I guess I’ve lied, because here’s the belated rankings for week 2. I have made a few changes:

• The ratings are now expressed in terms of points above and below average. A rating of 0.0 indicates that the team is as mediocre as it can be.
• There were a few errors in my data that were corrected.
• I’ve added a column that shows the rank one week prior, labeled “-1W”. It is always based on the ratings from seven days ago, so the -1W ranking will not necessarily match the Top25 post from about one week prior.

Top 25 Schools (complete list)

#   School             W- L     Rat    SoS   (r)  NCSoS   (r) -1W

1   Florida            9- 2    28.3    0.4 (173)    0.4 (181)   1

2   North Carolina     9- 1    26.2    5.2  (45)    5.2  (55)   3

3   Arizona            8- 1    25.1    7.8  (11)    7.8  (15)   2

4   Ohio St           10- 1    22.4    3.9  (84)    3.9  (97)   5

5   Kansas             9- 2    21.9    2.4 (120)    2.4 (131)  11

6   Connecticut        9- 0    21.8   -3.6 (286)   -3.6 (290)   4

7   Texas A&M          9- 2    21.6    0.4 (173)    0.4 (181)   9

8   Illinois          11- 2    21.1    6.3  (23)    6.3  (29)  23

8   Maryland          10- 2    21.1    5.7  (35)    4.7  (70)  12

10  Villanova          6- 2    20.5    5.9  (31)    5.9  (41)   6

11  Butler            10- 1    19.4    9.6   (5)   10.6   (3)   9

12  Duke              10- 1    19.3    8.1   (9)    8.1  (14)  16

12  Oregon            10- 0    19.3   -0.8 (216)   -0.8 (217)  30

14  Georgia            7- 1    19.1   -2.3 (258)   -2.3 (264)  22

15  UCLA               9- 0    18.0    5.5  (38)    5.5  (48)  17

16  Indiana            6- 3    17.9    5.9  (31)    5.9  (41)  31

17  Gonzaga            9- 3    17.6    6.1  (29)    6.1  (37)  25

17  Missouri St        8- 2    17.6    4.1  (78)    3.7 (100)  24

19  Clemson           11- 0    17.1    0.1 (184)    0.1 (190)  20

20  UNLV               9- 2    17.0    5.0  (50)    5.0  (60)  18

21  Boston College     7- 2    16.7    3.9  (84)    1.7 (153)  33

21  Notre Dame         9- 1    16.7   -2.2 (255)   -2.2 (258)   7

23  Purdue             9- 2    16.6    5.5  (38)    5.5  (48)  37

24  Missouri           9- 2    16.4    4.5  (70)    4.5  (79)  26

24  Michigan St       11- 2    16.4    4.5  (70)    4.5  (79)  14

24  Wisconsin         11- 1    16.4    3.2  (97)    3.2 (113)  38

24  LSU                6- 2    16.4    2.1 (130)    2.1 (138)   8

24  West Virginia      7- 1    16.4   -1.4 (235)   -1.4 (236)  35

The rest of the Big East

44  Georgetown         7- 3    13.8    2.2 (127)    2.2 (136)  70

48  DePaul             5- 5    12.8    7.5  (13)    7.5  (19)  57

52  Syracuse           9- 3    12.2    2.8 (110)    2.8 (121)  54

52  Pittsburgh        10- 1    12.2    2.4 (120)    2.4 (131)  45

54  Marquette         10- 2    12.1    2.1 (130)    2.1 (138)  60

61  Providence         8- 2    11.1    3.1 (100)    3.1 (115)  52

69  Seton Hall         5- 1     9.7   -4.4 (297)   -4.4 (302)  66

101 Cincinnati         7- 3     6.4    1.9 (136)    1.9 (144)  97

104 St John's          6- 3     5.7   -1.1 (225)   -1.1 (226)  99

117 Louisville         4- 4     4.4    5.6  (36)    5.6  (45)  81

127 South Florida      7- 3     2.7   -5.3 (320)   -5.3 (319) 132

223 Rutgers            4- 5    -4.4    1.3 (154)    1.3 (165) 233

Top 10 Conferences (complete list)

#  Conference                 W- L     Rat    SoS  (r)  NCSoS  (r)

1  Atlantic Coast            95-26    14.8    3.2  (4)    2.4  (9)

2  Southeastern              94-25    13.1    1.5 (12)    1.5 (13)

3  Big Ten                   91-32    11.5    2.8  (6)    2.8  (7)

4  Big East                 113-39    10.9    1.0 (14)    1.0 (15)

5  Pacific 10                79-19    10.5    0.7 (16)    0.7 (17)

6  Missouri Valley           65-25    10.4    2.2  (8)    1.8 (10)

7  Big 12                    85-34     9.6   -0.2 (23)   -0.2 (25)

8  Mountain West             64-24     5.6    0.0 (22)    0.0 (24)

9  Conference USA            55-39     4.4   -0.2 (23)   -0.3 (27)

10 West Coast                38-49     3.0    3.6  (3)    3.6  (5)

Projected Big East Standings (view page)

#  School            W-L      Rat      pW*- pL*    pCSoS*  (r)

1  Connecticut       0-0     21.8     13.5- 2.5       8.8 (16)

2  Villanova         0-0     20.5     12.0- 4.0      11.7  (4)

3  Notre Dame        0-0     16.7     11.4- 4.6      10.0 (15)

4  West Virginia     0-0     16.4     10.8- 5.2      10.6 (10)

5  Georgetown        0-0     13.8      9.3- 6.7      11.6  (5)

6  Depaul            0-0     12.8      9.2- 6.8      10.3 (11)

7  Syracuse          0-0     12.2      8.5- 7.5      11.5  (6)

8  Providence        0-0     11.1      8.4- 7.6      10.2 (12)

8  Marquette         0-0     12.1      8.4- 7.6      11.1  (7)

10 Pittsburgh        0-0     12.2      8.0- 8.0      12.0  (3)

11 Seton Hall        0-0      9.7      7.6- 8.4      10.2 (13)

12 Cincinnati        0-0      6.4      6.2- 9.8      10.0 (14)

13 St John's         0-0      5.7      5.1-10.9      10.7  (8)

14 Louisville        0-0      4.4      4.3-11.7      12.1  (2)

15 South Florida     0-0      2.7      4.2-11.8      10.7  (9)

16 Rutgers           0-0     -4.4      1.1-14.9      12.5  (1)

* p denotes projected wins, losses, and schedule strength (conference games only).

Categories: Dan'l B, Rankings
2 Comments »

I’ll be on the shelf recovering from arthroscopic surgery over the next few days and weeks. I have access to write, but won’t be able to reasonable run the Bigeastology scripts to calculate ratings. I don’t expect that many care, but for those who do, I apologize for the delay.

Categories: Dan'l B, Rankings
1 Comment »

Most of us are college basketball fans first, and NBA fans second. That is, we’ll watch the playoffs and the Finals when they roll around, but from January through March, college basketball is basketball.

But the NBA overshadows much of college ball — it’s the ultimate stage to which most college players aspire. At the same time, many fans view it distastefully, as an overly-commercial game with no heart that sucks up the great college players far too early. How does the NBA affect the college game? Is it really so bad? Let’s break it down.

Minus: Good players leave early
This is the most obvious and often-cited complaint about the NBA. The best college players declare for the NBA after a few seasons at best. Of course, you can’t fault them: millions of dollars in pay and endorsements are always a convincing argument. But for fans, the transition induces pain, when you find out that one of your favorite players has finally decided to declare, or fatalism, when you know a player is going to head to the NBA early the minute he steps on the court, and you start watching him like he’s a dead man dribbling.

Sometimes, of course, you get what you wanted anyway (Carmelo Anthony), but far more often you’re left wondering just how good your team could be if only he were still around the next season (Caron Butler, countless others). That’s pain, and frustration. The churn of good players means that your team is constantly in rebuilding mode.

Minus: Showboating
We’ve all seen it: the talented player, destined for the NBA, determined to improve his draft chances by… being a ball hog, going for the showy play rather than the good one, and playing lackadaisically when he knows he’s not in the spotlight. In short, doing everything that you hate about the NBA regular season. Ben Gordon in the 2004 championship game comes to mind, but there are plenty of other examples. The purity of college basketball derives from the notion that the team matters more than the individual (which is partly why we are able to remain sane while rooting for a rotating cast of characters a la Minus #1 above). There’s no pay, so the only reward, theoretically, is a championship, which encourages better team play and more beautiful basketball.

Sounds great. Except that the expectation of future rewards — NBA contracts — is so significant that, in some players, it’s the most important factor. The end result: ugly, ugly games that leave a bad taste in your mouth. (Remember, many of these players aren’t even good enough to play in the NBA, much less be superstars. So they do a far worse job of doing cool stuff on their own.)

At this point, it’s looking hard to argue for the NBA at all. But there are some positives, and I think they actually outweigh the negatives.

Plus: A bigger talent pool
This is a simple economic argument. NBA = riches. College = best chance at NBA. End result: any kid with half a chance of making it in college is going to want to play. More players = bigger talent pool = better overall play.

Plus: Greater parity
This is a more subtle argument, but perhaps the most important one. Mister D recently commented on how much parity there is in Division I ball. And it definitely is impressive. But why is there such parity? Consider the following argument:

If college play is all about winning championships, then the best programs should attract the best athletes, because each player supposedly wants to maximize his chance of winning a championship. In this world, you’d never see Wichita State in the Top 10; instead, you’d see (roughly) the same 10 teams in the Top 10, not only all year long, but year-in and year-out. Why doesn’t this happen?

It seems to me that the main reason is that good players want to play ball in college, and you won’t get to play much ball if you’re on a team with 11 other superstars. Now, part of the reason that good players want lots of playing time is that they love playing; it’s what they do.

However, another reason is (surprise) the NBA. If you’re a good player, and you know you have a shot at the NBA, you’ll want to attend college somewhere that will make your talents visible to NBA scouts. I’d wager that being the sixth man on a great team that makes it to the Final Four is not as lucrative (last year’s draft-record-breaking UConn squad aside) as being the first man on a good team. So the NBA encourages a natural diffusion of talent throughout the NCAA, which makes March Madness so awesome every year. The desire to showboat, as nasty as it is, ultimately strengthens the league through greater parity. It’s a crazy world.

March Madness is the heart of the college basketball experience. Thanks, NBA, for making it so good.

Categories: Commentary, Juice
6 Comments »

In a recent interview with Jim Boeheim, the coach expressed frustration and confusion when asked how good his team is. “I don’t know if we’re top-20 team, or 60-70. We could be top-20, but I don’t know.”

Hey coach, isn’t that a fairly big range? Isn’t he basically saying, “we could be anywhere from the best team in the country to the 70th best?” I don’t mean to fault the coach for his comment—I think it’s a perfectly honest and legit observation. I’m wondering whether Boeheim isn’t onto something…the emergence, perhaps, of a new phenomenon in college basketball.

While it’s always difficult to judge a team’s strength at the beginning of the season, the coach’s consternation is not simply a function of a team trying to find its bearings in a young season—it’s a function of the growing trend in college basketball: parity.

OK, let’s get to the logic part.

The first factor to consider is that the number of Division I programs stays more or less constant. Sometimes a university will make the jump from DII to DI, but in general, you’ve got a set number of Division I teams. That number is always around 330, give or take one or two (the actual number was 334 last year, up from 332 the previous year).

Next, let’s assume that as the years go by, the players who enter college basketball are more talented and more athletic than the previous class that entered. Now, clearly there is no way to prove this assumption—that’s why it’s an assumption. You could argue that a bad recruiting class disproves that assumption rather quickly. However, if you take the entire population of college basketball players, on average the class of 2008 is going to be a tad bit better than the class of 2007. Why would this be true? Well, few would argue that the popularity of basketball has waned in the past decade. In fact, most would say just the opposite. The sport is enormously popular, and is growing not only nationally, but internationally. Similarly, access to basketball courts and quality coaches has been steadily increasing as high schools build better facilities, youth leagues become more structured and robust, former college basketball players set up youth camps, after school clubs use basketball as a focus—indeed, the only logical conclusion is that the crop of talented basketball players grows every year because more kids than ever before are exposed to basketball, participate in basketball, and learn how to play, and do so on a year-round basis. Albeit slightly, that talent pool grows.

Thus, when the number of programs stays constant and the talent pool grows larger, you get an increase in the amount of good teams. With each year, the distance between the best team and the worst team is shrinking, and all the teams caught in the middle are gradually clumping together—to the point where the teams in the 1-70 range are likely very, very similar. At one point not long ago, the top 40 teams may have been very similar. But now, the coach is right. The number of similar teams is more like 70.

So, what does this mean? It means that the selection of 65 teams for the tournament becomes more and more difficult every year. It means that going undefeated throughout an entire season will be almost unheard of (ludicrous, really). It means that superpower conferences (ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10) will be joined by other, upstart, high-quality conferences (The Valley, WAC, Atlantic 10). It means that good coaching and good floor leadership is at a premium: all of the players are so similarly talented and athletic, rather than using physical superiority to beat up on smaller and slower teams, executing a first-rate gameplan is the best way to win.

It means that indeed, Syracuse just may be a top 20 team. Then again, they could be a top 70 team. But realistically, they’re both…and they’re joined by about 69 others.

Categories: Commentary, Mister D
4 Comments »

A season ago, Villanova had one of the best groups of guards the league has ever seen. But Allan Ray, Randy Foye and Kyle Lowry have since departed for the NBA and only Mike Nardi is left. So that leaves us with the question: who has the best little guys in the league? Donald’s post got me thinking…Marquette is the obvious choice, but are they actually the best in the league? A lot can be said for some of the other teams around the league. Below is my top 5. I wish I could have picked some underdog to be first, but you have to give the Golden Eagles credit here.

1. Marquette – Dominic James, Jerel McNeal, Wesley Matthews

2. UConn – AJ Price, Doug Wiggins, Jerome Dyson, Craig Austrie

3. Pitt- Sam Young, Levance Fields, Antonio Graves, Mike Cook

4. Syracuse – Eric Devendorf, Josh Wright, Paul Harris

5. Notre Dame – Kyle McAlarney, Russell Carter, Colin Falls

Categories: Big Willie Style, Commentary
1 Comment »