NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid

      On April 30, 2015, the Oklahoma City Thunder hired former Florida head coach Billy Donovan to replace Scott Brooks, who was surprisingly fired after what was by any measure an impressive seven-year stint with the team, including a .620 winning percentage, five playoffs appearances and an unsuccessful trip to the NBA Finals in the 2011-12 season.  Upon his firing, Brooks was three years into a four year, $16 million dollar contract extension he received following the NBA Finals appearance.  When Donovan was announced as the new coach, it became Donovan’s first ever job in the NBA, having spent the past 27 years in the NCAA, beginning as an assistant for Kentucky, then spending two years as head coach at Marshall, and ending up with a 19-year tenure at Florida, where he won two NCAA Championships.  Donovan’s contract with the Thunder was for five years, $30 million, a salary of two million dollars more per season than his predecessor, who had already proven himself to be a valuable coach.

     A similar situation happened with the Boston Celtics, when they hired former Butler coach Brad Stevens in the summer of 2013.  Stevens also had no former coaching experience in the NBA, but an incredible college resume, leading a mid-major Butler team to two incredible runs to the NCAA Championship game.  The contract offer he accepted with the Celtics was for six years and $22 million, nearly four million dollars per season.  Since then, Stevens has taken the Celtics from a projected bottom-feeder to a .500 playoff team with loads of future potential.

     Lastly, former NBA sharpshooter, analyst, and general manager of the Phoenix Suns Steve Kerr had no prior coaching experience when he accepted the Golden State Warriors position before this season, replacing Mark Jackson, who lost his job despite leading the Warriors to back-to-back playoff appearances for the first time since the 1990-91 and 91-92 seasons.  Kerr was given expectations to make the team a title contender and was given a five year, $25 million deal.  In turn, Kerr finished runner-up in Coach of the Year voting in his first year, and led the Warriors to a NBA-best 67-15 record.

     I believe that what at first may seem like just a couple unrelated stories are the key to understanding a major shift in the NBA in the next few years which will see the average salary for head coaches raise significantly.  But before I can explain what the future holds, let's look at the present.  The average salary of an NBA head coach for the 25 teams who currently have head coaches and for which numbers are known is just under $4.4 million.  However, that number may be deceiving because if the three coaches who make the most money (Gregg Popovich, Doc Rivers, and Flip Saunders [yes, the coach of the league's WORST team, that Flip Saunders]) who all make at least nine million per season currently, the number drops almost a million dollars down to 3.63 million per year.  The funny thing about that number is that it is lower than the salaries for Donovan, Stevens, and Kerr.

     These three men, especially Donovan, have showed a changing viewpoint of head coaches over recent years.  Teams are beginning to look outside the NBA to find coaches, and are willing to pay to get the guy they want.  Teams are taking chances.

     Some teams are not even looking in the U.S. for their coaches, such as David Blatt, who joined the Cavaliers after many successful stints in Europe, including 2014 Euroleague and Euroleague Coach of the Year titles with Maccabi Tel Aviv.

     The majority of NBA coaches have still gotten their positions the old-fashioned way, working their way up after years as assistants in the league.  One of the best examples of someone who "started from the bottom" was the Heat's Erik Spoelstra, who was an employee of the Heat for 12 years before earning the head job, even starting as a video coordinator back in 1997.  However, even after seven years as head coach, and two NBA titles, Spoelstra makes a below-average $3 million per season.  Nearly 20 years of work has earned him less money than all four previously mentioned first-year coaches.

     This trend towards going to great lengths to hire coaches with little prior experience who have the potential to be great coaches and giving them offers they can not refuse is going to shake up the league.  Although college coaches and relatively inexperienced coaches have not been very successful historically, the recent influx of these coaches, along with their successes early has gotten people talking, and readying their wallets.

     Current Kentucky coach John Calipari has come up a lot in discussions regarding potential NBA head coaching positions over the past few years, most recently just a few days ago with the New Orleans Pelicans.  Think about what it would take to bring Calipari to the NBA.  Every year, Calipari successfully recruits future stars, (add stat about recruiting class rankings) coaches the stars he has, builds a successful team that in many cases is top ranked in the nation and a National Championship contender, and is basically the most popular guy in Kentucky.  Additionally, he leads all NCAA D-I basketball coaches with a salary over $6 million.

     For Calipari to leave the biggest program in the country to coach in the NBA, where job security is basically nonexistent (but more on that later), he would have to be paid an outrageous amount of money, becoming one of the top five highest paid coaches in the league. Even if that happened, there is still no guarantee he would leave Lexington.

     For the sake of argument, I'll say that Kentucky gets to keep their beloved Calipari.  It's more likely than not that he stays with the program for a while.  This still leaves many other coaches who have done great things at their programs, but may be looking to snag a job in the NBA.  Additionally, after seeing the contracts given to Donovan and Stevens, these coaches are now becoming more aware of their worth.  The average salary of a coach whose team made March Madness this past season was about $1.5 million, but similarly to the NBA, that average drops closer to $1 million if just a few coaches are removed.  The best of these coaches will be sought after by NBA teams who are now much more open to try different tactics and personnel in order to win.  With all the coaches that are unsuccessful in the league, a team that thinks they may have found a great coach will not be afraid to make moves to lock them up for the future.

     As for the current NBA head coaches, they must be feeling a few things.  First, they can not be pleased that coaches are just jumping into the league and making more then them.  But on the other, it makes sense that if the average coach's salary increases, they will be soon to follow.  Teams will need to spend more because if they do not, other teams willing to pay larger amounts will steal the best available coaches.  That means the coaches will have more power.  However, the pool of potential coaches is growing, meaning the job is more competitive, and coaches need to keep pushing their teams forward or face being replaced.

     The NBA is at a point in time where it is more popular than ever, and each year is seeing an increase in revenue.  Because large new markets, especially overseas, are being exposed to the game, every team is battling for new fans.  Naturally, this happens by being good.  The teams that are not good are doing everything in their power to shortcut the rebuilding process, rejecting old methods of building an organization from the ground up, and instead opting towards revamping continually changing coaching staffs, luring all-stars during free agency, and even tanking, the one NBA commonplace I despise above all.
     This article, http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/5/7/5690420/nba-head-coach-turnover-mark-jackson-fired-warriors, does a great job at showing just how remarkable the NBA head coach firing rate is.  Popovich is the only coach who joined his team before 2008, and now there are only two other coaches remaining (Spoelstra and the Mavericks' Rick Carlisle) who were hired before 2010.  Going into this season, the average NBA coach tenure without including Popovich (his 18 years is longer than the sum of the tenures of coaches from every individual division), was under two seasons.  The Pacific division's five coaches began the year with just three years combined tenure at their current positions.  The four coaches currently in the Conference Finals began the year with just four total years with their teams under their belts, and three of those came from the Rockets' Kevin McHale.
     These numbers only confirm that teams are not afraid to switch things up.  Since the standards in the league are so high, coaches that have shown their ability to succeed, whether in the NBA or elsewhere, are going to be more and more highly valued, and will be able to profit off the desperation of struggling franchises.  This could lead to a system where the biggest names on the market experience a kind of free agency, where they are accept the offer of the highest bidder.
     But enough about all the specifics of the state of head coaches in the league.  From a strictly numerical standpoint, do they deserve to be making more money?  The NBA has the highest average player salary of any sports league in the world at $4.58 million for the current season.  This means that if we include the league's elite coaches, the average player makes slightly more than the average coach.  First off, that should not be the case.  Sure, at the end of the day, the players are the ones who perform every game, but the coach is responsible for all the training and chemistry and tactics, which can make or break a team.  Regardless, how does this ratio stack up versus other leagues?
     Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that question.  While most NBA salaries are easily found, the same can not be said for other leagues.  From the salaries of half the NFL's coaches, I could make a decent guess that the average salary is around $5 million, or over double the $2.11 million average salary for players.  For the MLB and NHL, almost no information is available.
     Whether the increase in salary is justified or not does not really matter at the end of the day.  NBA head coaches, especially the better ones, are going to get paid, so be ready for it.

Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq?

     Over the past few weeks the NBA has seen a surge in intentional fouls on poor free-throw shooters, particularly the Clippers’ DeAndre Jordan and Rocket’s Josh Smith and Joey Dorsey.  In the last couple of seasons, the league has also seen players such as Dwight Howard, Andre Drummond, Omer Asik, and Rajon Rondo be fouled due to their poor performance at the charity stripe.  This strategy is far from new, previously being used against Hall-of-Famers Wilt Chamberlain, Dennis Rodman, and Shaquille O’Neal, it’s frequent use against the latter giving the strategy its nickname, “Hack-a-Shaq.”  However, there has been a recent surge in support of instituting NBA rule changes to prevent the practice.  NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently stated that there would be serious talks at upcoming league meetings about potentially eliminating the strategy from the game.  Despite what others might think, I have to disagree with those who believe the procedure should be banned.

     Before debating the merits of the technique and its effect on the game, I want to make one point abundantly clear: nobody likes Hack-a-Shaq, or Hack-a-Howard, or Hack-a-Whoever.  Even Greg Popovich, the San Antonio Spurs coach who utilizes the tactic more than any other coach in the league says he hates having to do so.  By intentionally fouling the same player repeatedly, the game just becomes a long, drawn out free-throw battle, and while the free-throw is essential to the sport, it is not exactly the most exciting thing to watch.  Anyone who has seen a team try to make a comeback in the last minute of a game and resort to intentional fouling whoever has the ball on the opposing team can tell you that.  Although, there is something strangely amusing about watching a super athlete make a pedestrian activity look like a herculean task.   

     However, that does not mean the NBA should take away a fundamental principle of the game.  The free-throw is the most basic shot in the game, and one where most players can shoot a very high percentage.  After all, they are called free-throws.  Players are supposed to make them.  However, when he numbers of struggling free-throw shooters are examined, it is not that hard to see why the strategy is used.

     The NBA average for points per possession (the average amount of points a team scores when they have possession of the ball) is 1.03.  That is the equivalent of a free-throw shooter making 51.5 percent of his attempts, since if he has a 51.5 percent chance on each attempt, .515+.515=1.03.  So using this logic, any player shooting under this percentage from the line should be intentionally fouled, because in the long run a team would allow fewer points in a game by simply fouling that player rather than playing defense (the average free-throw shooter, however, shot exactly 75 percent this season).  When it is considered that DeAndre Jordan shot an abysmal 39.7 percent on what should be freebies, and that the Clippers led the league in points per possession at 1.098, every time DeAndre Jordan shoots two free-throws, the team loses an average of .304 points over what they could have gained, which over an entire game would absolutely destroy the Clippers.  For other players the gap is not so severe, but it is still either profitable over the long run or close enough that when trailing late or when that player is struggling it can be implemented.

     This may be a somewhat flawed piece of reasoning, since as John Ezekowitz wrote about for FiveThirtyEight in this article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/intentionally-fouling-deandre-jordan-is-futile/, I’m not accounting for things such as expected points from half-court possessions, offensive rebounds, and being set on the defensive end in the very general calculation I used above.  However, this article is from last season, and Jordan’s free-throw percentage dropped over three points from the 2013-14 season to the current one.  Also, if we do not rely on all the qualifications that have to be made for the strategy to be statistically ineffective, and just take at face value that Jordan will shoot two free-throws and the other team will get the ball (which happens a large majority of the time), far more often than not it would be profitable to foul Jordan.  Finally, Ezekowitz’s numbers fail to address one important concept: time.

     The most frequent scenario for the implementation of Hack-a-Shaq is late in the fourth quarter of games, when a team is trailing, but not by an insurmountable margin.  In these situations, the biggest factor working against a team’s comeback effort is the clock.  It becomes very difficult for teams to reduce deficits when their opponents are using at least 20 seconds on the shot clock, much longer than an average possession (usually around 14 or 15 seconds but that varies slightly depending on the team), in obvious efforts to milk the clock.  What the Hack-a-Shaq strategy provides is an efficient way to stop the clock, maximizing possessions for the rest of the game and therefore providing longer for a team to make a potential comeback.  It also eliminates the opposing team’s ability to make three-pointers, and by fouling a poor free-throw shooter, there isn’t a huge risk of them making the majority of their free-throws like there would be if another player was shooting.

# ft’s made out of 10	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
50% ft shooter	<.1%	.9%	4.3%	11.7%	20.5%	24.6%	20.5%	11.7%	4.3%	.9%	<.1%
80% ft shooter	<.1%	<.1%	<.1%	<.1%	.6%	2.6%	8.8%	20.1%	30.2%	26.8%	10.7%

     If a good free-throw shooter (I chose an 80 percent free-throw shooter for this example), who would most likely receive the ball to be fouled in a late game situation shot 10 free throws, he would make at least seven of those attempts over 87 percent of the time.  However, a very poor shooter who only makes half his attempts would make seven or more only 17 percent of the time.  In fact, this shooter makes five or fewer shots 62 percent of the time, while the same number is just over three percent for an 80 percent shooter.

     If you were an NBA coach, why would you not intentionally foul one of these shooters off-ball instead of having the ball inbounded to a strong shooter?  If the situation is that desperate – just seconds remaining in a game and down a few points, it makes perfect sense because the discrepancy between a 50 percent shooter and 80 or even higher percent shooter far outweighs the odds of getting a steal off an inbound play and allowing an opposing team to try to get the ball to one of their best shooters.

     Now, if there are a few minutes left in the game, and you are looking to make a comeback, the strategy still makes sense.  The reasoning behind intentional fouling in these scenarios is that sending one of these atrocious foul shooters to the line is a rough equivalent of just playing defense.  Sure, they will have lucky streaks of shooting a high percentage and cold streaks shooting even worse than their normal percentage, but so do normal NBA teams.

     However, what people fail to realize is that the success of the Hack-a-Shaq strategy depends in part on how well the free-throw shooter performs, but more so on the offense of the team fouling.  If a team intentionally fouls and allows around one point per possession, they need to score far more than one point per possession in order to trim the deficit, especially with the time constraints associated with the strategy.  This is the reason why teams using Hack-a-Shaq do not end up winning games the majority of the time.  A struggling offense is not suddenly going to get stronger just by committing fouls on the other team.  It takes a very strong offensive effort to come back.  Hack-a-Shaq is far from a fool-proof idea, and that is yet another reason why it should not be taken out of the game.  There is a decent argument to be made that it is not an optimal strategy, at least on many occasions, and it is a big risk basically asking for the other team to score points rather than deciding to play defense.  Yet everyone still seems to feel it should not be implemented.

     One final reason that I would urge the NBA to keep the idea of Hack-a-Shaq in the game is because while yes it might be boring for some when it occurs, the technique is used far too infrequently.  Not many players are bad enough from the line to warrant the use of the strategy.  The players listed in the opening paragraph essentially make an exhaustive list of all players who are affected.  So already, not many games have the potential of seeing the strategy.  Even in the games containing these players, Hack-a-Shaq is not used the majority of the time.  Either the scenario does not call for it, the player in question is good enough from the line that there is not a huge advantage from sending them there, or that a team is against utilizing the technique.  There is not a huge need for the NBA to revamp the whole way it deals with intentional fouls just for a few isolated instances per season.  And by the way, if a team does not want to be affected by these intentional fouls, they do not have to be.

     There are a few methods to prevent the strategy from being used.  The first is obviously, to make more free-throws.  It is ridiculous to think that some professional basketball players, who make a living off playing the game, struggle so much with an unguarded, set shot from a distance of fifteen feet away, nearly 10 feet inside the three-point line.  If someone is as bad as Jordan, they deserve to suffer from their lack of skill.  If the “Hack-a-Shaq” strategy were outlawed, the NBA would just be giving bad shooters a cop-out for not having practicing an elemental part of the game.  It creates an unfair advantage towards these poor free-throw shooters by allowing them to play to their strengths on the court while not having to worry about their weaknesses.

     If they continue to struggle, teams always have the option of benching players if they become a liability.  No matter how great one might be at other aspects of the game, they can be a burden by simply being on the court.  DeAndre Jordan is one of the league’s best defensive players, yet he greatly contributed to his team’s overtime loss in the playoffs to the Spurs on April 22 by shooting just 6-of-17 from the stripe.  With just one more make, the Clippers could have won the game in regulation, and potentially have a commanding 3-1 series lead over the defending champs instead of being tied 2-2.  At one point during a recent Rockets-Spurs matchup, the Rockets actually intentionally fouled the Spurs just to reach a stoppage in play so they could sub out Josh Smith.  In the college game, Duke frequently pulled Jahlil Okafor, a 51 percent shooter from the line, in late game situations, despite him being the Wooden Award runner-up for best college basketball player last season.  It did not matter to Coach K that Okafor was an incredible defender and strong rebounder.  What was important was that the other team was going to foul Okafor, and a poor showing at the line could have cost Duke a few games.

     The fact of the matter is that teams with struggling foul shooters have every right and ample opportunities to remove these players from the game, which would render the strategy useless.  And let’s not forget that since the team with the best points per possession is the Clippers at 1.098 (the NBA average is 1.03 for the record), any shooter who can manage 55 percent from the line is basically immune from being intentionally fouled except for the aforementioned final seconds of a tight contest.  This is of course because his expected points value for a pair of free-throws (1.1) is higher than any team’s typical offensive output, and that doesn’t even account for the additional variables presented by Ezekowitz.  Anyone that fails to hit 55 percent of their foul shots has no one to blame but themselves for that deficiency, and have to be willing to either improve or face being hacked it their opponents see fit.

     The NBA would be foolish to eliminate Hack-a-Shaq, giving an unfair advantage to some players by not making them suffer from their weaknesses as a player.  The strategy is not always successful, and teams should have the strategic freedom to opt to give opponents chances at free points if they believe it will help them win basketball games.  However, only time will tell if the NBA agrees.

NBA Conference Quarterfinals Predictions

     The NBA Playoffs are upon us, and over the next two months we will see 16 teams all vying for the title.  It is my personal belief that, as I've stated here: http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/10/ranking-playoff-formats-of-big-5-sports.html, the NBA has the best playoffs out of every major team sport in the USA.  I'm obviously very excited to watch all the games and see who comes out on top at the end of it all.  However, before teams can play for a shot at the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy, they must defeat all the other teams in their conference, and to do that, they must start in the conference quarterfinals.  The games begin today, and here's who I like to move on to the next round.

Western Conference

#1 Golden State Warriors (67-15) vs. #8 New Orleans Pelicans (45-37)
     The New Orleans Pelicans are not to be taken lightly.  They are by no means a playoff team without Anthony Davis, but with him they have the potential to be any team in the league, as they showed by defeating the Spurs on the last day of the season.  However, while they might take one game off the Warriors, this is the Warriors we're talking about.  They have a stacked roster and are one of the best teams in the NBA since Jordan's Bulls.  They have depth, great shooters, great passers, great defenders, and are fun to watch.  Fivethirtyeight gives them a 48% chance of winning the championship.  I'm not sure if it's really that high, but they're one heck of a basketball team.  And they have the MVP in Steph Curry, just one half of the Splash Bros.
Warriors in 5.

#2 Houston Rockets (56-26) vs. #7 Dallas Mavericks (50-32)
     It's a Texas battle in the West's 2-7 matchup, and man is this going to be a great series to watch.  The Mavericks are underrated as just a 7 seed with the same record as the East's 3 seed Bulls, and have more experience than the Rockets.  The game plan for the Rockets will be to take and make as many threes as possible, mixing in Dwight Howard's post game as needed.  The Rockets could struggle from the free throw line, as none of their bigs shoot over 60% from the strike.  This will be a closer series than people think, but in the end James Harden will prove too much,
Rockets in 6.

#3 Los Angeles Clippers (56-26) vs. #6 San Antonio Spurs (55-27)
     This could be the best 3-6 matchup ever.  No, seriously.  These teams both have legitimate chances to come out of the Western Conference, and are separated by only one game.  The Spurs were the two seed the day before the season ended, but in the insanely crowded West managed to slip four spots with just one loss.  However, prior to that loss they were the hottest team in the league, and the Spurs always seem to play hard in the playoffs.  This could be the final run for Tim Duncan, but then again we say that every season.  The Spurs are a well oiled machine, and they have at least seven guys that can take over on any given night.  On the other hand, the Clippers are led by Chris Paul, always one of the league's best, and probably still underrated.  Then there's the beast that is Blake Griffin, leading the team with over 21 points per game.  DeAndre Jordan has taken his usual great rebounding to a whole new level, averaging 15 per game to lead the league.  He also led the league in free throw percentage and finished top five in blocks.  Two of the league's best shooters are JJ Redick and Jamal Crawford, who both also average over 15 points per game.  They have a bunch of great pieces, which will make for a fantastic series, but in the end I smell an upset (if you can even call it that).
Spurs in 6.

#4 Portland Trail Blazers (51-31) vs. #5 Memphis Grizzlies (55-27)
     Because division leaders need home-court advantage, the Blazers get the 4 even though their record would give them the 6.  Hey, it's not their fault the Thunder had a down year and the ENTIRE Southwestern Division made the playoffs (but seriously, best division ever?  The Pelicans were last at 45-37).  Could this be the year for the Griz' veteran bigs?  Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph are some of the best big men that go unnoticed, and you can count on Mike Conley getting them some good looks.  All five starters average double figures, and Tony Allen is one of the league's best defenders.  The Blazers come into the playoffs on a four game losing streak, but don't expect the two-man tandem of LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard to go down lightly.  Both averaged over 20 points per game during the regular season, and allow the role players to get good looks when the defense concentrates on them.  The key matchup will be Aldridge vs. Randolph and Gasol.  Whoever wins that could win the series.  Advantage Memphis, but it could go either way.
Grizzlies in 6.


Eastern Conference

#1 Atlanta Hawks (60-22) vs. #8 Brooklyn Nets (38-44)
     What a job Mike Budenholzer has done with the Hawks, turning them from a 37-win team to a 60-win one with the same group of starters.  No one expected the Hawks to be any more than an average team, and they surprised everyone by beating out the Cleveland Cavaliers- by seven games- for the East's top spot.  The Hawks do it through selflessness and great passing.  All five starters average between 12 and 17 points per game, and the lowest scoring starter just happens to be the league's best shooter, Kyle Korver, who finished the year shooting 49% from three.  They've done this without having any starters play 33 minutes per game, so in the playoffs they'll probably see even more play time.  Their opponents, the Nets, come in with a record six games under .500, and stole the 8 seed from the Pacers on the last day of the regular season.  Deron Williams and Joe Johnson are each having their worst seasons since their first few years in the league.  Even Coach Lionel Hollins said the team has no advantages over the Hawks.  Even their best position, center with Brook Lopez, is matched by Al Horford.  The Hawks won all four matchups in the regular season, and they'll get four more wins with relative ease.
Hawks in 4.

#2 Cleveland Cavaliers (53-29) vs. #7 Boston Celtics (40-42)
     Boston was 16-30 at one point in this season, but managed to go 24-12 down the stretch to finish one game shy of .500, and see a familiar foe in the playoffs- LeBron.  Props to Brad Stevens for the team's strong performance and overall 15 game improvement from his first season, and for doing it without Rajon Rondo and Jeff Green.  Without any real star power, the Celtics will need some players to step up and especially Evan Turner will have to really play great defense to contain LeBron.  For the Cavaliers, it is important for them not to underestimate the Celtics and bring their "A game".  Additionally, role players will need to step up and provide reliable offense so the team doesn't have to rely on the Big 3.  One of the main reasons for the Cavs' struggles earlier in the year was the lack of bench production.  Surprisingly, the Celtics actually split the season series 2-2, and I think they'll continue having strong performances against the Cavs, but ultimately fall like they're supposed to.
Cavaliers in 6.

#3 Chicago Bulls (50-32) vs. #6 Milwaukee Bucks (41-41)
     Healthy Derrick Rose or not, the Bulls have managed to maintain their position as one of the best teams in the East.  The Bucks have their own injury woes in the form of Jabari Parker, who tore his ACL back in December.  However, they've managed to make the playoffs with a well-balanced offense.  Michael Carter-Williams will lead the Bucks against Chicago for their first playoff series win since 2001.  However, I don't think it will be an enjoyable series for Bucks fans.  This year has seen the emergence of Jimmy Butler into one of the league's best young players, and a resurgence for Pau Gasol after struggles of late with the Lakers.  Derrick Rose is healthy and will play in the series, and Joakim Noah remains a defensive beast and the best passing center in the game.  The Bulls have a good bench and are stronger in just about every category, which makes me feel this series will be over quickly.
Bulls in 5.

#4 Toronto Raptors (49-33) vs. #5 Washington Wizards (46-36)
     This is a really intriguing matchup, and easily the closest series in the East.  The Raptors lost in a seven game series last year, and are looking for their first series win since the times of Vince Carter.  I think it is likely they play in another seven game series this year.  The guard play in this series will be critical, as Kyle Lowry and DeMar Derozan have both made an All-Star game over the past two seasons, while John Wall has developed into one of the league's best point guards alongside sharpshooter Bradley Beal.  Inside, the Wizards have the edge with both Marcin Gortat and Nene, but the Raptors have incredible depth with nine players averaging at least 7.9 points.  This series is really a toss up, but I'll give it to the Raptors because of their home court advantage.
Raptors in 7.

     Do you agree with my picks?  Comment with who you think will advance.
     Connor

My March Madness Bracket

If you choose (for whatever reason) to use these picks, and they end up horrible, please don't blame me!  No matter how many hundreds of hours I spend watching games and researching, I never end up with a great bracket...I'm usually really good in the first round, and then after that it becomes a crapshoot.

Top 5 Most Likely Cinderellas

     The tournament starts in less than two days, and by the end of the weekend, we will undoubtedly have seen upsets that will leave us scratching our heads.  Just as certain I am that a few powerhouses will brought down by big underdogs, I can also tell you that there will be that guy in your family, school, or office that will brag about how they KNEW that 12 seed would make it to the Sweet Sixteen.  Let's face it: as much as we hate that guy, simultaneously we all want to be that guy.  Here are a few of the more likelier upsets that could pay off in your bracket.  I am going to give five Cinderellas (definitions for this term vary, but for now I'll use it to refer to teams seeded 9 or lower that make the Sweet Sixteen) that have the potential to shock the world.
     #10 Davidson: Steph Curry may no longer be eligible, but that doesn't mean the Wildcats are without talent.  They will look to run Iowa out of the building, putting up points in a hurry.  If they can dictate pace of play and knock down threes, I like them to take down the Hawkeyes.  If they can do that, they'll have a chance at pulling a big upset over Gonzaga, who are notorious for folding in the tourney.

     #11 Ole Miss:  BYU led Ole Miss by 17 points at halftime in their First Four matchup, but when it looked over for the Rebels, they dropped an insane 62 points in the second half to pull off the tournament's first big comeback.  Now they'll get some tasty matchups against Xavier and Baylor, widely considered to be the weakest 6 and 3 seeds in the field.  They will need to play strong interior defense and hit the glass hard to get past Matt Stainbrook and especially Rico Gathers, but if they can accomplish that, they have one of the best shooters in the nation when hot in Stefan Moody.
     #12 Stephen F. Austin: The Lumberjacks are back, and have the potential to do even more damage than last year, when also as a 12 seed they took down VCU in one of the tournament's best games.  Now with most of that team returning, including leaders Thomas Walkup and Jacob Parker, the Jacks will take on Utah in their first game.  The Utes match up well against SFA, but have struggled down the stretch.  If SFA can continue running an efficient offense and make the right passes, they can advance and will have a good shot against an overseeded Georgetown or a similar Eastern Washington.
     #12 Buffalo: Speaking of SFA, Buffalo is positioned in the same place the Jacks were last season.  No one was talking about the Bulls during the season, but they quietly had a really strong year in the MAC and had a top-40 RPI.  They get West Virginia in the first round, and have the size and rebounding ability to pose a big threat.  Remember, this is a team that led Kentucky at halftime earlier in the year (Insane Sweet 16 upset?).  They would have a potential third round matchup against either Maryland or Valpo, and could manage to create a rematch with Kentucky.
     #13 Eastern Washington: The nation's leading scorer led an incredible comeback in the Big Sky championship in order to make March Madness.  Now Tyler Harvey, averaging just under 23 points per game, leads the Eagles who at 80.8 ppg are third in Division I in scoring.  They will try to pull off a huge upset against Georgetown.  The Hoyas are a better squad overall, but they are overseeded as I've mentioned, and a team that can score is always dangerous.  If they advance, they have a 7-footer that could give Utah some trouble, and they play a similar style to SFA.  The Eagles won't go down without a fight.
     

First Impressions of the Bracket

     Yesterday the field of 68 for March Madness was officially released.  I intended to give my final bracket predictions along with a first impressions blog yesterday, but I've been pretty sick lately, so it never ended up happening.
     However, I can say that from my latest bracket, if we assume that Wyoming's auto bid took Miami's spot, I got 66/68 teams in the tournament correct, same as most bracketologists.  Nearly everyone had Colorado St and Temple in the tournament, even though the committee decided otherwise.  What's even more surprising to me is the teams that were included instead of them: UCLA and Indiana.  Now I had both of them in my first four out, so it doesn't come as a terrible shock that they made it, but what annoys me is that neither team is in a play-in game, meaning that a 19-13 UCLA team and Indiana that lost nine of their last 14 games both weren't even in the last four teams in the tournament.
     How the committee could have made these mistakes is beyond me.  Colorado St and Temple were clearly more worthy in my opinion.  In fact, neither one of them were in my last four in!  They were both in the last four byes category!  How the committee and I had such differing opinions on these four teams in beyond me.  I was definitely looking forward to seeing Colorado St in the tournament.  They were a solid upset pick from a 10-11 seed for me.  They had won 27 games and had a sub-30 RPI, becoming the first team with an RPI that high to be left out of the field.  And then Temple: I guess 25 point victories over Kansas mean nothing?  Sure that was early in the year, but any team with the capability to pull that off deserves to be dancing.
     I feel strongly that those four bubble teams received improper treatment from the committee.  Additionally, I also feel that the committee made bad mistakes in the seedings of other teams in the tournament.  Here are five teams the committee overrated and underrated.

Overrated:
1) Xavier- Projected seed: 8; Actual seed: 6.  C'mon guys, a 13-loss 6-seed?  I know they made a run to the Big East Championship, but they've lost to teams like Long Beach St, Auburn, Depaul, and Creighton.  Heck of a 6.
2) Georgetown- Projected seed: 6; Actual seed: 4.  Now I really like the Big East.  I'd really go as far to say that they could produce as many Sweet Sixteen teams as any conference.  However, I don't see how the Hoyas are any better than Butler or Providence.
3) Oklahoma St- Projected seed: 10/11; Actual seed: 9.  Again, it seems the committee really loved teams from "power conferences" so much that they were willing to overlook their flaws.  You can't give a team with a losing conference record a 9.
4) LSU- Projected seed: 11; Actual seed: 9.  It's hard to imagine how high they would've been seeded if they hadn't loss to the awful Auburn in the SEC tournament.  Did I mention an RPI of 58, DOUBLE Colorado St's?
5) Iowa- Projected seed: 8/9; Actual seed: 7.  I applaud them for closing so strong in the Big Ten, but they really got beat up by the bottom of the conference, with losses to Minnesota, Penn State, and Northwestern.

Underrated:
1) Northern Iowa- Projected seed: 4; Actual seed: 5.  2) Wichita St- Projected Seed: 5; Actual seed: 7.  With a combined seven losses between them, these two squads are vastly underrated coming from a Missouri Valley that has some really solid teams.  Either one of these teams could make really surprise people and go far (and I have them both doing just that).
3) Ohio St- Projected seed: 8; Actual seed: 10.  Expect the Buckeyes to upset VCU in the first round, taking advantage of an injured Briante Weber.  They've beaten Maryland by 24, so they can play some great ball.
4) Oregon- Projected seed: 6/7; Actual seed: 8.  The Ducks are as hot as any team, winning 11 out of their last 13 games in the Pac 12.  Did I mention two of those came against Utah?
5) Dayton- Projected seed: 9; Actual seed: 11.  The Flyers took second place in the Atlantic-10 and won at VCU earlier in the year.  The 25-8 Flyers get to play in their hometown in the first four, even though they never should've been there in the first place.  If they get through, Providence should watch out.

     Time will tell if the committee actual did get these seedings right or if they made some bad mistakes.

The Bracket: Regularly Updated

     This will be the page where I will be updating the bracket constantly over the next few days right up until the Selection Show.  Every time a decent number of results come in, I'll update the bracket (probably around twice daily).  The most recent bracket will be at the top, and older ones will be at the bottom in case you want to see how everything's moved around.

3/13: 11:30pm update

     It's starting to become clearer.  Thank god.  Even though the SEC continued rejecting everything we thought we knew about college basketball with Auburn beating LSU, I can safely put a few more teams in the field.  I now can say with relative certainty that Purdue and Temple will make the field.  Both teams won and advanced into the semifinals of their respective conferences, and while an additional win would put the icing on the cake, they shouldn't have a ton to worry about.  Additionally, Richmond fell to VCU, effectively ending the Spiders' chances.  They already had two victories against VCU, but a third was needed to put them in the field.  UCLA had a strong performance in its loss to Arizona, so I don't think they're done just yet.  The Bruins will have a chance of hearing their names called on Sunday.
     If I'm being perfectly honest, the far more interesting games today were played by top seeds.  Both ACC one seeds (Duke and Virginia) stumbled in their tournaments to Notre Dame and North Carolina, setting up an unexpected final matchup.  Villanova just barely squeaked by Providence in a great matchup.  The fight for a 1 seed is now intense, as Duke, Virginia, Arizona, and Wisconsin will all feel worthy of being on the top line.  My 1s right now would be Kentucky, Villanova, Arizona, Duke, although that is definitely subject to change.  Wisconsin would take the last spot if they won the Big Ten tournament.
     Lastly, the bid thieves.  Wyoming is now only one game away from stealing a spot from the bubble after beating Boise State, who now becomes a bubble team (but almost certainly in the field).  Here's how the bubble looks tonight.  The current plan is to wait and release a final full bracket on Sunday before the selection show, and just to regularly update the bubble either here or on Twitter.

Last Four Byes: Oklahoma St, Temple, BYU, Purdue
Last Four In: LSU, Ole Miss, Texas, Miami (Fl)
First Four Out: Tulsa, UCLA, Indiana, Murray St
Next Four Out: Rhode Island, Texas A&M, Old Dominion, Buffalo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/13: 12:30am update

What to do, what to do.  It looks like no one is capable of winning a basketball game when they need to.  Oklahoma St lost, and Ole Miss lost.  This also probably moves LSU to being a lock, just because everyone around them is falling.  Oklahoma St is probably okay, but who knows with Ole Miss, since they've lost four of five.  Stanford is out with their loss against Utah, and Colorado St. is definitely in with a win.  Truthfully, they were a lock a couple weeks back, but with the committee you never know.  At this point, there's no way more than a couple teams could pass them, let alone the ten or so that would be needed to take them out at this point.  A full bracket will come tomorrow, but I should probably sleep, so for now just a bubble update will do.  I'm eager to see Lunardi's update tomorrow to see if we're thinking along the same lines.  We start after Colorado St.

Last Four Byes: LSU, Oklahoma St, Temple, BYU
Last Four In: Purdue, Ole Miss, Texas, UCLA
First Four Out: Indiana, Miami (Fl), Tulsa, Murray St
Next Four Out: Rhode Island, Richmond, Texas A&M, Old Dominion (had to put someone here)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/12: 9:45pm central time update

1s: Kentucky, Duke, Virginia, Villanova

2s: Arizona, Wisconsin, Gonzaga, Kansas

3s: Maryland, Notre Dame, Northern Iowa, Baylor

4s: Oklahoma, Louisville, Iowa St, Wichita St

5s: Utah, SMU, North Carolina, Butler

6s: West Virginia, Arkansas, Providence, Georgetown

7s: Ohio St, Michigan St, VCU, Iowa
8s: San Diego St, Dayton, St. John's, Georgia
9s: Xavier, Oregon, Cincinnati, NC State
10s: Davidson, Colorado St, Oklahoma St, Ole Miss
11s: Boise St, LSU Temple, BYU, Purdue
12s: Texas, UCLA,  Stephen F. Austin, Louisiana Tech, Wofford
13s: Valparaiso, Harvard, Central Michigan, UC Davis
14s: Georgia St, Northeastern, North Dakota St, NC Central
15s: Belmont, New Mexico St, Albany, Coastal Carolina
16s: North Florida, Lafayette, Montana, Manhattan, Robert Morris, Texas Southern

On the Outside Looking In:
First Four Out: Miami (Fl), Indiana, Tulsa, Murray St
Next Four Out: Rhode Island, Richmond, Texas A&M, Stanford

Eliminated: Old Dominion, Illinois, Vanderbilt

Bubble Notes:
-Purdue somehow managed to get lucky by Iowa falling to Penn State, so Purdue's chances go dramatically up since Purdue only has to beat the Nittany Lions in order to move into the Big Ten semis.  That very well could be enough, although Penn State really wouldn't be a quality win.  The teams around them are dropping like flies, though.
-Texas, oh Texas.  They had a great chance to lock up a bid by beating Iowa State, but that'd be too easy.  Instead, they surrender a 12-0 run down the stretch and it's a 50/50 if they get in at this point.
-Iona.  Could they be an at-large?  I guess it's technically possible, but in my mind they're still behind the first four out, next four out, ODU, and Illinois at least, so I'm not putting them up there.  Here's why: zero top 100 RPI wins, 5 sub-150 RPI losses.
-Hopefully we can lock up Colorado St, Oklahoma St, and Ole Miss, but they'd all need a win.
-Yes, I tweeted that Texas A&M is out, but on second thought, they still have a glimmer of hope.  They were actually in my field at the start of the day, and I don't think they're any worse than someone like Stanford.  They're still better than the teams I eliminated in my opinion.  But yeah, Auburn is just about as bad of a loss as possible at this point.
-Anyone else have a shot with a run to their conference finals?  Not really.  Pitt, Bama might've stood a chance, but they both lost opening round.  And I think Green Bay, Yale, Buffalo, UConn, UTEP don't have much of a shot as an at-large.  But there's always the possibility of a bid thief!  There's still a few lurking...

Evaluating Bubble Teams' Paths to At-Large Bids

     This is essentially the second part of yesterday's bracketology, which can be found here: http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/03/bracketology-week-18-mar-10.html.  I'm going to be looking at each team on the bubble and seeing what they need to do to earn an at-large bid.  In terms of the actual bracket, it remains unchanged from yesterday with the exception of officially locking in Gonzaga and Valparaiso, and swapping South Dakota St and St. Francis with North Dakota St and Robert Morris, and locking them in.  The at-large situation remains basically unchanged, except that upon further review, BYU is probably a little safer than the last team in.  I'd put them above Texas A&M and Purdue at this point, making them an 11 seed.  Now that we know where we're starting, let's see how the bubble looks.
     First of all, it's important to know how many spots are realistically available.  There are 68 teams in the tournament, and 32 are decided by automatic bids.  That leaves 36 spots for at-large bids.  I would say that in my recent bracket, every team in the top nine seeds and Davidson, the first 10 seed, are locks for the tournament.  That's 37 teams.  However, ten of those teams are currently leading conferences, so there's 27 more teams.  36-27= 9, so there are nine remaining spots.  I believe there are 22 teams with a possibility of getting those spots.  They are as follows:

     Current 10 seeds: Colorado St, Oklahoma St, Ole Miss
     Current 11 seeds: LSU, Temple, Texas, BYU
     Current 12 seeds: Texas A&M, Purdue
     First Four Out: UCLA, Miami (Fl), Indiana, Old Dominion
     Next Four Out: Tulsa, Murray St, Illinois, Rhode Island
     Barely Hanging: Richmond, Stanford, Vanderbilt
     Current Auto-bids if they lose their conference tournament: #11 Boise St, #12 Stephen F. Austin

     So those are the teams I think stand a chance at claiming the last few spots.  20 schools playing for nine spots, plus two more if they don't get auto-bids.  However, the tough part is that as I talked about  a couple days ago in "Are Conference Tournaments Bad for College Basketball?" http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/03/are-conference-tournaments-bad-for.html, there are potential bid thieves who may shrink that magic number of nine even lower, making the bubble race ever the tighter and more difficult to decide who makes it in and who doesn't.
     The first two teams on the list are Colorado St, and Oklahoma St, and I'd say both of them are looking at 90+% odds at making the field.  It's going to be really difficult for them not to make the field, so much so that a win for either in their conference tournament would make them a lock.  Colorado St has Fresno St in their first round, and should easily win.  However, if they lose, and a lot of other people win, and the bid thieves take a few spots, it's feasible that they could find themselves closer to the bubble.  However, I think that even in a down year for the Mountain West, 13-5 is no joke.  They're a 26 win team with an RPI of 26, which in a power conference would make them a top 5 seed no doubt.  For proof, see Notre Dame, a 26-5 (same record as Colorado St) RPI 24 team that I have as a 3.  The point is, in my book they're a lock, but I'm a tad unsure of the committee, which has them as the top team on the bubble.
     Oklahoma St had me genuinely scared for a while, and I thought they easily could have been the next Texas when they went on their four game losing streak in the second half of February, but by beating TCU and finishing 8-10 in the Big 12, they saved themselves from being a team walking the line of in and out.  They get #15 Oklahoma in the Big 12 quarterfinals, and while a win would certainly do the job, even a respectable loss should keep them safe.
     Then we have the two SEC teams in very similar positions, Ole Miss and LSU.  The Rebels are trending downwards after losing three of their last four, while LSU put themselves in good position with a win over #21 Arkansas to finish the regular season.  A win would put each of these teams in, but while a loss would be okay for Colorado St and Oklahoma St, an opening round loss would put these teams in danger.
     The Temple Owls may suffer a bit in the eyes of the committee because while the American Conference is solid and is probably a 3-bid league, they don't have the depth of a major conference.  So while they finished the year with three wins over Houston, ECU, and UConn, none of them are that good.  Temple holds the four seed in the conference tournament and will play the five seed Memphis.  Temple is the first team that actually needs to win their opening round matchup.  If they don't, it will be a matter of how much the committee values a 25-point win over Kansas, because it's by far their best win.
     Texas should be rewarded for salvaging a season that once looked to be long gone.  By winning their last two games against Baylor and Kansas St, they went from the first four out into the last four in, and as long as they beat Texas Tech, they will be in good position to advance, because they'll have an RPI around 40, a top 15 SOS number in the hardest conferences, 20 wins, and only one loss outside of the RPI top 50, which was to fellow bubble team Stanford.  By numbers alone, the Longhorns look good.
     BYU has no more games to play, but their away win against Gonzaga near the end of the regular season singlehandedly put them into good standing.  BYU is a strong team with a few great players in Tyler Haws and Kyle Collinsworth, that any team would be scared of in the Big Dance.  All they lacked was a signature win, and that's what they got.  They can't lose any more games, so they can't play themselves out of the tournament.  They've done well getting on the right side of the bubble, but anything can happen now that their fate is in other teams' hands.
     Texas A&M is in a difficult position because typically 20-win teams from traditionally strong conferences would be feeling pretty comfortable, but for a team in a potential 6-bid league, they haven't really beaten anyone.  Their only wins against potential tournament teams came in a sweep of LSU.  Besides that, their next highest RPI victory is #76 Florida, and they have a losing record.  They absolutely must beat Auburn, and then will play LSU.  If they complete the Tiger trifecta, they'll be dancing.  Any less and I don't think it happens.
     Purdue has been confusing for their last couple months because of the clash of their great conference record and 219 non-conference SOS.  However, after losing two of three down the stretch they're going to need to make a statement in the conference tournament or be passed up.  It'd be a lot easier if they hadn't lost to North Florida and Gardner-Webb...they'll probably play Iowa in the Big Ten quarterfinals, and it's a must win for sure.  Too bad Iowa's a great team, and Purdue can't make it without a win.
     -------------------------------------------------The Bubble--------------------------------------------
     UCLA looked hopeless for the first half of the season, but were jumpstarted after knocking off Utah.  The Bruins have been up and down since then, and have won their last three since losing the two prior.  They're a true bubble team, in a decent conference with decent numbers, a 12-loss record, but a couple good wins.  They need to beat USC, but that might not be enough.  The only problem is that their potential semifinal matchup is against Arizona.  I don't think they can win that game, and I think they'll end up in the first four out on Selection Sunday.
     Miami (Fl) is testing how far a win over Duke can carry a bubble team.  Duke and NC State are their best wins, but they could've been in much better position if they could've beaten Virginia, Notre Dame, or Louisville, all of whom they played close.  20 and 28 point home losses to Georgia Tech and Eastern Kentucky aren't helping the cause, either.  Ok, let's face it, if those two losses don't happen their in the field.  They must beat Virginia Tech, and then they'll probably need to beat Notre Dame as well.
     Indiana was an 8 seed in my first bracketology, but they've lost 8 of 12 down the stretch, and are in free fall.  To save their year, they will need to beat both Northwestern and a really good Maryland team.  It might seem unfair, but with so many teams competing for a limited number of spots, if they don't go deep, someone else will.
     Old Dominion would probably just be best winning the Conference-USA tournament, as they have the best shot of any bubble team in winning their tourney.  They were a solid middle-seed when conference play started, but silly losses have put them in their position.  The issue is that I'm not sure the committee will give C-USA a second bid.  They'd need at least a trip to the title game to stand a chance, but if they want to just win it, that'd be fine too.  Remember, any of these teams can just win their tourney and get in automatically.
     At this point as we head into the next four out, everyone needs to run deep.  Tulsa would've been a lot better off had they not dropped their last two games, but in their defense they were against Cincinnati and SMU, the conference's two best squads.  They'll have to get revenge on Cincinnati and beat them in the American semis.  If they make the finals, they'll have a case to plead.  Otherwise, move over.
     It's really unfortunate that Belmont had to sink Murray St.  They never lost in conference play, but because they lost in the tournament, there's not much to talk about.  They have a strong record, but they haven't really beaten anyone.  Do they deserve a spot?  Yes, they are by far the Ohio Valley's best team.  But, on paper basically every other bubble team has them beat.  If a good amount of the teams above them fall in the opening round of their tournaments, Murray St could sneak up and be in the discussion.  But for now, probably not.
     If Illinois beats Michigan (which is a must), they then must play Wisconsin.  There's good news and bad news with that.  The bad is that they play Wisconsin.  The good is that Wisconsin is such a strong team that if the Illini find a way to win, they can move way up and probably in the field- even if they lose in the semifinals.  A win over Wisconsin would carry that much weight.
     For Rhode Island, Richmond, Stanford, and Vanderbilt, the message is simple.  Win the tournament.  If not, make the finals and pray.  That's the situation they're all in.  Stanford absolutely fell apart, losing seven of ten when they appeared to be a tournament team at one point in time.  Rhode Island are lacking any quality wins, and Richmond and Vandy have come out of nowhere but still have work to do.
     And then there's Boise St and Stephen F. Austin, the current auto-bids that could win at-large with a loss in their conference tournaments.  Boise has a much, much higher chance of getting in, as they come from a multiple-bid league (the Mountain West) and have a pretty strong resume overall.  If they don't win their tournament, the bubble would actually expand by one spot should San Diego St or Colorado St win (the two most likely teams), but Boise St would probably just take an at-large since they were the regular season champions.  They're ranked right now, and have swept San Diego St.  I think Boise probably gets in one way or the other.
     And then there's SFA.  Last year, a very similar SFA team beat VCU in March Madness.  Now they're back, and have the best resume out of the strong 1-bid league teams (Murray St, Iona, Harvard, etc).  They are 27-4, and three of their losses have come to very good teams, Northern Iowa (an overtime loss), Baylor, and Xavier.  They've got three top-100 wins, and an RPI of 46 which puts them slightly above the average bubble team in that category.  They boast great offensive numbers, ranking top 15 in points scored, #1 in assists in all of college basketball, and a top 10 field goal percentage.  This is an experienced team, and if any team from a traditional one-bid league gets in, it'd be them although the odds aren't great.
     That's the overview of the bubble right now.  Over the next few days, many teams will play themselves in, and more will play themselves out.  Enjoy the madness.