Kansas State 77, Long Beach State 60
This was supposed to be something of a rebuilding season for Kansas State. They earned a 5 seed in last year's NCAA Tournament, but lost their two best players (Jacob Pullen and Curis Kelly) to graduation. Pullen in particular is an impossible replacement - every big win they had the past few years came with Pullen at his best. The offense just bogged down whenever he wasn't creating. Nobody thought they'd stink this season, they were just considered a likely bubble team preseason.
And maybe in the end Kansas State will end up on the bubble, but so far they've looked really good. There are two big reasons for that. First, Will Spradling has taken a leap as a player. Last season he was a steady player who didn't turn the ball over, but who didn't make much happen either. He was never a catalyst for offense. That's changed now - this season he attacks and creates offense for himself and his teammates. Second, Kansas State's 2011 recruiting class has been better than expected. Thomas Gipson and Angel Rodriguez are two true freshmen that have played well (Gipson has actually started all 11 games so far this season), and the best player from this class in the end might be 7-footer Adrian Diaz.
Kansas State has wins over Alabama, Virginia Tech, Long Beach State and UTEP, and only a double-overtime loss to West Virginia. They should destroy Howard on New Year's Eve, and then will head into Big 12 play knowing that a 9-9 record should be sufficient to put them in the NCAA Tournament. They get a brutal start to their schedule, however (at Kansas, vs Mizzou, vs Baylor, at Oklahoma, vs Texas), and need to be careful not to get discouraged if they get a couple of early losses.
Long Beach State will be disappointed with how they played (5-for-18 with 0 assists and 4 turnovers for Casper Ware isn't going to cut it against a quality opponent), but a loss like this doesn't really affect them long term. They're not going to earn an at-large bid, so these early season games are about improving as a team, and about playing well enough to earn an 11 or 12 seed on Selection Sunday. Long Beach State has finally finished their brutal schedule (despite being 5-6 they are rated 12th in RPI because of a SOS rated 1st in the entire nation). They head into Big West play as the favorite, but not overwhelmingly so. UCSB is a quality contender, and Cal Poly is a legitimate sleeper. Long Beach State will open up on January 2nd at UC Irvine, and then will have a home game against Cal Poly on January 5th.
Saint Mary's 77, Missouri State 61
This game is a few days old, but I wanted to talk about it briefly because it's a game that mattered for both teams. Through December 20th, St. Mary's was one of those mystery teams - the computers loved them, but they hadn't really played anybody. They had no quality wins, and a loss to Denver. On December 22nd they got their first chance at a quality opponent, and what was bothersome wasn't just that they got destroyed by Baylor, but how they got destroyed. Two things drove the success St. Mary's had against cupcakes early in the season - they shot much better and were very sound on the defensive boards (they lead the nation with a 77.2 DR%). Against Baylor they allowed a 44.0 OR%, and gave up an unusually good 54.8 eFG% against. It had to make you wonder if what St. Mary's did against the cupcakes they played was just a mirage.
Obviously one good game against Missouri State doesn't prove anything, but the Gaels did get back to what they do best. They allowed only three offensive rebounds all night, and held Missouri State to a 47.2 eFG%. Overall they held Missouri State to 0.95 PPP, well under their 1.03 average. It's an encouraging bounce back game as they get ready for their WCC season opener against BYU. St. Mary's will need a couple of wins over BYU and/or Gonzaga to have the quality wins the Selection Committee will be looking for. A couple wins like that along with a 12-4 or better conference record and a decent performance in the WCC tournament will probably be enough for an at-large bid.
Missouri State is a pretty good team. They're 62nd in the Sagarin PREDICTOR, and they're 72nd in the Pomeroy ratings. But they just haven't found the winning formula against quality opponents, and their resume just is not good at all. They have zero quality wins, and a mediocre loss to Oral Roberts. Their Sagarin ELO_CHESS is 98th and their RPI is 111th. Other than a potential BracketBusters game they will not play another quality non-conference opponent, so any hopes they have at an at-large bid rest on a tremendous performance in Missouri Valley play (13-5 or better). They'll open in a big game tomorrow night at Creighton. After that they get a relatively easy game at home against Drake on New Year's Eve.
UTEP 83, Auburn 76
To be fair to Auburn, they were the better team on the floor (although I only watched about half of the game). They won the rebounding battle and had more fast break opportunities, and they shot better inside the arc (52.9% vs 47.2%). But UTEP got hot behind the arc, going 9-for-13 as a team. Michael Perez and Jacques Streeter, who came in with only 25 combined made threes in their first ten games, hit 7-for-10 here. But this came at a bad time, in a game that Auburn really couldn't afford to lose.
Auburn lost to both of the RPI Top 100 teams they've played so far (Seton Hall and Long Beach State), and now have a bad loss. A road win at Florida State on January 4th will be their final chance for a quality win before heading into SEC play. Unless they pull that (very unlikely) upset, their at-large chances will start getting quite long. They'll probably need to finish 10-6 or better in SEC play. Considering that they begin SEC play at Vanderbilt and then against Kentucky, they could be buried before they even really get going in conference play.
UTEP has been an up-and-down team this season. They now have a few wins that vary from good-to-decent (Clemson, New Mexico State, Auburn), but they've also got a couple of bad losses (Stephen F Austin and UT-San Antonio). It's unlikely that they'll get on the kind of resume needed to get up close to the Tournament bubble, but they'll be a tough team to beat each night in Conference USA, and will be a contender in the C-USA tournament in March.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Here's a hypothetical question for you. If St. Mary's played in the Missouri Valley this year, what place do you think they would finish in?
I'm curious to see your response.
Hm. I'd put them third, behind Creighton & Wichita State. I think you can argue for St. Mary's over either of those teams, but I'd leave them at third until they prove more. St. Mary's just hasn't proven enough against quality opponents yet.
More than anything, I asked to gauge conference perception. Like you, I think St. Mary's would finish 3rd, which means some of the committee members probably do as well.
In other words, the MVC is perceived to be stronger than the WCC, which means it's likely the MVC will end up with more NCAA bids.
I definitely think the MVC is stronger than the WCC, but the Selection Committee won't give out more bids because of that. Bids are given to teams, not conferences.
The WCC has three teams way ahead of everybody else, that will all end up with nice resumes. The MVC, on the other hand, has an array of quality teams on the bubble or just outside it that are good enough to beat the top teams (Missouri State, Indiana State, Illinois State, etc). That's how you end up in a situation where a conference can be better but can still end up with fewer bids.
In my opinion, the WCC has a better shot at 3 Tournament bids now than the MVC, despite being an inferior conference top to bottom.
You can think that all you want, but the fact is the human element comes into play every year when it comes to the bubble.
Last year Georgia and Alabama were both fringe teams, and I knew the committee was going to take exactly one of them, not both or neither, just because they played in the same conference. In 2009 Penn State deserved an NCAA bid, but I knew they'd get left out just because it would've meant 8 Big Ten bids. There are numerous other examples. The Big East got 11 last year b/c they had no choice; none of those teams were even on the bubble.
I used to believe it was teams and not conferences too, but the last several years have proven that's a naive way of looking at it.
You may have "known" either Georgia or Alabama would get in for some reason you came up with, but I projected Georgia in the field and Alabama out for a totally different reason. Alabama was left out because their non-conference performance was atrocious, and their conference schedule was too weak for their strong SEC record to matter that much. It had nothing to do with not wanting two more SEC teams in the field.
As a CAA fan you should know that. Last season the CAA got three teams in the Tournament even though it was rated worse than the MVC and WCC in Pomeroy, both of which ended up as one-bid leagues. 2006 and 2007 were two others years recently where the CAA got multiple bids despite a poor overall conference rating.
To give you a simplistic example, let me give you the Sagarin ELO_CHESS of teams in a couple of invented conferences:
Conference A:
Team 1 = 25
Team 2 = 30
Team 3 = 35
Team 4 = 100
Team 5 = 150
Team 6 = 200
Team 7 = 250
Team 8 = 300
Conference B:
Team 1 = 5
Team 2 = 60
Team 3 = 65
Team 4 = 70
Team 5 = 90
Team 6 = 100
Team 7 = 110
Team 8 = 120
Conference B would be much better, but Conference A would get more teams in the field.
Conference strength matters in strength of schedule, strength of victory and computer ratings. But the people on the Selection Committee don't count the number of teams getting in from each conference.
Post a Comment