Stern's motivations. In the midst of endorsing a two-and-through arrangement, and buried in the article, Brand notes one of the benefits of more years in school:

The marketability of the stars would be increased in that they would be better known before beginning their professional careers.

Well, I can't disagree with that, I certainly said as much last year. No one knows where Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire went to high school; we all know where Derrick Rose went to college. If draft picks are well-known by the public before they ever play their first professional game, there's certainly the possibility that more butts will be in the seats. It certainly makes more sense than an overwhelming need to protect some of the sharpest businessmen (DeJuan Blair's draft night notwithstanding) in the country from their own bad decisions.

Unfortunately for Mr. Stern, the NBA does not own a worldwide monopoly over professional basketball. The most famous reminder of this fact might be Brandon Jennings. Jennings opted to play ball in Rome rather than suffer the indignity of going to English 101 for a semester while playing basketball for free. Some have pointed out that Jennings didn't necessarily go to Europe for the money, rather it was simply the case that he didn't qualify. Of course, since when has a top point guard needed a qualifying test score in order to play college basketball? No, if Jennings wanted to play college ball, I'm quite sure he would have found a way. But he opted to take his game overseas. And as far as I can tell, he stunk in Europe. And even though there were reports that his game was advancing, there was a lot of smugness waiting for Jennings stateside.

But then something interesting happened - turns out, Jennings is really good. Through his first 3 NBA games, Jennings is averaging 22 points (18 shots per game) and 5.3 assists. Not bad for a rail-thin rookie in his first week. And as good as Jennings was in high school, it's hard to imagine that he was this good. The most plausible conclusion is that Jennings got better overseas. Now, it's true that he might have hurt his draft stock. Though he was taken 10th overall, it's certainly possible that he would have been drafted higher if he played in the Pac-10 instead. But keep in mind, Jennings was the test case. There was a lot of uncertainty and concern over his European numbers. Jennings may have cost himself some money, but he also might have made some money for the likes of Jeremy Tyler.

And therein is the lesson for Mr. Stern. Jennings' success might tempt other superstar high school seniors (and juniors!) to follow his lead. Now that NBA teams know that players can get better overseas, the fact that a 19 year old played in Madrid rather than Memphis shouldn't be a reason to not draft him. And getting paid a couple million euros can't hurt, either. Time will tell if Jennings & Tyler remain the exception, rather than the rule. But Mr. Stern is on notice - players like Jennings & Tyler want to be paid to play basketball. And it's entirely his choice whether they play in his league or in Europe.

They Grow Up So Fast

2009-11-02T06:31:00.000-08:00

We didn't invent tempo-free stats. Neither did John Gasaway, Ken Pomeroy, or even Dean Oliver. Best we can tell, some guy who won a few games in North Carolina did. The fact that tempo-free stats aren't new should not come as a surprise. They're not terribly difficult to understand, and most are pretty easy to calculate as well. And moreover, they seem to illuminate productive basketball moreso than the traditional "per game" stats. So of course coaches (who tend to understand basketball pretty well) know about these things. Maybe that's why the tempo-free revolution that was to be televised has been met with a collective "ho hum" from the industry. Some of these stats already litter your local head coaching office, and probably did before Dean Oliver ever wrote his book. And this nugget, which I hope to illustrate in this post, is already something very well-known among coaches:

"The best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores."

Al McGuire said that, and he was absolutely correct. As much as freshmen titillate with potential, they spend even more time frustrating coaches with uneven play. Freshmen commit more turnovers, miss more shots, are more timid in the offense, rebound less, etc. In general, freshmen are the worst class of player in college basketball.

But everyone reading this blog already knows that. The more interesting question is how much further back are freshmen relative to sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Or, put differently, how much we can expect freshmen to improve as sophomores? And how much we can expect sophomores to improve as juniors? And so forth with juniors to seniors.

And that's how I spent my summer (ok, I had an intern helping. And by "intern" I mean "college-aged family member who slept on my couch all summer.") -- looking at the statistical profiles of every BCS conference player who first stepped on campus between 2000 and 2005 (i.e., the last group's senior year was last season), with some additional filters:

No players with less than 10% Minute Percentage as a Freshman: In this study, the freshman year is the baseline number. We're measuring change, and that measurement is no good if you can't get a reliable relative point. Ten percent is arbitrary, admittedly.

Omit successive years with less than 10% Minute Percentage: Again, I didn't want small samples polluting the data.

Omit one-and-done players: Again, the measurement is change. A player has to give me at least one change data point to be considered.

No transfers: By and large, transfers not only change schools, but significantly, levels of competition. The most common transfer was from a BCS school to a low-level conference school. When the numbers improve, it's impossible to separate player development from the change in the competition level.

Conference games only: My affinity for conference game numbers is well-documented in this space. The idea is to try our best to hold the level of competition constant.

Results

The big, overarching conclusion is this: a player shows the most improvement between his freshman and sophomore seasons than he does any other offseason. In fact, the freshman offseason improvement is, on average, greater than the improvement between a player's sophomore season and his senior season. That's not to say every player follows this pattern. There are lots and lots of exceptions, and this is no hard-and-fast rule. It's just a remark about the averages. And frankly, that's all we do around here, play the averages.

Pretty graphs below (going left-to-right is freshmen to sophomore to junior to senior):

The pattern is clear in all of the graphs, and perhaps most striking in the Shot% and TO% graphs, where a logarithmic growth & decline are shown (Keep in mind, this doesn't contradict Pomeroy's earlier work on shot percentage - that range is showing a pretty narrow band between 18% and 20.2%).

And now, to bring on home to why our readers should care. For that, I bring you the 2008-09 Fighting Illini. This team won 24 games after going 16-19 the year before. Yes, a lot of that was bad luck (or "bad DeChellis" if you prefer), but the Illini also lost 1/3 of the minutes from that 16-19 team. It's not like everyone came back. Another key piece in the Illini's resurgence is that 48% of the minutes were played by sophomores. In other words, 48% of the minutes were played by guys who figured to improve the most. And they did.

So what does that mean for this season? Well, nothing definitive, but we have started factoring this into our analysis of the teams for this season. And this graph should prove handy for others who want to do so as well:

(Note: In this table, I counted Alex Legion as a sophomore for the upcoming season, even though that's not technically accurate. Laval Lucas-Perry played in 5 games at Arizona, Legion played in 6 at Kentucky. It didn't make sense to treat them differently.)

As the graph shows, Illinois figures to be at the other end of the spectrum this season. Not surprisingly, Indiana laps the field. And maybe the people ranking Michigan and Minnesota (#15 and #18, respectively, in the initial coaches' poll) aren't so crazy after all.

Preview of the Wisconsin 09-10 Season

2009-10-30T06:33:00.000-07:00

08-09 Overall Record: 20-13
08-09 Conference Record: 10-8 (T-4th)
09-09 Conference Efficiency Margin: +0.08 (2nd)
Percent of Returning Minutes: 65.2
Percent of Returning Freshman Minutes: 8.2

Of all the previews we've had, this one has to be the most boring to write. And that's not a slam on Wisconsin -- it's praise. Bo Ryan's management of the program all but ensures an effective and consistent team every single year. You could read last year's preview (go ahead, read it), and it would probably give you a pretty good sense of how the Badgers will fare this season. The formula for Wisconsin's success is pretty simple -- recruiting.

That sounds strange to say about a team that doesn't typically reel in McDonald's All-Americans. But there's more than one way to skin a cat (another expression I hate. I mean, is there really some cat-skinning expert out there dispensing knowledge of his trade?). And Ryan's way has been to "balance" his classes. Every year, about 2/3 of the minutes return, and he always seems to have a couple of seniors capable of shouldering a heavy load. Three years ago, it was Kammron Taylor and Alando Tucker. Two years ago it was Brian Butch and Michael Flowers. Last year, it was Marcus Landry and Joe Krabbenhoft. This year, it will be Trevon Hughes and Jason Bohannon. Next year, it will be Jon Leuer and maybe Keaton Nankivil.

So does that mean that we stop there, figure Wisconsin finishes in the top half of the conference, goes dancing, and call it a day? We could, but Badger fans have to read something (especially now that they've all unsubscribed from Vander Blue's Twitter), so we'll give them some good news/bad news analysis.

First, the good news -- offensively, this team should be every bit as strong as they were last season. Sure, losing their best offensive player is a blow, but there are a lot of pieces in waiting. For one, Leuer and Hughes are fully capable of taking a "go-to" amount of shots, so you probably won't see a lot of "desperation possessions" in Madison. Second, guys like Bohannon and Nankivil are very efficient players (so is Tim Jarmusz, who would be downright scary if he somehow were able to keep his efficiency while increasing his shots). Third, although the freshmen didn't play a lot of minutes last season, it was a big class, and it's reasonable to believe that someone could have a big breakout. Add it all up, and Wisconsin should not have difficulties on offense.

Then there's the bad news -- defense. Ryan's defensive philosophy has been to let the other side take shots, but do not let them get more than one per possession. Last year the Badgers were 4th in the nation in defensive rebounding percentage. They won't be that good this season. Part of that is simply because it's hard to repeat elite performances like that, but the bigger reason is that they lose a tremendous rebounder in Joe Krabbenhoft. In conference play, Krabbenhoft was the second-best defensive rebounder, behind Goran Suton. The next best Badger, Leuer, ranked 18th in the conference. After Leuer, the highest returning Badger was Jason Bohannon. I submit that when Jason Bohannon is the second best returning defensive rebounder, there's reason for concern.

The guys most likely to fill Krabbenhoft's minutes (Nankivil, Jarmusz), were not impressive rebounders on the defensive end of the floor. Of course, these things could change. After all, Leuer was a terrible rebounder in his freshman season, and he was decent in that area last year. Furthermore, guys like Ian Markoff and Jared Berggren might be monster rebounders that haven't had a chance to show their abilities yet. All these things, however, are conjecture. Here's what we do know -- Wisconsin was a great rebounding team last year, and they do not return a lot of those rebounds. Expect them to take a step back, but I still anticipate that rebounding will be an overall strength. The good news is that the additions of Markoff and Berggren to the rotation will make Wisconsin taller, which should result in more missed shots.

So that's it folks, 11 season recaps and previews to chew on. As we've been alluding to, the Big Ten should be very good this season. We've still got a lot of ground to cover before the season begins - a Preseason All Big Ten, a list of Breakout players, a look at the nonconference slate, and our predictions on the season are still yet to come. We'll be back Monday.

ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes

2009-10-29T13:36:00.000-07:00

Just a heads up - we're going to have some new digs this season. We'll let you know more as soon as we can, but you can rest assured that we aren't leaving the Big Ten for the ACC or anything like that. You can expect the same content, just a new address.

We'll still be here tomorrow morning, pontificating on Wisconsin's upcoming season, if you're into that sort of thing.

Wisconsin Recap of the 08-09 Season

2009-10-29T06:29:00.000-07:00

It seemed like a massive step back. The Badgers went 20-13 last season, a significant drop from their back-to-back 30 win seasons. However, that step was not as large as it seems at first blush. Wisconsin went 10-8 in conference play last year, but based on their point differential, they played like a team that won 12 or 13 conference games. But you don't need to be Pythagoras to recognize that the Badgers had some tough breaks last season. During a 6 game losing streak in January, the Badgers lost two overtime games, a one-point contest against Purdue, and suffered a 3 point loss in Evanston. That means Bo Ryan's team was 8 points away from winning those four, and that Wisconsin was not as average as their record suggested.

But it's still true that the Badgers were not as good as they had been. Although they were second in the league by conference efficiency, it's easy to forget how dominant Wisconsin was in 2007-08, sporting an efficiency margin of 0.18 in Big Ten play. For reference, those 15-3 Michigan State Spartans of last season "merely" posted a 0.13 number. Sure, Michigan State went all the way to the title game, but evaluating the body of work over the season, the 07-08 Badgers might have been even better.

(America likes to settle things on the field. We want playoffs, we want undisputed champions, and when we aren't getting that, Congress gets involved. That's all well and good, and even if I wanted to change that, this is not the time nor the place. But I will point out that there are some side effects to this approach. It means that a .500 team will occasionally win the World Series, that a mediocre 9-7 team can go to the Super Bowl, and that a skinny kid from Akron can send a dominant team home a week early. Whether or not those things are good or bad is entirely a matter of perspective.)

The cause for Wisconsin's fall is apparent -- defense. Specifically, field goal defense. Forced to shoot over the towers of Brian Butch and Greg Stiemsma, opponents shot under 42% on their two pointers. When the team got shorter last season, that figure jumped to 49%. Ryan's scheme has never been about turning teams over. Instead, the Badgers typically rely on creating missed shots and gathering lots of defensive rebounds. They were outstanding on the defensive boards again last year, but there weren't quite as many missed shots as there used to be.

Offensively Marcus Landry had a tremendous senior season, especially during conference play. But it was hardly a one-man show, as five Badgers averaged 9 points or more per game in conference play. Overall, Bo Ryan put together a solid offensive team in Madison, yet again. And yet again, not many people noticed.

That brings me to the "Wisconsin Tax." The following chart details Wisconsin's offensive efficiency under Bo Ryan:

Even at the low points, the Badgers were averaging 1.03 points per possession. That would have ranked 4th in the conference last season. More often, the Badgers find themselves well ahead of that mark. Last year, they were the best offensive team in the conference. No doubt, however, that casual followers of the Big Ten probably don't realize how good Wisconsin usually is at converting possessions into points. Frankly, I think the pace at which Wisconsin plays helps create this perception. The Badgers generally walk it up the floor, and they are content to let the opponent do the same. Pace aficionados can complain all they want about the entertainment value of this approach, but they can't dispute that it can work - Ryan's tremendous success is proof of that. Moreover, the ways in which the offense excels (namely, avoiding turnovers) are not the kind of aesthetically-obvious methods that fit nicely into a 30-second SportsCenter highlight.

But I fear this approach has a harmful element to it as well, because Wisconsin is also perennially underseeded in my opinion.

Year	Pomeroy Rank	NCAA Seed	Should Have Been...
2009	29	12	8
2008	5	3	2
2007	8	2	2
2006	48	9	12
2005	18	6	5
2004	11	6	3
2003	15	5	4
2002	43	8	11

Sure, there were a couple of times when the Committee bailed them out, but generally speaking, Wisconsin gets the short end of it come Selection Sunday. I'm not suggesting Ryan start running a full court trap and attempting high-risk dribble drives. Winning games, after all, is still the highest priority here, and Ryan clearly has found a style that helps his team win. But maybe it's up to the Badger faithful to start some kind of letter writing campaign to their local committee member. Hopefully this practice of taking away 2 or 3 wins away from Wisconsin ends soon. The way the Big Ten is shaping up this season and beyond, Wisconsin probably can't afford to continue shouldering this tax.

Preview of the Purdue 09-10 Season

2009-10-28T06:19:00.001-07:00

08-09 Overall Record: 27-10
08-09 Conference Record: 11-7 (T-2nd)
08-09 Conference Efficiency Margin: +0.07 (T-3rd)
Percent of Returning Minutes: 81.6
Percent of Returning Freshman Minutes: 12.3

I could tell you that Purdue fans should expect big things this year. I could tell you that the Boilermakers return a lot of minutes from a very strong team, and that defensively, they have few peers. I could tell you that, sure, the offense wasn't spectacular, but with another year of experience it should get better. And I could tell you that Purdue is a favorite to win the conference title thanks to their unmatched starting lineup.

But all of those things were true last year, right? So I'll focus instead on what's different.

1. The players that left: Nemanja Calasan was about as soft as they come in the Big Ten. That said, he did figure out how to make the ball go into the hoop in his senior season, which is more than can be said about Marcus Green, who was about 3 inches too short for his skillset. Bobby Riddell was great for converting free throws after technical fouls were called, and for winning games of H-O-R-S-E, but he's overmatched at this level. Overall, the losses were not significant.

2. Hummel's back: It's healthy, right? Hummel may never match the eye-popping efficiency of his freshman season, but simply being on the floor more will represent a big boost to this team. This is especially the case because of Purdue's shaky rebounding.

3. The freshmen: D.J. Byrd appears to be the most talented, but minutes at shooting guard will be tough to come by. The good news is that everyone else is 6-6 or taller, and there's minutes available for anyone who can rebound.

4. Lewis Jackson's eventful offseason: With his legal issues mostly resolved, Jackson's punishment has been handed down: one game suspension.

Assuming things go according to plan, I can see the Boilermakers making some big strides, especially if Keaton Grant and E'Twaun Moore find their shooting strokes. But it would be nice if the Boilers found some offensive rebounding as well. Or shot more 3s. But they ought to do one of the two. While overall the Boilers kept the turnovers in check, a breakdown shows it was a very different story in the conference season:

The offensive rebounding, however, was mediocre throughout the season, despite the fact that Purdue was balanced between 2s and 3s. If Matt Painter expects the rebounding to, well, rebound, then there's no need to change the style. However, if he does not see the offensive rebounding getting much better, perhaps it's time to open up the perimeter attack, which would cut down on the turnovers. This probably depends on which Robbie Hummel shows up, however. The 2007-08 version was an excellent offensive rebounder, last year's version, however, was not. Whatever the case, the "step forward" that Painter is looking for has to take place on offense, because there aren't many more gains to be had on defense.

Purdue Recap of the 08-09 Season

2009-10-27T06:30:00.000-07:00

Was last season really a disappointment? Most experts pegged the Boilers to take the conference crown after the unexpected success of the "Baby Boilers" squad. And although that prediction was a reasonable one, it was nonetheless optimistic for a team that did not have more than 8 players that the coach wanted to play. Yet that's the storyline that's been written about Purdue - Robbie Hummel's back, combined with a lack of a suitable backup, led to the "disappointment" of last season.

But I think that assessment is not completely accurate. For one, Purdue's season was hardly a bad one. They won 27 games (2 more than the season prior), and advanced to the Sweet 16 (a round further than the 07-08 version). And where the Baby Boilers were bounced in the first round in the Big Ten Tournament to an upstart Illini team, the sophomore version won the championship. Maybe it's not the progress envisioned by Boiler fans, but it's progress nonetheless.

Though there is no denying that some things took a step back for the Boilermakers. And sure, part of that was Hummel's injury, that's undeniable. But as we detailed last season, E'Twaun Moore and Keaton Grant did not play up to their 07-08 standards, either:

Player	Shot %	ORtg
07-08 Moore	26.2	115.7
07-08 Grant	19.6	112.7
08-09 Moore	27.2	97.5
08-09 Grant	18.0	97.8

The primary factor behind both regressions was three point percentage. Signs point to Moore's recovery, given his steady and solid free throw percentage, but it's anyone's guess with Grant, who has been all over the place in West Lafayette. Figure he'll hit somewhere in the middle of the two seasons.

Of course, there were significant steps forward last season as well, mostly in the form of JaJuan Johnson. Over the course of 6 months, Johnson transformed himself from "raw project" to "All Conference." He's everything you want in a big man - makes shots, rebounds, draws fouls, makes free throws, and blocks shots, all without turning the ball over too often. Johnson may spend the next year (or two) at Purdue in an effort to make his body look NBA-ready, but from my perspective he already plays at a professional skill level. He's on the short list for player of the year.

The aforementioned Hummel was efficient when he played, but not as efficient the year before. Sure, you can attribute some of that to the injury that lingered throughout the conference season, but you might also attribute it to the difficulty in repeating a performance that included hitting 50% on three pointers. Nonetheless, Hummel does so many things on the court that he's the only player that can seriously challenge Evan Turner in versatility.

As a team, Purdue is clearly coached by a defensive coach. They sported a top-5 defensive efficiency overall last season, and were third in the conference season behind Illinois and Michigan State. However, it was a bit strange to see Purdue's pressing style translate into a conference turnover percentage that ranked 5th in the Big Ten. Indeed, though the defense overall improved, this area took a significant step back. If the Moore and Grant return to form, and the Boilers can recapture some of those turnovers, they'll go far. I'll discuss how far tomorrow.

Preview of the Penn State 09-10 Season

2009-10-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

08-09 Overall Record: 27-11
08-09 Conference Record: 10-8 (T-4th)
09-09 Conference Efficiency Margin: -0.04 (T-8th)
Percent of Returning Minutes: 56.6
Percent of Returning Freshman Minutes: 6.4

For the past two seasons, the win totals of Ed DeChellis' teams have exceeded what we would expect based on their play on the court. And really, this has been a staple of the DeChellis Era:

Season	Actual Conf. Record	Pythagorean Record	Difference
08-09	10-8	7-11	+3
07-08	7-11	4-14	+3
06-07	2-14	3-13	-1
05-06	6-10	5-13	+1
04-05	1-15	2-14	-1
03-04	3-13	2-14	+1

Only in two seasons has a Penn State team coached by Ed DeChellis underperformed relative to its Pythagorean projection. On the whole, DeChellis is up a cool 6 games. If it happens again this year, I'm jumping on Gasaway's bandwagon -- I will no longer call it "luck," I will simply call it "DeChellis."

In fact, the Lions will need a bit of DeChellis magic if they are to avoid a pretty significant dropoff from last season. Not only do they lose a fair amount of minutes, the minutes they lose (mostly in the form of Jamelle Cornley and Stanley Pringle) were responsible for much of the scoring. Furthermore, last year's Penn State team did not feature very many freshmen who could be expected to take big leaps forward in their sophomore seasons. Third, the conference as a whole should be better. And finally, there's the whole prospect of Pythagoras exacting his revenge.

Add it up, and it does not look pretty. But a couple of things could change that. For one, Talor Battle's actual shotmaking ability could start to catch up to his reputation. I mentioned Battle's struggles from the field on Friday, and unless he put in a lot of time working on his stroke over the summer, things could get even worse. That's because instead of devoting resources to guarding the likes of Pringle and Cornley, defenses will be focused almost entirely on stopping Battle. He shot 30% from 3 point range with a couple of very capable scorers threatening to make teams pay for guarding Battle too close -- how much can he be expected to improve now that those two are gone? Ideally incoming freshman Tim Frazier can help take a load off here, as well returning sophomore Chris Babb.

The interior scoring might be in even worse shape. Last year, the general idea was to let Cornley go to work in the paint. This year, the Nittany Lions will have some tall bodies (Jeff Brooks, Andrew Ott, Andrew Jones, and David Jackson should all see some action), but they are either reluctant shooters (Jones and Jackson), poor shooters (Brooks), or both (Ott).

I won't talk about defense here because Penn State is routinely mediocre in that area, and I don't see any reason for that to change, unless Ott improves enough to be on the court long enough to disrupt a healthy amount of shots. Or unless DeChellis changes his "don't foul" scheme to something that better fits his roster. So it'll be up to the offense, yet again, and probably with an assist from some DeChellis fairy dust if this team is going to flirt with the Dance again.

Penn State Recap of the 08-09 Season

2009-10-23T06:37:00.000-07:00

I think the Big Ten owes Penn State an apology. The Nittany Lions were 22-11 (10-8 in conference play) last year come Selection Sunday, and the Committee left them at home. And I have little doubt that a perception of the league (much of it deserved) played into that. Whether it was years of mediocrity, slow play, or heck, even some revenge for Jim Delany's constant meddling with the BCS, Penn State was a team that probably would have gone dancing had they been in some other power conference. It seems crazy to think about now, but pundits were calling the Lions' road win at the Breslin Center a "bad win." That's right - beating the National Runner Up at their own place is somehow less deserving than squeaking out a one point victory over a Wyoming team that went 7-9 in the Mountain West. Consider it punishment for the league as a whole.

Give Penn State credit, however. After receiving the disappointment that they were headed for the NIT, all the Nittany Lions did was go out and win the whole thing. And frankly, most of the games weren't that close, with the exception of the opening victory over George Mason. After the title game, senior Jamelle Cornley lifted his tournament MVP trophy and waved to the fans, creating a scene that summed up his entire career. Cornley was too short for his position, but he always outworked most guys on the floor. From a statistical perspective, he was a capable if unspectacular rebounder, and very good scoring inside the arc. In his senior year, he even developed an outside shot, making 38% of his 50 three point attempts.

That display was nothing compared to the barrage library enthusiast Stanley Pringle unloaded on opponents last season. Pringle shot 45% on his 160 attempts from downtown. Inside the arc was a different story as Pringle shot just 38% on his 2s in conference play.

The final member of Penn State's Big Three is the only one that returns from last season. When most people think of Talor Battle, they probably think of a guy that takes (and makes) a lot of big shots. That's definitely true. Also true is the fact that Battle really isn't that great of a shooter. He shot 36% from the field in conference play (30% on his 3s), down from a 37.2% effort in his freshman season. Battle makes up for this by creating opportunities for others without turning the ball over, and he also gets to the line at a pretty decent clip.

Beyond those three, everyone else was pretty much a role player. But that's going to have to change for next season. One thing that probably won't change with Battle's steady hand is Penn State's distaste for turnovers.

Team	Off. TO% + Def. TO%
Notre Dame	28.1
Connecticut	34.3
Iowa State	34.4
Penn State	35.1
Wisconsin	35.3

Only 3 major conference teams' games featured less turnovers per possession than Penn State's (and yes, Notre Dame led the nation in preventing turnovers on both ends of the floor). As you can imagine, this aspect of Penn State's play has dramatic effects. On offense, it means Penn State was able to score much better than they shot. But it also helped opponents score (and they did, to the tune of 1.04 points per possession in conference play). The Nittany Lions were an elite defensive rebounding team, and they weren't bad at defending shots either. But their real strength was limiting free throw opportunities for opponents (they ranked 2nd nationally in defensive free throw rate). Of course, that's part of the problem - teams that don't foul also tend not to create turnover opportunities. With a tall, slowfooted team that makes shooting in the paint a nightmare (without sacrificing rebounds), it works great (Connecticut is one example here). But for a short team like Penn State? Probably not the best utilization of personnel. PSU figures to get a little taller next season, as guys like Andrew Ott and Jeff Brooks play more, but this is still a short team. Seems like they would do well to pressure the ball more. However they attack it, the defense is going to have to improve to offset the losses of Cornley and Pringle. We'll pick that subject up on Monday.

Preview of the Northwestern 09-10 Season

2009-10-22T07:14:00.000-07:00

08-09 Overall Record: 17-14
08-09 Conference Record: 8-10 (9th)
09-09 Conference Efficiency Margin: -0.04 (T-9th)
Percent of Returning Minutes: 79.1
Percent of Returning Freshman Minutes: 25.4

On paper, everything points to a possible, if not probable, NCAA Tournament berth for the Wildcats. They return a ton of minutes (Craig Moore's departure is the only significant one), have a lot of sophomores with playing time experience, and they're coming off a 17-win season in which they sniffed the bubble.

But there are three things standing in Northwestern's way, as I see it. For one, the conference as a whole should be better (more on that in a later post). The second issue is a bit more hair-raising: have we reached the limits of Bill Carmody's offense? Last year's team was easily his most efficient, and it's not hard to figure out why. The Wildcats shot 39% from 3 point range as a team, and dedicated 42% of their shots to the deep ball. It was enough to make Todd Lickliter and John Beilein green with envy. Not only did they shoot 3s often and well, but they also limited turnovers in true POT fashion, coughing it up on just 17.8% of their possessions.

In short, Northwestern played its style perfectly. But that's the thing - even having done that, the Wildcats "only" ranked 4th in the conference in offensive efficiency. Northwestern's trouble areas are obvious and longstanding. They don't rebound their misses (last in the conference), they don't get to the line (9th in the conference), and they don't shoot 2 pointers well (8th in the conference). These are the classic symptoms of a short team. The bad news is that Northwestern was not short last season. In fact, they were one of the tallest teams in the country, as we noted yesterday. Sure, they were better than they were in 07-08 in these areas, but they were still pretty bad. Ultimately, there are limitations in every offensive scheme, and Carmody's version of the Princeton offense appears to suffer considerably when it comes to "in the paint" stats. Making matters worse is Kyle Rowley's uncertain status after fracturing a bone in his left foot.

All of this means that if the Cats are to improve on last season, most of the gains will be seen on the defensive end. Carmody has some built-in benefits here, however, as his zone consistently creates turnovers. Even when they went 8-22, this was an elite team in terms of getting opponents to cough up the ball. John Shurna's statline indicates he can be a capable defender, and Craig Moore's absence will ensure that he gets a lot of minutes (given Shurna's offensive abilities). Beyond him, Northwestern fans hope that Rowley's defensive presence includes more blocked shots, and less blocked forearms.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, someone is going to have to start pulling down rebounds. In Big Ten play, opponents grabbed bearly 40% of the available boards on the offensive end. In other words, the average Big Ten team became Michigan State on the glass when playing against Northwestern.

The above graph tracks the offensive rebounding of Northwestern's conference opponents as well as the offensive rebounding of Michigan State. Over the past five years, it's been a coin flip as to whether NU opponents or MSU will have the better offensive rebounding season. Given the amount of time Izzo & his squad put into going after boards, that's a very bad thing. Bill Carmody is certainly aware of the problem, but so far he's been short on solutions. In any case, defensive rebounding figures to play a big part in whether or not Northwestern goes to its first Dance.

Northwestern Recap of the 08-09 Season

2009-10-21T06:52:00.001-07:00

For about four days, Northwestern fans got a taste of what it feels like to be excited about basketball in March. On March 4, the Wildcats upended Purdue (ranked in the top 20 at the time) in West Lafayette. The win pulled the Cats' record to 17-11, and 8-9 in conference play. They were staring down a matchup against Ohio State in Columbus for the regular season finale, and the Buckeyes were coming off a near loss to Iowa. During this four day span, I wonder how many purple sweatshirts made their journey from the back of the closet. Heck, I'm pretty sure I even saw a couple of Vedran Vukusic jerseys in Chicago. I can't blame the fans for being a bit shy about their team -- it's now common knowledge that Northwestern has never before been to the NCAA Tournament. And they really did come so close last season.

But unfortunately, Northwestern didn't win another game after Purdue. They lost at Ohio State, got trounced by Minnesota in the Big Ten Tournament, and Tulsa finally put them out of their misery in the NIT. It's a sad ending to what was a pretty nice story.

The turnaround from 8-22 to 17-14 consisted of a lot of factors. And give Coach Bill Carmody credit, because many of them were his doing. One of the offseason projects from Carmody was clearly to get taller. Northwestern ranked 267th in Effective Height in 2007-08, but they improved to 18th in the country last year. Carmody welcomed five freshmen last season, all of whom were at least 6-5. Three of them instantly became the tallest guys on the team. Here are a few areas where that height helped:

	Northwestern 07-08	Northwestern 08-09
Offensive Rebounding %	20.6	27.5
FTA/FGA	23.8	29.4
Defensive Rebounding %	62.5	64.0
Block %	7.0	9.8

That's across-the-board improvement in all of the areas we would expect height to play a major factor. Well, except one...

Northwestern 07-08
Northwestern 08-09
Opponent Block %
12.0
13.4

Geez, just how many of Michael Thompson's layups are getting swatted?

Mind you, Northwestern wasn't exactly good in any of these categories last year. But they were a cut above "horrific," which is where they were two years ago. Other than those improvements, this was largely the same team. They shot lots of 3s, took care of the ball, and created tons of turnovers with their zone defense. On an individual level, Kevin Coble and Craig Moore provided the bulk of the scoring. Thompson was steady and efficient at the point guard spot, and freshman John Shurna showed flashes.

That said, there's a window here, and it's closing. The Cats lose Moore from last year's team, and after this season they'll lose Coble. After that happens, there might not be enough talent left on the roster to make another run at the Dance. I'll explore Northwestern's chances for this season tomorrow.

Preview of the Ohio State 09-10 Season

2009-10-20T06:48:00.000-07:00

08-09 Overall Record: 22-11
08-09 Conference Record: 10-8 (T-4th)
08-09 Conference Efficiency Margin: +0.02 (5th)
Percent of Returning Minutes: 88.8
Percent of Returning Freshman Minutes: 17.6

Last year, Ohio State was arguably the most talented team in the conference, with seven RSCI top 100 players on the roster. But the pieces didn't fit very well together, and more significantly, that talent was very inexperienced. This year, the team is less talented ("only" 5 RSCI top 100 players remain), but more experienced. The pieces, however, still don't fit very well.

We predicted last year that the Buckeyes would struggle with turnovers due to a lack of a true ballhandler, a prediction that held true. Unfortunately, a steady point guard has not materialized in Columbus, so turnovers will still be an issue this season. However, everyone else returned, and the overall numbers should get better, if still a liability. The point guard responsibilities will likely again fall to Evan Turner, who did an admirable job considering he's ideally suited for the small forward position. For most teams, that situation would result in disaster. For Ohio State, the result was an NCAA Tournament berth, which was due in no small part to Mr. Turner's skills. Simply put, there is no better one-on-one player than Turner in the conference, and probably all of college basketball right now. He's quick and skilled enough to easily drive past big men, and he's tall and strong enough to shoot over smaller players. The "21" number on the back of his jersey is appropriate, considering that it usually takes 2 men to guard the 1 Mr. Turner.

All of that attention devoted to stopping Turner opened things up for the rest of the Buckeye offense, one of the better shooting teams in the country. The 57.2 eFG for Thad Matta's team easily outpaced the league. The difference between Ohio State and the next best shooting team (Northwestern) was greater than the difference between Northwestern and the worst shooting team in the conference (Minnesota).

To be fair, a lot of that shooting came on a result of a play that has been summed up as "Mongo Go To Rim." There really isn't enough information out there to know if Mongo's replacement, Zisis Sarikopoulos (can't wait to see the 10 point font on that jersey), is equally adept with the skill of catch-ball-and-make-go-through-orange-circle, but based on his statline at UAB, we can probably expect a less aggressive player than Mullens, and probably less efficient at scoring when he does shoot.

That's not too much of a problem, however, considering how many other options are present in Columbus. David Lighty returns for his final season after missing most of last year with an injury, though his presence is mostly felt on the defensive end. Jon Diebler regained his shooting touch after a disastrous freshman season, making 46% of his 3-point attempts in conference play last year. However, the biggest piece of the puzzle returning alongside Turner is last year's Freshman of the Year, William Buford. Though he didn't get a lot of credit for it, Buford was every bit as efficient as, say, Eric Gordon was a year before:

Gordon
Buford
Offensive Rating
109.1
108.1
Shot Percentage
28.4
27.6

Although they were different players style-wise (Buford is much more of a pure shooter than Gordon was), the efficiency and usage rates were quite similar. But there is one big difference -- Gordon never returned for his sophomore season (not that you could blame him, given the NBA millions and the circus in Bloomington at the time). Buford figures to improve on his freshman numbers, and he and Turner comprise the best duo in the Big Ten. In short, when this team doesn't turn the ball over, they will be extremely difficult to stop.

Defensively, however, Ohio State was mediocre, and this one I pin on Matta. For three seasons in a row, Matta has had two outstanding shotblockers in his starting rotation. Over that same time period, however, the defense has allowed opponents to make plenty of three point shots. That's excusable -- every defense has a weakness. What I don't understand is why Matta installs a zone defense that encourages opponents to play to OSU's weakness, rather than its strength. This season, Ohio State will again feature outstanding shotblocking talent. Whether or not the Buckeyes get any mileage out of it will depend on the scheme Matta goes with. And there are signs that some changes might be coming.

Regardless, because of this team's offensive ability, the only way this team misses the NCAA Tournament is if Evan Turner goes down (knock on that wood, Buckeye fans). Frankly, the talent and experience is there for this team to compete for the Big Ten title.

	Northwestern 07-08	Northwestern 08-09
Opponent Block %	12.0	13.4

	Gordon	Buford
Offensive Rating	109.1	108.1
Shot Percentage	28.4	27.6