2016-17 B1G Power Rankings as of Jan 23 2017

It's been a couple of seasons since we've thrown our hat into the power rankings ring.  Since that time we've refined our methodology.  We still believe that the Carmody Court Ratio, aka CCR, is a valid statistical measure for assessing a team's strength.  As a reminder, the CCR measures a team's performance on a PPP basis against each of its B1G opponents relative to those opponents adjusted efficiency within B1G play (as calculated per kenpom.com) .

As a refresher for the CCR calculations, a simplified example is helpful for ease of disposition.  Let's assume that 1) NU plays a game on a neutral court against iLOLinois, 2) that after the game results are incorporated that kenpom reports the iLOLini have an adjusted offensive efficiency and an adjusted defensive efficiency that are both equal to 1.0 within B1G play, and 3) NU wins 110-105 in a 100 possession 3OT thriller.

NU would have a CCR-O equal to 1.1 (NU's PPP) less 1.0 (iLOLini AdjD) or 0.1
NU would have a CCR-D equal to 1.0 (iLOLini AdjO)  less 1.05 (iLOLini PPP) or -0.05
NU would have a CCR equal to the sum of 0.1 CCR-O and -0.05 CCR-D or 0.05

In effect the CCR takes into consideration not only how a team has performed on an efficiency basis but also the strength of the competition.  Note that the CCR calculations also take into consideration home court advantage but we've left that part of the calculation out of the above hypothetical for simplicity.

Before we used a trend line analysis for each team's CCR as the basis for power ranking.  Upon further reflection we feel that the use of a trend line analysis -- while informative and provides useful insight to how teams are improving or regressing as the B1G season progresses -- is inferior to the use of an averaging approach that is less susceptible to statistical significance concerns not to mention a greater stability in the rankings and less dependence on early B1G conference games results.  Our thinking on the averaging approach is still evolving.  Right now we are using a simple average but are also considering an approach that places more weight on recent games.

Below is a chart that shows the current B1G power rankings based on average CCR.  We also show in the chart the old trend line analysis as well as the best and worst CCR performances by each team.  We've recently tweeted about some of the outlier games, but see notes for the most up-to-date information.

Updated 2016-17 Expectations: B1G Conference

Back on November 2 we looked at the preseason expectations for the B1G conference.  At that time Wisconsin, OSU, and MSU were expected to battle for the B1G crown with Purdue and Indiana a notch below.   And at the bottom was Rutgers with Nebraska, PSU, and Minnesota jockeying for position just above the Scarlet Knights.

Well we are about 40% of the way into the B1G season, and a lot has changed both at the top and the bottom.  The next chart shows the current expected finishes in the B1G standings.  Note that the white boxes show the preseason most likely finishes while the current most likely finishes are bolded and underlined.

At the top Wisconsin has emerged as the clear front runner for the crown, but Purdue also has made a small jump up and has a little better than a 1 in 4 shot at earning at least a share of the crown.  Although some in Minneapolis and College Park may suggest we are wearing purple shades when we say this -- arguably the biggest story brewing in the B1G is that NU has played its way from an expected 9th place finish (including ties) up to a most likely third place finish and a nearly 10% shot of at least sharing the B1G crown.  Maryland was expected to take a couple of steps back this year to sixth place, but they are also a dark horse for the B1G crown with about a 1 in 12 shot.

At the bottom Rutgers is still the odds on favorite for the basement.  Despite its surprising 3-0 start out of the gates Nebrasketball is currently the likely runner-up to the basement -- an expectation that may not be too far from the current sentiment as the Huskers are riding a 4 game losing streak including its most recent loss in Piscataway that gave the Scarlet Knights their first B1G win.   Penn State has taken some positive steps so far in the season yet they are currently on par with an iLOLinois squad that may be searching for another head coach after the season concludes, and Iowa which has been the second most disappointing B1G team -- no need to remind bombastic Coach Fran of that as he has had frequent public meltdowns already.

Easily the most disappointing B1G team to date has been Ohio State.  They were expected to vie for the B1G crown yet they have fallen all the way down to 9th in the B1G pecking order currently and are in danger of not even making the NIT.  Right above the Buckeyes is Michigan which has also has had a pretty disappointing season due in no small part to some serious defensive issues -- however one reason for Wolverine optimism are appearances that the defense has turned a corner after playing pretty well over its past two games (at Wisconsin and against ILOLinois).

Sparty and Indiana were also near the top of the B1G heap in preseason expectations and have been disappointments. FWIW Indiana has been trending up of late while MSU has been trending down after a hot 3-0 B1G start.  Indiana has some serious defensive flaws and injury concerns which raise questions about just how much higher they can go in the B1G peckin order.  MSU arguably has the 4th best B1G resume to date despite losing 3 of its last 4 games.

Last but not least there is Minnesota which until recently had easily been the most pleasant surprise in the B1G but gave back some ground over its past three games which have all been losses -- the worst of which was a 65-47 beat down in E Lansing that could've been a tour de force for Goldy had they won the game.  Still Minnesota is hot on NU's heels for biggest jump in the projected B1G standings with the Gophers moving up from a battle for runner-up to B1G basement status all the way up to a most likely 5th place finish.  Both CRP and CCC are in their fourth years, and with their similar tenures and hiring situations this may be just the beginning of the comparisons and contrasts of the track records for these two young head coaches.

The next chart shows the expected B1G win totals.  Some may care more about this chart than the standings.  That's all well and good as much of the above narrative applies directly to this chart as well.

Northwestern Basketball: Updated 2016-2017 Expectations

The last we wrote on this blog about NU's 2016-17 prospects was in the preseason.  We are now 20 games into the season with just 11 more games to go in the B1G regular season.  Of course a lot can happen over a 20 game span of time.  For example, there is just this trivial matter of a reality TV show host becoming the 45th President of the United States. But we digress.  Onto more important matters, and on topico numero uno for this blog: how have NU's prospects evolved since the preseason?  Let's dig into that a bit.

The first chart below shows NU's preseason expectations for B1G play.  The most likely outcome was an (8-10) record and on a weighted average basis NU was expected to go (8.3-9.7).  As we wrote at that time, we translated those expectations into a likely NIT bid for the 2016-17 season.

This next chart shows NU's current expectations for B1G play.  The most likely outcome has substantially improved to a (12-6) record and on a weighted average basis NU is expected to go (11.51-6.49).  On both accounts is reasonable to say that -- so long as NU performs as expected** from here on out -- NU HAS A DANCE DATE COME MARCH 16 OR MARCH 17 IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING LOCALES:

BUFFALO, NY

MILWAUKEE, WI

ORLANDO, FL

SALT LAKE CITY, UT

GREENVILLE, SC

INDIANAPOLIS, IN

TULSA, OK

SACRAMENTO, CA

If NU were to just squeak into the NCAAs and play in the First Four, then Dayton OH would be the scene of history making on MARCH 14 or MARCH 15.  

*** Of course things won't go exactly as expected.  Still let's assume that there is a 100% shot of NU dancing at 11-7 or better, a 40% shot at 10-8, and a 10% shot at 9-9.  Then according to kenpom's data NU stands a 83% chance of making the NCAAs.

Suffice it to say that this has been a very pleasant season to date for NU fans.  In fact relative to preseason expectations there isn't a happier B1G fan base at the moment.  NU's 3.2 increase in B1G win totals leads all B1G teams with just Minnesota (a 2.9 win increase) within the same ballpark of outperforming preseason expectations.   

If NU can continue to stay on this pace and make the NCAAs then CCC is the odds on favorite for B1G COTY.   The kenpom data also indicate there is nearly a 10% chance that NU will get at least a share of the B1G regular season crown.  If that were to happen then CCC may be in line for national COTY honors.  

In the immortal words of Harry Caray, HOLY COW!!!!!!!!

Preseason Expectations for Extreme 2017 B1G Records

Every year we like to have a little preseason fun by taking a look at the odds of B1G teams going undefeated or winless in the upcoming conference season.  Or, as one of my buddies call it, our perennial dump on Rutgers chart.

The standout figure on this chart is Rutgers' laughable one in 1.3 quadrillion shot at 18-0.  Unbelievably this is about the same as the odds Rutgers had at going 18-0 in 2016.  It's such a large number that it is in need of an example for some perspective.  My kenpom modeling requires simulating upcoming games to derive expected results such as win totals and relative standings.  My computer runs about 1,000 simulations per second.  To simulate just one Rutgers 18-0 B1G record in 2017 I expect that I would need to let the simulation run for 42,310 YEARS.  If Rutgers wants to kick in for a new computer that can run a million simulations per second then we could expect to continuously run simulations and produce evidence of a perfectly legitimate 18-0 observation for Rutgers fans by the end of the 2059 B1G season.  

Wisconsin is the most likely B1G team to run the table, but even the Badgers are very unlikely to do so.  Per the kenpom data they have but a one in 613 chance of completely punking the B1G.  Ohio State is the next most likeliest suspect to go 18-0, but the Buckeyes chances are just one in 7,028.  

Unfortunately for Rutgers there is a small but realistic chance that they go 0-18 this year.  The kenpom statistics suggest that if the B1G season were played out 79 times then one of those seasons would be a winless nightmare for the Scarlet Knights.  That's actually a slight improvement over 2016 preseason expectations when just one out of every 58 simulations had a winless Rutgers outcome.  

We have good and bad news for Northwestern fans.  The good news is that -- barring some terrible tragedy befalling the team -- there is virtually no chance the Wildcats go 0-18 this year.  The bad news is that there is an even much smaller probability that the team goes 18-0.  For most NU fans this is neither here nor there as eyes are still trained on that elusive NCAAs bid.  In a separate analysis we model that there is about a 12% chance that NU finishes with at least 11 B1G wins which is our rough guesstimate for ending The Streak.

On the Imbalanced 2017 B1G Schedule

With 14 teams in the current conference configuration (when will we get to 16 and fulfill those clever graphic artists' end game for the B1G moniker?) a true round robin schedule would require a 26 conference game schedule.  With just 18 conference games on the schedule that means each team has just five opponents to play both at home and away, and 8 teams which are played just once during the regular season.  

A byproduct of these imbalanced schedules is that some schools will be beneficiaries from the vagaries and randomness of the B1G schedule makers while other schools will be victims.  Some fans -- typically those of a program perceived to have received the proverbial short end of the schedule makers stick -- get all bent out of shape about their schools' B1G schedules.   It's becoming an annual ritual around these parts to take an objective look at the effects of the imbalanced B1G schedules on a team's conference workloads.  See our post from two years ago here for a discussion of our methodology which was prompted by much bellyaching from NU fans about the 2015 B1G schedule.

If you look at the kenpom rankings data you find there are two primary factors driving this year's beneficiary/victim analysis.  The more obvious factor is whether or not your team plays outlier #191 Rutgers once or twice.  The 2nd worst ranked B1G program is #98 Penn State which is a huge gap.  The second and less obvious factor is how often a team must play the top teams.  This concept may elicit a "no shit" reaction and rightly so.  But complicating the equation is the presence of five top tier teams that are bunched together in the kenpom rankings.  If you believe kenpom there are just four teams across the land that fall in somewhere between top B1G dog #8 Wisconsin and the B1G's fifth strongest program #16 Indiana.  In theory a B1G team could play over half of its games (10 of 18) against this narrowly bunched top tier while another could play less than a third of its games (5 of 18) against the creme de la creme.  That's a pretty big disparity.

Enough of theoretical mumbo jumbo.  Behold our 2017 analysis:

The analysis mostly speaks for itself, but would like to point out a few anecdotes.

• Of the top tier teams Wisconsin is the only beneficiary.  Coincidentally just as with the kenpom rankings the other four top tier teams (Purdue to Indiana in the table) form a continuum of victims to the B1G schedule makers.
• Two of the second tier programs (Iowa and Maryland) are the big winners in the 2017 B1G schedule lottery.  Conversely the other second tier program (Michigan) is the biggest victim.  This disparity helps to explain why #31 Michigan is expected to win 10.1 games while #55 Iowa is expected to win just 0.7 less games (9.4 wins).  To put that differential in perspective, Iowa is expected to win 1.1 more games than much more closely ranked #61 Northwestern (which like Iowa is a big beneficiary from the 2017 schedule). 
• Amongst third tier program #98 Penn State is the fourth biggest beneficiary while #87 Nebraska is the second biggest victim.  This disparity results in Penn State having an expected win total of 6.2 games which edges out Nebraska program ranked 11 rungs higher by 0.1 wins over the course of the 2017 B1G schedule.
• Projected cellar dweller Rutgers is a modest beneficiary but even the most favorable B1G schedule would not have been enough to lift Rutgers out of its status as clear favorite for last place.
• In the notes we show that NU had an average B1G opponent ranking of 89.4 for 2016.  In 2017 the average B1G opponent ranking is projected to be 60.9.  In both years the B1G schedule maker were similarly kind to NU.  While there are other analyses that could more clearly quantify this final conclusion these data are an indication of just how improved the B1G is expected to be this year.  That's not to say 2017 is expected to be a great year for the conference but at least the B1G is expected to be back to 2015 which wasn't exactly a banner year. If Rutgers were to fall off the map again then about 7 rungs of these gains would be given back.

On a Northwestern-centric note much of NU's beneficial schedule happens to fall during the first half of the B1G schedule with 2 games against Tier A opponents, 4 games against Tier B opponents, and 3 games against others; in the back half NU has 5, 2, 2 games against those categories of opponents, respectively.  The dream for NU fans is for NU to position itself for the NCAAs during Dec/Jan by TCOB and then solidifying that resume with a couple notches in its belt against Tier A teams toward the end of the season.

Lastly, this all based on pre-season expectations.  Of course the final analysis of the beneficiaries/victims will be quite different as teams inevitably surpasses or fall short of these expectations.

2016-17 Pre-Season Expectations: B1G Conference

This post is part of a series that looks at pre-season expectations using data from kenpom.com.  This post uses pre-season kenpom data to analyze expectations for the 2016-17 B1G regular season.

The first chart summarizes the probabilities of where teams are expected to finish in the B1G race.  The chart does not distinguish ties (other than 14th because there is no such thing as a tie for 14th), and for this reason the probability for the standings do not sum to 100% across all teams. 

There are three teams that can legitimately state that they expect to vie for the B1G regular season title.  In descending order of likelihood these teams are: Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Michigan State.  Of these three teams, Wisconsin has nearly a coin flip's chance of finishing first while the others' odds are closer to that of David Ross getting a hit in any given at bat (yes, mixing of sports, but tonight is Game 7! GO CUBS!!!!).  Purdue and Indiana also have good chances at finishing at the top but are more likely to finish just below the winner's circle.  Amongst these three/five title contenders, Ohio State is the team that looks to make the biggest leap forward after finishing 7th in 2016.

Michigan, Maryland and Iowa are expected to form the B1G's second tier in 2017.  Judging by the expected strength of the B1G overall these three teams may be locked in a season long battle for NCAAs tourney invite.  Admittedly this is a somewhat misleading statement because the selection committee ostensibly does not care about how many bids it gives out to conferences because it evaluates teams on an individual resume basis devoid of conference of affiliation.  However the reality is that 7 B1G bids sounds about right for a normal conference year so these teams will need to avoid standing too far away from the proverbial NCAAs chair when the music stops playing in early March.

As somewhat befitting of its status as the only private B1G institution Northwestern is set apart in its preseason expectations -- situated in no man's land that is in the proximity of both the Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams.  Its most likely finish is 9th while the Tier 2 teams all are most likely to finish in 7th or better.  The Tier 3 teams -- Illinois, Minnesota, Penn State, and Nebraska, are expected to most likely finish between 10th and 12th place.  Northwestern's weighted average expected finish is in 8.1th place.  The lowest expected weighted average finish for the Tier 2 teams is 6.5th, and the highest of the Tier 3 teams is 9.4th.  No man's land.  We hereby declare NU as a Tier 2/3 team.  That is unlikely to fetch NU that perpetually elusive NCAAs bid, but we like NU's chances of snagging an NIT berth, which would be CCC's first postseason tournament and set the stage for an NCAA's run in 2018 (knocking on wood).

Compared to last year's standings, both Iowa and Maryland are expected to take a step back from their Tier 1 positions in 2016.  NU is status quo, but the B1G is expected to be stronger overall in 2017 than 2016 so in the bigger picture if NU holds that line in 2017 that would arguably mark a modest step forward for NU as a program.  The Tier 3 teams are the same suspects as in 2016, although Minnesota would be taking a small step forward in 2017 from what turned out to be a pretty disastrous and disappointing 2016 campaign under CRP.

And as reliable as the North Star is to mariners we once again have Rutgers as the shoo in for B1G basement.  While Rutgers was historically bad in 2016 finishing with an unbelievably pathetic #290 kenpom, this year is expected to be a step up to plain bad with a #191 kenpom ranking.  Who knows?  Perhaps this year to avoid the B1G bagel Rutgers won't need to be gifted a conference win by playing a visiting team with only half of its scholarship players.

The next chart illustrates the distribution of win probabilities across the B1G teams.  These distributions provide a useful means for splitting hairs among the teams who share the same most likely B1G records.  At the bottom of the chart we create a weighted average expected record based on the distributions and rank these weighted average records.  When it comes to wins and losses the B1G race is expected to have Wisconsin to finish atop at 13-5.  The rest of the Tier 1 teams are expected to net 11 or 12 wins.  The tier 2 teams are expected to finish either at .500 or with 10 wins.  NU is expected to finish about 8-10.  The Tier 3 teams are looking at 6 or 7 wins.  And Rutgers will scratch out 3 or 4 wins.  

2016-17 Pre-Season Expectations: Northwestern Basketball

T-minus 10 days to Year 4 of the Coach Chris Collins Era when kenpom #336 Mississippi Valley State re-ups on its nearly annual money grab and plays patsy to Northwestern at the Welsh on Nov 11.  It's an exciting time of year for wide eyed fans across the basketball world, and Northwestern fans are no different.  Conventional fan wisdom has once again NU with a very deep bench (11 deep this year limited only by that oft-vilified scholarship-hogging Vassar and medical redshirt freshman Rap Ivanauskas), and many also have NU either breaking that NCAAs cherry or at worst on the NCAAs bubble........

For us stats nerds, aside from the preseason excitement this time of year is also like christmas when kenpom unveils his annual tempo free rankings.  With this in mind, we've once again modeled NU's and its B1G bretrhen's schedules to discern what these objectives have to say about the upcoming season.  

The first bar chart below projects NU's 2016-2017 win totals for the entire season.  It is worth noting that these data are based on a 31 game schedule.  kenpom currently lists just 30 games as there is an additional TBD game (either Notre Dame or Colorado on Nov 22 as part of the Legends Classic at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn).  We project and model that NU would be a narrow underdog for that game. 

The good news is that NU is expected to have back-to-back winning seasons with a median expected record of 18-13, 8-10.  Ostensibly this would appear to be a step backward for a team that went 20-11 and 8-10 during regular season last year, but in reality kenpom's preseason expectations have NU at #61 which is 11 rungs above last year.  The difference of course is that this season's schedule is comparatively more difficult.  That comes as little surprise as NU's 2016 schedule was -- between a cream puff laden non-conference schedule and a down B1g -- about as soft as a B1G team could have.   

Excluding outlier results NU fans can expect anywhere between a 14-17 and a 22-9 record.  That's all well and good, but the big question is what does this portend for NU's post season prospects?

The above chart summarizes the pre-season forecast for NU's B1G conference slate which will most directly affect NU's post-season prospects.  NU's most likely outcome of 8-10 would be an improvement over last year's 8-10 since the B1G isn't expected to be nearly as bad in 2017.  So while NU missed the NIT last year, an NIT would likely be in the offing at 8-10 barring a disastrous non-conference campaign.  

What about the NCAAs?  Too many variable at this point, but if schedule strength proves to be as expected and NU performs as expected in the non-conf then 10-8 strikes us as bubblicious with 11-7 as likely in.

Eyes turn to recruiting trail

As our esteemed AD Dr Jim put it when explaining why he decided to fire CBC NU is now a program that he holds accountable to external benchmarks.  While those benchmarks are undefined there is a commonly held notion that -- barring unusual and extenuating circumstances -- new coaches are given four or five years to establish their program.  If the coach does not make the NCAAs during that period then his seat gets very hot and is normally given his walking papers.

CCC's third season is complete, and under his watch NU hasn't come close to making the NCAAs and is o-fer the NotInvitedTournament.  Although it's been an inauspicious start to CCC's head coaching career some have fairly pointed out that some coaching legends also had slow starts to their careers.  Coach K is commonly held out as such an example, and why not?  You can't argue with his success, and there is the added anecdote that Coach K is CCC's mentor.

Still without any tangible proof that the program has taken the next step one's belief that CCC will lead NU into the NCAAs must come largely on faith.  NU fans place their faith principally on CCC's recruiting chops and to a lesser degree CCC's coaching resources (his Dad, Coach K, his assistants) as well as NUs projected standing within the B1G.  This last point is salient and is best viewed through the recruiting lens -- at least until the teams lace 'em up this fall  The coaching resources point is such a data-free point that to engage would only lead to a meaningless discourse running in perpetual loops.

So how has CCC done on the recruiting front?  According to verbalcommits.com on the whole NU's 2016-17 roster has an average star rating of 3.11.  This is equal to the 9th best average star rating in the B1G.  That's not bad, but it's hardly rock solid evidence for placing one's faith in NU making the NCAAs within the next two years.

Similarly a recruiting trend analysis also doesn't provide much basis for placing one's faith.  According to 247sports.com NU had the 49th best class recruiting class in 2016 and 9th best within the B1G.

Let's take a big leap and assume for a second that the recruiting rankings are infallible.  Once we stopped laughing about such a silly notion we did realize that a roster full of 9th place talent gives NU a puncher's chance at making the NCAAs.  On average one wouldn't expect NU to make the big dance, but if the breaks fall NU's way then who knows?  So the external benchmarks as measured by that silly measuring stick of recruiting stars do not provide great confidence for placing one's faith, but they do provide at least some basis for hope.

If one turns to internal benchmarks then it looks a bit more promising -- at least superficially speaking.  247 has tracked NU's recruiting efforts back to 2000, and the top three recruits and four of the top five were all landed by CCC.  Furthermore all four of these relatively heralded recruits are going to be sophomores and freshmen next year.  That is at least some basis for making the case that NU is priming itself for a run in Year 6 of the CCC era.

An internal benchmarking exercise such as this raises other comparative issues such as Xs and Os.  For example CBC was able to bring comparatively inferior rosters to four straight NITs.  Can CCC lead a comparatively superior roster to the NIT let alone the NCAAs?  TBD.

In sum there isn't any proof that NU will make the NCAAs within the next two years.  However if one places faith in the recruiting rankings then one could reasonably expect that NU has a fighting chance at the NCAAs over the next two years if things fall the right way.  That's not exactly inspiring stuff, but at least there's some basis for placing one's faith in CCC.  Beggars can't be choosers, and when it comes to the NCAAs NU is the ultimate beggar at this point in time.

2016 NCAAs: Round One Recap

The first round of the 2016 NCAAs is in the books, and it was a historic first two days.  My pretty much any measure, this was the most tumultuous first round since the move to 64+ teams.  MSU was the biggest upset victim, but fans of 13 teams saw their NCAA dreams vaporize at the hands of a lesser seeded team.  There were but 32 games in Round One.  If you exclude the four 16-1 games that have never resulted in an upset, one could've done just about as well flipping coin to determine the outcome of the remaining 28 games than immersing oneself into hours or research in pursuit of bracket pool glory.  That is a stunning statement on so many different levels.

The sun has risen for the weekend with Round two set to tip off shortly, and the results of the Round One carnage is everywhere in your carefully planned brackets.  For example today there is just one out of eight games that held to chalk. Tomorrow just three of eight games held to chalk.  But fret not that your bracket has been taken over by the red tide of march madness.  Even if you were smart enough to use kenpom ratings as your guide to filling out your brackets your bracket would look wiped out (8/32 first round misses, 3/16 sweet 16 spots already guaranteed to be wrong, 2/8 of elite eight are sayonara) but it is still good enough for 93rd percentile amongst all brackets.

Below is the conference level summary of the round one carnage.  Amongst the major conferences the ACC and Big East withstood the lower seed barrage and actually outperformed expectations with one more team still playing than implied by the seeding.  The Pac12 was the biggest loser as they were expected to have 7 teams playing over this weekend but are left with just two standing.  The Big 12 which has been widely lauded as the best conference in the land (and we still agree) but of the seven teams expected to advance only three survived round one.  The B1G also got bloodied with Sparty and Purdue going down.

Amonst the midmajors the MVC looks pretty darn good right about now.  The conference was projected to be done by now yet both of its teams (Wichita St and N Iowa) still stand (Wichita St alone has matched the Pac 12's two win output).  And let's hear it for the one-bid smaller conferences!  None were supposed to have teams remaining yet six of those teams remain standing.  

All told the NCAA seeding implied teams from just seven conferences would be playing in Round Two.  Fifteen conferences are still alive.  Thank goodness that games are not played in the minds of the committee members.

2016 CCRUMMYS

Here's a recap of the 2016 CCRUMMYS Awards Show.  As a reminder the prizes are awarded using our patented CCR figures computed using B1G regular season results.  CCR figures are equal to Opponent's Efficiency net of Opponent's Average Efficiency within Conference Play adjusted for game location.  WE catgorize the CRUMMYS between CCRACKYS which are awarded for superlative performances by a B1G team and CCRAZZIES which are given to the worst performances by a B1G team.




The CCRACKYS: Awarded for most outstanding game performances by a B1G team.  

The Glove (Best CCR-D: 0.359 PPP)
Michigan State suffocated Northwestern's offense when it visited the Welsh way back on Jan 28.  The Spartans held NU to just 45 points, or a crazy low 0.703 PPP given that NU's offense averaged 1.037 PPP during B1G play.

By the slimmest of margins that effort edged out Iowa's defensive effort at Michigan State two weeks earlier on Jan 14.  The Hawkeyes held Sparty to 59 points or 0.855 PPP which was well below MSU's league-leading 1.19 PPP offense that it averaged during B1G play.

The Torch (Best CCR-O: 0.455 PPP)
Purdue had the league's best offensive effort when it ran Rutgers out of the RAC to the tune of 107-57 back on Jan 18.  Admittedly that nets-torching 1.574 PPP effort came against the league's worst defense (AdjD 1.196 PPP), but it was still a clear notch above the next best offensive output (CCR-O: 0.349 PPP -- Indiana's 103-69 beatdown of the Illini in Bloomington on the following day).

The Truth (Best CCR: 0.525 PPP)
The award for the best overall B1G performance goes to MSU for its aforementioned 76-45 trouncing of NU at the Welsh.  Last year, MSU had the league's second best overall game when they visited NU.  Tom Izzo must really like playing against CCC-coached teams in Evanston.

In a near second (CCR of 0.496) was Purdue's routing of Rutgers mentioned above.  




The CCRAZZIES: The 'razzies are awarded to B1G teams with the most dubious in league game performances. 

The Sieve (Worst CCR-D: -0.465 PPP)
Rutgers was just awful on defense this year.  The B1G's worst defensive effort in 2016 was mailed in by the Scarlet Knights in that home loss to Purdue.  The league's second worst defensive effort was in their 98-59 blowout loss at NU back on Feb 27 (CCR-D: -0.446)  

To put into context just how bad those defensive games were, the next worse defensive effort was in Nebraska's home opener against NU (CCR-D: -0.340 PPP).  Even there the Cornhuskers were arguably caught off guard by left handed and unknown commodity freshman Dererk Pardon whose red shirt was pulled shortly before the game due Alex Olah's injury.

The Mason (Worst CCR-O: -0.451 PPP)
Minnesota laid the most B1G bricks in their 75-52 loss at Rutgers to cap their disastrous B1G regular season.  This was a 72 possession game against the league's far and away worst defense.  To be fair that performance was an anomaly as Minnesota had something like half of their scholarship players ineligible for that game.  

The league's next worst offensive effort was put forth by Penn State when it stunk up Columbus with a 66-46 losing effort (67 possessions, CCR-O: -0.319).  NU wasn't far behind with a CCR-O of -0.312 when Sparty put the clamps on the Wildcats in Evanston.

The Angst (Worst CCR: -0.688 PPP)
Rutgers was the league's worst team last year.  They took futility to new lows this year.  Once again that 50 point beatdown when the Boilers visited Piscataway is something that will go down in the annals of B1G mismatches.  Juxtapose that with Purdue's loss in R1 of the NCAAs to Little Rock.  Wow.

Rutgers also handed in the league's 2nd worst performance in a 90-56 home loss to Nebraska early in the season (CCR: -0.571).

Rutgers also handed in the league's 3rd worst performance in the 98-59 loss at NU (CCR: -0.560).  

Those were three truly awful efforts.  Leaving aside Minnesota's personnel-challenged losing effort at Rutgers was similarly bad to this game (CCR: -0.562) the next worst effort was Minnesota's bad home loss to NU (CCR: -0.481), and the next worst efforts came in the -0.335 CCR ballpark.  


CCRUMMYS Summary:
MSU: 2 CCRACKYS
Purdue: 1 CCRACKY
Rutgers: 2 CCRAZZYS
Minnesota: 1 CCRAZZY