Tag: 2009-10 College Basketball (Page 8 of 19)

      CBS analyst Seth Davis chats with The Scores Report

      March 16, 2010 /

      CBS analyst and SI writer Seth Davis is partnering with Coke Zero in promoting their Department of Fannovation Brain Bracket, where 64 hand-picked ideas to improve the fan experience will go head-to-head in single elimination format until a winner is announced. (My favorite is the one where arenas would have actual working decibel monitors pop up on the big screen to encourage the crowd to make more noise.)

      Seth took time out of his busy schedule this week to chat with TSR about Kentucky’s youth, Duke’s versatility, tournament expansion and even the NBA’s age-limit rule.

      The Scores Report: Hey Seth, how are you doing?

      Seth Davis: Doing all right, man, how are you doing?

      TSR: Good to talk to you. It’s an exciting week of basketball.

      SD: Yeah, it’s always good this time of year. It’s the best.

      TSR: I just saw your video of your Final Four picks over at SI.com, and it turns out we have the same picks.

      SD: That is definitely the most popular combination, it sounds like. I don’t know if that’s a good sign for you.

      TSR: Yeah I don’t know either. Is there any pressure when you’re doing these picks, not to pick four #1 seeds?

      SD: You know what, there kind of is. There’s a little bit of pressure to look for upsets, but I try to do what I honestly think, and in the past, I’m usually Mr. Upset, but looking at this bracket, I wasn’t feeling it. I wish I felt otherwise. It might surprise people to learn given how brilliant my picks are, when they hand me that bracket in the studio, before the selection show, I take about four minutes to fill out the whole thing. I just go with my instinct and go with what I see, and that’s where my pen led me.

      Continue reading »

      College Basketball, Interviews, March Madness

      A couple of different takes on the Temple/Cornell game

      March 16, 2010 /

      It seems like as soon as the brackets were announced on Sunday, all of the pundits were circling the 5/12 matchup between Temple (A-10 champs) and Cornell (Ivy League champs) as an upset special. Here are two conflicting takes on the game from the Giant Killers blog and Eamonn Brennan at ESPN. First up is the GK blog:

      We hate it when our model agrees with the pundits. So, allow us to say this: They’re jumping on our bandwagon, not the other way around. This is the most likely upset in the entire first round. Where do we start? How about from downtown? Cornell’s 88.4 GK rating (second-best in GK history) is in large part due to ridiculous 3-point shooting. Not only do the Big Red lead the country at 43.8 percent shooting from beyond the arc; 3s also account for 39.1 percent of their scoring. That type of high-risk approach signifies most successful GKs.

      Temple can battle Cornell in this area because the Owls do have the nation’s second-toughest 3-point field goal defense (28.1 percent). However, the Owls have other problems. They don’t force turnovers (just 18.2 percent of opponents’ possessions, 286th in the country), and they grab offensive rebounds on only 33 percent of missed shots. What does that mean? They let opponents maximize possessions, and with Cornell, those possessions are worth a lot. Add in that Cornell protects the ball (turnover percentage of 18.7) and keeps opponents off the offensive glass (just 30.2 percent), and you have even more reasons to believe in an upset.

      Want one more? Cornell outscored its opponents by more than a dozen points per game this season, yet was outscored at the free throw line. That has a strong correlation toward Giant Killing success. The Big Red have everything necessary to leave the Owls asking “Who?”

      And now, from Brennan’s “Bracket babble” post:

      Continue reading »

      College Basketball, March Madness

      Need help filling out your March Madness bracket? (Part 2)

      March 15, 2010 /

      Here’s Part 1, in case you missed it.

      Now that we’ve narrowed the field from 65 to 32, it’s time to tackle the second round and beyond. When filling out your bracket, it’s not a bad idea to start with your Final Four picks and work backwards. I looked at the last six Final Fours to get an idea of the profile of a FF team and discovered the following:

      22 of 24 FF teams (92%) finished the tournament with adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies (i.e. points per possession adjusted for strength of schedule) in the top 30 (LSU ’06, George Mason ’06).
      Here’s the list of teams that qualify heading into 2010: Duke, Kansas, Ohio St., Syracuse, West Virginia, BYU, Wisconsin, K-State, Kentucky and Texas. I’ll include Georgetown as well since their ranked #33 in defensive efficiency and could climb into the top 30 by tourney’s end.

      22 of 24 FF teams (92%) finished the tournament with a Pythagorean win ranking in the top 10 (#23 George Mason ’06, #14 Villanova ’09).
      Win percent can rise about a hundredth of a point over the course of the tournament. (Last year, Michigan State started at .943 and finished at .954 and Villanova went from .929 to .938.) So looking at the Pomeroy numbers, we should be looking at the top 12 teams — Duke, Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio St, Syracuse, Kentucky, BYU, WVU, K-State, Maryland, Georgetown and Baylor — as potential FF teams.

      21 of 24 FF teams were in top 7 in either offensive or defensive efficiency (George Mason ’06, Michigan State ’09, Villanova ’09).
      Here are the teams that are in the top 10 in either efficiency: Duke (both), Kansas (both), California (off), Notre Dame (off), Baylor (off), Maryland (off), Ohio St. (off), Villanova (off), Syracuse (off), Georgetown (off), Florida State (def), Temple (def), Purdue (def), Wisconsin (def), Tennessee (def), Clemson (def) and Kentucky (def). I’d include WVU (11th – off) and BYU (12th – off) as well because they would likely finish in the top 7 with a FF run.

      Continue reading »

      College Basketball, March Madness

      Need help filling out your March Madness bracket?

      March 15, 2010 /

      Looking for picks for 2011? Click here.

      Hundreds of writers will write hundreds of columns/articles/posts about the 2010 NCAA Tournament, so you may be wondering, why should I listen to this clown?

      In 2007, I picked the winner (Florida) along with one other Final Four team (#2 seed Georgetown). In 2008, I picked the winner (Kansas) along with two other Final Four teams (#1-seed UCLA and #1-seed North Carolina). That was enough to line my pocket with a little cash from a pool each year.

      2009 was another story. Even though I am on record saying that if Ty Lawson’s toe were 90-95% healthy that North Carolina would have been my pick, I ultimately didn’t have enough confidence in Lawson’s health — special thanks Dick Vitale for calling it “cartoonishly” swollen, stoking my fears — to pick the Tar Heels last season. I picked only one Final Four team (#1-seed UConn) and my winner (Pitt) lost in the Elite Eight to Villanova.

      Still, there is a method to March Madness. First, I pull in Jeff Sagarin’s regular season rankings. I also consider Ken Pomeroy’s offensive and defensive efficiency stats, along with his Pythagorean win percentage.

      Over the last three years, teams with a 3+ point advantage in Sagarin’s “predictor” rating have won 116 of 141 games (82.3%). In 2009, if a team had at least a 65% expected win rate according to Pomeroy’s Pythagorean calculation, they won 33 of 40 games (82.5%). So I won’t stray too far from these two indicators if they both agree that a certain team is going to win.

      But not every game is so clear cut. Over the last three years, if there were 141 games that had a Sagarin favorite of at least three points, that means that there were 48 games that did not. My research has found that a Sagarin advantage of 0-2 points yields a 17-21 record and an advantage of 2-3 points yields a 5-5 record, so if the Sagarin advantage is fewer than three points, the game is basically a toss up.

      For these games, I’ll look at other factors, like location of the game, offensive and defensive efficiencies, matchups, injuries, current play, and how each team fits the Giant Killers profile. In short, if a game is a toss up, it pays to go with the underdog because most people are going to go with the favorite.

      So enough with the preamble, let’s dive right in.

      Continue reading »

      College Basketball, March Madness

      « Older posts Newer posts »

      © 2026 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog

      Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑