Guilty as charged:

Two hearted

This looks like high level basketball to me. Damn. UNCG is the real deal

As we enjoy the appetizer that is the First Four, here is a little more historical data that may help you fill out your bracket. First, how about the Final Four teams themselves? How aggressive can you / should you be in picking lower seeds? If we go back to 1979, the total distribution looks like this:

where, as we can see, 40% of all Final Four participants are 1-seeds, 20% are 2-seeds, 20% are 3-seeds and 4-seeds, and the remaining 20% is something lower than that. So, odds are only 1 or 2 of the current 1-seeds will wind up in San Antonio. Another way to look at this data is the distribution of the top seed in the Final Four, the second highest seed, the 3rd highest, and the lowest. That data is shown here:

The gives you a little better idea of what to expect. In almost any given year, you can expect at least one 1-seed. The second and third highest seeds are usually 1-seeds or 2-seeds. But, in the vast majority of years (over 90%) there is a 3-seed or lower that crashes the party. One final way to look at this data is that the average top Final Four seed in a given year has a seed of 1.1, the second highest average seed is 1.7, third is 2.9, and the average lowest seed is 5.5.

Another interesting piece of data that I pulled tonight deals with at what point it is likely that each seed will get eliminated. In other words, what percentage of (say) 1-seeds actually make the (say) regional final? That data is shown in the following 2 graphs:


Based on the top graph above, the answer to my question is about 70%, as a little over 30% of the 1-seed get eliminated in the Sweet 16 or before. Also notable is that about a third of all 2-seeds don't make the Sweet 16, and about 45% of 3-seeds get bounced in the first weekend.

There is some other interesting information buried in the data as well, such as the fact that 5-seeds almost never get past the Sweet 16. Only 9 5-seeds have ever made a Regional Final and two of those teams were MSU teams that made the Final Four. Ironically, once a 5-seed makes the Regional Final, 7 of the 9 have made the Final Four, but none have ever won the Title.

Finally, I will leave the board with this tidbit. For all those of us that either are anticipating or dreading the possibility of an MSU-Duke rematch in the Sweet 16, you might be surprised to learn that the 2-3 match-up has only happened in 51 of the possible 156 cases since 1979, which suggests there is only about a 1 in 3 chance that it will happen this year, either because MSU gets upset or Duke does. If the teams do meet, history suggests that the 2-seed wins 65% of the time (33/51).

Food for thought.

I have posted this plot a few times this winter, but now that the regular season is over, the data is finally all in and we can start to draw a real conclusion. I downloaded all of the KenPom pretournament data back to 2002 and looked at the statistical profile of all 16 past champs. They ALL had the following things in common:

An adjusted offensive efficiency of at least 111.35 points per 100 possessions
An adjusted defensive efficiency of no greater than 94.95 points per 100 possessions.

Of all 68 teams in the field, only 8 teams this year meet this criteria. They are:

Virginia
Tennessee
Cincinnati
Michigan
Texas Tech
Clemson
MSU
Duke

Graphically, this relationship is shown here:


Where the green area is the championship area.

Another notable observation is that 13 of the 16 champions also finished in the Top 6 of Kenpom's final overall rankings. If we consider the teams in the current Top 6 that fall into the green region, this gives you the 4 teams most likely to win the Title this year:

Virginia
Cincinnati
MSU
Duke

I hope this is helpful as you fill out your bracket!

The committee took ASU and OK over Baylor and St. Mary's. Pretty clear early indication of value of "quality wins" vs the penalty of "bad loses". Not a good early sign for MSU

OK, after today's results and a little more thought, I have tweaked my bracket. I am going to still go for my slightly homer pick of putting MSU as a 2-seed in Detroit, and this time I even put us in the Midwest. A couple teams I vary pretty significantly from other source, but I stand by my bracketology. Without further ado, here we go:

So, I like to talk some smack about bracketology. Now, it is time to show you my cards. I usually put together my own bracket and I am a bit ahead of schedule on my own S-curve this year. It is rather late, so I am just going to drop this here with limited comment. I am sure it is not perfect, but this is my current idea.

I have been waffling back and forth, but my current answer is MSU is the 2-seed in the East, on the assumption that the committee will take a hard look at the Kenpom rankings and make a more rational decision that just the RPI might lead them to. Enjoy

First of all, everybody needs to take a step back from the ledge. Yes, it sucks to lose to Michigan. Yes, I have concerns about this team reaching its potential. Yes, it sucks to have to stew about the BTT for a week and wring our hands about seeding and placement. I get it. BUT, the season IS NOT OVER. Let’s pull back a bit from talk about who is going pro and next year’s team. We will have plenty of time to debate that in the weeks to come. It’s March, we have a HOF coach and at least 2 lottery picks. Not too many teams can say that.

Second, I am one of the biggest culprits for this, but I think we also need to chill out a bit about MSU’s seed and whether we will be playing in Detroit. This one is hard for me, but I will try. It reminds me A LOT about the whole Outback Bowl debacle a few month ago. At the end of the day, we might not get what we want (a 2-seed in Detroit or the OutHouse Bowl) but sometimes you get what you need (a good Bowl match-up or a favorable NCAA tournament draw). NO ONE can predict MSU’s next opponent or location. But, there are a few things that maybe we can discuss.

So, let’s talk about potential match-ups. The one thing that I think we can all agree upon is MSU will almost certainly be either a 2-seed or a 3-seed. At this point, I don’t see much point in talking about MSU’s possible 1st or even 2nd round match-ups. There are simply too many potential variables and possible outcomes. But, we can certainly plan on facing a 14- or 15-seed in the first round and if we win a 7/10-seed or likely a 6-seed in the second round.

If MSU is in Detroit, a team like Wright State would be quite likely due to the geography, but it is hard to say. In the 2nd round, some possible teams in this part of the S curve are Houston, TCU, Miami, Texas A&M, Arkansas, and Nevada. We will see. MSU needs to beat any team on this list to avoid the season being viewed as an absolute failure and disappointment. Harsh? Maybe, but it is hard to see it any other way. Nevada is the team on that list that would give me the most pause, and that match-up seems more likely if MSU is not in Detroit.

I think the potential Sweet 16 match-ups potentially bear a bit more discussion, for a couple of reasons. I know, this is looking ahead. Deal with it. First, since we are fairly sure MSU will be a 2 or 3-seed, it is pretty likely that MSU would face another 2-seed or 3-seed in the S16 (if MSU makes it that far), and the number of potential opponents is not that high. Second, other than Round 5 in the Final Four, the Sweet 16 round is the round Izzo has “struggled” with the most. Izzo is “only” 9-4 (69%) in that round but is at 75% or better for the other 3 non-Final Four rounds.

In the S-curve, there are 8 total teams that are either 2-seed and 3-seed. 3 of those teams are projected to be Big Ten teams (Purdue, MSU, and UofM). The bracketing principles require that those three teams be placed in different regions, so there will almost certainly not be a Big Ten rematch unless it happens in the Final Four. Two of the other 8 teams right now are projected to be UNC and Duke, teams MSU already played this year. Keep in mind also that 7 of Izzo’s 19 tournament losses have been to one of those two schools. Even though MSU already beat UNC this year, I would prefer not to see them again that early. The other potential S16 opponents (based on the current S-curve) are Cincinnati, Auburn, and Tennessee. I am not sure about you, but I would MUCH rather see one of these teams. But, considering that MSU seems to be trending more as a 3-seed than a 2-seed, and UNC/Duke are trending as a 2-seed, the potential NC-based ACC rematch in the S16 is the most likely outcome.

That said, if we consider the true S-curve, it might also give us a taste of how the bracket might be assembled. Right now, MSU is hovering in the “low 2 / high 3” part of the curve. Using the strict S-curve, this would line MSU up with the overall #1 seed, which currently is almost certainly Virginia, who will be placed in the South (Atlanta). Even if UVA were to loss in the ACC tournament, I think they still might get the overall #1 seed. In this scenario, whether MSU was the #2 seed or the #3, UNC and Duke will not be in the same region, because the committee is “required” to separate the top 2-3 teams in each conference in different regions. In this case, MSU would almost certainly be paired with either Cincinnati (who would also love to be in Atlanta, I would guess) or the SEC Champ (Auburn or Tennessee). Quite honestly, this might be the best scenario for MSU, upsets notwithstanding.

The other options are less desirable. If Villanova wins the Big East, as expected, they will be either the #1 or #2 overall seed. Based on MSU’s position on the S curve, it is also fairly likely that MSU would wind up in this region (The East Region in Boston) as a relatively weak 2 / strong 3. The bad news is that an ACC team is highly likely to wind up in this region due to the proximity to the ACC and the lack of another ACC team already placed there. If Duke does not win the ACC tournament, I could easily see them placed here. If Duke were to win the ACC tournament, it seems likely to me that they might elevate to the #1 seed in the West, and UNC would wind up in the East as the 2-seed or maybe a 3-seed if they flame out in the ACC tournament.

The other possible set of scenarios would be to consider what might happen if Kansas and/or Xavier were to lose in their conference tournaments. Xavier, especially, seems vulnerable to falling off the 1-line considering they need to go through Villanova, but Kansas would take their 8th loss if they fail to win the Big 12 tournament, and I don’t see that as 1-seed resume worthy either. (I think 7 losses is the most ever for a 1-seed.) In general, I would that this as a good sign, as I would much rather face Kansas or Xavier (as 2-seeds) in the Sweet 16 than Duke or UNC. But, Kansas and Xavier would also be great candidates to ship out West as 2-seeds, and the most likely 3-seed in the West is Michigan, based on their position as the weakest 3-seed, which will very likely wind up out West. I don’t think MSU Is likely to be in the West region unless the committee has then way higher (around 5-6) or way lower (11 or 12) on the S curve than the consensus right now.

The final possibility, of course, is that MSU winds up in the Midwest Region (Omaha) as either the 2-seed or (more likely) the 3-seed. The 1-seed here is most likely either Kansas or Xavier, which means the 2-seed will likely be either Duke or UNC. Once again, dislike.

Thoughts?

I just noticed that the Bracket Matrix website has been updated to reflect yesterday's action in the majority of the brackets that they track. MSU has slipped to the "best" 3-seed, while UofM is the weakest 3-seed. This seems in line with Lunardi's bracket this morning. But I did some initial analysis on the data set.

MSU is listed as a 2-seed in 37 of the brackets (47%)
MSU is listed as a 3-seed in 39 of the brackets (49%)
MSU is listed as a 4-seed in 4 of the brackets (7%)

UofM is listed as a 2-seed in 4 of the brackets (5%)
UofM is listed as a 3-seed in 39 of the brackets (49%)
UofM is listed as a 4-seed in 32 of the brackets (43%)

Also,

MSU and UofM have the same seed in 25 of the brackets (32%)
MSU has a better seed than UofM in 52 of the brackets (66%)
UofM has a better seed than MSU in 2 of the brackets (3%)

Considering both teams are "in the clubhouse" it seems quite unlikely that UofM will jump MSU on the S curve and "steal" the last slot in Detroit (but not impossible)

That said, it is important to looks at the other teams near MSU on the S curve. I have said before, I will say again that as long as MSU is in the Top 8 of the teams roughly east of the Mississippi, we will still be in Detroit, unless the committee breaks with precedent. Right now, MSU is right at #8 (as #4 Kansas does not count).

#6 Purdue -- MSU beat Purdue in the only meeting, finished ahead of Purdue in the regular season standings, is ranked higher in both human polls, and honestly played Michigan closer in the BTT. Could MSU actually wind up above Purdue on the Final S curve? Not likely, but possible

#7 UNC -- MSU did beat them head-to-head. If UNC flames out early in the ACC tournament with 10 total losses, MSU might just wind up ahead of them as well. Unlikely, but possible.

#8 Cincinnati -- The Bearcats were the team that in principle has knocked MSU off the 2-line. If Cinci would have lost to Wichita State this Sunday, MSU's odds to stay in Detroit would have been much, much higher. Now, it is a bit of a toss up. An early flame out in the AAC tournament would be helpful.

#9 MSU

#10 Auburn -- They will get sent to Dallas, so they don't matter

#11 Tennessee -- This is the team that poses the most risk to MSU, for two reasons. First, they are a natural fit for the Nashville pod, just as MSU is a natural fit for the Detroit pod. So, there will be a push to keep the Vols there as opposed to send Cincinnati there. Second, they are the only team still playing on the 1-4 line that can really put enough pressure on MSU from the bottom to knock us out of Detroit. Root for the Vols to make an early exit from the SEC tournament, or at the very least pray they don't beat Auburn if the play each other.

#12 Michigan -- covered above

Possible wildcards:

#16 West Virginia -- If they win the Big 12 tournament, they might be a threat, but I doubt it.
#17 Clemson -- If they win the ACC tournament, they might be a threat, but I doubt it.

So, that is how I see it. But, once again, I do not have faith in the committee to actually use rational judgement. For all I know, they have Michigan as a 2-seed in the Detroit and MSU as a 4-seed in Boise. That is unlikely, but after their initial bracket a few weeks ago, I cannot rule it out.

Here is just a stat line from this weekend's games that I found interesting. Both MSU and Purdue are elite 3-point shooting teams. Based on Kenpom's numbers, both teams shot over 40% as teams for the year, which put both teams in the Top 6 Nationally. Yet, MSU and Purdue combined to shoot only 11-43 (25.6%) against the Wolverines from 3.

Also of note is that percentage-wise Michigan's 3-pt defense is not statistically that good. It is 34%, which is ranked #129th in the country and in Big Ten play, it is 11th out of the 14 teams. With Michigan current cocky, on a hot streak, and having to sit out for 2 weeks, the phrase "regression to the mean" comes to mind.

Just a little reality check.

If on December 1st, 2017 (which was a day after MSU had just blown out Notre Dame and only a few days after MSU would have blown out UNC) someone would have told you that MSU was going to win all the rest of its non-conference games, go 16-2 in the Big Ten, win the regular season title outright, but was going to drop a game in the BTT semis, how would you have felt? What seed would you have expected?

Be honest...

The Football 411
Jim Comparoni | Publisher



EAST LANSING - Spring football practice will be less about competition for starting jobs this year for Michigan State, and more about strengthening and reinforcing the direction of the program.

Michigan State finished week one of spring practice on Thursday with the Spartans’ second practice of the week. Both practices were in shorts and helmets, not full pads.

Now, the Spartans will be off throughout the weekend and next week as the university releases students for spring break.

This marks the second consecutive year that Mark Dantonio’s team started spring practice prior to spring break.

Last year, Dantonio wanted the team to get back on the field as soon as possible, following a 3-9 season, no bowl game, off-field problems and leadership issues.

This year, Michigan State is coming off a 10-3 season, a No. 15 ranking and a victory in the Holiday Bowl.

The Spartans were off only eight weeks prior to the outset of spring practice on Tuesday. The players had a couple of weeks to themselves in early January and then went through a short session of winter conditioning.

Last year, the Spartans were off 13 weeks prior to beginning spring practice in late February, considering that there was no bowl game and therefore no December practices in 2016.

Despite have bowl practice this year, and a strong base of leadership in place, Dantonio decided to replicate last year’s early start to spring practice.

"We had never practiced prior to spring break, but we had practices last year before break and we liked it," Dantonio said. "I think it gets them thinking about football before they leave, and keeps them thinking about football when they're on break. Same with the coaches. It gives us a chance to think about things and let it sink in a little bit. It sort of splits it up for us."

Said senior safety Khari Willis: “It came fast but we were ready for it, we were waiting on it.”

The Spartans will resume practice on Tuesday, March 13.

“We had a lot of running in these practices,” Dantonio said. “They will have a week off to get their legs back a little bit. There's only so much you can do in shorts, but we put them in several active situations. Guys are getting repetitions. I thought it was a good start.

“All of the quarterbacks threw the ball well, we caught the ball well, and you see guys making plays. We'll find out more as we get into pads.”

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

With 19 returning starters at the 22 base positions, Michigan State is tied for second most in the FBS (Kansas is first with 20.

Out of a combined 286 possible starting positions in 2017 on offense and defense throughout the course of 13 games, the Spartans are returning 239 of those starts (84 percent).

A total of 33 players returning have starting experience (16 offense, 14 defense, three special teams).

“I think we lose three starters out of the top 22 and maybe four out of the top 44 players,” Dantonio said. “We have a large group for spring practice. We only lost 13 players. We signed 21. We have seven brand new freshmen out here that came in at mid-year so it will be exciting to watch guys like Theo Day, Xavier Henderson and Kalon Gervin.”

THINGS WE LEARNED

Things we learned during the first week of spring practice.

1. Slight position changes could be in order to fill two of the three starter vacancies.

Michigan State lost only three starters to graduation: center Brian Allen, Sam linebacker Chris Frey and strongside defensive end Demetrius Cooper.

At center, sophomore Matt Allen (6-3, 296) has a good shot to fill the job his brothers have held since Jack Allen took over in 2012. But sophomore Jordan Reid and junior Tyler Higby played center this week in practice, too.

Higby started the first half of last year at left guard, but came off the bench for the second half of the season.

Reid (6-4, 281, Soph., Detroit Cass Tech) made an impact as a reserve last year in his true freshman season, mostly at right tackle. He started at right tackle in the regular season finale at Rutgers.

With Cole Chewins (LT), David Beedle (LG), Kevin Jarvis (RG) and Luke Campbell (RT) in good position to hold down starting status through the spring, Higby and Reid will be given a look at center just to make sure the center position doesn’t go to an Allen by default.

“I think we have had an Allen on our team since 2011 and we still got ‘em,” Dantonio said. “Same with the Bulloughs. We still have Bulloughs. We’ve had them since 2010, and we added a coach (Chuck Bullough) that will maybe be here longer.”

But don’t let offensive line coach Mark Staten hear you say that four of the starting jobs have been secured. Staten fosters an environment of competition and fights complacency. There will be times when Michigan State will rep others at first-string left tackle, rather than Chewins. There will be times when Higby or Reid bumps someone from the starting group for at least a few days.

Staten will want players to work on the ability to play multiple positions this spring, as a means of manufacturing depth and versatility. And he wants none of the starters to think their starting job is set in stone.

By April, there might be one player, perhaps Allen, who emerges as the guy who is getting most of the starting reps at center. But if we know Staten, the question as to who will become the starting center in 2018 will remain open-ended for the summer, as will prod all candidates to work in fear of losing the job, and in hopes of gaining it.

2. As for the other slight position change, sophomore Brandon Randle is repping at Sam linebacker. Last year, he was listed as a ‘star’ linebacker but saw most of his playing time as a rush end in the nickel defense.

He had limited productivity as a pass rusher last year, but Michigan State is so short on edge rushers that it wouldn’t be a surprise to see him go back to the edge in pass rush situations next fall. But his main job as an every-down player next year is projected to be Sam linebacker, the same position Frey played.

“We are going to work Brandon at linebacker,” Dantonio said. “I think he has a great amount of ability but he has to be consistent in what he’s doing. That’s the biggest thing: consistency in performance.”

Michigan State will likely decide between Andrew Dowell or Antjuan Simmons at ‘star’ linebacker. Dowell started at that position in 2017 and for most of 2016 before losing the job. He improved last year.

But Simmons was fast and physical last year as Dowell’s back-up.

Michigan State could conceivably go with Simmons at ‘star’ and move Dowell to Frey’s old position at Sam linebacker. Dowell and Randle splitting reps at Sam, which Randle also moonlighted as a rush end on third downs, could be a way to get all four on the field, and keep Randle fresh for third downs while developing him as a standout linebacker for the future.

“We are going to work Brandon at linebacker,” Dantonio said. “I think he has a great amount of ability but he has to be consistent in what he’s doing. That’s the biggest thing: consistency in performance.”

Thompson backed-up Frey last year. He might be the most knowledgeable at the position, but Randle is more athletic. Randle needs to begin demonstrating a trustworthy level of play this spring.

Stay tuned.

3. True freshman offensive lineman Dimitri Douglas is out for the spring with an achilles injury.

Douglas is a strong, athletic prospect, one of the more undervalued signees in the 2018 recruiting class. Reporting at mid-year could have helped him get a jump on his development, plus the rare possibility of participating in spring practice five times in his career (twice before becoming active in 2019 if he redshirts this fall). But he will miss out on these 15 sessions.

4. One of the Spartan players let slip on Tuesday that sophomore ‘star’ linebacker Antjuan Simmons is sidelined with a bit of an ailment. Andrew Dowell, who started at ‘star’ linebacker last year, is also out with something non-major.

“We’ve got some guys are injured,” Dantonio said. “But I don’t want to talk about injuries right now and we have a couple of guys that may not participate this spring.”

5. Cornerback T.J. Harrell, defensive tackle Kyonta Stallworth and safety Jalen Watts-Jackson were not listed on the official roster released, Tuesday.

“There’s reasons for that and we have to work through those,” Dantonio said. “Just had to make a decision as of (Tuesday). So as of today, they’re not out here.”

Is there a chance any of them could work their way back onto the roster?

“Just to be clear … we’ll see,” Dantonio said with a smile. “We have to make some decisions yet.”

Stallworth has has accountability issues in the past. But he rallied last November and enjoyed a productive game in MSU’s 27-24 upset victory over Penn State, playing extended snaps when Mike Panasiuk was lost temporarily to an injury.

But Stallworth struggled a week later against Ohio State. (But so did Raequan Williams. Panasiuk was the only defensive tackle who played solidly against Ohio State).

Stallworth was left home at least one time in the past two seasons, failing to travel with the team to Illinois in 2016.

The former four-star recruit from Detroit has had a difficult journey in bouncing from defensive line to offensive line and back to defensive line. The breakthrough against Penn State should have signaled the beginning of a strong second half of his college career. But the roster omission raises concerns again.

As for Harrell, the Tampa, Fla., native is a potential candidate to grad-transfer away from Michigan State.

Watts-Jackson is the hero of the last-second victory at Michigan in 2015. However, he sustained a hip injury on the legendary game-winning touchdown return of Michigan’s clusterpunt malfunction. He has had trouble regaining speed since the injury and hasn’t been part of the playing group since then.

Earlier this week, freshman linebacker Darien Tipps-Clemons announced he will transfer from Michigan State. Tipps-Clemons missed all but one game of his high school senior season in 2016 with a knee injury. He attempted to make a splash on the scout team last year but did not impress. He has played only one game of football since November of 2015 and now will likely sit out another year while transferring. Michigan State signed four linebackers for 2018 with the idea that Tipps-Clemons was going to have a hard time becoming a contributor.

“Guys want to play, guys transfer,” Dantonio said. “There’s nothing personal about it. They just want to play a little bit more than they’re playing. That’s usually the case when you have a lot of good young players and a lot of players returning that are starting, at the wide receiver position especially.”

6. Brian Lewerke said he watched every throw he made last year during winter film sessions. He felt he threw off-balance a little too much. He is focusing on improving his footwork, being more consistent in that department. He feels improvement in that area will lead to better accuracy.

7. Ask people about redshirt freshman quarterback Rocky Lombardi, and people smile. Lewerke did, and so did Dantonio

“Rocky is an exciting player,” Dantonio said. “He was exciting last year. He is another commodity for this program. He’s a proven winner from high school. He’s tough, he’s big, he’s raw, he’s athletic. It will be very exciting to watch him this spring.”

Lombardi is expected to get second-string reps throughout the spring, and occasionally some first-string reps just as a contingency plan.

“Rocky is a very vocal guy,” Lewerke said. “He is well-respected among all the guys. With his wrestling background, he’s a tough guy, so guys respect that.”

Mid-year enrollee Theo Day is getting acclimated to college life and won’t push Lombardi for second-string duty this spring. So Lombardi can relax while learning and soaking the second-string reps.

“It’s going to be real interesting to watch Rocky and also Theo Day,” Dantonio said. “But Brian Lewerke is a proven commodity. He had a tremendous sophomore season and he has to build on that going forward.

8. Freshman running back Weston Bridges is practicing. Sort of.

He suffered a serious knee injury late in his senior year at Copley (Ohio) High School. He redshirted at Michigan State last fall and endured a health setback.

There were indications that he might miss practice time this spring, but he was back out there with the Spartans on Tuesday. He isn’t likely to participate in contact drills this spring, but he is back on the field, getting warm.

"He may not participate this spring but he looks good, he looks like he is ready to go this fall," Dantonio said.

9. With Bridges on the mend, Madre London having transferred, and L.J. Scott not likely to get heavy work this spring, sophomore Connor Heyward will get a ton of reps as a first-string tailback. Walk-on Alante Thomas is in position to get a healthy dose of second-string reps this spring. Thomas is the younger brother of former Michigan State stand-out defensive end Lawrence Thomas,

He’s a small back, with good vision and change of direction. He doesn’t have great home run speed, but he is elusive and physical. He transferred to Michigan State from Saginaw Valley State, where he redshirted in 2016 while being sidelined with an injury. Thomas played on the Michigan State scout team last fall.

“And the guys coming in, Elijah Collins and LaDarius Jefferson, are two guys that are going to get looks right away (next August),” Dantonio said. “And that’s why we recruited two of them. We felt like this (attrition) may happen.”

10. With Michigan State thin on defensive ends, walk-on Matt Seybert has moved from tight end to defensive end. Seybert is a transfer from the University of Buffalo. Walk-on transfers are often long shots to get into the playing group, but Seybert has some ability and Michigan State needs bodies at d-end, especially this spring.

11. MSU’s academics are in good shape.

“We had our best semester academically, I think, in the history of Michigan State football last fall,” Dantonio said.

SPRING PRACTICE SCHEDULE (TENTATIVE) –

No. 1 – Tuesday, Feb. 27

No. 2 – Thursday, March 1

No. 3 – Tuesday, March 13

No. 4 – Thursday, March 15

No. 5 – Friday/Saturday, March 16/17

No. 6 – Tuesday, March 20

No. 7 – Thursday, March 22

No. 8 – Friday/Saturday, March 23/24

No. 9 – Tuesday, March 27

No. 10 – Thursday, March 29

No. 11 – Tuesday, April 3

No. 12 – Thursday, April 5

No. 13 – Friday, April 6

No. 14 – Spring Game, Saturday, April 7, 5 p.m. (BTN/BTN2Go)

No. 15 – Tuesday, April 10

EAST LANSING - Michigan State published its first official roster of 2018 on Tuesday for the outset of spring practice. A look at some notable weight changes on both sides of the ball, beginning with the offense, who is up in weight, with descending order of change:

WHO’S UP IN WEIGHT? OFFENSE:

* Sophomore tight end Matt Dotson continues to grow into his talented frame. The former four-star recruit from Cincinnati Moeller is up 15 pounds to 6-5, 249. He had a bit role in the playing group last year but has the ability to make a major leap as a sophomore in 2018

* Redshirt sophomore walk-on running back Noah Sargent is up 13 pounds to 198. You haven't heard his name yet, but he's in line to get some work in the Green-White Game, with MSU having a shortage of running backs this spring.

He is a transfer from Saginaw Valley State and had a noteworthy high school career. He camped at MSU and his dad was a tight end on the 1988 Rose Bowl team. MSU has known about him forever, and opened to door for him to walk-on last fall.

* Sophomore offensive lineman Jordan Reid is up 10 pounds to 6-4, 281. He was a solid, immediate contributor last year as a puppy. Good things are ahead for the Detroit Cass Tech grad.

* Connor Heyward is up 9 pounds to 228. He had never been a full-time RB in the past. Now he is eating and training like one for some Spartan durability - but be careful not to lose any speed.*

* Sophomore offensive tackle A.J. Arcuri is up nine pounds to 283. He was expected to be a part of the playing group last year and possibly battle for a starting position, but an injury interrupted that plan and kept him off the practice field for more than half of the season. Now, he has added weight and needs to regain some personal momentum. MSU could also use an extra functional body to the talent pool at offensive tackle; things are thin there.

* Redshirt freshman Matt Carrick is on the active practice roster for the first time. He missed last year with a knee injury. Meanwhile, he is up nine pounds to 6-4, 328. I thought he was one of the more undervalued players in the 2017 recruiting class. I watched him work a little bit during today's practice, but it's too early to glean any opinions. He will be another interesting one to chart. Can he bounce back from the injury? I thought he was right there with Reid and Kevin Jarvis as being physically capable of helping right away as a true freshman, but the injury took him out of the mix. How much catching-up does he have to do? Good question. But it's positive for MSU to have him out there beginning work this spring.

* Redshirt freshman walk-on fullback Max Rosenthal (Winnetka, Ill.) is up nine pounds to 244 (6-foot-2). It's always interesting to watch the walk-on picture at fullback. Walk-ons emerge to help at that position more so than any position on the roster.

Other walk-on fullbacks on the roster include returning starter Collin Lucas (6-1, 232, Jr., Avon Lake, Ohio) and Ben Line (6-2, 250, Sr., Oxford). Line transferred from Robert Morris last year.

* Senior tight end Matt Sokol, a second-year starter, is up five pounds to 6-6, 255.

* Junior offensive tackle Cole Chewins is up four pounds to 6-8, 288. That's not a big gain for him, but his weight watch is noteworthy because he has been on a slow, steady incline of weight since he arrived as a lean project of an athlete. He's still gaining, but nothing crazy.

* Junior long snapper Ryan Armour is up six pounds to 226.

* Redshirt freshman WR C.J. Hayes is up four pounds to 206. I'll be interested to watch him this spring. There are some opportunities at WR.

* Redshirt freshman RB Weston Bridges is up four pounds to 201. He suffered a knee injury at the end of his senior year and had a setback in practice last fall, too. Mark Dantonio said he looks on course to return for fall practice but indicated he probably won't see action this spring.

* Redshirt freshman quarterback Rocky Lombardi is up 3 pounds to 219. Loving life, not having to worry about making wrestling weight. He’s the No. 2 quarterback this spring, with a chance to get a ton of meaningful reps and not much pressure. A good chance to build for a guy that received a bunch of positive reviews from coaches last year.

* Junior quarterback Brian Lewerke is up only 3 pounds at a listed 215 but I thought I heard him say today he is 220. I'll have to review the tape. He looks bigger.

WHO’S DOWN IN WEIGHT? OFFENSE:

* Junior offensive guard Tyler Higby is down nine pounds to 6-5, 284. Interesting change. I didn't think he was lacking any quickness last year, but I'll be interested to see if he has added quickness this spring.

* Sophomore walk-on WR Andre Welch of East Kentwood, Mich., might be the fastest player on the team. And it might not be close. He saw a little bit of action last year on kickoff return. MSU is trying to develop him as a wide out. In the meantime, interestingly, he has shed six pounds and is now 5-9, 169.

* Sophomore center Matt Allen is down five pounds to 296. "We need a center," Dantonio said during Tuesday's press briefing. Allen is a leading candidate. He got on the field a bit last year and will have a chance to make major progress toward a starting job this spring.

* Sophomore tight end Noah Davis is down four pounds to 6-4, 244. He emerged as the second-string tight end last year, but ran into some injury problems midway through the year. He was back in the playing group in time for the bowl game and now needs to take a step in his development while competing with fleet-footed Matt Dotson for a role, while awaiting Trenton Gillison's arrival this summer.

* Senior running back LJ Scott is down three pounds to 226. Not quite a Le’Veon Bell level of weight-loss, but losing a little is probably better than gaining, for Scott.

* Sophomore offensive tackle Luke Campbell is down three pounds to 6-5, 290.

WHO’S UP IN WEIGHT? DEFENSE:

* Sophomore defense lineman Mufi Hill-Hunt represents the biggest weight-gainer on the roster, up 30 pounds to 6-5, 301. Hill-Hunt tried tight end last August, but moved back to d-line midway through the year, and then went down with a knee injury at Ohio State. He was with the d-linemen on Tuesday but had his helmet off as a non-active member. He is still recovering from last November's injury. He played d-end last spring and didn't seem to be the most explosive guy. Perhaps beefing up and moving inside is his best bet to eventually get into the playing group. Or perhaps a winter with limited movement due to a late-season knee injury led to the weight gain. His practice status is on hold until he regains health.

* In the questionable weight-add department, sophomore defensive tackle Naquan Jones gained 14 pounds and is now 6-4, 342. Jones was an impact player at d-tackle last year. He played more than 200 snaps last year and had two TFLs while backing up Mike Panasiuk and Raequan Williams at two positions. If he can continue to play with quickness, then that 342 pounds will look increasingly imposing.

Panasiuk and Williams are unchanged in weight by the way.

* Redshirt freshman defensive lineman DeAri Todd is up 21 pounds to 6-2, 274. We heard good things about his progress last year as a redshirt. He’s a puppy who is still filling out. With Kyonta Stallworth being held off the roster, for now, for unspecified reasons, Todd will get a chance to move up in a competitive defensive tackle picture.

* Redshirt freshman walk-on linebacker Brent Mossburg (Carelton, Mich., Airport High) is up 14 pounds to 218.

* There are more weight changes at defensive end than any other position, with both gains and losses. Junior defensive end Justice Alexander is up 12 pounds to 6-5, 257. Alexander has not been able to carve out a role in the playing group, despite his athletic straight-line speed and the program’s dire need for help at rush end. Balance and flexibility have not been strengths for Alexander in the past. Now, his frame has changed a bit. Has he improved in those other areas? New defensive ends coach Chuck Bullough will be eager to find out, beginning this spring.

* Redshirt freshman linebacker Noah Harvey (Hartland, Wis.) is up 12 pounds to 6-3, 221. He’s starting to look solid at that weight. He looked a little slim last August, which isn’t rare for a true freshman. Michigan State needs help at outside linebacker this spring, with Michigan State having had attrition at that position with Darius Tipps-Clemons announcing his transfer on Monday and Chris Frey’s graduation. Harvey will get some work, as Antjuan Simmons and Andrew Dowell are sidelined temporarily with unknown ailments.

* Walk-on Matt Seybert (6-4, 249, Jr., Traverse City) is up seven pounds and is beginning spring practice at defensive end. He transferred to MSU from the University of Buffalo last year as a tight end. MSU is low on d-ends. He will attempt to provide an able body at that position. Able bodies are needed.

* Sophomore safety Dominique Long is up six pounds to 191. One of the top rising young talents on the roster.

* Senior defensive end Kenny Willekes, the biggest surprise of the 2017 season, is up six pounds to 250. Although he was viewed as a productive over-achiever last year, due to his walk-on background, those in the program view him as an athlete with a higher ceiling of potential yet to chase.

* Tyriq Thompson is up five pounds to 6-1, 244. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. His speed hasn't been a strength in the past, and with five extra pounds I'm not sure that's a positive trend for him.

* Sophomore LB Antjuan Simmons is up four pounds to 221. He has been steadily adding mature mass since graduating from high school. He had very good cruising speed last year as a rookie, earning something close to 50-50 reps with Andrew Dowell by the end of the year at 'star' linebacker. He played with good punch last year. A little more weight and experience and perhaps he can become a two-position LB at both 'star' and 'money.'

* Junior CB Justin Layne is up five pounds to 185.

Who is down in weight?

* Senior defensive end Dillon Alexander is down 14 pounds to 6-4, 234. This is one of the more noteworthy changes of the off-season. Alexander, a former walk-on, began last year as a starter, then fell out of the playing group at mid-year due to some nagging injuries, although nothing serious. He crept back into a larger role near the end of the year. Now, having had a second year of breaking through into the playing group, he interestingly has shed some weight.

Alexander was a functional d-end last year, but had only 10 tackles and no tackles for loss. Now with the weight loss, he wants to regain some quickness and deliver more productivity. He has been productive in the spring game in the past. It will be interesting to see if he is visibly quicker as this spring progresses.

* Redshirt freshman Jack Camper moved from tight end to defensive end last year. The move is permanent now, in changing his jersey number from 80 to 91. Fitting with the trend of defensive ends becoming slimmer and perhaps quicker, Camper (of Virginia Beach, Va./Florida IMG Academy) is down 14 pounds to 6-4, 225.

Michigan State recruited Camper as a tight end after discovering him at that position as a sophomore at Virginia Bech. Then he transferred to Bradenton (Fla.) IMG Academy and spent two years at d-end and rarely, if ever, played tight end. Michigan State stuck to its initial evaluation of him as a tight end prospect. He began last year as a tight end, but made a position change midway through the year. Solid play from Noah Davis, along with promising work from Matt Dotson, and the commitment from Gillison, caused Michigan State to move Camper and walk-on Seybert to d-end, where bodies are needed.


* Redshirt freshman safety Austin Andrews is down eight pounds to 181. This represents one of the biggest weight drop on the defensive side of the ball. We have yet to see him on the field as a Spartan, so we won’t notice a change - if there is one - when he suits up this spring.

* Senior defensive tackle Gerald Owens is down six pounds to 306. He was one of the more improved players on the team last year, from the spring to the fall season. The belt line has been a weakness for Owens over the years, but now is on a positive trend. He made a surprise break into the playing group last year and is one to watch this spring for continued development.

* Senior safety Matt Morrissey is down five pounds to 204. A little more quickness and speed out of him would be positive.

* Sophomore walk-on defensive end Drew Beesley (6-2, 246, Rochester Hills/Warren De La Salle) is down five pounds. You may not have heard of him, but insiders say he could be somewhere between the Dillon Alexander and Kenny Willekes example. Interestingly, he - like Alexander - has shed some weight, as MSU hopes to manufacture just a little more quickness at the position.

* Redshirt freshman CB Shakur Brown (remember him?) is down four pounds to 176. He was a quiet late addition to last year’s recruiting class, and then redshirted.

* Sophomore Josiah Scott is down three pounds to 5-10, 170. He was cat-quick last year. Now he’s smarter, a year more mature, and three pounds lighter.

* Junior middle linebacker Joe Bachie is down three pounds to 230.

* And, for those of you keeping score, sophomore cornerback Tre Person is still 5-10, 165. No change for the lightest scholarship player in the playing group last year.

As for mid-year enrollee freshmen:

CB Xavier Henderson, 6-1, 194

QB Theo Day, 6-5, 217

CB Kalon Gervin, 5-11, 186

WR Julian Major, 6-1, 171

OL Dimitri Douglas, 6-4, 274

WR Julian Major, 6-1, 171,

WR Javez Alexander, 6-2, 187

LB Edward Warinner, 6-0, 219

Here are some of my current musings about bracketology

1) I really, really love bracketology, but in all honesty, I pay little or no attention to it at this time of year. Any bracket that Palm or Lunardi or whoever comes out with is “if the season ended today.” But, it doesn’t end today, so the analysis is fairly meaningless. The actual bracket will get build on one specific day based on all the information available on that day. Considering the fact that 32 single elimination tournaments will happen between now and then, and I just don’t think the current brackets have much meaning

2) I have a feeling that the initial bracket released by the committee is messing with everyone’s head anyway. Now, instead of just performing the analysis based on data and basketball knowledge (“the eye test.”) Everyone is trying to also guess what the committee is going to do. The initial bracket was such a mess that now everyone is confused. My gut feeling is that the committee rushed to get it out the door, used it as a bit of a training exercise, and didn’t think about it in much more detail than that. I think that when the real bracket is released, it will likely have a lot more thought that goes into it (and will resemble a bracket put together by reasonable experts). I really hope this is what happens. But, it is certainly possible that it will just be a random mess with BTT Champ MSU as a 4-seed and Oklahoma as a 2-seed. Since predicting stupid is hard, I would suggest the bracketologists just do an honest analysis and see how the chips fall.

That said, I think we can make some pretty good assumptions, if we project how the season might play out. Here are my gut feelings (with some history and analysis behind them)

3) If MSU wins on Friday, I think we are safely on the 2-line and safely in Detroit for the first weekend. In order to miss out on Detroit, MSU would need to drop to roughly 10 or 11 on the S curve, and I honestly don’t think that will happen. The biggest risk would be if Michigan wins the BTT over Purdue. In that case it is possible (but not likely) both teams wind up ahead of MSU on the S-curve, and that would be bad.

4) Virginia is clearly the “safest” 1-seed, which means the 1-seed in the South is out of play. Even if UVA were to flame out in the ACC tourney, the committee will likely give UVA a 1-seed anyway and give the ACC Champ (if it is UNC or Duke) one of the other 1-seeds.

5) Based on their current trajectory, Kansas is on cruise control and pulling away in the Big 12. Yes, they have some bad losses, but if they win the Big 12 tourney, I see no way that they don’t wind up as the 1-seed in the Midwest Region, especially considering the region is played Omaha. Even if they lose in the Final (for example) they still might wind up there.

6) Villanova has looked a bit vulnerable recently, so it will be interesting to see how they finish. If they win the Big East tourney, this is very simple: they are the 1-seed in the East and Xavier will most likely drop to a 2-seed. If Xavier wins the Big East, Nova might drop to a 2-seed. It is also certainly possible that the loser of the Big East final gets shipped out West to be the 1-seed, but I think an upset in the Big Ten would be necessary for this.

7) Considering all this, I think the highest possible seed that the MSU (or Purdue for that matter) can get is the #4 overall seed, which would result in getting the 1-seed in the West. (This assumes no major upsets in the Big 12 or Big East tournament). I am not sure that is a great scenario, so it might be better if Duke or UNC were to win the ACC tourney and get “rewarded” with the 1-seed out West. But, would the committee really have the stones to give UNC a 1-seed over MSU? Duke? Sure. UNC? Not sure.

8) The 2-seeds then get interesting. With the ACC champ in the South, possibly (or likely) being the #1 overall seed, I could see the SEC Champ (likely Auburn) getting placed there as the 2-seed. This makes sense based on geography and the S curve. The most likely remaining teams to be placed on the 2-line are the ACC, Big East, and Big 10 tourney runners up. On the S curve, I don’t think that there is going to be much of a difference between teams 5-7. So, I would guess the committee will default to geography and separating teams from the same conference. So, the ACC runner up will quite likely go out East with Nova, Xavier would wind up out West with the Big Ten Champ (MSU?), and Big Ten #2 (Purdue?) would wind up with Kansas in the Midwest. If the conference tournaments go chalk, this is what I would expect to happen.

9) If MSU winds up out West, a Sweet 16 match up with either Arizona or Gonzaga seems real, real likely. Do we want to draw Zona? The press conference might be a lot of fun...

Anyway, that is were my head is at with lots of hoops left to go.

Spring Football Update: Momentum is palpable


Brian Lewerke (14) and Theo Day (6) take snaps from Matt Allen and Tyler Higby at the outset of practice on Tuesday.

Ricardo Cooney
SpartanMag.com

EAST LANSING - What a difference a year and seven more wins make when you’re putting on the Spartan helmet and spring practice jersey for the first time after a bounce-back year in 2017.

There was a different feel in the air when various members of Michigan State’s football team spoke before the team’s first spring practice on Tuesday, the first of 15 sessions between now and early April, with the annual Green-White Game scheduled for 5 p.m. on April 7.

After a disastrous 3-9 season in 2016, MSU bounced back last season with a redemptive year that saw the program regain swagger and luster it had built up during the previous 10 years. Michigan State finished 10-3, earning a No. 15 ranking in the final Associated Press Top 25 Poll.

That double-digit win total, capped by an impressive and sometimes dominant 42-17 victory over Washington State in the Holiday Bowl, should serve a momentum builder for a program looking to remain near the top of the Big Ten heap and vie for the conference championship. In most years, if you win the Big Ten, it puts you in position to claim a spot in the College Football Playoff - something Michigan State achieved in 2015, and would have achieved in 2013 if the current system had been in place back then.

“It’s exciting. You want to come here,’’ linebacker Joe Bachie said of the football building. “When it’s 3-9, you don’t want to be here. It’s like, ‘Oh, c’mon.’

“But 10-3, you know we’re excited going into spring ball to carry the momentum with us.’’

Bachie had a team-high 100 tackles last year and returns as one of the best pure middle linebacker in the country. He signed to be part of a program known for success and title contention, coming out of Berea (Ohio) High school. However, he was a true freshman during the tumultuous 2016 season. He knew about past Spartan success, but hadn’t experienced it as part of the team until last year. Now he is looking to help avoid the pitfalls of 2016, duplicate the success of ’17, and build on it. So are his teammates.

“The momentum is good. It’s rolling around like it’s going downhill,’’ said senior wide receiver Felton Davis III.

With an offense that returns all of its top skills players in Davis, junior quarterback Brian Lewerke, senior running back L.J. Scott), the Spartans will be looking to get into an early offensive groove when MSU opens its season on Aug. 31st at home against Utah State.

MSU returns 100 percent of its passing yards from the quarterback position, 82 percent of its receptions, 81 percent of its receiving yards, and 71 percent of its rushing yards.

Out of a possible 143 starts last season at 11 positions over the course of 13 games, the Spartans are returning 119 (83 percent).

“As a whole, offense-wise, I know we started off pretty slow (last year) but we finished strong, scoring like 28 points a game at the end of the season,” Davis said. “So, we’re going to take that into this one, into spring ball, with us clicking and just run with that.

Michigan State finished last year with 42 points in the victory over Washington State and 40 in the regular season finale, a 40-7 win at Rutgers on Nov. 25.

“Coming off a 10-win season, it’s just the life in all of us,” Davis said. “I mean, we don’t lose the chip off our shoulders but last year, coming off a 3-9 season, people were kind of down, not knowing what we were capable of doing. But this season, coming off a 10-3 season, we know what we’re capable of doing, we’re capable of taking the next step, like the Big Ten Championship or the National Championship, those type of things.’’

And with a defense that boasts the return of two of its three starting linebackers from last season, all four members of its starting secondary, and 10 of its top 11 tacklers, expectations will be high, especially when you consider the fact that down in the trenches, MSU didn’t lose a whole lot key contributors.

That defense returns nine starters from a unit that ended last season ranked No. 2 in rushing defense at 95.3 yards per game and No. 7 in FBS in total defense, surrendering 297.6 ypg.

With just one major loss on the offensive line - three-time All-Big Ten center Brian Allen - there was even more of a reason to contemplate the possibility of even higher success this season when players were interviewed for the first time in 2018 about this year’s direction.

But as expected, MSU head coach Mark Dantonio, who is entering his 12th season on the sidelines, wants nothing taken for granted.

“I hope we always feel like we have to earn things around here,’’ Dantonio said. “Last year, we sort of re-gathered ourselves and went at things one at a time and that’s what we’ve got to (continue to) do. We’ve just got to continue to try and do things right; on the field, off the field and in the classroom.’’

Senior safety Khari Willis says complacency won’t be a problem.

“We still want to create positive momentum, just trusting each other and really, really wanting to get better,’’ said senior safety Khari Willis, who finished last season’s turnaround as MSU’s fourth-leading tackler. “We’ve seen things on film already after the year with coaches doing studies and looking for ways for us to get better. It was less baggage (coming into this spring) but our approach is still the same. We’re still digging and we’re still trying to find it.

“But first, we want to get our young guys acclimated first, stay positive with our team and make sure everybody’s on board and finish off strong academically. And as far as football goes, we always want to take strides as far as winning the (Big Ten) East. That’s always been a mantra here, even when were 3-9.’’

CENTER OF ATTENTION

Dantonio usually doesn’t broach the subjects of potential trouble in filling a vacated position, but he did make special mention of the center position on Tuesday.

With the loss of Brian Allen, it is widely believed that redshirt sophomore Matt Allen, the third and last of the three Allen brothers to don a Spartan uniform, would step in and fill that role.

That may not be the case though.

If Allen’s talents are needed more at the guard position, the Spartans may need to fill that position by converting another offensive lineman to center.

Entering spring ball, redshirt junior walk-on Bryce Wilker is the only o-lineman listed on the spring roster as a center. At the outset of practice on Tuesday, Allen, Tyler Higby, Jordan Reid and walk-on Blake Bueter (6-4, 300, R-Fr., Howell/Detroit Catholic Central) provided reps for early QB/C snap exchange drills.

“I think the biggest loss is our center,’’ Dantonio said. “We’ve got to find a proven center. We’re young at that position but we’ve got talented guys.’’

MAINTAINING FOCUS

As expected, Dantonio was asked about the situation still hanging over the football program and Michigan State after an ESPN report on sexual assaults debuted on Jan. 26.

When asked if he had something he wanted to add in terms of a response to his initial statement on Jan. 26, Dantonio said, “Only that I want to commit to be part of the solution. I made my statement on how I feel about things and hopefully, we’re healing as a community and healing as a university. It’s a step-by-step process. A lot of times spring’s a time for new beginnings and I’ll use that in this case as well. It’s an opportunity to grow and get better at everything we’re doing and looking at.’’

I have teased the following data a little for a week or so and I finally had a chance to make the bar chart with some updated data. I did a quick analysis of the current (as of Saturday Evening) rankings from the RPI and from Kenpom. If you take the average differences for all teams in each conference and compare them, this is what you get:



As you can see, the Big Ten is, by far, the conference that is under-valued the most by RPI compared to the more rigorous and statistically sound Kenpom efficiency-based metric. On average, Kenpom ranks Big Ten teams almost 30 slots higher than the RPI. I should also note that although I included only the top 16 conferences, the Big Ten is dead last by this measure when all 36 conferences are considered.

Interestingly, the Big East, Big 12, ACC, SEC, and A-10 are all also under-valued, but by a significantly smaller margin. Among the more notable conferences, only the Pac 12 and AAC are over-valued by the RPI.

Now, I will admit that my title is intentionally provocative. It is not like there is some evil mastermind out there who created a formula with the sole intention to screw over the Big Ten. The RPI formula is quite public and ridiculously simple. But, the fact of the matter is, for whatever reason this year, the RPI math is very much working against the Big Ten.

The clearest example of how this plays out is by comparing MSU to Cincinnati. Based on the RPI, Cincinnati has 5 quad 1 victories:

Buffalo (neutral, RPI = 33)
@ UCLA (50)
@ Temple (40)
@ UCF (62)
Houston (home, 21)

MSU has only 3:

UNC (7)
Purdue (14)
@ Maryland (64)

If we instead switch to Kenpom's numbers, the situation is reversed. Cinci now only has 3 quad 1 wins:

@ UCLA (49)
@ SMU (70)
Houston (home, 30)

MSU has 5 quad 1 wins

UNC (10)
Purdue (5)
@ Maryland (39)
@ Indiana (74)
Penn State (28)

As others have pointed out, maybe the problem isn't the RPI or Kenpom, maybe it is just the committee itself (and there lack of.. intelligence). After all, it is pretty hard to think about any sane person looking at the wins for either team and deciding that Cinci has the better resume. MSU has (at worst) two Top 15 wins and Cinci has (at best) only one Top 25 win. It isn't brain surgery.

If I get a chance, I will do a similar analysis for the past few years and see what type of bias may be present. For now, the evidence seems pretty clear that the Big Ten is getting unfairly screwed over.

Now that today's games are in the books, the calculus of rooting for UofM has shifted. This morning, I proposed the argument that it was in MSU's best interest to get the 2-seed in the BTT in order to line up a shot to play (and beat) both Purdue and Ohio State. This was MSU's best shot at boosting our tournament resume for March. Now that Michigan has defeated OSU, this option is basically off the table (unless you want to root for MSU to lose one of our last 2 games)

So, now, unfortunately, the best way for MSU to boost its resume is for Michigan to win as many games as possible until the BTT semis. MSU will very likely get the 1-seed in the BTT, and based on the way the bracket is shaking out, Michigan will get the 4 or 5 seed, which lines up to play the 1-seed in the Semifinals. Michigan's RPI is 28, which is not far behind suddenly fading OSU at 20. But, Michigan has two tricky road games remaining at Penn State and Maryland. They would then need to most likely beat Nebraska in the quarterfinals. If they win all these games, their RPI will certainly stay in the 20s, which would be a quality win for MSU. As a side benefit, if Michigan can keep their RPI over 30, MSU's loss to Michigan would remain a quad 1 loss, which is also good for MSU.

Yes, MSU fans, this is what happens when you root for Michigan to win. This is now the situation that we are in.

If MSU gets to the finals, it is sort of a push between whether beating OSU or Purdue in the Final would be better. Purdue has the better RPI (12), but there is a certain benefit of beating OSU, as MSU would then have a win over all 13 other Big Ten teams, and would have avenged 2 of our 3 losses. That seems better to me.

The counter argument, of course, is that Michigan winning is never good. I am not really going to argue with that opinion. The problem, I realize, is that both today and now over the next 2 weeks, wins for Michigan are just improving the probability of something good happening for MSU's future. If Michigan loses out, MSU could still just win all of the rest of our games, and we would still rack up a regular season and tournament Big Ten championship, as well as another Final Four and National Title. We don't need them to accomplish any of those goals. But, UofM winning does seem to improve our odds.

The problem is, Michigan winning always carries with it a slight to moderate negative impact to MSU. The effect is not a future one, it is immediate. That is the difference. If you decide to root for Michigan going forward, you are trading an increased chance for something positive for MSU's future, for a guaranteed slight negative now. That is a tough call. I am not sure which side of this argument I am on.

I will probably just default to the idea that I won't root for Michigan, but I will not exactly be sad if they win. Ugh.

Firstly, I wasn't at the admin building to hear Engler's statements, and I haven't seen any video from any outlets. So I linked MLive's excellent story when citing their quotes. They were there. I have to give them credit and solid local journalism such as this should be supported (editorial comment by me).

I pay Associated Press to help with our coverage but I don't think they had a story. And like I said, I wasn't there.

But here is my wrap:

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/dantonio-gets-annual-extension-engler-rips-espn-again

I had a couple of random thoughts this morning that I figured I would throw out there:

1) I think MSU is going to look more like the team that beat UNC and ND and will blow Purdue out tomorrow

I sense a bit of pessimism from MSU fans about this game, especially after Purdue just took a loss. But, the way I see it, most if not all of MSU's sluggishness in the past 5-6 weeks is due to a lack of focus and attention to detail. But, we have seen this team play at a very high level. Purdue is a very good team with a lot of experience, and that has resulted in more consistency. In my opinion, MSU is a more talented team with less experience, and that has resulted in more variance in their performance. But, I have a gut feeling that will be able to harness the needed level and focus and execution to exploit Purdue's weaknesses (lack of quality depth and rebounding) and run them out of Breslin.

Is it possible that MSU is sloppy, gets beat on the glass, turns the ball over, and Purdue hits 60% from 3? Absolutely. But, my gut feeling is that is not how this game will go

2) I have a weird feeling the MSU, Purdue, and OSU will tie for the Big Ten Title, BUT, at a record of 15-3 for each team.

This may sound crazy (as MSU would need to beat Purdue, yet lose one of the remaining games, Purdue would need to lose one more, and OSU would need to drop two more), But I just feel like I have seen far too many Big Ten campaigns where one team looks unbeatable... until they don't. Mid February is the dogs days and sometimes crap happens.

This year, the committee was supposed to make more use of a wide range of metrics, and not just the RPI. But, if today's ratings are any indication, that is simply not the case. Let's take a quick look at the resumes of some of the teams ranked ahead of MSU on the S curve. In this case, I will use the KenPom ranking as a reference (as this seems to be the current gold standard). Also, I pulled the KenPom numbers a few days ago, so they are not fully up to date, but are in the ballpark

5. Auburn (Kenpom #8)

Best wins: Tennessee (7), Missouri (35), Middle TN State (40), Arkansas (48)
Worst Losses: Temple (86), Alabama (49)

Only one win over the Kenpom Top 30 and 2 pretty shaky loses... Sounds like a borderline 1-seed, doesn't it?

6. Kansas (Kenpom #11)

Best wins: West Virginia (13), TCU 2x (25), Texas A&M (26), Kentucky (30)... and 3 more Top 50 wins
Worst loses: Washington (89), OK State (66), Baylor (46)

A lot of wins over mediocre teams, but 3 Top 25 wins. Still 2-3 shaky losses

7. Duke (4)

Best wins: MSU (6), Florida State (22), Miami (27), Texas (33), Florida (38), Norte Dame (42)
Worst losses: St. Johns (86), BC (83), NC State (57)

Pretty strong set of wins, but only 2 in the Top 25. But, 3 pretty bad losses...

8. Cincinnati (5)

Best wins: Houston (34), SMU (50), UCLA (59)
Worst Losses: Florida (38), Xavier (16)

Seriously. No wins in the Kenpom Top 30, but a 2-seed? Put the crack pipe down, committee...

9. Clemson (17)

Best wins: North Carolina (12), Ohio State (15), Miami (27), Louisville (37), Florida (38)
Worst losses: Temple (86), NC State (57)

Again, some pretty good wins there, but still only 2 in the Top 25 and 2 bad losses

10. Texas Tech (10)

Best wins: Kansas (11), West Virginia (13), Nevada (18), TCU (25), Texas (33), Baylor (46)
Worst losses: Iowa State (97), Texas (33)

3 wins against the Top 20 is pretty good and only 1 bad loss. This seems better than most of the teams ahead of them.

and... for comparison:

11. Michigan State (6)

Best Wins: Purdue (3), UNC (12), Maryland 2x (39), Notre Dame (42), Penn State (45)
Worst Losses: Michigan (24), Ohio State (15), Duke (4)

So, 2 Top 20 wins and ZERO losses outside the Top 25.

Finally, I also wanted to bring up a resume of tournaments past. In 2016, UNC entered the ACC tournament with only three RPI top 50 wins and one bad loss. The won the ACC tournament and racked up another 2 RPI top 50 wins to get to 5 Top 50 wins. They were given a 1-seed. MSU had 8 RPI Top 50 wins and also 1 bad loss. MSU won the Big Ten tournament and had one fewer overall loss than UNC. MSU got a 2-seed. Yeah. OK.

MSU has now won 7 games in a row, 5 of which were on the road. While beating each team by 30 would be less stressful for all of us, I am happy that the team has had to gut through a few tough wins. The other potential good thing is that it has not been the same problem over and over again. Sometimes it is turn overs, sometimes in is rebounding, sometimes it is just the other team making shots (and perhaps some bad defense).

The good news is that the team has shown that they can limit turn overs, they can rebound, and they can play defense. They just can't seem to do all three things at the same time right now. BUT, that is a focus issue, not a talent or capability issue.

That all said, the Purdue game is huge. MSU now has a few days off. They are at home, and they have no excuse for not being motivated or focused. If Purdue blows us out, please feel free to freak out. But the last two times this year that MSU played a Top 10 team (UNC and ND), MSU dominated. Granted, those two teams have faded, but the focus and effort was still what was needed for a Top 10 opponent. The Purdue game will tell us a lot. But, even if MSU does lay an egg, the potential and ceiling is still there. It isn't March yet.

I recently subscribed to Kenpom's site and got access to some really interesting historical data. I crunched some numbers comparing the adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency numbers of the past 16 National Title winners using pre-tournament data. I then compared that to the current Kenpom Top 40. Here is what that looks like:



If these numbers hold until early March, I only see 7 teams that are currently in the region of the graph of the graph where the past 16 champs are located:

Virginia
Cincinnati
Texas Tech
Tennessee
MSU
Purdue
Clemson

Note that there are several teams that are close, including Miami, Michigan, and Ohio State. It will be interesting to see how these numbers change in the coming weeks, and eventually if the trend holds.