| October 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
My Big 12 preview
My espn.com archives
Most recent entries
BP is on line!
Moving On
What the heck is not going on here?
NST’s
The Orange Effect
Monthly Archives
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
Complete Archives
Category Archives
Blogging Superheroes
big ten wonk
The Mid-Majority
yoco:: College Basketball
Other College Hoops Blogs
The CAA: Life as a Mid-Major
Section Six
UNC Basketball Update
MGoBlog
Phog Blog
Vandy Sabermetrics
Cracked Sidewalks
K-State Stats
SouthEastern Hoops
The Joe Cribbs Car Wash
Yet Another Basketball Blog
CrossCyed
Double-A Zone
ACC Basketblog
March Madness All Season
Syndicate
Hits on this page: 2391711
Page rendered in 0.3103 seconds
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Value of Consistency
One of the big issues in my mailbox is how consistency impacts a team’s prospects in The Tournament. More specifically: how can we expect Southern Illinois (Pythagorean rating: 34, Consistency: 1) and Nevada (Pythag: 63, Consistency: 2), teams that have dominated their respective conferences without piling up big margins of victory, to perform in The Tournament? Keep in mind, with just three prior years of data, we don’t have a whole lot to go on statistically. But here are the teams that had some things in common with the canines hoping for a deep run this season:
2004 Northern Iowa (Pythag: 71, Consistency: 11) Result: First round loss to eventual Final Four participant Georgia Tech. Close game that wasn’t decided until the final minute. (Note: UNI didn’t win the MVC that season, but was the closest thing fitting my criteria in 2004.)
2005 Gonzaga (Pythag: 32, Consistency: 12) Result: As a 3-seed, lost to 6-seed Texas Tech in the second round.
2005 Southern Illinois (Pythag: 29, Consistency: 19) Result: As a 7-seed, lost to Oklahoma State in the second round, 85-77.
2005 Nevada (Pythag: 52, Consistency: 29) Result: As a 9-seed, lost to eventual runner-up Illinois, 71-59, in the second round.
2006 Gonzaga (Pythag: 41, Consistency: 1) Result: As a 3-seed, lost to eventual runner-up UCLA, 73-71 in the sweet sixteen.
2006 Northwestern State (Pythag: 105, Consistency: 2) Result: As a 14-seed, lost to 6-seed West Virginia, 67-54, in the second round.
Sensibly, one would think that consistent conference-dominators would be underrated by a system based on points for/against. And the evidence points that way, although last season’s cases are the most clear-cut examples. Another possibility for this season that nobody is really talking about is Vermont (Pythag: 153, Consistency 18, 15-1 in America East). They could be an intriguing 14-seed if they qualify.