While the Bruins find themselves part way into a late-season surge into bowl eligibility, other members of the Pac-10 are fighting for fighting for the Number One spot. The race to the top is particularly wide open this year, with half of the conference retaining some hope of advancing to the Rose Bowl, under scenarios ranging from "win and you're in" to a Rube Goldberg-esk, LSAT-worthy game of logic to decipher.

Oregon and Arizona each have the simplest paths: win and they are in. Assuming that it can pull out a win in the Palouse next Saturday, Oregon State has a reasonable shot at Pasadena, though requiring help. While Stanford has looked to be the team to beat over the past month, it will need the previous three teams to all fall in order for its New Years plans to change. USC, oddly enough considering the past three weeks, still has a theoretical shot at another Rose Bowl appearance, the sheer improbability of which would make the series of events enabling it almost worth the price of (SC's) admission. The scenarios for each still-eligible team to advance to the Rose Bowl follows:

Continue reading this post »

Rebumped. GO BRUINS. -N

UPDATE - 10/2. CTO has returned a part of its ticket allotment to Stanford. As of 4pm, the Stanford ticket office has a limited number of tickets in the UCLA section remaining, specifically in the upper rows of section 226. Reserved seats elsewhere in the stadium, as well as general admission tickets do remain, and will remain available tomorrow morning at the stadium box office.

Bumped. Note if you are looking to get tickets in the UCLA section make sure you contact CTO as well. Let's swarm the Farm with a sea of Bruin blue. GO BRUINS.

Photo Credit: marvin51campbell (flickr)

For anybody thinking of making the trip to Palo Alto for Saturday's game that does not yet have tickets, Stanford does have tickets available for purchase online through this link.

General admission tickets are $12, while reserved tickets range from $20-$45 - UCLA section tickets (if available) are $20, and are located in the northeast corner of the stadium, between the GA section and the UCLA sideline. Tickets can be printed at home or picked up at will call day of game.

I don’t think the game will be a complete sell out (iirc, the Cal game 2 years ago is the only sellout at the new stadium), but between last night’s result and a greater excitement among Stanford fans this year, it could come close.

As part of a series examining the life after retirement of various athletes, today's Washington Post has a rather lengthy piece on Ed O'Bannon. While Ed's life after basketball is not a new story for many of us on BN, it is an interesting read, discussing his post-NBA life playing overseas as well as his newcareer in Las Vegas.

As an aside, I am nearly certain that PAA was on the LAX-Dulles redeye that I just got off of.

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

Well, didn't last night's finish take a few months off our our lives. After squeaking out a win in a game reminiscent of the second-round battles of recent years, our Bruins now face the real second-round game, against a Villanova wildcats team playing on its second home court.

Villanova enters Saturday's game with a 27-7 record, earning an at-large berth and the East region's #3 seed after finishing 4th in the Big East. In the Big East Tournament, the Wildcats edged out a one point victory against Marquette before losing to Louisville in the Semifinal round, 69-55. The Wildcats played a fairly difficult version of the unbalanced Big East schedule, with home-and-home matchups with Syracuse, Marquette, and Providence; in conference, they played 10 games against NCAA tournament teams, 12 games against tournament competitors overall, with a 6-6 record (Entering the week, UCLA had played 14 games against NCAA tournament competitors, with a 7-7 record).

Villanova and UCLA have faced two three common opponents: Texas, DePaul and Notre Dame, with similar results. Villanova lost to Texas, 67-58 in New York on December 9, won at DePaul, 74-72, and defeated Notre Dame in their penultimate regular season game, 77-60 in South Bend. The Bruins lost to Texas in Austin by a 68-64 score, beat DePaul 72-54 in the Wooden Classic , and beat Notre Dame, 89-63 in Pauley. [edit to include DePaul, HT to godblesstyus]

Now to the numbers...

RPI UCLA: #33, Villanova: #13

Pomeroy UCLA: #10, Villanova: #19

Sagarin UCLA: #17, Villanova: #16

The variance among the different computer ratings in relation to the treatment of UCLA is certainly notable here. While the RPI of the Bruins compared to Villanova reinforces the seeding advantage held by the Wildcats, the other, more predictive rating systems see a much closer matchup.

One quick note about the three rating systems which I cite here. Each of the ratings uses a different methodology, and a different way of measuring success in order to come up with a ranking. The RPI uses a formula based upon the win % of each team, plus the win % of each of its opposing teams, and the win % of the opponent's opponents. This formula does not look at how each team earns its record (does not look at score margin, turnovers or anything other than Wins and Losses). Ken Pomeroy's formula, rather than focusing on only W-L, uses a complex set of game data which aims to predict future performance, rather than accounting for how good or bad a team has performed to date. The Sagarin ranking that I post here is actually a synthesis of two separate ratings which Sagarin calculates; one being an RPI-like formula taking into account only wins and losses, the other taking into score margin rather than a team's record.

Sagarin considers the latter of his formulas to be the better predictor of future performance. To illustrate the different results which arise, and to give us additonal points of reference going into tomorrow afternoon, here are the the ratings broken down by formula.

Sagarin Won-Loss: UCLA: #21, Villanova: #10

Sagarin Predictive: UCLA: #10, Villanova: #19

While the Sagarin Predictive formula, from what I can gather, is functionally quite different from Pomeroy, they both come up with the same relative ranking of these teams, and both find UCLA to be the better team, though by a slight margin.

Next is a look at the efficiency metrics and pace of play for the Bruins and Villanova.

Villanova

* Offense: 114.3 points/100 possessions (#24 in D-1)

* Defense: 91.4 points/100 possessions (#27 in D-1)

* Pace: 68.8 possessions/40 minutes (#74 in D-1)

UCLA

* Offense: 120.6 points/100 possessions (#3 in D-1)

* Defense: 92.8 points/100 possessions (#43 in D-1)

* Pace: 66.4 possessions/40 minutes (#163 in D-1)

As rye noted in his post on Villanova, the Wildcats play at a noticeably faster pace than do the Bruins, gaining about two and a half additional possessions per game. Their success has also been well balances among both sides of the court.

Using the above efficiency measures, together with the average pace of the two teams' play, the average game score of each team, based upon an equal schedule composed of average Division 1 teams would be:

Villanova: 79-63

UCLA: 80-62

By all measures, tomorrow's game looks to be a tight battle; no matter who comes out on top, I would expect the result to come down to the final possession or two, where I hope that a repeat of last night's last second defensive lockdown will allow our Bruins to spend a few extra days on the east coast and a trip up I-95 to Boston.

Pomeroy projects the Bruins to win a nail-biter, 74-73, accounting for Villanova's semi-home court advantage, with the Wildcats holding a 47% chance of winning. Sagarin's combined formula predicts a 4-point Villanova win, if the game is considered to be played on their home court, while the predictive formula alone calls for a 1-point Villanova win. Go Bruins!

 

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

For those of you that were not around at tournament time last year, I wrote up a series of posts, one before each game, looking at the numbers underlying the performance of our upcoming opponent, with a strong focus on Pomeroy and Sagarin's ratings and adjusted statistics. As this seemed to create good mojo last year (through the first two weeks, at least), I thought that I would try again.

As has been the subject of much discussion on this site since Sunday night, we will be facing VCU tomorrow night in Philly. I will leave talk of seeding and upsets for other posts.

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) enters the tournament with a 24-9 record, having won the Colonial Athletic Association regular season and tournament championships. VCU defeated Georgia State, ODU, and George Mason to earn the CAA's automatic bid, and the east region's 11 seed. The Rams are riding a 5 game win streak, following a Bracketbusters loss @ Nevada on February 20.

VCU has played 2 games against NCAA tourney teams: a 73-69 home win vs. Akron, and an 81-70 loss to Oklahoma in Oklahoma City. The Bruins and Rams share no common opponents.

Now to the numbers...

RPI UCLA: #33, VCU: #50

Pomeroy Rating UCLA: #9, VCU: #56

Sagarin Rating UCLA: #17, VCU: #74

One of the things that quickly comes to mind when looking at the various computer ratings is where we rate compared to our seeding, and the variance between the RPI and other computer ratings when it comes to UCLA. While I expect a hard fought game on both sides, which likely will be close throughout, it is not the tossup-to-clear upset pick that many in the press would like us to believe. VCU is a good team, but a win tomorrow would be a major upset.

Next is a look at the efficiency metrics and pace of play for the Bruins and VCU.

VCU

* Offense: 108.0 points/100 possessions (#74 in D-1)

* Defense: 93.6 points/possession (#49 in D-1)

* Pace: 67.1 possessions/40 minutes

VCU's pace of play most closely approximates Cal among this season's UCLA opponents, though VCU's defensive metrics rate better than those of Cal (along with a weaker offense)

UCLA

* Offense: 120.9 points/100 possessions (#3 in D-1)

* Defense: 92.6 points/100 possessions (#41 in D-1)

* Pace: 66.6 possessions/40 minutes

Using the above efficiency measures, together with the average pace of the two teams' play, the average game score of each team, based upon an equal schedule composed of average Division 1 teams would be:

VCU: 72-63

UCLA: 81-62

This game will be a much greater opening round test than our Bruins are used to, only Josh Shipp among this year's players has played a 1st round game against anything but a lower-tier automatic qualifier. Tomorrow will not be the light warmup that we have become accustomed to the past 3 seasons.

Pomeroy is projecting a 75-66 Bruin victory, with a 20% chance of VCU pulling the upset, while Sagarin's formula predicts a 7-8 point UCLA win. A close 1st round game, which could be thrown into question by another lackadaisical start, or DC's health status.

Or, as SJH asks, I shall deliver. The linked post raised the issue of comparison between the efficiency of our starting 5 and the bench, as well as comparing particular players on a per minute basis. In light of this, I have calculated the per minute statistics in 5 categories [points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocked shots] for each of the scholarship players on this year's roster. I will present two sets of these statistics: One set consist of the entire season to date, while the second set reflects games played since the Pac-10 opener (Pac-10 play + Notre Dame). The first set has the advantage of a larger sample size, while the latter better reflects the state of the team at this point, as well as the stronger level of competition which the team now faces.

The season-long data set:

Points/Rebounds/Assists/Steals/Blocks (per minute played)

Collison: 28 games, 31.5 mpg:  0.47    0.07    0.16    0.052    0.005
Holiday: 28 games, 26.6 mpg:   0.34    0.14    0.13    0.055    0.017
Shipp: 26 games, 28.3 mpg:      0.48    0.11    0.06    0.046    0.014
Dragovic: 27 games, 22.6 mpg: 0.39    0.16    0.06    0.036    0.015
Aboya: 28 games, 27.0 mpg:     0.37    0.22    0.02    0.030    0.008
Roll: 28 games, 17.8 mpg:         0.42    0.08    0.08    0.036    0.016
Keefe: 27 games, 15.0 mpg:     0.20    0.24    0.02    0.030    0.010
Lee: 23 games, 11.0 mpg:         0.31    0.14    0.06    0.052    0.079
Gordon: 28 games, 10.7 mpg:  0.35    0.33    0.02    0.060    0.040
Anderson: 28 games, 8.7 mpg: 0.29    0.07    0.13    0.049    0.020
Morgan: 18 games, 5.6 mpg:     0.46    0.20    0.04    0.010    0.100

The statistics dating from the start of conference play:

Points/Rebounds/Assists/Steals/Blocks (per minute played)

Collison: 16 games, 33.2 mpg:  0.45    0.07    0.14    0.041    0.004
Holiday: 16 games, 26.8 mpg:   0.29    0.13    0.14    0.042    0.012
Shipp: 16 games, 30.1 mpg:      0.48    0.09    0.06    0.031    0.015
Dragovic: 16 games, 26.3 mpg: 0.42    0.16    0.05    0.043    0.007
Aboya: 16 games, 28.2 mpg:     0.38    0.22    0.03    0.024    0.009
Roll: 16 games, 17.9 mpg:         0.39    0.06    0.07    0.042    0.021
Keefe: 15 games, 11.7 mpg:     0.18    0.23    0.01    0.021    0.007
Gordon: 16 games, 10.8 mpg:  0.33    0.26    0.02    0.052    0.029
Lee: 12 games, 8.9 mpg:           0.21    0.15    0.03    0.056    0.019
Anderson: 16 games, 7.8 mpg: 0.23    0.06    0.14    0.048    0.008
Morgan: 7 games, 3.7 mpg:       0.54    0.12    0.04    0.000    0.038

The statistics do shed light on a few areas of interest which have come up on this site form time to time. On a per-minute basis, Drew Gordon has been the team's most efficient rebounder, as well as the most efficient in creating steals and blocked shots. Josh Shipp has been the team's most efficient scorer, slightly besting DC. After a slow start to the season, Nicola Dragovic has become the team's 3rd most efficient scorer.

For all of his recent, much discussed struggles, Jrue Holiday has been the equal of DC in creating assists and steals on the defensive side of the ball. Malcolm Lee rates equal to or better than the other Bruin wings in rebounding, steals and blocked shots. James Keefe rates as the #2 rebounder on the team, but rates as the least efficient scoring threat, as well as on the lower end of the list in steals and blocks.

While the conclusions which one takes from these stats may differ, I do think that a case can be made for giving Drew Gordon and Malcolm Lee additional playing time. The trick is juggling the lineup as to minimize any harm to the team's scoring ability, while realizing the potential benefit in rebounding and in these (admittedly limited) defensive metrics.

Bumped. GO BRUINS. - N

Ok, so I do not have a definite set of reasons for the ups and downs in this basketball season, or a roadmap showing what our warriors need to do to finish this season with a Pauley banner-raising ceremony. What I do have is a look at how the game statistics have differed between Bruin wins and losses over the course of this season. Much of what I have discovered falls into the "no duh" category, while other sets of data had surprisingly little correlation to game outcome

I Imagine that few here would be surprised to hear that the most significant variance between Bruin wins and losses has come thanks to the SPTR's, relating to the number of fouls called, and opportunities at the line for both teams.

FTm-FTa, FT% (Fouls awarded) [per game averages]

UCLA win:

UCLA: 14.1-19.6, .719 (17.0)

Opponent: 11.3-17.1, .663 (16.8)

 

UCLA loss:

UCLA: 8.0-11.9, .675 (15.3)

Opponent: 16.7-21.4, .780 (19.0)

In games which the Bruins have won, each team has, on average, been called for an approximately equal number of fouls, with the Bruins attempting 2.5 more free throws than their opponent. In Bruin losses, the opposing team has drawn slightly less than 4 fouls more than the Bruins, but have had an even greater knack for getting to the line, attempting 9.5 more free throws than the Bruins in those games. The idea that more fouls + fewer free throws = lose is not exactly thinking outside of the box, but having a basis for the idea can't hurt.

Another statistical category which shows a noticeable variance among wins and losses is UCLA Defensive Rebounding/opponent Offensive rebounding. While success in offensive rebounding displays no correlation to winning (the Bruins have fractionally outperformed in losses over victories on the offensive end), the average number of defensive rebounds varies greatly between Bruin wins and losses, as do offensive rebounds by the opposing team.

UCLA

Win: 31.1 rebounds/game (21.35 defensive)

Loss: 25.9 rebounds/game (15.86 defensive)

 

Opponent:

UCLA win: 26.6 rebounds/game (7.9 offensive)

UCLA loss: 25.0 rebounds/game (8.7 offensive)

In victory, the Bruins have brought in an average of 5.5 more defensive rebounds (a whopping 34.6% more) than in losses, while opponents have recovered nearly 1 more offensive rebound in games which they win (10% more) despite totaling fewer  rebounds in sum in victories over the ben ball warriors.

Three-point shooting holds another statistical variance between wins and losses. There is a certain logic to the idea that a losing team will shoot more 3-pointers in an attempt to make up ground, particularly late in the game. In UCLA's case, the numbers bear this out. Interestingly, UCLA's opponents also attempted more 3-point shots in games which the Bruins fell.

3PTm-3PTa, 3PT% (per game average)

UCLA:

Win: 7.5-18.1, .416

Loss: 7.6-20.7, .366

 

Opponent:

UCLA win: 4.7-14.0, .333

UCLA loss: 6.7-16.9, .398

While the number of made 3-point shots remains roughly the same for the Bruins win or lose, they attempt 2.6 more shots to do so. This suggests that, even with the long-range proficiency of several of our players, jacking up a bunch of 3's is not necessarily the best strategy when the team is locked in a tight battle. Allowing a hot shooting opponent to take a high number of shots from behind the arc, to no surprise, is also correlated to Bruin losses.

While other other statistics show a strong correlation to wins and losses, such as shooting % and assist/turnover ratio, the number of shots attempted show very little variation among wins and losses, for both the Bruins and opponents.

FGm-FGa, FG%; Assist/TO ratio

UCLA

Win: 29.2-56.1, .520; 1.32/1

Loss: 25.7-56.6, .455; 1.03/1

 

Opponent:

UCLA win: 22.0-55.4, .437; 0.60/1

UCLA loss: 24.7-55.1, .493; 1.06/1

Many of the lessons which looking at the numbers associated with wins as compared to losses are basic and rather obvious (Shoot better! Protect the ball!...), there are other statistical variations which may be of interest in watching the last few weeks of this season play out. While taking care to note that correlation with a result does not necessarily imply causation, as well as the capriciousness of the SPTR's, it can be helpful to know what the effect of foul call distribution has been, as well as the importance of defensive rebounding and the knowledge that attempting to shoot out of a long-range slump in volume is not always the best way to win a game.

With the start of the Pac-10 regular season now upon us, I thought that another view toward conference play might be in order. Ken Pomeroy's  CBB ratings are an informative look at the current state of D-1 basketball.

A quick note to start; while his ratings are, IMO, as good a rating formula as is currently available for the college game, at this early stage in the season, it is not perfect for the purpose of comparing teams into the future. His methodology uses season team performance updated on a daily basis - while as good a way to accurately gauge performance as we have, can present problems when looking into the future, particularly when teams have varying mixes of youth and experience, whose maturity and skill may grow at different rates (for example, UNC have a highly talented and experienced team, having returned most of last years' Final Four team. While they will undoubtedly get better as the year goes by, the positive effect of additional games and practices is likely less for them as for a team composed largely of freshmen, or other first-time collegiate starters). This is likely just a long way of saying that I like the current update of this data to look at a few points of interest heading onto conference play, rather than guessing who is going to win.

As of this afternoon, the projection for Pac-10 play is as follows:

Arizona St: 14-4 (17-1); 9-0, 8-1

UCLA: 12-6 (14-4); 9-0, 6-3

Washington: 11-7 (10-8); 8-1, 2-7

Stanford: 10-8 (10-8); 8-1, 2-7

Cal: 10-8 (9-9); 7-2, 2-7

Washington St: 9-9 (9-9); 7-2, 2-7

USC: 9-9 (9-9); 7-2, 2-7

Arizona: 9-9 (9-9); 7-2, 2-7

Oregon: 4-14 (2-16); 1-8, 1-8

Oregon St: 2-16 (0-18); 0-9, 0-9

The first W-L record is the overall conference record projected for each team, factoring in some level of luck (or lack of) and other variables, and is independent of specific matchups. The second record is the product of the sum of the projected results for all Pac-10 conference games. The third record reflects the projected home record for each team, while the fourth record reflects the projected away record for each team.

 

Continue reading this post »

With all of the attention surrounding Dewayne Walker taking the NMSU job, and the Kenny debacle, the bowl season may have lapsed from the general Bruin consciousness. With the Rose Bowl to go, the Pac-10 is now 4-0 in this bowl season. In this afternoon's Sun Bowl, Oregon State defeated Big East runner-up Pitt, 3-0, in the lowest scoring bowl game in 50 years.

After allowing Oregon to score 65 points in their regular season finale, the Beavers held the Panthers to only 178 total yards, and allowed only a single failed (58 yard) FG attempt in the final two minutes of regulation.

Congrats to Oregon State on a successful end to this season. And to the University of Arizona, and to Cal, and Oregon. Here's to a 4-1 bowl record for the Pac-10 in 2008-09!

In examining the performance of the Bruin basketball team over these early weeks of the season, one of the keys in evaluating this team and its future outlook is the youth and inexperience of many of the players. This year's roster does not start from a position of maximum depth; 11 out of 13 possible scholarships have been used. After factoring in the heralded 5-man freshman class, we are faced with only 6 returning scholarship players (number crunching done for my fellow north campus majors ;).

SJH, in his post-Texas thoughts, raised the point that the team, as it now stands, has only two players with significant experience. This got me thinking about truly how much playing time and experience that this team has. Entering the season, the returning players and their experience follows:

Collison: 107 games, 76 starts, 28.5 minutes/game

Shipp: 107 games, 102 starts, 30.5 minutes/game

Aboya: 107 games, 17 starts, 15.7 minutes/game

Roll: 80 games, 0 start, 15.4 minutes/game

Keefe: 57 games, 1 start, 8.9 minutes/game

Dragovic: 31 games, 0 start, 8.3 minutes/game

DC and Josh Shipp are the undisputed anchors of this team, with over 3,000 career minutes logged over 107 games each. As a senior who has started a handful of games over his UCLA career, it may not be entirely accurate to characterize Alfred Aboya as inexperienced, but he is being asked to fill a new role this season as the team's primary post presence - with a corresponding increase in minutes and a need for greater discipline without Kevin Love or LRM to help shoulder the load. 

James Keefe's main collegiate experience comes from a handful of games at the tail end of last season. While the minutes that he played in the last postseason were productive, the fact remains that he had started only 1 game entering this season, and averaged fewer than 9 minutes per game played at UCLA.

To date, Michael Roll has played a role similar to that during his freshman and sophomore seasons, though as a result of the foot injury which caused him to miss most of last season (and receive a medical redshirt), Roll has played only a handful of games in the last 20 months. After being kept out of the opener, Nikola Dragovic has seen his playing time increase dramatically in these early contests, in contrast to the limited playing time granted him during his first two years in Westwood.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

This past Sunday's CFB post led to an very interesting series of comments, some of which involved the current state of the BCS picture. While this does not have any direct effect on the Bruins, it was suggested that my comments on the subject may be of interest.

With the advent of the National Championship Game in addition to the existing bowl structure, 10 teams participate in the BCS. The champion of each BCS member conference (ACC, Big 10, Big XII, Big East, Pac-10, and SEC) gain automatic berths, leaving 4 "at-large" spots. The at-large teams are chosen by each BCS bowl that has an open berth, by an annually rotating order.

While at-large berths are, by definition not predetermined, there are certain BCS rules which apportion at-large spots.

The #1 and #2 ranked teams in the final BCS standings play in the national championship game, without regard to conference champion status. If either of those teams did not win its conference (such as Nebraska, 2001) or is the champion of a non-BCS conference, that team takes one of the at-large spots.

The #3 ranked team in the final BCS ranking, if not the champion of a BCS conference, is guaranteed an at-large berth (unless another at-large team from the same conference has qualified for the national championship game). If the #3 team does not require an at-large berth, the #4 ranked team may qualify in the same manner.

Another at-large rule comes from the compromise made a few years ago, with the intent of allowing greater access to highly ranked teams from non-BCS conferences. An exception allowing up to one team per year from a non-BCS conference to gain an automatic bid was created, as follows:

3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

  A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
  B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

No more than one such team from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, and the Western Athletic Conference shall earn an automatic berth in any year. (Note: a second team may be eligible for at-large eligibility as noted below.) If two or more teams from those conferences satisfy the provisions for an automatic berth, then the team with the highest finish in the final BCS Standings will receive the automatic berth, and the remaining team or teams will be considered for at-large selection if it meets the criteria.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

With only 3 days to go until the big night, Chad Ford of ESPN has released his latest mock draft; this update includes a projection of the 2nd round in addition to the common lottery or 1st round projections popular with most outlets.

While the top 2 spots are considered to be set with some combination of Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley, and Juice Deuce a strong contender for the 3rd pick, the real news at the top of the board is the steady rise of Russell Westbrook. Ford now has Westy being selected 4th overall by the Seattle Sonics.

The skinny: We've had Bayless at No. 4 since our first mock draft, but we've gathered enough information over the weekend to suggest that the Sonics may be leaning in another direction.

GM Sam Presti is notoriously tough to read, but sources say it appears that Westbrook, Lopez and Indiana's Eric Gordon are strongly in the mix at No. 4.

So why Westbrook? Two reasons: upside and defense. The Sonics have time to let players develop and Westbrook could turn into a better shooting version of Rajon Rondo down the road

While Westbrook's draft stock is taking a last minute jump, Kevin Love's status has remained steady. Ford has him going to Charlotte with the #9 pick.

The skinny: If the draft plays out this way, Charlotte will have a very difficult decision to make. The Bobcats have been looking for a big man so they can slide Emeka Okafor over to the 4 full-time, and Brook Lopez would be a great complement to Okafor up front.

But a lot of teams are questioning Lopez's upside ... That's where Love comes in. He's a Larry Brown type of player -- he knows how to "play the right way." Love would bring toughness, rebounding, basketball IQ and the ability to step in and contribute right now. While he doesn't have ideal size, he knows his way around the basket

The Lottery status of Love and Westbrook has not been subject to much doubt, particularly here, but the professional prospects of Luc Richard have been up for a lively debate. For Luc's sake, let us hope that Chad Ford's projection is correct.

37. Milwaukee Bucks

Luc Richard Mbah a Moute | SF | UCLA
The Bucks want to keep adding toughness and Mbah a Moute has the potential to be an exceptional defender. He's not going to score a lot, but he can guard just about anyone.

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

In the ongoing saga of Reggie Bush and his one-time relationship with the aspiring sports agents/marketers of New Era Sports, New Era partner Lloyd Lake had been scheduled to give a deposition today in San Diego. While this meeting was not interrupted by Bush's armed posse, Reggie did find a new way to cut this one short.

Yahoo Sports reports that at the start of Lake's deposition, counsel for Bush filed a motion which would have effectively barred Lake from talking, under a theory that the settlement reached last year between Bush's parents and New Era partner Michael Michaels (regarding allegations that Mr and Mrs Bush received approximately $300,000 in benefits from the firm) prevents Lake from giving testimony regarding Bush's relationship with Lake and New Era

Proceedings halted less than 10 minutes after Lake’s deposition was to begin. Bush’s attorney David Cornwell said the motion was to compel Lake to adhere to the terms of the settlement reached between Michaels and Bush’s parents – LaMar and Denise Griffin.

An irritated Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis admonished both sides, but ultimately agreed to postpone all depositions in the case and schedule a hearing for Aug. 1 to discuss the motion.

The motion filed by Bush's counsel is the first confirmation of the previously reported settlement between Michaels and Bush's family; while the general discussion regarding the continuing course of litigation between Bush and Lake has presupposed that Lake is free to testify as to his relationship with Bush (and as rumors of settlement offers between the parties may support), counsel is now asserting that: 1) Lake is bound by the settlement between Michaels and Bush's family, and 2) Bush is covered under the settlement as an "intended beneficiary" of the settlement.

Cornwell [ed. Bush's counsel] said the settlement with Michaels included Bush as an “intended beneficiary” of Michaels, releasing the family of any liabilities. A copy of the settlement filed with the court was heavily edited, removing almost all detail of the transaction.

My own knowledge of Civil Procedure, Depos, and other relevant law covering this sort of settlement in California is limited, so anyone that can shed some light, please feel free.

The big point to come out of this, at least as the agreement is interpreted by Lake and his counsel, is that Bush and/or his family did take money from New Era.

“They’re conceding that they received this money,” Lake’s attorney Brian Watkins said. “But now their argument is that: ‘We got this money, but we paid it back already. We paid it to Michaels and that satisfied Lloyd’s debts.”

Lake was more succinct.

“The key thing is (they said) they never took money before,” Lake said. “Now, they’re saying they did.”

ESPN reports that Stanford has offered its open head coaching position to Duke assistant coach Johnny Dawkins, and that Dawkins has accepted. Dawkins currently serves as associate head coach at Duke; he played at Duke from 1982-86, and was twice named to the  All-America team at point guard, and where he returned as an assistant coach in 1998. He also serves as an assistant on the US National team under Coach K.

In one sense, Dawkins is not a bad choice to enter the farm, in that he has experience in recruiting to a school that has strong academic requirements (whatever we may think of Duke/Coach K, they are not Memphis, or SC). It seems that Dawkins is held with some esteem by the Duke fanbase; a quick look at the Duke boards paints a picture of a well respected assistant, with some seeing him as a possible successor to coach K. On the other hand, the track record of Coach K's former assistant coaches after being given head jobs does not strike fear into opponents' hearts (see messrs. Amaker and Snyder).

Not a bad hire in my opinion, but not a hire that I see threatening UCLA's leadership of the Pac-10.

Bumped. Let's hope hoo has to do one more of these posts in next 48 hours. GO BRUINS. -N

Its the night before the Final Four, and all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even... Ok, I really do not have an ending for that one. It is Final Four time, what does that matter! As a brief aside, no matter how this weekend turns out, the idea that UCLA has now appeared in three consecutive Final Fours is simply amazing to me. As someone whose time at UCLA saw the final death throes of the "coach" who shall not be named, seeing the team on such a run of success so soon afterward goes to show just how great of a job that Ben Howland has done, no matter what happens over the next 72 hours. Now, on to Memphis.

Memphis enters the national semifinals with a 37-1 record, as the #1 seed out of the South region after winning the Conference USA conference regular season and conference championships. Memphis has defeated UT-Arlington, Mississippi State, Michigan State, and Texas to reach the Final Four.

UCLA and Memphis have faced four common opponents: USC, Arizona, Michigan State, and Texas. Memphis defeated all of these teams, the closest contest being a 62-58 OT win over USC at Madison Square Garden in early December. Entering the tournament, Memphis had played 9 games against tourney opponents, with an 8-1 record. As with last week, having made it this deep into the tournament makes this figure of dubious value at this point.

Going into the numbers...

RPI UCLA: #4, Memphis: #3
Pomeroy Rating UCLA: #2, Memphis: #3
Sagarin Rating UCLA: #4, Memphis: #3

As was the case with Xavier last Saturday, Memphis is the highest rated opponent that we have played this season. This is additionally the first game that UCLA has played against a team that is rated above it in the computer ratings, and the second game that UCLA has played against a team with a higher ranking in the AP or Coaches poll (first WSU game - WSU #4, UCLA #5).

Now for the efficiency metrics and pace of play...

Memphis

• Offense: 120.8 points/100 possessions (#4 in D-1)
  
• Defense: 84.2 points/100 possessions (#5 in D-1)
  
• Pace: 69.4 possessions/40 minutes

Overall, Memphis ranks 3rd in offensive and in defensive efficiency among final four teams (UCLA rates 4th in offense, and 1st in defensive efficiency, btw), and is the most efficient team that UCLA has faced in the tournament; among all UCLA opponents, only Texas' offense was a more efficient unit than either of Memphis' units.

UCLA

• Offense: 120.3 points/100 possessions (#7 in D-1)
  
• Defense: 83.4 points/100 possessions (#2 in D-1)
  
• Pace: 65.4 possessions/40 minutes

Using the above efficiency measures, together with the average pace of the two teams' play, the average game score of each team, based upon an equal schedule composed of average Division 1 teams would be:

• Memphis: 84-58
  
• UCLA: 79-55

A very close matchup, as you can see. If one simply looks at the margins for the above average scores, Memphis has a slight advantage, due mainly to the extra possessions taking advantage of their offensive efficiency. The computers agree that the matchup is a very close one, but with differing outcomes. Sagarin's formula gives Memphis an advantage of about a half-point. Pomeroy's projection yields a 68-67 UCLA victory, with a 52% probability of winning.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

Another night, another battle to the end for our warriors on the past Thursday night. Between sheer exhaustion from last night's game, and other outside factors (that may have been alluded to off-site to a certain mod ;-) ), this little writeup got pushed back more than I expected. Whether you like looking through this stuff, or see it as one more little bit of mojo, here you go. I'm just going to leave last night's performance alone and discuss our upcoming matchup with Xavier.

Xavier enters Saturday's game with a 30-6 record, entering the tourney as the West's #3 seed by way of an at-large bid. While the team won the Atlantic-10 Conference by 3 games in the regular season, a loss to St. Joes in the conference semi-finals necessitated the at-large. Xavier has defeated Georgia, Purdue, and West Virginia to advance to the Elite Eight.

UCLA and Xavier have faced one common opponent this season, Arizona State. Xavier suffered its worst lost of the year in the desert, losing 77-55  to the Sun Devils in Tempe. Entering the tournament, Xavier had played 9 games against tourney opponents, with a 4-5 record; a statistic that admittedly does not hold much significance as they have made it this far into the tournament regardless.

Going into the numbers...

RPI UCLA: #4, Xavier: #9
Pomeroy Rating UCLA: #2, Xavier: #15
Sagarin Rating UCLA: #4, Xavier: #10

Basic lesson is that Xavier is, according to the rankings, the most closely matched opponent we have yet faced in the tourney. If one gives significance to the ratings, Xavier is not simply a lucky team, but a legit team that well earned its seed, and its place in this round. Also, we have fallen behind Memphis in the Sagarin ratings, from #3 to #4, for whatever that is worth.

Now for the efficiency metrics and pace of play...

Xavier

• Offense: 118.5 points/100 possessions (#10 in D-1)
  
• Defense: 90.9 points/100 possessions (#29 in D-1)
  
• Pace: 65.5 possessions/40 minutes

In terms of offense, Xavier is the 5th most efficient team in the Elite Eight (UCLA is 4th); while on defense, they are 6th (UCLA is 1st). In both of these measures, Xavier is the most efficient team that we have faced in the tournament. Xavier's pace of play is very close to that of UCLA throughout the season, and is slower than any Elite Eight team other than Texas.

UCLA

• Offense: 119.1 points/100 possessions (#7 in D-1)
  
• Defense: 83.4 points/100 possessions (#3 in D-1)
  
• Pace: 65.7 possessions/40 minutes

Using the above efficiency measures, together with the average pace of the two teams' play, the average game score of each team, based upon an equal schedule composed of average Division 1 teams would be:

• Xavier: 78-60
  
• UCLA: 78-55

As you can see, a close matchup compared to what was expected for our prior two games. Pomeroy's projection gives us a slightly greater advantage, 68-62, with a 74% probability of winning.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. -M

Well, that last game sure was a battle. As I argued could be the case in my last preview, Texas A&M looked far from the #9 seed that they came into the game possessing. This time, we get to look forward to a matchup with the Hilltoppers of Western Kentucky, who before the past weekend was typically thought of as the school with the big red blob of a mascot. WKU has a couple of strong players, including a possible 1st round draft pick in Courtney Lee. I'll leave discussion of Courtney and his teammates to others here that may have more insights as to his effect on the game. While WKU is not regarded as quite the test that Texas A&M was, they are not a team that can simply be looked past - particularly with Luc's health again in question.

Western Kentucky enters Thursday night's game with a 29-6 record. WKU finished tied for the Sun Belt's regular season title, and won the auto bid by way of winning the conference tournament. With the West's #12 seed, they defeated Drake and San Diego to advance to the Sweet Sixteen.

UCLA and Western Kentucky have faced one common opponent, Michigan. WKU defeated Michigan, 73-69 at the Great Alaskan Shootout. Entering the tournament, they had played two teams that had made the tourney, losing to Gonzaga in Alaska, and to Tennessee, by a score of 88-82 in Nashville. While UCLA has one of the longest current winning streaks in the NCAA, Western Kentucky is riding no less of a hot streak, having lost but one game since mid-January, winning 18 of its last 19 contests.

Now to the numbers...

RPI UCLA: #4, WKU: #39
Pomeroy Rating UCLA: #2, WKU: #61
Sagarin Rating UCLA: #3, WKU: #33

Not all that much to say about these rankings; as the popular media have pointed out over the past couple of days, WKU is considered one of the weakest, if not the weakest of the teams advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. While the fact that the team is one of the final 16 standing must stand for something, the comparative status remains.

Now for the efficiency metrics and pace of play...

Western Kentucky

• Offense: 110.3 points/100 possessions (#64 in D-1)
  
• Defense: 94.5 points/100 possessions (#56 in D-1)
  
• Pace: 69.5 possessions/40 minutes
  

In regards to both offense and defense, WKU has the lowest adjusted levels of efficiency of the Sweet Sixteen teams. As well, WKU plays at a faster pace than our previous tourney opponents have, averaging nearly 70 possessions per game. In terms that we may better understand, their adjusted rate of play equals that of Cal during the past season, and is faster than all but UNC and Tennessee among Sweet Sixteen teams.

UCLA

• Offense: 119.6 points/100 possessions (#6)
  
• Defense: 82.5 points/100 possessions (#2)
  
• Pace: 65.3 possessions/40 minutes
  

Using the above efficiency measures, together with the average pace of the two teams' play, the average game score of each team, based upon an equal schedule composed of average Division 1 teams would be:

• Western Kentucky: 77-66
  
• UCLA: 78-54

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. Thanks again to hoo for the great post. Makes dealing w flight delays (snow storm in Chicago?) easier. GO BRUINS. -N

Another game, and another installment of my look through the numbers of our upcoming tournament opponent. Today, Texas A&M. Unlike last night's opponent, I imagine that A&M will keep us all focused on the game at hand.

Texas A&M currently has a 25-10 record (24-10 against D-1). The team finished 6th in the Big XII's regular season, and defeated Iowa State and Kansas State in the Big XII tourney, before losing to Kansas by a score of 77-71. A&M received an at-large NCAA bid as the West's #9 seed, and defeated BYU last night to advance to Saturday's game with UCLA.

UCLA and Texas A&M have faced three common opponents: Arizona, Texas, and Washington. A&M split its season series with Texas, winning at home, 80-63 while losing in Austin by a 77-50 score. They defeated Washington by 14 points at Madison Square Garden in November, and lost to Arizona by 11 points in Tuscon in early December. Entering the tournament, A&M had played 12 games against other teams that made the tourney, with a 5-7 record in such games.

A&M entered the tournament on a cold streak of sorts, having lost 6 of its final 10 games. 4 of those losses came against NCAA tournament teams, including a loss at Texas, and 2 losses to Kansas. 2 of the team's wins in that span came against tourney teams; @ Baylor, and Kansas State at the Big XII tourney. While the regular season did not end well for A&M, they have rebounded in the postseason, having first advanced to the Big XII semifinals, and then defeating BYU in the first round of the NCAA's.

For a look at the ratings:
RPI UCLA: #4; A&M: #41
Pomeroy rating: UCLA: #2; A&M: #17
Sagarin rating: UCLA: #3; A&M: #23

You may notice a couple of things about the ratings:

• Texas A&M's ratings in the RPI greatly differ from the computer ratings derived by Pomeroy and Sagarin. A&M is one of the extreme examples of how such ratings differ (Kansas State differs in a similar manner, while Vanderbilt has an equal, but opposite difference in the ratings). Other than looking to last night's K-State/SC game, I am not sure of what, if any correlation exists between the spread between RPI and other ratings and tourney success (whether RPI or Pomeroy/Sagarin is the more accurate predictor in such circumstances).
  
• Under the Pomeroy and Sagarin ratings, A&M is fairly closely matched to UCLA, particularly for a "1-9" matchup (its computer profile compares to many 5 and 6 seeds). While it has been said that UCLA has the easiest path to San Antonio (and Duke's performance as the West's #2 team provides little challenge to the notion), it also has the toughest second-round game looming of the #1 seeds.

While the RPI may say otherwise, Texas A&M is prospectively the best team that is poised to play a #1 seed in the first weekend of the tournament. UNC has a chance of playing a similarly-ranked Indiana team (if both make it through today's games) on Sunday, though IU's profile must be considered in light of the Kelvin Sampson affair, and the disruption (and inconsistent play) surrounding the program after his dismissal.

There is no perfect analogue in the Pac-10 for A&M's computer profile, in regards to efficiency. The best comparison in that respect is Southern Cal, but with a slightly more efficient offense, playing at a slower pace.

As I did for the Miss Valley game, I will break down the efficiency stats.

Texas A&M

• Offense: 114.9 points/100 possessions (#33 in D-1)
  
• Defense: 88.2 points/100 possessions (#15 in D-1)
  
• Pace: 63.5 possessions/40 minutes

UCLA

• Offense: 120.2/100 possessions (#6)
  
• Defense: 82.8/100 possessions (#3)
  
• Pace: 65.6 possessions/40 minutes

For more on the Aggies read on after the jump ...

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

Well, the tournament selection show has aired; and with that, the NCAA's selection committee has handed down its bracket seedings. As easy as it is to look ahead at the possible matchups that the Bruins may face in the upcoming weeks, let us not overlook our first challenge in this three-week final exam of the season that is the NCAA tournament.

For those that missed the unveiling of the brackets, or the ensuing analysis on ESPN, UCLA has drawn as its first-round opponent Mississippi Valley State - best known for having produced perhaps the greatest football player of them all in Jerry Rice. The basics:

MVSU has an overall record of 18-15 (15-15 against D-1 opponents). The team finished second in the Southwestern Conference (SWAC)'s regular season with a 12-6 record, gaining the league's automatic bid by winning the conference tournament. UCLA and MVSU faced one common opponent this season - Washington State. WSU won that meeting by a score of 71-26 (yes, you are reading that score right) in Spokane. In sum, MVSU has faced three teams in the field of 65; losing road games against Pitt (45-78) and Baylor (50-82) in addition to WSU.

Now, for more of a statistical look at this matchup:

RPI: UCLA: #4; MVSU: #224
Pomeroy Rating: UCLA #2; MVSU #318
Sagarin Rating: UCLA #3; MVSU #302

Notes:

• There are 341 teams playing Division 1 basketball in the 2007-08 season, 10 of which are not eligible to participate in the tournament.
  
• While many here question the validity of conference rankings, it should be noted that all of the rating systems that I have cited (RPI/Pomeroy/Sagarin) consider the SWAC to be the weakest conference in Division 1 this season.

Under all of these ranking systems, Mississippi Valley State is the weakest team to make this year's tournament, moreso even than the two teams participating in the opening round (play-in game) on Tuesday night. While MVSU is the worst of this year's tournament teams, they are not the lowest-rated UCLA opponent: UCLA played five opponents, over six games, with a lower RPI; and one opponent (UC Davis) with a lower Pomeroy rating and Sagarin rating.

Delving deeper into MVSU, I refer to the statistical work done by Ken Pomeroy, which Nestor used to examine UCLA's defense here, and I have previously used to compare this year's squad to the last two UCLA Final Four teams.

For the season, MVSU's Offensive and Defensive efficiency was as follows (see here for a further explanation of efficiency, and the method of adjustment for strength of schedule that is applied:

• Offense: 87.6 points/100 possessions (#325 in D-1).
  
• Defense: 107.8 points/100 possessions (#257 in D-1).
  
• Pace: 64.7 possessions/40 minutes.

While MVSU's pace of play is similar to UCLA's, little else related to their play does. UCLA's efficiency and pace:

• Offense: 120.7 points/100 possessions (#5)
  
• Defense: 84.5 points/100 possessions (#4)
  
• Pace: 65.6 possessions/40 minutes.

Using the above efficiency measures, together with the average pace of the two teams' play, the average game score of each team, based upon an equal schedule composed of average Division 1 teams would be:

• UCLA: 79-55
  
• MVSU: 57-70

While I don't quite have the handle of the methodology to predict a score, or a margin for Thursday's game, I would not predict an extremely high scoring game of the sort that UNC or Kansas typically has in the opening round. after looking at last year's opening round opponent, Weber State, and the result of that game (70-42 UCLA), I might expect a somewhat higher scoring effort against the Delta Devils, though the absence of Luc and uncertain health of Kevin Love does complicate such projections somewhat.