The NCAA Tournament is called March Madness for a reason. The drama is real. Any given year will produce more than a handful of buzzer-beaters, Cinderella stories, and epic come-from-behind stunners. The Michigan State Spartans fell victim to one of the those come-from-behind heartbreakers in First Four round loss to UCLA.

In my previous contribution, I highlighted Michigan State’s two biggest heartbreaks and one biggest comebacks since 2010. I measured the “size” of these events using the projected in-game win probabilities tabulated by Kenpom.com. In order to be considered a truly “big” reversal of fortune, one team had to have at least a 96 percent chance to win the game at some point in the contest.

While none of Michigan State’s NCAA Tournament wins or losses made this list, wins and losses in the Big Dance are ultimately how most MSU seasons are remembered. This begs the obvious question: what are some of the most improbable NCAA Tournament comebacks and heartbreaks of the last 11 year? Once again, math will lead the way.

Biggest Heartbreaks​

Since it is always best to start with the bad news, let’s cover the biggest heartbreaks, starting with fourth least likely:

No. 4, 2014 Elite Eight: No. 7 UCONN 60, No. 4 Michigan State 54​

Maximum win probability: 85.6 percent (MSU led 32-23, 16:33 second half)

While this game ranks as the fourth least likely Spartan loss in the NCAA Tournament since 2010, it is likely the most painful, as it is the loss that had the most at stake: a trip to the Final Four. It also cost Tom Izzo one of his most cherished streaks as Keith Appling and Adreian Payne became the first (and only) four-year players not to advance to the final weekend of the tournament at least once in their career.

It was an up-and-down season for Michigan State all the way around in the 2013-2014 campaign. The Spartans opened the season ranked No. 2 in the country, but rose quickly to No. 1 after beating No. 1 Kentucky in the Champions Classic. In late January, MSU was 18-1 but then the injury bug struck both Payne and Brandon Dawson (in addition to Appling, who was injured in the preseason against North Carolina and never fully healed).

The Spartans finished Big Ten play at 12-6, which was good enough for a second-place tie with Wisconsin in the conference standings. But, MSU tore through the Big Ten Tournament, including a decisive 14-point win over No. 1 seed Michigan in the Big Ten Tournament Final. The Spartans entered the NCAA Tournament as a No. 4 seed. On Selection Sunday, if memory serves, the ESPN analysts all picked the Spartans to win the whole thing.

Michigan State dispatched No. 13 seed Delaware and No. 12 seed Harvard in the first two rounds, and then upset No. 1 seed Virginia in the Sweet 16 to force the showdown with the No. 7 seed UCONN Huskies. MSU was a five-point favorite when the ball was tipped.

As for the game itself, MSU got off to a very bad start, and trailed 12-2 just five minutes into the game. But, Gary Harris, Denzel Valentine, and Payne started to heat up especially from three-point range, and the Spartans got back into the game, eventually taking the lead by four at halftime, and extending that lead to nine points early in the second half, thanks to a 16-2 run.

But, the Spartans then went cold, and Shabazz Napier of UCONN started hitting shots and drawing fouls. With six minutes left, MSU trailed by 10. The Spartans did manage to cut the lead to just two points during one stretch, but could not get over the hump, and the Huskies were the ones cutting down the nets in Madison Square Garden.

No. 3, 2018 2nd Round: No. 11 Syracuse 55, Michigan State 53​

Maximum win probability: 88.7 percent (MSU led 33-27, 17:29 second half)

Miles Bridges decided to return to East Lansing for his sophomore year, and Jaren Jackson Jr. was a highly-touted recruit, so Michigan State fans all had big expectations. The Spartans started the year ranked No. 2, and although the Green and White did lose to Duke in the Champions Classic, MSU tore through the rest of its schedule, won the Big Ten regular season title outright, and entered the NCAA Tournament with a 29-4 record.

But, the Big Ten was unusually weak, and the Spartans lost to the Wolverines in the Big Ten Tournament semifinals. As a result MSU was only given a No. 3 seed in the Big Dance. The Spartans won a hard fought game with No. 14 seed Bucknell in the first round, and up next was No. 11 Syracuse. MSU was favored by eight points.

What transpired was one of the ugliest tournament games in recent memory. The Spartans shot just 26 percent from the field and a miserable 22 percent from three-point range. The Orange didn’t shoot much better, however. MSU actually led most of the game, and had a five-point lead with under six minutes to play.

But, somehow the Spartans proceeded to miss their final 13 shots from the field and let the game slip through their fingers, much to the shock of the fans in Little Caesars Arena in downtown Detroit.

No. 2, 2021 First Four: No. 11 UCLA 86, No. 11 Michigan St. 80 (OT)​

Maximum win probability: 90.8 percent (led 77-72, 01:29 second half)

If the thought crossed your mind if MSU’s collapse against UCLA in this past year’s First Four matchup was one of the biggest letdowns in Spartan history, then you were correct. After leading by as many as 14 points late in the first half, UCLA stormed back and took the lead briefly with just under six minutes to play.

But, the Spartans fought back and led by five points just under 90 seconds remaining. While the game should have been in hand, a pair of fouls from Josh Langford and Aaron Henry, a badly missed three-pointer from Rocket Watts, and a missed box out on a free throw allowed UCLA to tie the game late and eventually win the game in overtime.

It was a painful and perhaps ironically fitting ending to a difficult, inconsistent season for the Spartans.

No. 1, 2016 First Round: No. 15 Middle Tennessee 90, No. 2 Michigan St. 81​

Maximum win probability: 95.2 percent (tied 0-0, 20:00 first half).

But, the UCLA loss in 2021 was not the most painful loss in Michigan State NCAA Tournament history. On one hand, the choice of game for the No. 1 spot on this list is obvious. The 2016 team’s loss to Middle Tennessee State is one of the biggest upset losses in the history of the tournament. On the other hand, though, this was not a late game collapse. MSU actually never led for a second of this game, and the odds for a Spartan win peaked at the opening tip.

Similar to the 2014 team’s loss in the Regional Final, this loss was painful because Michigan State seemed poised to make a long run in the tournament, and perhaps add a Final Four banner or a crystal basketball to the Breslin Center trophy case. It was the senior season for both Denzel Valentine and Bryn Forbes, and when the Spartans were fully healthy, they cut through their opponents like knives through warm butter.

But, not on that particular Friday afternoon. The Blue Raiders jumped the Spartans from the opening tip with a 15-2 run and they never looked back. While the Spartans fought back and got the game within a single point on a number of occasions, including as late as three-and-a-half minutes to play, MSU could never capture the lead and could never get the key stop when the team needed it. The Spartans actually shot the ball quite well (63 percent from two-point range and 46 percent from three), but the Blue Raiders shot it even better (55 percent from two, and a blistering 58 percent from three).

But the cherry on the top of this very frustrating event was that the matchup should never have taken place to begin with. Michigan State should have been a No. 1 seed instead of a No. 2 seed, Middle Tennessee should have at least been a No. 14 seed, and even if I agreed with the Selection Committee’s rankings, the Blue Raiders (as the highest ranked No. 15 seed) should not have been matched up with the Spartans (the highest ranked No. 2 seed) based on the “s-curve.”

Enough of the low points. Let us shift gears to review the most exciting comebacks in recent Michigan State tournament history.

Biggest Comebacks​

No. 5, 2010 Sweet 16: No. 5 Michigan St. 59, No. 9 Northern Iowa 52​

Minimum win probability: 25.6 percent (trailed 29-22, 20:00 second half)

I had forgotten that Michigan State trailed at the half in this game. It was also tied with just under three minutes to play, but MSU closed on an 8-1 run to seal the victory.

No. 4, 2014 Sweet 16: No. 4 Michigan St. 61, No. 1 Virginia 59​

Minimum win probability: 24.7 percent (trailed 40-36, 10:58 second half)

In this classic rock-fight win over Virginia, MSU led by 10 points early, but a 12-0 run by the Cavaliers got them back into the game. Being down only four points to the Virginia feels bigger than against most teams, but the Spartans answered with a 15-4 run of their own midway through the second half to steal the victory.

No. 3, 2019 Elite Eight: No. 2 Michigan St. 68, No. 1 Duke 67​

Minimum win probability: 22.7 percent (trailed 66-63, 01:41 second half)

This game will and has gone down in history as one of the most exciting and satisfying wins in Michigan State basketball history. Every Spartan fan remembers how this one ended. We remember the three-point shot from Kenny Goins and in-bounds pass from Xavier Tillman to Cassius Winston to seal the win.

But, what you may not remember is that this was also a game of runs. Michigan State got off to a strong start and led Duke 16-9 eight minutes into the game. But, Duke went on a run of its own and led by as many as nine points just three minutes later. But unlike previous MSU-Duke games, the Spartans answered with a 15-0 run to take the lead at the half, and it was a dog-fight from that point on.

In fact, in the final 18 minutes of the game, neither team led by more than four points. So, when Duke went up by three points with just 100 seconds remaining on a drive from Zion Williamson, MSU fans began to sweat, and for good reason: the odds of victory dipped below 25 percent.

But, Winston drove into the lane, drew three defenders, and found a slashing Tillman for a lay-up to cut the lead down to one point. Then, the Spartans got a stop, which set up Goins’ game-winning three-pointer. A few minutes later, the Spartans were cutting down the nets.

No. 2, 2015 Elite Eight: No. 7 Michigan St. 76, No. 4 Louisville 70 (OT)
Minimum win probability: 20.7 percent (trailed 40-32, 20:00 second half)

In my previous analysis, I explained how the 2015 Michigan State team suffered the two biggest heartbreaks for any MSU team back to at least 2010. But in the NCAA Tournament during the 2015 team’s run to the Final Four, it was the Green and White who were handing out heartbreaks.

Despite being the lower seed in this regional final matchup, the Spartans were two-point favorites in Las Vegas. The early moments of the game were a back-and-forth affair, but the Cardinals made a late push in the first half as the Spartans went cold, and by halftime, MSU trailed by eight and things looked a bit grim.

But, the Spartans traded punches with the Cardinals early in the second half and then went on 14-2 run and held a six-point lead as late in the game as with just under four minutes to play. But Louisville wasn’t done yet, either.

A three-pointer and then two free throws from Wayne Blackshear gave Louisville a one-point lead with a minute to play. A jumper off the backboard by Marvin Clark gave the lead back to MSU, but then disaster almost struck.

The Cardinal missed their next shot, Clark got the rebound and was immediately fouled. But, he missed both free throws to give Louisville a chance to get the last shot and win the game in regulation. Terry Rozier missed a shot to win, but Mangok Mathiang snagged the rebound and was fouled by Clark.

With a chance to win the game, Mathiang (whose season average at the line was only 48 percent) split the pair of free throws to force overtime. In that extra period, Bryn Forbes set the tone with an early three-pointer, and the Spartans never trailed again. Izzo put a seventh Final Four onto his resume.

No. 1, 2015 Sweet 16: No. 7 Michigan St. 62, No. 3 Oklahoma 58
Minimum win probability: 18.1 percent (trailed 31-21, 03:33 first half)

Based on probability, the most unlikely NCAA Tournament comeback in recent Michigan State history is likely a game that many Spartans fans barely remember. It was the game that came right before the Spartans beat Louisville in 2015 to make the Final Four. Similar to the game against the Cardinals, the Spartan were also favored in Vegas to beat the Sooners (+1.5) despite being the lower seed.

In the Sweet 16 round, the Spartans got off to a much slower start. Five minutes into the game, the Sooners led by 10 points, and they maintained this lead until just four minutes before halftime. At this point in the game, the Spartans odds to advance was below 20 percent, making the eventual Spartan victory the least probable comeback of any of Coach Izzo’s NCAA Tournament wins since 2010.

By halftime, the Spartans had cut the lead to just four points, thanks to a pair the three-pointers from Denzel Valentine and Bryn Forbes. From there, the Spartans simply kept fighting, and eventually took the lead with about 10 minutes to go. With just under seven minutes to play, a Matt Costello dunk off of his own missed shot, followed by a three-pointer from Valentine gave the Spartans a four-point lead. MSU did not trail again.

Other Odds and Ends​

While MSU has certainly had a fair share of exciting and improbable regular season and NCAA Tournament comebacks and heartbreaks, the least likely tournament event listed above is the upset loss to Middle Tennessee State, which still had odds of just 1-in-20. In the grand scheme of things, this is not that unlikely. In this final section, I wanted to highlight a few less probable tournament events involving notable teams as a reference.

What is the most unlikely NCAA Tournament comeback since 2010?​

Answer: 2016 Second Round: No. 3 Texas A&M 92, No. 11 Northern Iowa 88 (2OT)

Minimum win probability: 0.1 percent (Texas A&M trailed 69-59, 00:33 second half)

Yes, you read that right. Texas A&M trailed by 10 points with just over 30 seconds left in regulation...and found a way to force overtime and eventually win.

The Michigan Difference​

As any Wolverine fans will tell you, Michigan made the Final Four in both 2013 and 2018. Along the way, however, both runs included highly unlikely comeback victories. First there was:

2013 Sweet 16: No. 4 Michigan 87, No. 1 Kansas 85 (OT)

Minimum win probability: 1.2 percent (Michigan trailed 72-62, 02:33 second half)

Michigan trailed this game by double-digits most of the second half, but Trey Burke put the Wolverines on his back late in the game. Still, Kansas had a chance to ice the game late, but Elijah Johnson (a 76 percent free-throw shooter on the year) missed the front end of a one-and-one with 12 seconds remaining, and Burke proceeded to hit a three-pointer from the hash mark to send it to overtime.

Next, there was:

2018 Second Round: No. 3 Michigan 64, No. 6 Houston 63

Minimum win probability: 4.5 percent (Michigan trailed 63-61, 00:06 second half)

This game was tight throughout, with neither team holding more than a six-point lead at any juncture. But in the closing seconds, the Cougars simply could put the Wolverines away. In the final 30 seconds of the game, Houston’s Devin Davis (a 68 percent free-throw shooter on the year) didn’t just miss one free throw — he actually missed three out of four.

With Michigan trailing by just two points, Jordan Poole’s near half-court heave was enough to hand the Wolverines the victory. Michigan would then advance to the final game without playing a team seeded higher than No. 7.

How about Virginia?​

Of all of the teams to make a Final Four back to 2010, Michigan’s two close calls rank first and third in their unlikeliness. But the team that owns the heartbreak that sits in second place in the list of unlikely comebacks during a Final Four run is Virginia. Upon closer examination, that Cavaliers have had an absolutely crazy run of both ups and downs since 2014. Consider the following:

• In 2014, as discussed above, No. 1 Virginia lost to MSU by two points, but at one point had nearly a 75 percent chance to win.
• In 2015, No. 2 Virginia also lost to No. 7 MSU, this time by six, but they were projected to have about a 75 percent chance to win at the tip.
• In 2016, No. 1 Virginia had a 15-point lead on No. 10 Syracuse deep into the second half. With 9:32 remaining, the Cavaliers had approximately a 98.7 percent chance to win...They lost, putting Syracuse in the rarified air of teams including only Michigan that have advanced to a Final Four despite having less than a five percent chance to win one of the games on their path.
• In 2017, No. 5 Virginia was not very good and got blown out by No. 4 Florida in the second round.
• In 2018, No. 1 Virginia lost to No. 16 UMBC, making history as the first and so far only No. 1 seed to lose to a No. 16 seed. As a general rule, the odds of a No. 16/No. 1 seed upset are about one percent, but Kenpom gave UMBC 2.5 percent odds at the tip to score the upset.

But in 2019, Virginia’s luck made a complete turnaround.

• Eight Eight: In one of the best single tournament games that I can remember, No. 1 Virginia beat No. 3 Purdue in overtime, but the Cavaliers trailed by three points with 12 seconds to go and had only a 12.2 percent chance to win (note that Purdue fouled while up three, and still lost. #teamdefend).
• Final Four: In this case, No. 1 Virginia trailed No. 5 Auburn by four points with 17 seconds remaining. UVA hit a three, Auburn missed a free throw and then Virginia was fouled shooting a three-pointer at the buzzer. The Cavaliers hit all three freebies to win the game, despite having only a 5.5 percent chance to win 17 seconds earlier
• Championship Game: Finally, No. 1 Virginia trailed No. 3 Texas Tech by three points with 22 seconds left. UVA’s odds to win were a healthy 13 percent here. The Cavaliers hit a three to force overtime, and the rest is history.

Unfortunately for Virginia, it seems to have used up all of its good fortune in 2019. In 2021, the Cavs reverted to their previous pattern, as they were upset by No. 13 Ohio in the first round. With 15 minutes to play, their win probability was over 90 percent.

That is all for today. As always, enjoy, and Go Green.

In a CBS 7 round mock draft for the Packers, Jordan Reid selected as center in 5th round.

Login to view embedded media
72pts in 88 career games (15pts in 16gms last szn).

For fans of the Michigan State Spartans, the 2020-2021 basketball season was full of highs and lows. Beating Duke in Cameron Indoor Arena and beating three top-10 teams, including rival Michigan, in the span of two weeks were clearly highs. Losing heartbreakers to Purdue, and later to UCLA in the First Four, were clearly lows.

As with most things sports related, I wonder whether the thrills and pain of these highs and lows can actually be quantified. I am especially curious about the events that are less likely, and therefore more thrilling...or more painful. I am curious about quantifying big comebacks and crushing heartbreaks.

The home loss to the Purdue Boilermaker just before Michigan State was shutdown by the COVID-19 pause is a perfect example. The Spartans led by 17 points early in the second half, and although the Boilermakers did rally, MSU held a three-point lead with less than 20 seconds on the clock and Aaron Henry heading to the free-throw line.

The Spartans seemed to have the game locked up, but a missed free throw, a foul, a turnover, a missed box out, and a basket from Trevion Williams resulted in a stunning come-from-behind victory for Purdue. It was a series of unfortunate and improbable events. But, how improbable was in?

Through the magic of analytics it is possible to quantify our pain. ESPN’s Gamecast gives real-time estimates of the odds for each team to win as the game progresses. Kenpom.com provides a similar set of data once the game in complete.

To my knowledge, neither site gives a detailed explanation of how these numbers are calculated, but I guess that it is related to a combination of the offensive and defensive efficiency of each team, the projected number of remaining possessions, and historical data based on similar margins and time remaining.

In the Purdue game, ESPN’s calculation gave MSU about an 87 percent chance to win with 19 seconds remaining. Kempon was more optimistic about the Spartans’ chances. Kempon’s calculation gave MSU over 96 percent chance to win at the same juncture, which made it one of the top-100 biggest comebacks/heartbreaks of the entire 2020-2021 season.

I can’t judge whether EPSN’s or Kenpom’s method is better, but I do know that Kempon has more data. The Kempon website provides win probability data back to 2010. With this data, we can get answers to the question: what are some of the biggest (probability-wise) comebacks and heartbreaks in recent Spartan basketball history?

Regular Season Heartbreaks and Comebacks​

In order to make Kenpom’s top-100 comeback list, a team’s win probability usually needs to dip below four percent (or above 96 percent from the other team’s point of view) in order to make the list in a full season. Since 2010, Michigan State only has three total games that fall into this category: one comeback and two heartbreaks. Let’s start with the heartbreaks.

December 20, 2014: Texas Southern 71, 12 Michigan State 64 (OT)​

Maximum win probability: 98.8 percent (MSU led 17-9, 09:04 1st half)

The Spartans came into the game with an 8-3 record and No. 25 national ranking. It was Travis Trice’s senior year and Michigan State entered the season ranked in the top-20, following a run to the Elite Eight the year prior. MSU had beaten Marquette earlier in the non-conference season, but had lost its three other premier games against Duke, Kansas, and Notre Dame.

Meanwhile, Texas Southern was 1-7, fresh off from a 40-point beat down at the hands of Gonzaga. But, at the time, the Tigers were led by head coach Mike Davis, who had piloted Indiana to a Final Four over a decade prior, and is currently the head coach at the University of Detroit Mercy.

MSU was a 24-point favorite, and thus only had about a one percent chance to lose the game based on the spread. This spread puts this upset into the same category as a No. 16 over a No. 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament, probability-wise. It is also the biggest upset for the Spartans back to at least 2004.

As for the game itself, the Spartans were without senior forward Brandon Dawson, who had broken his wrist in the previous game against Eastern Michigan. The Spartans got off to a good start, but could never get a lead greater than eight points. MSU led by five points at halftime, and even led by six points with four minutes remaining.

But, the Spartans struggled down the stretch and found themselves trailing 55-54, but with the ball, with under 25 seconds to play. Matt Costello missed a shot that would gave given the Spartans the lead, but Javon Bess snagged the rebound and was fouled. He split the free throws, however, and the game headed for overtime.

In the overtime period, Michigan State just never figured it out. The Spartans missed shots; missed free throws, and fouled Texas Southern. The Tigers outscored Michigan State 16-9 in the extra period and shocked the MSU on own court.

The final box score shows that Texas Southern shot 53 percent from the field while MSU just shot 39 percent, including a dismal 3-for-13 shooting performance from Travis Trice, while Bryn Forbes made just one shot on nine attempts (all from three). Those are the type of stats that create big upsets.

February 26, 2105: Minnesota 96, Michigan St. 90 (OT)

Maximum win probability: 98.9 percent (MSU led 75-69, 00:34 2nd half)

Interestingly, Michigan State’s largest heartbreak since 2010 also happened to the 2014-2015 team, this time deep into the Big Ten season. The Spartans had largely rebounded from the earlier heartbreak to Texas Southern and were sitting at 19-8 overall and 10-4 in conference play, vying with Maryland and Purdue for second place in the conference behind Bo Ryan’s best Wisconsin team.

The Spartans were an eight-point favorite at the tip, so it wasn’t a huge upset. But, what puts this game on the list of biggest heartbreaks is what happened in the final seconds. Similar to the 2021 game against Purdue, the Spartans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

As in the loss to Texas Southern, MSU led most of the game, but could never push the lead past eight points. With 30 seconds remaining, and trailing by six points, the Gophers used the three-point line to stage the comeback. First, it was a made three-point field goal from Carlos Morris. Then, it was three free throws after Brandon Dawson fouled Joey King.

On the other end of the court, Denzel Valentine made three of four free throws, leaving the score 78-75 with 12 seconds to play. Tom Izzo decided to defend rather than foul (which is still the right decision, despite popular opinion, don’t @ me) and the worst case scenario almost played out. Morris hit a three with three seconds on the clock and he was fouled by Gavin Shilling on a late close-out.

Morris missed a free throw which would have won the game in regulation, but the Gophers dominated the overtime period, mostly from the free throw line. Minnesota scored 14 of its 18 points from the charity stripe in the extra period to stun the Spartans by six.

Ironically, most Spartans fans likely have forgotten about these two crushing losses due to the way that that the 2015 season ended. MSU would go on to lose only three more games: one at Wisconsin, another to Wisconsin in overtime of the Big Ten Tournament Final, and one to Duke in the Final Four. In other words, Minnesota was the final loss of the season that wasn’t to an eventual No. 1 seed and National Finalist.

But, it isn’t all bad new for the Spartans when it comes to regular season comebacks and heartbreaks. Let’s close out things on a more positive note:

January 11, 2011: Michigan St. 64, Wisconsin 61 (OT)​

Minimum win probability: 2.4 percent (trailed 53-44, 02:37 2nd half)

The 2010-2011 season was a rough one for Spartan fans. The team was coming off back-to-back Final Fours in 2009 and 2010, and major contributors such as Kalin Lucas, Durrell Summers, and Draymond Green were all back. Coach Izzo had also added potential stars in the making in point guard Keith Appling and Adreian Payne who were both freshman.

The Spartan’s opened the season ranked No. 2, but the non-conference schedule went very poorly. The Spartans lost in the Maui Tournament semifinals to UCONN, lost at Duke, lost to Syracuse at Madison Square Garden, and then lost to Texas at home.

More recently in that season, the Spartans lost a road game at Penn State and at 10-5 (2-1 in Big Ten play) had fallen out of the top-25 for the first time in almost four years.

As for Wisconsin, the Badgers were having a typically solid, but not spectacular season under head coach Bo Ryan. The Badgers were fresh off from a 16-point win over the Michigan Wolverines and had entered the top-25 for the first time all year at No. 20 and with a 12-3 record (and also 2-1 in Big Ten play).

The Badgers got off to an early lead of as much as 12 points, but the Spartans rallied late in the first half with a 10-0 run that extended into the first few minutes of the second period. The Spartans even led 31-28 at the first media timeout of the second half.

But, from that point on, Wisconsin started to pull away. After a pair of free throws with just over two-and-a-half minutes remaining, MSU trailed 53-44, and defeat seemed inevitable. But, what then ensued was the biggest Spartan comeback in the last 11 seasons, or longer.

It started with a Draymond Green three-pointer to cut the lead to six. Then, the teams traded a few empty possessions until a foul put Lucas on the line. Lucas split the pair to cut the lead to just five points with just under 80 seconds to play. Then, the Badgers got sloppy.

A turnover by Badger forward Jon Leuer resulted in a fast break dunk by Keith Appling to cut the lead down to three. Then, yet another Wisconsin turnover led to a quick three-pointer from Korie Lucious to tie the game with 52 seconds left on the clock. The Spartans had rattled off a 9-0 run in just over 90 seconds.

Wisconsin then milked the clock and attempted a three-pointer with under 20 seconds left. The Badgers missed, and the Spartans then had a great chance to win the game in regulation. Lucas had a shot blocked at the rim, and then a put back attempt from Austin Thorton failed.

The overtime period was tight the entire way, but Lucas drew a key foul on a baseline drive and was able to salt away the win from the free-throw line.

The exciting finish looked like it might be the catalyst to turn around MSU’s season, but alas, it was not meant to be. The Spartans went 2-5 over the next seven games and finished the regular season at 9-9 in conference play. It was not clear the the Spartans would even make the NCAA Tournament, but a stunning blowout win over No. 9 ranked Purdue in the Big Ten Tournament quarterfinals sealed the bid for the Spartans.

Sadly, the win over Purdue was the last one for the Spartans, as they bowed out of the Big Ten Tournament in the semifinals to Penn State and then lost in the first round of the Big Dance to No. 7 seed UCLA.

Speaking of UCLA, in 2021 the Spartans suffered another heartbreak loss at the hand of the Bruins in the First Four. Where does this game rank on the list of least probable NCAA Tournament loses for the Green and White. What is the biggest comeback logged under Tom Izzo watch in March? Next time, I will dive into those details. Stay tuned.

Link as it gets updated (has every school in the country): Login to view embedded media
Right now we have a non-conf series with:

Air Force (home)
Ferris State (home & home)
Miami (home) - looks like in mid-October

That puts us at 30 games with the 24 game B1G slate, which I believe gives us room for 4 more games.

I am assuming the GLI will comeback, but it looks like the contract for LCA was only good through this past season. Assuming it does we have room for one more non-conf series.

MSU typically releases its schedule in late June-early July.

Spartan great Ryan Miller officially announces retirement at end of season.

Ryan Miller Retires

I'm saying the Hanes Beefy T is the king.

Don't get me wrong though, 100% polyester rules the HOT HUMID day and makes for good base layer in the Winter.

Gather 'round.

This should serve as a good viewing guide for you, whether you are at the game or watching on TV:

Let's see how wrong I am. I don't think I left anyone out, although I probably did.

But here it goes:


OFFENSE

QB
15 Anthony Russo (6-4, 245, Sr., Doylestown, Pa.)
10 Payton Thorne (6-2, 215, Soph., Naperville, Ill.)
6 Theo Day (6-5, 220, Jr., Canton, Mich/Divine Child)
5 Hampton Fay (6-5, 215, Fr., Hudson Oaks, Texas)
14 Noah Kim (6-2, 180, Fr., Centreville, Va.)

RB
9 Kenneth Walker III (5-10, 205, Soph., Arlington, Tenn.)
11 Connor Heyward (6-0, 230, Sr., Duluth, Ga.)
22 Jordon Simmons (5-11, 196, Soph., Marietta, Ga.)
24 Elijah Collins (6-1, 215, Jr., Detroit)
32 Donovan Eaglin (5-11, 230, Fr., Rosharon, Texas)

WR
1 Jayden Reed (6-0, 180, JR., Naperville, Ill.)
3 Terry Lockett (6-0, 175, Soph., Minneapolis)
85 Cade McDonald (5-11, 200, Soph., Naperville, Ill.)
25 Josepth Martinez (5-9, 190, R-Fr., Holt)

WR
8 Jalen Nailor (6-0, 185, Jr., Palmdale, Calif./Las Vegas Bishop Gorman)
4 CJ Hayes (6-2, 200, Sr., Bowling Green, Ky.)
13 Sebastian Brown (6-3, 190, Fr., Detroit Cass Tech)

WR
17 Tre Mosley (6-2, 190, Soph., Pontiac/West Bloomfield)
83 Montorie Foster (6-0, 185, Soph., Cleveland St. Edward)
80 Ian Stewart* (6-3, 225, Fr., Woodhaven, Mich.)
87 Jahz Watts (6-0, 180, Sr., Belleville)
* Might be playing tight end

TE
97 Tyler Hunt (6-3, 220, Sr., Gobles, Mich.)
88 Trenton Gillison (6-4, 240, Jr., Pickerington, Ohio)
92 Evan Morris (6-5, 235, Soph., Elsie, Mich.)
84 Tommy Guajardo (6-3, 230, Fr., Dearborn, Mich.)
81 Parks Gissinger (6-4, 235, Jr., Los Angeles)
82 Kameron Allen (6-4, 220, Fr., Forney, Texas)

LT
76 AJ Arcuri (6-7, 300, Sr., Powell, Ohio)
79 Jarrett Horst (6-6, 306, Jr., Middleton, Wis.)
68 Dan VanOpstall (6-6, 300, Jr., Jenison, Mich.)
77 Ethan Boyd (6-7, 315, Fr., East Lansing)

LG
67 JD Duplain (6-4, 310, Jr., Strongsville, Ohio)
69 Blake Bueter (6-4, 300, Sr., Howell, Mich/Detroit Catholic Central)
72 Damon Kaylor (6-5, 315, Soph., Huntington, Ind.)

C
59 Nick Samac (6-4, 300, Jr., Mentor, Ohio)
64 Matt Allen (6-3, 310, Sr., Hinsdale, Ill.)
73 Jacob Isaia (6-3, 305, Jr., Las Vegas)

RG
56 Matt Carrick (6-5, 325, Sr., Minerva, Ohio)
71 James Ohonba (6-4, 310, Jr., Stockbridge, Ga.)
70 Dallas Fincher (6-4, 285, Fr., East Kentwood)

RT
75 Kevin Jarvis (6-6, 320, Sr., Chicago/Maine South)
58 Spencer Brown (6-6, 310, Soph., Commerce Twp/Walled Lake Western)
63 Justin Stevens (6-6, 295, Fr., Dartmouth, Nova Scotia


DEFENSE

DE
96 Jacub Panasiuk (6-4, 250, Sr., Roselle, Ill.)
5 Michael Fletcher (6-6, 255, Soph., Flint Carman-Ainsworth)
91 Jack Camper (6-5, 255, Sr., Virginia Beach, Va.)
98 Avery Dunn (6-4, 235, R-Fr., Shaker Heights, Ohio)
26 Brandon Wright (6-2, 240, Jr., Euclid, Ohio)

DT
64 Jacob Slade (6-4, 310, Jr., Lewis Center, Ohio)
97 Maverick Hansen (6-4, 310, Soph., Farmington Hills Harrison)
8 Simeon Barrow (6-2, 280, R-Fr., Grovetown, Ga.)

DT
94 Dashaun Mallory (6-2, 300, Jr., Bolingbrook, Ill.)
99 Jalen Hunt (6-4, 320, Soph., Belleville, Mich.)
54 Kyle King (6-3, 260, R-Fr., Greenfield, Ind.)
30 Chris Mayfield (6-2, 295, R-Fr, Hilliard, Ohio)

DE
86 Drew Beesley (6-2, 260, Sr., Rochester Hills, Mich/Warren De La Salle)
2 Drew Jordan (6-3, 285, Sr., Suwanee, Ga.)
47 Jeff Pietrowski (6-1, 250, Soph., Medina, Ohio)
55 Zach Slade (6-4, 245, Jr., Lewis Center, Ohio)
87 Jasiyah Robinson (6-2, 245, Fr., Groveport, Ohio)

MLB
45 Noah Harvey (6-4, 235, Sr., Hartland, Wis.)
58 Terry O’Connor (6-3, 225, Jr., Traverse City, Mich.)
37 Devin Hightower (5-11, 225, R-Fr., Twinsburg, Ohio)

ILB
21 Chase Kline (6-4, 235, Jr., Chardon, Ohio)
27 Cal Haladay (6-1, 225, Fr., Elysburg, Pa.)
25 Cole DeMarzo (6-4, 220, Fr., Hilton Head S.C.)
32 Sam Edwards (6-0, 220, R-Fr., Lansing Catholic)


NB
33 Kendall Brooks (6-0, 200, Swansea, S.C.)
23 Darius Snow (6-1, 215, Soph., Frisco, Texas)
32 Zach Denha (6-0, 180, R-Fr., Rochester Hills/Stoney Creek)

CB
15 Angelo Grose (5-10, 175, Soph., Mansfield, Ohio)
38 Spencer Rowland (6-0, 185, Sr., Saranac, Mich.)

CB
18 Kalon Gervin (5-11, 185, Jr., Detroit Cass Tech)
22 Justin White (5-9, 170, Soph., Agoura Hills, Calif.)
36 Torrell Williams (5-10, Soph., Detroit/Cranbrook)

SS
3 Xavier Henderson (6-1, 210, Soph., Reynoldsburg, Ohio/Pickerington Central)
28 Tate Hallock (6-4, 205, Soph., Grand Rapids/Forest Hills Central)
12 Michael Gravely (6-0, 210, Fr., Cleveland Glenville)

FS
7 Michael Dowell (6-1, 215, Soph., North Ridgeville, Ohio)
20 Emmanuel Flowers (6-2, 195, Jr., Chino Hills, Calif.)

The 2021 NCAA Basketball Tournament and season have come to a close, but a new season always provides new data and new stories to tell about that data. In the 2021 NCAA Tournament, one storyline was the apparent ease at which No. 2 seed Houston was able to reach the Final Four. The Cougars’ path to the final weekend went through a No. 15 seed (Cleveland State), a No. 10 seed (Rutgers), a No. 11 seed (Syracuse), and finally a No. 12 seed (Oregon State).

This marked the first time in history that a team had reached the Final Four without facing a single-digit seed. By some measure, this implies that Houston had the easiest path in history to the Final Four. But, for me, this type of discussion always begs the question of how to quantify something like the difficulty of an NCAA Tournament path.

My approach to try to answer this question is to define a benchmark or reference team and to then calculate the odds that this hypothetical team would reach the Final Four given any arbitrary tournament path. Fortunately, tempo-free metrics such as Kenpom efficiency margins provide just such an opportunity to quantify these odds.

Historical data suggests that an average Final Four team since 2002 has a pre-tournament Kenpom adjusted efficiency margin of around +25.4. (This means that an average Final Four team would be expected to beat an average division one team by about 25 points in a game made up of 100 total possessions for each team.) This value is very similar to the efficiency of MSU’s 2005 Final Four team. So, this is effectively the reference team.

Using efficiency data, it is possible to a project a point spread and therefore a victory probability for any arbitrary team versus this reference team as long as the efficiency margin data is available. This is generally the case for all teams back to 2002 on Kenpom.com.

Calibrating the effect of bracket position​

As a first step, I wanted to understand the general benefit that teams get from earning a higher seed. To achieve this, I set up a simulation of sorts involving a theoretical bracket made up entirely of teams with the historically average efficiency margin for teams of that seed.

For example, the average efficiency margin of all No. 1 seeds back to 2002 is +28.9. This corresponds to a team such as Michigan State’s No. 1 seeded team in 2012. An average No. 2 seed historically has an efficiency margin of +23.5, which is similar to MSU’s 2009 team, and so on. These teams make up the theoretical bracket.

I then calculated the odds that the reference team (MSU’s 2005 team) would make the Final Four if they were inserted into this theoretical bracket in any of possible seed positions from No. 1 all the way to No. 16. I also assumed that in every round the reference team faces the highest seeded possible opponent (i.e. that there are no upsets). The result of this set of calculations is shown below in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Odds of a reference, average Final Four team making the Final Four in a bracket of historically average teams if the reference teams were to be inserted as any seed and no upsets occur.

This figure shows us the true benefit of being a top seed. In this scenario, the team in the No. 1 seed position has a shade over a one-in-five chance to win the four games needed to make the Final Four. For teams with the path of the No. 2 seed, those odds fall by five percentage points to 15 percent. The odds continue to drop to 12 percent for the No. 3 seed path, 11 percent for a No. 4 seed, and 10 percent for a No. 5 seed.

Interestingly, once a team drops to a No. 6 seed, the odds for the reference team to reach the Final Four are essentially equal (eight to nine percent) for all paths from the six-line down to the 16-line. As a reminder, this calculation assumes that the efficiency of the reference team is fixed. So, whether they are a No. 6 seed or a No. 11 seed, they are still equally as good.

This analysis already gives valuable insight. Basically, there is a clear advantage to the path of a No. 1 or a No. 2 seed, independent of the real strength of that team. There is a slight advantage to the path of a No. 3, No. 4 or No. 5 seed, but after that it really doesn’t matter with regards to the odds of making a Final Four.

The history of the NCAA Tournament is filled with examples of teams that cycle up right before the tournament, either due to players returning for injuries or simply figuring things out as the season progresses. These teams are likely better than the seed that they have been given and the average efficiency that the metrics assign to them. The good news for teams is this position is that whether they are given a No. 3 seed or a No. 11 seed, their odds to make the Final Four are roughly the same, all other things (such as upsets and either over-seeded or under-seeded opponents) being equal.

Easy Paths and Hard Paths​

The problem is, not all paths are equal. Using a similar method, it is possible to estimate the relative ease or difficulty of any of the paths that previous Final Four teams have actually traveled on their way to the final weekend. In this case, the same reference team (approximately as good as MSU in 2005) is used, but instead of calculating that team’s Final Four odds against a theoretical, average bracket, the efficiencies of the teams from the actual NCAA Tournament paths are used.

For example, to compare the paths of both Baylor and Houston in the 2021 Tournament, I first looked up the pre-tournament efficiency margins for the four opponents of each of those teams en route to their meeting in the 2021 Final Four. As mentioned above, for Houston, these teams are Cleveland State, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Oregon State. For Baylor, these teams are Hartford, Wisconsin, Villanova, and Arkansas.

Then, I estimated the odds that the reference team (Michigan State in 2005) would have to win games against each set of four teams. The product of the odds of each set of four games give the odds to make it to the Final Four on that path.

I made the same calculation for each Final Four team’s path to the Final Four back to 2002. I also pulled the numbers for MSU’s Final Four teams in 1999, 2000, and 2001 for reference. For comparison, I also calculated the Final Four odds for each path assuming that each opponent was an average team for that seed and not the actual opponent.

For example, in the case of Houston in 2021, I calculated both the odds for the reference team to beat an average No. 15, No. 10, No. 11, and No. 12 seed and the odds for the reference team to beat Houston’s actual opponents. The results of this calculation are shown below in Figure 1.


Figure 2: Comparison of the difficulty of different paths to the Final Four, based on the odds that a reference team would reach the Final Four using the path of each team

All 76 teams to play in a Final Four since 2002 (plus the three additional MSU Final Four teams) are shown in this Figure, and there is a lot to observe.

The x-axis shows the actual odds or true, normalized difficulty of each team’s path. Based on this analysis, it is true the 2021 Houston team did, in fact, have the easiest Final Four path of any team in history. The reference team had a 39 percent chance to win those four games.

The most difficult tournament path in recent history belongs to the 2019 Texas Tech squad (the team that beat Michigan State in the Final Four that year). In this case, the reference team only had a seven percent chance to reach the final weekend. Houston’s path was five-and-a-half times easier than Texas Tech’s path two years prior.

Interestingly, Texas Tech’s path in 2019 (7.0 percent) was actually slightly harder than the path traveled by both UCLA in 2021 (7.4 percent) and VCU in 2011 (7.8 percent). As participants in the First Four, UCLA and VCU had to play five games instead of four to make the Final Four, but Texas Tech’s four-game slate still graded out to be harder.

Note that dotted vertical orange line in Figure 1 represents the median of the data sets. So, the teams to the left of this line had a path that was easier than average, while the teams on the right side of the graph had a harder than average path.

As for Michigan State, Tom Izzo has clearly experienced both some of the easiest, as well as some of the most difficult tournament paths in history. Half of Izzo’s Final Four teams fall to the right of the orange line, while the other half are on the left.

MSU’s most difficult path in the Izzo era was in 2015 when the Spartans faced No. 10 Georgia, No. 2 Virginia, No. 3 Oklahoma, and No. 4 Louisville. The Spartans’ softest Final Four path was in 2001 when MSU faced No. 16 Alabama State, No. 9 Fresno State, No. 12 Gonzaga, and No. 11 Temple. Coach Izzo’s other six paths are closer to the median.

The y-axis on Figure 1, which gives the odds for the reference team if they were to face an average version of each seed, gives us some additional insight. If a data point falls above the diagonal line, this implies that the path that team took in reality is actually harder than it appears based simply on the seeds of the opponents. The opposite is also true. Data points that fall below the diagonal line represent teams whose Final Four path was easier than expected, based on the seeds of the opponents.

These differences can be more easily understood by looking at a selection of the Final Four paths in more detail. Table 1 below gives the opponent details for the teams that took the 20 easiest paths to the Final Four.

Table 1: Detailed opponent data for the 20 easiest paths to the Final Four


In the case of Michigan State in 2001, based on just the seeds that the Spartans faced (No. 16, No. 9, No. 12 and No. 11) this path should be the easiest path in history. If those four teams were merely average teams of that seed, the reference team’s odds to make the Final Four would be about 43 percent, which is slightly easier than the 41 percent odds that the reference team would have using a set of average seeds equivalent to Houston’s path in 2021.

But, if the efficiencies of the actual opponents are considered, MSU’s path in 2001 drop to seventh place, as shown in Table 2. In this case, for each opponent the Kenpom efficiency margin relative the average margin for that seed in shown in the table.

For MSU in 2001, once the Spartans got past the first round, the next three opponents were above average for their seed. Specially, No. 12 Gonzaga’s Kenpom efficiency margin was +2.3 points better than an average No. 12 seed. The Zags efficiency was more similar to an average No. 10 than a No. 12 seed.

Furthermore, No. 11 Temple’s efficiency margin was +6.8 points better than average. That would make the 2001 Temple team more similar to a No. 4 seed. Unfortunately for the Spartans, their national semifinal opponent in 2001, No. 2 Arizona, was also significantly above average for their seed...and it showed.

MSU’s 1999 Final Four team also had a path that was harder in reality that it might look on paper. Sweet 16 opponent No. 13 Oklahoma and regional final opponent, No. 3 Kentucky both had Kenpom efficiency margin’s significantly above average for their seed.

I should note here that in one of my previous analyses, I suggested that there was data to support the idea that Michigan State, on average, is the most under-seeded team in recent history of the NCAA Tournament. But, part of my reasoning was that it seems unlikely that MSU’s Tournament opponents were, on average, under-seeded.

However, the data in Figure 1 suggest that for the 1999 and 2001 Final Four teams, that was certainly the case, as they are two clear outliers on the figure. It seems that the committee might have both under-seeded MSU and over-seeded the teams in MSU’s path in the past.

On the other side of the coin, there are several notable teams whose NCAA Tournament paths were actually quite a bit easier than they appear just based on seeding. For example, the 2005 Illinois team (No. 1 seed), the 2004 UCONN team (No. 2 seed), and especially the 2006 UCLA team (No. 2 seed) all had paths that grade out as weak, not just due to the seeds that they faced, but also due to a set of opponents that appear to have been overrated.

UCLA’s 2006 path to the Final Four was particularly soft. All four of the Bruins’ opponents were notably below average, based on Kenpom data. UCLA’s Sweet 16 and regional final opponents (No. 3 Gonzaga, -7.6 and No. 1 Memphis, -6.6) were particularly weak. The data suggests that those two teams graded out closer to a No. 11 seed and a No. 3 seed, respectively.

Finally, using the same method, it is also straightforward to quantity the level of difficulty for each team to both reach the championship game and to win the national title. Briefly, the top-five easiest paths to the championship game (with the normalized odds for the reference team) are:

1. North Carolina in 2016 (22.8 percent)
2. UCLA in 2006 (21.7 percent)
3. Texas in 2003 (21.7 percent)
4. Michigan in 2018 (20.2 percent)
5. Illinois in 2005 (21.1 percent)

Here are the top-five overall easiest NCAA Tournament paths (including the title game, for those that made it):

1. UCLA in 2006 (11.7 percent)
2. North Carolina in 2016 (10.6 percent)
3. Florida in 2006 (8.9 percent)
4. Villanova in 2018 (8.0 percent)
5. Louisville in 2013 (7.8 percent)

That’s all for today. Until next time, enjoy, and Go Green.

Below is a list of recruits who are planning to visit Michigan State for the spring game. We will add to this thread with more recruits and quotes as they come through.

2022
Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media 2023

Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media

Tommy McIntosh is the 6-foot-5 WR from DeWitt who had a monster junior season, helping his team win the Division 3 state championship.

He earned scholarship offers from Vanderbilt and Indiana earlier this week.

He tells me that Michigan State has stepped forward with its communication. He has been texting with Will Peagler this week and also received a phone call from Scott Aligo.

"It was really exciting considering I grew up a big MSU fan and being so close to campus it was really something I had been dreaming about since I was a little kid," McIntosh said.

https://twitter.com/TMcIntosh44

Question for anyone who has seen Russo up close and preferably in-person:

Is that 245 all good weight?

Or should he be a little lighter?

It looks like a potential portal target is off of the board

Login to view embedded media

Here is my notebook on RB's.

The 2020-2021 men’s basketball season might be over, but now is a good time to reflect on the results of the NCAA Tournament, both this year, and historically. In my previous analysis, I showed how Michigan State University head coach Tom Izzo dominates all other coaches when it comes to NCAA Tournament performance relative to expectation.

However, being the best relative to expectation is just another phrase for overachieving. On some level, it’s a moral victory. What is more important is actual victories, and fortunately, Coach Izzo has plenty of those as well. In today’s contribution, we will see that Izzo is still one of the best coaches in history in the month of March. Period.

Overall Wins and Percentages​

Let’s begin by simply looking at some wins and losses. Table 1 below give the NCAA Tournament win-loss record for the 30 head coaches with the most total games played in the modern era (from 1979 on).

Once again, 1979 was a landmark year in the history of the tournament, as it was the first time that the teams were seeded, and it was the first time that the tournament was comprised of over 32 teams. I do not track win, loses, or any other stats prior to 1979. In other words, John Wooden will not be appearing in this analysis.



In terms of total games and total wins, Coach Izzo sits in sixth place in the modern era with 74 total games played and with 52 total wins. In comparison to coaches that are still active, Izzo is essentially neck-and-neck with Rick Pitino (Boston, Providence, Kentucky, Louisville, and now Iona) and John Calipari (UMASS, Memphis, and Kentucky) and just ahead of Bill Self (Tulsa, Illinois, and Kansas).

Coach Izzo has now also passed legends Lute Olson (Iowa and Arizona) and Jim Calhoun (Northeastern and UCONN). But, Izzo also trails Mike Krzyewski (Duke), the recently retired Roy Williams (Kansas and North Carolina), and Jim Boeheim (Syracuse).

I could imagine Izzo passing the 76-year old Boeheim in total wins depending on when each coach retires, and if Pitino does not return to a high major, I would expect Izzo to pass him as well. However, passing Roy Williams is unlikely, and passing Calipari and even staying ahead of Self will be difficult, at least as long as I am still counting vacated and potentially future vacated wins.

Another March metric that often gets mentioned is tournament win percentage, which is also shown in Table 1. Relatively high win percentages are highlighted in green, while relatively low numbers are highlighted in orange. If memory serves correctly, a few years ago Coach Izzo was in first place in this metric, but it has a tendency to change quickly and is a bit quirky.

For example, the coach with the best overall win percentage in the modern era is former UCONN coach Kevin Ollie with a record of 7-1 (87.5 percent). Coach Ollie won the national title in 2014 in his tournament debut, but then only made the tournament one other time (2016) before he was fired in 2018.

Coach Izzo’s win percentage of 70.3 ranks 21st overall, but above Izzo on the list are 11 coaches who have appeared in five or fewer tournaments (such as Brad Stevens of Butler, Chris Beard of Texas Tech, and several coaches that I have never heard of). Coach Izzo currently ranks 10th all time in the modern era in winning percentage of coaches who have appeared in at least eight tournaments.

King of the Underdogs​

Table 1 also gives a breakdown of record and win percentages based on whether the coach was the higher or lower seed. Of the 74 total NCAA Tournament games that Coach Izzo has appeared in, the Spartans were the higher seed in 45 of those games. As the higher seed, Izzo has only lost eight times and boasts a winning percentage of over 80 percent in the white jerseys. Less than half of the coaches shown in Table 1 can make this claim.

But, the area where Coach Izzo truly dominates is in the role of the underdog. Under Izzo, Michigan State has played in 29 total tournament games as the lower seed and won 15 times. Only eight other coaches in the history of the tournament have over a .500 record as the seed underdog and only four of those other coaches can make this claim with over 10 attempts (Larry Brown of Kansas and SMU, Jim O’Brien of Ohio State, Rollie Massimino of Villanova, and Leonard Hamilton of Florida State).

Furthermore, only three coaches in history have 10 or more career wins as the underdog in March: Massimino (11), Lute Olson (11), and Jim Boeheim who just this year tied Izzo with 15 wins as the underdog. That said, Boeheim’s overall record as the underdog (15-16) is a shade below Izzo’s and it took him 10 more tournament attempts to get there.

As Table 1 highlights, Izzo is the only coach with over 35 total tournament games played with over an 80 percent winning percentage as the favorite and with over a 50 percent winning percentage as the underdog. Only three other coaches are a member of this club with more than eight total tournament games: Massimino, Chris Beard, and Larry Brown. Clearly, Coach Izzo is the King of the Underdogs in March.

Round-by-Round Achievements​

Another important way to measure achievements is to count things like appearances in the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four. Table 2 below summarizes the round-by-round achievements of each coach in the modern era with at least one national title or at least two Final Fours appearances.

Table 2: Round-by-round achievements of NCAA Tournament coaches with at least one championship or two Final Fours


For each round, I have tabulated the total number of appearance and the faction of times each coach has reached that round per total number of tournament appearances. For the first round, I instead have tabulated first round upset rates, as losing in the first round as a high-level coach is more notable than winning.

Table 2 also highlights the rates that are either particularly strong (in green) or weak (in orange). As a general rule, getting upset in the first round more than a third of the time is not great, while getting upset less than 15 percent of the time is pretty good.

As for the higher rounds, I have set the threshold for notable good performance as making the Sweet 16 in more than 60 percent of tournament appearances, making the regional final at least 40 percent of the time, making the Final Four at least 25 percent of the time, and winning the national title in at least 10 percent of all tournament appearances.

In these five categories, only Coach K, Roy Williams, and North Carolina legend Dean Smith are in the “green zone” in all five. Of coaches with more than two tournament appearances, only Billy Donovan and John Calipari appear in the green zone in four of five categories. Donovan had a more average rate of reaching the Sweet 16, while Calipari’s sole title in 20 tournament appearances puts him outside of green area in that category.

Coach Izzo scores in the green zone in a total of three categories: Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four appearances. Izzo’s three first round upsets (to Nevada in 2004, George Mason in 2006, and Middle Tennessee in 2016) are a bit more average and similar to Calipari. Also, Izzo probably should have more than one title by now.

But, in the other three areas, Coach Izzo’s numbers are impressive. His 14 Sweet 16 appearances are good enough for sixth place in the modern area and only one short of a tie for fourth place. Izzo’s 10 Elite Eight appearance are good enough for a tie for fifth place in the modern era, while his eight Final Four appearances ranks third only behind Roy Williams (nine) and Coach K (12).

Coach Izzo has reached the Final Four in just below 35 percent of every tournament that he has played in which is the best in history for coaches with more than eight tournament appearances. Only Larry Brown (three Final Fours in eight attempts) and Brad Stevens (two Final Fours in five attempts) can boast a better percentage.

Masters of the One-Day Prep​

In addition to Coach Izzo’s total win count, underdog victories, and Final Fours, he is also famous for his ability to usually win the second game of the weekend in NCAA Tournament play. Izzo’s process and result in the one-day prep scenario is legendary in East Lansing, but does the historical data back up his superiority?

Table 3 summarizes the winning percentages for the same group of 30 coaches shown in Table 1 on both the first game and second game of the weekend in NCAA Tournament play. In both cases, a win percentage of 75 percent or better is highlighted in green.

Table 3: First and second game win percentages for all NCAA Tournament coaches with more than 35 total games.


As the table shows, only three coaches in this group can claim a second game win percentage greater than 75 percent: Louisville legend Denny Crum, Coach K, and Tom Izzo. Coach Izzo does have an edge on Mike Krzyewski in this category, but the historical champion of the one-day prep seems to be Coach Crum, whose record of 18-4 edges out Izzo’s record of 23-6 by a few percentage points. Second place is still pretty good.

It should be noted that there are several other coaches with higher second-game win percentages, but with far fewer attempts. There are 39 total coaches who are perfect in this situation, but none of those coaches had more than four total attempts. A few coaches, including Steve Lavin, Tom Crean, and Jim Larranga have second game win percentages over 80 percent in five or six attempts, but only the three coaches mentioned above clear 75 percent with more than eight attempts.

As for experts in the longer, first game of the weekend prep, a total of six coaches clear the 80 percent win rate in this situation, including Roy Williams, Calipari, and Bill Self. But, the best in history at this particular metric seems to be Georgetown legend John Thomas with a record of 22-3 on the first game of the weekend.

Performance Versus Seeds​

The final bit of data that I wanted to share today is the records that each of the top coaches have been able to accumulate versus some of the individual seeds in tournament play. Table 4 below summarizes the record for the top 30 coaches shown in Table 1 and 3 when facing seeds No. 1 to No. 7. In addition, I also lumped together the records for No. 8 and No. 9 seeds as well as for all of the double-digit seeds.

Table 4: Performance versus each NCAA Tournament seed for the top 30 coaches based on total games played


A few things jump out in this table. Starting with each coach’s record against No. 1 seeds, Coach Tom Izzo record is 5-9 all-time. The five wins over No. 1 seeds is tied for fourth all time with Jim Boeheim and Rick Pitino and behind only Coach K (eight), Lute Olson (seven), and Roy Williams (six).

Furthermore, Izzo’s 14 total games against No. 1 seeds is tied with Roy Williams for second place and only one short of Coach K’s record of 15. That said, Coach Izzo accumulated all of these wins since 1998, and in that time frame, his five wins over No. 1 seeds is unmatched. Jay Wright of Villanova and Boeheim have four, while Williams, Self, Calpari, and Donovan only have three. All other coaches, including Mike Krzyewski, have two or fewer.

Moreover, Izzo’s 14 games against No. 1 seeds since 1998 is five more than the coach in second place, Roy Williams with only nine. It certainly cannot be said that under Izzo Michigan State has avoided the toughest of competition in March.

Coach Izzo hasn’t just had success against No. 1 seeds either. What is even more surprising is his performance against teams seeded No. 2 to No. 6. Coach Izzo is a staggering 17-5 (77 percent) against this collection of seeds. No coach with more than six tournament appearances can match this percentage.

As for the lower seeds. Coach Izzo is perfect against No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, but is oddly 0-3 versus No. 7 seeds and has five career losses to double-digit seeds, including an 0-3 career record against No. 11 seeds. That said, two of those No. 11 seeds wound up making the Final Four (George Mason in 2006 and UCLA in 2021) and the other one was coached by Hall of Famer Jim Boeheim.

As a final note, I will leave you with this final fact. Coach Izzo has coached in a total of 23 NCAA Tournaments. He won one of those tournaments and lost in the other 22. Of those 22 losses:

• Seven losses came in the Final Four
• Seven additional losses came to teams that went on to play in the Final Four
• Two losses came to other No. 1 seeds

Only six of Coach Izzo’s losses (27 percent) fall outside of these three categories.

What more needs to be said? Coach Tom Izzo is simply one of the best to ever coach in the month of March.

Release:

MSU Athletics Announces Plan for Spring Game



The Michigan State football team will hold its annual Spring Football Game on Saturday, April 24 at 2 p.m. Following protocols and guidelines established by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), a limited number of spectators will be allowed to attend the contest. The event will be a 10-15 period practice featuring individual and group drills as well as live scrimmage periods.


“We are excited to be able to welcome a limited number of fans, including for the first time all year, the general public, to Spartan Stadium,” MSU Vice President and Athletic Director Bill Beekman said. “There’s a buzz building around the Spartan football program and I know our student-athletes and coaches will love to have fans in attendance, with many more tuning in on television and radio. I’d also like to thank our staff who has worked diligently to put together a plan that complies with all of the MDHHS requirements to make this event accessible to our fans.”



“We’re looking forward to having our Spartan fans watch us live in Spartan Stadium,” Michigan State head coach Mel Tucker said. “Our fans are hungry for football. We want to engage our fans and we understand that they are a vital part of our program. It’s a positive first step in connecting with our community and giving them a chance to see what our program is all about. To be able to take the field with the band playing ‘Victory for MSU’ and fans cheering will be a great way to complete spring practice.”



Face Masks Required

Per Michigan State University policy, face coverings must be worn by everyone (including all faculty, staff, students, alumni, vendors and visitors) indoors and outdoors while on property owned or governed by MSU and while participating in MSU-related or MSU-sponsored activities.



Capacity

Michigan State athletics will distribute approximately 6,000 free digital tickets to the event. Only the lower-bowl seating areas (capacity of 54,566) at Spartan Stadium will be utilized, resulting in approximately 11% capacity. With the addition of the Spartan Marching Band, and the dance and cheer teams (approximately 300 total), total attendance will be well under MDHHS capacity limits (currently set at 20% capacity).



Ticket Distribution

Beginning Tuesday, April 20, Spartan Fund members in the top three donor levels will be able to claim up to four (4) digital tickets from a limited allotment. The following day, Wednesday, April 21, tickets will be available beginning at 8 a.m. on Michigan State’s official athletic website, msuspartans.com, with the opportunity to secure up to four (4) tickets. That same day, MSU students will be able to claim one of 500 tickets allotted just for students.



Health Screening

Everyone ordering a digital ticket must enter a valid email address to receive the tickets. The email addresses will be documented by the Spartan Ticket Office for contact tracing purposes. All email addresses receiving digital tickets from the Spartan Ticket Office will be sent a link 24 hours prior to the event to complete a mandatory health screening. The completed health screening form must be shown to stadium personnel before entering Spartan Stadium. Spectators also will be required to pass a symptom checklist.



Parking

Parking on game day will be free on campus in lots 79, 62, 126 and 63. Lot 124 will be available for accessible parking. Lots open at Noon. Tailgating is not permitted and lots will be strictly monitored to enforce this policy.



Entry and Seating Protocols

Digital ticket holders may enter at stadium gates B, C, J and K, located at the southeast, southwest, northwest and northeast corners of Spartan Stadium beginning at 12:30 p.m. At each of these gates, every other entry point will be used. On each line there will be ground markings to help identify 6 feet of space between groups of ticket holders. Customer service and event staff will assist at those entrances to ensure physical distancing protocols are being followed.



The lower bowl of Spartan Stadium will be divided into five seating areas. Upon entrance, spectators will be allocated color-coded wristbands to sit in assigned seating areas throughout Spartan Stadium, which will ensure a predetermined number of people will be sitting in each section. Per MDHHS protocols, spectators will be in groups of no more than six people and at least 6 feet of physical distance must be maintained from people outside of one’s cohort.



Concessions

Concession stands will be open in both the north and south concourses where there is greater room for distancing. All concessions purchases will require cashless payment. Fans are only permitted to eat and drink when at their seating location.



Restrooms

Only the large restrooms on the north and south concourses will be open. Air PHX systems will be utilized in every open restroom.



No-Bag Policy

Spartan Stadium has a no-bag policy that will be enforced during the event, other than required for medical reasons.



Event Format

The event will be a 10-15 period practice featuring individual and group drills as well as live scrimmage periods.



Broadcast Coverage

The event will be televised live on Big Ten Network. It will also be broadcast statewide on the TCF Bank Spartan Media Network, with George Blaha and Jason Strayhorn on the call. Coverage will begin at 1:30 p.m. with a 30-minute pregame show.

2016-17 went 5-29-4.

2018-19, national runner up.
2020-21, national champions.

Here is a notebook that I put together from today's zoom call

Here is my story on Michigan State's second scrimmage.


I will have more content tonight.

Tucker is talking about Michigan State's second scrimmage. He says that communication is a lot better and that they are playing faster. He says special teams work is much improved. He says that they are gaining ground.

I put together a 3-2-1 on what we've been able to learn to this point in spring football. I am really looking forward to the spring game this year, because there has been so many generalities. I guess I'm really looking forward to seeing how everything fits. I want to know Drew Jordan is moving better and able to rush the passer.