The 3 Point Line -- How Winn Called the Offense

Before 19-0 Became 20-0...
Late last spring the NCAA announced the 3 point line for the 2009 season would be moved back a foot. SI's Luke Winn penned a detailed analysis on the implications of the rules change, identifying along the way, about 30+ teams (3 Big East squads would, according to Winn, be affected directly or indirectly) that could founder or thrive from the change. Winn considered the implications, and sorted 40 (or so) tournament teams...

1. Losers -- teams that rely on 3 point-oriented offenses will suffer -- Winn identified mid-majors as a groups that would be hit hardest because they tended to rely more on the 3 point shot as a equalizer against high-major squads. In a 1 - 2 possession game this can be crucial.
2. Winners -- teams that utilize 3 point scoring very little -- 2009's early favorites, North Carolina and Connecticut (listed among the 10 lowest 3 point shooting teams) have offenses that don't rely much on points from the 3 point line.
3. Winners -- teams adept at defending the 3 point line -- will force teams a foot farther back when taking that shot. Pomeroy's research suggested there is a "dead zone" about 17½ to 19 feet from the basket where teams who shoot from that zone assume the liability of a 3 point shot without the benefit of an extra point.
4. Losers -- teams (and individuals) who can't hit the 3FGA consistently -- defenders can cheat against those teams (Pittsburgh had problems hitting the 3 in 2008).

So How Did 3 Point Shooting Offenses Do?
The broad trend is clear (see chart from previous post), Division 1 teams had slightly fewer points from 3FGAs (a decline of 1.5% from 2008) last season. Ken Pomeroy posted a "3 point tracker" at the top of his KenPom Ratings Page which shows a decline, year-over-year, in both 3 pointers made (about -0.9%) and 3 pointers taken as a percentage of all FGAs (about -1.3%). What of the nearly 20 teams from the 2008 season which Winn identified as having offenses that could be affected (for better or worse) by the change? And were, as he asserted, mid-majors (non-BCS conference teams for our discussion) -- as a group -- adversely affected by the change? A quick comparison of year-over-year W/L records yields mixed results.

	2008			2009
Team	W	L	Pct.	W	L	Pct.
Butler	30	4	0.882	26	6	0.813
Drake	28	5	0.848	17	16	0.515
Georgetown	28	6	0.824	16	15	0.516
Davidson	29	7	0.806	27	8	0.771
BYU	27	8	0.771	25	8	0.758
Vanderbilt	26	8	0.765	19	12	0.613
Belmont	25	9	0.735	20	13	0.606
Portland St.	23	10	0.697	23	10	0.697
American	21	12	0.636	24	8	0.750
Oregon	18	14	0.563	8	23	0.258

The teams highlighted in green returned to the NCAAs in 2009, while those highlighted in red did not play in the post season beyond their conference tournaments. For Oregon and Vanderbilt, the distance of the 3 point line was the least of their concerns. Both squads lost considerable experience through graduation. As their records reflect, Georgetown and Drake also lost via graduation. Drake had to replace Keno Davis, who moved over to Providence after Tim Welsh was fired, while Georgetown saw 3 seniors graduate and two sophomores transfer out. Consolidating last season's list with the 10 "Most 3 Point Oriented" from 2009's NCAA tournament yields this list...

	Point Distribution
Team	%FT	Rnk	%2FG	Rnk	%3FG	Rnk	PST
Belmont	18.0	290	42.2	335	39.9	5	CIT
Portland St.	15.8	336	44.4	321	39.9	6	NCAA
Michigan	17.6	301	43.0	329	39.4	8	NCAA
Drake	23.6	25	39.6	343	36.8	18	CIT
Arizona St.	20.2	182	44.2	323	35.6	22	NCAA
Butler	23.3	36	41.2	341	35.5	26	NCAA
Oklahoma St.	21.4	116	43.9	326	34.7	30	NCAA
Oregon	21.4	117	44.5	318	34.1	37	None
American	16.1	331	50.5	227	33.4	38	NCAA
Louisville	16.0	333	50.7	222	33.3	42	NCAA
Mississippi St.	22.4	63	44.3	322	33.2	46	NCAA
Temple	16.4	326	50.4	229	33.2	48	NCAA
Western Kentucky	18.3	278	48.7	263	33.0	54	NCAA
Davidson	18.7	257	48.4	274	32.9	56	NIT
Brigham Young	19.0	239	52.6	155	28.4	140	NCAA
Georgetown	22.0	83	51.3	201	26.7	191	NIT
Vanderbilt	23.6	18	50.3	230	26.1	212	None

As before, green highlighted teams are repeaters from 2008. As I looked over this 2 year list a few things stood out:

1. If the ranking from year-to-year is about the same, points derived from 3 pointers from this group did decline. In 2008 the highest ranking team (#8 Butler) harvested 40.9% of their points from beyond the arc, while the next 4 (in order Belmont, Drake, Portland St. and American) gathered at least 36% of their points from 3FGMs. In 2009 only Michigan relied on the 3 for more than 36% of their points.
2. In 2008 3 of Winn's top 10 3 point teams (the last 3) hailed from BCS conferences. In 2009 5 of those teams are BCS conference members. In this, it seems for 2009 at least, Winn's call was correct.

Herb Sendak (Arizona State), John Beilein (Michigan) and Rick Pitino (Louisville) are familiar names to those who follow outside shooting teams.

How Did Inside/Low Post Offenses Do?
If "A implies B", is the opposite true -- does "the opposite of A imply the opposite of B"? Winn suggested as much by declaring that teams which most relied on 2s would be least affected by the distance change. His top 10 list (produced below) is almost prescient:

	2008 Point Distribution
Team	%3FG	Rnk	%2FG	Rnk	%FT	Rnk	Comments
North Carolina	18.8	337	59.9	5	21.4	99	FF 2009
UConn	19.7	336	54.8	75	25.5	5	FF 2009
Coppin St.	20.7	330	56.2	42	23.1	36
Michigan St.	20.9	327	60.1	4	19.0	234	FF 2009
UCLA	21.8	321	57.3	22	20.8	139
San Diego	22.1	318	58.4	10	19.5	212
Miss. Valley St.	22.4	313	53.9	99	23.7	20
Stanford	23.4	299	55.0	63	21.6	84	CBI
Arkansas	23.9	286	56.2	40	19.8	195
USC	24.2	278	55.9	48	19.9	189

Green highlighted teams returned to the NCAAs in 2009. Aside from those five (three of which made it to the Final Four), only Stanford out of the PAC-10 conference made a post season appearance. Of the ten from the 2008 NCAA tournament, only Connecticut made the list again this season. The Huskies also made the top ten for points from free throws also (which also means they were among the last ten on the points from 3FGMs list...as was Michigan State).

Performance vs Expectations -- Post Season

All Things Considered...
I was talking to a friend over the weekend -- we had last talked just after the 1st round of the NCAAs last month. "The 'Cats make the Final Four and not a word from you?" I teased. "Well..." he replied, "It was pretty clear that any of three or four Big East teams could make the Final Four. So it was not that much of a surprise...". I forgive him for the tepid congratulations. He cheers on the Pirates, and the past few years have not (despite the new digs) been very kind. Maybe next season. The Wildcats did a very passable version of the Energizing Bunny through much of March and into the first week of April. Very satisfying (aside from the margins posted in their 2 losses during the post season run). How did the 'Cats perform in their seven post season games (I grouped both their Big East Tournament and NCAA games together for this review) versus Pomeroy's projections? The chart below illustrates...

Note wins are marked with blue circles, losses in red. The difference between performance (the margin of victory/defeat) and expectation (Pomeroy's projection) is given relative to the X axis. Performance matched expectation would be marked with a circle on the thick black line (I wanted it to stand out...). Performances that did not match expectations (negative differential) are below the X axis; those that exceeded are above. Relative performance is noted by the distance above or below the X axis, each data point coupled with its margin & labeled with the opponent.

If You Thought the Duke Game Was the High Point...
You have an ally in Ken Pomeroy. The winning margin, 23, is pretty impressive considered by itself, but according to Pomeroy's calculations Villanova was supposed to lose by 3 points. The UCLA game is a close second. Also projected to lose, this time by 1 (Pomeroy gave the Wildcats a semi-home court bump, after all the game was played in the Wachovia Center). I was most impressed with the Pittsburgh win. The Panthers have the type of team that Villanova most struggled with during the season -- a dominant center, competitive front court, combined with a good point guard. The game was essentially undecided with <5 seconds on the clock. Those who described it as an instant classic are correct.

Ironically many in the Nova Nation were disappointed with the Marquette and American University games. Yet both were closest to Pomeroy's projection. I never had the sense the outcome of the American can was in doubt, but the Wildcats were not able to pull away in the same way they did with UCLA and Duke. Among Big East Tournament games, I believe the win over the Golden Eagles, coming as it did at (literally) the last second, was the second only to the Connecticut -- Syracuse game. It foreshadowed the East Regional Final game.

Pomeroy's Model vs Performance
Pomeroy's record for accurately predicting Villanova's wins & losses was a disappointing 4-3, thankfully. Pomeroy did predict both of the Wildcat's losses & the wins over Marquette and American University. He missed on Pittsburgh, the UCLA and the Duke games. While Pomeroy does employ an "aging" technique to reduce the influence of early season results, I suspect it is not refined enough to give proper weight to late season surges. When I telescoped each team's raw offensive and defensive ratings for just the post season however, I did get projections that suggested outcomes more favorable to Villanova than Pomeroy's adjusted ratings. Pomeroy's projections did predict 4 of the games to within +/- 5 points.

North Carolina Post Game -- Sleeping in the Streets

The Carolina March...
Historically, the Villanova staff has, with 4 days to prepare, come up with some innovative wrinkles to Wildcat game plans. Back in the waning days of 2005 the Four Guard Offense was born in the desperate days between Villanova's win over Florida (at the cost of Curtis Sumpter's ACL) and their Sweet Sixteen date with these same North Carolina Tar Heels. The Wildcats of 2009 were faster and better able to develop plays out of transition. Running with the Heels however, seemed to play right into the Tar Heels strengths. "Shoot 'em up & sleep in the streets" was the creed this team lived by this season. In going with that approach the staff showed tremendous confidence in the team. But on Saturday night, the Wildcats slept in the streets. The breakdown...

Opponent	North Carolina
Pace	77.0
	Offense		Defense
Rating	89.2		107.3
eFG%	36.1		49.2
TORate	15.5		15.5
OR%	38.3		31.6
FTA/FGA	20.3		89.2
FTM/FGA	15.2		35.5
ARate	10.4		10.4
Blk%	8.3		4.8
Stl%	7.8		9.1
PPWS	0.79		1.04
2FG%	40.4		35.0
3FG%	18.5		50.0
FT%	75.0		59.5
%2FG	60.9		33.7
%3FG	21.7		39.8
%FT	17.4		26.5

CBS does not provide a break down by halves; the play-by-play appears to have been provided by a firm more comfortable with the NBA (Dead ball foul on Cunningham?). And the narrative does not match the box score. A regrettable lapse with especialy bad timing. My informal tally taken on game night suggested the 1st half was an offensive shootout (as promised by the Nova staff), while the 2nd half saw significant defensive adjustments. Unfortunately that shot defense worked for both teams. I have not checked the other games (except Michigan-UNC), but 107.3 is the best defense any of Carolina's opponents were able to muster during the Heels' six game run through the NCAA field.

Observations & Notes...
1. Villanova's success through the tournament had been tied to good offensive performances from 2 of Corey Fisher, Dante Cuningham and Scottie Reynolds, with efficient contributions (and occasional domination) from two or more in the second wave (Anderson, Clark, Redding and Stokes). Credit the Tar Heels with their abilty to shut down all three in the first wave (Reynolds had the most efficient night with a PPWS of 0.88), while rendering Stokes and Anderson largely ineffective. The most efficient shooters wearing Blue and White were Clark and Redding, neither of whom were especially prolific scorers.
2. The Wildcats shot a disappointing 40.4% from inside the arc, though it compared favorably to UNC's 35.0% from the same distance. The Tar Heels however shot a fatal 50.0% from beyond the arc (versus Villanova's 18.5%), comparable to converting 2FGAs at a 75% clip. Fatal, absolutely fatal.
3. The 'Cats did a credible job on the boards, their offensive rebounding rate (38.3%) about where it was during the season. They were able to limit 2nd chance points for the Heels as well, but neither was particularly effective as Villanova was down by double digit numbers through much of the night.

Ref Notes
Pat Driscoll, Karl Hess and Scott Thornley ran the crew Saturday night. Driscoll and Hess have supervised (nine) other Villanova games this season, the 'Cats going 7-2 in those tilts. The Wildcats have seen Scott Thornley before -- in the 2007 NCAAs when Villanova lost to Kentucky. The game was a bit high in the number of free throws allocated to the Tar Heels, consistent perhaps with the number UNC typically gets. Free throws for the Wildcats was down...significantly (for them). Though Carolina does not tend to foul. for Villanova, used to seeing 25% or more of their points come from the line, 17.4% was just not enough.

Next Up
The end of the season banquet, April 22 at the Pavilion. The official good bye to the Class of 2009 will be very, very special.

Odds and Ends

On PASE with...
Dan Hanner over at Yet Another Basketball Blog has put factored all but the results of the championship game for a look at how the conferences did by PASE. Link over to take a look at his results. Winning the National Championship should mitigate the Atlantic Coast Conference's overall poor showing in this year's tournament. Make a mental note when putting together your brackets next season to take Clemson's (and Wake Forest's...) seed with a grain of salt. While both disappointed this post season, this is, for Clemson, the second post season running, that the Tigers have been sent home in the first round by a lower seed. Oliver Purnell has made great strides with the basketball program, but he has yet, in five tries (3 times as the higher seed), to get out of the first round. Maryland sprung a first round upset (unusual for the ACC lately), but fell (hard) in the next round, reducing the conference's representation from 7 down to 2 by the Sweet Sixteen. The 2009 tournament results can only reinforce the impression that since the raid on the Big East, men's basketball, once the signature sport of the conference, has become North Carolina, Duke and ten other guys.

For the Southeast Conference, the heady days of April 2007, when then conference flavor of the month Florida won back-to-back championships, are long, long gone. This post season, the conference received a very unpower conference-like 3 bids, two of those invitees would wear the visitor's colors for the first round. The conference could not however, meet even those minimal PASE expectations. Having to gather only 1.5 wins, the SEC's three representatives fell .5 wins short. #8 seed conference regular season champion LSU managed a first round win, but did not survive a 2nd round match with eventual champion North Carolina. Those Tigers lost by a 14 point margin, and made the conference invisible after the first weekend. Since Billy Donovan's famous second ring and job waffle, seven of the conference's twelve programs have changed coaches. The SEC's flagship program, Kentucky has undertaken two coaching searches. The tsunami that has swept through this conference took even convention in it's wake, practically making mid-season coaching changes for reasons not related to health or scandal the norm, rather than the exception. The conference-wide staffing shake-up has triggered a "rebuilding boom" (the only one in the country right now...) and disrupted recruiting. How many seasons before this conference "finds its rhythm"?

The Big 12 and Big Ten had fairly modest expectations, even though they had a relatively large number of bids. Both managed to exceed their PASE expectations. For the Big Ten (like the Big East...) any happiness has to be tempered by the beatings administered by North Carolina to those conferences' last representatives. I guess it balances out in the end.

Early Lines on Next Season?...Already?!
Even as the Tar Heels were cutting down the nets in Ford Field Dick Vitale, Luke Winn, Pete Thamel and others were projecting the top 10 for next season. Just after Rush the Court assembled a composite of the early rankings Jeff Goodman over at FoxSports decided to join the parade with his own "Ridiculously early 2009-10 preseason Top 25". I want to see who stays in the draft, who had a good academic semester and who actually gets to campus before undertaking my own modest attempt to forecast the Big East next season. I take this as a complement of sorts to the season. The fans can't get enough.

On Second Thought...
Coach Wright sat for an interview with SI's Dan Patrick last week. Early on Patrick offered the Coach a strategic mulligan (if you could replay the game what would you do differently?) and Coach Wright mentioned the staff mulled (and ultimately rejected...) the idea of slowing the game down and using the shot clock to disrupt the Tar Heel offense. Coach Wright characterized his offensive philosophy as "Shoot 'em up and sleep in the streets", a phrase he has used several times to describe how he encourages Nova players to take the open shot when it is available. A comparative look at Nova & UNC's offensive and defensive efficiencies at higher and lower paces gives me pause to think. Villanova's raw pace for the season was 69.5 while UNC's was 75.8. The Tar Heels did play 6 games at a pace of 69 or lower, while Nova played 20 games in the same range...

When pace < 69	Poss.	Off.	Def.	Margin
North Carolina	66.2	1.14	1.05	0.09
Villanova	65.3	1.08	0.91	0.17

The interesting number is UNC's defensive efficiency. At their "normal" pace the 'Heels defensive efficiency is 0.95 (raw), but slow it down and their efficiency jumped to 1.05. The Wildcat's defensive efficiency did not suffer much with the decline in possessions. With 20 games at a pace of 69 or less, there is little doubt the 'Cats would not have been taken out of their comfort zone. The game played out for 77 possessions, with North Carolina clamping down on Villanova defensively to the tune of 0.89 -- absolutely on the number for those games they played above their raw pace (75.8). In deciding to run with the 'Heels Coach Wright showed a lot of confidence in his players. One of the very refreshing differences in Coach Wright is his candor -- he admitted to Patrick that it may not have been the best approach to taking on the 'Heels.

About the Postgame Post...
The NCAA/CBS did not provide a box score by halves. And their play-by-play did not match their box. Hmmm. I have waited for Villanova to post a box score (they had not as of Wednesday), so I am torn between going with a 4 factors look at the game as a whole (like the Texas game) or attempt to break it out by the play-by-play a 2nd time. In either case I won't do anything for another week. Be patient.

North Carolina Pregame -- Grasping at Straws?

I will try to post a few numbers before game time. For most of the week I have been looking around for some positive press about Villanova. And there are quite a few feel good stories about the squad, the staff and the school. I could probably put together a separate post for each team member, chock full of links to stories. But not many analysis that suggest the Wildcats have more than a very remote possibility of beating the Tar Heels.

But there are one or two. For the Villanova fans out there who have had problems finding them...

Steve Ginsburg writing for Reuters posted a "looking back at 1985" piece that featured how the traditions set by the earlier teams have bolstered the confidence of the current team. There are 4 generations of Villanova players taking the back of the guys on the court.

ESPN conducted a round table with four of their principal college basketball writers (Pat Forde, Andy Katz, Dana O'Neil and Mark Schlabach). The four engaged in a conversational breakdown of the Final Four teams, bounded by a series of eight questions. Only Dana O'Neil (DPO to her fans) picked the 'Cats to win their game with North Carolina. A writer for the Philadelphia Daily News for a number of years, during which she worked as the Villanova beat writer (basketball), DPO has been far from a homer for the 'Cats since moving over to ESPN. Her nod to Coach Wright and the team was something of a surprise. Mark Schlabach tabbed Scottie as "one player most important to his team's success", but DPO tabbed Ty Lawson. Nova's game plan may well involve taking Lawson out of his game.

Pete Thamel over at the NYT did a 100 word breakdown on the semi-final match ups that gives a nod to each team. He mentioned the physical play, but also the speed of the Villanova squad as factors that may neutralize the Tar Heels' size and perimeter shooting.

Todd Rosiak long time Marquette Golden Eagle beat writer for the Journal Sentinel wrote a complementary break down of the surviving Big East teams. The piece featured comments from Jerel McNeal, Marquette's outstanding combo guard.

"Most definitely," McNeal said. "I don't think a lot of people gave them a chance against Pitt. It's a situation where Villanova's a scrappy team. They're going to play as hard as anybody that's left in the tournament, and they have the talent, athleticism and guard play to do it. Cunningham is a lot better than people think...


"All those guys are playing at a high level and playing as hard as they do, and playing together, they have a chance to beat anybody."

I will take that.

AccuScore, a simulation service hosted over at ESPN this season does predict a North Carolina win (going out on a limb...), but Stephen Oh did write a short essay on the characteristics of a Villanova win. According to Oh, Villanova will have to defend the 3 while shooting at least 38% from beyond the arc. They will also have to out rebound the Heels. The Wildcats, according to Oh, will have to keep turnovers down, below their season average, but do not need to have fewer than North Carolina. While article is subscription only (linked here), the Fact on Villanova Sports blog has reproduced a number of the tables. Interesting material, even if Fact's headline ("AccuScore Likes 'Nova's Chances") is not exactly accurate.

Over at the Basketball Prospectus stats maven John Gasaway takes his own "numbers first" look at the semi-final match-ups. The backcourt's ability to penetrate the lane may pose a bigger problem for the Tar Heels than some imagine -- it did early in the Tar Heels' ACC schedule -- have the Heels learned to defense it better? In the end however, Gasaway believes height -- or lack of it vis a vis the Tar Heels -- will spell the difference.

Also over at the Basketball Prospectus, Ken Pomeroy posted for only the 2nd time this season. His latest essay, "Transition Game", looks at the effect of pace (numbers of possessions) on North Carolina's game (or more specifically, their chances of winning). While Pomeroy does not think a lower paced game will diminish UNC's chances of beating Villanova, I noted in my look at those numbers that the Tar Heels' offensive and defensive efficiencies suffered (albeit not by large numbers) when possessions are limited.

On PASE -- Conference Wins Through the Regional Finals

Checking back on conference PASE through the 1st four rounds. This is the same table assembled for an earlier post, but I have highlighted those conferences which were still "active" in rounds 3 & 4...

		Wins			Teams
Conference	PASE	to Dte		%PASE	In
Sun Belt	0.50	1		2.00	0
MAAC	0.58	1		1.74	0
Big 12	8.18	11		1.34	0
WCC	1.50	2		1.33	0
Horizon	0.83	1		1.21	0
A10	2.50	3		1.20	0
Big Ten	7.13	8		1.12	1
Big East	16.43	17		1.03	2
PAC-10	6.00	6		1.00	0
CUSA	2.40	2		0.83	0
SEC	1.50	1		0.67	0
ACC	10.85	7		0.65	1
MWC	1.83	0		0.00	0

Each conference's PASE is, as pointed out by Dan Hanner's PASE post, the sum of the anticipated wins by seed history. While the Big East, Big Ten and ACC have received 7 bids (see table above), their respective PASEs differ because their bids were for different seeds. I have sorted the data by Wins %PASE, derived by dividing the number of wins so far ("Wins to Dte") by the conference's PASE.

Dearly Departed, Survivors & Conferences
The Big 12's remaining contenders (Kansas & Oklahoma) exited over the past weekend, but the conference has to feel pretty good about this tournament. If the conference that produced last season's National Champion felt under appreciated with only 6 bids this post season, they surely felt justified when wins in the Sweet Sixteen helped them exceed their PASE by a fair margin. Michigan State will have to win the National Championship game if the Big Ten, mysteriously awarded 7 bids (one more than the Big 12), is to overtake the Big 12. would have to win the National Championship to distract attention away from the ACC's extremely disappointing showing this season. Even if North Carolina takes the next 2 games the ACC will still come up short, gaining only 9 of the anticpated 10.85 wins projected by their seeds awarded to their 7 bids. That comes out to a %PASE of 0.83, still below the relatively modest showing from the PAC-10 conference. Fans of the Big East conference will be disappointed if neither of the conference's surviving representatives (Connecticut and Villanova) make it to the Championship Game. The Beast of the East has, however, performed to expectations by winning 17 games to this point. From here on out the conference is playing with house money. For Conference USA, the past 2 weeks have become a nightmare. In the decade before the conference saw many of it's best basketball programs (Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville and Marquette) depart for the Big East, taking South Florida with them, they routinely took 4 bids to the NCAAs. In a very good year they could expect up to 6 bids, putting the conference at the head of the mid-majors and in the same league as the Pac-10 and SEC, two power conferences. They received only a single bid this season, the lowest number in nearly 20 years, watched that team, Memphis, lose before "making their seed" and on Wednesday, watched the best coach in the conference leave for University of Kentucky. Memphis, indeed the whole of CUSA, has some thinking to do this off season.

Pittsburgh Post Game -- Beast of the East

Post Game Pressers...
Seeing the Pittsburgh players, stunned from last second turn of events, have to field questions about "How it felt to..." was heartbreaking. Who could blame them for the blank stares, the mumbled, disconnected answers and a hint here and there of defiance in their voices. A determined drive had put them back within 2 as the clocked ticked under 30 seconds, an errant 94 foot pass had forced Cunningham to attempt a save that bounced high and within Jermaine Dixon's hands. Dixon alertly passed to Levance Fields at the sideline, who put the ball on the deck and dribbled to mid court, readying the Panthers for one more offensive set. Corey Fisher stepped in front, trying to take a charge, but the call went the other way, putting the senior guard on the line for 2 shots, his toss toward the basket a vain attempt to convince the referees he was really attempting a 3FGA. Calmly stepping to the line Fields hit both FTAs (a Nova timeout notwithstanding) to tie the game. 5.5 seconds left and a miracle comeback, surely the coming OT was divinely inspired, but ultimately not to be. Stunning. The Panthers played a tremendous game, one I am sure they will look back in the years to come, bitter, but proud of their effort. Coach Dixon's team did everything they were supposed to do; they just did not put enough points on the board. I doubt I will have time to post links to other wrap-ups, apologies to my fellow Nova bloggers.

The breakdown by halves...

Opponent	Pittsburgh
	1st	2nd	Game
Pace	32.7	34.1	66.9
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Game		1st	2nd	Game
Rating	97.8	134.8	116.7		103.9	123.1	113.7
eFG%	39.1	64.6	50.0		45.8	58.9	52.9
TORate	18.3	20.5	19.4		18.3	14.7	16.5
OR%	42.9	40.0	41.9		26.7	40.0	33.3
FTA/FGA	21.9	66.7	41.1		62.5	50.0	55.8
FTM/FGA	21.9	62.5	39.3		50.0	32.1	40.4
ARate	36.4	35.7	36.0		40.0	66.7	56.0
Blk%	6.3	4.2	5.4		8.3	10.7	9.6
Stl%	6.2	5.8	6.0		12.1	5.9	9.0
PPWS	0.91	1.46	1.17		1.09	1.21	1.16
2FG%	44.4	61.1	52.8		47.1	70.6	58.8
3FG%	21.4	50.0	30.0		28.6	27.3	27.8
FT%	100.0	93.8	95.7		80.0	64.3	72.4
%2FG	50.0	47.8	48.7		47.1	57.1	52.6
%3FG	28.1	19.6	23.1		17.6	21.4	19.7
%FT	21.9	32.6	28.2		35.3	21.4	27.6

Observations & Notes...
Unlike the Duke game, this one took on the bi-polar look of a number of other Big East games. Each team spent the 1st half taking the measure of their opponent (a defensive struggle), and then turned the 2nd half into a shooting match. The difference between this and earlier, similar Big East games is the pace remained largely consistent half-to-half.
1. Scottie Reynolds has established his place in the Villanova Pantheon with his half-court dribble drive to hit the winning basket. Though left with about 5 seconds to make a play, Scottie had the presence of mind to take it to the tin, rather than settle for a 12-15 jump shot. Terrific instinct on the young man's part -- not only did he increase tremendously the odds he could get the shot to drop, but he also took another 1 to 1.5 seconds off the clock, leaving the Panthers with 0.5 seconds to attempt another comeback. Unlike the first 2 rounds, Scottie looked quicker. His knee dings appear to have healed. Reggie Redding's inbound pass, coupled with Dante Cunningham's catch and pass to a streaking Reynolds was an excellent metaphore for the team work this squad has shown all season, Villanova's own trio of Tinker to Evers to Chance.
2. Anderson, Clark and Cunningham proved to be the most efficient scorers Saturday.

	Shot%	eFG%	PPWS
Cunningham	26.2	54.5	1.17
Anderson	25.5	60.0	1.37
Clark	19.2	78.7	1.57

Cunningham and Anderson were work horses on offense, while Clark struck early in the game with a barrage of unexpected 3s. Cunningham has been a consistent force on offense this season. The output from these three was a little surprising given how good the Pittsburgh frontcourt has been this season.
3. Dwayne Anderson is going out with a bang. The forward has bumped up both his efficiency and production in the post season. Dwayne has improved his Big East eFG% & PPWS from 51.1/1.10 to 60.4/1.27, while increasing his shots & points per game from 7.6/9.4 to 8.8/12.7.
4. Scottie Reynolds has crossed over the 1600 point threshold with the Pittsburgh game. He has averaged over 530 points per season through his junior season, and with similar production his senior season (should he return for his senior season), will become the 8th Villanovan to score to score > 2,000 career points.
5. The Class of 2009 sets new records with each game they win.

Ref Notes
Patrick E. Driscoll, Randy McCall and Tom O'Neill ran the crew on Saturday night. The Wildcats gathered a higher number of whistles, the Panthers a higher number of free throws, but within the standard deviation for Nova games played on a neutral court this season. Shane and Dante had to sit for a few 2nd half minutes with 4 fouls, but were available at the end of the game.

Next Up
The fifth round of the NCAAs -- the National Semi-Final game to be played in Detroit, Michigan. The opponent will be ACC regular season champion, North Carolina, winners of the South Region. The game will be played Saturday at 8:47pm.

Preview -- Pittsburgh #2...Not Here

The Wildcats and Panthers know each other pretty well by now, having played 9 times in the Wright-Dixon Era (2003-2009). Villanova's tally during that period -- 4-5. Everybody who follows either (or both) of the teams has a pretty good idea of what each must do in order to win. And make no mistake, either team can win this game, despite what the simulations and analysts might say. So how are the experts calling this one?

The ink media homies say...
The game has NCAA, Big East, but ultimately state-level rivalry implications that dig into the psychie of each of Pennsylvania's two largest cities...
Joe Juliani over at the Philadelphia Inquirer thinks the game will focus on defense -- consistent with the shared history and each staff's "defense first" philosophy. Juliano looks to Cunningham, Reynolds and Fisher to power the Wildcats, while Young, Blair and Fields will headline for the Panthers.
The Post-Gazette's Ray Fittipaldo believes the Panthers' rocky start in the tournament is behind them as their win over Xavier Thursday gets them over that Sweet Sixteen hump. The Panthers are looking to return to the Final Four for the first time since 1941. Fittipaldo's material is drawn mostly from yesterday's press conferences.
The PDN's Mike Kern believes the momentum gathered through Nova's 1st three tournament games will be essential if the Wildcats are to prevail today. Kern does a nice job of juxtaposing coaching records/backgrounds and records, paths to the Elite Eight and "To Do" Lists. He too foresees the basketball equivalent of a Sumo wrestling match.
The Tribune-Review's John Grupp puts his analysis on the sidebar and gives senior guard Levance Fields center stage. The Panther Nation looks at this as the biggest game in Pitt basketball history, and Fields wants to win it for Head Coach Jamie Dixon. Keys to the game according to Grupp include (for Villanova...) containing Young and distribute the scoring, and (for Pittsburgh) keeping Blair on the court and out of foul trouble, valuing the ball and hit their outside shots, so the 'Cats will not be able to collapse on Blair and shut down the passing lanes.

The national media say...
ESPN links to an anonymous preview from the AP, though Andy Katz does kick in two pieces, the first a close-up recap of Pitt's tight win over Xavier; the second a compare/contrast piece on Dixon & Wright, two coaches, Katz suggests, who will make up the new hierarchy in the Big East (assuming each stays put).
Over at CBS Sportsline, former assistant and current HC Joe Jones and Jason Horowitz do a video preview. Jones likes Villanova as Pitt has been inconsistent so far. Over at the regional coverage they posted a side-by-side comparison of the Panthers and Wildcats. Authored by "The Sports Xchange", it suggests Blair has to avoid foul trouble and Scottie is Nova's go-to guy. CBS stringer Mike Freeman, doing his best Gregg Doyel cover, finger wags at Pittsburgh for their string of close wins through the first three rounds of the tournament. He also does a pretty good side-by-side profiles of Blair and Cunningham, suggesting this is going to be a battle on the inside.

Alex Wolff over at Sports Illustrated starts out with a profile on DeJuan Blair, works in the improbability storyline (well mined) on Blair, before finishing up with a spoonful of interstate rivalry (Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia), topped with a large helping of class rivalry (Pittsburgh is working class with dirty air, the Main Line is toney...). Bring your Alka-Seltzer.

What the Bloggers say...
The NBE Blogger calls this one for Pitt, 73-67. That is a bit more than most others.
Over at the Bleacher Report a committee of writers favors Pitt, 3-2. A few basic stats to look at for those who are interested. Frequent Nova writer ? puts together a "...By the Numbers" breakdown of the two teams, on his way to teasing you into yet another click on the Bleacher Reports web site. Sorry I didn't go the extra click, so I don't know who he picked (but I'm gonna guess it might be Villanova).
The Nova Nation Blogosphere is unusually quiet this weekend. Everyone in Boston (I see Chris over at IBBW posted a quick note from Bean town, indicating that the VUAA reception is overbooked to the point where they have had to rent a second bar...some things never change)? Preparing "Regional Final/Off to the Final Four!" posts? It seems that only Let's Go Nova, VUhoops.com and the Villanovan Sports Blog have posted pregame reviews. VUHoops.com posted the latest in their pregame series, "Game 37 vs #1 Pittsburgh", which gives a run down on what has changed since their last meeting in January. Their second post, "Comparing Stats with Pitt", is more a Tale of the Tape post as they take a statistical look at the two teams. LGN's Pete posted that this might be the first of the four NCAA games so far where the Wildcats may be at a disadvantage on the interior. Meanwhile David over at the Villanovan Sports Blog seems to close the circle from the senior's freshman year, when the team ran to the Regional Finals in Minneapolis only to fall to Florida to this season, when these seniors want to take the next step.


What Pomeroy and Pythagoras Say...
Largely overlooked in the 1st few rounds of the tournament, the Wildcat's Offensive and Defensive adjusted ratings have "crossed over" into the elite territory associated with Final Four teams. The The game will be played for about 68 possessions, with the Panthers taking a 74-72 decision.

Duke Post Game -- Looking for a Shot

Post Game Pressers...
You could see it in G's eyes during Duke's post game interview. Coach K graciously credited Coach Wright's game plan and the Wildcat defense. His team missed their shots "...but Villanova had a lot to do with that...". They did not know what hit them. They knew their gameplan did not work, indeed during the game a strangely passive Coach Krzyzewski sat with a dour expression and stared into a spot on the court, as if day dreaming...or thinking. But he had no answer for the Wildcat defense. Nothing he could say that could get Clark out of Scheyer's face. Or Reggie Redding out of G's jersey. Only a referee could do that (and they did, at least for Scheyer, with 4:13 left to play, Clark was DQ'ed).

The breakdown by halves...

Opponent	Duke
	1st	2nd	Game
Pace	32.1	42.1	74.2
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Game		1st	2nd	Game
Rating	81.1	121.1	103.8		71.7	73.6	72.8
eFG%	36.2	52.9	45.3		32.0	30.0	30.8
TORate	15.6	16.6	16.2		18.7	11.9	14.8
OR%	26.3	40.0	33.3		15.0	20.8	18.2
FTA/FGA	17.2	51.4	35.9		40.0	40.0	40.0
FTM/FGA	17.2	40.0	29.7		28.0	28.6	28.3
ARate	20.0	41.2	33.3		57.1	33.3	43.8
Blk%	3.4	2.9	3.1		12.0	5.7	8.3
Stl%	9.6	11.8	10.8		12.2	2.4	6.7
PPWS	0.83	1.17	1.03		0.77	0.74	0.76
2FG%	40.9	58.3	50.0		35.7	31.6	33.3
3FG%	14.3	27.3	22.2		18.2	18.8	18.5
FT%	100.0	77.8	82.6		70.0	71.4	70.8
%2FG	69.2	54.9	59.7		43.5	38.7	40.7
%3FG	11.5	17.6	15.6		26.1	29.0	27.8
%FT	19.2	27.5	24.7		30.4	32.3	31.5

Observations & Notes...
The Wildcats put together 2 of the best halves of defense they have played in the month of March and February. Holding a 3 point shooting team like Duke to 18.5% is astounding, but also goes a long way to explain how Nova kept Duke to .728 points per possessions.
1. The pace differences between halves was striking, again. Like the UCLA game the Wildcats stepped up the tempo. Duke, like UCLA, could not keep up.
2. The Wildcats maintained a turnover rate below their season average, for both halves.
3. The offense went through Reynolds (29.3), Cunningham (24.6), Stokes (20.8) and Anderson (19.2). Though Reggie Redding scored in double digits, he (13.7), along with Fisher (15.6) and Clark (14.2) stepped back, though even without attention from Duke's defense, only Clark (1.28 PPWS) and Redding (1.38 PPWS) were especially efficient.
4. The 2nd half offensive blitz was keyed by more accurate field goal shooting, but the front court became far more efficient as they became stronger under their own basket. The Wildcat's offensive rebounding rate improved dramatically half-over-half, going from 26.3% to 40%. The front court players accounted for 17 of Nova's 27 rebounds (half of the offensive boards).
5. The point distribution for the game was a departure from Villanova's season-long norms, reflecting most likely a gameplan that emphasized an inside the arc attack on offense. While the 'Cats got their customary 25% (or so -- 24.7%) from the free throw line, they were well down on points from 3FGAs (15.6% vs 25%), the difference coming from front court scoring. The team did not fall into a jump shot contest with the Blue Devils.
6. Add Villanova's 1st 29 win season to the Class of 2009's accomplishments. The win total for this class is now 101.

Ref Notes
Most of the pregame speculation focused on 3 "Philly refs", with the primary object of speculation Bob Donato, a name familiar to many Nova fans. It turns out the crew was really J.D. Collins, Karl Hess, Michael Stuart. All three have refereed Villanova games this season. Combined, the Wildcats are 10-1 this season when one of them is in the crew. Duke won the battle of the refs, getting 24 FTAs on 23 Wildcat fouls. The numbers are well within the range (standard deviation) for fouls & free throws.

Next Up
The fourth round of the NCAAs (the Elite Eight). The opponent will be Big East conference mate, Pittsburgh, the East Regional Final game to be played in Boston at the TD Banknorth Garden, Saturday at 7:05pm.

More Sweet 16 Log5

From the log5 perspective, Thursday was the "tough" night. The probability that Louisville beats Arizona -- 77.1%. Probability that Syracuse beats Oklahoma -- 52.0% (! -- yes the Big East is that good). Probability that both win -- 40.1%. Better than last night.

I will post the by-half boxes later today. The Wildcat defense was as good as it seemed to be -- the offense was better than you might think.

On PASE? The Conferences Through Two Rounds

Looking over at Dan Hanner's Just Another Basketball Blog late last week I read through his "PASE Expectations" post. PASE, developed by Peter Tiernan over at bracketscience.com can be used to compare performance versus expectation by seed. It seemed to be a promising method for analysis, so I decided to update the PASE stats for the seeds (thanks go out to the Bracketville blogger who maintains seed stats going back to 1985. I have relied on him for NCAA Tournament seed stats for years...). So how are the conferences doing this post season...

		Wins			Teams
Conference	PASE	to Dte		%PASE	In
Sun Belt	0.50	1		2.00	0
MAAC	0.58	1		1.74	0
WCC	1.50	2		1.33	1
Horizon	0.83	1		1.21	0
A10	2.50	3		1.20	1
Big 12	8.18	9		1.10	3
PAC-10	6.00	6		1.00	1
Big Ten	7.13	6		0.84	2
CUSA	2.40	2		0.83	1
Big East	16.43	11		0.67	5
SEC	1.50	1		0.67	0
ACC	10.85	5		0.46	2
MWC	1.83	0		0.00	0

Each conference's PASE is, as pointed out by Dan's PASE post, the sum of the anticipated wins by seed history. The Big East, Big Ten and ACC may all have received 7 bids (see table above), but their respective PASEs differ because their bids were for very different seeds. I have sorted the data by Wins %PASE, derived by dividing the number of wins so far ("Wins to Dte") by the conference's PASE. This puts a few tournament performances (by conference) in a different light.

Mids, Low & Surprises
I have left most of the mid/low major conferences off the list as they lost their first round games, thereby deriving a %PASE of 0. Given that among the mid/low major conferences only the A10 (Xavier), CUSA (Memphis), Mountain West Conference (MWC -- Utah & BYU) and West Coast Conferences (WCC -- Gonzaga), had teams seeded #8 or higher, losing in the first round was hardly a shock. I kept those four conferences along with the Sun Belt, MAAC and Horizon Conferences in the table. It appears the Sun Belt Conference is the biggest winner, as their representative, Western Kentucky, exceeded expectations by 200%. Well, the Hilltoppers actually won a single game. Seeded #12 (in the South Region) facing Illinois out of the Big Ten in a first round game and winning was no small feat. Siena out of the MAAC won it's first round game for the second consecutive tournament. The Saint's latest victim, #8 seed Ohio State, I suspect, would vouch for the idea the Saints should have been seeded a bit higher. It was the Saints' misfortune to run up against Louisville in the 2nd round, and though they gave the Cardinals a good game, they did not prevail. If Coach McCaffery and his team are disappointed they did not advance farther this season, they can take solace in the knowledge that they exceeded the PASE by 174%. The Horizon brought 2 squads to the Dance this season (Cleveland State & Butler), the improbable one, Cleveland State, turned out to be the one which advanced to the 2nd round, thus redeeming the conference's reputation for scrappy and surprising teams. The Vikings are coached by ex-Rutgeres head coach Gary Waters, so if the team members did not have NCAA experience, the coach has, having taken Kent State to the Dance in the late 1990s. The A10, with Xavier still in tournament, has an opportunity to advance a bit farther up the table, but the X-Men face a tough Pittsburgh team tonight. The MWC has to be the most disappointed among these conferences. The MWC had two teams, BYU and Utah, both with seeds #8 or higher representing the conference. The MWC's PASE was 1.83 wins, but both teams were eliminated in the 1st round.

Power Conferences
Having exceeded or met expectations, the Big 12 and Pac-10 are pretty much home free. Although the Pac-10 still has Arizona active, the Western Wildcats are up against the Louisville Cardinals in a #1/#12 game in the Midwest Region. Arizona became the conference's accidental standard bearer when #4 seed (West Region) Washington fell to #5 Purdue in the 2nd round. The Big 12 had 6 bids, all of whom survived the 1st round. Three from that conference -- Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma -- survived the 2nd round, so going forward, the Big 12 is playing with house money. The biggest disappointment so far is the SEC, whose prospects with 3 bids total, two of which were low seeds (#9 & #13), were very modest at the outset. The conference was "on PASE" for 1.5 wins, but only mustered a single win (from LSU, an #8 seed) before all representatives were eliminated by the 2nd round in the 1st weekend. Among the conferences with surviving representative, the Big Ten is close to meeting expectations, the conference from the Great Lakes needs only 2 more wins to exceed their expected total of 7.13 wins. If the Big East, with 11 wins so far, looks as if they have a lot of work still to do, remember they have 5 teams still in the tournament. Should all 5 advance, the conference is guaranteed to exceed it's PASE, since one of Pittsburgh and Villanova would advance to the Final Four. Should the confernce "play to seed" through this round, the prospects are still good -- at least 2 of the Elite Eight survivors would have to advance to the Final Four, with one advancing to the national championship game. Should all three #1 seeds advance to the Final Four the Big East is guaranteed to exceed their PASE (as at least 1 will advance to the National Championship game). The ACC, the conference with the 2nd highest PASE, is under the greatest pressure. The conference has only 2 representatives, North Carolina and Duke, left in the tournament. Both must advance through this round. And should either be eliminated in the next round, the other would have to win the National Championship. Should both advance to the Final Four they would have, between them, most likely eliminated 3 Big East teams. That would leave a mark.

Log5ing Around...

Some log5 calculations for Big East teams to contemplate...

Most probable Big East Sweet Sixteen winner -- Louisville 77.1% probability to beat Arizona and send the last Pac-10 team home.
Least probable Big East Sweet Sixteen winner -- Villanova 41.0% chance of beating Duke and reducing the ACC representation to North Carolina.
Most vulnerable Big East #1 seed -- Pittsburgh, with a 68.8% probability of beating Xavier. I still like those odds.
All Big East teams win their Sweet Sixteen games -- 8.2% 5-0 is tough, but not infinitesimal as some may think...
Probability that all Big East #1s advance -- 38.5%...very nice.
Probability that all Big East #1s and Syracuse advance -- 20.0%...still pretty good.

Tale of the Tape -- Villanova & Duke

Common Opponents, Good Wins, Bad Losses...
The 'Cats and Blue Devils shared four common opponents -- two from the Big East and two from different conferences -- during the past season...

	Nova		Duke
Opponent	W/L	Diff.	W/L	Diff.
Rhode Island	W(N)	+13	W(H)	+3
St. John's	W(H)	+19	W(A)	+7
Georgetown	L(H)	-2	W(H)	+9
Texas	L(N)	-9	W(N)	+5

Both faced Rhode Island within 2 weeks of each other, but the games were played in November. Of the three remaining common opponents, the Texas score may be the least reliable as the Wildcats faced Texas early last December while the Blue Devils eliminated Texas from the NCAAs last weekend. The Georgetown and St. Johns games were played about a month apart, in January and February.

Offense, Defense, by the Numbers...
Duke and Villanova both play above the D1 average (66.5), but Villanova pushes the ball a bit more, looking for about 69 possessions per (40 minute) game, while Duke gets just over 67 possessions. Pomeroy's stats for Duke suggest the Blue Devils run an elite level offense (at 118.9 adjusted, ranked #5 in D1), while their defense is at the lower boundary for Top 20 in defensive efficiency (ranked #20 with a defensive rating of 90.9, adjusted). How do the Blue Devil's offense measure up with Villanova's defense? The numbers show a few places where it could get very competitive...

When Duke has the ball...
				FTA
	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FGA
Blue Devil O	51.0	17.4	38.2	41.4
Wildcat D	47.6	21.9	30.1	37.6

Duke has one of the most efficient offenses in D1, but they are not especially inclined to shoot from the outside, nor are they especially efficient at scoring from inside the arc. The key to Duke's offensive efficiency is good (but not great...) shooting (2s -- 49.9, 3s -- 35.5, fts -- 72.8)combined with very few turnovers and a lot of trips to the line. Duke is in the same company as Villanova and Connecticut when it comes to scoring from the free throw line. Duke's point distribution (3FGM/2FGM/FTM) at 28/49/23 is comparable to Villanova's own 26/50/24 distribution (and at variance with the D1 average of 28/52/20). The Blue Devils are good at rebounding their misses, setting up a confrontation over who will control the Duke boards and whether the Blue Devil ball handlers can work through the Wildcat pressure. Duke's Kyle Singler, Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas will compete with Cunningham, Anderson, Stokes and Pena for those rebounds. Nova players tend to be more active on the boards (both ends), with Scottie, Fisher, Clark and Redding all grabbing boards at both ends of the court. An 8.1% steal rate on offense (ranked #27) suggests they can. There is a troubling match-up over fouls. Villanova tends to give them, and Duke tends to cash in on them. As noted earlier, The Blue Devils look for those points at the line as an important component of their scoring make-up.

Looking at Villanova's offense versus Duke's defense, we find a few of the same points of competition...

When Villanova has the ball...
				FTA
	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FGA
Wildcat O	51.5	18.9	36.3	43.0
Blue Devil D	47.9	23.5	32.8	30.9

The two teams seem similar for shot and shot defense, possibly a small advantage to Villanova, given the 'Cats hit a slightly higher percentage of their 2s (50), 3s (36.5) and free throws (74.6). Duke forces turnovers and Nova is good, but not great, at valuing the ball. For rebounds however note that Nova is very good at squeezing out 2nd chance opportunities, while Duke is very average at limiting those opportunities. And again the fouling rates are troubling. Villanova needs them, but Duke is a reluctant "giver".

When I looked at just the post season games for both teams I found a suggestion there may be a different dynamic between the two squads. I looked at those games each team played in their respective conference post season tournaments and the first two rounds of the NCAAs. Many of Nova's numbers came in largely where they were during the regular season (especially in conference play), but a few of Duke's numbers changed rather significantly over these past 5 or so games. Nova's post season pace is 70.5, fairly close to their regular season (adjusted) pace -- 69.0. Duke's pace however, dropped to 62.6, well below their regular season (adjusted) pace of 67.2. It seems the strategy of slowing the pace has also yielded a higher number of 3FGAs. And a much greater accuracy -- 47.9, a much more efficient conversion rate. If Duke's offensive efficiency has improved (up to 117.7, raw), their defensive efficiency, 105.7, significantly off their regular season defensive efficiency (conference games only, 98.9, raw). Their defensive Four Factors...

Duke's Post Season Defense...
				FTA
	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FGA
Blue Devil D	51.2	22.2	38.1	27.9

The significant changes are in eFG%, TO% (down slightly) and opponent's offensive rebounding rate (way off, and very close to Villanova's rate, suggesting the 'Cats should do very well). The one area of improvement is the FTRate -- allowing opponents on the line.

Pomeroy & Pythagoras...
The log5 probabilities show Villanova has a 41% chance of taking this game. The teams will probably play for about 69 possessions, above the D1 average, and well within the Wildcat's gameplan and offensive flow. The question is which Duke pace, the season long pace, 67.2, or their post season pace, 62.6, is the more accurate estimation of the number of possessions the Blue Devils will play for. Pomeroy's efficiency comparison projects a 3 point Blue Devil win. But again the question is which Duke defense shows up, the 2nd best defense in the ACC, or the "just enough" version the Blue Devils have been playing for the past 2+ weeks...

NCAA First Round -- Conference Progress Report

Looking at the results from the first round games, I was curious to see how the power conferences did...

	Seed				Record
Conf.	#1-#8	#9-#16	Bids		W	L	Pct.
Big 12	5	1	6		6	0	1.000
Big East	7	0	7		6	1	0.857
PAC10	4	2	6		5	1	0.833
Big Ten	4	3	7		4	3	0.571
ACC	6	1	7		3	4	0.429
SEC	1	2	3		1	2	0.333

The Big 12 looks like they fared best among the power conferences. Especially notable given they had one team seeded in the lower half of the field (Texas A&M, seeded #9 beat BYU out of the Mountain West Conference). A&M fell to Connecticut 92-66 in the 2nd round. The Big East did fairly well, though it was to be expected given all 7 bids were seeded #1 through #6. The conference's lone 1st round casualty was West Virginia, the Mountaineers running into a deceptively deliberate Dayton team and falling 60-68. The Pac10s two underseeds, Arizona (#12) and USC (#10) managed to pull upsets over their 1st round opponents (Utah & Boston College, respectively), even as favored California (#7) fell to their underseeded ACC opponent Maryland. For the Mountain West Conference losses for both BYU and Utah managed to close out the conference's tournament presence. The MWC finished 0-2 this season, especially given that Utah and BYU had both earned higher seeds (#5 & #8 respectively). Only two of the Big Ten's high seeds (Michigan State and Purdue) won, the conference's reputation salvaged by low seeds Michigan and Wisconsin. Neither of those winners should be shocking. Michigan coach John Beilein is well known to Big East fans as he did a turn at West Virginia, taking several underrated Mountaineer teams deeper into the tournament than most believed they could go. Wisconsin's Bo Ryan is noted for his defense, and true to form, the Badgers strangled their first round opponent, Florida State, in a 59-61 game. Most disappointing to date has to be the ACC, which looks more like a "North Carolina, Duke & the 10 Dwarves" conference. Despite having 6 high seeds, the conference pulled a dismal 3-4 in the 1st round, the third win coming in an upset engineered by veteran Maryland coach Gary Williams. High seeds Wake Forest (#4), Florida State (#5), Boston College (#7) and Clemson (#7) all fell.

Multi-bid and other Mids
Four mid-low major conferences received high seeds, with 3 conferences pulling down multiple bids. The highest seed in the group went to Memphis of CUSA, the Tigers getting a #2 seed in the West Region. Coming out of 1st round action, the A10 conference appears to be the most prosperous, having pulled in 3 bids (Xavier #4, Dayton #11 and conference tournament winner Temple #11), with two teams (Dayton and Xavier) advancing into the 2nd round. That gives the conference a 2-1 record so far. The Horizon Conference had a surprise turn, with Butler (#9) falling in the 1st round and overlooked Cleveland State (#13), the conference tournament champion, advancing, and so giving the conference a 1-1 record so far. Both team were low seeds (though at #9 it is arguable even with #8s), so the Horizon again made some unexpected noise. The Gonzaga Bulldogs, a #4 seed out of the West Coast Conference advanced as a high seed. Not a shock. Of the other low seed, mid majors who advanced Siena (#9) out of the MAAC should not surprise those who follow Northeastern basketball, and the Sun Belt representative Western Kentucky (#12) has made (counting this season) 22 NCAA appearances, compiling a 17-20 record.

UCLA Post Game -- Then and Now

Pre Game Warmups...
Ben Howland should have known better. He coached Pittsburgh in the Big East for 4 years before heading back out West to take the helm of the storied UCLA program. Howland's period of adjustment at Pittsburgh was maybe 3 games, largely because the bruising, physical style of play he developed at Northern Arizona fit so well with the tone and tenor of the Big East. This style, a boa constrictor-type defense with an efficient but athletic, front court-oriented offense, all run by premier guards is, one assumes, what the powers that be in Westwood wanted when they lured Howland to one of the 5 (or so...) best jobs in D1 ball back in 2004. So why did Darrin Collison, as quoted by Mike Freeman (in his UCLA mea culpa, "Villanova gives UCLA a dose of Philly justice") complain that "I was just talking to the official because I thought they was fouling a little bit too hard..."? Ben Howland played Villanova 4 times going into Saturday's 2nd round game and won 3 of those tilts. His Panthers faced Jay Wright-coached teams twice (2-0) and held a 127-113 scoring edge against those teams.

The breakdown by halves...

Opponent	UCLA
	1st	2nd	Game
Pace	34.0	40.6	74.6
	Offense				Defense
	1st	2nd	Game		1st	2nd	Game
Rating	129.6	110.9	119.4		91.3	93.7	92.6
eFG%	59.7	45.8	52.2		45.5	58.0	52.1
TORate	20.6	9.9	14.8		23.6	29.6	26.8
OR%	50.0	38.1	43.2		21.4	22.2	21.9
FTA/FGA	29.0	50.0	40.3		63.6	64.0	63.8
FTM/FGA	22.6	33.3	28.4		50.0	36.0	42.6
ARate	56.3	73.3	64.5		77.8	63.6	70.0
Blk%	3.2	5.6	4.5		0.0	4.0	2.1
Stl%	11.7	7.4	9.4		8.9	19.7	14.8
PPWS	1.24	1.01	1.11		1.08	1.16	1.12
2FG%	57.9	52.2	54.8		58.3	36.4	47.8
3FG%	41.7	23.1	32.0		20.0	50.0	37.5
FT%	77.8	66.7	70.4		78.6	56.3	66.7
%2FG	50.0	53.3	51.7		45.2	21.1	31.9
%3FG	34.1	20.0	27.0		19.4	55.3	39.1
%FT	15.9	26.7	21.3		35.5	23.7	29.0

Observations & Notes...
The Executive Summary -- best given by LA Times columnist Bill Plaschke in the story he filed ("Shaken to its core...") -- "Villanova would have won if it had been played in Howland's driveway with Rick Neuheisel refereeing".
1. The 1st half pace, projected over the entire game would have been 68 -- about average for D1, and just below Nova's raw pace (69.0). The 2nd half pace, again projected over the entire game would have been 81.2 -- well above the adjusted pace for either school. The higher pace may also account for the declined in their defensive rating.
2. Good to see the Wildcats got their turnovers under control for the 2nd half. 9.9 might be one of the lowest registered for a half this season, and a bit unusual given the pace increased rather dramatically half-over-half.
3. The scoring as noted in many places, was evenly distributed, with 6 players (Anderson, Cunningham, Fisher, Redding, Reynolds and Stokes) in double figures. The offense however, went through Anderson (24.5), Clark (26.0), Cunningham (27.2) and Stokes (25.8) when they were on the floor. Each took approximately 25% (or more, see parenthesis) of the shots when they were playing. Fisher, Redding and Reynolds were all very efficient with their scoring, but stepped back to give the wings & front court their scoring opportunities. The shot distribution is typical for Cunningham, who has emerged as the offensive force this season, and Stoke's number is close to where he usually comes in, but Anderson's number is more typical of the late season, when Dwayne has stepped in to take more shots than he did earlier in the regular season. Shane's Shot% is a bit distorted given his limited playing time, but definitely unusual. I suspect the staff drew up a gameplan that had the wing/forward spots getting more shots.
4. Among the most efficient with their scoring opportunities -- Corey Fisher (eFG% 64.3/PPWS 1.46), Dante Cunningham (63.6/1.26), Corey Stokes (60.0/1.20), Shane Clark (57.1/1.14) and Reggie Redding (53.6/1.31 -- Reggie went 4-4 from the line).
5. Dante's numbers are amazing. Again. Though Fisher was more efficient, Dante took nearly 30% of the possessions, >27% of the shots, and still managed to convert nearly 2/3s of this opportunities. He is not sneaking up on anyone anymore this season. The Bruins knew he was coming, and they could not stop him.
6. The Class of 2009 became the first class in Villanova history to win 100 games during their run on the Main Line. They broke the Class of 2008's record 96 wins at the end of the regular season (vs Providence), and have since gone on to post a 100-35 (and counting...) record, good for a 74.1% winning percentage.

Ref Notes
John Cahill, D.J. Carstensen & Mike Wood manned the crew for this game. Even noting the "hard fouls", the game was not exceptional for fouls whistled nor free throws taken for Villanova on a neutral court this season. All three have refereed Villanova games, Cahill and Wood in this season. Combined, the Wildcats are 6-1 this season when one of them is in the crew.

Next Up
The third round of the NCAAs (the Sweet Sixteen). The opponent will be Duke, the game to be played in Boston at the TD Banknorth Garden, on Thursday. The NCAA will announce the time.