Q&A with Ken Pomeroy

The summer is coming to an end soon, and while that means football is gearing up, it also means college basketball is about 2 months away.  Since there won't be much to discuss until early October, I decided to put together a piece to get you through the annual doldrums.

I, along with thousands of others, am a subscriber to Ken Pomeroy's website, www.kenpom.com.  Ken is a basketball stats guru whose website provides a lot of stats that the main sports websites (ESPN, CBS, etc.) don't have.  While he'll show the common stats like shooting percentage, he places a lot of emphasis on tempo-free stats (rather than points per game, think points per possession).  He also provides game-by-game predictions for each team and the likelihood of that score outcome (i.e. Marquette plays Butler tomorrow, and 65% of the time MU will win 64-62).

Ken's website has become very popular in the last few years, as coaches and the NCAA tournament selection committee have put more emphasis on stats in evaluating teams.  I caught up with Ken to learn a little more about how he runs the website, his thoughts on the selection committee's recent performance, and whether or not golf will be added to the website.  Enjoy.


1977:  When you watch basketball, how do you watch a game?  Are you churning through stats in your head?  Are you paying attention to a team's intangibles like toughness?  Or do you just try watch a game for the entertainment value?

Ken: If I'm in the stands, I'm pretty close to being just your average obsessed fan. I'm usually aware of the tendencies of both teams. I might focus on some unusual aspect of one of the teams or players while I'm watching. I'll jump out of my seat when someone does something crazy. If I'm with the media, I'll take some notes and monitor stats and substitution patterns more closely and I try to avoid jumping out of my seat.


1977:  Regarding your rankings of each team and pre-game score predictions you have on your site, are there any flaws you would admit to that you're trying to work on?

Sure, there are flaws. The problem is if I spent a whole month doing nothing but working on it, maybe I would improve the predictions by 1% or something like that. Not because my system is perfect, but because there's a limit to how well an automated method can predict scores. Additionally, there are a few dozen systems out there now, and a lot of good ideas have already been taken. There's more of an intellectual payoff for me to spend that time doing some unique research.


1977:   I liked when you used to highlight big wins and bad losses on a team's schedule with varying shades of red and green.  Why did you get rid of that?

Ken:  I just thought it was a cleaner look on the schedule to not have a lot different shades of green and red. I suppose I could add it as a user option. I do feel strongly about quantifying the quality of wins and losses. Too many can't grasp that beating the #10 on the road is more impressive than beating the #1 team at home.


1977:  Are you more intrigued by a historically good team, or a historically bad team, and why?

Ken:  I'm interested in anything unusual, but the Grambling situation last year was just sad. On some level I guess it's interesting statistically, but having a completely uncompetitive team makes a joke of the game.


1977:  Is it possible to get "too caught up" in the numbers?  Or do you feel it's ok to ignore the qualitative factors when analyzing how good a team is?

Ken:  I don't see the concepts of qualitative and quantitative as mutually exclusive.  Someone can say a team is good at offensive rebounding in a qualitative sense and we can look at some numbers to get an idea if that's true. Ideally, I'd like to have a balance between qualitative and quantitative assessments, but that's not always feasible what with 351 Division I teams. Regardless of what kinds of information are available, it's important to understand the limitations of both the numbers and your eyes.

1977:  As you're aware, the Big East has reformed itself into a "basketball-only" conference.  How have you viewed that as far as what it has done for college basketball?  Do you look at it as a good thing that the "Catholic 7" has made a statement about the importance of D-1 basketball, or is it just another sad by-product of being pushed around by college football?

Ken:  In general, I think basketball is less affected by realignment than football. Even in a 16-team conference, you can play every other team at least once in a season.

I don't know that the new Big East really makes a statement. Until football is banned by Congress, that will always drive conference membership considerations in the richest conferences, and there will be a trickle-down effect that other conferences will experience.


1977:  How do you think the NCAA Selection Committee has done in the past few years?  Have they been fairly accurate given the constraints they have to work around?  Are there certain types of teams you think they value too highly or not high enough?  Are they putting in enough mid-majors, or is the BCS bias too prevalent?

Ken:  I'm fine with how the committee has done given the system that's in place. The difference between the 25th best team and the 50th best team is very, very small. You could pretty much take all teams seeded 5 through 12 and seed them randomly and not make the tournament any different. That's how much similarity there is at those seed lines. So when somebody is outraged that a 12 seed should have been 6 seed, I just shrug. It makes almost zero difference.


1977:   Do you still work for the National Weather Service, or are the subscription fees to kenpom.com paying the bills?

Ken:  I've been doing the site full-time since the beginning of last season.


1977:   Regarding the upkeep of the website, does anyone work for you, or is it a one-man show?

Ken:  It's almost all a one-man show. Occasionally people help me out with data collection/analysis projects.


1977:  A lot of people are intrigued by the "luck" factor in your formula (including myself).  I think what makes it intriguing is that you have a subjective input in a formula that is otherwise very objective.  Other than the fact that Dean Oliver came up with it, are there any insights you can share as to how it's calculated, and how much weight (if any) it has in your overall team rankings?

Ken:  Well, luck isn't included in the ratings at all. The formula is kind of complicated but it basically just measures a team's performance in close games. If you must know, it's the difference between a team's actual winning percentage and Dean Oliver's correlated gaussian winning percentage described here: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/methdesc.html#corrgauss Positive numbers indicate a good record in close games.


1977:  You were working on golf rankings at one point, whatever happened to that?  Did it fall through, or are you planning on bringing it back to the website?

Ken:  It could happen someday. Unlike with college hoops where it is easy to get data in a standard format, each golf tour basically does its own thing which makes data gathering more time consuming.


1977:  Have you done any work in terms of figuring out the likelihood that Tiger will get to 19 majors?  If so, what have you come up with?

Ken:  I wrote about it three years ago (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/the_case_for_tiger_woods) during his low point and although I didn't give a specific prediction, the implication was he still had a really good chance. Of course, he hasn't added to his total since, so it's a closer call now, but I'd say it's around a 50/50 shot to do it. I think he's clearly the best golfer in the world and don't buy that he has some sort of mental block in the majors. His lack of driving accuracy hurts him more in the majors than it does in a typical event because the rough is grown higher.


1977:  How would you describe your golf game?

Ken:  Normally, I would say it's not disgraceful, but it's been trending in the wrong direction recently.  Anyone that plays the game well has my fullest respect.


1977:  Are there any additions you plan on making to the website in the near future?

Ken:  I tend to not get into too many specifics on questions like this, because most of the things I add just happen out of the blue, and the things I promise to do end up not happening. (I'm not crazy, there's a great TED talk on that phenomenon here: http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_keep_your_goals_to_yourself.html)  I am hoping to build more info into the box scores and player-level stats this season, though.


1977:  Any predictions on a way-too-early Final Four?

Ken:  No, it's way too early.

Just Visiting: Post from a Guest

It's now been a few weeks since Marquette went down to Syracuse in the Elite 8.  While MU was so, so close to making it to Atlanta, you can't help but look back at expectations heading into the season.  Losing DJO and Crowder, aka 30+ points per game was a sure sign we'd be mediocre this season.  Boy, were we wrong.  4 months after the aircraft carrier disaster the 2012-13 squad takes a share of the Big East regular season title and gets to the Elite 8 for the first time in 10 years.

But enough about what I have to say.  Today's post comes from a guest at FanDuel, a fantasy sports site for just about every sport that offers cash prizes.  Enjoy.  Thanks FanDuel!

Is The Marquette Basketball Program As Strong As It Has Ever Been?

After Marquette’s domination of Miami in the Sweet 16 of the 2013 NCAA Tournament, the Golden Eagles made it into the Elite Eight to take on Syracuse. Even though MU fell to the Orange in convincing fashion, this season will go down as one of the more memorable seasons in the team's history. The question is, how strong is the program from a historical perspective?

Most older fans of Marquette instantly go back to the mid-1970s when people start to discuss the Golden Age of the program. That was back in the Warriors days, when the likes of Butch Lee and Bo Ellis helped Al McGuire win the school’s first and only National Championship.  To this day, Marquette's winning percentage in the 70s is the 4th best of any team in any decade.

Buzz Williams might not be ready to take the title away from McGuire as the best coach in school history, but in the last three years, he is certainly making the case to at least get into the discussion. Instead of relying on marquee, highly-touted players out of high school, he instead has a knack of grooming players to become outstanding college basketball players as upperclassmen.  With a top-10 recruiting class heading into the 2013-14 season, we'll all soon find out just how good of a team Buzz will have with a ton of raw talent.

Many thought Marquette was going to have a down year, as Big East Player of the year Jae Crowder graduated along with Darius Johnson-Odom. Guys like Vander Blue and Davante Gardner stepped up in a big way, helping to advance the team pass the Sweet 16 for the first time since 2003.

With Williams committed to the team, this could be a trend for years to come. Building a program and having stability is the key. After Tom Crean left, MU faced the possibility of being in a serious hole, and even lost a few key players like Trevor Mbakwe.  Luckily, Buzz had a trio of seniors that kept the ship afloat until Buzz brought in his own recruits.  Since then, Buzz has kept the tournament streak alive, and now has 2 trips to the Sweet 16 and a trip to the Elite 8 under his belt.  All in all, a lot Marquette fans feel that Crean's departure was a blessing in disguise.  In a time when many teams are looking for the new hot prospect, many folks - including fantasy basketball players - will have their eyes set on Marquette with 3-year and 4-year guys leading the program (please come back, Vander!).  They might not have gone all the way in 2013, but the stage is set for a very bright future.

Is the Marquette program the strongest it's ever been?  The answer is no, but Williams is on track to changing that.  McGuire will always have a special spot in MU history, as I can't imagine they'll rename the Al McGuire Center to the Buzz Williams Center.  In addition to 1977, the program under Al also won the NIT in 1970 (when it was much more relevant), got to the championship in 1974, and churned out a few solid pros.  Before the Marquette program can pass the program in the 70s, winning a championship is a must, no doubt about it.  The golden eagles program isn't the strongest it's ever been, but it's certainly on the right track.

Marquette Tournament Primer

Now that the field has been set and 3-seeded Marquette takes on the Wildcats of Davidson, it's time to figure out what to know about this squad as it heads to Lexington.  For those of you who haven't watched much Marquette basketball this year, shame on you.  Hopefully a few of these points will help you in figuring out how far to take the Golden Eagles.

What I like about this squad

Great Defense
This team is Buzz's best by far on the defensive side of the ball.  They mostly play man-to-man, but will switch to the 2-3 zone from time to time.  They play excellent man-to-man defense by playing aggressive on-the-ball defense and are disciplined when it comes to switching off of ball screens.  Junior Cadougan and Vander Blue can prove to be matchup nightmares for an offense, as they can force turnovers at the point of attack for easy buckets in transition on the other end.  Chris Otule has been his usual self, blocking shots and forcing players in the paint to take off-balance shots.  The main weaknesses I've seen from section 441 this season are the occasional blown assignment on help-side defense and three-pointers surrendered off of offensive boards and inside-out offense.  That being said, I see this team packing their defense and taking it to Kentucky (and hopefully DC).

Jump shots, Jump Shots, Jump Shots
With the offensive emergence of Vander Blue, this team is excellent at hitting jump shots.  MU has three great jump-shooters in Vander Blue, Junior Cadougan, and Jamil Wilson.  This asset will come in handy if Marquette has to face a zone defense, and will also prove to be useful when they're having trouble getting paint touches.  During the season it's also worked well in transition and in pick-and-pop situations.  If MU is down in the second half against Davidson, look for them to try a few pull-up jumpers to gain some momentum.

Toughness
This shouldn't be a surprise to most MU fans.  Marquette has played in a lot of close games this season (as they always do), and more often than not they've come out on top.  A couple where they didn't?  The Maui Invitational against Butler where they lost on a well-contested buzzer-beating 3-pointer, and at Cincinnati where they had no business coming back in that game but found a way to force overtime.  MU is 3-1 in overtime games (2 of those 3 were on the road) and has also had close wins over Syracuse, Georgetown, and Rutgers.  Toughness is a huge plus for any team in the NCAA Tournament, hopefully it shines through once again if Thursday's contest goes down to the wire.

What I don't like about this squad

3-Point Shooting
This has been well-documented throughout the season, as Marquette ranks 318th in the country at 3-point field goal percentage.  What worries me the most about this statistic is that our inability to shoot from beyond the arc A) Prevents us from being able to win in a shoot-out, B) Prevents us from coming back if we're down 8-10 points, and C) Prevents us from creating a cushion if we're up by 8-10 points.  If we buck the trend and can shoot 40% from long range, great.  Otherwise it can stand to put us on a cold streak if we run out of options offensively.

Turnovers
There have been many an occasion this season where MU has gone scoreless for several minutes.  Part of that may be poor shooting, but a big part of that is turnovers as well.  The main problem with the team's turnovers is that it's not just one culprit, it's multiple.  While Junior Cadougan can be a serious offensive threat, he makes plenty of dumb mistakes too, between bad passes and poor ball handling.  Jamil Wilson, Trent Lockett, and Todd Mayo are equal opportunity offenders when it comes to turnovers too.  Losing possessions can lead to a serious change in momentum, and is something MU has to work on limiting.

Point Guard Depth
It hurts to talk about this, but when Junior Cadougan is on the bench, Derrick Wilson at the 1-spot can be a serious liability on the offensive side.  Sure, Buzz talks about Wilson having "intangibles," and at times he plays great defense, but watching him run an offense can be tougher than spending Christmas with Bo Ryan.  So many times I've seen Wilson attempt to drive in the paint or stop to take a jump shot, only to second-guess himself and pass the ball to someone else in hopes that they'll carry the load.  If Cadougan gets injured or ends up in foul trouble early on, it could make for a long afternoon for the Golden Eagles.


Get to the important part.  How far should I take Marquette in my bracket?
If I had that answer, I would have retired a long time ago, but here are my two cents on the matter.  Davidson will prove to be a very difficult test for MU.  The Wildcats have experience, size, and are very accustomed to winning.  Don't let the 14-seed fool you, these kids won't back down.  With that being said, I think MU will be able to beat them on the boards and take care of the basketball.  It'll be a close contest, but Marquette's experience and toughness will pull through.  For the second round, I think they'll be having a rematch with Butler which means just one thing: revenge.  MU still has that taste of defeat from Maui and will look to get even with the Bulldogs, so pencil the Golden Eagles into your Sweet 16.  Assuming chalk, their next opponent will be the Miami Hurricanes.  I think Marquette has a chance of winning this one, as Miami has lost to teams that get to the line often, but I don't think MU can keep up with their guards, and thus the run for the Golden Eagles will end at the Sweet 16 for a third year in a row.  Who knows, they may surprise us and make it further, but frankly, my pessimistic self will be happy to see them get into the Round of 32.

Final Bracketology: March 17

My final predictions are below in a St. Patty's Day version of bracketology.  As always, these are posted at The Bracket Matrix.  Check back in a couple days as I'm going to post a Marquette tournament primer.

1. Louisville, Indiana, Gonzaga, Kansas
2. Duke, Miami (FLA.), Georgetown, New Mexico
3. Ohio State, Michigan State, Florida, Michigan
4. Kansas State, Syracuse, Marquette, Wisconsin
5. Arizona, Saint Louis, Oklahoma State, Virginia Commonwealth
6. UCLA, Pittsburgh, Butler, UNLV
7. Notre Dame, North Carolina, Memphis, Creighton
8. Colorado State, North Carolina State, Oregon, Illinois
9. San Diego State, Missouri, Minnesota, Cincinnati
10. Colorado, Wichita State, Iowa State, Temple
11. Oklahoma, Villanova, California, Mississippi
12. Belmont, Tennessee, St. Mary's (CA), Middle Tennessee, La Salle, Bucknell
13. Akron, Davidson, Valparaiso, South Dakota State
14. New Mexico State, Northwestern State, Harvard, Montana
15. Iona, Florida Gulf Coast, Pacific, Albany
16. Western Kentucky, James Madison, LIU-Brooklyn, Southern, Liberty, North Carolina A&T

Bracketology: March 11

Latest is below.  Not too much movement at the top, more so at the bottom.  MU is knocking on the door of a 3-seed.  The only team they could realistically swap with is New Mexico, and they would need to at least get to the Big East Championship to make that happen.  Iowa's slot in the tourney was short-lived, as they got booted by Kentucky after the Wildcats got a big win over Florida.

1. Indiana, Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga

2. Florida, Miami (FLA.), Georgetown, Louisville

3. Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan, New Mexico

4. Marquette, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Syracuse

5. Arizona, Pittsburgh, Butler, Wisconsin

6. UNLV, Minnesota, Colorado State, Saint Louis

7. Oregon, Notre Dame, Missouri, Memphis

8. North Carolina State, Virginia Commonwealth, San Diego State, UCLA

9. Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Colorado, Creighton

10. Illinois, Wichita State, Iowa State, North Carolina

11. Virginia, Belmont, Villanova, La Salle

12. St. Mary's (CA), California, Tennessee, Kentucky, California, Temple

13. Akron, Louisiana Tech, Bucknell, Stephen F. Austin

14. Valparaiso, Davidson, South Dakota State, Harvard

15. Montana, Vermont, Long Beach State, Iona

16. Northeastern, Florida Gulf Coast, Norfolk State, Liberty, LIU Brooklyn, Southern

Bracketology: March 8

Latest and greatest is below.  I'm putting Iowa in to start the debates.  Next update will come at the start of the power conference tourneys.

1. Indiana, Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga

2. Florida, Miami (FLA.), Georgetown, Michigan

3. Michigan State, Kansas State, Louisville, New Mexico

4. Syracuse, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Marquette

5. Arizona, Pittsburgh, Butler, Wisconsin

6. Oregon, Minnesota, Colorado State, Saint Louis

7. UNLV, Notre Dame, Missouri, Memphis

8. North Carolina State, Virginia Commonwealth, San Diego State, UCLA

9. Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Colorado, North Carolina

10. Illinois, Wichita State, Iowa State, Creighton

11. Virginia, Belmont, Middle Tennessee, La Salle

12. St. Mary's (CA), California, Villanova, Iowa, California, Temple

13. Akron, Louisiana Tech, Bucknell, Stephen F. Austin

14. Valparaiso, Davidson, South Dakota State, Harvard

15. Montana, Stony Brook, Long Beach State, Mercer

16. Northeastern, Niagara, Norfolk State, Mercer, NC-Asheville, Souther

Bracketology: March 4

Latest and greatest is below.  After a monster week beating 2 ranked opponents at home and improving their home winning streak to 25 games, MU is firmly on the 4-line.  Syracuse falls to a 4-seed and needs to right the ship in a hurry.  SLU continues to move up the ladder.  Kentucky is out, Cal is in.


 

1. Indiana, Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga

2. Florida, Miami (FLA.), Michigan State, Michigan

3. Georgetown, Kansas State, Louisville, New Mexico

4. Syracuse, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Marquette

5. Arizona, Notre Dame, Butler, Wisconsin

6. Oregon, Pittsburgh, Colorado State, San Diego State

7. UNLV, Minnesota, Saint Louis, Memphis

8. North Carolina State, Virginia Commonwealth, Missouri, UCLA

9. Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Colorado, North Carolina

10. Illinois, Wichita State, Iowa State, Creighton

11. Virginia, Belmont, Middle Tennessee, La Salle

12. St. Mary's (CA), California, Villanova, Tennessee, California, Temple

13. Akron, Louisiana Tech, Bucknell, Stephen F. Austin

14. Valparaiso, Davidson, South Dakota State, Harvard

15. Montana, Stony Brook, Long Beach State, Mercer

16. Northeastern, Niagara, Norfolk State, Mercer, NC-Asheville, Southern

Bracketology: February 25

Latest predictions are below.  True to my word, MU stays on the 5-line after Saturday's loss at Villanova, which also puts 'Nova in the field of 68.  Cincinnati falls 2 spots after a rough week.  Baylor is out. 1. Indiana, Miami (FLA.), Florida, Gonzaga

2. Duke, Michigan, Michigan State, Syracuse

3. Georgetown, Kansas, Louisville, New Mexico

4. Kansas State, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Arizona

5. Marquette, Notre Dame, Butler, Wisconsin

6. Oregon, Pittsburgh, Colorado State, San Diego State

7. UNLV, Minnesota, Memphis, Missouri

8. North Carolina State, Virginia Commonwealth, Saint Louis, UCLA

9. Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wichita State

10. Illinois, North Carolina, Iowa State, Creighton

11. Mississippi, Belmont, Kentucky, La Salle

12. St. Mary's (CA), Middle Tennessee, Villanova, Virginia, California, Temple

13. Akron, Louisiana Tech, Bucknell, Stephen F. Austin

14. Valparaiso, Davidson, Mercer, Harvard

15. Montana, Stony Brook, Long Beach State, Western Illinois

16. Northeastern, Niagara, Norfolk State, Mercer, NC-Asheville, Southern

Bracketology: February 20

Latest prediction is below.  Michigan State and Gonzaga switch spots.  The Sycamores are out, Cal is in.  MU is knocking on the door of a 4-seed.  If they win on Saturday I'll slide them up.

1. Indiana, Miami (FLA.), Florida, Gonzaga

2. Duke, Michigan, Michigan State, Syracuse

3. Arizona, Kansas, Louisville, New Mexico

4. Kansas State, Ohio State, Butler, Georgetown

5. Marquette, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin

6. Minnesota, Notre Dame, Colorado State, San Diego State

7. North Carolina State, Oregon, Cincinnati, Missouri

8. UNLV, Virginia Commonwealth, Memphis, UCLA

9. Creighton, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wichita State

10. Illinois, North Carolina, Iowa State, Saint Louis

11. Mississippi, Belmont, Baylor, La Salle

12. St. Mary's (CA), Middle Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, California, Temple

13. Akron, Louisiana Tech, Bucknell, Stephen F. Austin

14. Valparaiso, Davidson, Florida Gulf Coast, Stony Brook

15. Montana, Harvard, Long Beach State, Western Illinois

16. Northeastern, Niagara, Norfolk State, Mercer, NC-Asheville, Southern

Bracketology, February 17

Ah yes, it's time once again for one of my favorite topics: bracketology.  Time for people to discuss world-changing topics such as who's going to win it all, potential 12-5 upsets, and who will be this season's George Mason.  We're a month away from the most unproductive time of year for the corporate world ("Gee, you've been looking at that same spreadsheet for the last 4 hours, what's so important about it?  And why does it say 'Click anywhere on this screen to return to cbssports.com?'").  We're also a month away from the greatest tv show of the year, Selection Sunday, and 6 weeks from another rendition of "One Shining Moment" by Luther Vandross.  Most importantly, we're a month away from the best post-season tournament in sports, period.

These picks will inevitably change completely over the next 4 weeks, but this will at least get the conversation started.  Once again, these picks will be posted on the Bracket Matrix for the rest of the season.  Check back every 2-3 days for updated picks.  MU starts out as a 5-seed.  If they win 4 of their last 6 Big East games they should move up to a 4-seed.  Enjoy.

1. Indiana, Miami (FLA.), Florida, Michigan State

2. Duke, Michigan, Gonzaga, Syracuse

3. Arizona, Kansas, Louisville, New Mexico

4. Kansas State, Ohio State, Butler, Georgetown

5. Pittsburgh, Marquette, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin

6. Minnesota, Cincinnati, Colorado State, San Diego State

7. North Carolina State, Oregon, Notre Dame, Virginia Commonwealth

8. UNLV, Missouri, Memphis, UCLA

9. Creighton, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wichita State

10. Illinois, North Carolina, Iowa State, Saint Louis

11. Mississippi, Kentucky, Baylor, La Salle

12. St. Mary's (CA), Middle Tennessee, Belmont, Virginia, Indiana State, Temple

13. Akron, Louisiana Tech, Bucknell, Stephen F. Austin

14. Valparaiso, Davidson, Florida Gulf Coast, Stony Brook

15. Montana, Harvard, Long Beach State, Western Illinois

16. Northeastern, Niagara, Norfolk State, Bryant, NC-Asheville, Southern

Random Thoughts on the 2012-13 Season

As you've probably noticed, I've taken a long hiatus from adding material to Stuck in 1977.  Unfortunately I haven't had the time to put together any good posts, so to make up for lost time I'm just going to post my thoughts on the season thus far.  Check back soon, as I'll be posting my bracketology picks to The Bracket Matrix again.  Enjoy.


- Couple bumps in the road, but I'll take the season we've got so far.  There is a mess of teams at 4-3 and we're above the rest at 5-1, tied with 'Cuse in the loss column.

- While I love Ken Pomeroy's site, the problem I have found with relying heavily on stats is that certain stats don't pass the eye yest, and vice-versa.  This squad is playing great defense, but it doesn't necessarily show up in the "defensive efficiency" column.  This squad has been characterized by tough on-the-ball defense, excellent switches off of ball screens, and forcing turnovers.  I think this team has played the best defense of any that Buzz has coached so far.

- That being said, offensive efficiency is right on the money.  Buzz is right about playing every game tight down the stretch.  This team is not built to blow teams out, as it doesn't have the firepower from behind the arc or in transition to score in bunches.  It can be pretty frustrating to watch from Section 441 at times, but great defense has helped carry us through these struggles.

- Hello?  Student Section?  Do you still exist?

- We're 4 points away (Butler and UWGB) from being a top-15 team with aspirations of a 3-seed.  We're also 3 points away (Georgetown, UConn in regulation) from being 3-3 and defining the term "mediocre" in the Oxford Dictionary.  Just another ho-hum season in the Big East/Soon-to-be-Catholic-7/Whatever you want to call this league.

- The more I see of Steve Taylor Jr, the more I want to see.  This kid flew under the radar since he played on the same team as some kid named Jabari Parker, and is starting to show why teams should've given him a look too.  He's got a bit of Jae Crowder in him, knowing where to be under the hoop for the easy putback.  Heck, he even made a fantastic behind-the-back move at the end of the 1st half against Providence yesterday and nearly drained a 3-ball at the buzzer.  Very excited about this kid.

- Insert bat joke here.

- Is it just me or does anyone else cringe every time Chris Otule and Davante Gardner get into some type of collision?  I feel like they're always milliseconds from season-ending injuries.

- Juan Anderson has stepped up in a big way this season.  He's more aggressive on offense (two 3-pointers yesterday over the Friars), has had some huge rebounds, and is playing great defense.  He's on track to be a crucial player in the next 2 years.

- The game against Cincinnati is the first I can remember where Todd Mayo wasn't referred to as O.J. Mayo's younger brother.  Thanks ESPN, it only took you 18 months to finally drop that tired, tired phrase.

- We are going to be unbelievably good next year

- Students, for the love of Al McGuire, could you quit chanting "Automatic" when Gardner is shooting free throws?  So far it hasn't phased #54, but karma says it's going to cost us a W against Notre Dame on Senior Day.

- Of the teams leaving for the ACC, I'm going to miss playing Louisville the most.  We've had a long history with them, and their fans take basketball more seriously than the Fighting Irish.  That being said, I still hate them.

- This season has been quite the comedy of errors.  Missed game due to condensation against Ohio State, digging deep into the rules book to figure out how the refs screwed up in the UConn game, and of course yesterdays bat-brigade/Whitney Houston concert.  What's next, Buzz drops his pants at halftime?  Oh wait, that was already done.

                          View from Section 441 yesterday when they shut the lights off to get rid of a nocturnal mammal

- To go along with this team's lack of style points, White Sox fans like myself may have noticed it has been 30 years since the "Winning Ugly" season.  This year it's Marquette's turn.

- I figured out how we can beat a 2-3 zone.  We just need to clone Jamil Wilson 5 times.  The kid's 16-foot jumper will beat that zone every time.

- On a separate topic, the Badgers had no business beating Indiana down in Bloomington this season.  Just another example of how Tom Crean is a bad in-game coach.

- To the fellow Chicago Bears fans out there, you may recall the last time we won at the Zoo before this season was the same day the Bears beat the Saints in the NFC Championship.  I couldn't decide which game to be more excited about that day, both were huge (I suppose the Bears going to the Superbowl was a little bigger).

- Either bring in Xavier and keep it at 8, or bring in Xavier, Butler, and Dayton and cap it at 10.  Any other basketball schools may dilute the conference too much.

- Predictions for the end of the season:  11-7 conference record, 6-seed in the Dance.