Point Blank – March 18
The Tourney Journey, #1 (The Meek shall inherit Kentucky)…The Oddsmakers were “Totally” wrong in the NIT…Taking advantage of Silly Seeding Suppositions…
And away we go. The “play-ins” at Dayton (I like that reference so much better than “First Round”) have not exactly produced memorable results since their inception, but it was a different case on Tuesday. As expected, neither BYU or Ole Miss were able to guard each other, in an explosive affair that brought a major second half turnaround. But first, a rather improbable story continued…
Hampton 74 Manhattan 64 - A little over a week ago, Edward Joyner and his Hampton team entered the MEAC tournament at 13-17, and while beating Morgan State 91-71 in the first round, saw leading scorer and rebounder Dwight Meikle go down with an injured left ankle. Not much to be dreaming about at that point. Fast forward to Thursday, and now they face Kentucky, in one of the biggest Cinderella settings in the history of the NCAA tournament. Of course they have no chance to win, but so f’ing what? You have to be able to enjoy moments like this.
Joyner understands what is ahead – one of his first comments after winning on Tuesday was that he would need “Jesus on speed dial,” to put a game plan together. But what Joyner already did vs. Manhattan Tuesday was a tribute to a coach showing confidence in his players. The Pirates aggressively attacked the Jasper presses, jumping ahead 7-0 and never trailing, while also maintaining composure when they were threatened in the second half.
In some ways it is a shame that such a fantastic recent stretch by this team will have to end the way that it is going to, especially if Quinton Chievous (15 points and 13 rebounds vs. Manhattan), is slowed by the sprained ankle he suffered late on Tuesday. But it is not the cruel reality that should be thought of first when that scoreboard goes final, it is the fact that for about 48 hours, the Pirates are allowed to Dream the Dream.
Mississippi 94 BYU 90 - There were hints dropped about this one in yesterday’s column headline – “while watching BYU and Ole Miss struggle to guard each other” – and it played out in both entertaining, and dramatic fashion. The Rebels struggled all season to keep their defensive focus and get out on shooters, but survived in an SEC that did not make many shots. Last night the Cougars scorched them for 15-29 beyond the arc, enough to build a 17-point lead at one point. But the BYU weakness was expected to be an inability to stop Stefan Moody, Jarvis Summers and the Ole Miss guards from penetrating, and indeed they could not. The Rebels made 29 2-point shots, and had 24 assists vs. only seven turnovers.
How ineffective were the Cougars at stopping the ball from getting to the paint? How about zero steals, on a night on which Mississippi got off 80 FG attempts and 23 FTs? The game the Rebels turned the ball over on just 8.3 percent of their possessions. For perspective on that, Wisconsin turned it over at a 10.8 clip to lead the nation by a wide margin this season (no on else better than 12.3). If you allow a good team to continually get off shots, you are going to have a difficult time protecting a lead.
In terms of going forward, if Ole Miss came across as an athletic bunch that can aggressively challenge just about anyone in this field, but also play with the kind of inconsistency that can have the Rebels lose to just about anyone, then you actually have the proper read. That is who they are. A good case can be made that if Moody had not suffered cramps in OT at Rupp Arena, Kentucky would not be unbeaten. Yet Andy Kennedy’s team also lost four home games to teams not good enough to made the Big Dance. Not a comforting takeaway as you break down their Thursday matchup vs. Xavier, but in this case it really is like having to fire at a moving target.
About Last Night, NIT…
One of the last lines to hit the board yesterday was actually a private one among industry insiders – “What time will the first Wednesday NIT Totals go up?” Because it was private, I will not post the odds; but I did have more than just a rooting interest in the outcome. The oddsmakers, it turns out, were not quite prepared for either the game flows, or the market perceptions, of the 30-second shot clock for those Tuesday NIT games, and because some sports books got stung, there was a little hesitancy to post.
Let’s use CRIS as an example for Tuesday, since their Totals were up earlier than Pinnacle, or anyone in Las Vegas. To set a base for understanding, the openers were not all that far off of where the Ken Pomeroy tables would have placed the games, which is not unusual at this time of the season. But Pomeroy’s tables were not adjusted at all for the new shot clock. Seemingly neither were some of the send-outs by the oddsmakers, and the thought processes at CRIS showed little adjustment. So let’s look at the Pomeroy number, the CRIS opener, the market activity, and the final score -
Pomeroy Opener Close Final
Pittsburgh 125 127.5 135 114
Miami F. 115 118 127.5 146
Rhode Island 144 143.5 153 163
La Tech 143 143 155 168
Tulsa 132 132 142.5 137
Alabama 126 126.5 135 137
Murray State 144 144 151 147
Texas A&M 125 125 134.5 145
Stanford 140 139.5 151 141
Someone playing Over at every CRIS opener would have gone 8-1, though someone fading those moves at tipoff would not have been roughed up too badly, going 4-5. The projections at CRIS were for the games to average 133.2 points, the reality was 144.2, a significant error to a particular direction.
I had debated whether or not it would be proper to show the Pomeroy ratings for tonight’s games, so that you can do some comparisons and see how much adjustments are made this time, but because that section of his site is behind a paywall, I believe it is fair and proper to not show them. What can be said is that as of 10 AM Pacific time, the average Total for the six games is 12 points above the Pomeroy projection. That provides plenty of food for thought, and if the markets continue to act beyond those current offerings, perhaps some focus on an Under ticket or two later in the day (cough…Wiscy-Green Bay/Illinois State…cough) could come into play.
In the Sights…
The notion that markets change should not be anything new to faithful daily readers. It is something that needs to be accepted and understood, in terms of properly relating the past to the future. The behaviors of the Sports Mediaverse are also scrutinized here often, especially in terms of how they fall into traps of trying to claim that “What’s past is prologue” (from Antonio, early in Act II of The Tempest, if that matters), when there is not even a thread of connection. Sometimes that creates narratives that we can profit from, and I believe that is the case when #734 Utah (7:25 Eastern tipoff) takes on Stephen F. Austin on Thursday.
Let’s dial back a little first, to set some perspective. In the late 1980’s and early 90’s there was a phrase “Sag Dog”, coined by good friend Marc Lawrence, for the NCAA tournament. These were underdogs getting three points or more than what the Jeff Sagarin ratings would have called for, and there would be a few each season – at the time, there was a public disdain for the non-board teams, since they simply did not know much about them. The oddsmakers had to adjust accordingly, to keep that money away, and some of the underdogs became values.
That was then. Now March Madness is not just what happens on the court, but also the circus surrounding it, with the public clamoring for information, and voraciously devouring what they get, even if much of it comes from drive-through windows. There are vivid memories of upsets, and those memories turn into projections. Want a Sag Dog for this year’s first round? There aren’t any. There has not been one for quite some time. So we look for other avenues to find something that can be exploited, and they are being supplied – just think about how much you have read or listened to about the great run that #12 seeds have had against #5 seeds in the tournament, including a 3-1 SU last year. And there is just enough of that out there for it to matter.
So what is the deal on those #12’s beating #5’s? Actually nothing. There is no connection between the outcome of any #12/#5 game and any other, and there are no characteristics that connect the seed levels. A #12 is simply any team that comes in between #45 and #48 on the final tourney chart, and the #5 teams are those that fall from #17 through #20. There is no such thing a “a #12” or “a #5” in terms of particular traits.
So what does that bring us with Utah? First a superior team that matches up well to the Lumberjacks. Yet you can exploit those matchups at an offering a little more than a point less than the base Sagarin projections, and a full five points lower than his “Predictor” model, much of that being the impact of all of the nonsense about those seeds. There is also the fresh memory of SFA winning in that very 12/5 role LY, a dramatic ending that was made possible when VCU fouled Desmond Haymon on a made 3-pointer with 3.6 seconds remaining, turning 75-71 into 75-75, and another five minutes of play. What happened two days later? The Lumberjacks were out-classed 77-60 by UCLA. That gets mentioned far less than the first round win.
SFA is a well-coached team that plays clean basketball, but lacks the size and talent to be in this price range; the Lumberjacks could actually play well and still have the final margin get into double figures. And that is where the current marketplace creates opportunity. In 1993, this line might have been -10.
This Week at Point Blank
Monday – What a “Bettor Better Know” – The Dance to come; The Weekend in Review
Monday – The 2015 NCAA Bracket
Tuesday – Time for some NIT-pickin’ (while watching BYU and Ole Miss struggle to guard each other)…If LeBron can’t chase down a rebound, why was he out there?...When “You can’t get there from here” matters…