Selections are moving! The 2016 #MarchMadness bracket will be filled out in NYC: https://t.co/OfR8dEXCj0 pic.twitter.com/INNzMaTH8w

— NCAA March Madness (@marchmadness) November 12, 2015

The NCAA’s annual mock selection exercise was held last week, and as usual this meant my Twitter stream was filled with (literally) minute-to-minute updates on which No. 9 seed was going 130 miles more distant to which arena in a wholly fictitious bracket. In my most idealized self-conception I most certainly didn’t send out such tweets in February of 2012. In reality I probably did.

(By the way, moving the actual selection to NYC  is an excellent move. Salute.)

When mock selection occurs, the continuing presence of the three-letter antique is made painfully clear. In fact if I were a conspiratorial sort (I rejoice I am not), I would speculate that the NCAA goes through this exercise just so my brethren and sistren in the media will tweet out team sheets to show that once again the three-letter antique is the very bone and sinew of this entire selection process. Speak now or forever hold our peace.

I’ve spoken, and it’s still here. So be it. It will still be here next year, and I’ll still believe that obsessing over “top-50” wins with a metric that’s off by 50 or more spots seven percent of the time is a tad counterproductive, inertial and needlessly blinkered by an arbitrary fascination with round numbers. But it will still be here next year.

I will be too.

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 55 mid-majors are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis.

Major-conference Truths are at ESPN Insider.

A-10: Dave Paulsen really does not like takeaways
Through games of February 15, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                          W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Dayton               11-1   67.4    1.11    0.91    +0.20
2.  VCU                  10-2   70.5    1.14    0.94    +0.20
3.  Saint Joseph's       10-2   69.7    1.12    0.95    +0.17
4.  Rhode Island          6-6   64.4    1.07    0.98    +0.09
5.  St. Bonaventure       9-3   68.9    1.13    1.05    +0.08
6.  Richmond              6-6   67.2    1.11    1.07    +0.04
7.  George Washington     7-5   65.8    1.08    1.06    +0.02
8.  Davidson              6-6   70.7    1.10    1.09    +0.01
9.  Duquesne              5-7   75.5    1.03    1.05    -0.02
10. UMass                 4-8   71.5    0.98    1.07    -0.09
11. Fordham               3-9   66.7    0.96    1.10    -0.14
12. George Mason          3-9   69.2    0.98    1.14    -0.16
13. Saint Louis           3-9   70.2    0.93    1.09    -0.16
14. La Salle             1-11   65.0    0.93    1.16    -0.23

AVG.                            68.8    1.05
KenPom rank: 8
% of games played: 67

Continue reading →

Cam Newton walked out of a certain press conference on Sunday night, and I immediately thought of interview guru John Sawatsky. Then again I’m weird. After all, maybe Newton left because he overheard Denver cornerback Chris Harris giving a somewhat boastful interview of his own on the other side of a nearby logo-bedecked curtain.

In any event, the spectacle of a Super Bowl quarterback walking out on the Fourth Estate resulted in a Zapruder-like focus on the questions leading up to Newton’s hasty exit. For the record, those questions were as follows:

Q. Can you put into words the disappointment you feel right now?

A. We lost.

Q. Did Denver change anything defensively to take away your running lanes?

A. No.

Q. I know you’re disappointed not just for yourself, but your teammates. It’s got to be real tough.

A. [shakes head] I’m done, man.

Press conferences are tough, and huge press conferences are especially difficult. Goodness knows I’ve mangled questions in them myself. It’s also true that if an interview subject is fully committed to being a recalcitrant and enigmatic frog in the rain, no question however artfully phrased is going to change that.

Nevertheless these three questions, purely as disembodied objects of study, contain within them no shortage of cautionary lessons. (For starters one of them isn’t even a question.) Rather than merely sift rubble, however, allow me instead to pass along this interview that my colleague Jeff Goodman did a couple weeks ago with Bob Huggins. Jeff got an abundance of good stuff from West Virginia’s head coach, and from my chair he was able to do so because he Sawatsky’d the heck out of their session.

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 55 mid-majors are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis.

Major-conference Truths are at ESPN Insider.

A-10: My streak of consecutive posts without a pun on Charles Cooke’s name continues!
Through games of February 8, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                          W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Dayton                9-1   66.7    1.13    0.90    +0.23
2.  VCU                   9-1   70.8    1.15    0.96    +0.19
3.  Saint Joseph's        8-2   70.6    1.08    0.95    +0.13
4.  Rhode Island          5-5   64.0    1.07    0.98    +0.09
5.  St. Bonaventure       7-3   70.3    1.15    1.07    +0.08
6.  George Washington     7-3   66.7    1.10    1.03    +0.07
7.  Richmond              4-6   67.8    1.11    1.10    +0.01
8.  Davidson              5-5   71.9    1.11    1.11     0.00
9.  Duquesne              5-5   74.8    1.03    1.04    -0.01
10. UMass                 2-8   70.5    0.95    1.08    -0.13
11. Saint Louis           3-7   70.9    0.95    1.09    -0.14
12. George Mason          2-8   69.9    0.99    1.15    -0.16
13. Fordham               3-7   67.4    0.94    1.10    -0.16
14. La Salle              1-9   64.6    0.92    1.14    -0.22

AVG.                            69.1    1.05
KenPom rank: 8
% of games played: 56

Continue reading →

(Des Moines Register)

One question I’ve entertained with respect to the NBA concerns whether it’s truly as open to unforeseeable performances as (to adopt a timely benchmark) the Iowa Caucuses. Not that any shortcomings in this direction would be the NBA’s fault, mind you. If you have to blame anyone or anything, blame math.

No other professional sport has such a ridiculously small number of draft picks, yet a tiny pool of 30 first-round guys, augmented annually, constitutes a far larger share of the league (60 percent, give or take) than in baseball or football. These structural imperatives dictate that you’d have to be crazy or supernaturally courageous or both to wander off the stereotype reservation with a first-round pick. You or I would be no different in a GM’s shoes, but a fair portion of lived experience outside of professional sports suggests there has to be a tremendous opportunity cost being incurred here in the area of unforeseeable performance.

My hunch is that if the NBA ran the Iowa Caucuses, last summer the league’s front offices would have had a draft-like barrier to entry up all along the state’s 1,000-mile rectangular border (a beautiful wall, if you will). Candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have been sent away months ago on the grounds of being a mere reality TV star and a socialist, respectively. The NBA experts would have told the two men confidently that there’s no way on earth that they could finish in second place in Iowa come February 2016. After all, neither candidate fits the profile.

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 55 mid-majors are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis.

Major-conference Truths are at ESPN Insider.

A-10: Archie now has defensive bragging rights at Miller get-togethers
Through games of February 1, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                          W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  VCU                   8-0   71.5    1.15    0.94    +0.21
2.  Dayton                8-1   66.5    1.09    0.90    +0.19
3.  Saint Joseph's        7-1   70.8    1.08    0.93    +0.15
4.  Rhode Island          4-4   64.3    1.08    1.00    +0.08
5.  St. Bonaventure       5-3   71.1    1.16    1.08    +0.08
6.  George Washington     5-3   66.7    1.09    1.03    +0.06
7.  Davidson              4-4   72.4    1.10    1.10     0.00
8.  Duquesne              5-4   74.5    1.02    1.03    -0.01
9.  Richmond              3-5   67.9    1.12    1.13    -0.01
10. Fordham               3-6   67.0    0.96    1.09    -0.13
11. UMass                 1-7   72.4    0.98    1.12    -0.14
12. George Mason          1-7   69.8    0.99    1.13    -0.14
13. Saint Louis           3-6   71.4    0.96    1.10    -0.14
14. La Salle              1-7   64.6    0.90    1.10    -0.20

AVG.                            69.4    1.05
KenPom rank: 8
% of games played: 46

Continue reading →

On this date in 1913, Jim Thorpe was forced to relinquish the two gold medals he’d won at the 1912 Olympic Games in Stockholm. Thorpe turned in the medals after it came to light that he’d previously played semipro baseball in North Carolina. It took 70 years, but his medals were returned, posthumously, in 1983, and the Olympics has long since moved past trying to will into existence an artificial line between amateurism and professionalism. Perhaps there’s a lesson there.

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 55 mid-majors are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis.

Major-conference Truths are at ESPN Insider.

A-10: Snowstorms, 30-hour bus rides, and actual basketball too
Through games of January 25, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                          W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  VCU                   7-0   70.9    1.16    0.94    +0.22
2.  Saint Joseph's        5-1   69.9    1.11    0.96    +0.15
3.  Dayton                6-1   68.0    1.10    0.96    +0.14
4.  Rhode Island          3-3   62.6    1.13    1.03    +0.10
5.  George Washington     4-2   66.7    1.09    0.99    +0.10
6.  St. Bonaventure       4-3   71.6    1.15    1.09    +0.06
7.  Davidson              4-3   72.0    1.13    1.11    +0.02
8.  Richmond              2-4   68.8    1.12    1.11    +0.01
9.  Duquesne              3-4   74.0    1.01    1.08    -0.07
10. Saint Louis           3-4   70.9    1.03    1.12    -0.09
11. George Mason          1-6   69.7    0.99    1.14    -0.15
12. UMass                 1-5   72.5    1.00    1.15    -0.15
13. Fordham               2-5   66.5    0.95    1.11    -0.16
14. La Salle              1-5   64.7    0.93    1.09    -0.16

AVG.                            69.2    1.06
KenPom rank: 8
% of games played: 37

Continue reading →

This “Simpsons” clip from three years ago coincidentally included a cameo from Alan Rickman along with the Bowie-authored “All the Young Dudes.” More recently Daniel Radcliffe’s deft tribute to Rickman ricocheted around social media, which made me remember that time when Radcliffe appeared on BBC Radio 1’s Innuendo Bingo….

If we can copy “The Office” and audition-based contestant reality shows from the Brits, surely we need to nick Innuendo Bingo as well. (The one with Hugh Jackman was also well done.)

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 55 mid-majors are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis.

Major-conference Truths are at ESPN Insider.

A-10: Perceptual lags and Will Wade’s Rams
Through games of January 18, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                          W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  VCU                   5-0   70.3    1.14    0.91    +0.23
2.  Dayton                4-1   67.1    1.11    0.97    +0.14
3.  Rhode Island          3-2   62.6    1.17    1.04    +0.13
4.  Saint Joseph's        4-1   71.3    1.12    0.99    +0.13
5.  St. Bonaventure       4-1   70.4    1.19    1.08    +0.11
6.  George Washington     3-2   67.5    1.11    1.01    +0.10
7.  Richmond              2-3   69.3    1.14    1.10    +0.04
8.  Davidson              3-2   72.1    1.12    1.09    +0.03
9.  Duquesne              2-3   74.7    0.97    1.05    -0.08
10. La Salle              1-4   65.1    0.96    1.08    -0.12
11. George Mason          1-4   69.7    0.99    1.13    -0.14
12. UMass                 1-4   71.8    1.00    1.16    -0.16
13. Saint Louis           1-4   68.7    0.96    1.14    -0.18
14. Fordham               1-4   66.8    0.96    1.17    -0.21

AVG.                            69.1    1.07
KenPom rank: 8
% of games played: 28

Continue reading →

“Just for one day.” Not a bad anthem for mid-majordom.

Today marks a first for Tuesday Truths. A branch office of the venerable franchise has been opened in Bristol, and per-possession Truths for the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, and American await you over at ESPN Insider. There you’ll find the same trusty numbers and winningly phrased analysis you’ve come to demand hereabouts, only with a vastly superior layout. Make haste.

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 55 mid-majors are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis.

Major-conference Truths are at ESPN Insider.

Learn how to coach and strategize the A-10 way 
Through games of January 11, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession Opp. PPP: opponent PPP
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)

                          W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  VCU                   3-0   70.9    1.07    0.87    +0.20
2.  St. Bonaventure       3-0   70.7    1.23    1.04    +0.19
3.  Rhode Island          2-1   64.3    1.19    1.01    +0.18
4.  Dayton                2-1   66.8    1.08    0.91    +0.17
5.  George Washington     2-1   66.3    1.12    0.97    +0.15
6.  Saint Joseph's        2-1   71.5    1.08    1.05    +0.03
7.  Davidson              2-1   73.9    1.11    1.09    +0.02
8.  Richmond              1-2   67.8    1.14    1.16    -0.02
9.  La Salle              1-2   66.9    0.94    0.98    -0.04
10. Fordham               1-2   68.0    1.03    1.09    -0.06
11. UMass                 1-2   71.1    1.00    1.16    -0.16
12. Saint Louis           1-2   61.4    0.93    1.14    -0.21
13. Duquesne              0-3   71.7    0.87    1.09    -0.22
14. George Mason          0-3   67.6    0.89    1.13    -0.24

AVG.                            68.6    1.05
KenPom rank: 8
% of games played: 17

Continue reading →