The Conference Fallacy

If you're like me, and roughly half of your Facebook friends went to Notre Dame, then you've probably seen this article from Pat Forde.  If you haven't seen it, then take a moment to read it over.  In the article, Forde uses a reasonably objective methodology to determine which team had the most impressive resume in college football this season.  He comes to the conclusion that Notre Dame's schedule is stronger from top to bottom than that of Alabama or Georgia, and thus Notre Dame has every chance to win the BCS title game.  For those of us that have followed college football and Notre Dame closely, this makes sense.  Notre Dame has been far from perfect, but it would take a pretty good leap of logic to say they're far inferior to the other top teams.

Of course, there are others that are willing to make that leap.  Forde's article was in response to the assertion from a writer on an SEC blog that Notre Dame would be the seventh best team in the SEC.  That statement seems to come from the bottom of this post.  I don't see an objective evaluation* anywhere in there, so I'm not exactly sure what logic was used.  The only thing that his rankings say are that they come from "what (they) saw on the field."

*Just for giggles, here is an objective evaluation of the relative strength of the top six SEC teams versus Notre Dame.  I know Forde runs through the schedule in his article, but it's not exactly the most scientific evaluation in the world.  For my evalution, I will use three publicly-shared rating systems that use three different inputs.  They are:

Jeff Sagarin's predictor - This is based on points scored and allowed
Brian Fremeau's FEI - This is based on drive data
Bill Connelly's S&P - This is based on play by play data

Using these three different methodologies, we get the following rankings for the teams in question (note: we don't have FEI and S&P data for the last week yet, so these may change a little):

As you can see, the only team that is clearly ahead of the Irish is the Crimson Tide (Sagarin would favor Alabama by 6 on a neutral field).  You could probably make an argument for Florida and Texas A&M if you really wanted to as well, but the other three teams are clearly below ND.  This isn't to say that ND would "definitely" beat those three teams, but if they played them 10 times on a neutral field, I'm betting that ND would win 6 or 7 of them.  If Mr. Travis is looking for a team that would actually be the seventh best in the SEC, perhaps he should go with Utah State, who currently has an average rating of 19.33.

Understandably, a lot of people take issue with Mr. Travis' conclusion.  I do as well, but it's not that big of a deal to me.  It is an SEC blog after all, so it only makes sense that they're going to be a little biased towards the SEC.  Furthermore, if you find yourself reading that site regularly, then you probably wouldn't be expecting the world's most balanced and objective reasoning.  I imagine instead that the blog's readership is looking for a humorous take on SEC football.  While I don't have an issue with the blog in general, it does point to a problem that many college football analysts* have.  That problem is what I would call "the conference fallacy."

*I use that term loosely.

The conference fallacy is quite simple: People are too quick to judge a book (team) by its cover (conference).  Yes, you can make some accurate generalizations about conferences, but if you want to truly analyze which teams are the best, then you need to dig much deeper than that.  The Big 10 and SEC have long been known as the most traditional oriented conferences, but Urban Meyer has had great success with his version of the spread, and others (most notably Joe Tiller at Purdue) have opened up pass-wacky attacks.  The Big 12 is thought to be an offensive crazy show, but Texas last year and Kansas State this year have shown how a top notch defense can keep a team competitive and even superior to the rest.  Non-BCS teams are thought to be "finesse" teams, but BCS victories by TCU, Boise and Utah show how competitive the best of this group can be.  As conference membership grows ever more arbitrary, the differences between teams within a conference appears to grow and grow.

To add to this problem, the advent of super-conferences means that teams within a conference can have very different experiences.  For example, look at the differences between Florida and Georgia this season.  While they both played South Carolina and the rest of the East, they had very different experiences with the West.  Florida's cross-division opponents were LSU and A&M.  Georgia, on the other hand, played Ole Miss and Auburn.  Partially as a result of these differences, Florida's strength of schedule ends up 13th, while Georgia's is 42nd.  Florida's stronger schedule doesn't necessarily mean they were the better team, but it does show how not all "strong SEC schedules" are created like.

The moral of the story is simple:  If you're arguing about college football with someone, dare yourself to avoid mentioning conference affiliation when discussing teams.  This way, you'll be able to avoid the pitfalls of the conference fallacy.  And then eventually you'll realize that Notre Dame is pretty good at football.

College Football: The Third (Crazy) Month

I've reserved myself to writing about football once a month for a couple reasons.  First, I originally tried writing something weekly a couple of years ago and hated it.  Work is already enough of a grind, and I didn't need what I was doing for "fun" to be the same.  Second, the internet is a big place with a lot of awesome people already sharing unique insights about football, so there isn't a need for me to pipe in about every little thing.  That being said, the last 3 weeks have been so crazy that I needed to cut in line and say a couple of things:

1. OK, this season is awesome after all

Early on in the season, I thought that we had a chance for some 2007-level craziness.  The perceived depth of the two best conferences (Big 12 and SEC) seemed to be setting up a potential for weekly upsets, and 2-loss teams fighting for the national title.  The top 5 teams all had pretty major holes (LSU had a new QB, Bama was replacing a defense, USC had no depth, etc.), so it seemed like we could be in for a bumpy ride.

Then, the first two months happened.  Entering November, we had 5 unbeatens that all looked relatively strong.  There has only been two truly ridiculous upsets (Cal over UCLA and NC State over Florida State), and there hadn't been a truly memorable game (FSU-Clemson came the closest, but the fact that the Noles pulled away in the end ruined that...same goes for ND-Oklahoma).  Even though I had been blessed with the opportunity to watch a lot of football, I had come away not as fulfilled as I could have been (At least the Irish and Huskers were doing well, though).

Since then, we've had four games that will be contenders for my eventual countdown of the best CFB games I've ever seen.*  We've also had a couple of ridiculous upsets, most notably Baylor's romp last night against the Wildcats.  It would seem that the frantic nature of football Saturdays wasn't extinct; instead, it was just hibernating.  This makes me excited for the last two weeks, and also incredibly nervous for ND.

*Those games are Bama-LSU, Bama-A&M, Stanford-Oregon and Utah State-La Tech, although Bama-A&M is probably the only one that would actually make it onto my list.  I will do a post on that at some point.

2. So...Notre Dame, eh?

At the beginning of the season, here is what I said about the Irish:

"The season for ND looks like this: Four games as a mild-to-significant underdog (USC, Oklahoma, and the Michigans), six games as a favorite (Purdue, Navy, Wake, BC, Pitt, and Miami), and the two swing games (BYU and this one). While it would be great to pull off one or more of the upsets, the key to a successful season is going 2-0 in the swing games (and of course, not losing as a favorite). Before we can reliably start winning the big games, we need to make sure we can take care of the "medium" games. If Brian Kelly can lead this team to an 8-4 season, or even a 9-3 one, then I'll pretty much be estatic."
 

I was right about BYU and Stanford, as those games turned out to be two of the closest ones.  To ND's credit, they did take care of those "medium" games as well as all of the others, and now they're one win from playing for all the credit cards.   Of course, my 8-4 expectation was way off base.  The biggest concern for me was the depleted and injured defensive secondary, which has turned out to be the silent weapon of the nation's best scoring defense.  Kelly has continued to juggle quarterbacks when they don't need to be juggled, but it's actually worked pretty well, so I will remain "pretty much estatic."

3. Lay off the SEC a bit

Yes, 5 top ten teams from the SEC played FCS opponents yesterday.  Most places you look on the internet, you'll see people complaining about how this is unfair and such.  Sure, this isn't the best thing for competitive entertainment, and basically punting a game when we have only 12 with which to judge how good teams are is problematic.  That being said, here are some games involving SEC teams from the first two weeks of season:

Week 1:
South Carolina 17, Vanderbilt 13
Texas A&M, La Tech HURRICANE'D
Tennessee 35, NC State 21
Alabama 41, Michigan 14
Clemson 26, Auburn 19

Week 2:
Mississippi State 28, Auburn 10
Florida 20, Texas A&M 17
Georgia 41, Missouri 20
LSU 41, Washington 3

That listing doesn't even include games against good MAC teams (Bowling Green and Kent State), or games against decent Sun Belt teams (UL Monroe...poor Arkansas).  The moral of the story is that the SEC plays roughly the same difficulty of schedule that the other leagues do.  Most other leagues don't play conference games until week 3 or 4, and load up on their FCS teams and such the first few weeks of the season.  Don't get angry at the SEC because they delay their guarantee games until later in the season.  Instead, get angry at the fact that everyone (other than ND, USC, and UCLA) schedules these games.  Hopefully, this will start to go away in 2014 with the whole playoff selection committee thing.  We'll see.

4. How about that WAC?

One of the overriding themes of the year has been how there have been so many close calls where BCS teams have pulled out victories against non-BCS teams.  No conference shows this better than the WAC.  The top three teams (La Tech, Utah State, and San Jose State) have just the following 4 losses as their only non-conference blemishes (all road or neutral sites):

BYU 6, Utah State 3
Texas A&M 59, Louisiana Tech 57
Stanford 20, San Jose State 17
Wisconsin 16, Utah State 14

Now, it wasn't all bad: Lousiana Tech did beat Illinois and Virginia, SJSU knocked off BYU, and the Aggies got a victory in an overtime contest against Utah.  Still, the closeness of those results against 4 good to very good teams show how close the WAC was to having a monumental final season.  Instead, they'll have to settle for a chance at going 3-0 in some obscure bowls, which isn't really that bad of a fate.

Rankings (in which Notre Dame is pretty high):

1. Notre Dame
2. Florida State
3. Alabama
4. Clemson
5. Oregon
6. Texas A&M
7. LSU
8. Ohio State
9. Georgia
10. Florida
11. Kansas State
12. Oklahoma
13. South Carolina
14. Stanford
15. Texas
16. UCLA
17. Oklahoma State
18. Oregon State
19. Utah State
20. Nebraska
21. Northern Illinois
22. Kent State
23. Michigan
24. USC
25. Rutgers

Also Considered: Louisiana Tech, Louisville, Mississippi State, San Jose State, Boise State

Rankings Thoughts:

So, you're probably looking at Clemson at #4 and thinking that that looks pretty high.  I really don't have any problem with that argument, since I think that teams #2-10 are all pretty close.  For that matter, Notre Dame isn't really super far above everybody; they just are lucky enough that Pitt's kicker is only decent.  The epitome of a team that is impossible to rank would have to be Florida.  I've watched good portions of their "wins" over Missouri and Louisiana-Lafayette, and have come away extremely unimpressed.  Still, their trio of wins over LSU, South Carolina, and A&M is as good as any team's top 3 wins, so you can't completely write them off.

As odd as Florida is, Georgia might be even odder.  Georgia has precisely one win against a ranked opponent, and that win was the ugly-fest against Florida a few weeks ago.  Besides that, they have the utter debacle against South Carolina, a 5 point win over terrible Kentucky, and a bunch of underwhelming results against the bad non-conference teams they played.  To be fair, they did steamroll Vanderbilt, which is now an impressive accomplishment, so their resume isn't completely barren.  However, I'm just not sure we have a good idea of just how good this team is.  I'm shocked that someone in the coaches poll actually voted them first.  If they can beat Bama in a couple of weeks, we can talk.  Until then, this team is still a bit of an unknown.

After their losses, Oregon drops just 4 spots, while Kansas State drops 9 spots.  There is a large difference in those drops for a couple of reasons.  One, Oregon still looked pretty good in their loss.  They still gained over 400 yards and only turned the ball over once.  On the other hand Kansas State got plastered in every phase of the game by Baylor.  Two, Stanford is a lot better than Baylor.  Three, I was down on Kansas State at the beginning of the season because I thought they would have a few games like this (A game where nothing went your way, and you aren't able to play through it because you don't have A-level talent).  They got very lucky to win 10 games last season, and nothing fundamentally changed during the offseason (eg. no impact recruiting class).  While one game doesn't make me completely revert to my prior evaluation of the Wildcats, it does cast a lot of doubt on their actual accomplishments.  Luckily, they still have a chance to turn things back around with their game against Texas in two weeks.

Finally, yes, it's fun to rank Kent State above both Michigan and USC.  Therein lies the joy of college football.

Preview of Next Week

There are seven ranked matchups next Saturday (at least according to my rankings), so this should be exciting.  Here are some short previews in chronological order:

Michigan at Ohio State:  Denard Robinson's final game couldn't have a much better set-up.  Michigan has a chance to end Ohio State's magical season (magical, in that it doesn't exist according to the BCS). 

Oregon at Oregon State:  Oregon's loss relegated this game to the PAC-12 network, so you'll just have to imagine this game happening.  Let me know what you come up with for Oregon's uniforms.

Florida at Florida State:  In theory, my prediction should be that Florida State will win by a lot. However, in spite of their offensive hiccups, Florida's defense is still really good.  It wouldn't really be fair to say that Florida State "blew it" if they lose this game, but that's what will happen.  For their sake, I hope they win.

Oklahoma State at Oklahoma:  In theory, the Cowboys could still represent the Big 12 in the BCS, but the odds are that it will come from the trio of Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas State.  In the past, I would have picked Oklahoma by a lot, but since they've already lost twice at home this year, who knows?  The Cowboys are definitely good enough to pull off the upset.

Stanford at UCLA:  Stanford plays UCLA for the right to play UCLA in the PAC 12 title game.  If only both teams were 11-0, then we could have a shot at a triple rematch in the national title game.  Who wouldn't enjoy that?

South Carolina at Clemson:  I've been looking forward to this game for a while, mostly to see how good Clemson really is.  It's too bad they had to schedule it opposite of this game:

Notre Dame at USC: DON'T SCREW THIS UP, GUYS.  I AM SERIOUS.

Why Obama Won & Why Romney Lost

This will be a rare venture into talking about politics on my blog.  I don't like to talk about controversial things on here because this blog is supposed to be a pleasant presence in my life.  However, I feel that the one point I have to make about the whole election is rock-solid, as well as something that is important to share.  So here it is.

In the wake of Romney's loss, there has been much gnashing of teeth from Republicans about where things went wrong.  I've seen and heard many different reasons for why Obama won and why Romney lost, and I'm sure there are 100 different things you could point to that legitimately affected the race.  In spite of this complexity, I feel that you can boil all of the reasons down to one main cause.  That main cause is similar to the "taker" argument presented by Romney, et al, but with a key difference.

Before explaining that difference, I wanted to share a couple of good examples of what Republicans (the ones doing the talking, at least) are expressing as the "taker" argument.  First, from here:

"Then there is the fact that relatively few Americans actually pay for the government they consume. To a greater extent than any other developed nation, we rely on upper-income people to finance our federal government. When that is combined with the fact that around 40% of our federal spending isn’t paid for at all–it is borrowed–it is small wonder that many self-interested voters are happy to vote themselves more government. Mitt Romney proclaimed that Barack Obama was the candidate of “free stuff,” and voters took him at his word.

Next, from Romney himself:

"With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008."

The basic point of these arguments is that Obama promised to give these people what they want, and they responded by voting for him.  Taken out of context, that makes sense.  I would even go as far as to say, "duh."  But I don't think it's actually that simple.

In the wake of Romney's 47% snafu, many were quick to point out that Republican leaning states tend to recieve more welfare than Democrat leaning states.  This would seem to at least superficially refute the premise that people vote for their own, direct interests.  Rather, I think that people are able to look beyond their own plight, and vote for the candidate that they perceive will be able to help those that need help the most.  Indeed, that is a big reason why I personally voted for Obama.  I think that instead of blaming any faults in the Republican platform, the basic failure to understand why people vote for the candidates that they do is the main reason the Republicans suffered defeat.  The self-sufficiency ethos of the right may indeed be better for the needy (I'm not debating that here), but they just didn't succeed at selling it as something that would actually help those in need.

When viewed through this lens, it makes abundant sense that Obama won.  During his first term, he seemed to focus on helping those that were less fortunate.  Women are paid less than men, so he passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  Many of the poor can't afford adequate healthcare, so he passed the Affordable Care Act.  Gays have less rights than straights, so he repealed DADT and voiced his support for same-sex marriage.  If your primary concern in the election was the plight of those people, then the only party that made a strong case for helping all of those people was the Democrats.

I want to make clear that this argument doesn't mean Democrats are selfless and Republicans only think about themselves.  I don't really think there are such fundamental differences between the two sides at all.  Rather, when it comes to what voters want, the Democrats have kept the bigger picture in mind, while the Republicans have forgotten the forest for the trees.  If they want to be competitive in 2016, part of the key will be doing a better job with that.

Picking an NBA Team

For the majority of sports fans, team loyalties stem from where they grew up, where they went to school, or where they live now.  This explains my love of ND sports, Creighton basketball and Nebraska football.  However, there aren't any pro sports in Nebraska, so fanhood in that area is typically far more random.  Indeed, part of the fun of being from Omaha is getting to pick your own sports allegiences in these areas.  I used this opportunity to build my still-strong bonds in the NFL (Buccaneers) and MLB (Athletics). 

Of course, this post isn't about any of those sports, it's about the NBA.  Something that always surprises me to think about is how the NBA was actually my first love in sports.  My immediate memory when I think of the 90s in sports is Nebraska's three national titles, but if I go way back, the first thing I can actually remember is Michael Jordan and friends wrapping up their first three-peat in 1993 against the Suns.*  Since basketball was the first sport I played in an organized fashion it only makes sense that it was first one that I watched.

*Actually, I remember rooting for UNC in the 1993 NCAA tournament just before those finals.  Kids are definitely front-runners.

What's surprising then is that I've never been married to one team like I have been in other sports.  I've always had rooting interests, which are roughly detailed below:

1992-1994: Spurs
1994-1996: Rockets
1996-1999: Hawks
1999-2005: 76ers*
2006-2010: Jazz
2009-2012: Thunder

*Allen Iverson remains my favorite player of all time, and Game 1 of the 2001 Finals remains my favorite game of all time.

I think the main reason that I've slowly made my way around the league is that, more than any other league, the NBA is a star-driven league.  Rooting for a team without that one or two special players just isn't as fun.  The demise of my time rooting for the 76ers shows just that:  Once Iverson started declining, I stopped caring as much, and once he was traded, I was done.

This brings me to my current conundrum.  As you can see from the above chart, I've been a Thunder fan recently.  I was drawn in by Kevin Durant, whom I've loved since his days in Texas, but stayed because of the chemistry he developed with Russell Westbrook and James Harden.  As you probably already knew, Sam Presti recently ruined this by trading away Harden, a young star in the making, because he cost too much.*  As a result, my NBA fanhood is back on the open market.

*That trade ruined my otherwise perfect sports evening, where Notre Dame and Nebraska took care of each others' rivals (Oklahoma and Michigan) in spectacular fashion.

Thus, I am going to spend the rest of this post making my cases for and against every team in the league.  With the NBA as strong as it has been since Jordan (and maybe even stronger), I have a lot of great choices.  I'm in no hurry, so I'm sure I'll be spending the whole season catching games and highlights trying to make up my mind.  And hey, if you're reading this and don't have a team, maybe I can help.  With all that said, here we go.

The Impossibles

Los Angeles Lakers and Miami Heat - 0% chance each (of becoming "my team")

Let's get the presumptive finals opponents out of the way first.  While I may have been a bit of a front-runner as a kid, I'm not enough of one now to be able to root for either of these teams.  I don't really have any opposition to teams being built the way the Heat and Lakers were, but that doesn't mean I have to root for them.  The Lakers did re-unite the Nash-D'Antoni pairing that made the mid-aughts Suns fun to watch, but that enticement is cancelled out by my least favorite set of uniforms in the NBA.

Detroit Pistons - 0%

I love the Andre Drummond pick from this year's draft, but that alone isn't enough to overcome the rest of this roster.  The complete lack of impact perimter players does the Pistons in for me (You'll notice that most of the teams I listed earlier were led by great guards).

Charlotte Bobcats - 0%

Much like the Pistons, I love the MKG pick by the Bobcats.  Once again though, the rest of the roster lacks excitement.  Kemba Walker is great, but I'm not convinced he's ever going to be an above average NBA point guard.

Orlando Magic - 0%

The good news is that the rebuilding Magic should get a high draft pick this year.  The bad news is that this draft looks terrible.  Add this to the fact that E'Twaun Moore is currently leading the club in minutes, and I don't think the Magic will be in contention for my attention.

LA Clippers - 0%

The Paul-Griffin combination is fantastic, but that's really all this team has to offer.  DeAndre Jordan is exciting, but is also a defensive liability.  Vinny Del Negro was fun to play with on the Spurs on my Sega Genesis, but he is a coaching liability.  It seems like they forgot to build a team around CP3 after trading for him.  They'll still be good, but not good enough to realistically contend for a title.

Washington Wizards - 0%

John Wall and Bradley Beal have the potential to form a great backcourt for years to come, which seems like the kind of thing I would love.  The problem is that all there is now is potential.  Of course, there's also a bunch of crap that the Hornets (who were terrible last year mind you) didn't want (Ariza and Okafor).  So there's that.

New York Knicks - 0%

Carmelo Anthony was legitimately awesome with Team USA this summer, so there is a chance that he may be making the proverbial leap, albeit several years late.  In spite of that and the great defense of Tyson Chandler, there's absolutely nothing in the backcourt to get excited about, so I can't see becoming a Knicks fan anytime soon.

Phoenix Suns - 0%

While it seems like this franchise has been in decline ever since "bench-gate," the Suns were in the Western Conference finals as recently as 2010, when they took the eventual champion Lakers to 6 games.  Unfortunately, all that's left at this point is a few fun foreigners and Jared Dudley, which just isn't enough.

Sacramento Kings - 0%

Of all of the weirdly put together teams in the NBA, this one takes the cake.  DeMarcus Cousins is legitimately exciting, but everything else is kind of a mess.  Jimmer-mania didn't translate to the pros, Tyreke Evans is still caught weirdly betwee positions, and then there's the whole question of whether or not they're going to relocate.  The Kings should have a leg up for my affection since they used to play some of their home games in Omaha, but they're going to have to do better than this.

Philadephia 76ers - 0%

Jrue Holiday seems to be coming into his own this season, but for my own health I can't start rooting for a team that employs Andrew Bynum.  He has all the upside in the world, but I just don't think he'll ever be healthy enough to capitalize on it.

The Improbables

Golden State Warriors - 0.1%

The Warriors are the first team to get a sliver of a percentage, if only because of their great uniforms.  Unfortunately, they're trying to fit a square peg (an offensive roster with guys like Curry and Lee) into a round hole (a defensive focus with coach Mark Jackson).  Yes, they traded for Andrew Bogut, but if you see me getting excited about Andrew Bogut, then something has gone horribly wrong.

Boston Celtics - 0.1%

I can definitely envision myself rooting for the Celtics in a playoff series (say, against the Heat or Lakers).  However, I think it's unlikely that that would translate over to a long-term relationship.  Rajon Rondo is a truly unique talent, but his inability to shoot prevents him from being one of my favorite players.

San Antonio Spurs - 0.1%

Yes, they're old.  Yes, they can be a little boring.  And yes, I've been rooting for other teams pretty much every playoffs in the last decade and a half.  But there's something refreshing about how well Greg Popovich has been able to keep the title window open for the main cast of the Spurs.  I doubt I'll start rooting for them, but I was surprisingly excited by the prospect of a Spurs-Celtics final last year (before Lebron and Durant put that to bed), so I'll hold out a little hope.

Milwaukee Bucks - 0.1%

I've actually been to the Bradley Center (albeit for a ND game), and I actually know Bucks fans, so there is an ounce of inertia here.  It's too bad that there just isn't much in the way of talent there.  A chance at sneaking into the 8-seed in the East isn't enough for me.

Chicago Bulls - 0.2%

This team reminds me a lot of the 76ers squad that made the finals in 2001.  From the dependence on one dynamic guard to the focus on tenacious defense, there are a lot of sensible comparisons.  That being said, Derrick Rose will likely miss most of the season, so the Bulls are mostly in a holding pattern for now.

Indiana Pacers - 0.2%

With Danny Granger out for a while, it's up to Paul George to make the leap.  I enjoyed watching this team's playoff run last year, but it will be tough for them to become my favorite team minus Granger and Darren Collison, who they traded in the offseason.  They do get bonus points for having Ben Hansbrough on the end of the bench.

Dallas Mavericks - 0.2%

Like the Bulls, the Mavericks find themselves in a bit of a holding pattern, waiting to see how the free agent market shakes out next summer.  In the meantime, they've given themselves a competitive roster even with Dirk Nowitzki out with an injury for part of the year.  In particular, I'm a fan of the Collison-Mayo backcourt.  Also, Rick Carlisle has quietly become the best coach in the NBA outside of Greg Popovich.

Atlanta Hawks - 0.2%

The Hawks were able to shed Joe Johnson's massive contract in the offseason, and yet are still a competitive team.  If Jeff Teague can climb to the next level, then they could have something with their current core.  In all likelihood though, this is a team that will be active on the free agent market in the offseason, so I'll hold out until then.  They do have not one, but two Creighton alums on their roster (Korver and Tolliver), so they have that going for them.

Utah Jazz - 0.2%

For a franchise that lost everything but Paul Millsap from the team that was my favorite in the NBA a few years ago, the Jazz are doing well.  Millsap is one of the most underrated players in the league, and point guard Mo Williams seems like a good fit at what was a black hole of a position after Deron Williams was traded.  Still, I'm going to have to see a little more from the young'uns (Hayward, Burks, and Favors) before this team seriously contends for my interest.

Toronto Raptors - 0.3%

The Raptors just narrowly miss my list of "contenders" for one reason: defense.  Kyle Lowry is all kinds of awesome at the point, and he has enough offensive-minded Europeans (namely Andrea Bargnani) at his disposal to create a northern version of the mid-aughts Suns.  Also, I've always had a semi-irrational liking to the raw athleticism of DeMar Derozan.  But, my favorite team is going to have to be able to play some defense, and the Raptors just don't fit the bill in that department (You can make the argument that the Jazz of a few years ago didn't play great defense, which is true, but at least they could rebound quite well...Amir Johnson currently leads the Raptors with less than 7 boards per game, so they can't even do that).

The Contenders

Cleveland Cavaliers - 1.0%

The Cavaliers make the cut simply because of the potential for Kyrie Irving to make the leap to a top 15 player this year.  It also doesn't hurt that he has Dion Waiters as his backcourt mate.  Unfortunately, there isn't quite enough else here for me to grab on to, so 1% is about as high as the Cavs can go for now.  They are on local TV here in Columbus, so a "hometown" advantage could come into play.

New Orleans Hornets - 2.0%

Yes, there's been a lot of rumblings about how the Hornets "lucked" out to be able to draft the Unibrow in last summer's draft.  Of course, you could probably concoct a conspiracy theory for half of the teams in the lottery, so I don't really buy it for a second.  Add in that New Orleans was able to steal Ryan Anderson from the Magic in a sign and trade, and you have the beginnings of an exciting team.  The only drawback of being a Hornets fan is that I'd have to root for Austin Rivers, which would be a tall order.

Minnesota Timberwolves - 2.5%

Ricky Rubio and Kevin Love for a solid core of what should be an exciting team to watch for years to come.  They're both injured right now, so that takes the Wolves down a notch.  Still, there's more to Minnesota than just their two stars.  Most notably, the Wolves signed my birthday twin Brandon Roy in the offseason.  We'll see how well his knees hold up now that he's had some time to rest them.

Houston Rockets - 3.0%

The beneficiaries of the Harden trade get a significant boost on my list.  There's not a lot here besides him and Linsanity, but I do like their draft picks from this year (Terrence Jones and Royce White), and their GM Daryl Morey is sort of the Billy Beane of basketball, so there's definitely potential here.  It all comes down to what they do with the cap space they have.  There's still room for another max deal, which could make the Rockets a contender if they can get a stud.

Denver Nuggets - 5.0%

Ty Lawson, Andre Iguodala, Kenneth Faried, and Danilo Galinari form as exciting and athletic of a core as any team in the league.  That being said, I'm a little worried about the upside of this group.  I don't think this team has a 2004 Pistons ability to play greater than the sum of their parts, primarily because they don't have the defensive abilities that that team did.  Still, George Karl is one of the best coaches in this league.  I'm sure he'll be able to turn this squad into a near-contender that could find its way into the Finals if they catch a couple of breaks.

Portland Trailblazers - 7.5%

The Blazers aren't in a particularly great position to succeed right now.  In spite of this, the reason that they find themselves so high on my list is Damian Lillard.  Of all the players to come into the league the last few years, none catches my eye quite as much as he does.  He has the opportunity to be one of the most complete point guards in the league.  A nice supporting cast of Wesley Matthews, Lamarcus Aldridge, Nicolas Batum, and JJ Hickson gives them some options for the future.

Memphis Grizzlies - 10.0%

I had a bit of a soft spot for the Grizzlies when they pulled off the 8-1 upset over the Spurs in 2011.  The main problem with that team was lack of good offensive guard play.  However, they've started to remedy this in their amazing start this year. Mike Conley has shown improved play at the point and a random cast of characters such as Quincy Pondexter has finally added a competent outside shooting dimension to the team.  Add this to the impressive Gay, Randolph, and Gasol frontline, and you have yourself a real title contender, should the Lakers continue to sputter.

Brooklyn Nets - 27.3%

Earlier in the column, I explained that I probably wouldn't be picking the Raptors because of their defensive liabilities.  The problem with listing the Nets so high is that the same exact argument can apply to them.  Sure, Kris Humphries can rebound better than anyone from Toronto, but certainly Kris Humphries won't be the deciding factor in picking a team.  Rather, the deciding factor will be how well Deron Williams plays now that he's the well-paid leader of the franchise.  I'm willing to give him a mulligan for the last couple of years, but he's going to have to exceed expectations to make the Nets a true contender.  He was my favorite player in the league with Utah, and he probably still is, but that doesn't automatically make the Nets my favorite team.

Oklahoma City Thunder - 40.0%

After writing a lengthy post, I end up with the team that was already my favorite with the best odds to remain my favorite.  Do note though that there's less than a 50% chance so that's really the whole reason for the column.  Durant and Westbrook are good enough to overcome the loss of their teammate, but it's going to be tricky.  Not only to they have to adjust to missing one of the best shooting guards in the league, but they're going to have to get by without their friend.  I'm not really worried about Durant, as he's always seemed impervious to would-be distractions.  Rather, eveything hinges on whether or not Russell Westbrook is able to keep improving and avoid the over-reliance on his own offense.  If Westbrook can finally "get it," then it may not matter that they traded away the bearded one.

College Football: The Second Month

As we find ourselves one week from a college basketball season in which there will maybe be one dominant team (Indiana, if they learn that defense thing), those who prefer chalk can take solace in college football, where we have 3 1/2 teams breaking away from the pack (sorry, ND offense, you're not quite there yet).   Barring some upsets, you're going to spend the next month hearing everyone's opinion about which teams are the best and deserve to play for all the Discover.*  Thus, the task that I take on here is to tell you why a lot of those arguments are stupid.

*Two years ago I thought the phrase "all the Tostitos" was going to catch on in my personal lexicon, but alas it hasn't.  I guess there's still time.

First of all, the likelihood of all the top four teams finishing undefeated is still pretty low.  For illustrative purposes, and also for simplicty's sake, let's give each remaining legitimate opponent of an unbeaten a very conservative 10% chance of pulling off the upset.  Here are the remaining legitimate opponents:

Alabama: LSU, Texas A&M, SEC East Champ
Oregon: USC, Stanford, Oregon State, P12 South Champ
Kansas State: Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Texas
ND: Pitt, USC

Those games aren't completely independent events, since USC plays both ND and Oregon, but for all practical purposes we can treat them as such.  Using the binomial distribution, we get the following odds:

All 4 unbeaten: 25.4%
3 unbeatens: 42.1%
2 unbeatens: 25.3%
1 unbeaten: 6.6%
No unbeatens: 0.6%

Even with a very chalky forecast, we still only see a 1 in 4 chance of pure BCS armageddon.  What this shows is that we can speculate all we want, but the odds are still in favor of at least one team dropping a game between now and the end of the season.

Secondly, many of the arguments you hear will come down to the whole "deserver" motif that I described last year.  Many will argue that since the SEC and the Big 12 are better than all of the other conferences, then Alabama and Kansas State should play each other for the title.  This is an incomplete argument.  First of all, judging by current Sagarin SOS of the four teams, Notre Dame's "conference" has been the best:

ND: 10th
Alabama: 26th
Kansas State: 30th
Oregon: 62nd

Sure, ND's SOS will slip some as they play the bottom feeders of the current and future ACC, but it shouldn't fall much below the other teams, if at all.

Furthermore, you can't really fault Oregon for the relative weakness of the PAC-12.  You could make an argument against them if they were having trouble, but they've blown out everyone they've played and have only had to play in earnest in the second half once (Washington State).  You can't really harp on their non-conference schedule either, since Kansas State pulled out of a game with them.  In the end, you can only play what's laid out before you, and Oregon has done that as well as anyone.

Finally, if we do end up with more than 2 unbeaten teams at the end of the year, the chances are that they'll be relaively equal teams.  Anyone who tells you that Alabama or Oregon are far and away better than the other teams is exaggerating.  In the previously mentioned column from last year, I remarked on how you couldn't make a definitive argument about whether or Alabama or Oklahoma State was better.  I feel that I will have a fairly similar stance this year.  Sure, Alabama may break away from the pack a little bit if they continue to dominate, but the other teams will still have fantastic accomplishments as well, and could definitely beat Alabama in the title game.


The rankings:

1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. Kansas State
4. Notre Dame
5. Florida State
6. LSU
7. Clemson
8. Ohio State
9. Georgia
10. Florida
11. Texas A&M
12. South Carolina
13. Oklahoma
14. Oklahoma State
15. USC
16. Oregon State
17. Texas
18. Texas Tech
19. Mississippi State
20. Louisiana Tech
21. Louisville
22. Boise State
23. Northern Illinois
24. Nebraska
25. Kent State

Also considered: Stanford, Rutgers, Michigan, Toledo, West Virginia, Arizona, UCLA, Ole Miss

Notes on the rankings:

- I'm pretty comfortable with the order of the top 4 for now.  Alabama and Oregon have been the most dominant, and Kansas State has a more trustworthy offense than the Irish.  Obviously, this weekend will have big tests for all of the teams (well, maybe just a small test for ND), so we'll see where the teams lie after that.  For everyone who says that preseason polls unduly influence later polls, I had those four teams in a different order in my preseason poll (Oregon, Bama, ND, KSU, and the Wildcats were unranked with a vengeance), so there's been some thought put into it.

- I might have Florida State and Clemson a little overranked, but I'm fine with it.  Their September game was one of the best of the season, and they've been mostly blowing out the weakings of the ACC, so I'll keep them high for now.  They'll both get big tests over Thanksgiving weekend with their in-state SEC rivals, so we'll learn a little more about them then.

- Louisville is probably overranked as well, but if you're undefeated at this point of the season, you get put in the rankings.  Their inability to beat even poor teams like Southern Miss and Florida International by more than a touchdown is concerning.  They have a good chance of losing to either Syracuse or Rutgers, if not both.  Charlie Strong has undubitably done a great job, but they're probably still a year away from being a truly dangerous team.

- Yes, I should probably have Arizona and Stanford ranked, but I just can't help but pay some respect to the amazing MACtion happening this season.  Since this poll doesn't matter at all, I don't feel the least bit guilty.

Thoughts on this weekend:

The top matchups of this weekend have lost a little bit of their luster, but this is still probably the best weekend of the season to sit down and watch football all day.  If you're inclined to do just that, here is what I think you'll see:

Oklahoma at Iowa State - Jack Trice Stadium is one of the best, most random home field advantages in the game, and Iowa State is a legitimately good team.  However, let's not get carried away here.  Oklahoma is a very good team that's probably going to be angry and is not going to lose back to back games:  Oklahoma 44, Iowa State 13

Texas A&M at Mississippi State - The maroon-off that you've all been waiting for is finally here.  Unfortunately, it won't be much of a game.  I'm sure my CFB man-crush Johnthan Banks will make a play or two, but he'll need to do more than that to overcome the talent gap between these two teams:  Texas A&M 41, Mississippi State 21

TCU at West Virginia - This might be the most unpredictable game of the day.  The Mountaineers have turned in back to back clunkers, but still have the potential to score at will.  TCU was only mildly impressive when Casey Pachall was on the roster, and now has two very different results since he was kicked off the team (53 points against Texas Tech and 14 against Oklahoma State, both losses).  Thus, I will ask Excel to pick random numbers between 2 and 99:  West Virginia 96, TCU 3

Nebraska at Michigan State - I'm not feeling too good about this game.  Sure, Michigan State has been having trouble getting the offense going, and they don't have the home field advantage that most teams do.  Still, that defense is still amazing, and Taylor Martinez is still Taylor Martinez.  In the end, I'll say Nebraska does just enough to pull out the win:  Nebraska 17, Michigan State 13

Ole Miss at Georgia - Not only is this a perfect letdown opportunity, but it's a great chance for Ole Miss to show how improved they are in Hugh Freeze's first year.  If my prediction holds up, then Florida will clinch the SEC East, assuming they get by Missouri:  Ole Miss 31, Georgia 26

Pitt at Notre Dame - If the Irish are going to get tripped up before USC, the Panthers are the most likely culprit.  We were able to shut down the other power rushing attack we faced (MSU), but Tino Sunseri can throw a little bit better, so the possibility exists for something to happen.  That being said, Pitt will probably be too distracted by that vampire midterm coming up:  ND 35, Pitt 14

Texas at Texas Tech - Similar to West Virginia, I don't really know what to think of Texas.  They do boast a couple of impressive September victories over Ole Miss and Oklahoma State, but they've done nothing since then.  I tend to think that a visit to Seth Doege's house won't be the best medicine:  Texas Tech 48, Texas 38

Oregon at USC - As much as everyone is interested in seeing if Oregon's offense will be slowed down at all (it won't), the most interesting part of this matchup is Matt Barkley versus a surprisingly good Oregon D.  I still like Barkley as the first pick in the draft (if you're looking for a QB, that is), so if anyone can outscore Oregon, it's him:  Oregon 59, USC 38

Alabama at LSU - AJ McCarron has been nothing short of amazing this year, but he hasn't faced a test like this yet.  More importantly, he hasn't had to play from behind or with a small lead.  I'm guessing he finally thows his first interception of the season in this game, but I don't think it will be enough to lose the game:  Alabama 21, LSU 13

Oklahoma State at Kansas State - This quietly might be the best game of the weekend.  As I've been saying all season, the Cowboys are underrated, and I think that they have a real chance to pull this one off.  In the end, I'll go with the Collin Klein's experience to pull the game out late:  Kansas State 35, Oklahoma State 28

Arizona at UCLA - The winner of this game is in charge of the division if USC loses.  I'll give UCLA the slight advantage since they're at home.  Also, Arizona QB Matt Scott is coming off of a head injury:  UCLA 41, Arizona 38