Hi Everyone,

This has been a tough day for all sports fans. Regardless of whether we may feel like the events of the past 24-48 hours were completely justified and necessary, a drastic over-reaction, or somewhere in-between, one thing is certain:

March Madness is not going to happen. That sucks, and we are all allowed to have both our own opinions and emotions about this topic. Personally, this all makes me tremendously sad.

But, that is not the topic of this post.

As you all know, I am a numbers guy. Numbers make me happy. I take comfort in numbers. So, here is what I am planning to do.

It is my annual traditional to perform my own bracketology leading up to Selection Sunday. I plan to do that again this year, and post the results Sunday night.

Last year, I developed a series of mathematical tools to analyze the brackets once they came out, and to make some predictions about the tournament. This year, I plan to do something similar early next week.

Finally, I certainly have the tools to simulate a potential tournament, round by round in "real time," to give us a feel for how it might have played out. I promise that you will like the final result

It is possible that this will just be a painful reminder of what we have lost. It is also possible that it will just be annoying and stupid. But, I am hoping that it will be a fun exercise that will be somewhat therapeutic and will give us all some closure. I, for one, am not ready to shut down my analysis of college basketball just yet.

So, stay tuned. I think this might just be fun.

It's not important in the grand scheme of things, but as a news gatherer, we are wondering what impact Michigan State University's decision today to suspend face-to-face instruction in classroom settings will have on Michigan State athletics.

We have heard that meetings are taking place regarding athletics teams and what impact the university's decision could or will have on them.

Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker was scheduled to make an appearance on Tim Staudt's radio show at 11:05 a.m., this morning. But the appearance was canceled due to Tucker being called into meetings relating to the university's reponse to the coronavirus.

Michigan State basketball practice took place as scheduled, Tuesday evening.

What a close to the regular season. Just a few weeks ago, on February 17th, the math was suggesting that MSU had only a 4.0 percent chance of winning the regular season Big Ten title and Wisconsin had only a 1.4 percent chance. But, both teams ended on a tear and (more significantly) Maryland ended in a slump, and as a result, it was a very happy weekend in both East Lansing and Madison.

I could probably go on for paragraphs about the significance of the three-peat this year. Back in the summer, I knew that this campaign was going to be a stressful, because they always are when expectations are so high. It looked for a long time like this season was going to end with extreme disappointment. But, Izzo worked his magic again, and now this team has a shot to be special and to achieve some more of those goals that were set back in April.

I could certainly continue to wax poetic, but I am a numbers guy, so I will just give these numbers:

• In 25 years at MSU, Coach Izzo has won the regular season Big Ten title in ten of those years
• In six of those years (two of them without the regular season title) Coach Izzo has won a Big Ten Tournament Title
• Everyone knows that Coach Izzo also has eight total Final Fours, two of which came in years without a Big Ten regular season or tournament title.

In total, that translates to 24 total banners and 14 out of 25 years (56 percent) with at least one banner. That is simply incredible.

For the full length of the Big Ten season, I has provided numerical updates to handicap the race in real time. Now that the race is over, it is time to take a brief look back at the results and then forward to the next phase of the season: the Big Ten Tournament. Let's attack this by asking three probing questions:

1) In the regular season race, which is more important, luck or schedule?

Throughout the season, I had a running tally of the "luck" accumulated by each team to that point. In this context, I defined "luck" as the difference between the actual wins for a team and the expected value of wins. This essentially measures each team's ability to win toss up games. As an example, if a team played a total of ten games in which the point spread was a pick'em (50 percent chance to win) one would expect that team to win five of those ten games. If that team instead won six games, then they would have +1.0 game(s) of luck.

As I have all season, I now present the final Big Ten standings for 2020, including the calculated luck, with the teams listed in order of their current Kenpom ranking, and numbered with their seed in the upcoming Big Ten Tournament.



There are several interesting takeaways from this table. First, if I go back and check the data from New Year's Day, the expected win total for first place MSU was 14.3 wins and the Big Ten champ was projected to go 15-5. In the final analysis, MSU's expected win total was almost a full game lower than that, which suggests the league was tougher than it was even expected to be in early January.

Second, there is quite a bit a spread in luck. The luckiest team in the conference (Illinois, +3.23) had over a five game advantage in luck over the least lucky team in the conference (Purdue, -2.14) who is actually ranked higher in Kenpom than the very lucky co-champions, the Wisconsin Badgers (+3.21). MSU finished the season almost a half-game on the lucky side, while Michigan was a bit over a game on the not-so-lucky side of the coin. While "luck" is very likely not strictly random (some might refer to it as "grit"), it certainly has a big impact on the final standings.

But, what about the effect of the schedule? Back in December, I posted an analysis comparing the strength of schedule of each team in the conference using a unique method (as far as I know). I made the same expected win calculation as in the standings above for each team, but with a twist. I calculated the expected win total for each team's schedule, assuming that schedule was played by a Big Ten team of average strength, which is the preseason was assumed to be Penn State.

In addition, I also made a similar calculation in which I adjusted the Kenpom efficiency of the average team (Penn State) to be equal to that of the team in question. This was an attempt to correct for the fact that a team like MSU benefits from not have to play MSU, while a team like Nebraska is penalized but not getting to play a team as bad as Nebraska.

Now that the season is over, I made the same calculations again using the current Kenpom efficiencies. In this case, the most average Big Ten team turned out to be Purdue. The charts below show both the preseason and postseason strength of schedule results (both corrected and uncorrected) with the easiest schedules (most expected wins) on the left.




Once again, there is a lot to learn from these graphs. First, they also suggest that the conference as a whole is tougher than expected, as basically every teams expected win total decreased from the preseason to post-season calculations.

Second, it is pretty easy from this graph to identify the teams with the easier or harder schedules. The big winner in this analysis appears to be Iowa, who had a ~0.3 game advantage in schedule over Purdue, Rutgers, and Ohio State. If we look back at the enhanced Big Ten standings shown above, this makes sense, as Iowa and Purdue have a higher expected win total than their Kenpom efficiency would suggest. MSU had a slightly (0.1 game) tougher schedule than the lead pack, while Wisconsin and to a greater extent Penn State, Illinois, and Michigan all had tougher schedules by about half a game.

Third, the entire range of strength of schedule is right at a full game. Iowa did have a better schedule than Michigan by that amount. But, as we already know, the full range of luck is closer to five games. In other words, it is better to be lucky than (to have a) good (schedule).

2) Should MSU fans be upset that we didn't get the No. 1 seed in the Big Ten Tournament?

No.

As the Big Ten race entered the final day, I was able to perform several Monte Carlo style simulations of the full Big Ten Tournament using the most like five scenarios, depending on the winners of the MSU-OSU game, Michigan-Maryland game, and the Illinois-Iowa game. The results are shown here:



I can't tell you the exact error in this simulation, but I think that it is around one percent. So, in other words, the simulations gave MSU essentially the same odds (~23 percent) to win the tournament regardless of whether MSU was the No. 1 seed, No 2. seed or the No. 3 seed.

The reason for this, I believe, is also clear from the enhanced Big Ten standings shown above. Due to the overall parity of the league, there are good teams in all parts of the bracket. Even the 12th best team in the conference (Indiana) is ranked in the Kenpom Top 40. It was going to be tough no matter where MSU landed.

3) Who is going to win the Big Ten Tournament and should I bet on it?

Great question. While I never bet myself, it you are of that persuasion, I perhaps have some data to help. The table below shows the full results of my Monte Carlo simulation of the final Big Ten Tournament bracket, with odds for each team to advance to a certain point.



Based on the odds that I calculate for the championship, I also tabulated the betting break even point for each team. If you see a money line higher than the one listed here, my analysis suggests to take that bet. As for the probabilities, MSU does have the best overall odds, but the field appears to be wide open. Except, that is, for poor Northwestern and Nebraska, who both failed to win the tournament in any of the 5,000 trials.

Finally, I pulled some of the lines for the tournament that I saw and calculated the return on investment for each team. Those results are shown here:



Interestingly, the only teams that appear to be a "good bet" are Wisconsin at +1200 and Minnesota at +4000. All other bets are "expected" to lose money. The line for MSU (+300) is very close to my calculated line. Meanwhile, one of the worst bets looks like one on Michigan at +500. This would imply that their odds to win the tournament are about 16 percent while my calculates suggest that they are 7.7% in reality. Michigan? Over-valued? I know, you're shocked.

That is all for today, until next time, go wash your hands and let's hope that let fans attend in person down in Indy. Go Green.

1) Gun to my head, right now I think that MSU is going to wind up as the No. 2 or No. 3 seed in the Midwest, with Kansas, for better or worse.

2) Based on the current bracket matrix, the top four seeds in each region would line up like this, I think:

Midwest:
1. Kansas
2. Creighton
3. MSU
4. Louisville

South
1. Baylor
2. Florida State
3. Duke
4. Wisconsin

West
1. Gonzaga
2. San Diego State
3. Seton Hall
4. Oregon

East
1. Dayton
2. Villanova
3. Maryland
4. Kentucky

3) Based on a bit of a quirk, BYU is very likely to end up in the Midwest as well, somewhere on the No. 5 to No. 7 seed. The reason is that BYU refuses to play on Sunday, so they ONLY can be placed into the either Midwest or West regions, which play on Thursday / Saturday for the second weekend. With Gonzaga very likely taking the No. 1 seed out West, it is very difficult to place BYU in the same region. Depending on where MSU is, this could impact our path

4) Based on the current bracket matrix, three of the four teams on the No. 6 seed line are out of the Big Ten (Iowa, Michigan, and Penn State). The other No. 6 seed is West Virginia. If MSU a No. 3 seed, the No 6. seed would naturally be MSU's potential 2nd round opponent.

As we saw last year, it is possible to face a Big Ten team as early as the second round. But, it has to be a team that MSU has only played once, and of that group, Iowa is the only team in that category. This could also clearly impact MSU's path.

The concern that I have is that if I look at the list of potential opponents in the Midwest Region: Iowa, West Virginia, BYU, Creighton, and Kansas, only Creighton appears to be "over-seeded" based on a comparison of their projected seed and the adjusted Kenpom efficiency of that seed, historically.

In other words, in a year when the field is generally down, this potential draw for MSU looks pretty tough. I think it is in MSU's best interest to NOT be in the Midwest.

Early in the evening on Tuesday night, it was clear that it was going to be a big night. With MSU playing at Penn State and Maryland playing at Rutgers in the same time slot, the fate of the Big Ten regular season was very much in balance. If MSU were to have lost and Maryland would have won, MSU would have needed a miracle to claim a share of the title. Even if both MSU and Maryland had won, the Spartans would have been placed in the uncomfortable position of needing a Michigan win this weekend in order to hang a banner.

Yuck.

But, fortunately, none of those things came to pass. It looked a bit bleak at times, as MSU trailed by 19 points late in the first half at Penn State. It was clear right away that Maryland was struggling on the road, and that made MSU’s big deficit even harder to swallow. Was this how the regular season was going to end? With Maryland tanking and MSU still not able to get the job done?

No, fortunately, is was not.

MSU stormed back and the second half with laser-like focus and execution to steal their sixth road win. At the same time, Maryland continued their epic collapse, and as a result, MSU is back in control of its own destiny. If MSU can beat Ohio State on Senior Day, they will get to hang another banner in the rafters. With only one game left for each team, the expected win matrix has a bit less value. But, for old times sake, here is the final version, including the trend charts.









If nothing else, this table shows the amazing number of potential ties that can still occur up and down the standings, which frankly just makes doing the tie-breaker math tedious and annoying. In any event, there are still four teams alive for the Big Ten Title and they have the following odds:





It is really quite simple. MSU, Wisconsin, and Maryland will each claim at least a share of the title with a win. Illinois can still back into a tie if they can beat Iowa and if all three of the other teams lose.

As for the potential seeding in the Big Ten tournament, MSU is now locked into a top three seed. Here are the odds for MSU to claim each of those three seeds, depending on whether MSU beats Ohio State or not.



MSU is slightly more likely to get the No. 1 seed than the No. 2 seed, and the No. 3 seed is fairly unlikely. As for the specific scenarios, those are summarized here:

MSU is the No. 1 seed if:

1) MSU wins, and both Maryland and Wisconsin lose. (In this scenario, MSU is the outright champion)

2) MSU wins and Wisconsin loses. (MSU wins the tiebreaker with Maryland.)

3) MSU, Wisconsin, and Illinois win, but Maryland loses. (MSU wins the tiebreaker with Wisconsin)

4) Illinois wins, but MSU, Wisconsin, and Maryland all lose. (MSU wins the 4-way tiebreaker)

MSU is the No 2. Seed if:

5) MSU, Maryland, and Wisconsin all win. (Wisconsin wins the three-way tiebreaker)

6) Maryland and Illinois win, but MSU and Wisconsin both lose. (MSU wins the three-way tiebreaker for the second place)

7) Wisconsin win, but MSU and Maryland both lose. (MSU wins the two- or three-way tiebreaker for the second place)

MSU is the No 3. Seed if:

8) Maryland wins, but MSU, Wisconsin, and Illinois all lose

9) MSU loses, and both Maryland and Wisconsin win

As for the odds of other teams to achieve a certain seed, I must admit that the tie-breaker math is a bit beyond my current set of tools, but this is a point that I plan on improving for next year. That said, the final set of enhanced standings are shown below, and in this case I have ordered the teams based on the projected final standings (including tie-breakers) assuming the all of the favored teams win this weekend (which for the top four would be MSU, Maryland, and Illinois win, while Wisconsin loses at Indiana)



I also simulated the Big Ten Tournament using these seeds and the current Kenpom adjusted efficiencies and I got the following odds for the tournament, by round:



At this point, MSU is the clear favorite and I would predict they will be four to one (roughly) in Vegas to win the tournament. It is also notable that Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and Penn State all have essentially the same odds.

Finally, as we inch closer to Selection Sunday, I wanted to revisit some of the data that I posted a few weeks ago regard the comparison of the 2020 field with the last 18 National Champions based on Kenpom efficiency data. The updated national plot is shown below.



In general, there has be some movement of the teams in the past few weeks, but the overall message is still essentially the same. In general, the field is quite weak from a historical perspective, with only three teams (Kansas, Baylor, and Gonzaga) clearly in the range of most past champions and really only about seven others (San Diego State, Duke, MSU, Ohio State, Dayton, Louisville, and Villanova) safely inside the green region which defines the full range of past champions. There is a collection of six teams (Florida State, Arizona, Michigan, Maryland, Seton Hall, and Houston) who exist right on the very edge of the green zone, near the biggest outlier champion, the 2014 UCONN team.

As for the same plot using historical MSU data, that is shown here



The metrics for the 2020 team have improved overall, and the current squad is currently still safely in the cluster of past teams that have relied more on defense than offense. Since I posted this data on February 23rd, MSU has dropped down slightly on defense, but has improved more on offense. As of March 6th, the 2020 team now mostly resembles the 2009 National Runner Up team than it does the 1998 Sweet 16 team. This seems encouraging.

That is all for now. Enjoy Senior Day and let's hope that it ends with a little more fabric hanging from the ceiling. Go Green.

I have always been a sucker when in comes to "bracketology." In fact, for several years in a row I have gone through my own exercise of ranking the 68 teams and placing them into regions on the eve of Selection Sunday, the most holy day of the college sports calendar. That said, I honestly don't see much value in bracketology starting in October or November, or frankly, even in February. Far too much can change and we really only have enough data to evaluate teams until they have played 30 games or so.

But, it isn't February any more. It is now March. So, it's time to starting taking a look at what the brackets might look like and how they might shake out.

One thing that I have learned over the years is that when it comes to predicting the results of the NCAA tournament, the variance that we see (re: upsets) follows the same trends that we see in the regular season when it comes to point spreads. In other words, by just looking at the point spreads, we can predict the rate at which (for example) the 12-seed will upset the 5-seed.

In case you don't believe me, below I show the historical correlation between the win percentage as predicted by the Vegas line as compared to the actual rate that the higher (favored) seed wins.



Another thing that I have learned is that Kenpom efficiencies do an excellent job of predicting point spreads. If you put these two pieces of information together, it tells us that Kenpom efficiency data can give us insight into how much Madness to expect March and where it might occur.

Based on historical data, I can calculate both the mean and standard deviation of the adjusted efficiency margin for each seed, one to sixteen. Then, it is straightforward to plot the current adjusted efficiency margin of each team that is expected to make the field of sixty eight as a function of their projected seed in order to get a feel for their relative strength.

While the brackets will not be finalized until the evening of the 15th, there is already a lot of information that we can glean from the brackets they are being proposed by the various amateur "bracketolgists" out there. I find that the "Bracket Matrix" website is a good tool to get an overview of where teams might wind up on Selection Sunday. Essentially, this website provides a crowd-sourced average of the seed that each team in likely to receive. While note perfect, it provides a nice point of reference for an initial analysis of the tournament.

So, based on the most recent set of Kenpom and bracket matrix data, here is a snap shot of the projected top 8 seeds, followed by a snap shot of the bottom 8 seeds.





In both graphs, the large blue dot is the mean for that seed and the standard deviation is shown using error bars. The orange dots are the positions of the current estimated tournament field. We can draw a lot of initial conclusions from these data plots.

1) The top of the field is very weak

People have been saying this for months, and the data backs them up. Just looking at the top four seed lines, I count only three teams that are historically above average for their currently projected seed: Kansas, Duke, and MSU.

The projected 2-seeds and 4-seeds, in particular, look VERY bad. No matter where they wind up, teams like Maryland, Seton Hall, Florida State, Kentucky, and especially Auburn look ripe for a first or second round upset. The bulk of the 1-seeds and 3-seed are simply below average.

2) The rest of the field, however, looks fairly normal

From the 5-seed line down, in most cases there is a balance of teams above and below the mean. Notably, the 7-seeds all look pretty strong, while the 8-seeds and 10-seeds look weak. Also notable is that the 15-seeds and 16-seeds almost look a bit above average. Could there be another UMBC in that bunch? Would a potential Gonzaga-Eastern Washington match-up in Spokane get a little dicey? Maybe...

3) As for MSU, maybe a 3-seed isn't so bad

While the chart above shows MSU as a 4-seed, I think that a lot of sites are starting to bump the Spartans up to the three line. I also think that it is certainly possible that MSU could win up on the two line if they were to win the Big Ten Tournament. But, it is possible that a 3-seed could provide a more clear path to a Final Four.

To understand why, let's look at the possible brackets. If MSU is a 3-seed, they would match up against a 14-seed in the first round. This year, the 14-seeds look a bit weak, while the 15-seeds (the first round opponent for a 2-seed) look relatively strong.

As potential second round match-ups, the only potential above average 6-seed is Michigan, who will not be in the same half of MSU bracket (as MSU has already played them twice this year, unlike Minnesota last year). The other 6-seeds are below average. In contrast, the potential 7-seed teams (the likely opponent of a 2-seed) are all strong.

Moving onto the possible Sweet 16 match-ups, a 3-seed would most likely face a 2-seed, and as stated above the 2-seeds, with the exception of Dayton, are all very below average. I would take a match-up with Florida State in a heart-beat.

Furthermore, if we assume that Duke holds their position as a 3-seed as well, MSU could not be in their region. Based on Kenpom data, and MSU's previous run-in with Devils this year, I am OK with that.

4) There are a few other teams that it would pay to avoid

Based on this analysis, I would not particularly like to face Arizona, Houston, West Virginia, or Texas Tech. All of those teams are on a path to get under-seeded, based on this data. That said, Ohio State and Michigan also looked to be poised to be dangerous as well. But, MSU is unlikely to cross path's with either of those two teams.

That all said, there is two other question that bears asking:

5) How close to home will MSU be in the first two rounds?

MSU would prefer to play in Cleveland on Friday and Sunday. But, it is unclear if that pod will be available. Only two teams from each of the top sixteen will be placed there. Dayton will almost certainly wind up there and will almost certainly be seeded above MSU. That leaves only one slot.

As we look at the other teams in the top four seed lines, there is not quite as much competition as there is in most years. Kansas and Baylor are both likely headed for Omaha. Gonzaga and San Diego State are headed for Spokane and Sacramento. Duke and Maryland would slot into Greensboro, while Villanova and Seton Hall are likely headed to Albany. Florida State is a natural fit for Tampa, while Creighton will likely go to St. Louis.

If Oregon makes it to the 4-seed line, they will almost certainly be placed in Spokane. The lowest ranked remaining 4-seed will get sent to Sacramento. So, this leaves one slot each available in the cities of Cleveland, St. Louis, and Tampa. As we look at the teams remaining on the top four lines, MSU's biggest competition for that last slot in Cleveland are Louisville and Kentucky.

Both Louisville and Kentucky are essentially equally close to St. Louis, so the highest ranked of those two will likely be slotted there. MSU is significantly closer to Cleveland, so the committee is going to want to send them there. Basically, as long as MSU ends the season ranked (in the eyes of the committee) higher than either Kentucky or Louisville, they should get that slot. If MSU is on the 3-seed line or above, this is virtually guaranteed. If not, they are likely bound for Tampa or Sacramento. If Auburn remains on the 4-seed line, they would prefer to go to Tampa. So, that could impact the overall calculus as well.

6) Which region is MSU likely to be placed into?

As a general rule, the committee is supposed to apply the "s-curve" in the bracketing of the teams, such that (for example) the strongest 1-seed is matched up against the weakest 2-seed in the same bracket as the strongest 3-seed and weakest 4-seed. However, the committee also tries to keep as many teams as possible close to home to minimize travel time for both the players and fans. In recent years, geography trumps the s-curve almost every time.

In this case, I think that the overall situation is still a bit too volatile to make any clear prediction. It seems clear that Kansas is going to the Midwest (Indianapolis), Baylor is going to the South (Houston) and either Gonzaga or San Diego State is staying out West (L.A.). The question is what to do about the East region (New York City).

Most, if not all bracketologists have San Diego State in the East, but I have my doubts. It just seems so natural to put both Gonzaga and San Diego State out West (with one of those teams as the 2-seed, likely the Aztecs), that I have a feeling that is how this will shake out. As for the East, Dayton seems to be the most likely candidate to take that last 1-seed. The 2-seed could then be the Big East champ, perhaps Seton Hall.

With the remaining 2-seeds, Florida State is a more natural fit in the South, which then leaves the Midwest 2-seed. If MSU were to win both the regular season Big Ten Title and the Big Ten Tournament, that 2-seed in Indy would look pretty good. The only problem is that Kansas might be waiting in the Regional Final. That would be a tough draw, based on Kenpom.

If MSU is a 3-seed, pretty much any region is in play. If Duke is also on the 3-seed line, they are likely to be in the East. So, I would guess any of the three other regions would be equally likely, but Midwest, again is perhaps most likely, due simply to geography.

While it is almost conference tournament time, there is still a lot that can happen in the final weeks of the season. I recommend that everyone sit back and enjoy the ride.

After tonight's action, I have some updated odds for the Big Ten title and seed in the BTT.

MSU Title odds now sit at 73%, with the odds of a solo title at 13%

As for the BTT seed, I have:



MSU is locked into a Top 3 seed. If MSU beats Ohio State, to get the 1-seed we then need either:

1) Indiana to beat Wisconsin
2) Michigan to beat Maryland AND Illinois to beat Iowa

It is also possible to grab the one seed if MSU, Wisconsin, Maryland all lose, but Illinois wins to make a 4-way tie for 1st place

Now that MSU is trending back up in a positive direction, it seems safe to talk about where that first weekend of games will be played. The pods this year are pretty well spread out, and there is not as much stiff competition for them as there is in most years. The fact that Gonzaga will naturally go to Spokane and San Diego State will go to Sacramento helps, as those West Coast pods usually wind up as the homes to the 4/5 teams.

With MSU now looking like a possible 3-seed is in play, I think the Cleveland pod is a very real possibility. The main competition seems to be:

Dayton
Kentucky
Louisville
Penn State
Ohio State
West Virginia

Those teams are all closest to Cleveland or it is a close second. Several other schools would have Cleveland as a 2nd choice, but all of those teams will seem to get their first option. For example:

Creighton => St. Louis
Duke => Greensboro
Seton Hall => Albany
Villanova => Albany

Dayton looks to be a lock to Cleveland. So, can MSU get the other slot? Right now, Kentucky is clearly the main competitor. Considering that UK won the head-to-head match-up is not helpful right now. But, MSU does have more Q1 wins (8 to 7) and a higher NET ranking (7 vs. 14). Will that be enough? UK losing to Tennessee tonight was certainly helpful in that regard as well...

Louisville could also be an issue, and their NET is 8 right now, but they have only 4 Q1 wins.

Both Louisville and UK are above MSU in the Bracket Matrix but that could change quite a bit over the next few days. I think MSU has a shot.

Unfreaking believable!

Full disclosure: I was on tape delay during family time, but I accidentally saw the half-time score. Despite seeing that, I was still oddly optimistic that MSU could pull it out. Then, I watched the game... WOW! Coupled with the loss to Maryland, here is where I have things:

Odds to win / share the B1G Title:

1. MSU = 73%
2. Maryland = 72%
3. Wisconsin = 45%
4. Illinois = 17%

Both MSU and Maryland project to be about a 4-point favorite on Senior Day, so both teams have a roughly 65% chance to win. My, have things changed over the past few days!

As for the BTT, MSU has now locked in a double bye. I just updated the tie-breakers and I can give good probabilities for seeding:

1-seed: 51%
2-seed: 32%
3-seed: 14%
4-seed: 3%

If MSU beat OSU, the odds for the 1-seed go up to ~70%.

MSU basically now will win any 1-1 tie-breaker with Maryland, as MSU has an equal or better record against Wisconsin, Penn State, Illinois, and Iowa. So, the only way that MSU would lose the 1-seed is if:

1) MSU end up in a 3-way tie with Wisconsin and Maryland
2) MSU winds up in a tie with just Wisconsin and Maryland is in 3rd alone

In both cases, Wisconsin gets the 1-seed, as they went 1-0 against the Twerps. That said, if all the favorites win, the updated projected standings (with tiebreakers) are:

1. MSU (14-6)
2. Maryland (14-6)
3. Illinois (13-7)
4. Wisconsin (13-7)
5. Penn State (12-8)
6. Iowa (11-9)
7. Ohio State (11-9)
8. Michigan (10-10)
9. Purdue (10-10)
10. Rutgers (10-10)
11. Indiana (10-10)
12. Minnesota (8-12)
13. Northwestern (2-18)
14. Nebraska (2-18)

Finally, if I use these final standing and simulate the Big Ten Tournament, I get:

1. MSU = 23%
2. Maryland = 17%
7. Ohio State = 13% (again, Kenpom LOVES the Buckeyes...)
4. Wisconsin = 9%
3. Illinois = 8%
8. Michigan = 8%
6. Iowa = 7%
5. Penn State = 6%
9. Purdue = 3%
11. Indiana = 3%
12. Minnesota = 2%
10. Rutgers = 2%
13. Northwestern = LOL
14. Nebraska = LOL

Finally, I should also point out that MSU just moved up to #6 in Kenpom, which is the historical cut-off for the majority of the eventual National Champions.

Sunday and the days after could be special in East Lansing, once again.

It seems like the number of potential tie-breakers this year for the Big Ten Tournament is particularly nasty. I have been hammering away at some of the different scenarios, and I have some approximate results. Here is what I have now for MSU:

1-seed: 8%
2-seed: 31%
3-seed: 16%
4-seed: 20%
5-seed: 11%
6-seed: 9%
7-seed: 5%

This means the odds of a double bye are right at 75% right now or better.

I say "or better" because I just went through all 50 potential ties that MSU might find themselves in and in some cases the tie-breakers are bit too nasty to handle individually. So, in the more complex cases, I made the worst case scenario pick and used those in my calculation above.

That said, if MSU beats Penn State tonight, MSU is locked into a Top 4 seed. With 3 games on tap for tonight, the number of scenarios drops by a lot, and the math will get easier.

For those that having been paying attention, the results of Saturday night's game in College Park should have come as no surprise. For weeks, the metrics have been telling us that MSU was still a pretty good team. Those same metrics have been telling us that Maryland had honestly been pretty lucky and perhaps was due for a step back.

As we looked at MSU's roster, there was no obvious problem. MSU had one of the best, if not the best point guard / big man combination in the country. Each of the wings had shown sustained flashes of very strong play, and even the members of maligned power forward group had shown promise at times. Also, there is that guy at the end of the bench that always seems to get teams to hit their peak at the right time. All the ingredient were there. The team had looked dominant in early January, but the dog days of the Big Ten schedule were long and hard.

I must admit that even I lost faith a bit, but I never lost hope. On Saturday night, that hope was confirmed by an absolutely dominating performance on the road. MSU looked quick and sharp. They looked like an Izzo-coached team in March, and that is something that should make the whole country take heed. Welcome to March, baby.

With that win and with the rest of the action over the weekend, the updated expected win matrix is shown below, along with the trend plots.









As the end of the regular season draws near, the teams are finally starting to sort out. Maryland still clearly has the upper hand, but they only have a 31% chance to win out. Meanwhile, MSU is locked in a tight battle with Wisconsin, Illinois, and Penn State for at least second place.

As for the odds to win / share a regular season title, those are shown below:





While MSU's odds certainly got a boost, there is still only a 1 in 4 chance that MSU will complete the 3-peat. A win at Penn State would raise the odds to roughly 50-50. For completeness, the enhanced Big Ten standings are shown below.



All of that data is fun, but the bottom line is pretty simple. MSU needs to try to win out and need to hope that Maryland trips up at least once. So, at this point in the season, it's the seeding in the Big Ten tournament that is the more interesting math-intensive question.

If the season ended today, that would be weird, because there are still 14 games remaining. But, if the projected favorite wins all 14 of those games, the final standings (with BTT tiebreakers included) would look like this:

1. Maryland (14-6)
2. Penn St. (13-7)
3. Wisconsin (13-7)
4. Michigan St. (13-7)
5. Illinois (13-7)
6. Iowa (12-8)
7. Ohio St. (10-8)
8. Michigan (10-10)
9. Rutgers (10-10)
10. Indiana (10-10)
11. Purdue (11-9)
12. Minnesota (8-12)
13. Northwestern (2-18)
14. Nebraska (2-18)

MSU would finish in a 4-way tie for 2nd place, and would wind up with the 4-seed and one of those precious double byes. But, this is only one of a possible 16,384 remaining scenarios.

I was hoping to perform a more detailed analysis of the likelihood of MSU getting a double bye, but I did not quite get all the way through it. I can say a few things, however. Based on my preliminary analysis, if MSU beats Penn State on Tuesday night, I have not found a scenario where they fall out of the Top 4. One might still exist, but I haven't found it.

If MSU loses at Penn State, but beats Ohio State on Senior Day, MSU is still in pretty good shape for a double bye, but there are a few scenarios that could be trouble. For example:

If Iowa wins at Illinois and creates a multi-team tie between MSU, Iowa, Penn State, and possibly Wisconsin, MSU would lose the tie breakers and fall to 5th place.

There are other, less likely scenarios out there well where MSU falls to 5th place (like a 4th place tie with Penn State with both Wisconsin and Illinois win out).

In any event, it's best if MSU just beats Penn State. So, let's just go ahead and do that, shall we? Go Green.

It's March, baby.

I will do my typical detailed update on Monday, but here is where MSU stands after last night's dominating, statement win over Maryland.

MSU's odds to win the Big Ten are now at about 28%. MSU's odds to win out are now at 31% and Maryland's odds to win out are only 30%.

In other words, if MSU can win out, the odds are in our favor to share the Big Ten Title, as it is more likely than not that Maryland drops at least one of their final two games. Kenpom currently has Maryland as a narrow underdog at Rutgers.

As for the chances of MSU getting a double bye in the BTT, I handicap that at around 90%, based on my simulations. The tie-breakers combinations are nasty, so this is still a little tricky. The most likely out come (assuming all the favored teams win) is now this:

1. Maryland (14-6)
2. Wisconsin (13-7)
3. Penn State (13-7)
4. Michigan State (13-7)
5. Illinois (13-7)
6. Iowa (12-8)
7. Ohio State (11-9)
8. Michigan (10-10)
9. Rutgers (10-10)
10. Indiana (10-10)
11. Purdue (9-11)
12. Minnesota (8-12)
13. Nebraska (3-17)
14. Northwestern (1-19)

That said, I am not 100% sure about Wisconsin vs. Penn State for the 2/3 seed. The BTT tiebreaker rules seem a little different this year, and frankly... I am not 100% sure how to interpret them. I am also seeing online that Penn State would get the 2-seed... Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.

(Sorry this is a bit late. I was on a plane until 7 PM tonight...)

As we look at the calendar, it tells us clearly that March is just around the corner. When it comes to the Big Ten regular season race, the end is near. Time is running out, and the final picture for this phase of the season is coming into focus.

For MSU, they got a desperately needed win over Iowa on Tuesday night. Moreover, they proved that they actually could come from behind and execute winning plays against a good team in winning time. We knew that they had it in them (as many of the same guys did it last year, several times) and the stats were telling us that they could do it, but it is quite another thing to actually do it. They finally did it.

This team still has a way to go and not a lot of time left to get there. But, Tuesday night was progress. Beating Iowa was huge, both from a confidence standpoint, but also from a Quad 1 win and Big Ten Tournament tiebreaker standpoint. It also means that MSU is still in the hunt for a Big Ten title.

While the MSU-Iowa game was pretty big, there were several other games this week that also will have a big impact on the final Big Ten standings. First, Maryland staged a near-miracle comeback in Minneapolis to beat the Gopher by a point with less than 2 seconds on the clock. Penn State narrowly avoided a home upset loss to Rutgers. Finally, Wisconsin went into Ann Arbor and got a "W" for their 5th consecutive win. Considering all of those results, the updated Big Ten expected win matrix and trend plots are shown below:









Maryland maintains their commanding lead in the conference race with almost a 2-game lead in expected wins over the new 2nd place team, the Wisconsin Badgers, who with a very soft remaining schedule are now projected to win 13 games. Penn State is now in 3rd place, just 3 tenths of a game behind the Badgers.

Illinois and MSU are then neck-and-neck at about 12 and half wins, with Iowa solidly in 6th place at just below 12. Up next is Ohio State and Michigan at between 10 and 11 wins, followed by Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota, who are all in danger of finishing below 500 in league play. Nebraska and Northwestern remain, as always, bad.

As for the translation to the odds to share / win the Big Ten, those are shown here:





With odds at over 95%, it would take an epic collapse for the Terrapins NOT to hang a Big Ten banner this year, which would be their first since joining the conference. As for teams that have a shot to tie them, Wisconsin is now the most likely at 11%, with MSU (8%), Penn State (7%), and Illinois (4%) all holding out hope.

Of course, MSU will have a shot to draw within a game of Maryland on Saturday night. If MSU wins, their odds to share in the title will only go up to around 20%. If they lose, well, they go to zero. No pressure...

Let's also take a quick look at the current enhanced Big Ten standings:



While there is currently a 4-team tie for 2nd place, Illinois and Wisconsin are both sitting at +3, while Penn State and MSU are sitting at only +2. Practically, this tells us that Wisconsin and Illinois only have one road game remaining, while MSU and Penn State have two. Considering that one of Penn State's two road games in at Northwestern, it is clear that MSU has the toughest road left.

I also would like to say a little bit more about the luck statistic. Currently, the Top 5 teams in the conference all have over a full game and in most cases over two full games of luck, EXCEPT MSU. Furthermore, Maryland's luck goes far beyond just winning toss up games.

Take this week's win in Minneapolis, for example. Very clearly, this was not a game Maryland should have won. Not only did they hit a near miracle 3-pointer with under 3 seconds on the clock, but they also benefited from Minnesota missing their final three free throw attempts, two of which were the front end of 1-and-1s. Quantitatively, Kenpom gave Maryland only a 2.8% chance to win that game with under a minute to play.

But, there's more.

This is not the first time that Maryland has had a low probability comeback in Big Ten play. While the win over Minnesota was the least probable, Maryland has won THREE additional Big Ten games when their win probability was under 12% late in the game. We all remember the game at MSU (6.8%), but they also had improbable wins at Indiana (5.4%) and in their first game vs. Illinois (11.5%).

While Maryland certainly needed some grit to win those games, grit does not cause 75% shooters to miss 3 consecutive free throws. That is caused by something else. It's called dumb luck. Maryland looks to me to be like the cat that has used up 7 or 8 of its 9 lives. March is a terrible time to have your luck run out. So is Leap Day.

So with the events of this week, where does MSU stand regarding seeding in the Big Ten Tournament? There are currently still just over a million possible remaining outcomes of the Big Ten season. But, if we consider the most likely of those scenarios (the one where all of the favorites win) we would get the following final Big Ten standings, with tie-breakers taken into consideration:

1. Maryland (15-5) with a close loss at Rutgers
2. Illinois (13-7)
3. Wisconsin (13-7)
4. Penn State (13-7)
5. Michigan State (12-8)
6. Iowa (12-8)
7. Ohio State (11-9)
8. Michigan (10-10)
9. Rutgers (10-10)
10. Indiana (10-10)
11. Purdue (9-11)
12. Minnesota (8-12)
13. Nebraska (3-17)
14. Northwestern (1-19)

In this scenario, MSU would have to play most likely Minnesota on Thursday of the Big Ten Tournament and if they win would then face a rested Penn State team on Friday. Not ideal.

But, here is the good news. The scenario shown above, though most probable, it still very unlikely. It my simulations of the remaining season, MSU actually finishes at least tied for 4th place in over 70% of the scenarios. In some of those cases, MSU would still lose the tiebreaker, but in many of them, they don't. So, I would handicap that there is still better than a 50% chance that MSU gets a double bye.

One thing is for sure, though, and that's the fact that MSU's BTT seed as well as NCAA tournament seed will likely improve if they can get a win on Saturday night. March is coming, boys. It's time to find that ceiling of potential. Go Green.

Not the d-coordinator, but other staff positions. I'm anticipating the strength coach will be officially named in a matter of moments.

Or I am just overthinking things! Probably that.

But we will see see...

GO GREEN

Jay Johnson, Offensive Coordinator: HIRED

* He was one of the first two coaches hired by Tucker at Colorado last year and there are clear indications that he was Tucker's first choice to be offensive coordinator at Michigan State as well. SpartanMag.com had it from sources for more than a week that he would likely be coming to Michigan State as Tucker's offensive coordinator.

Previously, he was an offensive analyst for Kirby Smart at Georgia. According to his bio, he assisted in all off-field phases of game planning and recruiting at Georgia.

[Being an analyst for an elite program isn't a bad gig. Consider that Butch Jones, Mike Stoops, Major Applewhite and Mike Locksley are or were analysts for Nick Saban lately. They aren't officially high-paying gigs, but are good landing spots for guys with existing contracts elsewhere.]

Prior to being an analyst at Georgia, he was offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach for Tracy Claeys at Minnesota in 2016. That team went 9-4 before Claeys was fired due to an off-field scandal.

Prior to that, he was offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach at Louisiana Lafayette from 2011-15.

In 2010, he was quarterbacks coach at Central Michigan. CMU was No. 17 in the nation in passing offense that year when Dan Enos was in his first year.

He is a native of Minnesota who attended Northern Iowa.

Scottie Hazelton, Defensive Coordinator: HIRED
* Interviewed at Michigan State earlier this week.
* Was defensive coordinator and linebackers coach at Kansas State in 2019.
* Served as defensive coordinator at linebackers coach at Wyoming, 2017-18.
* Linebackers coach for the Jacksonville Jaguars, 2014-16.
* Defensive coordinator, Nevada, 2013.
* Linebackers coach, USC, 2012.
* Defensive coordinator and linebackers coach, North Dakota State, 2010-11.
* Defensive line coach, North Dakota State, 2007-09
* Linebackers coach, Michigan Tech, 2006.
* Native of Thornton, Colo.
* Played linebacker at Fort Lewis College, in Durango, Colo., 1992-94.

Ron Burton, Defensive Assistant: HIRED
* Retained as a defensive assistant coach. Not sure of the position. He was a defensive line coach for Mark Dantonio from 2013 to 2019, and played linebacker in the NFL.
* Was rumored to have taken a position at Indiana, but that is on hold now.

Mike Tressel, Defensive Assistant: HIRED
* Retained as a defensive assistant at Michigan State, possibly linebackers coach.
* Was defensive assistant for Mark Dantonio from 2007-2019, including 2015-17 as co-defensive coordinator and 2018-19 as defensive coordinator.
* Tucker said on Feb. 24 that official titles for Tressel and Burton would be announced soon. Speculation is that Tucker is awaiting the hiring of a defensive coordinator before settling on defensive assistant coaching duties.


Chris Kapilovic, Offensive Line Coach: HIRED
* New offfensive line coach, Michigan State.
* Kapilovic, 50, offensive line coach and run game coordinator last year at Colorado.
* Was the third coach hired by Tucker last year at Colorado, after the two coordinators.
* Was o-line coach at North Carolina and Southern Mississippi for Larry Fedora from 2008-18.
* Was co-offensive coordinator at UNC from 2014-15.
* Kapilovic is a native of Phoenix, Ariz., and played at Missouri State.

“Chris is very passionate about the game of football and is a master motivator,” Tucker said in a university press release issued on Feb. 17. “He’s a great teacher who puts a premium on technique and fundamentals. He’s hard-nosed and will have his offensive line ready to play. He’s an outstanding football coach.”


Courtney Hawkins, Wide Receivers Coach: HIRED
* New wide receivers coach, Michigan State.
* Hawkins, 50, is athletic director and head coach at Flint Beecher High School.
* Former Michigan State standout under George Perles who played eight years in the NFL.
* Was head coach at Beecher for 14 years, making the playoffs in 13 of those seasons, including three conference titles and one regional championship.


Harlon Barnett, Defensive Backs Coach: HIRED
* Defensive coach.
* Former Michigan State and Florida State defensive coordinator.
* Was at the Michigan State-Maryland basketball game, sitting with Burton and Tressel, wearing MSU gear. Sources indicate that Barnett is squarely on Tucker's radar for a possible position. Barnett's lucrative Florida State contract, which expires in December, is a factory.


Ted Gilmore, Tight Ends Coach: HIRED

* Former wide receivers coach at Wisconsin.
* Gilmore, 52, been WRs coach at Wisconsin since 2015, has been passing game coordinator for the Badgers since 2017.
* He previously was WRs coach for the Oakland Raiders (2012-14), USC (2011), Nebraska (2005-2010).
* Was assistant head coach and recruiting coordinator at Nebraska from 2008-2010 under Bo Pelini.
* Also coached WRs at Colorado (2003-04), Purdue (2001-02) and Wyoming (1997-98). Was tight ends coach at Kansas in 1999.
* Played at Wyoming from 1988-89.
* Is a native of Wichita, Kan.

Ross Els, Special Teams Coordinator: HIRED
* Inside linebackers/special teams coach at Colorado.
* Els coached inside linebackers at Colorado for three seasons. Tucker retained Els from previous coach Mike MacIntyre's staff.
* When Els joined Tucker's staff, Els added special teams coordinator to his duties.
* Els, who will be 54 next season, will be a 30-year veteran of collegiate coaching next season. He has coached in 212 Division 1-A (FBS) games and seven bowl games.
* A native of Lincoln, Neb., he was defensive coordinator at Purdue under Darrell Hazell in 2016.
* Els was a linebackers coach at Nebraska under Bo Pelini from 2011-14. He was special teams coordinator and recruiting coordinator for his last three years at Nebraska.
* He was linebackers coach at Ohio University under Frank Solich from 2005 to 2010, spending four years as special teams coordinator.
* Els coached four years at New Mexico State, serving as defensive coordinatoar for two years.
* Els was head coach at Hastings College in Hastings, Neb., from 1997-2000. He also spent one year as QBs coach and one year as defensive coordinator at Hastings.
* He was also a defensive backs coach at Northern Iowa (1994) and Nebraska-Omaha (1990-93).


STRENGTH COACH

Jason Novak: HIRED
* Strength and Conditioning Coach
* Served as Head of Physical Conditioning at IMG Academy in Bradenton, Fla., in 2019.
* Was Director of Strength and Conditioning at Central Michigan from 2015-18.
* Assistant strength and conditioning coach for the Tennessee Titans for 11 years.

Login to view embedded media

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS

Geoff Martzen: HIRED
* Director of Player Personnel.
* Was director of player personnel at Colorado. Previously held similar positions at UCLA and Colorado State.

Cody Cox: HIRED
* Director of Football Operations.

Lisa Ben-Chaim: HIRED
* Director of On Campus Recruiting
* Was On Campus Assistant Recruiting Coordinator at Arizona State in 2019.

Darien Harris: HIRED
* Director of Player Engagement.
* Among other duties, Harris will assist former players in their transition into life after football.

Login to view embedded media

Sounds like hazleton may have stayed at the Kellogg center

Just passing along with is out there I'm not giving any validity or inside information

Last night's win was clearly huge. I had some family stuff going on yesterday and have only made into the early part of the 2nd half so far, so I won't comment on the game itself much beyond that.

MSU's title odds are now back up to 16%. Maryland has a big game tonight at Minnesota which Kenpom says is a pick'em. If the Terps lose... MSU suddenly is back in control of their own destiny...

Here is another tidbit. I have been looking through some of the Big Ten Tournament seeding scenarios and it is still a mess. There are still 67 million different possible outcomes and there will be multiple team tie-breakers, so it is a bear to sort out. That said, I am seeing a clear trend in regards to MSU securing a Top 4 seed with a double bye:

The team that is the single biggest threat to MSU getting the double bye is Wisconsin. Watch the Badgers closely down the stretch.

If MSU can win 2 (or 3 more) of the last three games, than this is all moot. Also, if MSU loses all three, it is also moot. But, MSU is still most likely to finish 12-8 and if they do, their BTT seed in large part will depend on what Wisconsin does.

As a look at the various scenarios, the biggest swing game in Wisconsin's final game of the season at Indiana. If the Badgers get that road win, most scenarios have a 12-8 MSU team dropping to 5th place. That is not ideal. AND, that is assuming that Wisconsin losses Thursday night in Ann Arbor. If Wisconsin wins that game, MSU might need to finish 13-7 get the double bye.

I am going to keep tinkering with the numbers to see if I can get a bit more quantitative, but that is my current impression.

(Note: I meant to post this Monday afternoon, but I was a bit delayed in getting it out. As a result, Illinois completely expected win over Nebraska on Monday night is not reflected in the data below. But, it doesn't change the overall story.)

Did everyone has a nice weekend? I did. As much as I love college basketball and MSU basketball in particular, sometimes it is nice to have a little break. It was nice not to have to worry about what time the game was on, whether or not I was going to be able to rearrange family activities to catch it live, or if I would just catch it on "tape delay." If nothing else, I didn't have to worry about what a potential loss might do to MSU's record or NCAA Tournament seed. It was nice.

As it turns out, sometimes the best thing that you can do is sit on the couch and watch. Because, as MSU was chilling out at home, both Penn State and Maryland posted "Ls" and MSU's faint hope for a Big Ten title get a little bit stronger. How much so? Let's start with the updated Big Ten wins matrix and trend charts









Somewhat naturally, MSU's expected win total of slightly over 12 did not change much at all. However, Maryland and Penn State both got knocked back a half game or so. As it stands, Maryland now has slightly under a 2-game lead over Penn State.

But, Penn State is now on the verge of being caught by a pack of four teams (Illinois, Wisconsin, MSU, and Iowa) that are all projected to win slightly over 12 games. Of the current Top 6, only 4 will get one of those coveted Big Ten Tournament double byes, and it's going to be a blood bath.



Perhaps the most notable change is the quiet rise of Wisconsin back into the Big Ten conversation following their 4th straight win this weekend. In terms of expected wins, the Badgers are now ahead of both MSU and Illinois. A peek at their remaining schedule tells the story. They close out the season @ Michigan, vs. Minnesota, vs. Northwestern, and @ Indiana. They project to only be favored in the two home games, but it is not hard to imagine them sweeping all four.

As for the updated Big Ten odds, those are shown here





Maryland is clearly still in the drivers seat. Despite their loss in Columbus, the fact that Penn State lost as well allowed the Terps odds to stay steady at right around 90%. After all, there are the odds to win OR tie, and at this point it is going to be pretty hard for Maryland to not at least tie.

Penn State odds seem to be in a free fall and at 13% they are now just one percentage better than MSU's odds. Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa are all still hanging around at about 8%, with Michigan somehow still holding out hope at 2%.

For completeness, here is the updated enhanced Big Ten standings, including the +/- rating and luck (again, not including Monday night's action)



With 5 total teams with 6 losses and 4 more with 7 or 8, the final weeks of the Big Ten regular season are going to be wild and likely very unpredictable. There is very likely going to be more than one multiple team ties, and the Big Ten Tournament could be bonkers.

As for MSU, the next four games will go a long way toward telling us whether this team is going to end the season with a bang or with a whimper. All the games are winnable... but they are also all lose-able. The most likely outcome is that MSU wins the home games (Iowa and Ohio State) but loses the road games to finish 12-8. That probably would be enough to secure a double bye, but it is not totally clear. There are too many potential outcomes out there to calculate easily (but I am working on it...)

Just as a taste, if I assume that all of the projected favorites win in the remaining Big Ten games, the final standings (including tie-breakers) would look like this:

1. Maryland 16-4
2. Illinois 13-7
3. Penn State 13-7
4. Michigan State 12-8
5. Iowa 12-8
6. Wisconsin 12-8
7. Ohio State 11-9
8. Michigan 11-9
9. Indiana 10-10
10. Rutgers 9-11
11. Purdue 9-11
12. Minnesota 8-12
13. Nebraska 3-17
14. Northwestern 1-19

In this scenario, MSU beats Iowa on Tuesday night and would therefore win a 3-way tiebreaker with Iowa and Wisconsin. MSU is also in good shape in a potential tiebreaker involving Illinois. But, a lot can and will happen in the next two weeks.

If MSU can beat Iowa, things will definitely get more interesting. If MSU can then find a way to win at Maryland, things will get VERY interesting. In a vacuum, those two wins would push MSU's odds to share the Big Ten title back up to 40%. Honestly speaking, while MSU's odds to run the table are only 7%, I think MSU would still share the Big Ten title with a 14-6 record. The odds suggest that Maryland is going to drop at least one of their other 3 games (@ Rutgers, @ Minnesota, and vs. Michigan).

Hope is still alive in East Lansing, folks. But, it all starts with the next game against Iowa this Tuesday. A loss would really hurt MSU's chances at a double bye, while a win would make a double bye likely, in my estimation. A lot is on the line. If nothing else, March is right around the corner. It's time for that Izzo magic to start taking effect. Go Green.

... that would be weird, because 20% of the season is still left. (Sorry, but I hate that line of reasoning). So, the better question to ask is something like this:

If the projected favorite wins all of the rest of the Big Ten games, what would the final standings look like? This, by definition, is the most likely (yet still REALLY unlikely) outcome out of the possible 268 million remaining season outcomes. When I crunch the numbers and figure the tie-breakers, I get this:

1. Maryland 16-4
2. Illinois 13-7
3. Penn State 13-7
4. Michigan State 12-8
5. Iowa 12-8
6. Wisconsin 12-8
7. Ohio State 11-9
8. Michigan 11-9
9. Indiana 10-10
10. Rutgers 9-11
11. Purdue 9-11
12. Minnesota 8-12
13. Nebraska 3-17
14. Northwestern 1-19

MSU would win the 3-way tie-breaker with Iowa and Wisconsin (assuming in this scenario that MSU beats Iowa on Tuesday). MSU is also in good shape if we wind up tied with Illinois.

Using these seeds, I simulated the Big Ten tournament and get the following odds to win:

MSU = 20%
Maryland = 18%
Penn State = 13%
Michigan = 11%
Ohio State = 11%
Illinois = 8%
Iowa = 7%
Wisconsin = 4%

Does MSU still have a reasonable shot to hand a banner? Maybe so...

Also, with Penn State and Maryland losing today, MSU regular season title odds are now at 11%. IF MSU can win the next two, the odds will shoot up to ~40%.

Just sayin'

For MSU basketball, the odds of a Big Ten regular season title are now vanishingly small (about 7%), but that doesn't mean the season is over. While the last few weeks have certainly been disappointing, MSU still has the potential to make this a season to remember. What happens in February stays in February. But, college basketball legends are made in March, and March is just around the corner.

So, the question now is what can we realistically expect out of the Spartans in March? While no one has a crystal ball to predict the future, it is possible to look back at historical data to see what attributes are necessary to build a championship team. While the number of variables that we could analyze are virtually endless, there are certain key stats that seem to be more important than other.

I am personally a huge proponent of efficiency values. For my money, Kenpom adjusted efficiency values (offensive, defensive, and margins) are the golden standard when it comes to predicting basketball outcomes. Kenpom efficiency margins correlate very well to Vegas point spreads, and Vegas point spreads correlate very robustly to victory probabilities. This is always a great place to start.

Beyond that, many experts also point to the so-called "Four Factors" in basketball to best correlate to winning. Those are (for both offense and defense): effective field goal percentage, rebounding percentage, turn-over rate, and free throw rate. For good measure, I think that it is also interesting to look at both 2-point and 3-point shooting percentages individually.

In order to understand the big picture, and the specific situation for MSU and other teams, I decided to plot the various pre-tournament statistics mentioned above for each team that has won the National Title back to 2002 (where Kenpom data is readily available). On top of that, I also plotted the same statistic for each team in the current Kenpom Top 25. Why the Top 25? No team since 2002 has won the National Title without finishing the regular season at least in the Kenpom Top 25. Furthermore, I also generated plots that compare MSU's current stats to the pre-tournament stats of every other Tom Izzo team back to 1997.

For each plot, I compared a defensive stat (such as defensive efficiency) to an offensive stat (such as offensive efficiency). I also adjusted the axes of all plots such that the upper right hand corner is always positive. So, the right side of the plots represent good offensive stats, the top of the graph represents good defensive stats, and the upper right hand corner is both. As mentioned above, the data from past years is all pre-tournament data, I feel that this is the best snap shot to focus on if the goal is to predict tournament perform.

With that background, let's dig into the data:

Efficiency

Kenpom efficiency margins are the most important set of data in predicting tournament success. Once again, no National Champion in the past almost 20 years has started the tournament outside of Top 25 in adjusted efficiency margin (defined as the difference between offensive and defensive adjusted efficiency.) But, it is actually a bit more severe than that. Actually, 15 of the past 18 Champions started the Tournament in the Top 6. That right there is perhaps the most important piece of data that I can share.

In addition to just the efficiency margin, every National Championship has posted both minimum adjusted offensive efficiency (111.4 points per 100 possessions from UCONN in 2014) and a maximum adjusted defensive efficiency (96.0 points per 100 possession from Villanova in 2018). These data points help to define a range of stats where potential National Champions can be found. I highlighted this region of the plot.

So, without further ado, here is the current efficiency plot showing the current Kenpom Top 25 as well as every champion back to 2002. The diagonal lines represent a constant efficiency margin.



The first thing to note from this plot is that the field in 2020 is surprisingly weak overall. Currently, only one team (Kansas) has an efficiency margin over 30 and only four other teams (Baylor, Duke, San Diego State, and Gonzaga) have a current margin over 25. The vast majority of past champions (14 of 18) are located above the 25 line.

As for other teams in championship region, there are currently only 8 other teams (Ohio State, MSU, Arizona, Michigan Louisville, Houston, Villanova, and Dayton) and each of those are located precariously close to the edge. Also notable are teams like West Virginia and Maryland with decent overall efficiencies margins, but who are not well balanced (in this case, both teams have weak offenses) and are therefore not inside the potential championship envelope.

But, where does MSU stack up in 2020 compared to previous Izzo teams? That data set is shown here, where each data point is also labeled with the team's performance in the NCAA tournament:



As I squint at the data, Izzo teams seem to fall into four distinct categories. First, there are the "balanced" teams located in the upper right hand corner of the plot. Based on efficiency margin, these are Izzo's four best teams, including the three Final Four teams from 1999 to 2001, the National Title team, and last year's team. All four of these teams made the Final Four. Also of note is that all four teams tended to be better on defensive than on offensive.

The next category are the good defensive teams. This cluster of 8 teams (including this year's squad) includes two additional Final Four teams, an Elite 8 team, and 3 Sweet 16 teams. The worst performer in this cluster was the 2007 team that lost to a very good UNC team in the second round. It should be noted so far that every Izzo team with a defensive efficiency better than ~91 has at least made the Sweet 16, and 6 of the 9 have at least made a Regional Final. So far, the 2020 team is also in this category.

Next is the good offensive teams. This cluster includes 6 teams, including 2 Final Four teams, 1 Elite Eight team, 1 Sweet 16 team, 1 team that lost in the 2nd round, and the ill-fated 2016 team which we shall not speak of again. While this cluster of teams had a history of success, as a general rule Izzo teams that are good defensive teams tend to do better in March than his offensive teams.

Mathematically, I tried a simple correlation of the number of tournament wins to all of the statistics mentioned so far in this post (as well as a few which are not.) The only two stats that correlated to March wins with an R-squared over 0.2 were efficiency margin (0.432) and defensive efficiency (0.430). The R-squared for offensive efficiency is only 0.064. Perhaps there is something behind Comp's concept of Final Four Defense after all.

The final cluster of Izzo teams include teams that struggled to achieve an efficiency margin much above 15. Of those 6 teams, combined they only won a single tournament game in 2017. Four of Izzo's five teams that lost in Round 1 are located in this cluster. It seems that we perhaps should have seen those losses coming after all.

So, what does this mean for the prospects of the 2020 MSU team? Based on the data shown above, I see more reasons to be optimistic than pessimistic. That said, all of the usual Kenpom caveats still exist. This type of efficiency data is based on season averages. MSU has clearly been on a slide recently. So, the real question is: who is the "real" MSU team? Is it the team that we saw in early January or it is team that just lost four of the last six games?

At this point, I don't think that this question has a right answer. We just don't know. I think that it is certainly possible that this team turns it around and starts to play a little better or a lot better very, very soon. However, it is also possible that they are who they are now. In either case, the safest bet is to just use the data as is. Maybe they simply are who their averaged data says that they are. If nothing else, I am sure the each and every Izzo team (and non-Izzo team for that matter) has ebbs and flows throughout the season. But, when I plot up the data, I just use the average. I think that this is the only fair comparison, but it certainly is not infallible.

So, back to the 2020 Spartans. Based on the plots above, the 2020 version of MSU is a pretty good defensive team. As such, history actually suggests that this team can still make the Sweet 16 or beyond. But, they would also be highly dependent on MSU's seed and draw (which will be the subject of a future post). If MSU were to draw an 8- or 9-seed lined up against a strong 1-seed like Kansas... well, that could be a problem. But, the historical data seems promising.

The analysis may also give us a hint as to how to adjust our expectations over the next few weeks. If MSU continues to struggle, the defensive numbers will likely start to slide as well. If the defensive efficiency starts to drop, MSU will start to approach the "bad Izzo team" region of the graph. In that case, an early, perhaps 1st round exit is a very realistic expectation. However, if MSU can hold their defensive position, yet improve on offense, the team would start to resemble the team that we all thought (hoped?) that we had back in October: a Final Four and National Title contender. While time is growing short, I think both directions are still very possible.

While my comments above provide the bulk of the analysis, I actually have A LOT more data to share about some of the individual stats. However, I will try to keep my comments to a minimum. On some level, the data speaks for itself. Next, let's cover each of the four factors, once again plotted as the defensive number as a function of the offensive number, starting with:

Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%)

For those that are not familiar with the details of the four factors, eFG% is just a weighted field goal percentage that takes into account the fact that 3s are worth 50% more points than 2s. Similar to the graphs above, let start with the current national snapshot compared to past champions



As for teams closest to the upper right-hand corner, Kansas and San Diego State have the best overall combination of good shooting and good shooting defense. MSU is a pretty average shooting team, but is one of the best at FG% defense. In general, however, most teams in the current Top 25 reside within a region of the plot where past champions reside. That said, there are a couple of notable outliers. For example, West Virginia can't shoot, and teams like BYU, Villanova, and Iowa struggle to defend. Purdue can't do either (unless they are playing MSU at Mackey).

As for MSU's current team compared to historical teams, that comparison is shown below:



Similar to the national plot, it is clear that from a field goal percentage point of view, this is an average shooting MSU team, but a very good team defensively. Interestingly, most of Izzo's Final Four teams are right in the middle of this plot, so there is no clear trend relating shooting to March success for Izzo teams.

Turnover Rate

Below is the chart of turnover rate (turnovers per possession) for the Kenpom Top 25 and the previous National Champions.



Once again, most of the current Top 25 is clustered with past Champions, so they is no clear trend to note. That said, teams like Baylor, San Diego State, Texas Tech, and Florida State stand out a bit on the upper right portion of the graph. West Virginia not only can't shoot, but they struggle turning the ball over on offense. Interestingly, both MSU and Michigan our outliers on this graph, not because they turn the ball over on offense, but because neither team is generating TOs on the defensive end. Odd.

As for the comparison to historical MSU teams, that plot is shown here



While the 2020 MSU team has struggled with turnovers in some games this year (such as the previous game in Lincoln) believe it or not, this is one of Izzo's least turn-over prone team. As for their inability to create turnovers, a handful of Izzo's previous teams were just as bad or worse (including last year's team) and at least two of them wound up in the Final Four anyway.

Rebounding Rate

The chart below compares the offensive and defensive rebounding percentages for the current Kenpom Top 25 and the previous National Champions



In this case, the three teams that stand out are Gonzaga, Houston, and West Virginia (who at least can do something right). MSU actually looks relatively strong in this graph as well, especially on the defensive glass. As for outliers, both BYU and Creighton struggle on the offensive glass, while Villanova, Michigan and Dayton are all also outside of the Championship region due to offensive rebounding

The chart below shows the rebounding comparison of the 2020 MSU team to previous Izzo squads.



While MSU's current offensive rebounding numbers look decent compared to the rest of the Top 25, this is one of the three worst offensive rebounding teams of the Izzo era. For the pessimists out there, I will mention this: offensive rebounding is the variable that correlates 3rd highest to March success for MSU historically. The R-squared is only 0.19, but there is some evidence that the offensive rebounding is a problem.

That said, the defensive numbers look quite a bit better. While MSU currently ranks only in the 60s national in defensive rebounding, the raw number of 25.4% is actually 5th best in the Izzo era, and slightly better than the 2000 National Title team.

Free Throw Rate

The final of the four factors is free throw rate, which measures the ratio of free throw attempts to field goal attempts. It more or less measures how much a team fouls and how many fouls a team draw. Following the same format, I present below the national plot, followed by the historical MSU plot.





As for the national plot, only about half of the Top 25 seem to fall within the region of past champions. MSU is barely in that region, along with Gonzaga, Maryland, Kansas, and Colorado. As for the notable outliers, West Virginia and Houston seem to foul way too much, while Villanova, Michigan, Purdue, and BYU don't get to the line enough on offense.

As for the 2020 MSU team, it does seem to be a bit of an outlier. The 2020 team is very good at not putting opposing teams on the line. In fact they are second best in the Izzo era in this regard, with only last year's team being better. However, it is also the 2nd worst team in the Izzo era as far as drawing fouls. Only the 2016 team was worse. Odd

2-pt FG%

Just to give a little bit more data, I also have the national and MSU chart for both 2-pt and 3-pt field goal percentage. Here are the charts for 2-pointers:





The message regarding MSU is essentially the same for both plots: MSU is an average 2-pt shooting team with an above average 2-pt defense. Also notable is the 2-pt shooting of Dayton, which is off-the-charts good.

3-pt FG%

Finally, here are the last two plots comparing national and MSU 3-pt% shooting.





The 3-point line did get pushed back a bit this year, so the comparison to previous years' is not quite fair. However, I think the message is still the same. MSU has a very good 3-point defense (the best in the Izzo era, by a long shot) but MSU's 3-point shooting is also well below average. As a final data point for the pessimists, 3-pt shooting is the 4th highest correlated variable to MSU's historical success in March, with an R-squared value of 0.183. No other variable has an R-squared value over 0.1. So, those that are concerned about 3-pt shooting might have a point.

Thus ends the lesson for today. Go Green.

Apologies if this is redundant or exists elsewhere. If so, I can delete, but trying to gather all information from various threads. Obviously depends how some of the responsibility is shared or spread, but:

Head Coach - Mel Tucker

Chief of Staff - Geoff Martzen
Director of Player Personnel - Scott Aligo
Player Personnel Coordinator - Sean Levy
Player Personnel Coordinator - Cole Brown
Director On-Campus Recruiting - Lisa Benchaim
On-Campus Recruiting Coordinator - Tessa Akers
On-Campus Recruiting Ccordinator - Lauren McRee
Director Football Operations - Cody Cox
Director Player Engagement - Darien Harris
Recruiting Coordinator - Ted Gilmore?
Strength & Conditioning - Jason Novak

Offensive Staff
OC - Jay Johnson
OL Coach - Chris Kapolovic
QB Coach - Jay Johnson
RB Coach - Will Peagler
TE Coach - Ted Gilmore
WR Coach - Courtney Hawkins

Offensive Assistant - Jake Reiling
Offensive Anaylst - Effram Reed
OL Grad Assistant - Jack Harris

Defensive Staff
DC - Scottie Hazelton
DL Coach - Ron Burton
LB Coach - Mike Tressel
DB Coach - Haron Barnett

Defensive Analyst - TJ Hollowell
ST QC and Def Assistant - Dalmin Gibson
Special Teams Coach - Ross Els

Recruiting Responsibilities with emphasis on focal points and general territories:

Recruiting Assistant - Cordae Hankton
Detroit / MI - Gilmore / Hawkins
Ohio - Barnett
Chicago / IL - Burton
IA, WI, MN - Johnson
St. Louis - Gilmore
Indiana -
Georgia - Gilmore
Texas - Gilmore
Florida - Peagler
East Coast -
West Coast - Kapilovic
Southeastern - Peagler, Hankton

Feel free to let me know if needs updates.

As February starts to draw to a close, the race for the Big Ten title is starting to come into full focus. MSU had a fairly easy test this week in Lincoln, and fortunately they passed. While there certainly were some encouraging signs (rebounding! Gabe Brown! Henry! Arhens!) there were also still some concerns (turn-overs? Bingham? and... Cassius still doesn't quite seem to be himself.) At the end of the day, it was a pretty big win for MSU against a very bad team. All I can say is that big wins are better than close wins, and close wins are better than loses. I will take it.

As for the Big Ten race, here is the updated win matrix for all 14 teams, once again derived from Kenpom efficiency data.









As expected, Maryland appears to be pulling away in the final lap. Following Penn State's surprising loss at home to Illinois this week, the Terps now have almost a 2-game lead in expected wins over the Nittany Lions. After that, the battle for 3rd place is really heating up. Illinois, MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin are all within 0.3 of a win of each other.

Behind this cluster of teams is another small pack made up of Michigan, Rutgers, and Ohio State. Those three teams are all expected to win between 10-11 games. Then, there is the pack of Purdue, Indiana, and Minnesota who project to win 9-10 games. Essentially, we have 3 teams that are battling to avoid playing on Wednesday. Nebraska and Northwestern? Yup, still bad.

As for the translation of this data in the odds to win or share the Big Ten title, here are those updated odds:





It was a great week for Maryland and a bad one for Penn State. Right now, the Terps' odds are a shade over 90%, with Penn State now down to below 20%. MSU's odds are actually still 3rd best at 7%, with Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin still holding out hope.

As for the enhanced Big Ten standings, including the road win / home loss plus-minus rating and "luck," that is shown here:



It is not hard to see why Maryland is leading by two games. They have won 4 road games and not lost any at home. That said, they have also pulled out a couple of close games, and thus their luck score is over 2 games. Is Maryland ripe for a stinker or two? Is it possible that they drop 3 of their final 5 games?

While that may sound ridiculous, Maryland does close @ Ohio State, @ Minnesota (on 2 days rest), vs. MSU, @ Rutgers (on 2 days rest), and vs. Michigan. Kenpom's projections suggest that the Terps will be an underdog in Columbus and the other two road games are coin flips. In addition, the home games against the Michigan schools are both slightly over 60% propositions. Therefore, the expected win total for Maryland is only 2.76 for those final 5 games. If their "luck" were to run out, they could easily find themselves at 14-6. Actually, the win matrix suggests that there is a 40% chance that Maryland does not get to 15-5.

From an MSU perspective, this means that there is room for hope. When MSU lost to Maryland last weekend, all seemed to be lost (and it still likely is) but the fact that Penn State lost a game this week does make MSU's possible path to Big Ten title a bit less narrow. MSU still gets another crack at Penn State, so MSU controls their own destiny with all teams except Maryland. IF MSU can run the table (and give Maryland another loss) we "only" have to hope for Maryland to drop 2 of their other 4 games, which as stated above, it not that far-fetched. Sunday afternoon's contest between Maryland and Ohio Sate is a big one. If the Buckeye's can win, we can start to dream again...

As much as I am optimist, the math still tells me that there is less than a 10% chance for MSU to hang a regular season banner. So, the more immediate goal is simply to continue to get better and to try to secure a double bye (top 4 seed in the Big Ten Tournament). As I stated last time, 12-8 is likely going to be good enough to secure the double bye, but the number of possible outcomes is still very high. One thing that my simulation does tell me is that MSU is very likely (84% odds) to end the regular season tied with at least one other Big Ten team. So, tiebreakers are going to factor in. At this point, I can only ball-park estimate a 50-50 chance that MSU gets the double bye is they finish 12-8.

The fact that MSU has games remaining against Iowa, Maryland, and Penn State will impact these tie-breakers. MSU swept Illinois and Rutgers, but split with Wisconsin and Michigan. Next up for MSU is their one and only contest this year against Iowa, and it is a big one for many reasons. A win gives MSU 11 conference wins and valuable leg up on the Hawkeyes for tiebreaker purposes. A loss would make it very difficult to secure a double bye.

So, while the dream of a Big Ten title still lives (on life support) it is still necessary to take care of business. That resumes on Tuesday. Until then, Go Green.

A source with close knowledge of the situation tells SpartanMag.com that Ted Gilmore has accepted an assistant coaching position at Michigan State.

Ross Els: HOT

* Inside LBs/special teams coach at Colorado.
* Sources told SpartanMag.com on Feb. 21 that Els is a strong candidate to head to Michigan State to join Tucker's staff.
* Els coached inside linebackers at Colorado for three seasons. Tucker retained Els from previous coach Mike MacIntyre's staff.
* When Els joined Tucker's staff, Els added special teams coordinator to his duties.
* Els, who will be 54 next season, will be a 30-year veteran of collegiate coaching next season. He has coached in 212 Division 1-A (FBS) games and seven bowl games.
* A native of Lincoln, Neb., he was defensive coordinator at Purdue under Darrell Hazell in 2016.
* Els was a linebackers coach at Nebraska under Bo Pelini from 2011-14. He was special teams coordinator and recruiting coordinator for his last three years at Nebraska.
* He was linebackers coach at Ohio University under Frank Solich from 2005 to 2010, spending four years as special teams coordinator.
* Els coached four years at New Mexico State, serving as defensive coordinatoar for two years.
* Els was head coach at Hastings College in Hastings, Neb., from 1997-2000. He also spent one year as QBs coach and one year as defensive coordinator at Hastings.
* He was also a defensive backs coach at Northern Iowa (1994) and Nebraska-Omaha (1990-93).