Northwestern Prediction -- Torvik

Looks like the Badgers are 10 point favorites with an over/under of 57.

I'm taking Northwestern to cover, probably backdoor. Final score: 35-27, Badgers. That's the over, if you don't have a calculator handy.

--Bart Torvik

Big Ten Projections

For what it's worth, here are the projected final Big Ten standings based on the Torvik Model:

Michigan State, 14-4
Ohio State, 14-4
Wisconsin, 14-4
Michigan, 11-7
Indiana, 10-8
Purdue, 10-8
Iowa, 9-9
Illinois, 7-11
Minnesota, 7-11
Penn St., 4-14
Northwestern, 4-14
Nebraska, 4-14

As always, the unbalanced Big Ten schedule plays a role here. For example, Wisconsin benefits greatly by not having to play road games against Michigan St. or Ohio State (the best teams in the conference, according to the Model), and getting relatively easy road games at Penn State and Nebraska instead. As a result, the Model actually has Wisconsin favored to win 17 out of their 18 games (all except at Michigan).

Just to reiterate, this does not reflect my subjective opinions (although I must say I don't have a lot of argument with it).

Torvik's Pre-Season Top 40

Here it is, my first annual (and likely last annual) preseason top 40 college basketball ranking extravaganza.

This ranking was created with a spreadsheet, and I did not exercise any discretion or judgment in coming up with the rankings. Of course, I did exercise a lot of discretion in coming up with my "model." The model was the result of a lot of research I did on the Badgers last spring, using the KenPom data as a starting point. This is the result of taking that "research" and universalizing it to college basketball as a whole. I also added in some adjustments for big recruits (top 10 RSCI) and transfers. I'm sure I missed some transfers, but I did my best.

One caveat: I did not rank every team. I took last year's final top 75 teams from the Pomeroy ratings, adding in major conference teams ranked 75-100 and then, just for fun, added Harvard. It may be that there are teams outside last year's top 100 that my model would have in the top 40. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Well, here it is:

UPDATE: I found a few errors and a couple other significant transfers, which effect the list somewhat. Most notably, Louisville moves up to #2 after accounting for a JUCO transfer. (Note: as other mistakes or transfers are discovered, I'll just update this version below.)

Rank Team 1 Florida 2 Louisville 3 Duke 4 Michigan St. 5 Ohio St. 6 Kentucky 7 Gonzaga 8 Connecticut 9 Wisconsin 10 North Carolina 11 Michigan 12 Virginia 13 Wichita St. 14 St. Louis 15 Georgetown 16 Missouri 17 Vanderbilt 18 Kansas 19 Indiana 20 Villanova 21 Memphis 22 Syracuse 23 Arizona 24 Oklahoma St. 25 Baylor 26 Iowa 27 Purdue 28 Stanford 29 St. Mary's 30 Notre Dame 31 VCU 32 Creighton 33 New Mexico 34 Pittsburgh 35 UCLA 36 Marquette 37 Oregon 38 Texas 39 San Diego St. 40 Harvard

*Update: another significant error I discovered that affects Wisconsin, because I had essentially double-counter Josh Gasser's return. Oops. Drops them from 7th to 10th.

Original rankings:

Rank	Team
1	Florida
2	Duke
3	Michigan St.
4	Ohio St.
5	Kentucky
6	Louisville
7	Wisconsin
8	Gonzaga
9	Connecticut
10	Georgetown
11	North Carolina
12	Michigan
13	Virginia
14	St. Louis
15	Vanderbilt
16	Kansas
17	Wichita St.
18	Indiana
19	Villanova
20	Memphis
21	Syracuse
22	Arizona
23	Missouri
24	Oklahoma St.
25	Baylor
26	Iowa
27	Stanford
28	St. Mary's
29	Notre Dame
30	VCU
31	Creighton
32	New Mexico
33	Marquette
34	Purdue
35	Pittsburgh
36	UCLA
37	Texas
38	San Diego St.
39	Harvard
40	Alabama

Teaser

College basketball season has begun -- well, practice has begun, anyhow -- and I am working on a pre-season top 40. This ranking will be 100% model-driven, with no subjective input from me. There will, however, be numerous data-input errors, and innumerable conceptual mistakes, which should keep things entertaining.

Watch this space in the coming days for the unstoppable excitement.

Torvik's Prediction: 28-27, Badgers

Excellent work this week, Chorlton, explaining all the reasons that the Badgers could beat Ohio State on Saturday night. Too bad you lost your nerve when it came to prediction time.

I actually agree with you that this came is a tough "nut" to crack. I could certainly see OSU winning by two or three touchdowns. I can also think of a lot of ways the Badgers can win, although not by two or three touchdowns. To me, when you've got so many options, this is like trying to read a putt and you can't even tell which way it will break, much less how much. I learned long ago what to do in that situation: aim at the hole. Translation: I think this will be a close game.

Like you, I went 2-0 on last week's predictions, although I won the mini-battle by almost nailing the final score (I predicted 38-10; actual score 41-10.)

This week I'm taking the Badgers with the points and the over, while you're taking the Buckeyes to cover and the under. (I'm curious if you have a final score prediction?) So we might get some separation. (More likely is that we'll both go 1-1, one way or the other.) Given that the Badgers haven't lost by more than 7 points since ... well, I can't remember ... I think the 7.5 spread is an absolute gift.

Other than my golf analogy, I have a few other equally squishy reasons for picking the Badgers in this one:

• The law of averages. The Buckeyes have won 16 in a row, including a lot of lucky, close wins. How long can this continue? The Badgers have lost heartbreak after ridiculous heartbreak. How long can that continue? I'm betting those streaks come to an end.

• Overconfidence. I see it in the Buckeye fan base, and I suspect it in the players. They think that Wisconsin has been lucky to go three straight Rose Bowls, and don't properly appreciate how good the program is. This very entertaining piece says it all, calling Wisconsin "the most mediocre tyrant the Big Ten has ever seen." It's fair to put a big fat asterisk next to last year's Rose Bowl. But to deny the quality of the previous two teams is nonsense. Remember: one of those teams had JJ Watt and the other had Russell Wilson, Montee Ball, and Nick Toon. In fact, here's a ridiculous stat: 9 of the 11 players who started for the Badgers on offense in the 2011 Rose Bowl made an NFL roster this year (the other two were Ike Anderson and Jacob Pederson, who will get a shot next year).

• Stave. I agree he hasn't played all that well this year. But we know he can throw the ball. He has made some terrible throws when he's had wide-open receivers. But he's also made some very good throws. Other than the dropped snaps, he's made really only one boneheaded play all year. (Last week's interception was Wozniak's fault, as was obvious and has been admitted by everyone involved.) I'm betting we see at least one more great half out of him on Saturday. Probably the first half.

• Melvin Gordon III. Stars shine when the sun goes down. Gordon really looks like something special, and I think he will continue his scintillating season with a huge performance on national television. I think we will look back at this year (and hopefully next year) and marvel about that time when Melvin Gordon and Sam Dekker were on the UW campus at the same time.

• Defense. We agree that the Badgers defense is for real. It will win this game with a goal line stand. Or two.

So there you have it: Badgers 28, Buckeyes 27.

--Bart Torvik

Prediction time

I am off to a good start this year going 2-0 in the first week (1-0 vs. spread, and 1-0 vs. o/u). Nowhere to go but down from here. Both Torvik and I were wrong about this week's fantasy matchup as my general indifference to fantasy didn't prevent me from getting a win vs. him. On to this week's game.

Line is OSU by 7 1/2, and o/u is 54 1/2

My week long efforts to convince myself that UW will win this game have ended in a stalemate. I just don't know where this game is going. It will not surprise me if this game is a 38-35 shootout, a 13-10 grinder, or a 42-7 blowout. I think I have a good handle on UW, I just don't have any idea how good this OSU team is. These have been two of the highest scoring teams in the country this year against bad defenses, but the o/u of 54 1/2 follows the historical trend that defense will prevail in this matchup. OSU is averaging 52.5 points per game and UW 41 so this o/u appears low, but only twice in the past 12 matchups have these teams been over 54 1/2, (59 both times in 1999, 2011) so I'm picking the under.

When I think about UW winning this game I can see a game where UW is dominant running, OSU just can't stop Gordon and White and UW outscores OSU. I can see a game where Borland racks up 20 tackles with 10 of them on Miller who just can't bust loose and UW gets a close win by holding OSU to 10 points. When I see them losing I see a game where the running game and defense do enough to keep UW close, but special teams and Stave's turnovers cost UW the win.

I'm sure Squishy Torvik will disagree with me, but I just don't see Stave leading this team to a win. All the hope about Stave basically stems from 2 good halves of football, the first half against Nebraska and the first half against MSU last year. He was very good in those 2 halves, but hasn't been very good otherwise. In 3 of his 4 starts this season he has thrown an interception and he threw an interception in 2 of his 4 full games last season. It's not like UW is chucking the ball around, and Stave rarely throws under pressure so this is a lot of picks for a team that just needs a QB to hand off, take care of the ball, and throw a few deep balls each game.

The injuries bother me too. Anderson is holding all his cards close to the vest, but if several of UW's guys can't play then that will greatly hamper UW. So all my efforts this week have gone for naught. I am picking OSU to win and cover. I was surprised to see the spread at 7 1/2, and I am tempted to pick OSU to win, but take UW and the points against the spread. In case you haven't noticed I have very little confidence in this pick, and in that case one should probably just not bet at all. Since this is just for pride and not for dough, I'm still making picks. I can stand to lose some pride anyway.

Last try to convince myself

This is a twofer. #3 is the UW defense and #4 is UWs track record of recent success against OSU.

I believe the UW defense is very good. Others who watched ASU score 32 points against them could reasonably disagree with me, but I think over the course of the season this defense will prove me right.

The other 3 offenses UW faced this year were awful, so while UW shut out 2 and held Purdue to 10 points and 180 total yards, it's hard to judge them based on those performances. Even with Braxton Miller back I think UW will slow down the OSU offense which is currently 6th in the nation at 311 rushing yards per game, and 4th in scoring at 52.5 points per game. OSU like UW scores based on a great running game, and only ranks 76th in passing yards at 218 per game. UW's strength is stopping the run, and they should be able to keep OSU under control. UW is big, experienced and physical in the front 7 with 7 seniors likely to start this game.

The recent run of success I am referring to started in 1999 in the famous dancing on the horseshoe game when UW blew out OSU 42-17 in Columbus. Since that time UW is 5-7 vs OSU, which is still a losing record, but is as many wins as any team has had against them over that same span. Over those 12 games UW is 3-3 in Columbus, hardly an intimidating record. OSU has only averaged 21.7 points per game over the 12 game span, and the most points they have scored is 38. In 9 of the 12 games OSU has failed to reach 24 points.

The point spread in this game is OSU by 7 1/2, and the over under is 54 1/2.

We'll see tomorrow if I have come around on a road win for UW.

#2

In my week-long series trying to convince myself that UW will win at OSU this Saturday, reason #2 will be the UW running game.

The UW running game looks to be picking up right where it left off last season despite the losses of Monte Ball, Ricky Wagner and Travis Fredrick to the NFL. After rushing for 388 yards against Purdue, UW ranks 3rd nationally in rushing, averaging 349.8 yards per game. UW is getting big plays out of the running game and has a running play of at least 50 yards in each of the first 4 games. The average yards per carry in the 4 games are 8.1, 7.2, 7.6, and 8.9. None of the first 4 opponents have a defense anything close to what UW should see at OSU, despite what I wrote yesterday.

I had thought OSU did a good job shutting down UW's running attack last year at Camp Randall, but that's not entirely true. UW ran the ball 56 times for a net 206 yards rushing and a 3.7 YPC average. That average includes 4 sacks of Phillips for 36 yards. The 2 running backs both had solid days -Monte 39 rushes for 191 yards, a 4.9 YPC average, and James White had 8 carries for 33 yards and a 4.1 YPC average.

This production was despite a total lack of respect for the passing game due to UW starting Phillips, their 3rd string QB who in his only previous start in 2012 against Indiana was a less than prolific 4-7 for 41 yards. That's right, 7 passes and 41 yards for the entire game against Indiana in his only start in 2012 prior to the OSU game. Even with OSU selling out to stop the run Phillips was completely ineffective against OSU until the final tying drive. He completed 5 passes for 48 yards on the final drive, and was 9-20 for 106 yards the rest of the game.

While UW rushed for over 200 yards, they only scored 14 points. UW will need to score more than 14 points to win Saturday. UW did waste a few scoring attempts in that game when Monte fumbled inside the 5 yard line, French missed a 40 yard FG attempt, and UW opted to punt from the 30 yard line instead of attempting a long FG which resulted in a touchback and 10 net yards. The running game did enough to win if UW hadn't been crushed on special teams and Monte hadn't fumbled.

I know, I know, if and buts, candy and nuts. The point is that UW ran the ball on that defense, and they should run the ball on this OSU team.

First impressions on the OSU matchup

I am trying to convince myself that UW is going to win this game, so here is the first installment of reasons why I should pick UW in this game.

1) The OSU defense

OSU put up a shut out today in their last non-conference warm up game vs. Florida A&M. As you may expect, this is not very impressive as Florida A&M's best offensive performance was 27 points at home against Miss Valley State. Florida A&M also scored a paltry 7 points at home against Tennessee St. Enough said.

OSU also had a dominant performance against San Diego St beating them 42-7. At first this seems impressive as SDST has been a good team of late going to a bowl for 3 consecutive years. In the process they also lost their head coach Brady Hoke to Michigan and more recently offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig to UW. SDST is 0-3 this year including a 40-19 home loss to Eastern Illinois.

In OSU's first game of the year they jumped on Buffal0 23-0 after the first quarter, however Buffalo climbed back in the game and got it to 30-20 in the third quarter. This was due to 2 Buffalo TD passes, but also a defensive score. 2 things struck me about this game. The first was from the ESPN recap which stated that OSU came into their season opener with 10 of 11 new starters on defense. Any team replacing that many people is vulnerable to a drop off regardless of the talent base they recruit from. The other is that while the Buffalo offense only accounted for 14 points, this was their highest offensive output of the season. Buffalo scored 13 against Baylor, and just 10 in regulation against Stony Brook (They won that game scoring 26 points in regulation plus 5 overitmes).

That leaves us with OSU's only real test of the year, the road game against Cal. OSU jumped on Cal early, getting up 21-0 6 minutes into the game, and won that game comfortably. Despite the early lead again, Cal was able to keep it interesting because the OSU defense gave up 20 points before halftime and OSU lead just 31-20 going into the 3rd quarter. For the game Cal put up 34 points, 28 first downs, and 503 total yards. In Cal's 2 other games this year they put up 37 points in a home win vs. Portland St, and 30 points in a home loss to Northwestern.

All the talk in Columbus is about who is starting at QB. Perhaps it's time someone started talking about the defense.

Thoughts on the Great Transfer Debate

Alas, it is still the offseason for college basketball. That means people are talking about things like transfer rules, which are in the headlines because Coach K staked out a public opinion

on the transfer rules and their exceptions:

"There should be no exceptions," Krzyzewski told ESPN.com. "Everybody should have to sit out, that includes a fifth-year player, just to make it equal. I think it's a farce, really." 

"Giving certain kids the right to play and others not the right to play, it should be done the same," he said. "If they want to let everybody play right away, then let everybody play right away. Everybody should be treated the same. I don't understand why there are exceptions to this rule."

Gary Parrish agrees with Coach K that everyone should be treated the same, but he takes a hard line in favor of everybody playing right away. His arguments proceeds in a negative fashion, by knocking down what he perceives to be the best argument in favor of the forced redshirt year: "The one I hear most often is that it would create 'free agency' in college athletics."

First, Parrish expresses doubts that free transfers would actually create free agency. He makes a good point that transferring colleges is a big pain in the ass, and few people will do it lightly. I agree with him that unfettered, chaotic free agency is unlikely to result from unrestricted transfers. It will affect only the very best players, really.

Second, Parrish plays down the "rich get richer" argument against unrestricted transfers. This is the objection that low and mid-major teams will see their best players get recruited away from them by the high majors. Parrish agrees that this will happen, although perhaps not as often as some think. He just doesn't care, for reasons I'll quote in full:

The scenario most envision is a scenario where high-majors would essentially recruit from mid-majors and low-majors, just pluck the best of the best each and every year. In fairness, I agree, that would probably happen. But guess what? It already happens! And, even if it happened at an accellerated [sic] rate, why is that necessarily a bad thing?
Are you about protecting schools or creating opportunities for young people? 

I'm about creating opportunities for young people.

So, for the sake of the conversation, let's say there's a kid who is just an OK prospect out of high school and can only muster an offer from Stony Brook. This is a kid who forever dreamed of playing at a high-major, and he thinks he's good enough to play at a high-major. But, for whatever reason, he hasn't yet been able to convince a high-major coach of that by the time he graduates high school. 

Consequently, the kid signs with Stony Brook. 

Then he grows four inches and develops a jumpshot. 

Then he's a legitimate All-American candidate after two years. 

What would be so bad about that kid at that point accepting an offer to transfer to Ohio State or North Carolina or Kansas to complete his eligibility? What would be so bad about that kid at that point, after two years of hard work and development, taking advantage of an opportunity to fulfill a lifelong dream? 

Why would you be against that?

These are good points, as far as they go. But it seems to me that Parrish is ignoring the elephant in the room: corruption. It's not free agency per se that is bad—after all, high school students are free agents—it's the particular incentives that are associated with inter-collegiate recruiting that are troubling.

Think about that Stony Brook All-American candidate, and the incentives created by that situation. If he's already an All-American, that means he's either going pro after his sophomore or junior year. So he's either transferring or going pro.

If he transfers, he knows he's one-and-done at his new school, so he has very little to lose by playing fast and loose with the rules and getting some while the getting is good. This is all similar to the situation with "one-and-done" high school seniors now, but I assume no one associated with college basketball is looking to expand that sordidness.

Of course, most recruitments will be clean. But with the amount of money at stake, and the egos involved, there will be also be many dirty recruitments.

Fine, you might say: so what?

Here's what. College sports are weird. And I don't think we have a great understanding of what makes them special. So we should take care when we change the things that make college sports unique.

The more corrupt college basketball becomes, and the more like a pro league it become, the less interesting it is for most of the fans. Don't get me wrong—this isn't about idyllic principles of "amateurism." It's about at least the illusion of a level playing field, which is an absolute, fundamental prerequisite to interesting sporting events. This is also why pay-for-play is dangerous. If people come to believe that the big, rich programs can essentially buy players, college basketball becomes a farce like major league baseball, but only worse—because there's no draft to get things started quasi-fairly and there's even more fundamental inequality of resources.

Transfer restrictions and enforced amateurism are, I think, efforts by the NCAA to keep college basketball and football special, because that ineffable specialness is why people care (and how everyone makes money). If college sports become just a second-rate semi-pro league, there's a chance interest will wane, and profits will fall. And when that happens, eventually the opportunities for young people diminish as well. Who wants that?

By this way, this explains why transfer restrictions exist only in basketball and football—because those are the only wildly popular college sports, and they are the only sports with truly national recruiting. In every other sport, the student-athletes really are students first, so transferring will always be primarily an academic and social consideration rather than a sporting one (just as it is for most football and basketball players). So nothing is gained by the forced redshirt.

Of course, I could be wrong. In fact, I probably am! It could well be that transfers (and pay-for-play) won't change things enough to affect what's special about big-time college sports. And even if does destroy what's special, it could be worth it just because it will increase the student-athletes' freedom of choice, which may just be a paramount consideration. But I am very certain that this is the question we should actually be thinking about because it is the actual reason that these rules exist. We certainly shouldn't make these kinds of changes without at least acknowledging and confronting the real risks involved.

Prediction time

Time to start the annual predictions. Last year I was great on the picks vs. the spread, and terrible against the over/under. UW is a 24 point favorite and the over/under is 47 1/2. I know I said after last season I was giving up on picking the over/under after my horrendous showing, but I'm a fake gambling addict so I just can't give it up.

As you may surmise from my previous post I am high on UW and I am picking them. The 24 points are the biggest spread of any 2 major conference opponents this weekend although there aren't that many good games. This is the 4th weekend and most teams are making money with home games against patsies. I still like UW against the big spread based on what UW did to Purdue last year, and what Cincy did to them this year. The close game against Notre Dame didn't change my opinion of Purdue.

Purdue has scored 7, 20, and 24 points in their 3 games. I think the UW defense will destroy them, and I don't think they make it to double digit points. Unless Stave throws a pick 6 or UW gives up a special teams TD Purdue may not get in the end zone. If that is correct, then UW has to score about 40 points to cover the over. I think they have it in them with the running game hitting on all cylinders. Gary Anderson doesn't seem to have the run up the score mentality that Bielema did, because he seems to have more class than any human being in college coaching today. However when the classy thing to do is run the ball to run out the clock, and your 3rd string tailback is good enough to start on most college teams, it's hard not to run it up a little.

I have UW and the over. What say you Torvik?

I finally learned something

I went into the Badgers game not knowing much about what kind of team UW was going to have this year. The questions have been answered despite a gut wrenching loss that the refs just plain screwed up (more on that later). This is a very good football team, and the defense is as good as advertised. That may seem silly after they gave up 32 points and 468 yards of offense, but ASU is a very good offense. ASU was playing at home, and due to circumstances (Punt return for TD, 3 and outs) the defense had to be on the field for over 50 plays in the first half. Here's what I liked about the defense: ASU completed just 57% of their passes (29-51); ASU averaged just 2.8 yards per rush (42 rushes for 116 yards); UW won the turnover battle 2-1 and had 2 4th down stops. This defense should keep getting better, and I think they are good enough to allow UW to compete for the Big Ten Championship.

 

The offense can run the ball against a real opponent, and while Stave is not as good as past Badger QBs, he can do enough for this team to win. I was disappointed to see UW throw the ball as much as they did (31 passes, 32 rushes including a sack and the kneel down) especially when they ran the ball so effectively (32 rushes for 231 yards 7.2 YPC avg.). Stave had a few throws that made me cringe, (I'm thinking of the Favre throw in the second half) but he didn't turn the ball over once. Melvin Gordon has the size and speed that the NFL likes and they may come calling after this year, so UW should ride him all season. He could put up Heisman consideration numbers if they do.

 

I liked seeing starters like Borland and Southward playing on special teams. UW has had horrible special teams for years largely because Bielema didn't like to play starters due to the injury risk. UW doesn't have the depth of athletes as top flight recruiting schools, so if you don't play your starters on special teams that means you are playing lesser athletes and inexperienced players there. The result is crappy special teams. With the changed rules on kickoffs making touchbacks more frequent, there should be fewer total special teams plays reducing the injury risk. There is an injury risk, but at the college level, at a program like UW, I think playing it's best athletes on special teams is a good move. I think the potential payout of more big plays out weighs the risk of extra injury exposure.

 

Now to the end of the game. When Abbrederis ran out of bounds I said to my companions, UW should kick the ball now because without a timeout there is too much that can go wrong if they try to run another play. With only 18 seconds left and a kick taking 5-6 seconds and a kickoff taking another 5-6 seconds, ASU would have likely only had time for one play. When Anderson called for Stave to just center the ball and kneel rather than try another pass I was relieved, as it was a totally safe and wise call with plenty of time to spike. Given the kickers struggles this year, centering the ball made lots of sense. Then the Pac-12 refs screwed up, huddled to discuss their mistake, and ran off the field without an explanation of their indefensible decision to either the watching fans, or the coaches on the field. I hope they are reprimanded for this, but since they are employed by the Pac-12, I doubt they will be. This is now the 2nd year in a row UW has lost on the road to a Pac-12 team with a controversial call in the closing minutes (remember Oregon State). UW may want to adjust their scheduling in the future.

 

So losing like this really sucks, but this game is non-conference so it likely has no impact on UW's chances to make it to the Big Ten Championship game (there are tiebreakers in the case of a 3 way tie in which this game could have an impact, but what Leaders division team will possibly tie UW and OSU). Where I see a possible issue is on the money side for the Big Ten. Let's say UW has a great season going 6-2 in the Big Ten and 9-3 overall, but falls short of going to the Big Ten Championship game to OSU. OSU wins the Championship game and goes to the Rose Bowl. A 9-3 UW is probably heading to the Outback bowl or Capital One Bowl depending who the losing team was in the Championship game and which bowl wants what team. If UW had that extra quality road win at ASU and was 10-2 they would be a likely candidate for an at-large BCS game birth. While that wouldn't make much difference for fans, (UW would get a great SEC opponent in either the Outback or Capital One Bowl anyway) it makes a huge difference in payout for the Big Ten. A 2nd BCS game would bring over 10 million dollars of revenue to the conference. All speculation at this point, but that's what blogging is for.

I'll resume making picks with the Purdue game, and I've now become bullish on UW chances this year of having a great season.

Did I learn anything else?

Nope.
Stave threw the ball around a little more, but other than that UW showed nothing new. They rushed 4 most of the time. They ran the ball 51 times. No secrets will be revealed until ASU. What I'm kind of hoping is that UW does the exact same thing against ASU, and is still successful. The best UW teams are ones that can just run their basic stuff and win. If they look to exotic plays this early in the season then it may be a long year.
The spread is ASU -5 1/2. About what you would expect for a home team when both teams are separated by just a few spots in the polls. ASU brings back their quarterback, RB, and a few receivers from a good offense. This looks to be a classic matchup of strength vs strength: UW defense vs ASU offense.
I have no idea where this one is going, so no picks yet. Could be a blow out for either side. Could be a down to the 4th quarter shootout. Could be a defensive struggle. My wild guess is shootout, because when you get unfamiliar teams together the offenses usually benefit.
I'm going to start my predictions for the Purdue game once this team has shown themselves.

Did I learn anything on Saturday?

Yes, but what I learned was more about the big picture. You don't want to read to much into a game that was probably less competitive than when the 1s play the 2s at practice. With that being said, there are a few things I saw that comforted me.

After Gary Anderson came in with new systems, and brought in a JC transfer QB to run his spread offense I was worried. Those fears were somewhat reduced when Stave won the starting job, as Stave is not mobile and will not be running any read option. The offense on Saturday looked pretty much the same as the offense that UW has run successfully for several years. Lots of power run plays setting up play action passing, with occasional shotgun in 3rd down passing situations. Anderson appears to value getting his best players on the field and playing to their strengths over imposing a preferred scheme.

The offensive line did what you would expect in beating up an undersized and not talented defense. The running backs are talented and fast, and Watt looks like he may join his brother in the NFL someday (if they still have fullbacks by then). The tight ends and wide receivers are solid blockers and effective enough pass catchers, but only Abbrederis is a big play threat. Stave did not look very good in the 1st half, but played better in the 2nd. With only Abbrederis to create big plays in the passing game, the offense will probably struggle as it did last season against good defenses that can slow down the run game. Will the offensive line be good enough to win games by just running the ball? We won't have much idea about that until ASU.

The defense is a bit harder to get a handle on. I assume the Badgers are not going to show their hand until at least the ASU game, so while this defense looked a lot like last years it may look entirely different in 2 weeks. Anderson said he was going to bring in a 3-4 press man coverage scheme that was designed to pressure the QB. I don't remember seeing a CB within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage before the first play of the 2nd quarter. There were a few CB blitzes, but the defense was pretty vanilla and played off the ball. On 3rd down passing situations the Badgers played without anyone down on the defensive line, but they did that last year as well.

The Badgers stayed in their base 3-4 against 3 WR sets just as they did often with their 4-3. The only difference from 3-4 to 4-3 was Kelly was standing up instead of in a 3 point stance on the end of the line. The other OLB Armstrong was standing up as well but not on the line, as he split out to cover the slot WR. Not many 3-4 OLBs are going to match up on a WR, but Armstrong is not a typical 3-4 OLB, and neither is Kelly (a converted DE). UW basically looked like a 4-3 with Kelly standing up. Kelly was in coverage a little, and didn't look very good when he was. When the Badgers did play nickel, with 2 lineman, 4LBs, and 5 DBs, they did play more press coverage, but still with limited blitzing.

There will probably be no more answers against another over matched opponent in Tennessee Tech next week.

My first thoughts on this team is that we are looking at a repeat of last year. This team is very solid defensively, but not dominant. The defense should be good enough to keep UW in most every game. The running game is good enough to beat up bad defenses, so UW should put up points against bottom level competition. This should get them at least 5-6 wins. Last year UW lost a ton of close games because they couldn't score enough against defenses that could stop the run. In the 5 games in which UW failed to score 17 points in regulation they won just 1 (against Utah State when they missed the game winning field goal). They also lost to PSU in overtime when they only scored 21.

If Stave can stay healthy and start all season long, Abbrederis stays healthy, and the offensive line can stay healthy and perform close to as well as last year's line, this team could be better offensively and win enough of those close games to get to 10 wins. That's a lot to ask. If the offense struggles and looks like it did last year, UW probably loses some close games again and finishes with 8 wins. Barring catastrophic injury problems, I have given up my fears of a disastrous 5-7 losing season.

 

Earn That Statue

There's a statue of Barry Alvarez outside Camp Randall Stadium. This strikes some people as premature, or gauche, or worse, for a couple of reasons: (1) Barry Alvarez is still alive, and we usually wait until people are dead to honor them in bronze; and (2) Barry Alvarez is not just still alive, but still working at the University of Wisconsin as its athletics director.

Still, most Badgers fans are fine with the statue because it cannot be denied that Barry Alvarez is a living legend. What he did as the football coach at Wisconsin is a miracle. He take a good-for-nothing, moribund non-program and turn it into a consistent winner that went to three Rose Bowls (and won them) in eight years. Then he transitioned into a role as the tsar—er, athletics director—and groomed his own successor (Bret Bielema). This is usually where the story takes a turn for the worse. As rare as it is for someone to create a powerhouse from scratch, it's even rarer for the powerhouse to survive that person's retirement. But Barry Alvarez did it. He built Wisconsin football as its coach, and as athletics director he left it in Bret Bielema's remarkably competent hands. Three more Rose Bowls ensued.

We know what happened next. Bret Bielema took the money and ran. Barry Alvarez hired Gary Anderson.

This is Barry's final test. If Gary Anderson succeeds at Wisconsin—and by "success" I mean that he wins at least one conference championship in his tenure—then Barry Alvarez will have done the unthinkable: He will have turned Wisconsin into a dynasty.

And if that happens, Barry Alvarez will, beyond any doubt, have earned that statue.

--Bart Torvik

Looks like I'm already down and the season hasn't even started.

Torvik got me to pick a QB favorite earlier this summer and I went with Phillips over Stave. While Stave has not been officially named the starter, the word on the street is he will win the job.

I am coming around on the new coach. I still have reservations about changing offensive and defensive systems that have worked amazingly over 2 decades, 2 coaches and 6 Rose Bowls. The choice of Stave over the much more athletic McEvoy, and the slightly more mobile and more experienced (or at least older) Phillips leads me to believe they are willing to craft the scheme to the talent. Stave will not be running the read option any time soon.

One of my reservations about the new coach had more to do with fan expectations more than Gary Anderson. After 2 wildly successful coaches and an impossible to imagine 6 Rose Bowls I thought the fan base had lost touch with reality when it came to reasonable expectations for this program. This is mostly based on what I hear and read, but it seemed pretty representative of the fan base as a whole.

What I heard at the end of the Bielema era were ridiculous things like UW should be a contender for a national championship. Not a Big Ten Championship, a National Championship. UW has had some great teams and has had some seasons where they were close to such lofty goals. UW certainly would have had a chance to play for a National Championship in a couple of recent seasons if an 8 team playoff existed, but that's a topic for another day. UW is not that type of program, and probably never will be.

I think I may have misread some of the fan base expectations because people hated Bielema so much. Much of my fear about expectations is because despite all of Bielema's success there were constantly fans who hated him and wanted him fired. They hated him because he didn't win a Rose Bowl, or have a good Bowl record in general, but mostly they hated him because he was a dick. I didn't care that Bielema was a dick. All I cared about was that the Badgers went to 3 Rose bowls and had a ton of wins while he was the coach. Gary Anderson on the other hand seems to have endeared himself to the fan base in a very short time, and by all accounts is pleasant to listen to in interviews and is an all around good human being.

If the fans like him, will they be more forgiving than they were with Bielema? Maybe. If he doesn't win enough to get to bowl games routinely then it won't matter how much he is liked or how saintly he is in life. Earlier this year if I was told he will win regularly but won't get to a BCS/Rose Bowl then I would have said he won't finish his contract. Now that I have seen how likable he is I'm not so sure. Fans are human beings after all, and how much a person is liked does matter to them in their perception of him as a coach.

I will start making my picks against the spread like last year, but not for a few weeks. You shouldn't bet on something you know nothing about, and no one knows much about football teams they have never seen play. Even though the only thing I'm risking is my pride. I'll resume picks in a few weeks once this team has shown more of itself.

It's too bad teams can't make overseas trips every year.

I know it's almost football season so I'll do a post on that soon, but I couldn't resist my basketball Badgers.

It was quite fun to get some summer basketball from the Badgers this past week. All I was able to watch was the 2nd half of the Ryerson game, but even that was a welcome break from baseball. I didn't see or read anything to question my assumptions from the end of last season:

The Badgers are going to start and play a lot of 3 guard and probably some 4 guard lineups. Kaminsky will have to play a lot. Dekker will almost never come out of the game and will be a dominating force in the Big Ten. They are going to be a lot of fun to watch.

The schedule came out today and it should be a fun year. There are not as many early cupcakes as usual. Perhaps because of the Canada trip UW will be ready for big tests early and they will get some wins. They start with Big East foe St. Johns on a neutral court, probable preseason top 10 Florida at home, and at Green Bay (where Bo Ryan has suffered a preseason loss before).

I think this team will be a championship contender in what should be a good but not great Big Ten Conference. They have a lucky schedule in that they don't play at MSU or at OSU and only play each team once. The other 2 teams they get once are Nebraska and PSU on the road. I think they ride a 4-0 record in those games plus a 10-4 record in the remaining games to a share of the Big Ten title at 14-4.

Sam Dekker is going to be great

The Badgers went 4-1 on their Canadian tour, and Sam Dekker pretty much dominated every game, except for one game when he got in foul trouble. I got to watch most of the stream of the Ryerson game, which included these two Dekker assists, on back-to-back possessions:



I'm going to enjoy watching Sam play for the next couple of years.

--Bart Torvik

Badgers QB redux

Alright, Chorlton, time to take a stand:

Who should start at QB for the Badgers?

Last year we clashed on Stave versus O'Brien.

You failed that test. Redemption time?

End of an era for Bucks

The Bucks signed and traded Brandon Jennings today to the Detroit Pistons for Brandon Knight and some throw in players.

Just a few years ago the Bucks were an up-and-coming team with Andrew Bogut earning 3rd -team all-NBA and Jennings as a rookie superstar with oodles of potential. Then Bogut shattered his elbow, and the rest is sad Bucks history. That team went to Game 7 in round 1 of the playoffs against a solid Hawks team without the injured Bogut, but he never returned to the player he was and Jennings never made that leap from potential to star.

When the Bucks shunned Jennings and offered Jeff Teague a 4-year 32-million-dollar deal it was obvious Jennings was no longer in the plans. This Bucks team looks ready to go straight in the tank. I didn't think Kohl would allow a team so bad to be put on the floor, but I was wrong. This team looks headed to a starting lineup of Knight, Mayo, Delfino, Ilyasova and Sanders. Lottery here we come. At least there will be dirt cheap tickets available by January.

Did Aaron Rodgers just lose a year's salary?

Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers was a strong defender of Brewers' left fielder Ryan Braun when he was accused of juicing last year. His defense included the following exchange with a fan on Twitter:

@toddsutton ya I'd put my salary next year on it. #ponyup #exonerated
— Aaron Rodgers (@AaronRodgers12) February 23, 2012

Now that Braun has essentially confessed to using PEDs, many are saying that Rodgers lost his bet, which amounts to $8.5 million or so.

To state the obvious, there's no enforceable contract here because there was no consideration. But a tougher question, perhaps, is whether there was even a bet. Notice that Rodgers's statement is couched conditionally: "I'd put my salary next year on it." So he said that he would put his salary on it, but left unstated were the terms and conditions of the bet. People don't normally make "bets" unless they stand to gain something if they're right. So this seems like a challenge to make a bet, a dare, rather than an actual bet. There was no real offer, and no real acceptance. Most importantly, they never shook on it.

There is one countervailing piece of evidence, though: the hashtag comment "#ponyup." What does that mean? My colloquial understanding of the term is that to "pony up" means to pay up, especially after you lose a bet (particularly in a card game such as poker). Does Rodgers's use of #ponyup imply that he is promising to pay up if he's proven incorrect? Or is it a reference to winning bets he previously made to others before Braun was ephemerally #exonerated?

There's enough ambiguity in there that I would say Rodgers is not beholden under the Gentleman's Code to #ponyup this year's salary to Mr. Sutton or anyone else. But a big fat charitable donation to a worthy cause might be in order.

One final thought. I'm on record as suspecting that PEDs are rampant in pro and college football. In that light, Rodgers's over-zealous defense of Braun seems suspiciously defensive. The QB doth protest too much, methinks.

NCAA Tourney performance by conference and thoughts on the Big Ten's future

My summer project so far has been to add coach and conference data to my database of NCAA tournament results since 2003. This has made it even more fun to play around with. For instance, here is the performance of each conference that has won at least 10 games in the Round of 64 or later since 2003:

You can see that the Big Ten has about the same overall winning percentage as the other major conferences. It also has the second-most Sweet 16s and second-most Final Fours and has sent as many teams to the championship game as any conference over this period. (And, notably, Indiana went to the finals in 2002, the year before this dataset begins.) Yet the Big Ten has failed to produce a champion in this period because it has gone 0 for 4 in the finals. 

Meanwhile, representatives from the Big East, ACC and SEC are a combined 10 for 11 in the championship game since 2003. The lone failure was Paul Hewitt's 2004 Georgia Tech team, which lost in the finals to UConn of the Big East. That means that the ACC, Big East, and SEC are a perfect 10 for 10 in the finals against teams from any of the other conferences. Kansas is the only champion from outside those three conferences, and they beat Memphis of Conference USA.

The other stumbling block for the Big Ten has been the Sweet 16, where its record has been 10-14. The Badgers are largely responsible for this, having gone 1 for 5, so the rest of the conference is a merely mediocre 9-9 in that round.

What conclusions can we draw from this? Two spring to mind. 

First, the Big Ten has been unlucky not to win a championship over the past 11 seasons. Based on the Kenpom data, par for the Big Ten since 2003 is 1.85 championships, which makes sense. Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State were all championship quality teams that made it to the finals and lost to another good team, so if you replay those championship games they likely come out on top about half the time.

Second, talent kills. What the Big East, ACC, and SEC have that the Big Ten lacks is an abundance of top-line talent. Every team that has won a championship since 2003 has had at least five players drafted in the first round during that period—and only two (Florida and Louisville) have had less than ten. By contrast, just one Big Ten team has produced five or more first-rounders 2003: Ohio State, with seven.

Overall, the Big Ten has produced just 22 first-rounders since 2003. Meanwhile: Duke and North Carolina alone have combined to produce 24; Kansas and Texas: 21; Florida and Kentucky: 19; UConn and Syracuse:18. Those eight teams have combined for 18 Final Fours and 10 of the 11 championships.

In the Big Ten, the "Big Two" are Ohio State and Illinois, who have combined for 11 first rounders. Both of those teams have been to the finals, but no championships of course.

Still, things are looking up for the Big Ten. Michigan and Indiana have reestablished themselves as the kind of programs that can attract big-time talent, having just produced four first-round picks this year and with good classes coming in. Michigan State remains a power, and has frankly been unlucky to have been held back by personnel and injury issues over the past decade. Gary Harris could be an All-American this year. Ohio State just reloads every year. Wisconsin has a likely first-rounder in Sam Dekker, and the freshman class has potential high-level talents in Koenig and Hayes. Illinois has tradition and a wealth of local talent to draw from, as will Maryland when it joins the conference in 2014. Matt Painter has shown he can recruit elite talent to Purdue before, and he continues to land top-100 recruits.

Add it all together and I have a prediction: the Big Ten will win another national championship in basketball—eventually.

--Bart Torvik

Has anyone seen Herb Kohl without sunglasses lately?

There may be a Weekend at Bernie's thing going on, as I fear Herb Kohl may have died. This is the only explanation I can think of for the recent Bucks moves.

The Bucks started the madness by drafting Giannis Antetokounmpo in the first round who won't be ready to play an NBA game this season. A very non-Kohl move.

The Bucks did not try to re-sign Monta Ellis in the free agency period, despite offering him $36 million over 3 years before free agency began. He eventually signed with Dallas for a reported $25 million over 3 years with incentives that could raise the deal to 30 million.

They then signed Jeff Teague to a restricted free agent offer and have ignored the face of the franchise for the last 3 years, Brandon Jennings. Atlanta matched the Bucks offer leaving the Bucks with no Jeff Teague, and poisoning a relationship with Jennings that was already on thin ice.

Now the sanest move of all has happened, one which is completely un-Kohl like. Today the Bucks used the amnesty clause from the last collective bargaining agreement on Drew Gooden. Gooden had 2 years remaining on a deal that pays him over $13 million over the next 2 seasons. The Bucks will still have to pay the entire value of the contract unless some other team signs Gooden, in which case the Bucks just pay the difference between what he gets and what the Bucks would have paid. The idea that Herb Kohl would pay a player 13 million dollars to not play a single minute for his team is crazy in the Kohl world. The only reasonable explanation is that there is a string attached to his arm waving at John Hammond to go ahead and do what he wants, regardless of how sane it is.

Go Badgers

With the signing of Jon Leuer to the Grizzlies, the Badgers now have 3 players in the NBA who have earned contracts beyond their rookie deals. Greg Stiemsma also signed a new deal with the Pelicans this week. While Devin Harris's deal with Dallas was put on hold until his toe injury heals, he was poised to sign a 3-year 9-million-dollar deal. Maybe he's not technically in the league right now, but once his foot heals he will certainly find a home on a team that needs guard depth. Seems weird to say, but Devin Harris will be entering his 10th year in the NBA this season.

I haven't done the research to back it up, but I venture to say no Badger coach has had 3 players get to multiple NBA contracts during his tenure. Go Badgers.

Interesting Bucks move

The Bucks traded Luc Richard Mbah-A-Moute to the Kings for a 2nd-round pick today in what is basically a salary dump move. Luc signed a 4-year deal for $19 million and was 2 years into that deal with the Bucks. At the time he signed the deal it was a reasonable contract for a role-playing, sometime-starter, defensive specialist. At that time Luc was still just 24 and had some potential to grow his offensive game and develop into a solid starter. That didn't happen over the last 2 seasons in which Luc battled through injuries and missed about a fourth of the games. He remained a quality defensive player but never developed into anything more. At 26 he is still young and can be a valuable role player, but he did not outperform his modest salary. He is now overpaid based on his production, but not ridiculously so.

The question is why make a salary dump. Moves like this usually happen when a team needs salary cap flexibility, something the Bucks probably don't need this year. The Bucks are not going to pay the luxury tax, and there is no free agent they could sign that would require them to make such a maneuver. Sometimes a team will make a move like this to clear playing time for a youngster. If that youngster is the new draft pick Giannis who is not ready for NBA competition then the Bucks may be planning to really tank this season. If they had not made the Reddick trade and still had Tobias Harris then this would fit, but they did.

Do they intend to start Delfino or Ilyasova at the 3? Probably not. There is probably another deal (either free agent or trade) that has yet to be announced but has already been made.

Perhaps this will give the Monta fans hope the Bucks can still sign him with added flexibility. We can still dream until he signs elsewhere.

Rise and Fall of the Brewers

I haven't really followed the Brewers much since I left Wisconsin in 2000, but this Grantland piece nicely chronicles their rise and fall since then.

--Bart Torvik

3 year plan

John Hammond signed an extension to be the Bucks general manager through the 2015-2016 season, 3 full seasons from now. His newly hired coach Larry Drew just signed a contract for 3 years with a team option for a 4th. The Bucks just signed OJ Mayo to a 3-year 24-million-dollar contract, and Zaza Pachulia to a 3-year 16-million-dollar contract. Ersan Ilyasova signed a 5-year contract last season, but only the first 4 years and $32 million are guaranteed meaning it will effectively expire after 3 more years assuming he doesn't vastly outperform his deal and earn the 5th year. That leaves the Bucks with about 23 million in expiring contracts after the 2015-16 season. The Bucks are high on last year's rookie John Henson and his rookie deal will expire after the 2015-16 season. If he turns out to be the player they are hoping he becomes then he will certainly eat up some of that salary cap space on his 2nd contract.

Through Hammond's tenure the Bucks have done a pretty good job dumping bad contracts and the have just one currently in Drew Gooden's 5-year 32-million-dollar deal. That deal was inked in 2010 and has just 2 years remaining. The only other veteran contract on the books is a reasonable deal with Mbah-a-Moute for 4 years and $19 million which is 2 years in. Both Mbah-a-Moute and Gooden come off the books the season before Hammond's contract expires.

Udoh, Ish Smith, and Sanders will all be free agents after this season, but only Sanders is expected to stick around after this year. His value is difficult to figure. He has developed into a good player but is far from an all-star talent. The Bucks will have the right to match any offer as he will be a restricted free agent so the market will figure out what he is worth after another full season as a starter.

There are no players currently under contract past the current John Hammond contract, which bring us to the two players who will soon. Giannis Antetokounmpo was just drafted by the Bucks, but will likely not play any significant minutes for at least 2 seasons. The question is when do the Bucks sign him. Hammonds said after the draft that they intended to sign him right away and bring him in to practice/play with the Bucks, or more likely in the D league. That would start the clock ticking immediately on his 4-year rookie contract. If he stays overseas for a year or two then he would still be on his rookie deal whenever he came to the Bucks. There is a pretty high likelihood that he is a bust, as most 15th picks are. His future will not likely determine Hammond's future unless he turns into a star, in which case Hammond looks like a genius and won't have to worry about his next contract. What about the other soon-to-be Buck, Brandon Jennings.

There is no doubt the Bucks will sign Jennings, whether it is by negotiation, or by using their matching rights on another teams offer since he is a restricted free agent. He is the only marketable player on a bad team and the Bucks gain nothing by letting him walk. Kohl will not allow his only money making player to walk out the door for a few extra million dollars. That doesn't mean they will keep him for the length of the contract, as he will be trade bait the instant he signs. The only question is do the Bucks really believe in him enough to use their Bird rights on him and give him a 5-year deal, or will they just give him/match on a 4-year deal to limit their long-term exposure. My guess is the later.

So where does the 3-year plan take the Bucks? In the short term, probably to the cellar of the central division. The Bucks won only 38 games last year, and they replaced Monta Ellis with OJ Mayo so it's hard to see how this team will be better. Next season looks like a lottery season, but next year is about sorting out the young guys more than winning anything. Jennings and Mayo will hog the ball and the shots, and hopefully not destroy their trade value in the process. The question the Bucks need to figure out is if Henson and Sanders are good enough to be the staring bigs on a playoff team, or if they are just more journeymen assets the Bucks will use to make future trades.

After this season, the Bucks should have a lottery pick in a strong draft. That pick will probably be the deciding factor in Hammond's future. Hammond will have to decide about Sanders next season, and he will hopefully have enough information to decide what Henson will be. If Sanders, Henson and Giannis all pan out, and the 2014 pick is a hit, then the Bucks could return to the playoffs by the end of the 3 year plan. That seems like a lot to ask, but it's probably all Bucks fans can hope for right now.

A new stadium and an ownership change to a stable local ownership group is unfortunately about as likely, but far more important to the Bucks' future.

summer craziness

So there is no Packers or Badger football until August. No Bucks or Badger Basketball until fall.
Baseball is just too boring and the Brewers suck anyway.
Time to take this blog in a different direction.
Tonight will be the first in a series interesting questions. Tonight's topic:
Top songs I just can't help but get jacked up for.
When I got down to it, there are many, but 2 stand above the rest.
Beatles: Helter Skelter
Doors: Five to One

Honorable mention goes to:
Rolling Stones: Paint it Black
Guns and Roses: Welcome to the Jungle
Animals: House of the Rising Sun
Nirvana: Smells like Teen Spirit
Bruce Springsteen: Born in the USA
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers: Breakdown

Personal preference plays a pretty important role in this one. Feel free to dispute and add others.

Draft thoughts

I had two college basketball related thoughts about tonight's NBA draft:

1) Two Hoosiers were drafted in the top 4. What would Bo Ryan do with two top-4 NBA picks on the same team in the same year? I'll tell you what he'd do: he'd successfully petition to move his team up to the NBA, and the Badgers would finish fourth in the Eastern Conference but lose a seven-game series in the second round of the NBA playoffs. People would say he just can't win the big one.

2) A total of four players from Michigan and Indiana were drafted in the first round tonight. Coincidentally, the Badgers played Michigan and Indiana four times last year. They won four times, too.

I got so much hand I'm coming out of my gloves

Only you Seinfeld fans will get that one.

That's what John Hammond has to be thinking after the Bucks made their 1st round pick tonight. Hammond, who got a contract extension through 2015-2016 earlier this season, drafted a player that may not wear an NBA uniform for 2 years. The 18-year-old Giannis Antetokounmpo has some spectacular talent, but is as raw as they come. Giannis also just signed a 4-year contract with his team (although there is reportedly not a huge buyout), so he will likely play at least one and maybe 2 or 3 more seasons overseas before he suits up for the Bucks. This is not the "win now" kind of player that Herb Kohl may have demanded if he didn't trust Hammond.

Hammond has shown a definite pattern in his drafts and Kohl has given him the freedom to follow it. Hammond has never picked higher than 8 since he became the Bucks GM. Every year he has taken a player that had a high ceiling, but also high bust potential. When you are picking in the late lottery or mid-first round this seems like a pretty sound strategy. Hammond's picks have been:

#8 Joe Alexander

#10 Brandon Jennings

#15 Larry Sanders

#10 Jimmer Ferdette (traded for Tobias Harris)

#14 John Henson

#15 Giannis Antetokounmpo

Henson was the only major college (UNC) guy that had a 3-year history of production. Larry Sanders was from VCU and a late bloomer. Alexander was an athletic guy but didn't have a basketball head. Jennings, Harris, and Giannis were all 18-year-old gambles. All but Henson are guys with big upside. Not that Henson won't develop into a good player, but he was a more known commodity after 3 years getting significant minutes at UNC.

This is of course bad news for this year's team, although after Monta opted out of his contract this year was pretty much sunk. When I look at the players taken after Giannis, there isn't much that jumps out at you. The 2 point guards will probably both impact their teams this season, and I would have been happy to see Schroeder in a Milwaukee uniform with no Monta. This is a draft that won't be able to be evaluated for 4-6 years when the Bucks have to decide if Giannis gets a 2nd contract.

Rich Man's Greg Steimsma

I was drinking after playing volleyball at the time, but my friend told me this is how Mason Plumlee was described when he was drafted. I bet no one ever thought they would be described as that after being drafted in the first round of the NBA draft.

Bucks' Draft

The prospects for the Bucks in this year's draft are not good, as you would expect when a team doesn't pick until #15. However it's not all doom and gloom for the Bucks draft this year.

This year's draft is not considered to be a very good class overall. There is no super talent at the top. There is no Lebron, Durant, or Howard in this years class for a really bad team to get excited about. This is more of a foundation laying draft with a bunch of players who look like they will be solid NBA players, but none that look like perennial all-stars let alone franchise changing stars.

As with most years, we will look back on this draft in 2-3 years and say how did everyone miss on that guy. That's where the Bucks prospects (albeit a long shot) don't look so bad. In a draft where 1-10 aren't that different and 11-30 are even less so the Bucks have as good a chance as any team to hit on a diamond in the rough.

It is very likely that McLemore and Noel will go 1 and 2 in some order. Neither blows you away as a sure fire #1 pick, but both showed enough flashes of talent to move into the top 2 spots. The rest of the top 10 spots in no special order will go Porter, Burke, Oladipo, Bennett, Len, Carter-Williams, Zeller and McCollum. If any of these players fell to 15 the Bucks would be lucky to get them.

After the top 10, there are a bunch of players the Bucks could take. It's hard to say who they will fall in love with.

The obvious lack of depth at guard makes that an easy position for them to take. With Monta opting out of his contract, and Reddick a free agent there are a ton of minutes available for a rookie to grab. Caldwell-Pope is the player most think the Bucks are targeting. He has more length at 6'6" than the Bucks guards last year, but it's likely he is off the board at 15.

At point guard there is Dennis Schroeder from Germany who many people seemed to have fallen in love with so much that he has been discussed as a top 10 pick. Who knows if Kohl is one of his admirers, but he could be a nice backup and eventual replacement for Jennings if the Bucks sign him and then have to trade him.

The small forward position got less interesting when Dario Saric pulled his name out of the draft. If he had stayed in I think he would have been a good pick had he made it to 15. The other small forward is Shabazz Muhammed who also may not make it to 15. He was the hot prospect coming out of high school, but there are so many weird things going on around this guy that it's hard not to think bust. From his coach at UCLA declaring him in the draft, to his Asian little league age issues (is he 18 or 22), to his crazy father this is one guy I hope is gone at 15 so the Bucks don't have to take him. It's no fun watching a kid self destruct as I think he may.

Then there's a ton of bigs that will be available for the Bucks to pick from. Adams is the most likely to be off the board before the Bucks pick as he is the only other true center (7'0" and 255lbs) than Len with 1st round potential. In today's NBA many teams don't really play a true center, but all you have to do is look at the playoff teams to understand that a true center is still a valuable position (Duncan, Hibbert, Gasol, Noah, Bogut, Chandler). The rest of the hybrid center-power forwards the Bucks will have to pick from include Olynyk, Plumlee, and Gobert who all offer some different skills.

The Bucks will likely end up with one of these 7 players if they keep the pick. The other option is trade, which Hammonds has been more than willing to do in the past.

My prediction: Gorgui Dieng. The Bucks just keep acquiring 6'11" shot blockers with limited offense, so why not continue to corner the market.

I will be disappointed if I am correct.

Poor Bucks

My Bucks got some bad news this week when Monta Ellis opted out of the final year of his contract to test the free agent market. The Bucks had reportedly offered him a 2 year extension had he not opted out, making it a 3 year deal for about 36 million. Monta is the best player on a mediocre team and probably will get a bigger 4 year deal on the open market. Without any idea what direction this team is going in, it's hard to blame anyone for leaving. With the new NBA rules it is unlikely the Bucks will get anything in return in a sign and trade. They will just get worse.

This makes it more likely the Bucks will go completely in the tank next year. There is very little chance they will attract any player of his caliber, and even to get someone close they will have to grossly overpay. Kohl will likely do this since he wants to win now and keep public support behind a new stadium. They will have no choice to match an offer for Jennings if Ellis leaves, even if it is for a ridiculous amount of money. So starts the cycle of dumping bad contracts that I had hoped the Bucks had exited.

At least there is the Draft to look forward to soon. I'll follow this up with a post about the Bucks bleak prospects in the draft. Posts have been hard to come by this summer. Too many sunny days to spend time typing.

Golf Remains the Stupidest Sport on Earth

You may recall my spirited attack on the decision by the USGA and Scottish Royal Academy of Golf (or whatever the hell they call it) to ban "anchored putting."

Over at Slate, Josh Levin has a great article about the last time golf banned a putting practice, the "croquet" style, which was practiced by none other than Sam Snead:

The spry old-timer stands directly behind the ball, his putter between his legs. He then contorts his body into the shape of a question mark, anchoring the flatstick with his top hand and moving it forward with his bottom hand—an approach that golfer Jimmy Demaret said was reminiscent of basting a turkey. "I putt better this cockeyed way,” Snead explained to Sports Illustrated in 1967. “Not too many people can bend over quite as well as I can, but I think it is good for old golfers. They don't have to coordinate two hands, only one." And as he told the AP that same year, there was an additional benefit: “I can read the green much better with my croquet style because my eyes are so much closer to the putting surface.” 

Before Snead got to stooping, the croquet crowd hadn’t attracted much notice from the USGA. But as Al Barkow explains in Sam: The One and Only Sam Snead, the straw-hatted, seven-time major champion was a famous name, a player whose actions could inspire widespread adoption of an unorthodox technique. At the 1967 Masters, the legendary Bobby Jones—a man who, according to the Atlanta History Center, “called singular attention to the game’s best traditions”—threw a conniption at the sight of Snead’s bizarro methodology. According to Barkow, “Jones sat with Sam in a golf cart and told him that the putting style he had adopted didn’t look like golf.” Jones mentioned his objection to USGA executive director Joe Dey, who “took up St. Bobby’s observation and set in motion the process of banning croquet putting.” 

Despite the protestations of Snead, Gary Player ("I don't believe you should put a man down to hitting the ball one way") and Jack Nicklaus ("This is ridiculous. Why don't they just let us tee up the ball and play it?"), the croquet prohibition went into effect in January 1968. The new golf commandment both banned croquet-style putters like The Dude and decreed that it was henceforth illegal to straddle the ball on the green. “[F]or the first time in golfing history,” as Sports Illustrated explained in a 1967 feature, “the game's ruling bodies were telling a man how he had to hit the ball.” Dey told SI that a full-on ban “was the only way to eliminate the unconventional styles that have developed in putting. The game of golf was becoming bizarre. It was some other game, part croquet, part shuffleboard, and part the posture of Mohammedan prayer." Croquet putting had been banned, essentially, because a couple of old guys thought it looked dumb.

Season Over, Man. Season Over.

Whelp.

Since a promising 9 game winning streak the Brewers have lost  27 of 37 games, a starting pitcher to injury, a starter who was demoted to AAA, and gained their #6 prospect Scooter Gennett who was promoted to the big leagues to essentially take over for former all-star Rickie Weeks, who is batting .192 and has to be one of the worst defensive second basemen in the history of baseball.  (To his credit, one year Weeks did miraculously finish just fourth worst in fielding percentage among NL second basemen.)

Today, the Brewers' general manager Bob Melvin admitted "any more trades this year [will be made] for two or three years from now instead of now," suggesting the Brewers are ready to enter full-fledged rebuilding mode.

But wait, there's more!

Tonight, news broke that Ryan Braun--along with Alex Rodriguez and 18 other no-names--is facing a potential 100-game suspension in connection with a protracted Miami-based PED scandal.

Unfortunately for the Brewers the MLB does not have a salary cap, meaning big market teams like the Yankees can afford to buy more cheaters while draft-reliant teams like the Brewers will need years upon years to recover. In other words: What has two thumbs and probably won't be watching the Brewers for the rest of the year?  This guy!