Rick Majerus: awesome coach
03.15.12
It was high comedy on Sunday when the brackets revealed that Memphis and Saint Louis were forced to play each other in the round of 64. I haven’t done the research, but it would be hard for any previous round-of-64 game to top this one in the overall strength of the competing teams.
Once my laughter died down, I began to truly feel sorry for Saint Louis. It has been a pretty amazing year for the Billikens, accompanied by no recognition whatsoever. For some context, let’s review the Rick Majerus era at SLU.
AdjO AdjD
Rank Rank
2012 36 10
2011 242 47
2010 190 29
2009 192 117
2008 194 103
It took Majerus a couple of seasons to successfully implement his trademark defense that does everything in its power to take away fast breaks and three-point attempts. However, the offense showed no signs of life during his first four seasons. What changed this season? Absolutely nothing in terms of the roster. OK, they did get point-guard Kwamain Mitchell back following his one-year exile from the team. But Mitchell played big-time minutes on the ’09 and ’10 teams that also struggled to score.
It’s amazing that the same roster that produced an inept offense last season en route to a 12-19 record can earn a nine-seed this season, and skill-wise, be considered under-seeded. What’s more is that not a single Billiken has a profile on DraftExpress. It’s not just that there isn’t a future draft pick on this team, it’s that there isn’t a player that NBA folks are even considering for employment. And yet, somehow it’s played like one of the best 25 or so teams in the nation.
For whatever reason, Majerus failed to earn get consideration for national coach of the year. Not only that, he didn’t even win his own conference’s award. And now, with one last shot to get some notoriety through a good performance in the tournament, he has to face the toughest eight-seed ever put in the draw. (OK, 1991 Georgetown might have a case.)
Naturally, I have sympathy for Memphis, too. They aren’t getting a break here, either. But Memphis has recently been in the national title game, and they are likely to have very successful seasons in the near future. Can the same be said for SLU? Considering the spontaneous combustion that occurred this season, I’m skeptical that Rick Majerus will preside over another team this good before he retires. While the Billikens return most of their roster next season, they do lose their most dependable offensive player in Brian Conklin.
Majerus’ stubborn devotion to a system that isn’t terribly exciting to watch has been maddening in recent years. A methodical system is one thing, but when it leads to a bunch of losses, it’s just boring. I attended his fourth home game as SLU’s head coach and it was a depressing sight lacking any entertainment value whatsoever. SLU and Long Beach combined to score 100 points in front of 17,000 empty seats. The Billikens were seven games away from scoring 20 points against George Washington, setting the shot-clock era record for fewest points in a game. Repeat that for four consecutive seasons.
But I can admire someone who is exceedingly stubborn, too. To muddle through four awful seasons and not change how you do business despite all sorts of back-seat driving impresses me in some sense. Take whomever you want for coach of the year, but it’s hard to believe there was a better coaching job this season than what occurred at Saint Louis.
Whether or not he deserved more recognition this season, there is no denying Rick Majerus can coach the game of basketball. For example, he once took a team whose third-best player was Hanno Mottola and beat a team whose third-best player was Miles Simon by 25 to earn a berth in the Final Four. Majerus might need less talent to win that any other coach in the country. I’m being presumptuous but perhaps the way things have unfolded this season is exactly how Rick Majerus wants it, because he has the opportunity to prove exactly that. On Friday, he’ll take a team whose third-best player is some dude named Cody Ellis against a team whose third-best player is Tarik Black, a projected future first-round pick.
If his team wins, Majerus can show the world yet again that he doesn’t need five-star talent to win, and if his team loses, that’s exactly what you’d expect of a team whose third-best player is Cody Ellis. Either way, it makes Friday night’s game the most compelling game of the round of 64* for me. And it tells me there’s no need to feel sorry for Saint Louis, after all.
P.S. You want to know the Majerus basketball philosophy? These three promotional videos for EA Sports produced nearly a decade ago will get you up to speed in 90 seconds. Methodically wait for a good shot on offense, and prevent catch-and-shoots on defense. Voila! Now you know what to expect Friday.
*With the exception of whichever game features the 16-seed winning, of course.
This is the year a 1 loses to a 16
03.13.12
Full disclosure: Every year I love the prospect of a 16 winning its first-ever game over a one-seed. Loyal readers will recall my irrational exuberance regarding Oral Roberts in 2006.
This is not without reason, though. If you run the numbers, the chances of all of the one-seeds getting to the Final Four are typically roughly equivalent to one of the top-seeds losing in the first round. Yet somehow history has betrayed the odds. The Apocalypse Scenario played itself out in 2008 when all of the one-seeds made the Final Four, while 16-seeds are 0-108 against one-seeds all-time. And there have really only been four cases where the outcome was in doubt in the final minute - none since Western Carolina took Purdue to the wire in 1996.
Even with this enormously long drought, I make it a point to watch each 1/16 game from the beginning, knowing that there’s the potential for history, and that if it occurs, I’ll have been along for the ride from start to finish. Usually, I need only maintain this ritual until the first or second media timeout when the game is obviously out of reach. But every once in a while there’s an Albany/UConn in 2006 or a Holy Cross/Kansas in 2002 where my vigilance is rewarded with a mildly interesting game in the second half. On Thursday and Friday, those are the moments I live for.
I’ll continue that tradition this season, once again believing this is the year. And this really could be the year. I say this every year, of course, but this time I mean it. For reals. The crop of 16 seeds in the 2012 tournament appears to be the strongest ever. I went back through my ratings going back to 2003 and then the SRS ratings at College Basketball Reference for data before then to find the 16-seeds that were ranked the highest. These are the ten-highest ranked 16-seeds of all-time:
Year Team Rank 2012 Lamar 102 1993 Wright St. 105 2009 E. Tenn. St. 111 2006 Oral Roberts 115 2012 Vermont 120 2012 UNC Asheville 121 1986 Montana St. 124 2008 Portland St. 127 1987 Penn 130 1985 Southern 130
Yep, 2012 has produced three of the strongest 16-seeds in the history of the tournament. Consider, too, that comparing the raw ranking of a 2012 team to teams from the ‘80s and ‘90s isn’t totally fair since there were fewer Division-I teams years ago. A ranking close to the top 100 is more impressive now with 345 teams in the mix than it was when there were 50 fewer teams. Also consider the absurdity of Lamar and Vermont facing off in a play-in game just to earn the right to slay a one-seed. Giving #213 Norfolk State a 15-seed and #165 LIU a free pass to the round of 64 weren’t the committee’s best moments on Sunday.
People have noticed the spuriously high probabilities for the low seeds to advance past the round of 64 in the log5 analysis, including this e-mailer:
Hello Mr. Pomeroy,
According to your NCAA Tournament log5 analysis, there’s only about a 50.9% chance of all eight teams seeded #1 or #2 reaching the round of 32. Seems ridiculously low. Even if you ignore Duke/Lehigh completely, there’s still about a one in three chance that one of the other 7 bites the dust. Do you think this has more to do with unusually strong #15 and #16 seeds or is it mostly due to log5 underrating a high seeded team’s round of 64 chances?
Lucas
I’ll agree that a 49% chance for a one- or two-seed to lose in the first round is stunningly high. I fear log5 overstates the chances of heavy underdogs. There were only two cases this season of a team winning a game when given less than a 5% chance of success.
The estimate isn’t so far off though. Based on the Vegas lines and assuming Kentucky and UNC have a 99% and 96% chance of winning its first games, respectively, the chance of a one- or two-seed falling is about 38%. And the chance of just a one-seed falling is roughly 15%, which is much, much greater than the chance of all four ones getting to the Final Four, which is about 1% this season.
I get my hopes up for this every year, though, and for 27 consecutive years I have been disappointed. Of the other teams on the list of the highest-ranked 16-seeds, the only one that made a feeble run at an upset bid was 2009 East Tennessee State which gave Pitt a minor scare. For instance, 1993 Wright State found itself on the unhappy end of a 43-point thrashing from Indiana. Thus, it was probably in the top 100 when it entered the tournament, even better than Lamar.
Despite the awful track record, I’ll be watching each of the 1/16 games from the opening tip, with a special eye on whomever emerges from the Lamar/Vermont game to take on UNC. This will be the year.
NCAA tourney log5 analysis
03.11.12
What follows is log5-style predictions of each team’s chance of advancing to each round in the tournament. The full list of 68 follows the regional analysis. [Corrected tables due to error in UNC’s rating -kp 3/12]
South
- I agree with Luke. Kentucky has the easiest path for a one-seed. The reputations of Duke and Baylor are better (by quite a bit in Duke’s case) than their ability. I’m undecided as to whether to write the annual “(Insert favored team here) will not win the national title” column. But the odds are squarely on my side.
- At the bottom of the bracket, watch South Dakota State. They didn’t get much of a break in drawing Baylor, but it’s not an impossible situation for them. And should they pull off the upset they’ll have just shy of a 50/50 chance of getting to the Sweet 16.
Rd3 Swt16 Elite8 Final4 Final Champ 1 in… 1S Kentucky 97.9 82.5 59.6 47.9 31.6 19.7 5 5S Wichita St. 77.2 46.0 17.8 11.8 5.7 2.6 39 4S Indiana 77.8 41.0 14.6 9.2 4.1 1.7 59 3S Baylor 73.5 51.1 31.8 10.9 4.5 1.7 60 2S Duke 77.8 53.1 30.1 9.5 3.6 1.2 80 6S UNLV 66.0 27.4 13.1 3.0 0.8 0.2 491 8S Iowa St. 55.0 10.1 3.6 1.7 0.5 0.1 726 7S Notre Dame 55.8 22.7 9.3 1.9 0.5 0.1 1008 9S Connecticut 45.0 7.1 2.2 0.9 0.2 0.06 1713 10S Xavier 44.2 15.7 5.6 0.9 0.2 0.04 2806 14S S. Dakota St. 26.5 12.1 4.6 0.8 0.2 0.03 3357 12S VCU 22.8 7.3 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.02 4423 11S Colorado 34.0 9.3 3.0 0.4 0.07 0.01 9571 13S New Mexico St. 22.2 5.7 0.9 0.3 0.06 0.01 9762 15S Lehigh 22.2 8.5 2.4 0.3 0.05 0.007 15289 16S Western Kentucky 1.6 0.2 0.01 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 30136770 16S Miss. Valley St. 0.4 0.03 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 3063887043West
- The committee played a cruel joke by matching up Memphis and St. Louis. The person I feel sorry for is Rick Majerus. Yes, the Billikens return the majority of their roster next season, but I have a hunch things came together this season in a way that won’t be duplicated again at SLU. With this draw, he has a one-in-eight shot at seeing the second weekend.
- ‘76 Indiana gets all the publicity, but the last one-loss national champ was 1974 N.C. State, predating Bob Knight’s perfect team. Good luck Murray State.
Rd3 Swt16 Elite8 Final4 Final Champ 1 in… 1W Michigan St. 96.3 65.2 49.8 35.2 21.1 12.4 8 2W Missouri 96.2 64.4 46.7 23.1 11.3 5.3 19 8W Memphis 58.8 22.1 14.2 8.2 3.8 1.7 59 5W New Mexico 67.2 41.4 14.2 7.1 2.8 1.0 95 3W Marquette 69.6 49.2 20.7 7.5 2.7 0.9 108 4W Louisville 71.4 35.7 10.5 4.7 1.6 0.5 192 7W Florida 55.3 20.6 12.2 4.4 1.5 0.5 195 9W St. Louis 41.2 12.4 6.9 3.4 1.3 0.5 207 10W Virginia 44.7 14.6 8.0 2.5 0.8 0.2 450 6W Murray St. 60.8 23.6 6.3 1.4 0.3 0.07 1516 12W Long Beach St. 32.8 14.7 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.06 1655 14W BYU 16.5 8.7 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.02 4978 14W Iona 13.9 7.0 1.6 0.3 0.07 0.01 8346 13W Davidson 28.6 8.3 1.2 0.3 0.06 0.009 10652 11W Colorado St. 39.2 11.5 2.2 0.4 0.06 0.008 11790 16W Long Island 3.7 0.3 0.03 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 8005351 15W Norfolk St. 3.8 0.3 0.03 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 43273119Midwest
- The bottom of the bracket is tremendously strong. Leave Belmont out of it - the 15 and 16 seeds are also relatively strong, especially considering the 16’s were selected for a play-in game.
- Because UNC and Kansas are so evenly matched, Kansas’s 34% chance to get to the Final Four is the most of any team in the region.
Rd3 Swt16 Elite8 Final4 Final Champ 1 in… 2MW Kansas 91.8 70.5 51.3 33.7 17.6 9.1 11 1MW North Carolina 89.7 66.8 49.9 28.5 13.7 6.6 15 3MW Georgetown 59.4 42.7 18.7 9.7 3.7 1.4 73 4MW Michigan 70.2 40.1 15.4 5.7 1.7 0.5 208 14MW Belmont 40.6 25.9 9.2 4.0 1.2 0.3 286 10MW Purdue 60.6 18.5 9.1 3.9 1.1 0.3 307 9MW Alabama 53.7 17.1 9.0 3.1 0.8 0.2 462 12MW California 36.7 19.8 7.3 2.6 0.7 0.2 519 5MW Temple 49.6 23.9 7.6 2.3 0.5 0.1 809 8MW Creighton 46.3 13.4 6.5 2.0 0.5 0.1 858 11MW N.C. State 53.8 17.7 4.6 1.5 0.3 0.07 1531 7MW St. Mary's 39.4 9.1 3.6 1.2 0.3 0.05 1858 6MW San Diego St. 46.2 13.7 3.2 0.9 0.2 0.03 3047 13MW Ohio 29.8 10.8 2.4 0.5 0.08 0.01 8408 12MW South Florida 13.7 5.3 1.3 0.3 0.05 0.008 11815 16MW Lamar 6.4 1.7 0.5 0.09 0.01 0.001 82369 15MW Detroit 8.2 1.9 0.4 0.07 0.007 <0.001 153501 16MW Vermont 3.9 0.9 0.2 0.03 0.003 <0.001 418595East
- Are you off the Ohio State bandwagon yet? Me, neither! They’re the only non-one-seed to be the favorite in its region.
- The 3/14 game between Florida State and St. Bonaventure appears to be remarkably competitive on the surface.
-Next time somebody says the RPI doesn’t matter, you only need to respond with “Southern Miss”.
Rd3 Swt16 Elite8 Final4 Final Champ 1 in… 2E Ohio St. 95.1 80.7 66.3 45.9 31.6 19.3 5 1E Syracuse 90.5 65.4 37.1 17.5 9.6 4.4 22 4E Wisconsin 87.1 58.6 34.0 16.2 9.0 4.2 24 5E Vanderbilt 67.2 29.0 13.4 4.9 2.1 0.8 131 3E Florida St. 66.2 36.6 10.4 3.9 1.5 0.5 218 8E Kansas St. 71.9 26.7 10.6 3.4 1.3 0.4 257 11E Texas 52.3 26.9 6.9 2.3 0.8 0.2 450 6E Cincinnati 47.7 23.4 5.6 1.8 0.6 0.2 660 7E Gonzaga 56.0 10.9 5.2 1.7 0.5 0.1 733 10E West Virginia 44.0 7.2 3.0 0.8 0.2 0.05 2069 12E Harvard 32.8 9.3 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.04 2419 14E St. Bonaventure 33.8 13.1 2.3 0.6 0.14 0.03 3758 9E Southern Miss 28.1 5.7 1.2 0.2 0.04 0.006 15989 13E Montana 12.9 3.1 0.6 0.09 0.01 0.002 53868 16E UNC Asheville 9.5 2.2 0.3 0.03 0.004 <0.001 280663 15E Loyola MD 4.9 1.1 0.2 0.02 0.003 <0.001 390345Here’s the full list of teams. Like last year, I’m struck by how similar the order of this list is to the order of my ratings, which suggests that irregularities in the draw don’t have as much impact on a team’s chances of winning the whole tournament as one might think.
Rd3 Swt16 Elite8 Final4 Final Champ 1 in… 1S Kentucky 97.9 82.5 59.6 47.9 31.6 19.7 5 2E Ohio St. 95.1 80.7 66.3 45.9 31.6 19.3 5 1W Michigan St. 96.3 65.2 49.8 35.2 21.1 12.4 8 2MW Kansas 91.8 70.5 51.3 33.7 17.6 9.1 11 1MW North Carolina 89.7 66.8 49.9 28.5 13.7 6.6 15 2W Missouri 96.2 64.4 46.7 23.1 11.3 5.3 19 1E Syracuse 90.5 65.4 37.1 17.5 9.6 4.4 22 4E Wisconsin 87.1 58.6 34.0 16.2 9.0 4.2 24 5S Wichita St. 77.2 46.0 17.8 11.8 5.7 2.6 39 4S Indiana 77.8 41.0 14.6 9.2 4.1 1.7 59 8W Memphis 58.8 22.1 14.2 8.2 3.8 1.7 59 3S Baylor 73.5 51.1 31.8 10.9 4.5 1.7 60 3MW Georgetown 59.4 42.7 18.7 9.7 3.7 1.4 73 2S Duke 77.8 53.1 30.1 9.5 3.6 1.2 80 5W New Mexico 67.2 41.4 14.2 7.1 2.8 1.0 95 3W Marquette 69.6 49.2 20.7 7.5 2.7 0.9 108 5E Vanderbilt 67.2 29.0 13.4 4.9 2.1 0.8 131 4W Louisville 71.4 35.7 10.5 4.7 1.6 0.5 192 7W Florida 55.3 20.6 12.2 4.4 1.5 0.5 195 9W St. Louis 41.2 12.4 6.9 3.4 1.3 0.5 207 4MW Michigan 70.2 40.1 15.4 5.7 1.7 0.5 208 3E Florida St. 66.2 36.6 10.4 3.9 1.5 0.5 218 8E Kansas St. 71.9 26.7 10.6 3.4 1.3 0.4 257 14MW Belmont 40.6 25.9 9.2 4.0 1.2 0.3 286 10MW Purdue 60.6 18.5 9.1 3.9 1.1 0.3 307 10W Virginia 44.7 14.6 8.0 2.5 0.8 0.2 450 11E Texas 52.3 26.9 6.9 2.3 0.8 0.2 450 9MW Alabama 53.7 17.1 9.0 3.1 0.8 0.2 462 6S UNLV 66.0 27.4 13.1 3.0 0.8 0.2 491 12MW California 36.7 19.8 7.3 2.6 0.7 0.2 519 6E Cincinnati 47.7 23.4 5.6 1.8 0.6 0.2 660 8S Iowa St. 55.0 10.1 3.6 1.7 0.5 0.1 726 7E Gonzaga 56.0 10.9 5.2 1.7 0.5 0.1 733 5MW Temple 49.6 23.9 7.6 2.3 0.5 0.1 809 8MW Creighton 46.3 13.4 6.5 2.0 0.5 0.1 858 7S Notre Dame 55.8 22.7 9.3 1.9 0.5 0.1 1008 6W Murray St. 60.8 23.6 6.3 1.4 0.3 0.07 1516 11MW N.C. State 53.8 17.7 4.6 1.5 0.3 0.07 1531 12W Long Beach St. 32.8 14.7 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.06 1655 9S Connecticut 45.0 7.1 2.2 0.9 0.2 0.06 1713 7MW St. Mary's 39.4 9.1 3.6 1.2 0.3 0.05 1858 10E West Virginia 44.0 7.2 3.0 0.8 0.2 0.05 2069 12E Harvard 32.8 9.3 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.04 2419 10S Xavier 44.2 15.7 5.6 0.9 0.2 0.04 2806 6MW San Diego St. 46.2 13.7 3.2 0.9 0.2 0.03 3047 14S S. Dakota St. 26.5 12.1 4.6 0.8 0.2 0.03 3357 14E St. Bonaventure 33.8 13.1 2.3 0.6 0.14 0.03 3758 12S VCU 22.8 7.3 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.02 4423 14W BYU 16.5 8.7 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.02 4978 14W Iona 13.9 7.0 1.6 0.3 0.07 0.01 8346 13MW Ohio 29.8 10.8 2.4 0.5 0.08 0.01 8408 11S Colorado 34.0 9.3 3.0 0.4 0.07 0.01 9571 13S New Mexico St. 22.2 5.7 0.9 0.3 0.06 0.01 9762 13W Davidson 28.6 8.3 1.2 0.3 0.06 0.009 10652 11W Colorado St. 39.2 11.5 2.2 0.4 0.06 0.008 11790 12MW South Florida 13.7 5.3 1.3 0.3 0.05 0.008 11815 15S Lehigh 22.2 8.5 2.4 0.3 0.05 0.007 15289 9E Southern Miss 28.1 5.7 1.2 0.2 0.04 0.006 15989 13E Montana 12.9 3.1 0.6 0.09 0.01 0.002 53868 16MW Lamar 6.4 1.7 0.5 0.09 0.01 0.001 82369 15MW Detroit 8.2 1.9 0.4 0.07 0.007 <0.001 153501 16E UNC Asheville 9.5 2.2 0.3 0.03 0.004 <0.001 280663 15E Loyola MD 4.9 1.1 0.2 0.02 0.003 <0.001 390345 16MW Vermont 3.9 0.9 0.2 0.03 0.003 <0.001 418595 16W Long Island 3.7 0.3 0.03 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 8005351 16S Western Kentucky 1.6 0.2 0.01 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 30136770 15W Norfolk St. 3.8 0.3 0.03 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 43273119 16S Miss. Valley St. 0.4 0.03 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 3063887043