College Basketball 2010-11

[NOLA]

Can anyone out there give me their assessment of Buzz Williams? I am a Razorback fan and he seems to be the hot name right now leaking out.

I'm sure there aren't many/any SEC fans here, but FWIW, rumors from those in the know say that there are some on the U of A board of trustees will not pursue Mike Andersen because they are still butt hurt about his ties to Nolan. Nolan did say he supports Mike going to Arkansas if he were offered the job. Arkansas will not hire Gillespie.

[Rex Buckingham]

Wilbon has an article on ESPN.com in which he mentions Illinois as not deserving of their bid (aloong with VCU, UAB, and USC) but makes no mention of Clemson... while I agree that the results haven't been great, they certianly belong

[bukie]

Based on Nate Silver and John Gasaway's assertions that bids should be handed out based on merit, and seeding should be done based on talent, I went and took the two parts of Jeff Sagarin's ratings (ELO for merit, Predictor for talent), and just straight took the top 37 at-larges from the first and seeded based on the second, just to see how it'd look.

 

So, as far as tournament selection would have gone:

 

1. Ohio State*

2. San Diego State*

3. Kansas*

4. Notre Dame

5. Pittsburgh

6. BYU

7. Duke*

8. Connecticut*

9. Syracuse

10. Purdue

11. Texas

12. Georgetown

13. Wisconsin

14. Louisville

15. North Carolina

16. Cincinnati

17. Florida

18. Kentucky*

19. St. John's

20. Utah State*

21. UNLV

22. Old Dominion*

23. West Virginia

24. Arizona

25. Texas A&M

26. Temple

27. Kansas State

28. Xavier

29. George Mason

30. Villanova

31. Richmond*

32. Missouri

33. Marquette

34. Michigan

35. Vanderbilt

36. Michigan State

37. Illinois

38. Penn State

39. Harvard

40. Belmont*

41. Memphis*

42. Princeton*

43. Washington*

44. Virginia Tech

45. Florida State

46. UAB

47. Gonzaga*

48. Clemson

49. Georgia

50. UCLA

51. Butler*

52. Saint Mary's

56. Oakland*

79. Bucknell*

81. Long Island University*

101. Wofford*

107. Indiana State*

110. Saint Peter's*

112. Morehead State*

120. Akron*

129. Northern Colorado*

146. Hampton*

165. UNC Asheville*

166. Boston University*

176. UC Santa Barbara*

198. Arkansas-Little Rock*

212. Texas-San Antonio*

303. Alabama State*

 

 

Last 4 in:

48. Clemson

49. Georgia

50. UCLA

52. Saint Mary's

 

Last 4 out:

53. Colorado

54. Cleveland State

55. Boston College

57. Tennessee

 

Next 4 out:

58. Northwestern

59. New Mexico

60. Oklahoma State

61. VCU

 

Others out:

78. USC

 

Then, a straight S-Curve based on talent:

 

1. Ohio State*

2. Duke*

3. Kansas*

4. Texas

5. Pittsburgh

6. Purdue

7. Kentucky*

8. San Diego State*

9. BYU

10. Washington*

11. Wisconsin

12. Syracuse

13. Louisville

14. Notre Dame

15. North Carolina

16. Connecticut*

17. Illinois

18. West Virginia

19. Arizona

20. UNLV

21. Florida

22. Cincinnati

23. Villanova

24. Georgetown

25. Utah State*

26. Vanderbilt

27. Belmont*

29. Missouri

30. Marquette

31. Kansas State

32. Gonzaga*

33. Virginia Tech

34. Clemson

35. St. John's

36. George Mason

37. Saint Mary's

38. Temple

39. Michigan State

40. Florida State

41. Texas A&M

43. Michigan

45. Xavier

46. Richmond*

48. Penn State

49. Butler*

51. UCLA

59. Old Dominion*

60. Georgia

63. UAB

64. Oakland*

82. Harvard

84. Memphis*

96. Princeton*

97. Wofford*

99. Bucknell*

108. Morehead State*

115. Northern Colorado*

116. Long Island University*

117. Indiana State*

122. UC Santa Barbara*

135. Akron*

144. Saint Peter's*

150. UNC Asheville*

180. Boston University*

205. Hampton*

215. Arkansas-Little Rock*

225. Texas-San Antonio*

310. Alabama State*

 

 

And translated straight into bracket form (without taking into account conference rules or geography or whatever beyond the 1 seeds, because it's not really worth the time overall):

 

First Four:

1. (51) UCLA vs. (82) Harvard

2. (60) Georgia vs. (63) UAB

3. (205) Hampton vs. (310) Alabama State

4. (215) Arkansas-Little Rock vs. (225) Texas-San Antonio

 

Bracket:

 

East Region

1 (1) Ohio State

16 First Four winner 4

8 (33) Virginia Tech

9 (34) Clemson

 

4 (16) Connecticut

13 (64) Oakland

5 (17) Illinois

12 First Four winner 2

 

2 (8) San Diego State

15 (117) Indiana State

7 (25) Utah State

10 (41) Texas A&M

 

3 (9) BYU

14 (116) Long Island University

6 (24) Georgetown

11 (43) Michigan

 

West Region

1 (4) Texas

16 (150) UNC Asheville

8 (30) Marquette

9 (37) Saint Mary's

 

4 (13) Louisville

13 (97) Wofford

5 (20) UNLV

12 (49) Butler

 

2 (5) Pittsburgh

15 (144) Saint Peter's

7 (29) Missouri

10 (38) Temple

 

3 (12) Syracuse

14 (99) Bucknell

6 (21) Florida

11 (48) Penn State

 

Southeast Region

1 (2) Duke

16 First Four winner 3

8 (32) Gonzaga

9 (35) St. John's

 

4 (15) North Carolina

13 (84) Memphis

5 (18) West Virginia

12 (59) Old Dominion

 

2 (7) Kentucky

15 (122) UC Santa Barbara

7 (26) Vanderbilt

10 (40) Florida State

 

3 (10) Washington

14 (115) Northern Colorado

6 (23) Villanova

11 (45) Xavier

 

Southwest Region

1 (3) Kansas

16 (180) Boston University

8 (31) Kansas State

9 (36) George Mason

 

4 (14) Notre Dame

13 (96) Princeton

5 (19) Arizona

12 First Four winner 1

 

2 (6) Purdue

15 (135) Akron

7 (27) Belmont

10 (39) Michigan State

 

3 (11) Wisconsin

14 (108) Morehead State

6 (22) Cincinnati

11 (46) Richmond

 

[Guest]

The "inclusion based on merit, seeding based on talent" seems like a silly argument to me.

[shnsajax]

I am really glad Texas didn't get that bracket based on that.

[bukie]

The "inclusion based on merit, seeding based on talent" seems like a silly argument to me.

I disagree, I think it's the way it should be done, really. I'd much rather see a team that accomplished more during the regular season, even with dubious talent (Harvard) get a bid than a team that accomplished much less during the season, but would possibly be a better team (USC).

 

Granted, it gets a little odd seeding straight by talent, but in reality, for tournament seeding, it'd be the most balanced if it were sorted by quality of team, and not so much accomplishment during the year.

 

And yes, I realize it tosses Illinois way out to a 5 seed, as they're one of the outliers that performs exceedingly well, many blowouts, but is terrible at closing out close games. Call it luck, call it poor offensive strategy, but they have one of the biggest discrepancies between ability and accomplishment of anyone in the NCAA (Maryland is probably the biggest overall).

[Guest]

The "inclusion based on merit, seeding based on talent" seems like a silly argument to me.

I disagree, I think it's the way it should be done, really. I'd much rather see a team that accomplished more during the regular season, even with dubious talent (Harvard) get a bid than a team that accomplished much less during the season, but would possibly be a better team (USC).

 

Granted, it gets a little odd seeding straight by talent, but in reality, for tournament seeding, it'd be the most balanced if it were sorted by quality of team, and not so much accomplishment during the year.

 

And yes, I realize it tosses Illinois way out to a 5 seed, as they're one of the outliers that performs exceedingly well, many blowouts, but is terrible at closing out close games. Call it luck, call it poor offensive strategy, but they have one of the biggest discrepancies between ability and accomplishment of anyone in the NCAA (Maryland is probably the biggest overall).

 

I just don't understand why you would distinguish the two. I absolutely agree that the Harvard should get a bid over the USC, but why would you not apply the same logic to seeding? There's no need for separate criteria.

[bukie]

Out of curiousity, I did the same thing for last year's data and field, and there were 6 teams difference in the field:

 

6 teams out: Notre Dame (6, lost in first round to ODU), Florida (10, lost in first round to BYU), UNLV (8, lost in first round to Northern Iowa), Utah State (12, lost in first round to Texas A&M), Minnesota (11, lost in first round to Xavier), Louisville (9, lost in first round to Cal)

 

6 teams in: Dayton (won NIT), North Carolina (NIT runner-up), Rhode Island (NIT Final Four, lost to UNC), Virginia Tech (NIT final 8, lost to Rhode Island), Mississippi (NIT Final Four, lost to Dayton), VCU (CBI winner...no idea why they didn't at least get an NIT invite)

 

Yes, Illinois would have still been out, but it was just odd that the 6 added teams were all very successful in the postseason, while the 6 teams out all lost in the first round.

 

EDIT: Same thing for 2009: 3 teams difference. Out: BYU, Boston College, Tennessee, all first round losers. In: Penn State, Notre Dame, Baylor, who were the NIT champ, runner up, and final four participant. Weird.

Edited March 15, 2011 by bukie

[Old Style]

Can anyone out there give me their assessment of Buzz Williams? I am a Razorback fan and he seems to be the hot name right now leaking out.

I'm sure there aren't many/any SEC fans here, but FWIW, rumors from those in the know say that there are some on the U of A board of trustees will not pursue Mike Andersen because they are still butt hurt about his ties to Nolan. Nolan did say he supports Mike going to Arkansas if he were offered the job. Arkansas will not hire Gillespie.

Buzz was an assistant under Gillispie at A&M. From what I know of his time at Marquette, he is a similar coach to what you'd get with Billy Clyde. I know exactly why Arkansas won't hire BCG. They thought they had him 4 years ago so they fired their coach and then he double crossed them and went to Kentucky.

[Guest]

Can anyone out there give me their assessment of Buzz Williams? I am a Razorback fan and he seems to be the hot name right now leaking out.

I'm sure there aren't many/any SEC fans here, but FWIW, rumors from those in the know say that there are some on the U of A board of trustees will not pursue Mike Andersen because they are still butt hurt about his ties to Nolan. Nolan did say he supports Mike going to Arkansas if he were offered the job. Arkansas will not hire Gillespie.

 

Buzz Williams is kinda an a-hole, but he seems to be an okay basketball coach.

 

Also, not that it really matters, but Richardson didn't say that.

[SouthSideRyan]

Williams isn't a hopeless drunk either to the best of my knowledge

[Guest]

Out of curiousity, I did the same thing for last year's data and field, and there were 6 teams difference in the field:

 

6 teams out: Notre Dame (6, lost in first round to ODU), Florida (10, lost in first round to BYU), UNLV (8, lost in first round to Northern Iowa), Utah State (12, lost in first round to Texas A&M), Minnesota (11, lost in first round to Xavier), Louisville (9, lost in first round to Cal)

 

6 teams in: Dayton (won NIT), North Carolina (NIT runner-up), Rhode Island (NIT Final Four, lost to UNC), Virginia Tech (NIT final 8, lost to Rhode Island), Mississippi (NIT Final Four, lost to Dayton), VCU (CBI winner...no idea why they didn't at least get an NIT invite)

 

Yes, Illinois would have still been out, but it was just odd that the 6 added teams were all very successful in the postseason, while the 6 teams out all lost in the first round.

 

EDIT: Same thing for 2009: 3 teams difference. Out: BYU, Boston College, Tennessee, all first round losers. In: Penn State, Notre Dame, Baylor, who were the NIT champ, runner up, and final four participant. Weird.

 

Do those rankings include the postseason games? Because the results would make sense if it did. The first round tourney losers and the NIT teams were probably very close in the rankings before the postseason and while the NCAA teams lost in the first round, the NIT teams had the chance to win three, four or five more games.

[bukie]

Do those rankings include the postseason games? Because the results would make sense if it did. The first round tourney losers and the NIT teams were probably very close in the rankings before the postseason and while the NCAA teams lost in the first round, the NIT teams had the chance to win three, four or five more games.

Ahh, yes, it does include the postseason games. It's less weird now. For a second there, it was really odd, since 2008 had the exact same pattern.

Edited March 15, 2011 by bukie

[SouthSideRyan]

But those NIT teams would have to win by healthy margins in those 3-5 games because their opponents are much worse

[javy knows my name]

I wasn't excited about Buzz' hire a few years ago, but I'd be pretty bummed if he left.

 

Why would he leave for Arkansas, though?

[snoodmonger]

I wasn't excited about Buzz' hire a few years ago, but I'd be pretty bummed if he left.

 

Why would he leave for Arkansas, though?

 

nice history. flagship school in the state. wouldn't have to compete in the murderer's row Big East. SEC is ripe for the plucking, aside from UK and to a lesser degree, UF. Arkansas is supposed to be in a very pretty/cool area. Lots of money to throw around. Rabid fanbase (though not a realistic perspective on their relevance, imo.)

[da bears]

I wasn't excited about Buzz' hire a few years ago, but I'd be pretty bummed if he left.

 

Why would he leave for Arkansas, though?

 

nice history. flagship school in the state. wouldn't have to compete in the murderer's row Big East. SEC is ripe for the plucking, aside from UK and to a lesser degree, UF. Arkansas is supposed to be in a very pretty/cool area. Lots of money to throw around. Rabid fanbase (though not a realistic perspective on their relevance, imo.)

Some of them actually think Bill Self would be interested in the job. Not realistic perspective on their relevance is an understatement. They're flat out delusional.

[Sosa21MVP]

Purdue has suspended Kelsey Barlow for the rest of the season for conduct detrimental to the team.

 

http://www.jconline.com/article/20110315/NEWS0901/110315022/Purdue-s-Barlow-suspended-for-NCAA-tournament

[NOLA]

Fans who have some bit of sanity know that Bill Self will not go to Arkansas. He does have connections to the state, but seriously. As for why Gillespie won't be the next coach, you said it there. He already gave U of A the runaround 4 years ago, plus there is the alcohol issue. I have mixed feelings about Tubby Smith. I'm not sure he has anything left in the tank, but being able to compete with KY in the SEC might drive him to succeed. Those days of the Arkansas/Kentucky rivalry when it was every Super Bowl Sunday were epic.

As to why Arkansas is desirable:

The most rabid fanbase in the SEC outside of KY. A great basketball history (in SEC terms). A nice 20k seat arena and unlimited resources. Pretty decent recruiting base. It's not in the Big East. A top 5 recruiting class and a decent core returning.

Not to go offtrack, but the fanbase is not that delusional as the national press would suggest. I think our former football coach is proving the fans in Arkansas right every day. I love Nolan and wish he would come back to coach, but he needed to go when he did. He burned that bridge himself. People in Ark see Mike Andersen as a link to that style of play. If Buzz W is a Gillespie, slow it down style coach, that will not endear him to the fans.

[hawkeyecub]

After hyping him all season long, Gus Johnson has done his last game for the Big Ten Network

 

Ah [expletive]. You have a link?

[SouthSideRyan]

After hyping him all season long, Gus Johnson has done his last game for the Big Ten Network

 

Ah [expletive]. You have a link?

 

No link to a news story, but a guy on the Illinois scout board who's on the BTN fan council mentioned it.

[hawkeyecub]

The "inclusion based on merit, seeding based on talent" seems like a silly argument to me.

I disagree, I think it's the way it should be done, really. I'd much rather see a team that accomplished more during the regular season, even with dubious talent (Harvard) get a bid than a team that accomplished much less during the season, but would possibly be a better team (USC).

 

Granted, it gets a little odd seeding straight by talent, but in reality, for tournament seeding, it'd be the most balanced if it were sorted by quality of team, and not so much accomplishment during the year.

 

And yes, I realize it tosses Illinois way out to a 5 seed, as they're one of the outliers that performs exceedingly well, many blowouts, but is terrible at closing out close games. Call it luck, call it poor offensive strategy, but they have one of the biggest discrepancies between ability and accomplishment of anyone in the NCAA (Maryland is probably the biggest overall).

 

I just don't understand why you would distinguish the two. I absolutely agree that the Harvard should get a bid over the USC, but why would you not apply the same logic to seeding? There's no need for separate criteria.

 

I agree with you. I've seen Gasaway argue for it before and I think it's terrible.

[Careless]

for some reason I'm rooting for Arkansas tonight. Weird.

[UMFan83]

Kelsey Barlow suspended for the rest of the season for Purdue.

 

Also Kyrie Irving back for Duke

[chuckywang]

Kelsey Barlow suspended for the rest of the season for Purdue.

 

Also Kyrie Irving back for Duke

 

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet