MEN’S COLLEGE BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT RESULTS

WOMEN’S CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT RESULTS

Unfortunately, it’s that time of year.

There’s huge excitement with conference and NCAA tournament action, but it also marks the “other” end of the coaching spectrum.  Firings.  Non-Renewals.  If you have been in the coaching profession long enough – you’ve been there.  The shelf life of an NCAA Division I college basketball coach is under 6 years at the same school.  The days of 25+ year careers at the same place are over.  Even 10 years at the same place is rare.

The “Job Boards” are already flowing and everyone hears the “rumors.”  Who’s going – Who’s in – Who might want in – Who’s staying “one step ahead of the posse’.”

This is the part of the profession that is the most difficult.  The one that writers forget exists for coaches and their families.  Coaches are chastised for their exorbitant contracts, country club memberships, courtesy cars, annuities and the like at the highest levels.  Truth is, that very same coach who got the new job,  signed the new contract for the next great opportunity… needed to relocate their family and then could be out of a job in 3 years.  That’s the highest levels.  What about the mid-levels?  The assistant staff?  The contracts and fringes aren’t as large and plentiful, but the risks and results are just the same.

For some coaches in that position, it is their own un-doing.  Bad recruiting.  Bad results.  Other problems.  OK.  But, for many, many others, they worked their tail off, did it the right way, followed rules, graduated players, provided a disciplined and safe environment and simply did not win enough.  How many bank managers, school teachers, CEO’s, you name the profession – can say that.  There is a trade off.

Yesterday, I left my home around 10:00 AM, drove to Ohio for a game.  490 miles each way, 7 hours 35 minutes without stops according to Google Maps… there were 4 stops in all – 9 hours total.  Each way.  Two stops for speeding tickets – $400.00.  Just an added bonus.  I arrived for game at 6 pm, watched the game, talked to coaches – jumped back in the car – hit the Wendy’s drive-thru and drove through a snow storm in Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia back home…. parked the car in my garage at 5:30 AM.  19 1/2 hours.  Why?… there was practice at 11:00 AM this morning, had to be back.

All coaches and their families well know… that is the norm, it’s what we do.  The people who aren’t willing to work hard – won’t win.  Every coach out there has a similar story, with a different town, different game – but same story.  Coaches don’t worry about this, they don’t flaunt it, they just do it.  How many bank managers, school teachers, CEO’s have to do that.  There is a trade off.

I’m not saying that other professions don’t work hard.  They do.  Those people who are successful at anything, work hard.  Just… There is a trade off.

Before you chastise the coaches contract, the jumping ship from one school to the next, the perks or anything else… understand the professional hazards and the trade off  - life style – of a college basketball coach.

You won’t find speculation on jobs on this site.  This profession is too difficult to act like an ambulance chaser with my colleagues.  There are plenty of sites out there that will track the comings and goings of coaches.  Those sites are readily available almost as much as tracking the games all the way up to the Final Four.

25 – 30 New staffs will be hired around the country in both Men’s and Women’s Division I Basketball in the next 60 or so days.  That has been the average the last few years.  2009 was a “Down” hiring year in college basketball on both the Men’s and Women’s side – the total number of new coaches in the Women’s game was under 20.  In the Men’s game – 28.  Already for 2010 there are 5 Men’s and 1 Women’s position open at the Division I level.  Everyone sited the turn in the economy in ‘09 for fewer coaches losing jobs and less professional movement.  The economy hasn’t really improved.  Also, the fact that less and less schools are likely to “pay someone to go away” and also pay the new coach, rather than just wait out the end of the current coaches contract.  This is especially true on the Women’s side.

As a side note:

No one really knows what goes on at any given school, behind the scenes, except those staff’s… BUT, unless something illegal, immoral or both occurs within a program – firing any college basketball coach DURING the season makes NO sense in the college game.

University’s scream about the “Mission” of their basketball program is about “graduating student-athletes,” “doing things the right way,” ” following conference and NCAA rules,” “helping young men or women grow and develop on and off the court,” “the total student-athlete experience.”

I agree, absolutely.

Then, schools turn around and fire the coach IN SEASON?   How does the message that the firing sends mimic that of the Mission, or reinforce the Mission, or makes the Mission better at that point in time?

An in-season firing says, WIN.  Period.

In the end, you can do everything the right way, you can ensure a fantastic student-athlete experience, you can graduate players, you can follow all the rules… if you don’t WIN, you are gone.  Always.  I’ve never read a release or listened to an interview of an athletic director or university president and heard, “our basketball program continues to lose at a high rate but our student-athletes are graduating, they are healthy and the program is in good order and the coaches follow all the rules.  So we’re extending the contract of Coach X three more years.”  Doesn’t happen.  Ever.

With an in-season firing, an administration doesn’t gain a “head start” on hiring a new coach.  Not any more so than they would by quietly researching potential candidates behind the scenes.  We know that happens, it’s happening right now – search firms are the norm in the hiring of coaches  in both the Men’s and the Women’s game.

A university does not save money with an in-season firing, salaries are still paid, teams still travel and play.  It usually doesn’t help with the chemistry or continuity of the team or staff to make a significant difference in wins.  So, if there isn’t a illegal or immoral reason, why do it?

I wish I knew the answer.

Here’s Charlie’s latest projection through games as of Feb. 21.  Scroll over a team name for more analysis. Records reflect Division I competition only.

Automatic bids are in CAPS.

This is the absolute best time of the year for talking basketball with everyone.

Bids by Conference is going to make some people edgy…

• Big 12 (8)
• ACC (7)
• Big East (7)
• SEC (6)
• Big Ten (3)
• Atlantic 10 (3)
• Pac-10 (3)
• America East (2)
• Sun Belt (2)
• Colonial (2)

I love the ACC, was part of it for 4 years.  It is arguably one of the Top 2 Conferences in the country year after year… but, 7 bids is high!  I say 5.  UNC and Maryland are all questions and NC State is on the cusp.  Each of those teams are currently 5-7 or 6-6 in the ACC.  If you allow all of them in, how then do you say no to Wake Forest and maybe Boston College?  Both are either 5-7 or 6-6 and Wake Forest is a head of UNC and Maryland in the ACC standings.  don’t go to the RPI and Strength of Schedule… it’s all comparable.

Why not give the Atlantic 10, Colonial or Mountain West a 4th, 3rd or 2nd team in, respectively.   Maybe give one or two of the MAAC, MAC, America East or Missouri Valley and 2nd team in.

Everyone screams for more parity in Women’s Basketball.  You can’t have parity if the Top 5 Conferences hold 31 of the 64 spots in the NCAA tournament every year.  Those coaches will never be able to consistently convince (recruit) top prospects to play in conferences where only one team goes to the NCAA’s year in and year out.

We’ll see…

Van Chancellor

This article on LSU and Coach Chancellor’s displeasure with his team’s turnovers made me think of a simple yet effective addition to all of your drills and practice.  Coach Chancellor wants less turnovers and for players to value the ball… funny, don’t we all.

Joe Logan

Joe Logan (now Head Coach at Loyola College in Baltimore, MD) was as assistant at St. Joe’s in Philadelphia, PA. and told me about this one.   I went to practice some years ago and this is what they did to help their team gain some value for taking care of the ball.

The ball rack was rolled out for the start of practice.  It contained 15 balls.  As practice was going on, each time the team turned the ball over – a manager would remove a ball from the rack and set it “gently” in the stands.  No one yelled, no one screamed, no one said anything.  Coach Chancellor may not like this part.

As they moved through practice, this continued until there were no balls left on the rack.  At that point, Cindy Griffin (Head Coach at St. Joe’s) blew the whistle, calmly put everyone on the baseline and they began to run down and backs.  Not all out sprints, but not jogging either.  Just down and back, down and back.

Cindy Griffin

There was approximately one hour left in practice when this occurred.  The team ran.  They ran for the remainder of the practice time.  About a twenty minutes to a half an hour into the run, Coach Griffin stopped them – put a player on the line for a 1-and-1.  If she made both, the team got a (one) ball back and they could resume practice.  Is she missed the front end or the back end – no ball and the resume running.  About ten minutes later Coach Griffin did it again – pressure free throw shooting and an opportunity to get back into practice.

The team earned one ball back and resumed the drill or segment where they left off.  Shortly after that, a turnover occurred and they were out of balls and back running up and down the court.

Once practice was over they huddled up and Coach Griffin calmly explained the value of taking care of the ball better.

After practice I sat with Joe and asked him how that all came about.  He explained, the Hawks were about 3 games into the season and they were averaging over 30 turnovers!  They had to figure something out.  They were screaming about turnovers in every drill, every day – it was counter productive.  This simple yet very effective addition to every drill or segment they did really helped them cut there turnovers down.

The next summer we used it in training camp with the New York Liberty and it was effective there as well.

From The Women’s Basketball Server

Dawn Staley & PTG Ieasia Walker

After spending eight seasons at Temple with the women’s basketball team, coach Dawn Staley left for the South Carolina Gamecocks last year. She recruited 2009’s No. 4 class.

It was just after the conclusion of the 2007-2008 women’s basketball season, a season in which Staley led the Owls to a 21-13 record and another NCAA Tournament appearance.

Staley, who just signed a six-year contract extension with Temple the year before, was preparing for another season of improving her legacy on North Broad Street.

The ACC was the clear winner of the conferences during the early signing period. Seven teams from the conference rank among the top 25 recruiting classes in 2010, and 21 nationally ranked players signed with a school from the ACC.

Rivals.com recruiting analyst Jerry Meyer breaks down and rank the recruiting efforts of each conference for the early signing period.

Conference Rankings
1. ACC | 2. SEC | 3. Big East | 4. Big Ten | 5. Big 12 | 6. Pac-10

CONFERENCE BREAKDOWN:

CONFERENCE RECRUITING BREAKDOWN
1. ACC
The ACC stands head and shoulders above the other power conferences on the recruiting front in 2010 with seven teams in the top 25. North Carolina leads the way in the ACC (No. 3 overall) after winning an intense recruiting battle for Harrison Barnes. He joins fellow five-star Reggie Bullock and highly ranked four-star Kendall Marshall. Duke has its top-10 prospect in Kyrie Irving. A balanced class with four four-star prospects has Wake Forest at No. 3 in the ACC. A couple of impact guards – Ryan Harrow and Lorenzo Brown – have N.C. State at No. 4 in the conference. Tony Bennett’s five-man balanced class, in his first year at the school, places Virginia at No. 5. Maryland’s class is led by a couple of four-star prospects in Terrence Ross and Mychal Parker. Florida State also boasts a couple of four-star recruits in Okaro White and Ian Miller.	Ranking the classes (national rank) 1. North Carolina (3) 2. Duke (7) 3. Wake Forest (8) 4. N.C. State (11) 5. Virginia (15) 6. Maryland (17) 7. Florida State (25) 8. Miami 9. Virginia Tech 10. Georgia Tech 11. Boston College 12. Clemson Top Dogs: Best at each position Point guard: Kyrie Irving, Duke Shooting guard: Reggie Bullock, North Carolina Small forward: Harrison Barnes, North Carolina Power forward: Joshua Hairston, Duke Center: Carson Desrosiers, Wake Forest

2. SEC

There is not much separation between the No. 2-ranked conference through the No. 5-ranked conference, but the SEC gets the edge with four teams ranked nationally and a total of seven four-star recruits among the other eight schools. Tennessee holds the No. 1 spot in the conference with a class led by elite power forward Tobias Harris. Darrin Horn has put together an impressive five-man class at South Carolina, which comes in at No. 2 in the league. At No. 3 in the SEC, Florida boasts a pair of athletic four-star prospects in Patric Young andCasey Prather. LSU is the last nationally ranked SEC squad with a class headlined by a couple of four-star recruits. Ole Miss’ class, which missed out on a national ranking, also has a couple of four-star recruits.

Ranking the classes (national rank) 1. Tennessee (4) 2. South Carolina (16) 3. Florida (18) 4. LSU (20) 5. Ole Miss 6. Arkansas 7. Kentucky 8. Alabama 9. Vanderbilt 10. Auburn 11. Georgia 12. Mississippi State Top Dogs: Best at each position Point guard: Dundrecous Nelson, Ole Miss Shooting guard: Jordan McRae, Tennessee Small forward: Stacey Poole, Kentucky Power forward: Tobias Harris, Tennessee Center: Patric Young, Florida

3. BIG EAST

The Big East placed three teams in the national rankings. The top team in the conference, Syracuse, sits at No. 5 nationally with a four-man class led by the impressive inside/outside duo of Fabricio de Melo and Dion Waiters. Marquette, which is No. 2 in the conference, brings in a strong perimeter class highlighted by five-star prospect Vander Blue. Georgetown has a couple of strong four-star recruits in Nate Lubick and Markel Starks. The other 13 teams in the conference combined for seven four-star recruits.

Ranking the classes (national rank) 1. Syracuse (5) 2. Marquette (13) 3. Georgetown 4. Notre Dame 5. Pittsburgh 6. Providence 7. Connecticut 8. Villanova 9. West Virginia 10. DePaul 11. Cincinnati 12. Seton Hall 13. South Florida 14. Louisville 15. St. John’s 16. Rutgers Top Dogs: Best at each position Point guard: Vander Blue, Marquette Shooting guard: Dion Waiters, Syracuse Small forward: Jamail Jones, Marquette Power forward: Nate Lubick, Georgetown Center: Fabricio de Melo, Syracuse

4. BIG TEN

The Big Ten is impressive at the top with three teams in the top 10 nationally and another in the bottom half of the top 25. Outside those four teams, however, there are only two four-star recruits. Ohio State boasts an impressive six-man class with every recruit ranked in the Rivals150. Only Memphis has a better recruiting class nationally. Five-star prospects Jared Sullinger andDeshaun Thomas are Ohio State’s top recruits. Michigan State landed five-star big man Adreian Payne and takes the No. 2 spot in the conference and a No. 6 ranking nationally. Illinois, which is ranked in the top 10 nationally, is third in the Big Ten with a solid class of three four-star prospects. Purdue is the fourth Big Ten team ranked nationally (No. 19) with four-star guard Terone Johnson as its top recruit.

Ranking the classes (national rank) 1. Ohio State (2) 2. Michigan State (6) 3. Illinois (10) 4. Purdue 5. Michigan 6. Indiana 7. Iowa 8. Wisconsin 9. Minnesota 10. Northwestern 11. Penn State Top Dogs: Best at each position Point guard: Keith Appling, Michigan State Shooting guard: Jordan Sibert, Ohio State Small forward: Jereme Richmond, Illinois Power forward: Deshaun Thomas, Ohio State Center: Jared Sullinger, Ohio State

5. BIG 12

The Big 12 gained a third team in the national rankings during the early signing period when five-star forwardTony Mitchell signed with Missouri. The Tigers, which also have four-star point guardPhil Pressey, are the top team in the conference. Texas A&M (No. 2 in the conference) and Baylor (No. 3 in the conference) are also ranked nationally. The Aggies have a bevy of big men on the way, and Baylor has elite power forward Perry Jonesheadlining its class. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State just missed a national ranking but have strong classes. Texas also signed a five-star big man,Tristan Thompson, as its only recruit.

Ranking the classes (national rank) 1. Missouri (12) 2. Texas A&M (21) 3. Baylor (24) 4. Oklahoma 5. Oklahoma State 6. Texas 7. Kansas State 8. Iowa State 9. Kansas 10. Texas Tech 11. Nebraska 12. Colorado Top Dogs: Best at each position Point guard: Phil Pressey, Missouri Shooting guard: Royce Woolridge, Kansas Small forward: Tony Mitchell, Missouri Power forward: Perry Jones, Baylor Center: Keith Davis, Texas A&M

6. PAC-10

The Pac-10 only has two national ranked recruiting classes. At No. 9 nationally, Stanford has the top class in the Pac-10. Five-star big manDwight Powell, who is loaded with potential, highlights the five-man class. UCLA, the No. 2 team in the Pac-10, only has two recruits, but Josh Smithand Tyler Lamb are two of the top West Coast players in the 2010 class. Just missing a national ranking, California has a quality four-man class. Arizona State landed five-star prospect Keala King, and Arizona secured four-star shooting guard Daniel Bejarano just prior to the early signing period.

Ranking the classes (national rank) 1. Stanford (9) 2. UCLA (14) 3. California 4. Arizona State 5. Arizona 6. USC 7. Oregon State 8. Washington State 9. Washington 10. Oregon Top Dogs: Best at each position Point guard: Keala King, Arizona State Shooting guard: Tyler Lamb, UCLA Small forward: Garrett Jackson, USC Power forward: Dwight Powell, Stanford Center: Josh Smith, UCLA

They don’t all need glasses. But if you always suspected basketball referees are biased — well, you’re right, according to a couple of professors who’ve studied the matter.

Refs favor the home team, the academics say. They’re big on “make-up” calls. They make more calls against teams in the lead, and the discrepancy grows if the game is on national TV.

The professors studied 365 college games during the 2004-05 season and found that refs had a terrific knack for keeping the foul count even, regardless of which team was more aggressive.

Exhibit A: The 2005 Final Four meeting between Illinois and Louisville. The Illini, known for being more aggressive defensively, got whistled for the first seven fouls. By the end of the game, the foul count was Louisville 13, Illinois 12. The Illini won 72-57.

Results like this were the norm across all the games the professors studied from that season — from the Big East to the ACC to the Big Ten and all 63 NCAA tournament games. The take-home message for coaches: The more aggressive your teams the better because, in the end, the foul count is going to be about even no matter what.

It helps explain, the professors say, why college basketball has gotten increasingly physical over the past 25 years.

“Part of the reason for the study came from something my coach used to tell me,” said study co-author Kyle Anderson, a visiting professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, who played at Division III Knox College. “He said a team can come in and push and shove and grab and hold, and by the end of the game, or end of the half, they’ve only got one or two more fouls because officials kind of get tired of calling it.”

Among the key findings, which were published The Journal of Sports Sciences earlier this year:

• The probability of a foul being called on the visiting team was 7 percent higher than on the home team.

• When the home team is leading, the probability of the next foul being called on them was about 6.3 percentage points higher than when the home team was trailing. The professors also cited an earlier study that concluded there were more calls against teams ahead in games on national TV versus those ahead in locally televised games. Calling fouls against the leading team tends to keep games closer, the studies said.

• The bigger the difference in fouls between the two teams playing, the more likely it was that the next call would come against the team with fewer fouls. When the home team had five or more fouls than the visiting team, there was a 69 percent chance the visiting team would be whistled for the next foul.

As part of their 365-game sample, the professors looked at 93 games played on neutral courts, and the numbers remained largely the same when it came to leveling the foul count.

“There’s something to it,” said Irv Brown, a former official who worked six Final Fours and was supervisor of officials for the Western Athletic and Big Sky conferences. “If you’re looking at the board and one team has a lot more fouls, you probably look a little harder to do something, subconsciously.”

Brown said he used to experiment and try not to look at the scoreboard, but human nature dictates that referees will. Same for home-court advantage. Try as they might, there’s no way a referee can completely block out thousands of fans yelling at him from close range.

“As an official, you get the reputation that you’re tough on the road, and that’s what you want,” Brown said in a telephone interview last week. “But it takes a lot of years. You have to get established. Some guys who aren’t established, you’ll see them out there, trying to take some of the heat off, trying to take care of the home crowd.”

Anderson said he talked to a number of referees as part of the research and the majority said “you’re crazy. We don’t do this.”

“But a few others said, ‘Yeah, I try to make it even out,’ ” Anderson said.

The NCAA asked for a copy of the study, and Anderson said he hasn’t received any negative feedback — at least not yet.

The professors looked only at first halves because teams committing intentional fouls while in catch-up mode at the end of games skewed the second-half results.

Anderson and his co-author, David Pierce of Ball State, made it clear in the study that referees aren’t intentionally trying to influence foul counts.

“We’d like them to have no memory and strictly call what’s going on on the court,” Anderson said. “But part of this is, if I’m a ref, I want everyone to think I’m fair and if I call 10 fouls on one team and two on the other, people are going to think something’s going on here. It’s sort of subconscious. And it points out one of the biggest problems with basketball is that it’s a very hard game to officiate.”

from ESPN.com

Watching San Antonio vs. Washington.

Saw a nice inverted High Split used as a pressure release for PTG:  Used with good passing center (Duncan), with Back Door action into inverted High Split.

CLICK for DOWNLOADABLE / PRINTABLE Play