Big Ten Top

Time for basketball predictions. I feel like I have neglected this blog a bit. With the football season coming to a close soon, the Buck's sucking, and UW hoops set for a long break during the holidays that may not change much. We'll see. I haven't even got a chance to see every Big Ten  team play yet, so here is my semi-informed projections. First the top half, and I'll do the remaining 6 in another post.

Michigan State

Everyone's favorite to win the Big Ten this year and it's easy to see why. This team has talent. Harris will be a lottery pick, and Payne should get a shot at the NBA too. This team has experience. 5 of the 8 players in the rotation are upperclassmen, and the other 3 are sophomores who played extensively last year. This team has quality guard play. Appling and Harris are among the best starting backcourts in America and Trice off the bench is like a 6th starter. They can go 3 guards easily and both Trice and Appling can run the point. They aren't huge, but they have enough size. Payne played next to Nix last year but he is the man at center now. Costello and Gauna give them some bulk to dominate the boards as Izzo teams do. Valentine and Dawson are versatile wings that can play the 3, but are good enough rebounders that they can play the 4 if Izzo wants to play small.

So how does this team not win the Big Ten? They have a very tough league schedule. MSU plays IN, MI, Iowa, and OSU twice. They get UW only once but on the road, and the other single road game is at Purdue which is not an easy place to win. They're 2 single matchup home games are Nebraska and Minnesota, 2 teams that you have a good chance to get a Big Ten road win against. MSU also has the habit of dropping the weird road game against PSU or Northwestern when no one expects it. Last season MSU struggled a bit when early injuries limited Trice and Harris. While no one wants to see college kids get hurt, MSU is no more immune to injuries than any other team and it would only take one for this team to look more ordinary.

Wisconsin

I am predictably higher on UW than most people. I think the 3 guard rotation will serve this team well offensively with the new rule changes. Bo will have what he always wants at UW, a starting 5 where every player can hit the 3. UW should bomb away from deep this year and open up enough driving lanes to let the guards drive. The dribble drive has not been a big part of Bo's teams in the past, but with no hand checking and less risk of getting a charge, Bo will use this more. It also helps to play Dekker at the 4, giving UW 4 guys that can dribble to the rim. This team will be bad defensively. It is obvious against even the lesser competition they have played that no one is afraid of going into the lane against UW. By playing 3 guards and Dekker at the 4 they are also too small to rebound effectively against big teams.

How does this team win the Big Ten? Start with an easy league schedule. UW only plays Iowa, MI, and IN twice. They play MSU and OSU only once and get them both at home. The 2 single road games are Nebraska and PSU. If UW defends the Kohl Center as they usually do, and gets a bunch of road wins against the 2nd division Big Ten teams they can find their way to a Big Ten Championship. Dekker will have to become the 1st round pick that early draft boards have him listed at if this team is to reach such lofty goals. Freshman will have to play a big role on this team, as both Hayes and Koenig will need to play key roles, and even Brown may find his way into meaningful minutes as the season goes on.

Ohio State

OSU was a very good team last year that fell just a game short of a share for the regular season title before taking the tournament championship. They lost the offense of Deshaun Thomas, and the size and defense of Ravenel. They bring back 6 very good and experienced players in Craft, Scott, Smith Jr, Ross, Thompson and Williams. They don't have the ridiculous talent of the Oden, or Sullinger teams Matta had in the past, but these guys are no slouches. The question is can these guys step it up and become something better than they were last year. Thomas dominated the offense last year, so there will be opportunities for others to step up their offense, but so far no one really has. All 6 guys are averaging between 7 and 12.5 points. Matta's best teams have a single post player that can get them easy buckets and open up shots and driving lanes for all the wings he recruits. I just don't see Williams developing into that player. He is just not aggressive enough and not good enough in the post.

Where does OSU end up? OSU has as easy a league schedule as any of any of the contenders. They get Iowa and MSU twice, and have UW, IU, and MI only once. They get single home games against MI and Northwestern, and play OSU and UW on the road. That leaves 11 of 18 games against the 2nd division teams, compared to MSU who has 9. Williams will anchor what could be the best defense in the country, so I don't see this team finishing out of the top 3.

Michigan

I was in love with Trey Burke last year. I picked this team to win the Big Ten and the Big Ten tourney, and they let me down on both. In the end they made a run to the NCAA championship and proved I wasn't that off about them (thankfully I didn't give up on them so I made some money in one of my pools). This year there is no Burke, so we will see if it was Burke making everyone better, or if these guys can stand on their own. MI will fill Burke's spot with freshman Walton Jr, and sophomore Albrecht, but neither looks to be able to replace the play making ability of Burke. MI also lost Hardaway Jr who was 2nd in scoring and assists on the team. That's a lot of ball handling to replace. So far Stauskas appears to be the guy they are going with. Late in the game against FSU, MI ran the pick and roll consistently with Stauskas and McGary. He may be their best option, but Stauskas is miscast as a point wing. He is a great spot up shooter and very good driving the ball when he gets it open on a wing, so forcing him into a point role makes him less effective. Robinson Jr looks to be about what he was last year (very good shooter and great in transition, but doesn't make plays for others in the half court) but with more shooting opportunities. Lavert has continued to blossom since about mid season last year. He keeps getting better and does most everything well. Horford and Morgan give them some competent rebounders and post defense.

Will MI win the championship a year late for me? They will have to fight through a schedule as tough as MSUs. They get UW, MSU, IU, and Iowa twice. They get OSU once but on the road, and the other road single is IL. They get PSU and Northwestern only once and both at home. If McGary can stay healthy then they should be OK, but this is the 2nd year in a row with early season injury problems for him. If it were an ankle or something I wouldn't worry, but a back injury for a 20 year old big man is a little concerning. This team has the talent to compete with any team in the country, and so their ceiling is pretty high.

Indiana

This is where the predictions get tough. I feel pretty confident about the other 4. When you take the 4 best coaches in the league (Ryan, Izzo, Matta, and Beilein) and give them talent, they will win. IU has talent, but that talent is sooooo young. This team has 0 juniors, and just 1 senior (Sheehey) who played on the team last year (Evan Gordon is a senior but is a transfer). I know in this day and age Major programs live on young talent and one and doners, but this IU team plays like a young team. They remind me of the Kentucky team last year that was loaded with young NBA talent but lost in the NIT. I don't think IU is bad enough to miss the NCAA, but I think they will struggle. Vonleh is a beast and looks like one of those one and doners. Williams may not be one and done, but he looks like a kid that could play in the NBA someday. Yogi has made a huge jump from last year, but he is the only player on this team that can shoot. He has jacked up 40 3s in the first 6 games and is hitting 40%, but Sheehey is the only other player to attempt more than 10 3s and he's only hitting 25%. A big change from a team that was one of the best shooting teams in the country last season. Hollowell has been a disappointment to date. He was expected to play off guard and play some point. He is only shooting 36%, with 0.7apg to 3.0 turnovers.

Does Indiana miss the Tourney? Probably not. That would take a pretty epic collapse. Not beyond Tom Crean, but not likely. IU has an easy league schedule. They play MSU, UW, and MI twice. They play Iowa and OSU just once and get both at home. The 2 single road games are Purdue and Minn. That means they get 6 games against PSU, Northwestern, and Nebraska. The ceiling on this team is admittedly high, but I don't think they reach it. If the freshman keep getting better and the sophomores step up this team could be very dangerous come tourney time, but my guess is they struggle with inconsistency through the season and are a first round out.

Iowa

Iowa was my surprise team last year, and I even picked their league record right at 9-9. I still ended up being wrong about them making the tourney because they failed to beat anyone good outside of Big Ten play. They have a similar non-conference schedule this year, so it will be league play before we know how good this team really is. Iowa is probably the deepest team in the league. Through 5 games they are running 10 guys that average between 17.6 and 23.4 minutes per game. The high scorer is at 14.6 and the 10th guy still gets 5.0ppg, and this is without injured Oglesby who was a contributor last year. Iowa is currently 11th in the country in scoring at 92.6 ppg, but that is largely because they are playing such terrible competition. Woodbury is a solid 5 man, and White is a scoring stretch 4. Iowa has a bunch of Guards that can play, and Basabe and former badger Uthoff give them some versatile forwards.

Can Iowa challenge for the title yet? No, but maybe next year. This team has a very tough league schedule, so they will have a chance to prove themselves there even if they don't in non-conference play. They play OSU, UW, MSU, and MI twice and they play Indiana once but on the road. The other road single is PSU, and the 2 home singles are Purdue and Nebraska. That's 9 games against the top tier teams and only 4 against Northwestern, PSU and Nebraska. This team should return to the NCAA this year, and with one more year of development this team could contend next season.

Here are my predictions for the top teams finish:

MSU 14-4

UW 14-4

OSU 13-5

MI 12-6

Ind 10-8

Iowa 10-8

UW Minn

Bucky is a road favorite of -16.5, and the o/u is 49.5.

Shouldn't have got off the Badger bandwagon last week as they just keep covering spreads. 2 losses drops me to 8-6 (4-3 vs spread and 4-3 vs o/u). Did I learn anything from last week? Apparently not, as I'm taking Minnesota and the points at home. Vegas doesn't have much respect for a 8-2 and ranked #25 Minnesota team and neither do I. I think Minnesota will do enough to keep it close though so I'm taking the dog and the points.

Minnesota has had trouble stopping good teams so I think Bucky will score so I'm taking the over. Final UW 35-Minn 20.

Kenpom 1.0 v. Kenpom 2.0 and the Badgers

I have a post up at Bucky's Fifth Quarter that follows up on my old "Overrated or Underseeded?" post using Kenpom's revised algorithm. Enjoy.

"So I thought about Frank's folks. I'm serious. I thought about his folks. I thought about his friends. And it wasn’t like it was a 40-point game. So one more possession."

--Bo Ryan, on giving Frank Kaminsky a shot to break the single-game scoring record.

StatWatch™: Update on the new rules

We've played a full week of college basketball now (not including this Friday's games), for a total of about 319 games between D1 teams. I've been keeping track of how the new rules have been affecting scoring as compared to the same time-period last year, and I will continue to do so until I get bored with it.

After the first weekend, overall scoring was about about 6.9%. Now it's up even more—9.1%. The increase is even large in certain subsets of games: close games (10 points or less), games that top 10 in Ken Pomeroy's "FanMatch" (that is, games expected to be competitive and quality basketball), and games between teams ranked in the top 100 of the Kenpom ratings:

D1 v D1	2014	2013	Change
All Scoring	73.5	67.4	9.1%
Close Games	74.4	66.2	12.4%
Top 10 FM	75.3	67.2	12.1%
Top 10 Close	76.1	66.9	13.8%
Top 100	76.1	68.0	11.9%
#OT	15	18

(Hey, look at that, I finally figured out how to embed an excel table into a blog post all pretty-like.)

Of course, for each of these subsets there is a small number problem, so the difference could just be a mirage. It's fun to speculate, though. I speculate that scoring is up in the games between good teams because the games between good teams are on television, so the officials are especially motivated to make a show of enforcing the new rules. 

That the increase also seems to be accelerating could be a sign that the rule changes are actually working to open up the offense, rather than just creating more free throws. But we shall see.

UW Indiana

Will this finally be the week UW doesn't cover the spread?

UW is a 28.5 point favorite and the over/under is 69. After last week I am 8-4 overall, 4-2 against the spread and against the o/u.

IU has given up at least 35 points in all but 2 games this year, so I think Bucky probably scores at will. The question is how much can IU score, as they do score. Even against a stout MSU defense they put up 28 points.

UW just keeps covering spreads, so it's hard to pick against them, but 28.5 is a lot of points. IU has played 4 quality opponents this season and lost all 4 games (Minnesota, Missouri, at MSU, at Michigan), but they have not lost by more than 17 points in any of them. UW may be the best team they have played, and Camp Randle is a hard place to play.

I may be over thinking this one, but I think IU gets a garbage time score or 2 to cover so I'm going to take IU and the points. I think Bucky scores all day long to win 49-24 to cover the over

How Does Wisconsin Get to the BCS?

The other day I expressed near certainty that the Badgers will get into the top 14 of the BCS. The argument is simple: every other major conference, two-loss team in similar circumstances, except for perhaps one, has finished in the top 14. (And even that one outlier got into the top 14 before falling back out.)

But apparently I haven't been very convincing. People look at all the teams in front of Wisconsin and wonder how the Badgers can move in front of eight of them. Here's how: a bunch of those teams are going to lose games. This is a true certainty, since there are (at least) five games left between teams currently ranked between 8 and 21 in the standings:

1) LSU v. Texas A&M
2) ASU v. UCLA
3) Oklahoma State v. Oklahoma
4) Clemson v. South Carolina
5) Texas A&M v. Missouri

So at least four teams (not five, because Texas A&M could lose twice) currently ranked between 8 and 21 will lose. It's a lock that Wisconsin would move past LSU, Oklahoma, UCLA, ASU, Texas A&M, or South Carolina if they lost, as they would all have three losses or more. I think it's very likely they move ahead of a two-loss Clemson team as well, particularly if they get waxed by South Carolina. So you can mentally move Wisconsin up to 19th just by virtue of these five games, because they will move past the loser of games 1 and 2 for sure, and will almost certainly move past the losers of at least one of 3, 4, and 5.

Once you do that, it doesn't look so daunting. The other teams they'd be behind are teams like Fresno St., Northern Illinois, Central Florida and Michigan State. I think Wisconsin would move ahead of those non-majors organically, even if they don't lose, and I think Michigan State will almost certainly lose again (possibly twice). Then there's Louisville, currently at #20, which is another team I think Wisconsin will just move past if it finishes with three more wins.

Anyhow, here's a bunch of plausible occurrences that could all occur, each of which would move Wisconsin up a spot for sure:

1) Clemson over SCar
2) Oklahoma State over Oklahoma
3) Baylor and Texas over Oklahoma State
4) USC over UCLA
5) Missouri over Texas A&M
6) Houston over Louisville
7) Rutgers or S. Florida over UCF
8) Georgia and Alabama over Auburn
9) Ball State or Toledo over NIU
10) Nebraska or Northwestern or Minnesota over MSU
11) New Mex. or San Jose State over Fresno.
12) UCLA over ASU
13) Texas A&M over LSU
14) USC and Notre Dame over Stanford

Now, not all of these things are probable, but many of them are more likely to happen than not. And if eight of these 14 outcomes happen, the Badgers almost certainly get to the top 14. If fewer than eight of them happen, there are still many, many ways that the Badgers move up (e.g., by moving up organically over Louisville, NIU, Fresno, and/or UCF).

Here's my prediction: if the Badgers win out, they'll finished ranked 13th in the BCS standings.

For the sake of completeness, here's the remaining schedule of the teams currently ranked 21 to 7 (current losses in parentheses):

21) LSU (3): Texas A&M, Ark.

20) Louisville (1): Houston, Memphis, @Cincy

19) ASU (2): Ore. St., @UCLA, Az.

18) Oklahoma (2): Iowa St., @K State, Oklahoma State

17) UCF (1): @Temple, Rutgers, South FLorida, @SMU

16) MSU (1): @Nebraska, @Northwestern, Minnesota

15) NIU (0): Ball ST., @Toledo, W. MIch.

14) Fresno St. (0): New Mex., @SJS

13) UCLA (2) Washington, ASU, @USC

12) Ok. ST. (1): @Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma

11) Texas A&M (2): @LSU, Missouri

10) S. Carolina (2): Florida, Coast. Car., Clemson

9) Missouri(1): @Ole Miss, Tex. A&M

8) Clemson (1): Ga Tech, Citadel, @South Carolina

7) Auburn (1): Georgia, Alabama

Scoring is way up ... so far

The biggest sub-plot in college basketball this season is the new rules preventing the use of hands on defense, and favoring the offense on the block/charge call. So far scoring is up, and in games we actually care about it is way up.

After three days of play, and 163 games involving D-1 teams playing other D-1 teams, scoring is up by about 4.7 points per team as compared to the first three days of last year, an increase of about 6.9%. Kevin Pauga breaks down the additional scoring and finds that it amounts to about one bucket and three FTs per team. In other words, so far about 60% of the scoring increase is due to more fouls, and 40% of it is perhaps due to freer play.

Other than a relatively small sample size, one problem with the data so far is that the opening weekend of college basketball season has a lot of mismatches, which lead to a lot of blowouts. One might think that the new rules wouldn't affect the blowouts much, or at least might affect them in weird ways.

So I looked at some subsets at the data. First, I excluded all games involving a non-D1 team. That made just a slight difference, but it weeded out a bunch of probably worthless data.

Second, I looked at games decided by ten points or less. In those games, scoring has increased from 66.6 points per team last year to 74.2 points per team this year. That's an 11.5% increase, which is huge. (The result is essentially the same if you account for overtime minutes.)

Third, I wanted to look at games between relatively good, relatively evenly matched teams. To determine this I used only the top ten games in Ken Pomeroy's daily Fan Match feature. The downside of this is that it decreases the sample to just 30 games each year so far. The upside is that we can be more confident that the samples are similar. Also, these are the games we really care about. The result: in those games, scoring has increased from 68 to 76.1 points per team—an 11.9% increase. Assuming Pauga's ratio holds true in those games, that's about three more buckets and ten more made free throws per game so far.

Fourth, I looked at the games that were both close and expected to be competitive. In those games, scoring increased from 66.8 to 77.1 points per team—a 15.4% increase.

Given the sample sizes, I'm not ready to declare these increases Torvistically significant, but it does seem like the people who think we need even more scoring in college basketball might be getting their wish this year.

Will the Badgers get into the BCS top-14?

After their nice win against BYU, the big question about the Badgers football team is whether they can fight their way back into position for a BCS bowl game. It is silly that this matters, and normally I don't concern myself with which consolation game my favorite teams qualify for. But I sense a lot of angst among Badger fans about whether Wisconsin will be screwed out of a BCS bowl even if they win out. This angst is misplaced. If the Badgers win out, they will almost certainly be invited to a BCS game.

The Badgers need to finish in the top 14 of the BCS standings to be eligible for an at-large berth. They will surely receive an at-large berth if they finish in the top-14. Currently, they are 24th, so they have to pass a bunch of teams. History tells us they will (if they keep winning).

In the BCS era, 99 teams from the major (or "automatic qualifier") conferences have finished the regular season with two losses, as the Badgers will if they win out. Of those 99 teams, 89 finished in the top 14 of the final BCS standings. If you narrow it to just the Big Ten, 13 out of 14 two-loss teams have finished in the top-14.

Almost all the 10 two-loss team that didn't finish in the top-14 had a lot of late-season losses. It is no secret that the most important thing in college football is to lose early. Late losses kill:

1998 Notre Dame, lost last game and finished outside BCS top 15.
1999 Miss. State, lost 2 of last 3, and finished outside BCS top 15.
2000 Clemson, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 15th.
2004 Wisconsin, lost last 2 and finished 17th.
2005 Texas Tech, lost 2 of last 5 and finished 15th.
2005 UCLA, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 16th.
2006 Rutgers, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 16th
2012 Louisville, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 21st but won conference and got AQ berth.

That leaves just two two-loss AQ-conference teams that finished the season strong and didn't make the top-14 of the final BCS standings. In other words, 97 of 99 two-loss teams that didn't tank finished in the BCS top 14.

Now let's look at the two outliers.

1) 2005 Louisville, won last five games, finished 19th. This is easily explained. In 2005, no one respected Louisville, which had just made the jump from Conference USA to the Big East. And the Big East was and is the little step-sister of AQ conferences. Actually, it isn't even an AQ conference anymore, at least not under that name. Louisville didn't win the Big East that year, and no one wanted the second-place Big East crashing the BCS.

2) 2006 Virginia Tech, won last six games, finished 15th. Here's your exception that proves the rule. Virginia Tech lost a couple games early to ranked opponents, then took care of business down the stretch. Incredibly, it actually did work its way up to 14th in the BCS standings in the second-to-last week, but was passed by two teams (West Virginia and Wake Forest) in the final week. So even this true outlier actually did get into the top 14, only to fall back one spot in the final tabulations.

So here's the stone-cold fact: no major conference two-loss team has ever won its last seven games and failed to finish in the top-14 of the final BCS standings. If the Badgers win out, they'll be a two-loss AQ-conference team on a seven-game winning streak. It would be shocking if they didn't make it up to the top 14 in that scenario.

St John's tidbits

• As Dave Heller points out, the Badgers gave up over 50 points in the second half. The last time the Badgers gave up 50 in a half was 2005, against Wake Forest. Upon seeing that tweet, my brain immediately fed me the following information: "91-88"—the final score of that game. This is why I cannot remember people's names or learn anything new: my brain is filled with basketball scores from ten years ago.
• Have the Badgers ever given up 50 points in a half and won? Not in the Bo Ryan era, at least.
• St. John's blocked just 5 shots against the Badgers.
• Ben Brust sort of pushed a ref at one point, after he got hammered trying to dunk after the whistle. It looked like Brust was trying to cool off and the ref got in his face while he was still steamed. But: wow.
• Two true freshmen (Hayes and Koenig) got in the game in the first half. Hayes's playing time was limited by fouls and by the great play of Dukan. Koenig looked a little clueless on defense and played just one minute. Still, I'm wondering when the last time two freshmen played in the first half of a Badgers' opener? It appears Kaminsky and Jackson got in during the first half of the 2011-12 opener—but that was an 85-31 win over Kennesaw St. Even so, both those players were solid contributors as sophomores, which bodes well for Hayes and Koenig.

St John's

Some quick thoughts on the St John's game. I'll see if I can post something more after taking a 2nd look at the game. There may too much football for that to happen.

 

There was not much in the way of surprises when it came to the rotation. In the first half the top 6 returning players got the bulk of the playing time and the 3 guard lineup they featured in Canada started. Marshall is the 6th man in the guard heavy lineup. Hayes came in every time that Kaminsky came out in a center rotation like what Bo used last year with Berggren and Kaminsky. Koenig played just one first half minute. He will be the 5th guard but like most freshman his minutes will come and go. In a tough first game it's no surprise that Bo tightened the rotation. The question going into the year was who will be the 4th front court player, as Dekker can't play every single minute.

 

To those who followed the Canada trip the minutes earned by Dukan tonight won't come as a complete surprise. He played a great deal in Canada, but those games had a lot of players rotating in so it was hard to tell if his minutes would translate into the regular season. He got 6 minutes in the first half and was productive after a shaky start. He jacked up an ill advised 3 on his first possession, and missed a challenged layup on his next attempt. In years past that would have sent him to the bench, but he stayed in. He then made consecutive plays on defense tipping a pass and creating a turnover, then drawing an offensive foul. Dukan shined in the 2nd half when foul trouble sent Hayes to the bench early and Kaminsky was ineffective. The other front court options of Vitto Brown, Evan Anderson, Zach Bohannon aren't exactly overwhelming, so Dukan could be in for many more regular minutes this season.

 

I didn't check the numbers but it was obvious that the Badgers are playing at a faster pace. They will never be VCU, but with the small lineup heavy with shooters and ball handlers it makes sense. I expect this trend to continue all season and not just be a one game wonder.  

 

Why is it that if there is an NBA or international 3 point line on the court in addition to the college line, the players can't help themselves from shooting from it? Brust did this to open the game, and the Badgers didn't do it so it much afterwards, but I see this all the time and it's weird.

 

My obsession with ball screen defense continues. In the first half UW started mostly fighting over the top of screens, as opposed to the switching they have done most of the past couple years. Given St. John's lack of perimeter shooting I thought they may even go under screens, but the change makes sense. With 3 guards you can fight over screens easier, and there is a bigger downside to switching when they don't have a bunch of players of similar size. UW just had better individual defenders last year too, which made more sense for switching. In the 2nd half they did much more switching so we'll have to see what happens against Florida. 

St. John's preview

Wisconsin basketball opens its season in just a few hours, with a neutral-court game against St. John's.

Despite returning nearly everyone from last year's team, St. John's is a bit of a mystery, and it will be very interesting to see how they do this year. I've got them ranked 71st in my preseason rating, but they come in at 47th (Kenpom), 44th (Hanner), and 54th (TeamRankings) in other projections. Steve Lavin has been there a few years now, and has landed a lot of decent recruits, but the team has not come together. In fact, it's been all downhill since Lavin lost ten seniors (!) after his first year.

Last year, St. John's started three sophomores and two freshmen, and all the key reserves were underclassmen as well. They barely made the NIT despite a pretty good defense because they were a terrible offensive team. They were particularly bad at shooting. Their effective field-goal percentage was 44.5%, good for 314th in the country, and they were nearly dead last in 3-point shooting at 27.7%. To top it off, they were a bad free-throw shooting team (64%, 317th). Since their guards were all sophomores who played big minutes as freshmen, it's hard to see those numbers improving much. (But that doesn't mean they won't get hot against the Badgers!) Their one strength on offense was ball security, as they turned it over on just 16.7% of possessions, good for 17th in the country. So don't expect many turnovers in this game.

On defense, St. John's was a solid squad last year, finishing 32nd in Kenpom's adjusted defensive efficiency ratings. With everyone coming back, they should be as good or better this year. The strength of their defense is on the interior, where they block a shot on 18.4% of their opponents' possessions. In that department they were led by freshman Chris Obekpa, the nation's leading shot blocker with a 15.8% block percentage.

Despite size and athleticism across the board, St. John's was a poor rebounding team on both ends last year (212th in OR% and 300th in DR%). The poor defensive rebounding is likely related to the high block percentage, as going for blocks can lead to poor rebounding positioning.

St. John's played at a relatively fast pace, with an adjusted tempo of 67.7 possessions per game, good for 93rd fastest in the country. (That would have led the Big Ten.) Presumably their fast tempo is also catalyzed by the blocks, which create transition offense. They don't create a lot of turnovers.

Normally I think a team that relies on shot-blocking to create transition offense is a good matchup for Wisconsin, because Wisconsin just does not get its shots blocked—they are perimeter-oriented and Badger players have been known to pump fake in their sleep. On offense, I hope to see the Badgers working the post with Dekker and Kaminsky drawing double-teams and kicking out to wide-open shooters. Same old story: if the guards hit their shots, the Badgers will win.

Some things to watch:

• The new rules. St. John's may be affected by the new rules on the perimeter, and Wisconsin may be affected by the new block/charge rule. This could go either way. Maybe St. John's is able to compensate for soft perimeter defense with their shot blockers waiting down low. And maybe Wisconsin comes out ahead because Bo has always taught players not to use their hands on defense. Either way, foul trouble could be a big factor. 

• Three-pointers. The Badgers project to be a three-point shooting team again, with a lot of three guard lineups and two forwards who can shoot. On defense, will Bo go against type and dare St. John's to take threes? He may have to if Wisconsin can't keep St. John's' athletic guards in front of them.

• Sam Dekker. I like Sam and look forward to watching him play a lot this year.

Prediction: Wisconsin 69, St. John's 61.

UW BYU

After last week I'm 7-3 (3-2 on picks and 4-1 o/u).

BYU got off to a weird start this season losing to a bad Virginia team on the road in a rain soaked, and weather delayed game. Then they followed it up with a win over a #15 Texas team that got of to a similarly horrible start but then righted the ship. Against Virginia, BYU ran 93 plays but scored just 16 points (13-40 passing 175 yards 4.4 yards per pass, 53 rushes for 187 3.5 yards per rush). Against Texas they were unstoppable running the ball and ran 99 plays for 697 yards and 40 points (9-27 passing 129 yards 4.8 yards per pass, 72 rushes 550 yards 7.6 yards per rush). BYU then failed to cease the momentum of the big Texas win and laid an egg against Utah running 95 plays but scoring just 13 points (18-48 passing 260 yards 5.4 yards per pass, 47 rushes 183 yards 3.9 yards per rush). Hard to ignore the completion percentage of under 35% (40-115) and no games over 5.4 yards per pass.

BYU has since run off 5 straight wins against perhaps lesser competition, and their sophomore QB Taysom Hill has performed better in those wins going 106-161 65.8%. Hill is also the teams leading rusher on the season at 142 rushes for 841 yards, 5.9 yards per carry and 8 touchdowns. BYU has a decent defense, but their offense lives and dies with Hill.

It's possible that at the end of the year we look back and realize BYU was the 3rd best team UW played this year. That's more a result of lucky scheduling in the Big Ten (no MI, Nebraska, MSU) than an endorsement of BYU. UW is an 8 point favorite, and the o/u is 55.5.

UW has been covering spreads all year, so I'm riding them like a hot craps roller and taking UW minus the 8 points. I'm torn on the o/u. BYU has only given up more than 21 points in one game all season, a 47-46 shootout at Houston. I don't think they can hold down Bucky in a tough road environment, so I'm going to go with the over in a 45-13 blowout.

Bo Ryan Stat of the Day

With Aaron Rodgers's injury, I think it's safe to say that we can now turn our full attention to Wisconsin Basketball. The season starts Friday, with an odd neutral court opener against St. John's in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. I'll try to get some exciting content up before then, but I can't make any promises.

I've been thinking about recruiting a little, though. The other day, 2014 five-star prospect Kevon Looney picked UCLA over Wisconsin, MSU, Tennessee, Florida, and Duke. While the recruitment was active, it was fun to daydream a little about what Bo Ryan could do with two five-star recruits on his roster at the same time, but that dream is dashed. We'll just have to make do with our rag-tag assortment of all-conference and all-america players, as usual.

Speaking of which, here is the titular stat of the day:

In his 12 seasons as coach, Bo Ryan has coached three consensus first- or second-team All-Americans (Tucker,* Taylor,* and Harris) and seven first-team all-conference players (add Penney,* Wilkinson, Butch, and Leuer). To put that in perspective, between 1953 and 2001, Wisconsin produced just four first-team all-conference players (Joe Franklin ('68), Patrick Thompkins (91), Finley ('93 & '95), Rashard ('95)*) and zero All-Americans. Prior to Bo, the last All-American to play at Wisconsin was Don Rehfeldt in 1950.

Bo has failed to place a player on the all-Big-Ten first-team just three times: 2009, 2010, and 2013. In each of those years, however, there was a Badger on second team (Landry, Hughes, and Berggren, respectively).

*Two-time all-conference players

**That's right: Stan Van Gundy coached two first-team all-conference players to a losing record.

UW vs Iowa

This is a tough one. First of all the point spread is all over the place. When I looked earlier in the week UW was a 10 or 9.5 point favorite everywhere, but by today the spreads vary from 9.5 down to 8 depending on where you look. The o/u has stayed pretty much the same at 48.5. Who knows where the spread will be by tomorrow. My guess is that the injury to Borland has something to do with the variance. If he plays then UW's defense is vastly improved. For the purpose of this exercise I will use 8.5 as the spread, as that is the most common, by a little.

I'm now 5-3 overall (2-2 on picks, 3-1 on o/u). I like UWs chances to shut down Iowa, even on the road. If Borland doesn't play then that goes out the window though. Iowa's defense will be one of the better UW has faced. They rank 12th in the country in scoring defense at 18.1 per game. I think at home they will do enough to slow down UW's offense. If I were putting money on this game I would pass, or at least wait until I knew if Borland was playing. For the purposes of this exercise I'm taking UW minus the points, and the under. I'm going to bank on Borland playing which allows the UW defense to dominate, and UW wins 24-10.

Why do I do this to myself

I had other plans last night, but I still DVRed the Bucks opener so I could watch it when I got home. The only thing worse than watching a mediocre Knicks team that did not play very well  was watching the Bucks. I'm not sure why I keep torturing myself by watching this terrible team.

The Bucks problem this year will be scoring, and that was evident last night as the Bucks scored just 83 points for the game. The first half was especially disastrous, as the Bucks scored just 31 points, had 16 turnovers, and lost Brandon Knight to a hamstring pull. The new face of the franchise Larry Sanders got 3 early fouls in the first half, then he collected his 4th and 5th a few minutes into the 3rd quarter and didn't see the court again. Sanders played all of 12 minutes and Knight played just 2. The Greek Freak played just 5 minutes and scored just one point on 1-2 FT with 0 Reb, 0 assists, 0 blocks or steals, and had a turnover and 2 fouls.

The game was about as ugly as they come with the Bucks committing 23 tunrovers and the Knicks committing 22. With Ridnour also out with a back injury I was treated to 30 minutes of play from 2nd round pick Nate Wolters. The overall talent level on the floor for the Bucks was sad. Of the 240 player minutes, 135 were played by players who were drafted in the 2nd round or not at all.

It's going to be a long season.

Finally

College basketball is finally here. I got to watch a bit of Indiana's exhibition game tonight. Indiana was pretty sloppy as you may expect from a team with so many youngsters, especially on the defensive end. The game was tied with 6 minutes to go in the first half, but Indiana pulled ahead by 9 at the half. IU probably won't be quite as good as last year, but they flashed some pretty impressive athleticism.

The 2 freshman Noah Vonleh, and Troy Williams stood out. Williams may jump out of the gym at some point this year. Vonleh generally dominated inside on the glass with his length, but had 2 plays that stood out in my mind. The first was when IU went to a 1-3-1 zone and had Vonleh at the top of the zone. Pretty intimidating to have a 6'10" guy with a wingspan like a condor at the top of a zone.

On the other play Vonleh picked a up loose ball in the lane on defense and dribbled coast to coast driving the lane and getting fouled on the shot. This was not against any pressure, but still, pretty impressive for a freshman big man.

I won't be able to watch UW's exhibition game live Wednesday, so at least I got a little basketball fix today. Can't wait for St John's.

Preseason Ratings Bowl

Okay, here it is: the final preseason ratings I will offer. Unless I change my mind.

I've expanded this from a top 40 rating to a top 50. Because I care. I also confirmed that I rated every team that received votes in the preseason coaches' pool, and every team that appears in Ken Pomeroy's preseason top 75, and Dan Hanner's top 70 teams.

There are some significant differences from the previous top 40 I posted. First, I fixed a lot of mistakes and added a bunch of new information. For example, Vanderbilt was previously rated highly, but I've since learned that two players who I expected to play major roles have left the program. I'm sure there are still mistakes, but whatever.

Second, I've changed how I account for freshmen. Previously, I'd given extra credit only for top-10 recruits. This led, in particular, to my model rating Kentucky and Kansas significantly lower than the conventional wisdom. So I decided to rejigger this to add extra credit for top-20 recruits. Now Kentucky is number 1 and Kansas moves up to 8th from 18th or so. Kentucky's recruiting class is absolutely ridiculous.

Of course, I also changed the source data from Kenpom 1.0 to Kenpom 2.0

So, below are the Torvik Top 50. I've also included comparisons to Pomeroy's top 50 and Hanner's top 50. As Chorlton mentioned before, it is interesting to look for outliers and variance. In my ratings, the outliers of are:

Saint Louis at 13 (high)
Missouri at 27 (high)
Syracuse at 31 (low)
Marquette at 36 (low)
Utah State at 34 (high)

Syracuse and Marquette are rated low mainly because they will be relying heavily on freshman (and, in Syracuse's case, a transfer) who don't get any credit in my system. Time will tell if they deserved any credit.

Utah State is an interesting one because I didn't include them in my original ratings. But I added them after seeing that they rated 58th in the Hanner ratings. They return virtually all their minutes, and have a number of young, efficient players. It will be interesting to see how they do.

Overall, there is a lot of agreement in the ratings. Of my top 50 teams, 43 appear in Hanner's top 50, and 40 appear in Pomeroy's. Of my top 20 teams, 16 appear in both Hanner and Pomeroy. Overall, there are 38 consensus teams in the top 50 and 14 in the top 20.

Anyhow, at the end of the season I'll compare these ratings to the tournament S-Curve and we'll see who gets the best of it.

Team	T-Rank	Kenpom	Hanner
Kentucky	1	5	1
Florida	2	3	5
Louisville	3	1	2
Duke	4	6	6
Michigan St.	5	2	3
Ohio St.	6	7	7
North Carolina	7	10	13
Kansas	8	8	4
Gonzaga	9	18	18
Connecticut	10	11	25
Virginia	11	19	11
Michigan	12	12	12
Saint Louis	13	31	24
Wichita St.	14	40	23
Georgetown	15	14	31
Wisconsin	16	22	10
Arizona	17	23	8
Memphis	18	16	15
Oklahoma St.	19	4	9
Creighton	20	13	19
Villanova	21	26	36
Oregon	22	56	33
Iowa	23	15	16
Stanford	24	29	38
Baylor	25	28	35
Indiana	26	25	29
Missouri	27	49	52
Saint Mary's	28	52	42
Purdue	29	30	46
Notre Dame	30	32	26
Syracuse	31	9	14
VCU	32	21	22
New Mexico	33	17	21
Utah St.	34	78	58
Harvard	35	51	27
Marquette	36	24	17
UCLA	37	27	20
Pittsburgh	38	20	28
Boise St.	39	42	41
Kansas St.	40	43	54
San Diego St.	41	64	49
Texas	42	80	67
Dayton	43	68	66
La Salle	44	55	43
Providence	45	41	50
Tennessee	46	34	34
Alabama	47	33	40
Maryland	48	44	45
Iowa St.	49	38	62
Vanderbilt	50	70	79

*Update: Made two small adjustments: (1) Akron, formerly #45, drops out after I learned last year's starting point guard was kicked off the team; and (2) Arkansas, formerly #47, drops out after I learned that Hunter Mickelson transferred to Kansas. Vanderbilt sneaks back in at #50.

Solving the Wisconsin Problem

The big news among college hoops nerds today is that Ken Pomeroy has changed his formula to deemphasize the effect of blowouts over bad teams:

The result is that games perceived by the system as big upsets get the most weight, while the influence of expected lopsided wins is minimized. For instance, last season’s non-conference games involving Grambling would be largely ignored. Whether a team beat the Tigers by 30 or 60 would make little difference in its rating.

This issue of how to treat non-conference blowouts is sometimes called "the Wisconsin problem," because it is one of the explanations for why the Pomeroy system always seems to overrate the Badgers. (Other explanations for this phenomenon include: the Badgers are usually actually better than people are willing to believe.)

An interesting aspect of Kenpom 2.0 is that he's gone back and retroactively changed all the ratings to from 2003 to present to reflect his new formula. Since my recent project of producing a model-based preseason top-40 relied heavily on historical Kenpom data, I decided to go ahead and rerun the numbers with the new data.

No surprise, Wisconsin drops. In my most recent update to the Top 40, Wisconsin had been projected 9th. Using the new Kenpom data, they drop six spots to 15th. (I will do another post with the "final" top 40 right before the season—I'm still tweaking it with more info about injuries, transfers, fixing mistakes, etc.)

I also put the new data into my model for predicting the final Big Ten standings, and they are now projected to win 0.5 fewer games. (My previous post on the Big Ten projections is actually obsolete because my Wisconsin data originally double-counted Gasser's return. After fixing that, Wisconsin was projected to win 12.1 games; now they're projected to win 11.6 games and tie with Michigan for third place.)

Wisconsin is by no means the only team affected. Here are the upper-level teams whose projected ranking changed the most:

Losers
Belmont: -10
Indiana: -9
Syracuse: -8
Marquette: -8
Iowa State: -8
Kansas: -7
Alabama: -7

Winners
Akron: +10
Harvard: +6
Oklahoma St.: +6
No. Dak. St.: +6
Boise St.: +6

As you can see, most of the "winners" are mid-majors and most of the "losers" (with the notable exception of Belmont) are major conference teams who probably had their previous kenpom ratings juiced by non-con romps over really bad teams.

My poor Bucks

NBA season will soon be upon us, and this year looks to be a dismal one for the Bucks. NBA talking heads seem to think that Hammonds has signed enough competent veterans that this team will end up where most Bucks teams have recently, picking in the late lottery. I'm not so sure the talent they added will get them there, which isn't all bad. A high draft pick in what could be a very good draft could give this team a young building block for the future.

After injuries to Bogut destroyed this teams strategy to build around him, and Jennings didn't develop into the All-Star player he showed glimpses of becoming, the Bucks have gone into rebuild mode. Hammonds contract was extended to give him this opportunity, and he responded by drafting Giannis Antetokounmpo who has been dubbed the "Greek Freak". Giannis has all the physical tools to be a very good NBA player, but that does not mean he will be one. Even if he does become one, he is not ready now and will probably not be a major contributor for a couple seasons. That leaves this year's Bucks playing a bunch of journeyman veterans, and developing a few young assets. Hammond did not sign anyone to a long term deal (more than 3 seasons) except Larry Sanders who is now the most marketable player on the Bucks. This preserves salary cap flexibility for the next couple years if Hammonds hits on a star in one of these drafts, or wants to make a deal.  

 

Here is a quick roster breakdown into 3 categories. Players that have a chance to be long term starters in the future. Veterans that may help this year, but won' play with the Bucks beyond their contracts, and roster fillers. I'm not going to spend much time on anyone but the youngsters.

 

Larry Sanders got a 4 year contract extension which paid him about 10 million per season. Seems high for a guy who has only started 67 NBA games and has never averaged double figures in points or rebounds for a season, (he was 9.8ppg and 9.5 rpg last year) but 10 million a year is the going rate for a passable NBA starting center these days so the contract is not outrageous. What is outrageous is that Larry Sanders is going to be burdened with being the face of a franchise at this point in his career with very little talent around him. Larry developed into a defensive force last season blocking shots, but he is not even close to an all-star level talent. He fouls too much on defense and he is too slight to match up on true centers like Marc Gasol, Hibbert, etc. and not get bullied. He did himself a favor last year by giving up on his long range jumper and his shooting percentage jumped to 51% last season. He doesn't have the ability to get his own shot yet, and without Jennings and Ellis drawing defenders and leaving him easy baskets my guess is his offense will regress this season. Sanders is good enough to be an important piece on a playoff team so his 4 year extension is an OK move. I just worry the pressure of being the face of the franchise will be too much for young Larry.

 

John Henson enters his sophomore season looking to build off a solid rookie season in which he averaged 6ppg, and 4.7 rpg in 13 minutes. He should be part of a frontcourt rotation with Sanders, Ilyasova, and Pachulia. Henson is not quite the defensive force that Sanders is, but he is a good shot blocker. His offensive game is pretty good already and seems to have lots of room for improvement. He can shoot down low with his right or left, and he shows good touch and passing ability. He has not shown a ton of range on his jump shot yet, but if he can develop this he could become an all-star type player. He will always be criticized as too slight and he doesn't look like a guy that will ever fill out, so the question is if he will become a Camby or just another tall skinny guy.

 

I have already discussed Giannis so I won't go over him again, but he is the last player in this category. The Bucks are hoping to build a team with a frontcourt of long, defensive minded players. If all goes to plan, then in about 3 years Sanders, Henson, and Giannis will be starting at the 3,4,5 for the Bucks. If that turns out to be that case, then the Bucks will need some scoring punch from their backcourt, so look for them to draft a guard sometime in July. In case you didn't notice that means the other 12 roster players are just place holders.

 

The Bucks backcourt got a total makeover and the results don't look good. They let Jennings, Ellis, and Reddick leave, and did not replace them with equal talent. The backcourt rotation will be filled with Brandon Knight, and 3 veterans- Luke Ridnour, OJ Mayo, and Gary Neal.

 

Knight will probably be a better defender than Jennings, but he doesn't have the offensive game. In his 2 seasons he has shot about 41%, and 37% from 3. He doesn't get to the free throw line, and doesn't create much for his teammates. He has averaged less than 4 assists per game despite averaging over 30 minutes a game. Some see him as the point guard of the future, but unless he drastically improves in year 3 he has the look of the other 3 members of the Bucks backcourt- a decent NBA journeyman. Good enough to play in this league, but not good enough to make any team want to keep you around very long.

 

The Bucks did a decent job of replacing the small forward tandem of Mbah-a-Moute and Dunleavy with Caron Butler and Carlos Delfino. Not a significant upgrade or downgrade, and both players have short term deals so that if Giannis develops as planned, he can move into their minutes as they move on to other teams. Ilyasova will start at power forward and hopefully he will continue to play like he did at the end of last season. If he does then he could be quality trade bait for a team in need of a stretch 4, and could net the Bucks some future draft picks. Udoh seems to have maxed out where he is, which is a decent defender but no better than a 10th man in the rotation type player. Pachulia will give the Bucks some added bulk for those games when Sanders is getting bullied around by a true center, and he should give the coach less attitude then Dalembert. The rest of the roster is filled with guys that probably won't be playing for the Buck beyond this year.

So what does this all add up to? What can I hope to see from the Bucks this year?

 

Best case scenario is this team just plays well together, and plays some entertaining basketball winning about 30-35 games in the process. The young players all develop and give the Bucks some hope for the future. The Bucks are able to swing a trade with either an expiring contract or a player like Ilyasova and are able to get another young talent for the future.

 

Worst case scenario is Sanders implodes under the pressure or gets hurt and his contract turns into a drag on the franchise. The Bucks don't have anyone that can score, so they play low scoring, grind it out games but still lose almost all of them. The young players don't develop and the Bucks are left with a 20 win season and a top 10 draft pick.

 

Maybe next year will be better.

UW vs IL

I'm starting out this year reverse of last season, poor on the picks, but good on the o/u. After 3 weeks I'm 3-3, 1-2 on picks and 2-1 on o/u. This week UW is favored by 14 and the over under is 56.5.

IL has a horrible run defense so UW should rack up big yards and points again. I think IL will score at home, but not enough to keep up with UW so I'm taking UW -14 and the over.

Toughest Big Ten Basketball Schedule: Iowa

As I mentioned in my "projections" post, the unbalanced Big Ten schedule creates winners and losers. This year the biggest loser is Iowa.

Iowa's single games are home against Nebraska and Purdue, and at Indiana and Penn State. On the face of it this might not seem so bad, since they've got a decent shot of going 3-1 in those four games. The problem is that this means they face OSU, MSU, Wisconsin, and Michigan twice each, and these are the top four teams in the conference in my model. Their only break is that they have to face Indiana (ranked fifth) just once, but that's on the road, and almost certainly a loss. They also are robbed of an easy road game at Nebraska.

As a result, my Model projects them to win just 9.3 games, which rounds to a 9-9 record and 7th place in Big Ten play. That puts them behind Purdue (which happens to have the easiest Big Ten schedule), even though the Model says Iowa is going to be a superior team. In a true round robin, the Model would have them winning 11.9 games, which rounds to 12-10, and puts them in a tie with Indiana and Purdue for fifth place. That's an extra win against par—potentially the difference between making and missing the tournament.

For what it's worth, the Badgers have the most statistically fair schedule. Compared to the true round robin, they have a projected winning percentage of just .18% higher. By contrast, Iowa's is 2.49% worse and Purdue's is 1.7% better.

As you can tell, I am very excited for college basketball season to begin.

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