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.