Now you too can dress like your favorite Final Four coach...

As you've watched Roy's Heels over the last couple of years, you may have probably thought to yourself, "How does our team play so well while our coach wears such ugly ties?"


I often wondered where Roy Williams got his ties, and now I present to you the very same ties that Roy has famously worn over the past couple of seasons. From Alexander Julian:

Julian updated the UNC uniforms in the late 80's by adding the argyle to the UNC Uniforms after consulting with Michael Jordan and Dean Smith. This was certainly a nice touch, bringing argyle to basketball before the Izod Center did, shown here:


Of course, Jay Wright is no slouch. I've heard he has a nice 12 piece outfit he just picked out just for Saturday's semifinal. I'd be remiss to leave him out of this discussion of well-dressed coaches. The University of Pennsylvania even gave him space to write his own editorial in response to not being in People's Sexiest People issue.


If you're wondering how the two coaches compare, you can read up on GQ's editors discussing Dick Vitale's list of best dressed coaches. Both Wright and Williams made the list with favorable reviews from Glenn O'Brien, one of the first people to discover Haitian neo-expressionist Jean-Michel Basquait.

Ty Hanosaurus Rex

Wow...

The ACC & the NCAA Tournament

As I sit here writing, Florida State has just lost to Wisconsin, Wake Forest face planted against Cleveland State, and Boston College fell to Southern California. Clemson was flummoxed by Michigan last night.

This leaves Maryland, North Carolina and Duke as the only ACC teams to win their first round games. Sad as it sounds, is anyone really surprised that things turned out this way? Wake had the greatest variance of any team, as some people had them as a dark horse Final Four team, yet others felt they wouldn't get to the second round.

I realize that UNC and Duke were touted as the only serious Final Four prospects, but come on. I want the rest of the teams to at least win a game or two. "Conference strength" is a fickle concept, but the ACC sure doesn't look too hot right now. Granted, if UNC and Duke make the Final Four (thereby creating civil unrest in North Carolina) and Maryland finishes in the Sweet 16, you will forget about the early losses by the other schools.

It's impossible to judge all the teams right now, but it is fine to express disappointment with the rest of the conference's performance. In the meantime, let's not forget to cheer on Virginia Tech in the NIT (and Davidson, too). I'm hoping Malcolm Delaney and AD Vassallo can finish their season on a high note.

A Little Something to Get You Excited for Sunday...

The latest SI cover, for the week of March 9. Enjoy :)

Everybody's All-ACC

As this year's ACC tournament seeds are becoming clear, I'll take a minute to look at the All-ACC performers for this year. The league gets to name a first, second and third team conference all star team, but I wanted to recognize the players who deserve to make it. Even though most teams are performing close to pre-season expectations, there have been many players who have taken over games. Since I feel that picking several teams won't do many players justice, I'm just giving you two tiers of players.

Here's my list, feel free to agree/disagree:
Ty Lawson, Tyler Hansbrough, Gerald Henderson, Kyle Singler, Trevor Booker (who secures rebounds like the grown-ass man he is), Toney Douglas (in the top 500 in a great many Ken Pom categories), Jeff Teague, James Johnson, Greivis Vasquez, Jack McClinton, and Tyrese Rice all make the first tier. Malcolm Delaney, Sylven Landesberg, Tracy Smith, KC Rivers, Ben McCauley, and Gani Lawal all make the second tier of players who deserve praise. These players all had strong seasons and many of these players who will return next year will be able to build off the work they did this season.

Pre-Tourney Thoughts

Early today I posted a some bubble thoughts over at Triangle Offense, and bit my tongue about my thoughts on RPI. In truth, it is a blunt tool that measures only wins and losses and ignores quality. Now, to be fair the NCAA selection committee does a fine job sorting through all the available information (and ignoring conference affiliation, no we're serious folks, we don't count conference bids). They use useful information like best and worst wins and average win RPI and average loss RPI (hmmm, I wonder if they compare it with the median...).

Anyways, I pulled the numbers off KenPom and compared them with RPI, just to get a short list of what teams the RPI is over and undervaluing. Since the committee is partially seeding by RPI, look for these teams to under or over perform their seed expectations, or "PASE" (see previous post for more PASE fun).

RPI>KenPom (Number is actual difference)
-52 Dayton
-43 Siena
-33 George Mason
-29 Florida St.
-25 Louisville
-21 Mississippi
-20 Tennessee
-20 Utah St.
-18 Illinois St.
-17 Oklahoma

These are teams the RPI loves while KenPom is a bit more doubtful of, since I trust KenPom I'd say these are teams you should think twice before blindly filling in to fit their seed line.

KenPom>RPI (Number is difference)
26 Gonzaga
27 UCLA
29 Kentucky
35 Houston
36 Kansas St.
38 Notre Dame
39 New Mexico
42 North Dakota St.
49 Stanford
61 Washington St.

Ditto from above, but opposite direction. These teams are better than their RPI's indicate, not all of them will make the NCAA's, but the ones that do may be a seed line or two lower than they should be. A team that should be a #3 playing as a #5 or #6 seed (UCLA) is a pretty big change.

More importantly, what causes this discrepancy in the rating systems? Well, my theory is that it is everything that the RPI ignores: scoring margin. The RPI sees a win as a win and a loss as a loss, when in reality there are good losses and bad wins. Virginia Tech taking Duke to the wire today was a good win, it was likely a better performance than they had expected. Similarly, Butler only defeating Cleveland St. by two points at home was a closer game than expected, and should be counted as such.

To determine if my hypothesis is correct, I've taken the top 100 teams and determined how over or under rated they are in RPI (a "Delta" value), and calculated the correlations and r squared values for each of the front page KenPom values (Pyth, OE, DE, Cons, etc.) to the calculated Delta value. This should show if any KenPom value can be said to be causing the difference between the two ranking systems.

Once I did this, there were several KenPom values that stood out with a better than random correlation (.300 or greater):


The stats with the most significant correlations are Luck, Consistency, Wins, and Losses. Wins and Losses are obvious and easily explainable, since the RPI is strictly based on wins and losses it is tied to them, while KenPom often sees through the good losses and bad wins to discredit fraudulent teams eking by easy competition or the good ones losing heartbreakers against strong competition.

Consistency isn't as obvious. The stats are saying that a higher consistency rating correlates well with a higher Delta value (higher being better in KenPom, worse in RPI, think of it as "higher up in Ryan's opinion). My guess would be that this inconsistency is penalized, because it often results in losses. The inconsistency can also win games a team shouldn't win, and perhaps KenPom's system rewards teams more than RPI does. This correlation doesn't make as much sense as the Luck correlation.

Luck is pretty obvious, and I'm glad it is by far the strongest correlation. Luck amounts to winning close games or, on the reverse side, losing them. Luck can be considered KenPom's way of wiping away close results, since they come down to random chance anyways (today, ABC proved the point, by repeatedly showing VA Tech's record in close games in the Seth Greenberg era, 33-35 I believe, 9-9 in 1 point games). RPI is essentially luck blind, beating a team by 1 point is the same as beating a team by 41, and we all know that simply shouldn't be the case. Appropriately Luck has a -.602 R-Squared value, meaning that bad luck (lower values) correlate to higher Delta values (overrated in RPI). Teams that play in and lose close games end up being underrated by RPI, while those that win too many close games are overrated.



In summary (and I commend you if you've made it through this quantitatively heavy post, I can't post stuff like this at TO, so while the week to week Four Factor stuff will end up there, the math lectures will remain a TFSB item) you can't rely on past performance in close games as an indicator of future performance. RPI is blind to margin while KenPom takes it into account. Use this to your advantage next weekend when filling out brackets, unless you're in my bracket pool of course...

PASE Projections and the Tar Heels

I was reviewing the Basketball prospectus today and they had a good article about a custom PASE formula. The author used it to determine the success of teams vs their O Eff, D Eff and Pythag rankings (pre-tourney) in the NCAA tournament. While it looks at all teams as a whole, it's interesting to see how their D Eff and Pythag seem to correlate well with success or failure in the tournament.

There is a list of common traits the author pulled to show successful teams since 2004 at the bottom article, shown here:



We hit all those markers except for two: pts allowed <> 88.8. While it is likely impossible that we'll get PPG allowed below 64.2, it is possible to get our D Eff down below 88.8. The author notes that 2 of the last 5 champs hit all the criteria (ignoring the last trend, at least 2 straight NCAA bids).

This raises many questions for our team. I am projecting that we will maintain the marks we are currently hitting (esp. with the second half of our schedule giving us easier games). My hope would be that our D Eff improves throughout the season and Roy uses the rest of the season to focus on our defense (I'm looking at you two, Bobby and Tyler). Our D Eff currently sits at 88.8. If we can reduce the number of points scored against us per 100 possessions by at least .1, we'll be in better shape once the tournament starts.
As you can tell, this is not difficult, it just requires a sustained effort.

Of course, there are critiques to be made with this formula. I'm sure there are other statistical measures that can indicate how successful a team is but the author didn't include. There may be some random stat out there that does a much better job of correlating regular season performance with tournament performance. Since that stat remains to be seen, we'll give the author the benefit of the doubt. Also, there's no real way to look at how teams match up against each other player to player. That certainly matters because every team has a style it's vulnerable to that other teams don't have to worry about.

On a final note, UConn is one of the few teams that's close to hitting all the marks here. Defensively, they are better than the Heels but are just shy of the O Eff numbers they are looking for here. Memphis is also hitting 8/9, lacking in the O Eff dept by a bigger margin than UConn. It would appear that if UConn can boost their O Eff while holding other stats to current levels, they are a near lock to make the final four and could very well be the favorite.

Previewing Duke

Even up in Wisconsin, I'm having a hard time containing my excitement for tonight's game. As usual, this should be a great game as Duke hosts the Heels. There's disagreement between the AP Polls and Ken Pomeroy's ranking system, hardly surprising, but popular opinion favors the Heels.

The latest spread has the Heels at -1.5, up from -2 at opening. The O/U is 156, suggesting the winning team will need at least 79 points to win. Ken Pom favors Duke at 81-76 and gives us just under a 1/3 chance of winning. Duke is coming off a big overtime win over Miami, 78-75 and the Heels recently cruised over UVA 76-61. Although many in the media have brought up the bad Duke loss at Clemson, they ignore the importance of the comeback against the U, where Duke was down 15 before tying the game with 10 minutes to play and winning in OT.

Greg Paulus has also been named the starting point guard, likely because of Nolan Smith's recent slump in production. Historically, Paulus has done well against the Heels, especially as a 3 point threat. This leaves Duke with four legit 3 pt shooters: Singler, Henderson, Scheyer and Paulus. Given the Heels' difficulties with high screens and pick & rolls, I hope everybody knows how they're supposed to play different screens. Given Duke's irritating ability to get opponents to pick up cheap fouls, Deon, Tyler and Ed better be careful when they switch on high screens. I predict we'll see a lot of pick and rolls that result in kickouts to the corner.

The Blue Devils also rebound well for a team known for perimeter and slashing play. If anybody recalls the BC game, they'll remember it's entirely possible for the Heels to have a difficult time on the boards. By sending everyone for rebounds, BC got a lot of boards and thereby gave us few transition opportunities. I wonder if Coach K will send lots of bodies to the boards to get more offensive rebounds or have people get back to stop the break. Methinks it will be a combination of the two to keep us on our toes.

Anybody else, feel free to post your thoughts/comments about tonight's game.

What's Demonizing the Deacs?

Early this week someone asked me what I thought had happened to Wake Forest. This was just on the heels of their abysmal performance at Miami that left them at 1-3 over their last 4 and able to slay such giants as Duke and UNC, but unable to handle the ACC's cellar dwellers such as Georgia Tech.

About the Deacons, an opinion you'll likely hear a lot of, is that the Deacon's inexperience is a main cause for their inconsistency. This is not untrue, as the ACC is a tough conference (#1 in RPI) where if you let up for any game, especially on the road, almost any team can beat you. The Deacons are indeed inexperienced, with their main contributors (Johnson 15.7%, Teague 23.2%, Aminu 16.5) all being underclassmen and using over 50% of their total possessions. Similarly Wake ranks 274th in "Experience" on KenPom, with an average of 1.32 years (this is of course weighted by minutes played). Though they have some upperclassmen, Senior role player Harvey Hale and Juniors who play large parts (McFarland, Williams, Smith), this team thrives off of the three underclassmen. So Wake Forest is young and inexperienced, this isn't news to anyone. They played a soft non-conference schedule (Non-Conf SOS 269th) that didn't quite let anyone get a really in depth look at how their young talent would react to adverse situations and mold into a team. Younger players typically have more drastic ups and downs than older ones (see Wake's 292nd consistency rank), and obviously this has positive ramifications. If Wake were insanely consistent, they may have never played well enough to beat UNC or Duke. However, the opposite side of that coin is that often times the Deacons play way under their potential other games (see VATech, GT, Miami).

Ok, we can all agree that Wake is inexperienced and inconsistent, but specifically how has this let them down and resulted in losses? Jeff Teague feels that teams have begun to game plan against him and shut him down, not untrue but I don't think this is the main issue. It's certainly doesn't help to have a point guard who takes 14 shots to get to 15 points (average over the last 3 games), but against Duke he only scored 11 points (2 assists) and they somehow managed to win. That is because the true cause for their recent slide is defense. Looking at the Deacon's last 8 games they're 5-3 (ACC schedule +BYU who I'll include because they're of roughly comparable ability and skill to the slightly above-average ACC team, such as Miami). In their 5 wins they gave up only a 94 defensive efficiency, and not against many offensively inept teams (UNC averages 123, Duke 115, BYU 116). In the 3 losses they've allowed a 109 defensive efficiency, to the likes of Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Miami (110, 98, and 115 respectively). Wake's reputation is and was built on defense. Much like the Tar Heels, a lot of their offense comes from fast breaks created off forced turnovers and missed shots. The Deacon's offense may not have been operating at full capacity in those 3 losses, but if so it's only because their defense didn't set it up for easy buckets. When their defense is working, the Deacons have many more fast breaks and easy baskets, as evidenced by their torrid pace in wins (79.2 poss/game) when compared to the pace at which they've played their losses (71.0). At a deeper level, why is the Deacon's defense failing? Their tightly packed zone forced opponents to take jump shots. This is in line with one of the most famous talking points of basketball "don't foul jump shooters". Wake's zone doubles down low without fouling and forces opposing teams to take jumpers. In their wins the Deacon's opponents average a 33.3* Free Throw Rate (FTA/FGA) practically identical to Wake's season average (33.5). In the 3 losses, their opponents have a 54.9 Free Throw Rate. That rate of fouling is way too high to succeed playing a zone defense built around forcing poor shots and playing staunch defense on the easy ones.

Obviously there are other statistical discrepancies in their wins and losses, but I feel those (FG%, Offensive Efficiency, Offensive and Defensive Turnover Rate) are mainly effects of the Deacon's main issues, sloppy zone defense that results in fouling opponents too frequently. The Deacons are suffering from the problem that has seemingly plagued the Roy Williams-led Tar Heels every February/March for the past 6 years, consistently being able to put forth the effort it takes to play high level defense.

*Take out the UNC game (the foul line frequenting Heels posted a 51.4% FTR) and this number drops to 28.8.

Super Bowl Sunday

Anyone feel gutsy enough to take the Cards? I sure don't.

Updated standings

1. John 8 (6-4)
2. Ryan 4 (7-3)
3. Lucy -16 (3-7)

Steelers-Cards in two weeks.

Top Shelf Saturday

Just thought I'd take down some thoughts as I watch a very interesting Saturday in college basketball. A several pairs of highly KenPom-rated teams are going at it today:

(5)G'town @ (1)Duke: Duke won a game that was somewhat closer than the score indicated. With Monroe saddled with 3 fouls the Blue Devils took an 11-0 run to lead 40-29 at the half. Similarly in the second, the Hoyas were within 4 when Monroe picked up #4 (a technical from the bench), without Monroe (the Hoyas main rebounding threat) in the the game, the Blue Devils pulled away, knocking down shots in their 5 guard spread offense. Singler started slowly and shot poorly (7-18, 1-6), but was able to contribute in other ways, mainly with 5 offensive and 13 total rebounds, Henderson was able to pick up the Blue Devils' offense with 23 pts (10-15, 3-6).
Bottom Line: The Hoyas are a good all around team, with a gimmick offense that can catch some teams flat-footed and a true star in Greg Monroe, but the Devils staunch defense and small lineup did a good job defending the "Georgetown" (read: modified Princeton) offense, and without offensive trickery and their star, the Hoyas were somewhat easily vanquished. As always, when the Devils are hustling on defense, they easily outwork their size disadvantage. Similarly on the offensive end, when the shots are dropping for any of their main weapons (Singler, Scheyer, and Henderson)*, the Devils are hard to beat.

(8)Wake @ (17)Clemson: Early, Clemson had seemed to suck Wake in to a helter-skelter, poorly organized, style of play, during which the Tigers were hanging tough and seeming to avoid the Deacons half court defense. Since then Wake has seemed to take control, executing by making open jumpers, running the break well, and keeping Clemson off the offensive glass which helped their defense shine through. Opening the second, the Deacons do their best Tar Heel impression, running out to a 12 point lead on a made three and easy (I mean EASY) transition baskets, including a ferocious dunk by Aminu. The most impressive thing about Wake, aside from their defense, is their laundry list of big bodies to both rebound and play defense. A bonus is that none of them are good enough to be missed when in foul, except perhaps Aminu. Wake Forest's matchup with Duke next week should be interesting, their offensive styles are in stark contrast while they both play excellent defense (#4 and #2 respectively). Needless to say, I am quite jealous of the Demon Deacon defense. They are using a very Tar Heel-esque blueprint of speed and offensive rebounding on offensive, but their zone defense seems to be working better for them than intense switching man-to-man has for the boys in powder blue (come on, Marcus...).
Bottom Line: This is a very familiar Clemson team, who relies on outside shooting runs and full court pressure, that works against 80% of the country, but won't against the top three teams in the ACC. Wake has taken a large step forward, with the addition of a few extra big bodies, and a talented freshman (think Marvin Williams) in Aminu. They will challenge for the ACC and the 3 game lead the Heels have given them will be a tall mountain to climb. The more I watch this game, the better and better I feel about the Heels 3 point loss in Winston-Salem.

(9)Ariz St @ (10)UCLA: Wow, Arizona St's road unis are classy. I'm a sucker for simple, clean, classic designs. I'll also have to confess that I had NO idea Herb Sendek was in the Pitino coaching tree. It will be interesting to watch a Sendek team flow through one player as much as the Sun Devils do, James Harden (if you haven't heard of him, look him up) uses 34% of possessions while playing 83% of the team's minutes. Early, Harden's offensive prowess is drawing the attention of literally every Bruin at that end of the court. The Bruins have no individual defensive stopper with the size and speed to match up with Harden, while his teammates have been able to hit the open shots they've been the beneficiaries of. Arizona St's zone had seemed to perplex UCLA into poor outside shots, and to more than make up for the Sun Devils lack of size (only one player 6-9 on the starting lineup, 201st in effective height). The Bruins have been able to have some jumpers fall and score when the zone isn't fully set (on fast breaks and offensive rebounds) to bring the game to a tie late in the first. The Bruins march continues into the second. They're double-teaming Harden on one end and getting into the fast break and hitting shots opened up by their excellent passing to beat the once perplexing ASU zone.
Bottom Line: UCLA has the offense of past years, while their defense has slipped, Arizona State is in the Georgetown mold, with a go to guy that they are too reliant on, not that I can blame Herb Sendek, because James Harden is a special player now, and will be in the NBA (think Brandon Roy).

I won't be watching (14)L'ville host (4)Pittsburgh, but I will be interested to see how Pitt handles only its second real challenge of the season. The AP #1 Panthers have only played one other team in the KenPom top 50, a win at Georgetown early in the Big East schedule

*I'm intentionally leaving out Smith, who's main contribution is sound ball handing (a 23.5 TORate is an improvement over Paulus who averaged a 30 TORate the last 2 years). His assist and steal rates are respectively 2nd and 3rd on the team, among starters. As a side note, Mile Plumlee has a 45.4 TORate, he's a forward, right? Its no wonder Coach K doesn't run a standard offense.

As a bonus, I'll go ahead and throw together an underrated/overrated list with KenPom and the AP. I'll use the AP rankings out to about 42 (43-47 all only received 1 25th place vote, but I will mention AP #44 Mizzou)

Overrated (AP/KP)
Texas (11/30)
Minnesota (18/40)
Syracuse (8/32)
Michigan (25/51)
Florida St. (31/58)
Notre Dame (12/43)
St. Mary's (30/62)
George Mason (41/77)
Boston College (37/81)
Arkansas (27/90)

Most of the teams are mysterious, I don't know why half of them are on anyone's top 25 ballot, while some are more obvious (BC). Florida St., Syracuse, and Notre Dame are benefiting from playing in strong conferences. I didn't realized George Mason was still riding the publicity bump from 3 years ago. Oh, and who the hell voted for Arkansas?

Underrated (AP/KP) NV=No Votes (appeared on 0 ballots)
Missouri (44/11)
West Virginia (36/7)
Washington (NV/25)
Gonzaga (26/2)
Kansas St. (NV/26)
Utah (NV/27)
Brigham Young (34/13)
Kansas (38/19)
Memphis (29/12)
Illinois (28/16)

USC and Kentucky would be on this list, but KP has taken into account their recent upsets (ASU and Tenn) while the AP hasn't, I'll bet they show up on a ballot or two this week. Some good teams are getting no attention at all (UK, but that will change) Washington, K-State, and Utah are no where to be found, on any ballot. Then there are those that the national media know about but apparently don't respect enough: Gonzaga, West Virginia, Memphis and Mizzou. Obviously due to the absurd nature of polls, teams with 4 losses (Zags, WVU) can't be ranked high nationally, no matter how respectable the losses may be.

Championship round

That's what they call it, right?

Ravens @ Steelers
Eagles @ Cardinals

Birds abound! Allocate 10 points between the two games any way you please.

Divisional Round

Ravens @ Titans
Birds @ Cats
Eagles @ Giants
Bolts @ Steelers

Updated standings:

1. Ryan 6 (6-2)
T1. John 6 (5-3)
3. Lucy -12 (2-6)

"My support seems to be the kiss of death."

Follow up to Anatomy of an Upset

Ryan's excellent post gave a number of good reasons why we lost. The Ken Pomeroy stats reveal our porous defense combined with poor free throw shooting and rebounding equals a loss. By looking at different games, Ryan shows how we're underperforming.

I wanted to poing out some of the x's and o's reasons we lost. Strategically, BC held us out of the break in the first half and most of the second by sending as many guys as possible for offensive rebounds. By pulling down lots of first half offensive rebounds (I believe we were outrebounded but I'll have to verify) and battling for rebounds every other time, we couldn't get into our secondary break. Previously, we saw that sending a safety or two back on defense was the best way to slow our break as Kansas and Valparaiso have shown. This time, we were undone by poor defensive rebounding, leading to few opportunities for run-outs.

Next, BC's flex set offense flummoxed our defense. A basic flex set employs lots of screens, movement and passing to lose defenders or create mismatches. This is used almost exclusively against man-to-man defenses and often means medium-to-long possessions on offense. Other characteristics of the flex set are: it's easy to learn, everyone knows that they should do next, and you don't need to create your own shot to be successful (although nobody told Tyrese Rice).

If you recall BC's offensive sets, they would line up 4 men parallel to the backboard, in between the FT line and 3 pt line. Rice is the odd man out, bringing the ball up the right side of the floor. The flex set would then spring to life as O2 and O4 would set screens for each other and O3 or O5 would stay in the lane while the other drifted closer to the basket. In short, this means a lot of action taking place around the free throw line, where a player can pass off to a 3 pt shooter with relative ease or look for a man posting up down low. Mid-range shots can also open up easily as a player whose defender is tired or confused can be lost in the myriad of screens and end up taking the wrong man.

I've certainly complained about our guards' abilities to communicate and get around screens quicker. Last night, there were missed assignments galore as Rice and Sanders got good mid and long range looks through the flex set. Also, Rice hit some extremely difficult shots that were close to indefensible. Credit him for having the soft touch to hit some step back jumpers and circus shots.

My next bone to pick is with our half court trap. I may never understand why Roy didn't put his foot down at halftime (or sooner) and tell everyone to quit trapping. It felt like the BC-UNC football game, where BC curiously decided to leave Hakim Nicks in single coverage. I wondered why they would risk getting burned over and over and over and over again. Well, Roy returned the favor by allowing us to keep gambling on the half court trap. We got burned over and over and over and over again.

BC got lots of open shots because Al Skinner and Tyrese Rice did their homework. Rice knew where the help would be each time. As a consequence, our defense had to shift and recover, leaving Reggie Jackson open. Since we're known to trap after timeouts, some FTs or out of bounds plays, BC had a fair idea of when the trap was coming. We continued to gamble after halftime to much the same result.

On defense, Boston College did a good job of pulling 4 or 5 men into the lane to force bad shots and turnovers. We shot 9-25 for 2 pt FGs in the 2nd half, a testament to the strong BC defense. The Eagles were physical. Hansbrough was well covered, being forced off the block or doubled to prevent a good entry pass. Although Hansbrough made his shots, Deon Thompson and Danny Green struggled.

If you watched Deon's body language when he shot FT's, it was clear he was winded. Pushing and being pushed often tends to leave one's arms tired. His 1-6 shooting hurt our comeback chances.

Since we were behind for most of the game and didn't have our inside shots falling, we started hoisting 3's with about 7 minutes left. Wayne's 3 pt shot is still MIA. Ty, Danny and Will Graves shot 33% individually and as a whole. Roy may or may not have addressed the eagarness of our 3 pt shooting, but the Heels kept shooting away.

Finally, we didn't try to foul like a team that's trailing should. No one other than Rice was a remarkable free throw shooter, why did we not try fouling earlier? Why not send Larry Drew, Will Graves or Marcus Ginyard to foul the poorer shooters, let the crowd yell during FT attempts, and grab the rebounds? At 78-71, would it have killed us to start fouling to save time and make them earn their points? It's not like we would run out of bench players. This is my boldest assertion of this post, but I'm a bit perplexed as to why we wouldn't make them get their points 1 or 2 at a time instead of 2 or 3 at a time. With guards doing so much shooting, it's less likely to have continuation fouls where the shot counts and a FT is awarded.

In summation, BC's stratetic moves and our un-strategic moves fueled a significant defeat. I hope that our players and our coaches will realize the mistakes that were made. As a consqequence of this game, we'll see more teams following Boston College's formula for beating us. Hopefully we'll be better prepared to stop beating ourselves and resume beaing our opponents.

The Anatomy of an Upset

(Ok, I apologize for the length of this post, if you want the short and sweet version, scroll down to the "Basically" I've bolded in the second to last paragraph, it is a happy synopsis)

So, remeber how, at the beginning of the season, I remarked that the Heels have won games with several of the 4 factors. Well, since the Oregon game, they haven't exactly won any games with FG defense. In fact, excluding the Nevada game, the Heels defense has allowed 50.9% eFG over the last 5 games. And not against stop notch competition either (ORU, Evansville, Valpo, Rutgers, & BC). This is quite disconcerting, however the Heels defense is built to stand on other factors averaging turnovers on 26% of their opponents possessions in those same games (that would average about 15th in the nation for the season UNC's season average is 23.9 good for 49th).

Now, your opponents can shoot the lights out of the gym if you can limit offensive boards and cause turnovers. For the uninitiated, imagine a team that allows the opponent to make every shot they take, but force a turnover on 75% of possessions, that's as good as forcing 25% shooting while forcing no turnovers. Now, imagine they go up against a team of all point guards, who never turn the ball over. In this matchup, allowing the opponent to sink every attempt causes a huge problem because you don't end the possesions before the shots occur.

Snap back to reality. This is pretty much what UNC did (or failed to do). They were relying on steals and defensive rebounding to cover up their inability to defend shots. Well, BC does a great job taking care of the ball (17.5 TO% 25th) and offensively rebounding (40.9 OR% 16th), countering UNC's defensive strengths.

Now, what was the icing on the cake? The Heels have played defense this poorly before (as you can see above, Notre Dame posted a 119 OE in Maui). However, in this example the Heels offense simultaneously failed them. Shooting 55% from the free throw line won't win you any games (in fact it will lose you many). Also, it was UNC's worst night from the field of the season. This was likely because the turnovers weren't available to lead to layups and fast breaks. Winning on turnovers and with a fast pace is a double-edged sword (much like winning on 3 pointers, yes I'm looking at you coach K), you limit the opponent's shots, but you also give yourself 10 to 12 "bunnies" per game, bouying even the poorest shooting team's field goal percentage. All this lead to UNC's poorest offensive efficiency number of the year, but only by a hair. As you can see in the table above, UNC posted a similarly poor 104 against Kentucky, its other sub 50% eFG game, but forced enough turnover and limited offensive rebounds to win the game (handily).

Basically, if you combine the porous defense against Notre Dame, with the weak offensive output against Kentucky, you get almost identical stats to the BC loss. The Heels have played like this at various times during the year, but the other end of the floor happened to pick them up to hide such ugly performances. UNC's strength is its depth and talent, the Heels can win games in a number of different ways. But take solace, UNC fans, in the fact that a loss like last night's occurs when all of those ways fail.

On another note, and I don't want to sound cocky here, but the looming top ten matchup between UNC and Wake Forest may be more of a dud than a stud, as Wake's turnover rate is something of a bugaboo (21.1 181st), though it should be one horse race of a dud projecting at around 85 possessions. Check back for more on that game and throughout the ACC season.

If anyone's interested...

Here are the matchups for the wild card round.

Dirty Birds @ Redbirds
Colts @ Bolts
'Vens @ Fins
Philly @ Minny

This will be separate from the regular season pick'em and will probably just be for bragging rights (since I know Ryan is anxious to display his playoff pick'em prowess). Interested parties (Lucy, this includes you) should pick all four games, weighted. Four points for your most certain pick; one point for your least certain. Incorrect picks will be penalized the amount of the weight, correct picks will be awarded that amount. The lines are all under a field goal anyway, and it's winner advances at this stage, so picking winners feels better.

1. Ryan 4 (3-1)
T1. John 4 (2-2)
3. Lucy -4 (1-3)

Final NFL Pick'em Standings, 2008 Edition

1) John 17-8-2 (1.5, 18)
2) Jason 15-11-1 (0, 15.5)
3) Ryan 14-14-2 (1, 15)
4) Kevin 14-15-1 (1, 14.5)

Consensus: 13-7

John continues his run as the pick'em king, and we saw that we might not do as well in Vegas as initially suspected, going 13-7 on the year in consensus games (but that record is likely skewed by certain parties picking games they might not have chosen initially in order to catch up in the standings, thus putting fewer W's in the books).

Week 17 Spreads

First off, thanks to Cason for spot on analysis as always, if you're here for the Heels/College Basketball insight see below. Also, expect more college basketball coming up, as the player stats are up on Ken Pom, and each team begins to build a worthwhile statistical resume. There will be an extensive preview before the Tar Heels next first test, at Wake Forest Jan 11th. Onto ATS pick 'em.

This is it folks (unless John wants to give up his stranglehold and do a playoff version?)

Favorite	Spread	Underdog	Day	Time
@Tampa Bay	-12.5	Oakland	Sun	1:00
@Green Bay	-9.5	Detroit	Sun	1:00
@Philadelphia (JA)	-1.5	Dallas (RC)	Sun	4:15
@Minnesota (KS)	-6.5	NY Giants	Sun	1:00
@Houston	-2.5	Chicago (JA)	Sun	1:00
Carolina (RC)	-3	@New Orleans	Sun	1:00
@Atlanta	-14	St. Louis	Sun	1:00
@Cincinnati	-3	Kansas City	Sun	1:00
@Baltimore	-12	Jacksonville	Sun	4:15
Tennessee	-3	@Indianapolis	Sun	1:00
@Pittsburgh	-10.5	Cleveland	Sun	1:00
@NY Jets	-3	Miami (KS)	Sun	4:15
New England (RC)	-6.5	@Buffalo	Sun	1:00
@Arizona	-6	Seattle	Sun	4:15
@San Francisco	-3	Washington (JA)	Sun	4:15
@San Diego	-8	Denver (KS)	Sun	8:15

The AFC is also giving a point in the Super Bowl, in case you were curious. It's Christmas, so let's say due by midnight Friday, along with your opinion of playoff pick 'em.

Happy Holidays everyone.

Edit: I'm assuming your "Cats" was of the Cardiac variety, Ryan?

Valparaiso Game Review

Yours truly attended the UNC-Valparaiso game in the United Center on Saturday. Since this was one of my few chances to see the Heels, I went with 3 co-workers who graduated in '08 and '06.

Going to the United Center as a Heels fan is, I would imagine, like going to UNC if you are a big MJ fan. It's seeing someone you've followed so closely for a successful period in their lives in a totally different environment, with different fans, teammates, coaches, high tops, etc. We happened to sit right under the retired Jordan jersey in the rafters of the United Center, and within easy view of all six World Championship banners. It really makes you appreciate both the Bulls' hard work and that they won 3 titles with 2 Tar Heels and 2 Hawkeyes on their team.

The game itself was uneventful as our games go. Bobby Frasor did not start, which took all of us by surprise. Also, Valpo was the home team and took it quite seriously as they brought their band and students with them behind one of the baskets. They also had quite a few fans, even though Carolina fans outnumbered them about 3-2. Valpo also watched a lot of tape and frustrated us with their box and 1 defense. We had a very difficult time getting the ball inside via Ty, Wayne, Danny, Deon or Tyler. We settled for jumpers or turned the ball over.

On the flip side, Valpo had an effective flex set offense. Their center-forward managed to get the basket over and over because of our confusion on defense. They also hit their 3's and were winning for about the first 8 minutes. Their guards and forwards also managed to lose Wayne, Danny and Deon easily for backdoor cuts. I wasn't seriously concerned, since we made them force shots and commit turnovers, but it made me think what a team with better players could do with that defense.

At this point, I ought to mention that I have never liked Valpo for what they did to Ole Miss in 1998. Ole Miss was a 4 seed ten years ago in the NCAA tournament and the coach's son (of all the people who could hit a game winning shot, it was the coach's son!!!) hit the winning 3 pointer as time expired. Until 2005, this was the main reason my dad had such a hard time watching the NCAA tournament.

As the game wore on, we were reminded why zone defenses tend to lose their effectiveness against our team. We kept getting easy rebounds and put backs. As the fouls mounted, their big men couldn't really guard anyone for fear of fouling out.

A couple of notes:
Urule Igbavboa, Valparaiso Center, threw down a dunk on Tyler in the first half when we employed the Red Sea defense. You could tell he was still thinking about it when he kept looking up at the big screens in the first half. I could tell he was still thinking about it in the second half when he smiled after being fouled and airballed the FT.

Wayne Ellington's jump shot is still MIA.

Valpo used a safety or two on offense so we had very few fast break opportunities. They did a good job of always having at least 2 guys in the paint when we brought the ball to half court.

The force was not with Danny Green on Saturday.

All the scrubs who played got on the stat sheet one way or another.

Deon continues to be efficient, going 3-4 on FG and 6-8 on FT.

Hey, we still forced 25 To's.

The Jordan statue in front of the United Center is awesome, you need to get your picture taken there.