The Regional Semi-Finals

Here are tonight's games -- AP rankings in parentheses, all times Central:

NCAA SOUTH REGION SEMI-FINALS (Houston, Tex.):

6:30 PM (TBS):  (15) Nebraska (28-6) v. Iowa (23-12)

9:05 PM (TBS):  (5) Houston (30-6) v. (13) Illinois (26-8)

NCAA WEST REGION SEMI-FINALS (San Jose, Calif.):

6:10 PM (CBS):  (8) Purdue (29-8) v. Texas (21-14)

8:45 PM (CBS):  (2) Arizona (34-2) v. (14) Arkansas (28-8)

Going Out with a Bang

In April 2019, Virginia defeated Texas Tech in overtime to win the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament -- and then Tiger Woods shocked the world by winning the Masters.  Less than a year later, of course, the world was shut down for COVID, and we haven't really seen that type of excitement since then.  But this week, we had even more drama:  Florida and Houston played an NCAA Final for the ages, and Rory McIlroy just won one of the most stirring Masters Tournaments ever played.  I was traveling most of the week and didn't get to liveblog these events, but I have them in the theater of the mind, and we will likely write more about them as the year rolls on.

As I've previously written, the Masters marks a significant break in the Sports Year.  Next weekend will be the first since August where we don't have an NFL game, college basketball, or major golf tournament to watch.  We still have a few events to wrap up in May and June before we really end the sports year, but the flip scoreboard, the mini helmets, and the brackets have all been put away, and it's time to start going outside again.  But as we head to the lake, the used bookstore, or wherever you go on Saturdays when there aren't sports to watch, we have an amazing collection of memories to consider.

I told myself that if sports came back after COVID, I would watch more and complain less, and I've mostly stuck to that vow.  This year, more than any in a long time, I really had fun watching sports.  And I'm already looking forward to next month's P.G.A. Tournament.

Opening Day and the Sweet Sixteen

For our MLB Preview, here are the over/under projections from Vegas:

NATIONAL LEAGUE:

Los Angeles:  103 1/2

Atlanta:  101 1/2

Philadelphia:  89 1/2

St. Louis:  84 1/2

Chicago:  83 1/2

Arizona:  83 1/2

San Francisco:  83 1/2

San Diego:  83 1/2

New York:  81 1/2

Cincinnati:  81 1/2

Miami:  77 1/2

Milwaukee:  76 1/2

Pittsburgh:  75 1/2

Washington:  66 1/2

Colorado:  59 1/2

AMERICAN LEAGUE:

Houston:  93 1/2

New York:  90 1/2

Baltimore:  89 1/2

Texas:  88 1/2

Minnesota:  87 1/2

Seattle:  87 1/2

Toronto:  86 1/2

Tampa Bay:  84 1/2

Detroit:  80 1/2

Cleveland:  79 1/2

Boston:  77 1/2

Kansas City:  73 1/2

Los Angeles:  72 1/2

Chicago:  61 1/2

Oakland:  57 1/2

I still haven't really figured out how to deal with the MLB regular season.  Except for a few teams in the middle of each league, most games are effectively exhibitions -- the Dodgers and the Braves, for example, are not likely to play any meaningful games before the Playoffs.  So what are you watching when the Dodgers are playing the Pirates in the middle of the season?  It's not like an NFL Exhibition Game, but it's also not a game that will have any impact on who wins the championship.  I still don't know how to feel about those games.

And what do we do with Moneyball?  I think the new system has effectively broken the Moneyball approach.  When Bill James and the SABR guys started doing their work, a team usually needed to win at least 95 games to make the playoffs, and the statistical revolution was designed to help teams figure out how to get there.  But regular season wins aren't that important anymore.  last year, for example, the Braves won 104 games and the Phillies won only 90 -- but the Phillies only needed 90 wins to get into the playoffs, and then they quickly eliminated Atlanta for the second year in a row.  So what was the point of Atlanta's building a team that could win 104 games?  What they needed was a team that could beat the Phillies in a short series -- and those two goals are not the same.

I think, going forward, MLB fans will have to become more like NHL fans.  NHL fans have a special love for "playoff hockey," and they understand that seeding is basically meaningless once the hockey playoffs start.  MLB fans need to do the same.  "Playoff baseball" is completely different from regular season baseball.  To win 100 games, you need three and probably four good starting pitchers.  To win in the playoffs, you only need two.  To win 100 games, you need to beat up on teams with losing records.  In the playoffs, there are no teams with losing records.

So here's what I'm planning to try this year.  For the first two months, I'll just get a sense of which teams are probably in the playoffs, which teams are certainly going to miss the playoffs, and which teams are in the middle.  We should have a good sense of which teams are in which buckets by Memorial Day.  Then I'm just going to track the playoff teams for the rest of the season -- just to get to know them, so I'll be ready for the playoffs.  And then I'll treat October as MLB month, like I did last year.

Of course, tonight I'll be watching the Sweet Sixteen, and putting thoughts in the comments.

NCAA with Classic Conferences

Now that we are just over one year away from Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC, I'm going to begin transitioning all my analysis of college sports back to the classic conferences of the 1980's.  I've got a spreadsheet with the old conference alignments from the early 1980's, and going forward I'm rolling with that.  For example, here is how the AP's final top 20 for college football break down by classic conference:

SEC (5):

Georgia (1)

Alabama (5)

Tennessee (6)

Louisiana St.  (16)

Mississippi St. (20)

Pac-10 (4):

Washington (8)

USC (12)

Oregon (15)
Oregon St. (17)

Big 10 (2):

Michigan (3)

Ohio St. (4)

Southwest (1):

Texas Christian (2)

Big 8 (1):

Kansas St. (14)

ACC (1):

Clemson (13)

Western Athletic (1):

Utah (10)

Independents (5):

Penn St. (7)

Tulane (9)

Florida St. (11)

Notre Dame (18)

Troy (19)

And here's the same for today's AP poll in college basketball:

SEC (2):

Alabama (2)

Tennessee (11)

Southwest (3):

Houston (1)

Texas (8)

Baylor (9)

Pac 10 (2):

UCLA (4)

Arizona (7)

Big 10 (2):

Purdue (5)

Indiana (17)

Big 8 (2):

Kansas (3)

Kansas St. (14)

Big East (2):

Connecticut (18)

Providence (20)

ACC (1):

Virginia (6)

West Coast (2):

Gonzaga (12)
Saint Mary's (15)

Missouri Valley (1):

Creighton (19)

Independents (3):

Marquette (10)

Miami (Fla. ) (13)

Xavier (16)

The Top Teams in College Basketball Today, as Listed in the Style of Sports Illustrated in the 1970's

EAST:  1.  Villanova (10-1)  2.  Virginia (10-2)

MIDEAST:  1.  Michigan (13-1)  2.  Iowa (12-3)

MIDWEST:  1.  Baylor (14-0)  2.  Houston (13-1)

WEST:  1.  Gonzaga (15-0)  2.  USC (12-3)

Auburn Basketball Bans Itself from the 2021 Post-Season

The idea that Auburn and Bruce Pearl would be punished for violating some type of NCAA rule has to be the least surprising development of the last five years.  Of course, there is no telling what sort of benefits Auburn received from all of this cheating, but no one would be surprised if the cheating helped Auburn knock UK out of the 2019 NCAA Tournament.

One can only hope that someone will look into what actually happened, and not let Pearl and Auburn sweep everything under the rug by self-imposing a post-season ban in a year where it's very likely there will be no post-season.

The ACC wants to have everyone make the NCAA Basketball Tournament

I'm not necessarily against this idea -- but I will support it only if it's done through a series of District, Regional, and National Tournaments that tracks the KHSAA Sweet 16.

2017 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament 4 Teams Left

Well we are down to the final four and it's an odd collection of teams.  We have four different conferences represented and the two coasts.  Here are the teams.

South Carolina vs Gonzaga
Oregon vs North Carolina

At this point in the tournament North Carolina will be the heavy favorites to win it all as they came in second last year and appear to be the best team standing, but people thought Kansas looked to be the best team and Oregon handled them with little problem.  Since we missed out on a final 8 entry let's cover what's happened since we last got up to date on the tournament. 

Florida and South Carolina met in the East championship game.  Not sure anyone except for diehard SEC fans thought that would happen.  In the West Xavier surprised everyone by knocking off Arizona, but then ran out of steam as they got rolled by Gonzaga.  In the Midwest we got Oregon and Kansas as expected, but then Oregon surprised everyone by beating Kansas and beating them pretty easily.  In the South Kentucky played a brilliant game to beat UCLA while UNC easily rolled over Butler, then managed to beat UK with a last second jumper and as you would hear from any UK fan a lot of help from the refs. 

Here is where I should talk a little bit about myself.  When I was a kid I had three big teams that I rooted for.  UK basketball, the Oakland A's, and the Miami Dolphins.  I rooted for other teams like the 76ers as a kid, but those were the big three for me.  The first big blow to me as a sports fan was the Dolphins loss to the Charger in the 1982 playoff game.  The second big blow was the A's first game world series loss to the Dodgers in 1988.  The last and final blow for me was the 1992 UK loss to Duke in the NCAA tournament.  I have never been the same kind of sports fan since that game.  Just can't sit and watch a game for a team I really like, makes me too nuts.  So with UK playing UNC yesterday I found myself constantly checking in on the score and hoping against hope that UK would pull it out.  I'm so glad I was not watching. 

I say all of this to say I wish I could write more in depth about the Kentucky game the way GoHeath did on this site in the past, but I can't.

Of course for me the NCAA is also an exercise in my programs' abilities to predict the tournament.  This has been a very bad year for me.  Here are where things stand. 

Sagarin 81 pts / 145 possible
Model4 79 pts / 95 possible
KenPom 76 pts / 140 possible
Model1 68 pts / 68 possible
RPI 61 pts / 61 possible
Model2 59 pts / 59 possible
Model3 58 pts / 106 possible

I've been doing this for 20 years, this is the worst Model1 has ever performed.  Luckily my latest model, Model4, the one I forgot about until after the tournament had started has performed well, but that model has Kansas winning it all over Gonzaga so that model cannot win the championship.  Model3 now is my lone hope.  That model has Oregon winning it all.  It should be noted that the Sagarin bracket has UNC and Gonzaga in the final as does the KenPom bracket so unless Oregon is the champion Sagarin will win. 

2017 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament 16 Teams Left

The true excitement of the first two rounds usually revolves around all of the upsets.  This year only one team higher than an eight seed made it into the sweet 16, Xavier.  Xavier is in one of the power conferences and so they really don't fit the mold that we generally put the Cinderella story's into.  So what then is the story of this tournament.  Well to be honest it is that the ACC was overrated and the Big 10 and SEC were underrated.

The ACC got 9 teams into the tournament they have one remaining team.  The SEC got 5 teams into the tournament and have 3 remaining.  The Big 10 got 7 in the tournament and have 3 remaining.  The ACC was thought to be by far the best and deepest conference all season.  There was much talk about how the Big 10 was way down and the SEC was simply junk.  That all seems silly now that we look at the teams making the final 16. 

Here is the remaining teams.

East:  Wisconsin vs Florida, Baylor vs South Carolina

West:  Gonzaga vs West Virginia, Xavier vs Arizona

Midwest:  Kansas vs Purdue, Oregon vs Michigan

South:  North Carolina vs Butler, UCLA vs Kentucky


Bracket Standings
 My original model for picking brackets is once again proving to be my best method. 

Sagarin 49 pts / 157 possible
Model1 48 pts / 144 possible
RPI  45 pts / 105 possible
KenPom  44 pts / 140 possible
Model2  39 pts / 115 possible
Model3  38 pts / 106 possible

 

2017 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament 32 Teams Left

I liked Eric's map idea so much I decided to copy it for this. Sad to say it has been a dull tournament this year. We all tune into the first round of games looking for the big upsets, but this year even the upsets weren't upsets. Let's go over the tournament quickly and then talk about my bracket challenge.

East Region:  The only upset here came with USC an 11 seed beating SMU a 6.  Truth is in listening to experts talk about this leading up to the games there were some who thought SMU was not that good.  Also USC is a major school in a major conference.  Not quite the upset we are used to seeing in the first round. 

Next up in the East.  Villanova vs Wisconsin, Virginia vs Florida, USC vs Baylor, South Carolina vs Duke.

West Region:  Once again the 11 beat the 6 and once again this was not a surprise upset.  Maryland was struggling down the stretch and Xavier is a traditional team from a power conference. 

Next up in the West.  Gonzaga vs Northwestern, Notre Dame vs West Virginia, Xavier vs Florida State, Saint Mary's vs Arizona.

Midwest Region:  Two upsets in the Midwest.  Michigan State beat Miami (Florida) a 9 over an 8, and Rhode Island an 11 upset Creighton a 6.  Once again these were not that shocking since a lot of people were picking Rhode Island, but that is three 11's with upsets. 

Next up in the Midwest.  Kansas vs Michigan State, Iowa State vs Purdue, Rhode Island vs Oregon, and Michigan vs Louisville.

South Region:  There were two upsets here.  Middle Tennessee State a 12 over Minnesota a 5, and Wichita State a 10 over Dayton a 7.  No one would consider either of these games an upset and I would say most people I heard picking games this week, picked both of these wins.  Perhaps the team I felt most sorry for in the tournament was Dayton.  They worked so hard to land a 7 seed and then the NCAA stuck them with a 30 win team as a 10 seed. 

Next up in the South.  North Carolina vs Arkansas, Middle Tennessee State vs Butler, Cincinnati vs UCLA, and Wichita State vs Kentucky.


The Bracket Challenge

Each year I make a bracket based off of a computer program I wrote and track how well I do.  Last year I created a couple of different models.  This year I am tracking all three models as well as brackets based on the RPI, Sagarin ratings, and Ken Pomeroy ratings. 

Here are our records after the first round of games. 

Sagarin - 27 Points, 187 Possible
Model1 - 26 Points, 184 Possible
KenPom - 26 Points, 180 Possible
Model2 - 25 Points, 183 Possible
RPI - 25 Points, 185 Possible
Model3 - 24 Points, 134 Possible

Model3 was always meant to be a higher risk bracket.  So far in the last two years of testing it, it has not done too well so I might need to rework that model. 

Here are the predicted winners of the tournament in these brackets. 

Gonzaga  (Sagarin & KenPom)
Kansas (Model1, Model2)
Villanova (RPI)
Oregon (Model3)

A Hard Row to Hoe

Last year, I looked up every men's college basketball team fielded by Arizona, UConn, Duke, Florida, Georgetown, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan State, North Carolina, Ohio State, and UCLA from 2002 to 2014.  This gave me a database of 156 different teams.  According to Ken Pomeroy, only 12 of those teams featured a gap of 28 points or more between their offensive and defensive efficiencies.  Here's how they did in the tournament:

1.  2008 Kansas:  32.9 (won National Championship)
2.  2012 Kentucky:  31.4 (won National Championship)3.  2011 Ohio St:  31.2 (lost to UK in Sweet 16) (that game probably cost OSU the nat'l title)
4.  2013 Louisville:  31.0 (won National Championship)
5.  2010 Duke:  30.5 (won National Championship)6.  2002 Duke:  30.4 (lost to Indiana in Sweet 16)
7.  2005 UNC:  29.5 (won National Championship)
8.  2004 Duke:  29.5 (lost to UConn in Final Four)
9.  2010 Kansas:  29.5 (lost in second round to Northern Iowa)
10.  2009 UNC:  29.5 (won National Championship)
11.  2007 Florida:  28.9 (won National Championship)
12.  2007 Ohio St:  28.0 (lost to Florida in Final)

So out of 12 teams, we had:

7 National Champions
2 Teams that Reached the Final Four before losing to the National Champion
3 of the biggest upsets in recent college basketball history

In other words, if you have a gap of 28 points or better between your offensive and defensive efficiencies, you are really, really good.

OK, here's the deal:  right now UK has a gap of 33.5 between its offensive efficiency (118.6) and its defensive efficiency (85.1).  It's the highest gap I believe that Ken Pom has in his database going back to 2002, and it shows that UK is one of the best college teams ever.  But look at some of these other schools:

2015 Wisconsin:  29.7
2015 Arizona:  29.1
2015 Villanova:  28.2
2015 Virginia:  27.7
2015 Duke:  26.4

I'm not sure there's been another season with this many strong teams at the top of the field.  In most years, Wisconsin, Arizona, or Villanova would be strong favorites to go all the way, and UVA and Duke are very close to that same level.

UK will have to beat at least two or three of these teams to win the tournament, and if they don't we'll have to hear about how overrated they were.  But the data say otherwise.  UK really and truly does have a great team – possibly the greatest team in modern history.  And they should be favored to win the tournament.  It just so happens that we are part of an unusually strong field.  (In 2012, for example, UK went all the way and never played a team with a gap bigger than 24.0).

If the national press would quit complaining so much and start paying attention to what's happening on the court, they would see that we could be on the verge of one of the best tournaments ever.

On the NCAA Tournament and Its Seeds

There's a lot of frustration among Cat fans, Louisville fans -- and Wichita State fans -- over how the NCAA seeded the Midwest Region.  Louisville fans expected a one seed -- they were given a four.  UK fans were expecting a six seed -- they were given an eight.  And Wichita State fans, who thought they had earned a relatively easy draw with their 34-0 record, now face the possibility that the Shockers would have to beat the last two national champions just to reach the Elite Eight.

How did this happen?  As usual, the NCAA won't explain exactly how they reached their decision.  But Sporting News quoted Ron Wellman, the chairman of the Selection Committee as saying that "{t}he factor that probably hurt Kentucky as much as anything is that they had two wins against tournament teams, both of which occurred in December."  He also said that "when we looked at the entire body of work of Louisville versus everyone else on the board, we felt that they were slotted appropriately."


Before saying anything else, I should point out that there are obvious problems with each of these statements:


1.  Kentucky has three wins against NCAA Tournament teams, one of which was in January when they beat Tennessee.  (Oh, and San Diego State also had only three wins against Tournament teams.  But it's seeded fourth in the West.)

2.  As Sporting News concedes, Wellman's statement about Louisville isn't really an argument at all -- it's just an assertion with no evidence.

In the rest of the article, Wellman throws out other arguments when asked about other teams:

On why SMU didn't get in:  "Their nonconference strength of schedule was ranked number 302 out of 350 teams eligible for the tournament.  Their overall strength of schedule was ranked 129; 129 would have been by far the worst at large strength of schedule going into the tournament."

On why N.C. State did get in:  "The positive factor for N.C. State was that they had three wins against top 50 teams away from home."

Now you can get into an argument over each of these factors.  But that would be a mistake.  Because this isn't 1983 anymore.  We have computers, and we have lots of data, and we have lots of smart people who have spent a huge amount of time trying to analyze college basketball.  And you know what people like Ken Pomeroy and Nate Silver and the folks at ESPN who developed the Basketball Power Index didn't do?  They didn't base their systems on principles like "How many times did you beat NCAA Tournament teams?"  "How many times did you beat top 50 teams on the road?" or "What was your record against top 50 teams?"  In fact, most sophisticated analysis of college basketball recognizes that there is a big element of chance that can affect the outcome of any one particular game.

And they're right.  Let's take NCSU and its road wins.  In the first place, this appears to be another mistake -- as far as I can tell the Wolfpack only had two road wins against teams in the top 50 of the RPI.  On December 18, they beat Tennessee 65-58 in Knoxville, and on March 3 they beat Pittsburgh 74-67 at Pittsburgh.  (NCSU beat Syracuse in the ACC Tournament, but that was hardly a road game.)  Furthermore, these two wins were obviously flukey.  The Vols went 3-24 from three-point range when they played the Wolfpack, while NCSU's win over Pitt was driven by T.J. Warren's second-best game of the year -- he went for 42 points on 16-22 shooting from the field.  Back in January, when the same two teams met in Raleigh, he scored only 23 points, and the Wolfpack lost by 12.

And that's why serious analysts don't rely on the results of a single game, or even a few games, to measure a team.  You need a system that does a better job of weeding out the inconsistencies.  For example, 12 days after UT lost to NCSU, the Vols hosted Virginia.  This time, UT was on fire -- the Vols went 11-18 from behind the arc.  They beat Virginia by 35.  Does that mean that NCSU is better than UVA?  Of course not, as shown by UVA's ACC championship season (which featured a 31-point win over NCSU).

From years of looking at data like this, most analysts have concluded that the best way to study basketball is to focus on how efficient a team is on both offense and defense, and then to recognize that there will be significant inconsistencies from game to game that can reflect nothing more than bad luck.  As far as I can tell, all of the most sophisticated efforts to study college basketball are built among these basic assumptions.  So hearing the head of the NCAA Selection Committee referring to outdated concepts like "top 50 wins" or "wins against NCAA tournament teams" is very discouraging.

Why doesn't the Committee use a more sophisticated approach?  We can't know for sure.  But I think it's worth reflecting on the potential winners and losers if the NCAA were to make a change.

If the NCAA would just adopt a system -- any coherent system that could be studied and understood -- fans, players, and coaches would all be winners.  No longer would we have to spend weeks guessing over what was going to happen -- the standards would be clear, and teams would know what they had to do and whether they had done it or not.  But on the other hand, the Committee would be big losers.  In fact, if you had a good system, you would only need a committee to do things like make sure that you didn't have teams from the same conference meeting in the first few rounds, or that BYU wouldn't have to play on a Sunday -- just housekeeping issues, really.  And where would be the fun in that?  What about the joy of poking through briefing books full of (mostly irrelevant) data, and playing around with the matchups, and knowing stuff before everyone else?

The important thing to remember is this:  so long as the NCAA doesn't have any system, the members of the Committee can make the seeds come out pretty much any way they want.  And that seems to be the way they want it.

Texas A & M v. Alabama

There are many things about the American South that non-Southerners find difficult to understand, but perhaps one of the most difficult has to do with the attitude of Southerners toward authority.  Let us take, as an example, two men who were made into icons by white Southerners after the Civil War.  On the one hand, you have Robert E. Lee, a man famous for his dignity and personal integrity, someone with such personal discipline that he made it through West Point without a single demerit.  On the other hand, you have James Ewell Brown ("Jeb") Stuart, the eccentric cavalryman who went through war wearing a red-lined gray cape, yellow sash, and cocked hat with ostrich plume.  While Lee was working out plans in his tent, Stuart was off leading his men on wild rides which sometimes took them all the way around the Northern Army.

Now obviously these men represent very different images of authority.  For white Southerners, Lee symbolized the Perfect General, an older man of wisdom and honor, whose orders were to be followed without question.  Every time you see an SEC football coach with his honor guard of State Troopers, you are seeing shades of the old Lee-Worship.  And from General Bob Neyland to Bobby Dodd to Bear Bryant, Southerners have loved their strict football coaches.

On the other hand, Stuart is the clever rebel, the trickster, the man who thumbs his nose at rules and norms -- and, because of sheer talent and ability -- can get away with it (at least for awhile).  And the South has worked this icon into its culture as well -- from Burt Reynolds outwitting the police in his Trans Am to Kenny Stabler using a fake fumble to beat the San Diego Chargers.  Many of the South's legendary gridiron heroes -- Stabler, Bobby Layne, Joe Namath -- fit into this category.

Now how can the same culture love both Generals and rebels?  How can the same fans cheer for Bear Bryant and Kenny Stabler?  (You can't imagine this sort of inconsistency in the Midwest; it's impossible to imagine Kenny Stabler playing for Woody Hayes, or Alan Iverson getting along with Bobby Knight.)  And yet to Southerners this is not strange at all -- both the Stern Coach and the Rebel Player are icons in our society.

Personally, I don't think there's as much inconsistency here as some folks may think.  It seems to me that Southerners, more than most other Americans, are obsessed with the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority.  And they tend to judge legitimacy not merely by process, but by results.  If you want them to respect you, it's not enough to win the election or get the post through a fair process; you have to do a good job.

These days, Nick Saban has become an almost perfect symbol of legitimate authority, at least to Alabama fans.  In the last four years, his teams have won three national championships.  They play hard-hitting, straightforward football, with no odd uniforms or trash-talking.  The rest of the country may see Saban as cold, or relentless, or shifty, or boring, but to most SEC fans -- even the ones who hate him -- he's what a college football coach is supposed to be.

On the other hand, the NCAA and the national press are almost-perfect symbols of illegitimate authority, at least to most SEC fans.  Of course we have to make sure that everyone is playing under the same set of rules -- but to SEC fans, that's exactly what the NCAA and the press doesn't do.  To most Southerners, what is so maddening about these institutions is the inconsistency and favoritism that they appear to show.  You could never convince SEC fans that ESPN favorites like Duke or Notre Dame will be held to the same standards as Tennessee or Mississippi State.  And so my guess is that almost no one in the South was genuinely troubled by the countless allegations made by ESPN and other national media outlets over the summer against Johnny Manziel.  To most of us, the NCAA and the press are just a pack of Buford T. Justices, and we don't mind seeing Manziel subvert their authority.

So while it would be easy to build up today's contest as a battle between Saban's robots and A & M's outlaws, I think that would be a mistake.  My guess that almost every A & M fan would be happy to have Saban coaching the Aggies, and almost every Tide fan would be happy to have Johnny Football throwing passes for Alabama.  Furthermore, A & M and Alabama aren't really close enough for the two fan bases to get on top of each other in the way you need for true, deep down hatred.  And besides, each teams fans had a great time last year -- A & M beat Alabama, but Alabama won the National Championship.

At the same time, SEC fans can't help but be excited to see whether Saban's defense has finally figured out how to stop Manziel, or whether Johnny Football (has there ever been a better nickname?) can pull off the upset one more time.

Here is how each team has done since the beginning of last season (home teams listed first):

ALABAMA (2012 SEC Champs and National Champs):
09/01/2012:  Alabama 41 - 14 Michigan (Arlington, Tex.) 
09/08/2012:  Alabama 35 - 0 W. Kentucky
09/15/2012:  Arkansas 0 - 52 Alabama
09/22/2012:  Alabama 40 - 7 Florida Atlantic
09/29/2012:  Alabama 33 -14 Mississippi
10/13/2012:  Missouri 10 - 42 Alabama
10/20/2012:  Tennessee 13 - 44 Alabama
10/27/2012:  Alabama 38 - 7 Mississippi St.
11/03/2012:  Louisiana St. 17 - 21 Alabama
11/10/2012:  Alabama 24 - 29 Texas A & M
11/17/2012:  Alabama 49 - 0 W. Carolina
11/24/2012:  Alabama 49 - 0 Auburn
12/01/2012:  Alabama 32 - 28 Georgia (Atlanta) (SEC Championship)
01/07/2013:  Alabama 41 - 14 Notre Dame (Miami) (National Championship)

08/31/2013:  Alabama 35 - 10 Virginia Tech (Atlanta)

TEXAS A & M (2012 Cotton Bowl Champs):
09/08/2012:  Texas A & M 17 - 20 Florida
09/15/2012:  So. Methodist 3 - 48 Texas A & M
09/22/2012:  Texas A & M 70 - 14 S. Carolina St.
09/29/2012:  Texas A & M 58 - 10 Arkansas
10/06/2012:  Mississippi 27 - 30 Texas A & M
10/13/2012:  Louisiana Tech 57 - 59 Texas A & M
10/20/2012:  Texas A & M 19 - 24 Louisiana St.
10/27/2012:  Auburn 21 - 63 Texas A & M
11/03/2012:  Mississippi St. 13 - 38 Texas A & M
11/10/2012:  Alabama 24 - 29 Texas A & M
11/17/2012:  Texas A & M 47 - 28 Sam Houston St.
11/24/2012:  Texas A & M 59 - 29 Missouri
01/04/2012:  Texas A & M 41 - 13 Oklahoma (Arlington, Tex.) (Cotton Bowl)

08/31/2012:  Texas A & M 52 - 31 Rice
09/07/2012:  Texas A & M 65 - 28 Sam Houston St.

Alabama is favored by 9 points, and the over-under is 64.  That would work out to an Alabama victory by a score of something like 37-27.

Any further thoughts will go into the comments.

NCAA Women's Golf Update

Here is the top of the individual leaderboard going into today's third round of the NCAA Women's Golf Championships, which are being played in Athens, Georgia:

1.  Stephanie Meadow (Ala.):  -8

2.  Annie Park (USC):  -7

3.  Jenny Hahn (Vandy):  -6

4.  Ally McDonald (Miss St):  -5

5.  Mariah Stackhouse (Stanford):  -4

T6.  Noemi Jiminez (Ariz St):  -3
T6.  Erynne Lee (UCLA):  -3
T6.  Rachel Morris (USC):  -3
T6.  Sohpia Popov (USC):  -3

T10.  Celine Boutier (Duke):  -2
T10.  Regan De Guzman (San Jose St):  -2
T10.  Aurora Kan (Purdue):  -2
T10.  Lee Lopez (UCLA):  -2
T10.  Emma Talley (Alabama):  -2

In the team comptition, USC has a 12-shot lead over second-place Alabama.  The Women of Troy are 16 under par, while Alabama is only four-under.

Emma Talley tees off today at 12:31 Central Time.

More Evidence of Problems at UNC

I can't even imagine what would happen to UK if the folks in Lexington were caught doing stuff like this:

The university’s initial investigation, covering a recent five-year period, found nine bogus classes that appeared to have been set up by {Debbie}  Crowder. Athletes accounted for all but eight of the 56 students enrolled, including 31 football players and eight basketball players.

Records in the NCAA Basketball Tournament, 1975-2013

One way to determine which programs have been the strongest since 1975 -- the first year the NCAA was expanded to 32 teams -- is to look at each program's record in games from the Sweet 16 to the National Title.  Then you can rank teams based on how many games they have won in those rounds.  Ties go to whichever program has played more games in the Sweet 16 and later rounds.  After this year's tournament, the top 10 list looks like this:

1.  N. Carolina:  41-21 (National champs in 1982, 1993, 2005, and 2009)
2.  Duke:  40-19 (1991, 1992, 2001, 2010)
3.  Kentucky:  37-18 (1978, 1996, 1998, 2012)
4.  Kansas:  25-18 (1988, 2008)
5.  Louisville:  25-16 (1980, 1986, 2013)
6.  UCLA:  23-15 (1975, 1995)
7.  Michigan St:  21-13 (1979, 2000)
8.  Indiana:  20-13 (1976, 1981, 1987)
9.  Connecticut:  19-11 (1999, 2004, 2011)
10.  Michigan:  19-8 (1989)

Interestingly, five of the last six NCAA titles have been won by the top five teams on this list.

Here is a head-to-head comparison between UK and U of L since 1975:

Kentucky:
22 Sweet 16's
18 Elite 8's
9 Final 4's
6 Finals
4 National Championships

Louisville:
19 Sweet 16's
11 Elite 8's
8 Final 4's
3 Finals
3 National Championships

1 Game to Go

Atlanta:
8:23 CDT:  #1 Louisville (34-5) v. # 5 Michigan (31-7)

A few observations as this season (finally) comes to an end.

1.  I'm pretty sure that no previous college basketball game has ever been played so late in the year.

2.  Ken Pomeroy, who went 2-0 in the semi-final games on Saturday, likes Louisville over Michigan by 71 to 66.

3.  I think it's a shame that Chris Webber apparently won't be attending tonight's game, but then again, few great athletes have caused as much disappointment for me as Chris Webber.

4.  Louisville has the most efficient defense in the country, while Michigan has the nation's most efficient offense.

5.  The UK fan base is divided over the issue of whether we should support U of L tonight, given that the Cardinals are located in our beloved Commonwealth.  I rooted for Louisville in 1980 (against UCLA) and in 1986 (against Duke), and I rooted for them last week when they beat Duke again.  I would root for them against Kansas, UNC, Duke, or UCLA under almost any conditions.  But I will not be rooting for them tonight.  Here are my primary reasons:

a.  To say that U of L fans never root for UK is a massive understatement.  I'm not sure than any fan base hates any other team or fan base as much as U of L fans hate UK and its fans.  Compared to how U of L fans talk about UK, Red Sox fans think the Yankees are good guys.  I believe most U of L fans would actually prefer that the NCAA shut down the UK program altogether.

b.  I have never seen any evidence that U of L fans are proud to be from Kentucky.  In fact, they seem to hate the rest of the Commonwealth and constantly accuse the rest of us of racism and illiteracy.  So the whole "They're from Kentucky" card seems particularly inappropriate here.

c.  Louisville-based sportswriters, from Billy Reed to Pat Forde, have tormented UK and its fans for decades, and have played a major role in convincing the National Media that Kentucky is an evil, cheating program with evil, racist fans.  These same sportswriters have been passionate supporters of the University of Louisville.

d.  While I do not have to put up with U of L fans in my personal life, I think Kentucky fans should have some sympathy for those UK fans in and around Jefferson County.  By all accounts, those Wildcat fans will suffer terribly if U of L wins tonight.

e.  No fan base has ever loved and supported a coach more than UK fans loved and supported Rick Pitino, and no fan base in any sport has ever been treated more shabbily by one of its heroes.  In fact, considering that by taking the U of L job, Pitino not only declared war on the Kentucky fans, but also helped to destroy the career of Tubby Smith (his own former assistant), I think that Pitino's decision to become the coach at Louisville is one of the most hateful and malevolent things I've seen in forty years of watching sports.  (And don't tell me Pitino didn't know how UK fans would react, or what it would mean for Tubby.  Pitino is a genius, he was the face of the UK program for eight years, and he knows Tubby very well.  I knew that Tubby was doomed the day Pitino accepted the job, and I knew the UK fans would explode with rage when Pitino showed up at Freedom Hall.  Pitino knew those things even better than I did.)

f.  This Louisville team is the most violent basketball team I have ever seen, and they only survived the semi-final because in the last fourteen minutes of their game with Wichita State, they committed approximately 850 fouls that were not called.  If a team with almost no basketball skill is able to win the National Championship by turning the NCAA Tournament into a rugby scrum, that would be terrible for the game.  On the other hand, Michigan has brought offense and passing into the Big 10, a league where such concepts were almost non-existent a few years ago.  A victory for Michigan would be a victory for clean basketball that rewards skills like passing, dribbling, and shooting.

 6.  Louisville has to be regarded as the favorite tonight, if only because of their manic intensity.  I have never seen any basketball team play as hard as the Cardinals; they are the Terminator of basketball.  But I believe that, for the first time in the whole tournament, the Cardinals have been unfortunate in tonight's match-up.  U of L knows all about Syracuse's zone, and they would have had an easy win tonight if the Cuse had managed to beat Michigan.  But Michigan has guys who can actually shoot the ball, they have already been banged around by the likes of Kansas and Michigan State, and they absolutely shredded Florida (which is, in many ways, a mini-Louisville) in the Elite Eight.

7.  It's surprisingly rare to get to the finals without one team being an overwhelming favorite.  This is the first time since Kansas played Memphis in 2008 that I really don't have a strong sense of who will win the Final.  If the officials force Louisville to play basketball (instead of meekly swallowing their whistles with the foolish excuse that the "players should decide the game") we could see a classic.

UPDATE (11:58 A.M.):  According to the Courier-Journal, some students at U of L responded to their team's victory over Wichita State by chanting "a profanity directed at the University of Kentucky."

3 Games to Go

We haven't had much to say about the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, mainly because it has been one of the most boring NCAA Tournaments ever played.  Last week, for example, three of the four Elite Eight games were unwatchable, and even Wichita State's win over Ohio State was never in much doubt.  (Ken Pomeroy went 2-2 in those games, by the way.)  The Tournament really isn't the same without Kentucky.

I was doubtful that Louisville could win in all this year, mainly because the Cardinals are not good at outside shooting.  And their outside shooting has been pretty weak in this tournament.  But so far, the Cards have drawn teams that they could dominate on the inside, so their outside shooting hasn't mattered.  If they were playing Ohio State today -- a big, athletic team that could bang with them up and down the floor -- I think the Cards would be at some risk.  But last Saturday, OSU was the hare to Wichita State's tortoise, and by the time Thad Matta's Buckeyes started playing, it was too late to catch the Shockers.  I am very confident that Rick Pitino's team will play for the whole 40 minutes tonight, and I don't think WSU can keep up with them.

The other game, between Syracuse and Michigan, is extremely hard to predict because both teams have played so well in the tournament.  But it would be fitting if the last Big East season ended with an NCAA Final between Louisville and Syracuse -- which would be a rematch of the Big East tournament final.

One more note:  this is the first time since 1987 that they've played a Final Four without Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas, or UCLA.  Ironically, Rick Pitino and Jim Boeheim were both in the 1987 Final Four as well, as Pitino's Providence Friars were eliminated in the Final Four by Boeheim's Orangemen.

All times Central:

Atlanta
5:09 P.M.:  #1 Louisville (33-5) v. # 19 Wichita St. (30-8) (CBS)
7:49 P.M.:  #5 Michigan (30-7) v. # 6 Syracuse (30-9) (CBS)

15 Games to Go

Here are tonight's matchups in the Sweet 16 (all times Central) (rankings by Ken Pomeroy):

East Region (Washington):
6:15 P.M.:  # 13 Miami (Fla.) (29-6) v. # 27 Marquette (25-8) (CBS)
8:45 P.M.:  # 3 Indiana (29-6) v. # 12 Syracuse (28-9) (CBS)

West Region (Los Angeles):
6:47 P.M.:  # 5 Ohio St. (28-7) v. # 15 Arizona (27-7) (TBS)
9:17 P.M.:  # 23 Wichita St. (28-8) v. # 45 LaSalle (24-9) (TBS)

I will be attending the East Region games at the Verizon Center, so I will not be commenting tonight.  But if anyone else has any thoughts, they are welcome to put them in the comments.

31 Games to Go

A few final points about from Round One:

Ken Pomeroy went 21-11 in the first round.

The Big East went 3-5; the Big 10 went 6-1; the Atlantic 10 went 5-0; the Missouri Valley went 2-0; the old SEC went 2-0; the old ACC went 2-1.

Here are today's games (all times Central):

Auburn Hills, Mich.
11:15 A.M.:  # 12 Michigan (27-7) v. # 14 Va. Commonwealth (27-8) (CBS)
1:45 P.M.:  # 8 Michigan St. (26-8) v. # 30 Memphis (31-4) (CBS)

Lexington, Ky.
4:15 P.M.:  # 2 Louisville (30-5) v. # 23 Colorado St. (26-8) (CBS)
6:45 P.M.:  #29 Marquette (24-8) v. # 43 Butler (27-8) (CBS)

Salt Lake City, Utah
5:10 P.M.:  # 18 Arizona (26-7) v. # 93 Harvard (20-9) (TNT)
7:40 P.M.:  #4 Gonzaga (32-2) v. # 25 Wichita St. (27-8) (TNT)

San Jose, Calif.
6:10 P.M.:  # 15 Saint Louis (28-6) v. # 39 Oregon (27-8) (TBS)
8:40 P.M.:  # 9 Syracuse (27-9) v. # 58 California (21-11) (TBS)

In the early game, Michigan leads VCU 38-23 at the half.  I will be in and out for most of the day, but if I have observations, they will go in the comments.