revisiting MI vs OSU

The MI offense has only been stopped cold in one game this year, at OSU. It is their only loss, and OSU held their phenomenal offense to a season low 53 points. 9 points lower than their 2nd lowest output of 62 against a slow paced Nebraska team, and 14 points lower than their 3rd lowest output of 67. How did they do it? First a word about the MI offense.

The MI offense is amazing. They are 11th in the NCAA in scoring at 79.3 points per game, and they are 4th in the NCAA in field goal percentage at .510. All of this is done without a big man in the middle who gets them easy points or gets post feeds out to their prolific shooters. What's quite interesting is that MI doesn't even try to post the ball at all in their offense. The MI offense is based on having 4 players who can all shoot, drive, and get out in transition. The offense runs through Burke who is awesome at both creating for himself and for others, but the key is having all 4 guys with multiple tools. The 5th man (either Jordan Morgan or Mitch McGary) is there to play post defense, rebound, and set screens. If the center scores, it's usually because their man goes to help and they are left alone or the help leaves them with no one blocking them out on put backs.

The personnel here is what matters as MI has not had 4 players like this in the Beilein era. They all shoot the 3 -Burke .400, Hardaway .393, Stauskas .495, and Robinson .389. All are athletic and can drive and dunk in the half court or in transition. Because each can drive the ball they can beat their man and force help which allows them to pass to any other open player who can take advantage by either knocking down the 3 or driving the ball again. They transition as quick as any team in basketball off missed shots. Burke is the key in transition as he sees the floor so well and gets the ball where it needs to be. However because all 4 can handle the ball any of them can start the break and get them easy offense in transition. So how did OSU do it, and can anyone else repeat?

 

The answer starts with transition defense. OSU did a great job getting back in transition D and more importantly they limited the chances MI had. In the first half OSU shot 52%, grabbed 4 offensive rebounds, and had only 4 turnovers. This limited the opportunities for MI to run, and when they did OSU was great at beating them back. OSU was not as good in the 2nd half because they didn't shoot as well (34.8%), giving MI more opportunities. Still they only had 4 2nd half turnovers which helped limit the transition chances.

 

The second part of the equation is doubling. Since MI was forced to play a lot of half court basketball they ran a lot of their base offense which is ball screens for their numerous playmakers. Either Morgan or McGary was the screener and every time they ran the ball screen both OSU defenders left the screener and doubled the ball. This put pressure on the ball handler, and often forced them to make a pass out of the double. MI was horrible at this. Either the 5 man was in bad position or the pass was off over and over again which lead to 9 first half turnovers for MI. This was out of character as MI only averages 9.8 turnovers a game. MI again was better in the second half, and had a more normal 4 turnovers.

 

The final piece is that MI was just bad that day. MI has faced doubles on screens before but you wouldn't have known it the way they played them in the first half. OSU may be more able to run doubles effectively as OSU is longer and more athletic than most teams in college basketball and has some premiere perimeter defenders in Craft, Scott, and Smith Jr. However MI was also just making silly mistakes they don't normally make. MI was just off shooting the ball, which is no surprise for a big ten team playing on the road. They shot 38.3% for the game.

 

Can anyone repeat what OSU did? Maybe. MSU has enough athletes to do some of the same things, and MI could have another off shooting day at MSU. Outside of that game, UW may have the best chance to hold the score low with tempo, but MI will probably torture our young guards and turnovers may be a problem. I think teams that can beat MI are probably teams that will try to outscore them. In the Big Ten Indiana is probably the only team that has the horses to run with them.

 

Still, even with this horrible performance MI was able to get the game tied with 6 minutes left in the game after being down 20 points in the first half. OSU hit 3 shots to get back out to a 6 point lead while MI missed 5 straight 3 point attempts. MI got hosed on a horrible call when Burke stole the ball and got fouled while making a layup, but the ref incorrectly called the foul on the floor. MI got 2 free throws on the next possession and got another steal and breakaway dunk to cut the lead to 52-50. With 15 seconds left Burke missed the 6th three point attempt of the final 6 minutes on a shot that hit the inside of the rim twice before popping out, and would have given MI the lead. After 2 made OSU free throws Burke would miss another 3, before hitting one with 1 second remaining to reach the final score of 56-53. MI finished the 2nd half 3-14 from 3. This may be the most interesting fact of the game: Despite playing their worst offensive game of the year, on the road vs a top 15 big ten team, MI still had a chance to win the game in the closing seconds.

This is a good basketball team.

 

Can good basketball sell?

Wanted to post this great article on ESPN about the NBA and the lack of big time individual scorers.

The gist is that the rule changes from a few years back that allowed zone defenses and more help defense have changed the game but not the overall scoring. Teams have to pass the ball instead of letting a star get the ball on a wing and go one on one on a clear out. This emphasises shooting and ball movement over breaking down defenders off the dribble to get to the rim or free throw line.

This is a good change for people like me who like watching good basketball, but maybe not for the NBA, whose business model is based on marketing stars. Increased assists for the best players just don't draw the attention of casual fans who only look at the easiest stat to understand- scoring numbers. Fewer players that put up big scoring numbers means fewer marketable stars that are billed in the nightly matchups. There will still be some of the Lebron vs Kobe games, but there will be fewer of the secondary stars that casual fans will still come out to see.

Will this trend last? My hope is yes, but my guess is no. The rules haven't hurt any major playoff matchups yet as the Lakers, Celtics and Heat (all major markets) have all been to the finals of late which the league loves. The league is flush with marketable stars right now in Kobe, Lebron, Durant, Melo, etc. but if this trend continues who will be the stars of the future to market 7-10 years from now. Will people pay to go see the marquee NBA matchup of two players who average 18 points, 9 assists and 7 rebounds?

There may be more rule changes in the coming years.

Anyone surprised by that loss?

If you are, you haven't been watching this Badger team, and you may have drank the kool-aid after the Indiana win. This is a young team that will have games like this where too many mistakes cost them a win. Losing the turnover battle 12-7 was the key stat. UW just doesn't lose turnover battles like that very often. Give both UW and Iowa some nice credit in this one. After being down 20 in the first half UW kept battling and got themselves back in the game late in the 2nd half. Iowa, who starts 3 freshman, kept their cool when UW made the charge. Iowa didn't turn the ball over against pressure and the made 17-21 2nd half free throws.

Couldn't help but think back to the UW vs Iowa game Jan 21, 2009 that UW lost in overtime 73-69 when another freshman point guard had a break out game. In that game Jordan Taylor had career highs in points (10) and minutes played (20), and hit a deep 3 with 1 second left to send the game to overtime. That was the game you could see Taylor's potential for stardom. Marshall completely took over this game in the closing minutes scoring 20 points (on 7-10 shooting, 3-4 from 3, 3-3 FT). He also chipped in an assist and 0 turnovers.

I discussed a theory with Bart earlier this week that when judging young players you should look at them when they are at their best. This was a pretty good display by Marshall. Hopefully he continues to grow and earn more minutes.

Beating No. 2 on the Road—An Investigation

Wisconsin's win over Indiana in Bloomington the other night was one of the greatest wins in program history. Never before had the Badgers beaten a team ranked as high as No. 2 on the road. Offhand, I can think of only three definitively better wins: the two wins over OSU when they were ranked No. 1 (in 1962 and 2011) and the win over Purdue to advance to the Final Four in 2000.

But it is also one of the great wins for any program over the last several years. Teams ranked as high as No. 2 in the AP poll almost never lose at home. Indeed, according to my research, the AP No. 2 was 188-5 at home over the six seasons between 2006-07 and 2011-12. The five losses were:

12/2/2007 — #8 Texas* beat UCLA
12/29/2008 — #11 Georgetown beat UCONN
2/14/2010 — Louisville (unranked) beat Syracuse
1/22/2011 — #10 Texas beat Kansas
1/24/2011 — #15 Notre Dame beat Pitt

[*This Texas team, which eventually lost in the Elite 8, lost in Austin a few weeks later to Michael Flowers and the Wisconsin Badgers. It was the Longhorns' only home loss that year.]

Although No. 2 lost at home only five times in the six years I looked at, it also happened twice in three days in January 2011. Gotta love sports.

Over the same six seasons, the AP No. 1 team lost at home just four times:

2/23/2008 — #2 Tennessee beat Memphis
1/4/2009 — Boston College (unranked) beat North Carolina
1/21/2009 — Virginia Tech (unranked) beat Wake Forest
2/16/2009 — #4 Pitt beat UCONN (in Hartford, so not true home)

Again, although it happened only four times total, it also happened three times in six weeks during the 2008-09 season. Gotta love sports.

Overall, teams ranked in the AP top two lost at home just nine times over the previous six seasons.

Make it ten.

something to do on a sick day

I've been laying around sick all day today and can't sleep so I watched the Indiana game again.

My fascination with defending ball screens continues. UW doesn't have a strict rule on this front anymore. As I have discussed before, UW has gone from a team that always fought over ball screens, to a team that always switched on ball screens, to now a team that does both. The question is why. The problem with not doing it the same way all time is that players can get confused, and have miscommunications which lead to breakdowns. The advantage is that your defense is more flexible to adjust to certain types of players strengths. Does Bo trust his players more?

For example: vs Indiana UW switched on most ball screens, except when Jordan Hulls had the ball. Hulls is an exceptional shooter so UW didn't want to give him open looks from deep. Every time Jackson or Marshall was on him they used their quickness to get over the top on screens to bother him and force him to dribble toward the hoop and into defensive help. I counted 4 occasions when Brust was guarding him that Brust went underneath or switched. On 2 of those a foul occurred and another Hulls hit a jumper.

A few signs this is not your father's Badgers anymore.

The Badgers had 7 different players score by the 10 minute mark of the first half vs Indiana. Having a bunch of guys who are not afraid to shoot, even in a game as intimiidating as at #2 Indiana is pretty awesome. Gone are the days of Jason Chappell standing alone at the free throw line with the ball looking confused. As my cowriter Bart pointed out on Berggen's 1st half dunk, the lane was wide open because Indiana was respecting UW's shooters.

When UW went on a 7 minute drought without a basket, and Indiana was on a 10-1 run to cut a 10 point lead to 1 with about 4 minutes to go, UW didn't crumble. Is there much doubt that the teams I watched growing up for years would have lost that game? Not Bo Ryan's team. Surely some of that is because Bo is the best recruiter UW has ever had, so the players are better than all those crappy teams I watched fail as a kid. However I feel like Bo's steely temperament carries over to his kids, and that, as much as any talent is why the have such mental toughness.

When Ben Brust threw down a dunk against Indiana, he became by my unofficial count, the 7th different badger to dunk a ball in a game this year (Berggren, Kaminsky, Evans, Bruiser, Dekker, Showalter, and Brust-this is just by memory, I could be wrong). I bet there were years the Badgers didn't have 7 dunks all season when I was a kid, let alone 7 different players.

I remember having a discussion with my cowriter a couple of years ago where I was ripping on this year's group of seniors- Evans, Bruiser and Berggren. I said this years seniors could be the first group of seniors for Bo in a while not to have a 1000 point scorer. Bart was skeptical of that and convinced me that Berggren would get his points over his junior and senior year to get to the milestone. As of right now it is going to be by a nose if any of these seniors make it there. Bruiser has no chance with 391 career points coming into this year and 111 so far for a total of 502. Berggren had almost nothing until last year (just 89 points as a freshman and sophomore) and had a long way to go. He got 379 last season for a total of 468 and has 220 this year for 688 career points. Evans career scoring by year is 116, 95, 397, and 195 so far this year for a total of 803.

The Badgers have 14 regular season games left, at least one guaranteed big ten tourney game, and barring something crazy will play at least one post season game in the NCAA (or NIT if they fall apart). Pretty good chance they win a game in the Big Ten or NCAA tourney which would get them to 17 remaining games. At their current averages Berggren would score another 219 points (12.9*17) and be well short. Evans would score another 196 (17*11.5) and get to 999. I feel there is a pretty good chance UW may get to play 18 games or more which would help Evans get there, but it is no given anyone gets there.

Wisconsin v. Indiana

This game has blowout written all over it. There is Wisconsin's ridiculous 10-game win streak that provides the extra bit of motivation for IU. There is Wisconsin riding high, ready to come crashing back to earth. There are the vulnerabilities at guard for Wisconsin, going up against a high-energy half-court defense that always gives Wisconsin fits. Indiana is just very skilled and very good at every position, and they have a high lottery pick to lean on.

Of course, you never know... If I were to chart out a Badger win, it would probably be that IU gets out to a big lead, like 15 points, and then lets off the gas. Their style of defense takes energy, so maybe they let up. And maybe they get lazy on offense—stop touching the post, settle for contested jumpers. Then, starting at about the 8 minute mark of the second half, Wisconsin makes a run and Indiana misses some shots and misses some free throws down the stretch, leaving the door open for a Sam Dekker three-pointer at the buzzer.

The problem is that at home teams get that extra energy boost that fuels them through the lulls, and they also tend to make more of their contested jumpers than usual (see, for example, the Marquette game this year).

I'll stick to my preseason prediction: IU by 10.

Will Wisconsin Make the Tournament?

Prior to yesterday's win over Illinois, many Badger fans were ready to give up on the season. Even now, the Badgers remain "on the bubble," (according to bracketologists) and there are questions whether the team can keep alive its streak of NCAA tournament appearances. On that question, here are some facts to consider:

1) Most agree that the Badgers are a lock if they go 9-9 in the Big Ten. For the Badgers to go 8-10 in Big Ten play would mean losing 10 of their their next 15 games. Such a stretch has occurred only once in the Bo Ryan era, when they lost 10 of their last 15 games in 05-06 after Landry and Stiemsma were declared ineligible. So another way to frame the question is: what are the chances that the next 15 games will match the worst stretch in the Bo Ryan era? Subtract that number from 100 and you get your chance that the Badgers make the tournament. My calculation: 95%.

2) the Badgers have lost 10 games in a entire season only four times (out of 11) under Bo Ryan.

3) the Badgers have never lost more than 8 Big Ten games under Bo Ryan.

4) other than the 05-06 stretch mentioned above, here are the worst 15-game stretches under Ryan:

•  2001-02—went 8-7 to start the season, then went 1-1 for technically another 8-7 stretch. Eventually they finished 1st in the Big Ten conference for the first time in 54 years.

•  2008-09—went 7-8 in the middle of the season, culminating with 6 game losing streak in the Big Ten. That team also lost 7 of its last 15. They still won an NCAA tournament game.

•  Last year—they had a 9-6 stretch that started with the loss at home to Iowa and ended with the loss at Iowa. (Sweet 16.)

• Other than those stretches, I believe Wisconsin has won at least 10 games in every 15 game stretch under Bo Ryan. Pretty amazing!

5) On the other hand, this will arguably be the most difficult 15 game stretch the Badgers have ever faced under Bo. Depending on how things go, they could be the underdog in up to 10 of the 15 games—though it will probably be more like eight—which would be unprecedented under Bo.

So, anything could happen, but I like the Badgers' chances of keeping the streak alive.

Least important game of the year (so far)

On Tuesday, Wisconsin plays Indiana in Bloomington. Wisconsin will be a huge underdog, as they should be. They have almost no chance of winning this game, and—having done what they needed to do against Illinois—have no need to win it.

So it will be a nice relaxing game to watch: expecting a blowout loss, just hoping they can make it interesting. And maybe, who knows ...

TO

How many times am I going to have to see the replay of that god damn Owens catch in the playoff loss to San Fran. Already up to 2. I put the over under at 6.

Game of the Year (so far)

Wisconsin plays Illinois at the Kohl Center tomorrow. It is one of those games that appears to be a "must win" for both teams.

In truth, it's a must-win only for Wisconsin. Wisconsin is entering an extremely difficult 11-game stretch, perhaps even 12 games if you count at Northwestern as a test (personally I don't—not this year, without Crawford). As it stands, Wisconsin will probably be a significant underdog in 7 of those 11 games.  Other than the home game against Iowa, this will be Wisconsin's best chance for a win. Which means they really need it if they want to make the tournament.

Illinois, on the other hand, has a home game against Northwestern and a road game against Nebraska coming up next. So even if they lose to Wisconsin and fall to 1-3, there's a great chance they'll right the ship and get back to 3-3 in short order. After that they'll have six very winnable games remaining and a decent shot to get to 9-9, making them a certain NCAA tournament qualifier. (Though I'd still predict 8-10—which probably still gets them in.)

In football, the more desperate team nearly always wins. This isn't necessarily true in college basketball. College basketball has a simpler formula: the home team almost always wins.

As you know, I think Illinois is overrated and most smart people agree with me. Though the polls have Illinois ranked as high as 12th, both Kenpom and the Sagarin predictor have them ranked 37th. And Illinois hasn't won a Big Ten road game in over a year. Most recently, they lost an ugly game at Purdue. But, to be fair they do have one of the season's most impressive road wins, at Gonzaga.

Wisconsin has looked far from invincible at home, where they've lost to mediocre Virginia and won a war of attrition against lowly Penn State. Wisconsin is ranked 17 in Kenpom and 25th in the predictor; the humans have Wisconsin in the land of no votes.

Many people are jumping off the Badgers bandwagon after the lackluster wins over Penn State and Nebraska. (These people tend to overlook other teams' "bad wins," though—Illinois, for example, needed buzzer beaters to defeat both Hawaii and Gardner Webb.) As Chorlton explained, the outcomes against Nebraska and Penn State were primarily the result of bad shooting. On a normal shooting night, Wisconsin wins both games easily. (Indeed, if you assume that both teams shoot their season averages on 2s, 3s, and FTs, Wisconsin beats Penn State 73-50 and Nebraska 62-50—which is weirdly close to my pre-season prediction of 75-50 and 65-50 for those games.)

All told, a Wisconsin loss to Illinois would be surprising, but revealing—particularly if the Badgers come out and have another bad shooting night. If that happens, it will probably be time to resign ourselves to the fact that this team just isn't very good at shooting, and therefore not very good at basketball.

But I don't think that's going to happen. Stretches of bad shooting are common, at least for the Badgers. They have these stretches even when they are really good. For example, see the three-game stretch last year when they lost at home to Iowa and Michigan State, then on the road to Michigan: their effective field goal percentage in those three games was 37, 38, 38.2—each of which is worse than any their performances so far this year.

I expect Wisconsin to have an average shooting game and win. I will stick to my pre-season prediction of a 6-point win.

For Real?

Did you see Minn win @Ill last night? I think we both agree that IL is not for real, but how for real is Minn? I picked them to be the 6th best team in the league in my early season picks, and you predicted them in a 3 way tie for 4th with UW and OSU.
Do you think Minn will be able to challenge MSU, Ind and Mich for the title?

beat me to it

I was just about to make a much needed post about my neglected Bucks yesterday and the lack of direction of this team, but I ran out of time after posting about the Badgers. GM John Hammond must have been on the same wavelength, as Bucks coach Scott Skiles was fired today. I liked Skiles as a coach but it was clear that this team was rudderless. They had no distinct personality after a season in which they had 2 completely different personalities. Skiles is a good coach who demands his players defend. His early teams were solid defensively with Andrew Bogut as the anchor. When Bogut got hurt, Skiles and the Bucks were pretty much done with their current system. When Bogut was traded last season for Monte Ellis the Bucks went from the top ten in scoring defense (and bottom 10 scoring offense) to the top ten in scoring offense immediately ( and bottom 10 in scoring defense). This season they have fluttered between so many personnel groupings I can't count, as it seems to change every couple games.

To give some idea of the changes- Most teams will have a core group of 7-8 players who dominate the minutes, and 3-4 players who will get fluctuating minutes depending on matchups, injuries, garbage time in blow outs, etc. NBA rosters are 15 deep, and active game day rosters are limited to 12. Usually the bottom 4-5 guys on the roster are developmental players or veteran journeyman filling a hole in the roster. All 15 Bucks have played in a minimum of 9 of 33 games. The bottom guy at 9 games is Drew Gooden who started 46 of 66 games last year, and is a quality role player. 11 of the 15 players have started a game and 2 of the players who haven't are 6th men Dunlevy and Udrih. The Bucks have been relatively healthy this year so injuries are not the reason they have been so erratic with the minutes.

It was hard to figure out exactly what Skiles was trying to do with all the changes. Perhaps he was just changing matchups to try to win games. This would be a novel idea for an NBA coach, who is not coaching in the playoffs. He did OK as the Bucks are 16-16 and in 3rd place in the Central, but constantly changing players just doesn't work in the NBA regular season. In college you only have a player for 4 years and they most likely are going to work as an accountant after they graduate. If you mess with their minutes you can teach them lessons on the court and in life, which is what college coaches should strive for. In the NBA if you mess with a guys minutes you are messing with his paycheck, and his ability to get a bigger one in the future. Players aren't interested in life lessons, they're interested in getting paid.

What in the end cost Skiles his job was the Bogut injury. It's really too bad for Skiles, Bucks fans, and Bogut himself, because before he got hurt he was developing into the player everyone wanted when he was taken with the #1 pick. In that season he had career highs in averages for points, blocks, and shot attempts while averaging over 10 boards, 52% FG, and a career high 63% from the free throw line- hardly great but a sign of his overall improvement. He was 3rd team all NBA that year, and by the end of the year was arguably the best defensive player in the league not named Dwight Howard. The Bucks entire system and the reason Skiles was hired as coach was based around defense with Bogut in the middle. Once he became a one armed player the team and the system no longer worked. When Bogut asked for a trade last year to get a fresh start and management accommodated him, the writing was on the wall that this team was headed for major changes.

 

While I am sad to see Skiles go, it certainly seems like the right move. I am of the opinion that NBA coaches are about as important as MLB managers, which is to say slightly above useless. The NBA is not like the NFL where coaches are calling every play, and mixing and matching and using almost all of their 46 game day players. NBA players win games, and coaches are there to do the post game interviews. There are a handful of coaches that make any difference at all, and they generally only matter when it comes to playoff time when long series and small adjustments actually matter. So with that in mind this change won't effect the Bucks much this year. The question is where do they go from here.

Skiles was brought in to be a defensive coach and run a defensive system. Will the Bucks go a new direction with their system? They have 7 free agents after this season including Jennings, Ellis, Dunlevy, Udrih, and Dalembert. Rumor is they will extend the contract of GM John Hammonds who is also a free agent after this year. Will the Bucks blow up this team and start over, or invest in the young talent they have. We shall see.

Good luck Scott, and best wishes.

revisiting Lincoln

I may still be wearing the rose (or in this case cardinal) colored glasses, but I did see some things I liked in Lincoln. The biggest of which is that for only the 3rd time this year and the first time since the 3rd game against Cornell, Berggren lead the team in shot attempts. Given the horrendous overall offensive performance I probably should not be looking for positive trends, but I like this one. In addition to the shots, the offense often ran through Berggren, and the other 6 players who got significant minutes each took between 5-8 shots. I like Berggren taking lots of shots, and I like offensive balance from the rest of the players (Evans did have 8 free throw attempts in addition to 8 shots so he was ahead of the others).

I posted earlier this year regarding Gasser's loss that I thought there was no chance that this would become Berggren's team. I thought that Dekker would find his way into that role given the lack of play makers in the backcourt, but he has pretty much stayed the course in his steady development and continues to play within the offense. Ryan Evans and Brust have both taken on the role of shooters and creators. They are 1 and 2 in shot attempts. Brust has been more aggressive with the dribble drive and Evans has been much more active in the post as well as being the primary post feeder to Berggren. In any given game shot attempts can be high for anyone depending on the defense and if a guy is hot or not, but you like to see your best player getting the most shots.

If Brust and Evans are going to lead the way, I guess I'm OK with that. It certainly isn't going to be Jackson and Marshall. I just hope that they remember Berggren is the best player and they need to get him his touches and shots. If not we will be condemned to a season of Evans jacking up 18 foot jumpers and Brust diving into three defenders in the lane.

Was I wrong about Illinois? No.

For some reason I have become fixated on the merits of Illinois's basketball team. Having gone public with my belief that they are a "fraud," I now actively root against them so that my uninformed opinion can be validated. This is one of the great things about making my stupid opinions public—it makes watching sports more interesting.

As you'll recall, I first discussed Illinois prior to their road game with Purdue. I said that a loss against Purdue would prove that they are not for real. They lost to Purdue, so I declared them not for real. I also opined (on Twitter) that Illinois was now facing the likelihood of an 0-4 start in the Big Ten, with upcoming games against Ohio State, Minnesota, and at Wisconsin.

Illinois promptly went out and destroyed Ohio State.

So was I wrong about Illinois? Of course not! I was wrong about Ohio State.

Coming into the season, I was suspicious of all the love Ohio State was getting. They lost a lot from last year's Final Four team, and have mostly unproven players coming back. They do have a scorer's scorer in DeShaun Thomas, but the rest of the team is mostly question marks.

They really did nothing in the non-conference to dispel these doubts. They won all the games they should have won, and lost the two games (at Duke and against Kansas) that you can excuse them for losing.

What happened, really, is that I kind of forgot about my doubts about Ohio State. But I remembered them well when I watched them play Illinois on Saturday. Mainly, they had a bad shooting day—something I've watched a lot of, lately. But it was also pretty clear that their offense is not a well-oiled machine. Thomas can score, but he's the only one who can consistently create his own looks. And he has to create his own looks, because they didn't get a lot of open looks out of the flow of the offense.

I'm sure Ohio State will be fine, but they look like a team that is going to have a tough time winning on the road in the Big Ten. That was my takeaway from their game against Illinois.

As for Illinois . . . Perhaps they can be put back in the "jury's still out" category. If they beat Minnesota or Wisconsin this week, they'll have done probably enough to assure that they get to 9-9 in conference, which would make them a clear tourney lock. That would be a good result for that team. But we shall see...

Super Bowl Saturday

I am on record that the winner of the game this Saturday between the Packers and 49ers will go on to win the Superbowl. Much like in the early 90s when the Cowboys-49ers game was the de facto Super bowl, this game features the leagues 2 best teams.
I like the Packers to win, and face Denver in the Superbowl.

Sure am glad I turned the TV back on

I was in a bit of a funk after watching the Nebraska game today. A game which was very much like the PSU game in that UW out played them but kept them in the game with horrendous shooting (4-17 on 3 pointers, 3-13 free throws). UW has got to shoot better or they may not win 5 games in the Big Ten. I was beginning to have my doubts about this team.

I went into my basement to work out and watch the end of the Redskins-Seahawks game, and then was about to take the dogs to the park but I decided to turn on the Minn-Northwestern game. To my surprise Minn was trailing 13-11 with 3 minutes to go in the first half. This is the #13 team in the country playing at home against a Northwestern team that struggles defensively and is riddled with injuries. That made me feel better. Minn closed out the half on a 6-1 run to take a 17-14 halftime lead. The game was still in doubt until about the 10 minute mark of the 2nd half when Hollins hit 5 straight 3s to put it away.

UW is going to have some games this year when they hit shots. They will probably have more when they don't. They are going to have some games when they get the snat beat out of them. They are going to have to win games ugly. In the end all that matters is the W or L. UW got a W today, and hopefully they get a bunch more.

Badgers' Big Ten Season Begins

Yesterday I wrote about the Illinois–Purdue matchup, and opined that an Illinois loss would prove that they are a fraud. Illinois lost. They are a fraud. And by that I mean that I think they will finish below Wisconsin in the Big Ten standings.

Now, about Wisconsin, which opens up tonight at home against Penn State. This is not the Badgers team I was hoping for this year. Mainly this is due to the loss of Josh Gasser, who was probably their most indispensible player. But I've also been disappointed in the play of George Marshall. There were rumors that he was something special, and he may well turn out to be. But he isn't there yet—at least not as a point guard. I have been impressed with his shooting (he has hit 20 threes, more than anyone else but Brust, and trails only fellow freshman Sam Dekker in 3P%) but he is not ready to run the offense, and probably isn't ready to play Big Ten defense up to Bo Ryan's standards. Nor is Trae Jackson. So those are real problems.

But this is still Wisconsin, and they are still coached by Bo Ryan. Even with their four losses, Kenpom has them ranked 17th, and the Sagarin Predictor as them ranked 20th. Wisconsin also benefits from a relatively favorable Big Ten schedule—they play Indiana (road) and Michigan (home) only once, don't have to travel to Purdue, and get a good chance at a road win at Northwestern.

They also get to ease into the season a bit, with their first three games against Penn State, at Nebraska, and at home against Illinois. This is probably their easiest three-game stretch of the conference season (except for possibly their late-season stretch that goes @NW, Nebraska, Purdue).

A lot of people are giving up on the Badgers. For example, Seth Davis says "This is not your older brother's Bo Ryan team," and urges us to "sell" our stock in the Badgers. I'm holding. But these first three games are crucial. The Badgers absolutely have win the first two, obviously, and really need to win the third as well. If they don't, I may have to concede that Seth Davis was right. And you have no idea how very painful that would be.

Anyhow, here's my super-prediction of the Badgers' conference season:

1/3: Penn State— W, 75-50
1/6: @Nebraska— W, 65-50
1/12: Illinois — W, 71-65
1/15: @Indiana— L, 80-70
1/19: @Iowa— W, 69-68
1/22: MSU — W, 65-61
1/26: Minn. — W, 60-56
1/29: @OSU — L, 73-60
2/3: @Illinois — L, 70-61
2/6: Iowa— W, 80-60
2/9: Michigan— L, 65-64
2/14: @Minnesota— L, 65-59
2/17: OSU— W, 65-64
2/20: @Northwestern— W, 70-60
2/26: Nebraska— W, 70-50
3/2: Purdue— W, 65-50
3/7: @MSU— L, 59-49
3/10: @Penn State— W, 71-59

That's how I get to 12-6.

I have put in bold the season's Seven Crucial Games. The first is the home game against Illinois on Jan. 12th. Since Illinois is not for real, the Badgers must beat them at home, and I expect them to. But if they don't, then you can subtract at least three other wins off this list.

The other six in bold are the Swing Six™—the six games that could go either way. Luckily, four of the six are at home, where the Badgers rarely lose. This is the main reason I have the Badgers going 4-2 in these games. But they could easily go 2-4, as well, if the ball doesn't bounce their way.

As you can see, we will know a lot more about the Badgers by the end of this month. The three-game stretch @Iowa, MSU, and Minn will be crucial. My 3-0 prediction there seems, I admit, optimistic, and I would certainly be happy with 2 out of 3. But it should be fun to watch.

Early Big Ten test for Illinois

Among Big Ten teams, it's safe to say Illinois had the most surprisingly positive performance during the non-conference season. No one was expecting much of this team in John Groce's first year. These are still Bruce Weber's players—a ragtag bunch of talented individuals who just don't seem to have the patience required to play winning college basketball. But so far they've gone 13-1, with a neutral court win over Butler, an impressive road win over a very good Gonzaga team, and just the one loss to a good Missouri team on a neutral court. That résumé has them sitting at No. 11 in the current AP poll, and they're projected as a 3-seed in the tourney over at the Bracket Matrix.

Still, there's good reason to be suspicious of this Illinois team. First, there's history. Illinois started out 11-1 last year, too, and that start also included a nice win over Gonzaga (though it came at home). Then the wheels fell off. Illinois won just six more games and finished 17-15.

Second, a closer look at the way Illinois has won its games isn't as impressive as their won-loss record. For example, they just squeaked out a two-point win over lowly Auburn in Chicago the other day. Although they had the game in hand with just over a minute to go, they made several boneheaded plays in the final minute, which almost let Auburn back in the game. It was not real impressive to watch. They also barely beat a bad Hawai'i team (on the road), a mediocre Gardner-Webb team, and a bad Western Carolina team (which tied the game with six minutes left).

As a result, the computer ranking systems are not high on Illinois. Kenpom has them ranked 41st, and the Sagarin Predictor has them 35th.

If it weren't for the road win over Gonzaga, I'd be pretty confident in labeling the Illini a fraud. But Gonzaga is good—they're 8-0 against other Kenpom top-100 teams (including a huge win at Oklahoma State on New Years' Eve)—and Illinois is their only loss on the season so far. College basketball is, of course, a coach's sport, and there is a real possibility that John Groce has turned Illinois right around. So I'm withholding judgment.

Until at least tonight. Tonight Illinois plays at Purdue, which is deep into a rebuilding season. Purdue comes into Big Ten play with a 6-6 record. They have just one okay win (at Clemson) and at least one terrible loss (at Eastern Washington Michigan, 47-44). They're not likely to be favored in any Big Ten game except their games against Northwestern (at home), Nebraska, and Penn State.

Purdue is bad enough that even a win by Illinois tonight will not prove they are for real. But a loss tonight will prove—to my satisfaction, at least—that Illinois is just fool's gold.

Illinois is a 2.5 – 3 point favorite. I'll take Purdue and three points.

Big Ten basketball predictions

I may supplement this with actual analysis tomorrow, but here's my predicted finish in the Big Ten:

Indiana 14-4
Michigan 14-4
Michigan State 13-5
Minnesota 12-6
Wisconsin 12-6
Ohio State 12-6
Iowa 9-9
Illinois 8-10
Purdue 6-12
Northwestern 4-12
Penn State 2-16
Nebraska 1-17

That probably doesn't add up, but I'm tired and it's not likely anybody cares about my stupid uniformed opinion anyhow.

Reflections and predictions

Good 1st year for the blog. I have to say I am very satisfied and it has pretty much provided exactly what I was hoping for, a nice way to track all the things I am right about all the time. We'll just ignore that "O'Brien is better" post. Pretty sure someone hacked the blog and posted that for me.

On to my last Badger football predictions of the year. I started this exercise to track my gambling abilities and this is probably too small a sample size to make any grand generalizations. I am a woeful 1-3-1 on the over/under this year, but a much better 4-1 against the spread for an overall record of 5-4-1. Stanford is a 6 point favorite, and the o/u is 47.

2 teams that have had a lot of success recently as both have played in 3 consecutive BCS bowls. UW has struggled to score against good defenses, and I expect that to continue. The question is can UW stop Stanford's offense, and not give up any big plays on special teams. I hope they can, but I'm taking Stanford -6. At this point I should just stop picking the o/u and cut my losses, but I'll do one more just for the purpose of this exercise. Bowl games tend to give the offense the advantage as they have prep time to put together unscouted looks and trick plays so I'm taking the over.

If anyone knows of a good sports gambling website let me know (by good I mean that they don't charge a ton for the juice and that you can cash out easily).

History may not repeat, but it rhymes..

Weird fact. In 1997 the Badgers played Boise State, which had just jumped to Div. 1-A. The Badgers played them a week after getting destroyed by Donovan McNab and Syracuse. Despite that loss, the Badgers were five touchdown favorites, as Boise State was coming its own humiliating defeat—a 40 point loss to Div. 1-AA Cal-State Northridge. Boise State basically beat the Badgers, but the Badgers pulled it out on a late TD drive punctuated by two long Mike Samuel runs. I recall listening to the game on the radio in the old State Street apt.

Boise State was coached that year by Houston Nutt. After the season ended, he headed to Arkansas....

This year the Badgers played a similar game against Utah State. This time it was the Badgers' coach who headed to Arkansas, and it is the Badgers who are snapping up the upstart's coach.

My thoughts on Andersen

Like Chorlton, I'm optimistic. More and more, college football is a game of recruiting. Andersen's recruiting success at Utah State is pretty amazing. He took a moribund program that was way, way behind two established in-state programs (BYU and Utah) and started beating them out for recruits. That's kind of unbelievable. I have a hard time believing that any big time recruit is getting out of Wisconsin with Andersen on board.

Couple other nuggets on Andersen, courtesy of some Wikipedia research:

1) He is the first coach the Badgers have ever hired who has previously taken a team to a bowl game as a head coach. And he's been to two, and won one. (Of course, there are a lot more bowl games nowadays, but still.)

2) He is the first coach the Badgers have hired since 1932 (the great Clarence Spears!) who has won a conference title with a previous team. Spears led Minnesota to a first-place tie in the Big Ten in 1927.

(Slight caveat to nugget #2: Don Morton technically won the Missouri Valley Conference title with Tulsa in 1985. But he went just 3-0 in conference, as it was the last year of MVC football. He went 7-4 the next year with Tulsa playing as an independent, and then the Badgers hired him. Unbelievable.)

Some of the Badgers fans I enjoy following on twitter are quibbling about whether this was an A- or a B+ hire. I don't think we can grade with that level of detail. I prefer the famous Siskel & Ebert system—thumbs up or thumb down? My thumb is up. To look at it another way, I think it's pretty clear that by any objective standard this is the best hire in the history of the Badgers' football program—or at least since 1932.

And now to Andersen

I'll keep this one short since there's just not much to go on yet.

I'm optimistic. He has a good track record of success. He recruited his own state very well despite having 2 better schools to compete with.

I don't like that he has run systems different than what UW has had success with. He has run a spread offense, and a press man defense. I know Badger fans will probably love to see a change from the soft zone the Badgers have run for the last 20 years, but they have had a lot of success with that defense. Who knows what he will run once he's here. The proof will be in the pudding.

If he doesn't work out, Paul Chryst may be available in 3-4 years.

Why Arkansas?

Seeing Bret go was not nearly as shocking as where he went. A coach with as much success as he had was bound to get better opportunities. I guess when I imagined him leaving, it was for a better job than Arkansas. Perhaps that is why some fans felt so scorned. If your girlfriend leaves you for someone who is better looking, younger, and makes more money it hurts, but at least it makes sense. Had Bielema gone to a school like Florida I would have understood. Hurt, but not hurt and confused.

Arkansas is a good program and has several advantages over UW. They have more money being number one. Arkansas has an alumni donor base including the Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones that will throw money into the program. That means Bielema gets over a million more per year, and he can pay his assistants much more than UW would pay. That money also allows for top notch facilities that can be constantly updated due to the never ending flow of cash. UW is not a poor school when it comes to football. Bielema probably could have got a new contract from UW for more money after 3 Rose Bowls, and UW just finished a new locker room and upgrades to the facilities. Still, money is an advantage.

Recruiting may be easier there as well. Arkansas is not a state that produces tons of in-state talent. ESPN's recruiting site shows that both WI and AR have about the same number of recruits that get 2-4 stars, about 15 this year. The schools Arkansas will be competing against like Alabama, LSU, Florida and Georgia all have more than 15 players who are 4 and 5 star recruits in-state, and dozens more 2-3 star kids. Perhaps proximity is an advantage. Arkansas is closer to the hotbed of southern talent than WI, so they may be able to pull in some of that top tier talent from those states UW never had a chance at. Playing in the SEC, which will soon claim the conferences 7th straight national championship, can't hurt recruiting either.

When Bielema talked to his players about leaving, they said he was leaving because he wanted to win a national championship. This was taken as a slight against UW by some of his players and certainly by Alvarez who responded by saying that UW was arguably 2 hail mary plays from being in the national championship game last year. UW has also had 4 other seasons with only one regular season loss in 1993, 1998, 2006, and 2010. Now, a win in any of those seasons wouldn't necessarily have got UW into national championship consideration, but it shows UW wasn't that far either.

As an aside, I hear fans criticize UW sometimes about not going for a national championship. For example they criticize UW for not scheduling better non-conference opponents because UW will not have a good enough strength of schedule to make the BCS championship playing patsies. These people are idiots. UW is not Ohio State, Alabama, or USC. Just look at the stats about in-state recruits and you can see UW does not have the natural resources to compete for a championship year in and year out. Why schedule Alabama when you may be struggling to make 4-4 in the Big Ten. It's also impossible for UW to predict when they are going to have a chance to make a national championship run. Many of their great runs have come when they started the year unranked. It's not that UW won't ever win a National Championship, (the coming playoff system gives them a better chance) but they should not be judged by that level of success, nor should they base their program around that goal. I would argue that UW has had the level of success it has had because they have created a system for success within their limitations, and not shooting for the stars. More on this another time.

So why did he go? Money? Championship? Maybe some of both?

I think he'll find them, but not at Arkansas. I am predicting that Bielema will not finish his contract out at Arkansas, and this will be a stepping stone job until he can get a job at a big time program. He gets to take over a talented but underachieving 4-8 team at a school that has been pretty good over the last decade. He gets out from under the shadow of Barry Alvarez, and can prove he can win without him. If he has a couple 10 win seasons and pulls an upset or 2 against LSU or Alabama, he will be moving on to a Florida State type program and 5 million a year if the NFL doesn't lure him in.

Former Badgers in the News

Suzy Favor Hamilton. It's not what you'd expect.

UPDATE: Ms. Favor Hamilton has a twitter feed. It's worth reading.

Goodbye Bret

I have been one of the few Bielema defenders over the past several years, at least amongst my friends. Pretty much from the start fans just didn't like him. When he went 12-1 in his first season, finished ranked 5th and 7th in the polls (after being unranked until the 7th week of the season), and won the Capital One Bowl it was because he did it with Alvarez's players. When he followed that up with a 9 win season (5-3 in Conference) it was a disappointment because the team started the year ranked #7 after the 12-1 season. When he went 7-6 in year 3 and almost lost to Cal Poly, people wanted his head. A 10 win season capped with a bowl win didn't seem to buy him much good will in 2009.

After each of the last 3 seasons in which UW has gone to the Rose Bowl I have gloated endlessly over the Bielema haters asking them if UW should fire him now. To my laughter I continually heard them continue hating. He needs to win a Rose Bowl and not just get there they said after TCU. He can't win the big game they said after Oregon. UW can't win a close game and they don't deserve to to be there they said this year.

I honestly don't get it. The media reported about his prickly personality, and locals have told me the guy is an asshole. Who cares? None of the fans I know who called for his firing knew him personally, were upset by his media interviews, or even noticed when he ran up the score against coaches he didn't like. How many successful football coaches aren't assholes?

To the haters who are happy he is gone, I have just a few numbers.

UW has had 8 seasons of 10 or more wins in it's history. Bielema had 4, Alvarez had 4.

While he won't coach in this year's Rose Bowl, he joins only 2 other coaches in Big Ten History to lead their teams to 3 straight Rose Bowls, Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler are the others.

That's pretty good company to be in with.

I will miss you Brett. I wish you the best at Arkansas, and thank you for the many joyful wins you helped create over the last 7 seasons. At least until UW gets matched up with Arkansas in a future bowl game. Then you can go fuck yourself.

Back by popular demand

I would like to thank the loyal readers of this blog (both of them) for needling me about the lack of blog posts recently. A combination of the bowl game break, finals/Christmas break for basketball, and a nasty cold have held me back, but I will be back in full force soon.

A blizzard is coming tomorrow and my work has already been canceled, so I will be posting my thoughts on our dear departed football coach, and his successor, in between shoveling.

Robin Yount Shot Dale Sveum in the Back

Seriously. But it was an accident, and Sveum is fine.

End of an Era

In my ongoing series of deceptive post titles I will not be addressing the UW coaching vacancy. I have a much more interesting topic from tonight's basketball game.

The Badgers won their 2nd consecutive blow out tonight after the Virginia debacle. In both those wins they have played much better defense, and pulled away easily in the first half after allowing only 24 to Cal and 13 to Nebraska-Omaha. I'm sure part of this is the ass kicking I'm sure they got in practice after the Virginia loss, and the caliber of their opponents. I would argue a bigger part is the end of the switching era.

As I discussed in my previous post, Bo changed to a defensive strategy of switching on ball screens a couple seasons ago. After the Virginia game switches have been minimal. Bigs are falling off the screens to give help if the dribbler goes to the rim and to guard against the screener rolling. The on ball defender is going over the screens and staying with the dribbler. This is leaving the screener wide open, but so far it has not done any damage. If the badgers play against a big that can shoot from outside then this may need adjustment. It will be interesting to see if Bo stays with this strategy, or if he changes to let his big men hedge on the screens which puts more pressure on the dribbler but can leave the screener open on the roll. In any case I think the end of the switching era is a good move. It fit for UWs past teams, but not this one.

I have always liked the idea of teams that can switch defenses, as a change of pace to throw off other teams. Bo does not believe in this and is strictly a man to man coach. Even more than that, Bo has had his guys play screens one way all the time too. Maybe he will change back and forth from switching to hedging depending on the matchup, but my guess is he will stick with a system that has worked for him for decades, and who can blame him.

It will be interesting to see if the defensive improvement is due to the inferior opponents, the fact teams were unprepared for the change in defense, or if this defense works for them the rest of the season.

Bye bye, Bret.

Bielema to Arkansas.

The Worst Team Ever to Play in the Rose Bowl?

Noted idiot Craig James infamously labeled Wisconsin's 1998-99 squad "the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl." The common charge was that the Badgers were actually the third-best team in the Big Ten—behind co-champs Ohio State and Michigan—and got to play in the Rose Bowl only because of an obscure, stupid tie-breaking rule. Wisconsin and OSU did not play that year, and Wisconsin was awarded the Rose Bowl because Michigan and OSU had been to the Rose Bowl more recently.

Wisconsin was a 10-point underdog against UCLA in that 1999 Rose Bowl Game (which Mr. Chorlton and I attended). UCLA had gone a perfect 8-0 in the Pac-10 and was headed to the BCS national championship game until a season-ending, non-conference 49-45 loss to a weak Miami team (which itself was coming off a 66-13 loss to a mediocre, Donovan McNab led Syracuse squad). UCLA was led at QB by future Chicago Bears failure Cade McNown, and it could score. But it could not defend. It was soft, like a marshmallow.

Enter Ron Dayne. He absolutely destroyed the UCLA defense, running for ridiculously easy touchdowns of 7, 10, 22, and 54 yards. Jamar Fletcher made the play of the game, picking off an awful McNown throw and returning it 46 yards for a touchdown.

Alluding to Craig James's comment, after the game Barry Alvarez quipped, "Well, I know we're at least the second worst" team ever to play in the Rose Bowl.

In hindsight, the hyperbole about the Badgers being a bad team that year looks silly. They had a number of great players, including notably Dayne and Fletcher. Other than a close win on the road against Indiana, the Badgers handily destroyed all the bad teams they played. They had two nice wins against Purdue (led by Drew Brees, who went 55 for 83—both NCAA records) and Penn State. Their only loss was on the road to Michigan, which went on to clobber Arkansas in the Citrus Bowl. Ohio State won the Sugar Bowl handily. The Big Ten was actually good that year. And the Badgers went back and won Rose Bowl again the next year, negating conclusively any notion that the 1998 team was a fluke.

The 1998 team is relevant because the Badgers are against going to the Rose Bowl under a cloud of controversy. They got to the Big Ten Championship game with four conference losses, on what might be reasonably considered a technicality. It appears that they got the best possible draw in Nebraska, which has a terrible run defense. A few weeks ago I said here, after the OT loss to Michigan State and the news of Stave's season-ending injury:

It's still likely that the Badgers will stumble their way to the Championship game. But their odds of winning it went way down. And, if they do, they may actually be the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl this time.

By one objective measure, the Badgers clearly are the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl: they have five losses, more than any other team ever to play in the game. I haven't researched it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's never been a four-loss team in the Rose Bowl. [Update: three teams have played in the Rose Bowl with four losses: Washington (6-4) in 1964 (lost to Illinois); Washington (7-4) in 1978 (beat Michigan); and UCLA (6-4-1) in 1984 (beat Illinois). So the three worst teams to play in the Rose Bowl are actually 2-1 in the game.]

That said, a strong case can be made that this is the best five-loss team ever. Three of the five losses were in overtime, and the other two were by three points. Two of the overtime losses came in what were essentially exhibition games after Wisconsin had already clinched a spot in the Big Ten Championship game. Wisconsin had nothing to play for in those games, particularly not in the final game when they could no longer claim the meaningless divisional "championship." In the brutal, physical game of football, the slightest lack of commitment is nearly impossible to overcome. So in my book those losses carry an asterisk.

We know now that the Badgers were keeping some tricks up their sleeves. They were clearly saving Melvin Gordon for when he was really needed. They were resting Chris Borland, who is probably the best player on the team. With something big to play for, against a quality opponent, with everything on the line, the Badgers brought the house and won by forty points. 40.

Early lines have the Badgers as 6.5 point underdogs against Stanford. Stanford is a very good team that plays Big Ten football. They have the best run defense in the nation, and they shut down the high-flying Oregon Ducks.

But Stanford's resume is not overwhelming. They have two losses, one of which was in overtime to No. 1 Notre Dame. But the other loss was to Washington which has lost, ahem, five times this year. And two of their wins were in overtime (against Oregon (impressive) and Arizona (not so much)). They also had their Northern Iowa moment in the season opener, when they beat San Jose State by just a field goal. (San Jose State is decent, it turns out, but they lost to Utah State by 22.)

All told, Stanford is an impressive team, and they will probably beat the Badgers. But I will be surprised if it's by more than six points. And I won't be at all surprised if the Badgers again prove themselves to be at least the second-worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl.

Am I going Crazy

I have read several articles and blogs that have discussed UWs defense in the OSU game because it was both unconventional for UW, and because it was so successful against Braxton Miller. For whatever reason, they all keep referring to the defense as a 4-2-5 as if it is some sort of new innovation in defensive scheme. UW tends to leave 3 linebackers on the field even against spread teams to stop the run and take advantage of their talent in Borland, Taylor and Armstrong. Since Borland was out injured against OSU, UW made changes to cover his loss.

Again today on Tom Lea's blog on ESPNwisconsin I saw this defense referred to as a 4-2-5.

That's nickle defense. Why aren't they calling it nickle. There is nothing new or special about it other than UW doesn't use it as much as everyone else. Am I missing something here?

Prediction

Those Vegas guys know their stuff. Last week was a push on the o/u as the game hit it on the nose at 45. That leaves me at 1-2-1 on o/u, and I took my first loss to fall to 3-1 against the spread. 4-3-1 overall.
This week Nebraska is a 3 point favorite, and the o/u is 49.
Badgers are a hard team to figure out this year. 5 losses, 4 of them by 3 points, and 3 in overtime. 4 blow out wins vs lesser Big Ten teams, but they needed end of game defensive stands to get wins at home vs Northern Iowa and Utah State (although Utah State turned out to be a pretty good team). 3 different starting quarterbacks, 2 different offensive line coaches, and several different offensive line combinations due to injuries. An offense that averaged in the 40s the last 2 years has scored over 38 just once all year.
I like the Badgers defense the last several weeks, and it looks as though Borland will be able to play. The D line is as healthy as it has been all year, and Shelton Johnson (who didn't play in the first game) and Southward have been good on the back end since Johnson returned.
My head is telling me that Nebraska is a better team and the best team usually wins, but the better team doesn't always win. Nebraska had some key injuries on both lines against Iowa, and I feel that those losses may be hard to fix in one week. The gut is telling me this game comes down to a field goal again, which given UW's special teams doesn't bode well for them.
I was hoping the spread would be higher and I was quite surprised to see UW as only a 3 point dog. If the spread was 2 1/2 I would take Nebraska, but the 3 point cushion gives me enough wiggle room to go with my gut, and take UW and the points. I have a strong feeling that this game will be a push. After all, those Vegas guys know what they are doing. I'll take the under again this week as I like Bucky to play good defense and try to hold the ball as much as possible.

62-55

I know that wasn't the final score of tonight's loss to Virginia, but it's pretty close. I am afraid that the loss tonight may be a repeat of a game UW did lose 62-55 in the 2005-2006 season. That game was unfortunately a harbinger of many losses to come as UW fell apart in the second half of that season. After losing both Marcus Landry and Greg Stiemsma for the 2nd semester UW lost it's next game at the Kohl Center to North Dakota State. UW finished that season out 5-8 including an extremely rare 1st round loss in the NCAA. When UW loses at home to a team that is not very good, it is a warning sign.

Golf is the Stupidest Sport

Apparently the USGA and the R&A have decided to outlaw the use of anchored putters in golf. Steve Stricker—Madison's favorite PGA son and great (conventional) putter—supports the rule change.

I don't really care about the rules of golf, but this is ridiculous. Exhibit A:

"There was no empirical data to suggest a long putter made golf easier."

In other words, every argument in favor of the ban is based on speculation and gut feelings.

So why ban the anchored long putter? Stricker says:

"Any time you can take your arms and hands out of it, especially your hands, I think when you can anchor it in your chest, (it) is a huge advantage. I'm not a big proponent of long putters."

OK, fine, but you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Who cares? If it is such an advantage, why don't you do it, Strick? Why don't 90% of pros do it? Just because they are too macho? Gimme a break. Millions of dollars are on the line. If pros really thought anchored putting was an advantage, they'd do it. And if golfers were really macho they'd be playing a real sport. You know, one with athletics involved.

Here's my theory. A country-club culture pervades golf, and the snobs in charge just think anchored putting looks funny. "Why, Millie, this is the worst thing since cargo shorts!" If these people were in charge of basketball they'd have outlawed the jump shot. ("Any time you elevate yourself, especially your hands, in the process of shooting, it is a huge advantage." Cf. Stricker's statement.)

Predictions

I correctly picked the winner vs the spread last week for the 3rd week in a row, but I fell to 1-2 on the o/u leaving me 4-2 on the year. PSU is a 3 point favorite at home, and the o/u is 45.
Last week is a similar situation to this week. A tough game that looks like a coin flip, so  I'll stick with the same strategy and take UW and the points. I'll see if I can get back to .500 and take the under in what I think will be a low scoring game.

Who's 6th?

There are a lot of games that don't involve the 5 contenders, and someone has to win them. There will be one or two teams that make the tourney outside of the big 5. Who will they be?

Let's start with the easy part, who it won't be.

Even with Frazier, PSU was at best a 6 win team. Now that he's hurt PSU may not win 3.
Nebraska had a rude introduction to the Big Ten last year. Even with a senior laden team they were bottom dwellers. They will not be better this year. A new coach and a rebuilding project equals 2 wins.

I won't do Purdue the disservice of grouping them with Nebraska and PSU, but they are rebuilding. This team brings in a big time recruiting class and has a bunch of young talent. Matt Painter is a good coach and this team will keep getting better. They will be dangerous in February and March. Don't be fooled into thinking this team will have the same success as the freshman class of Robbie Hummel, Jujuan Johnson, E'twan Moore and Scott Martin. Those guys took over after the Carl Landry era and didn't miss a beat. This years team is already struggling early, and will probably do so most of the year. Look out for them next year as they only lose DJ Byrd.
Northwestern is Northwestern. They will score the ball well. They won't defend well. They will pull off a big upset, probably vs Michigan State. They will do just enough for people to talk about them making the dance, but at the end of the year it will be clear to everyone that they aren't really even a bubble team.

Will the loss of Bruce Weber be enough to get Illinois back in the tourney? My guess is no. Brandon Paul showed he is an elite scorer last year and he will carry this team to some big wins. This team won't have enough defense to win consistently in the big ten. They will struggle, especially against the size of the contenders without Meyers Leonard to anchor the D and clean up the defensive glass. Illinois hopefully won't quit like they did last year on Weber, but that will only get them to the NIT.

In case you haven't done the math, that only leaves 2 teams. I think both will win enough games to make the tourney and both will pull off some surprise wins.

Last year I predicted Indiana would be the surprise team of the league and make the tourney when many prognosticators thought they were still a year away. I believed in Indiana because they could score the ball with anyone, and the addition of a big man gave them just enough defense and rebounding. Adam Woodbury is no Zeller, and he is playing limited minutes, but like Zeller he moves everyone over one spot so they are not defending so much out of position. Iowa is only scoring about 70 per game this year, but they are giving up only about 52 through 5 games against lesser competition. Excluding their loss against Creighton last year, in their first 5 games against lesser teams they were scoring 84 and giving up 67. They are playing a different style, and it is paying off defensively. I don't think Iowa will match Indiana's 11 big ten wins of last year, but look for them to be around .500 and be one of the last teams on the bubble to get in the tourney.

Minnesota looked like a sure fire tourney team last year, and then Mbakwe got hurt. This team still made the NIT final, so it wasn't a terrible season despite the loss of a fantastic player. They had 5 big ten games go to overtime in which they were 2-3. They also lost 4 other big ten games by 5 points or less, so it's not like they were that bad without their star. Mbakwe is back, but it's uncertain how healthy he is or will be. Are they just holding him back so he doesn't over do it? If he is able to return to major minutes, I think this team coasts to a 6th place finish. If he doesn't, I still think they are good enough to get to double digit wins and a tourney birth.

Minn 10-8
Iowa 9-9
Illinois 7-11
Northwestern 7-11
Purdue 7-11
Nebraska 2-16
PSU 1-17

Big Ten Top

Time for my annual Big Ten analysis, and predictions. Hard to get a great read on teams before the Thanksgiving tourneys as many have only played cupcakes, but they have at least shown their rotations.

There are 5 contenders this year. UW, MSU, OSU, Indiana and Michigan. The best part is that they all get to play each other a lot. Only UW gets a break in the unbalanced scheduling with only one game against Indiana and Michigan. The other 4 teams have 7 or 8 games against each other. In another scheduling quirk, none of the contenders plays another in at least the first 3 games of the year. Once Mid January hits there should be a rush of big time games that just doesn't stop until March. Should be a fun season.

Gasser's injury probably knocked UW off the contenders list for many prognosticators, but those of us who have watched Bo for the last decade know better. I won't get into UW too much as they are already a focus of this blog.

All four of the other teams are rock solid, so I'll try to pick on them a little.

Indiana has scoring at every position but I am not yet a believer in this team. They still have to stop someone and I'm not convinced they can do that. Oladipo can defend, and Zeller should make a jump in year 2, but Watford, Hulls and Creek are still on this team. Unless those guys become different players, Indiana will have problems against good teams. They will also be relying on at least 2 freshman for minutes which shouldn't help the defense.

Last season I thought Michigan had a chance to be a great team until Darius Morris went pro. They proved me wrong and were a great team thanks to Trey Burke. I must admit I was almost as pissed when Burke didn't go pro this year as I was when Sullinger didn't last year. I hate playing these guys again. Michigan has tons of scoring in the backcourt and at the wing which Beilein plays at the 4 spot in his system. The question as always with Michigan is size, because they play small at the 4. They may be better this year with an older Jordan Morgan and freshman McGary at the 5 spot.

OSU has Craft and possibly the best athlete in the conference in Thomas. Beyond them there are question marks. Lots of kids that were highly recruited, but have little production. There is also no impact freshman class as Matta has had in previous years. Matta is too good of a coach not to get his kids to play well, it's just hard to get a read on this team on paper.

MSU will be the best team in the conference by the end of the year. They have size in Nix and Payne, and they have a good group of wings and forwards that attack the glass. The reason I like MSU is Keith Appling. This kid just keeps getting better and better. With a solid year running the team alongside Draymond Green, I think he is going to take over this team and lead them to the title.

Here's my predictions for the top of the conference:
MSU 14-4
Mich 14-4
Indiana 13-5
UW 12-6
OSU 12-6

One last observation from the top tier teams. I'll address the bottom in another post.

The graduating class of the 5-rotational players only:

Evan Ravenel, Matt Vogrich, Derrick Nix, Watford, Hulls, and the Badger 3.

Outside of the Badgers that's not a lot of losses. While several players will go early to the NBA, the Big Ten is loaded with young talent for this year and next.

What that means is that there is a lot of room to grow. As good as these big ten teams look now, they are just going to keep getting better as the year goes on. Should be a fun year to watch.

Brust's left hand

After watching UW today I didn't think they played very well. That's always weird to say after you watch them dismantle a team and win by 33 points. Several things stood out. I watched Brust take the ball to the left side of the rim on 4 separate occasions and he used his right hand to lay the ball up all 4 times. This was not encouraging, as better teams figured out his righthandedness last year and rendered him useless in much of Big Ten play. Brust also got his 2nd double double in points and rebounds. He has been tenacious on the glass this year, which is much needed with the loss of good rebounding guards Taylor and Gasser.
Ryan Evan's seems to be suffering from the senior step back. He is still taking the ill advised 18 foot jumpshots, but he is not getting the ball in the post like he did last year. He blocked several shots but many were on recovery plays that he won't make against better players. I am starting to wonder if his breakout year last season will be his bright spot. As with many of Bo's seniors, once the spotlight is on and they become the focus of the defense, they struggle. It's not that they have become worse, they just don't put up the same stats when they have to face the opponents best defenders.
As I watched them play I found myself wondering whose team is this? The answer was both obvious and unfortunate. This is Gasser's team. He was on crutches and on the court the entire time the team was warming up. He even went through the practice free throw line, although he didn't shoot. This team is still trying to get past his loss. So am I in case you didn't notice. Who's team will it be in a month?
I decided to watch the Florida game again as I watched it live in a bar and was distracted by conversation for most of the game. UW didn't play as badly as the blow out score would indicate. Florida is a really good team with a really good player. Patrick Young was a likely late lottery selection had he gone pro last summer. Florida is a team who knows who they are. They have guards that can score with the jumpsot, off the drive, and in transition, but this team runs through Young. I was struck that virtually every time Young was on the floor he was involved in the offense. When they went to the post it was to him. When they ran pick and roll, it was with him. When he wasn't on the floor they still tried to run the same stuff, but it wasn't just one player focused. UW did a good job on Young for the most part as Florida turned the ball over a ton trying to get him the ball.
Berggren is UWs best player, so it struck me that UW should be his team. I don't think there is any chance that this will happen. It is clear from the last two games that this will be Dekker's team. None of the 3 guards have what it takes to take control of this team. Bruiser and Evans are role playing guys who aren't going to take things over either. Berggren will have his moments but he needs someone to get him the ball. He's not like Leuer, who could create something no matter where he was on the floor. Dekker may not start a game this year, but make no mistake it will be his team by year's end. After UW took nothing but jumpshots for the first several possessions against Florida it was Dekker who came in and attacked the paint. Dekker showed his natural ability today when he stole a ball at the top of the key and threw down a huge dunk. He also showed his youth when he made an ill advised drive and turned the ball over on a charge. There will be growing pains, but this team will run through him before long.

Prediction

Today is a day I would not bet. Too many questions, and I feel this game is a coin toss. If the Badgers had a healthy Stave and Borland, I would probably go UW, but they don't. OSU already has tough road wins at MSU, and PSU, and they are coming off a bye.
UW is a 2 1/2 point favorite, and o/u is 52. If you think the game is a coin flip, then you should take the points. I'll take OSU and the points, and the under.
I was 2-0 vs Indiana, so I'm 3-1 on the year.

Early season experience vs late season bye

I was struck by the number of cupcake matchups in the SEC this Saturday, and it brought up an interesting strategic question. First the background.
Growing up a UW fan I got used to their typical scheduling. This included 4 non-conference games (although it was 3 until recently) followed by 8 big ten games. This gave UW a couple lesser opponents to test themselves out, gain confidence, and figure out what they needed to work on before they had to play a conference game. There was usually one non-conference opponent who gave UW a test, but the games were otherwise for practice and more importantly to raise revenue.
The SEC takes a different approach. Their teams all play a conference game in the first 3 games of the year. This creates some big games very early in the year, but also leaves a hole at the end of the year. The SEC schools this week play powerhouses like West Carolina, Wofford, Jacksonville St, Alabama A&M, Georgia South, Samford, and Sam Houston St.
This means SEC teams miss out on an opportunity to grow and build early in the season, but they gain what amounts to an extra bye week late in the year. If Alabama has any nicked up players they can give them an extra week to heal, and they can pull all their starters at halftime unless a 1-9 West Carolina team brings in about 30 ringers.
I always thought that a team like UW that is built on player development needed those early games since so many guys were new and needed that experience on a big stage. Given the physical punishment players take I'm not so sure that the SEC way isn't better. Florida may disagree after they almost got upset by LA-Lafayette last week. The danger of the let down game is probably greater late in the season than early.
With the expansion of the regular season to 12 games, plus a potential championship game, plus a bowl game, I think the late season bye week may be a big advantage.

The Kaminsky question

Badgers had a convincing win as they overwhelmed an inferior opponent today. The rotation seems to be set as Bo only played 8 players for the entire first half. Bohannon was the 9th player to see the floor and he didn't enter until there was about 10 minutes to go in the 2nd half. I would imagine with Florida coming up next Bo wanted to get his guys ready, and have them play together as much as possible. Once again Kaminsky started next to Berggren at the 4. Bruiser came back and played 13 minutes and looked like he is back from his injury, although probably not in great condition yet. This is where the Kaminsky question comes in, will Bruiser reclaim his starting spot once he is healthy? My guess is yes.
There may be games where playing the 2 bigs together makes sense, but there will likely be few of these in the preseason. Florida has size, so Kaminsky will probably remain the starter for at least one more game. What matters more than who starts is minutes and I'm sure Bo will make sure the kids that deserve the minutes get them.
I noticed today Bo has continued his defensive strategy of switching on all screens. Until just a couple years ago switching was a rarity as Bo had his kids hedge and fight over all screens. When Bo got a combination of bigger guards-Gasser and Taylor, and a more active, mobile frontcourt-Leuer, Nankvil, Evans, Bruiser, he decided his kids could handle the mismatches that occur when you switch on screens. I had wondered if this trend would continue as UWs guards-Brust 6'1" 195lbs, and Marshall 5'11" 185lbs are smaller and their centers-Berggren and Kaminsky while skilled are not super mobile on the perimeter-Kaminsky much more so than Berggren. I will be interested to see if this strategy continues and how UW handles the mismatches.
Can't wait to see how this team, and especially the young guards hold up against Florida in a tough environment.

Predictions this week

I started off my gambling tracking at 1-1. OK for a start but I would need to better in the long run to make any money. 50-50 is losing in gambling since you have to pay the juice on wins.
This week I really like Bucky. They are 7 point favorites and o/u of 55. I'm not sure if it's Wagner's return, or Phillip's mojo, but I like UW to win big. I'm taking UW minus the 7 and the over.
If I could get the odds on this prop bet I would also take it. UW will have over 50 rushing attempts in this game, and rush for over 300 yards.

Florida faces some adversity as well...

ESPN reports that Florida coach Billy Donovan has suspended Scottie Wilbekin, his starting point guard, indefinitely "for an undisclosed reason."

This comes on the heels of Cody Larson quitting the team and Casey Prather suffering two concussions in nine days.

Wisconsin plays Florida next Wednesday, of course. Some are reporting that Mike Bruesewitz may be available for the game.

In other news, Florida opens the season against Georgetown aboard the USS Bataan, which ESPN describes as an "ambitious assault ship." Hopefully the Navy is phasing out the lazy ships.

first impressions of UW Bball

I think these kids will be OK. I know this was just an exhibition but I'm not nearly as scared as I was when I heard Gasser went down. Marshall, Jackson, and Brust will have some growing pains, but I think they can be effective. They will likely struggle against teams with length and athletes at guard like Marquette. They will certainly have bad shooting nights. They all seem to be active on defense, which may lead to foul trouble they can't afford. All in all I like what I saw, and I know they will get better and better the more they play.

Bo went big to start as I thought he might. With Bruiser out with injury, Bo put Bergerren and Kaminsky in the starting lineup together. In typical Bo fashion he then pulled both of them at the first 4 minute time out and went small inserting Decker and Jackson in a 3 guard 2 forward lineup. There are certainly a lot of combinations being worked out at this point. At this point there is not much reason to think anyone other than the 3 seniors, 3 guards, Decker and Kaminsky will get significant minutes. Bohanon looked like he can give them some depth off the bench, at least until Bruiser comes back. Dukan, Anderson, and Schowalter didn't show anything to think they are ready to play this year.

Decker looked solid. There were no rim rattling dunks. No barrage of 3s. No shots blocked into the stands. He played within himself. He did put up 3 3s, and you could just see him having to hold himself back on several others. He looked like a guy used to taking every shot who now has to wait not just for a shot, but for a good shot. The play that stuck out in my mind happened with about a minute left in the first half. Decker had played a good stretch of minutes, so he was probably starting to get tired. Bohannon turned the ball over at the top of the key, which is a cardinal sin because it almost always leads to an easy run out lay up. However Decker hustled down court from the wing and was able to alter the shot and cause a missed lay up. That kind of hustle will get him on the floor a lot.

Games start to count for real on Sunday, although the competition won't be dramatically better. I can't wait to see how these kids respond against Florida on the road.

Chorlton gets his wish...

Word on the street is that Curt Phillips will be starting at QB for Wisconsin on Saturday. E.g.,:

BREAKING:Multiple sources have told me Curt Phillips will be UW's starting QB @ IU, barring setback. Story @ ESPNWisconsin soon. #Badgers
— Tom Lea (@ESPNTomLea) November 7, 2012

This is breaking news only if you don't read the comments on Adam's WI Sports Blog. If you do, you'd have known this was coming since October 3rd (before Phillips even played that token series):

Although, the last time the Badgers had such terrible quarterback situation with Sherer and Evridge, the 3rd guy on the bench who didn't get a shot until the following year was Scott Tolzien. Maybe Phillips should get a shot.

Bonus Prediction

Last week was 1-1 getting the over under wrong, but correctly taking MSU and the points.
Since there is no Badger game this week, I'll throw out a prediction for the Buck's season opener against Boston tonight. I admit this type of bet is pure silliness, so I won't include the results in the rest of my Badger predictions. Betting on the NBA, or pro sports in general is just too tough. Too tough for me anyway.
Bucks are a 7 point underdog, with the o/u at 195 1/2. I'll take the Celtics minus the points, and the under.
Back next week with Badger predictions.

Sobering Analysis of Effect of Gasser's Injury

Dan Henner has this very thoughtful post about the effect of Gasser's injuries on expectations for Wisconsin. According to Henner's detailed predictions, the injury drops Wisconsin from the 12th best team to the 33rd best team in the country:

[t]he loss of Gasser should get our attention for a number of reasons. First, Wisconsin was a Top 25 team in almost everyone’s preseason rankings, and their returning tempo free numbers suggested they were a borderline Top 10 team. So any injury for Wisconsin should get our attention nationally. But more importantly, Wisconsin doesn’t have any natural substitutes for Gasser in the lineup. He was expected to carry a tremendous load for Wisconsin as a ball-handler this season, and the type of players who will replace Gasser in the lineup have substantially lower expectations. Gasser might not be a preseason all-conference selection, but because of the drop-off at his position with Gasser not in the lineup, Wisconsin’s expectations now plummet. While the tempo free numbers suggested Wisconsin was the 12th best team in the nation prior to the injury, my model now pegs them as the 33rd best team in the country.

I still expect Wisconsin to be a top-25 team and hopefully make a run to the Sweet 16. But it's hard to argue with Henner's underlying analysis—the Badgers suffered a huge blow last Saturday.

Meanwhile, even with the injury to Gasser, the initial kenpom.com rankings put Wisconsin at 5th in the country—but 4th in the Big Ten.

College Basketball and the Election

[Cross-posted from The Gillette-Torvik Blog]

Nate Silver—the author of the fivethirtyeight blog—has become quite famous for his election prognostications. He's also become quite controversial. The controversy stems from his model's assessment that Barack Obama has about an 80% chance of being reelected next Tuesday. Many pundits, particularly Republican ones, think this is crazy (or worse). They point to the fact that national polls have been tied or given Mitt Romney a narrow lead for weeks and say the race is as best a tossup.

Silver's defenders—and Silver himself—respond with some variation of, "the math is the math." They point to the state level polls, which Silver's model relies heavily on, and which currently show Obama with a small but clear and sustained lead in enough swing states to take the Electoral College with relative ease.

In a way, both sides of this argument are right. I think Silver's model's estimate of an 80% probability of Obama winning is highly plausible. But I also think it's fair to label that a "tossup."

To understand why, you need to understand that Silver comes from the world of sports. In particular, he's among the line of people applying "advanced stats" to baseball and other sports to yield stunning new insights: Bill James; sabermetrics; "Moneyball"; kenpom.com; etc.

Let's talk about Ken Pomeroy. His superb website (kenpom.com) has for many years been applying advanced, tempo-free statistics to college basketball. His model allows him to create a "win probability" for every game of every season. This win probability largely tracks the Vegas betting odds. It's pretty amazing.

But here's the thing—it turns out that teams with an 80% win probability lose all the time. Not every time, of course, or even most of the time. But they lose with almost clockwork regularity. In fact, they lose about two out of every ten games.

Here's a painful example from last season. Wisconsin versus Marquette, at the Kohl Center, on December 3rd. Wisconsin came into the game 6-1, having utterly destroyed some inferior competition (e.g., an 85-31 victory over Kennesaw State) and having just lost, on the road, by 3 points to preseason #1 North Carolina. Marquette was undefeated but untested. There was cause for worry, as they had just narrowly scraped out a 59-57 win over lowly Norfolk State.

Considering their relative performances and Wisconsin's significant home court advantage, Pomeroy's computer gave Wisconsin an 83.2% chance of winning. Yet Marquette led almost the entire game, opened up a double-digit lead at half-time, and won going away, 61-54. In other words, the 83.2% favorite got whipped.

(I would link to the Pomeroy data, but it's behind a paywall. I encourage you to pay the $20 to get access to it.)

This is important because Nate Silver's model is fundamentally similar to Ken Pomeroy's model. Neither is predicting what is actually going to happen. Rather, both use historical data to spit out a probability that something will happen in the future. And if you follow Ken Pomeroy's model closely, you will know that an 80% favorite is not really a very "big" favorite. Because you will have experienced your favorite team losing as an 80% favorite many times. Indeed, last year Wisconsin lost twice to Iowa, games in which Pomeroy's computer said it had a 98.3 and 81.9 percent chance of winning. Given those percentages, Wisconsin had a 99.7% chance of winning at least one of those games. (This is hard to swallow, given that Wisconsin would have won a share of the Big Ten title if had managed to win just one of those games.)

There is a psychological difficulty in taking this concept of win probabilities and transferring it to elections. In sports, there are often dozens of games going on every single day—particularly in college basketball. So the "probability" aspect of Pomeroy's model makes some intuitive sense because you can watch it play out in front of your eyes over the dozens of results. But there is only one presidential election at a time. So it is not very intuitive to think of the result probabilistically. You have to start thinking about multiple universes, or something.

Anyhow, here's my conclusion based on my experience as a college basketball fan: Obama is the favorite, but he's a precarious and narrow one. His team better show up on game day.