The 2013 Wothism NCAA Tournament Preview

Welcome to the 2013 Wothism NCAA Tournament Preview. Get ready for a lot of numbers with very little context!

Now, I know some of you will wonder how the numbers below were created, but here's pretty close to the best explanation that I'm willing to give: through a lot of late nights and a lot of Excel programming.

It's not that I don't want to help you out if you're legitimately interested -- I'll be happy to run additional numbers for you or attempt to quantify the likelihood of various events in the tournament taking place -- but the development of many of the bits and pieces that go into the creation of these numbers has taken years. I'm not a generous enough man to simply give it all away. At least not yet.

If you want a window into what I'm doing here, visit kenpom.com. That scratches the surface, and I use some of the exact same statistics he does. In other cases, I have created some of my own metrics that have proven more useful than his.

How they all mingle together is what I won't explain. Feel free to inquire if you have a specific question, but you otherwise won't get much of an explanation from me.

Without further ado, here are my game lines for each of the upcoming 32 games already scheduled (there are four first-round games and then 28 currently scheduled second-round games; obviously there will be 32 once you toss in the first-round winners). Please note that NEU stands for NEUTRAL -- I have done this because you will have to make your own determinations where any slight "home court advantage" might apply. For the truly uninitiated, the team with the minus is the team that's favored -- for instance, I predict that North Carolina A-T will win by 2 points in a game with just less than 131 points; in other words, the final score will be roughly NC A-T 71, Liberty 69:

	NEU
539	LIBERTY	130.95
540	NORTH CAROLINA A&T	-2.12
	NEU
541	MIDDLE TENNESSEE	130.96
542	ST. MARY'S	-5.99
	NEU
623	LONG ISLAND	142.33
624	JAMES MADISON	-0.22
	NEU
625	LA SALLE	139.16
626	BOISE ST.	-4.17
	NEU
709	MISSOURI	142.07
710	COLORADO ST.	-1.19
	NEU
711	DAVIDSON	136.11
712	MARQUETTE	-7.47
	NEU
713	BUCKNELL	122.32
714	BUTLER	-2.84
	NEU
715	VALPARAISO	126.96
716	MICHIGAN ST.	-9.06
	NEU
719	AKRON	136
720	VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH	-4.08
	NEU
721	SOUTH DAKOTA ST.	139.47
722	MICHIGAN	-13.71
	NEU
723	SOUTHERN	130.37
724	GONZAGA	-18.64
	NEU
725	WICHITA ST.	119.18
726	PITTSBURGH	-3.08
	NEU
727	HARVARD	123.7
728	NEW MEXICO	-8.25
	NEU
729	BELMONT	137.1
730	ARIZONA	-7.05
	NEU
731	OREGON	130.85
732	OKLAHOMA ST.	-2.83
	NEU
733	NEW MEXICO ST.	123.14
734	ST. LOUIS	-2.45
	NEU
735	CALIFORNIA	130.55
736	NEVADA LAS VEGAS	-2.52
	NEU
737	MONTANA	132.65
738	SYRACUSE	-14.29
	NEU
823	ALBANY	133.98
824	DUKE	-18.93
	NEU
825	CINCINNATI	132.62
826	CREIGHTON	-0.99
	NEU
827	FLORIDA GULF COAST	124.97
828	GEORGETOWN	-11.99
	NEU
829	OKLAHOMA	130.2
830	SAN DIEGO ST.	-4.6
	NEU
833	TEMPLE	149.6
834	NORTH CAROLINA ST.	-3.04
	NEU
835	IONA	146.04
836	OHIO ST.	-12.58
	NEU
837	IOWA ST.	151.32
838	NOTRE DAME	-2.59
	NEU
839	WESTERN KENTUCKY	136.34
840	KANSAS	-16.32
	NEU
841	VILLANOVA	136.7
842	NORTH CAROLINA	-3.31
	NEU
843	MISSISSIPPI	132.3
844	WISCONSIN	-8.61
	NEU
847	NORTHWESTERN ST.	142.43
848	FLORIDA	-18.14
	NEU
849	MINNESOTA	-6.77
850	UCLA	137.15
	NEU
851	PACIFIC	126.15
852	MIAMI FL	-9.06
	NEU
853	COLORADO	132.18
854	ILLINOIS	-3.26

I know that's what most of you came looking for, so hopefully that will help to inform some of your early bracket decisions. As previously mentioned, I would be happy to run later matchups upon request.

I do have a few otherwise general comments on the selection process as a whole:

1. I have absolutely no problem with anything the Selection Committee did this year. Some of the seeding is truly bizarre, but I'm not even going to pretend to know (or care) about some of their geographic procedures. The bottom line is that every team that deserved to get in, got in. The team with the biggest gripe based on my numbers would be Kentucky, but those were numbers created mostly with Nerlens Noel. The Wildcats weren't the same team without him, and so I can't say the committee was wrong in leaving Kentucky out.

2. In other words, maybe the move to 68 teams hasn't been the biggest travesty ever. My initial thought when it happened was that it was a complete joke, but frankly, I'd have to say that it has worked out tremendously well. As much as I hated VCU getting in a few years ago (and, honestly, that was one of my biggest gripes with the committee EVER), they went from the First Four to the Final Four, so they showed that simply getting the right teams into the tournament period is the most important thing. The seeding doesn't necessarily matter as long as the teams that deserve a shot to play for the title get the shot they earned.

Now, here's a macro breakdown of what I see across the board to inform some of your later picks:

1. Everyone (including me) had the knee-jerk reaction that the Midwest was the toughest region, and everyone was right on some level (yep, I was right) -- at the top, the Midwest is the heaviest: three of the six best teams in the country are in that bracket: Louisville (#3), Duke (#4), Michigan State (#6). But on some level, everyone was wrong: the WEST has the most quality from top-to-bottom. The top teams speak for themselves: Gonzaga-Ohio State-New Mexico-Kansas State-Wisconsin-Arizona-Notre Dame-Pittsburgh, but the bottom teams are what make it: Wichita is really dangerous, Iowa State can beat anyone when they're hitting from outside, Belmont is incredibly efficient, Ole Miss is ... well, I think Ole Miss is garbage, but Marshall Henderson is really dangerous, and Boise State is easily the best No. 13 seed. Harvard is kind of "meh" at No. 14, but Iona is dangerous as a 15 seed and Southern is the second-best 16. So the MIDWEST may indeed be the "toughest" if you're talking about making it to the Final Four, but the games in the WEST are going to be the "toughest" if you're talking about closest. /Semantics-based discussion

2. The East is BY FAR the weakest region by pretty much any measure. I do have Indiana as the second-best team in the nation, but Miami-Marquette-Syracuse-UNLV-Butler-Illinois as your Nos. 2-7 seeds? Just awful. If you're in a multiply or add seed pool, this is the region where you pick Indiana and then all upsets and clean up.

3. There were plenty of head-scratchers in the seeding -- some of the Pac 12 teams getting 12 seeds while UCLA came up with a 6, for instance -- I only have three games in which the lower-seeded team is "better" than the higher-seeded team: Middle Tennessee/St. Mary's over Memphis (both teams are better), Boise State over Kansas State, and Minnesota over UCLA. So, again, more credit is due to the selection committee for incorporating at least some semblance of advanced metrics into their thought processes.

What follows now is a breakdown of other various outcome-based numerology I've created through a full tournament predictor. Again, this uses a proprietary metric and assigns probabilities for literally everything that might occur in this tournament. I can give you the likelihood that Team A will play Team B in the Sweet 16, and the likelihood that Team A will beat Team B in the Sweet 16, in just a few seconds.

In fact, just take a look at the below chart for the probabilities that each team wins the following number of games. As an example of what the chart means: Louisville is 66.87% likely to win both of their first two games, i.e. make the Sweet 16. They are 49.84% likely to make the Elite 8 and 29.33% likely to make the Final Four. Finally, they are 17.79% likely to make the championship game and have a 10.17% chance to win it all.

Here's the rest:

	winboth	win3	win4	win5	win6
LOUISVILLE	0.6687	0.498415	0.293286	0.177967	0.101764
NORTH CAROLINA A-T	0.000274	9.84E-06	1.77E-07	3.31E-09	5.45E-11
COLORADO ST.	0.201023	0.123253	0.053958	0.024581	0.01035
MISSOURI	0.130003	0.071613	0.026962	0.010596	0.003819
OKLAHOMA ST.	0.407285	0.148789	0.058759	0.0242	0.009163
OREGON	0.172292	0.04173	0.011122	0.003108	0.000786
ST. LOUIS	0.354312	0.107154	0.035339	0.012191	0.003835
NEW MEXICO ST.	0.066111	0.009036	0.001384	0.000223	3.2E-05
MEMPHIS	0.094997	0.0226	0.005919	0.001502	0.000344
ST. MARY'S	0.238526	0.084166	0.031844	0.011856	0.004039
MICHIGAN ST.	0.626329	0.336897	0.188208	0.10514	0.055001
VALPARAISO	0.040149	0.006386	0.001143	0.000195	2.98E-05
CREIGHTON	0.200745	0.094981	0.042161	0.018546	0.007526
CINCINNATI	0.167933	0.075137	0.031421	0.012988	0.004936
DUKE	0.629822	0.379755	0.21849	0.125827	0.068009
ALBANY	0.001501	7.81E-05	3.46E-06	1.42E-07	5.15E-09
	winboth	win3	win4	win5	win6
GONZAGA	0.575731	0.339992	0.201581	0.105889	0.055037
SOUTHERN	0.001583	7.85E-05	3.97E-06	1.53E-07	5.67E-09
PITTSBURGH	0.313836	0.172841	0.095595	0.046331	0.022191
WICHITA ST.	0.108851	0.042546	0.016722	0.005515	0.001787
WISCONSIN	0.494302	0.262549	0.154573	0.080533	0.041511
MISSISSIPPI	0.09035	0.024333	0.007834	0.002077	0.000539
KANSAS ST.	0.199895	0.074719	0.032327	0.011862	0.004283
BOISE ST.	0.215453	0.082941	0.036836	0.013918	0.005177
ARIZONA	0.394816	0.188761	0.082795	0.03459	0.014249
BELMONT	0.116125	0.034455	0.008923	0.002184	0.000523
NEW MEXICO	0.459031	0.212808	0.090198	0.036385	0.014464
HARVARD	0.030028	0.004515	0.000562	6.58E-05	7.48E-06
NOTRE DAME	0.202908	0.092287	0.032887	0.011117	0.003693
IOWA ST.	0.139997	0.055962	0.017127	0.004962	0.00141
OHIO ST.	0.633344	0.406813	0.22147	0.115585	0.059683
IONA	0.023751	0.004398	0.000566	6.88E-05	8.1E-06
	winboth	win3	win4	win5	win6
KANSAS	0.591331	0.306168	0.147101	0.074757	0.036158
WESTERN KENTUCKY	0.003251	0.00018	8.01E-06	4.04E-07	1.79E-08
NORTH CAROLINA	0.274947	0.122116	0.049674	0.021576	0.008824
VILLANOVA	0.130471	0.044079	0.013342	0.004375	0.001328
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH	0.280567	0.126478	0.049014	0.020334	0.00792
AKRON	0.06358	0.015994	0.003317	0.000756	0.000157
MICHIGAN	0.643295	0.383584	0.203251	0.113233	0.060436
SOUTH DAKOTA ST.	0.012559	0.001401	0.000125	1.25E-05	1.11E-06
UCLA	0.094654	0.038013	0.013415	0.004683	0.001519
MINNESOTA	0.26037	0.144332	0.072379	0.035785	0.016806
FLORIDA	0.638084	0.433424	0.273175	0.169707	0.101824
NORTHWESTERN ST.	0.006892	0.00083	8.3E-05	8.32E-06	7.38E-07
SAN DIEGO ST.	0.360356	0.147861	0.070624	0.033268	0.014836
OKLAHOMA	0.130856	0.034957	0.011232	0.003574	0.001051
GEORGETOWN	0.501682	0.200181	0.093232	0.042832	0.018598
FLORIDA GULF COAST	0.007106	0.000403	2.84E-05	2E-06	1.24E-07
	winboth	win3	win4	win5	win6
INDIANA	0.757999	0.48862	0.341104	0.199876	0.117443
JAMES MADISON	0.001367	5.37E-05	2.64E-06	7.88E-08	2.35E-09
NORTH CAROLINA ST.	0.180625	0.072176	0.033095	0.011295	0.003864
TEMPLE	0.060008	0.015866	0.004979	0.001084	0.000237
NEVADA LAS VEGAS	0.24847	0.090696	0.045237	0.017127	0.0065
CALIFORNIA	0.116202	0.031398	0.012128	0.003367	0.000937
SYRACUSE	0.631688	0.301018	0.185509	0.092001	0.045748
MONTANA	0.00364	0.000171	1.26E-05	5.7E-07	2.58E-08
BUTLER	0.294871	0.108533	0.030533	0.008671	0.002468
BUCKNELL	0.115116	0.028222	0.005079	0.000917	0.000166
MARQUETTE	0.527918	0.24942	0.093335	0.035375	0.01344
DAVIDSON	0.062095	0.011387	0.001501	0.000198	2.61E-05
ILLINOIS	0.251755	0.144884	0.053781	0.020218	0.007619
COLORADO	0.195996	0.105102	0.035202	0.011928	0.004051
MIAMI FL	0.524294	0.345404	0.157608	0.072928	0.033832
PACIFIC	0.027955	0.007048	0.000893	0.000113	1.43E-05

If you can't make sense of that chart and just want to know who I think is most likely to win it all, the answer is Indiana. I give them an 11.7% chance of winning the title.

Beyond all of that, if you're in a larger pool or have the ability to bet on the winner of the NCAA tournament, I like the following squads: Michigan, Minnesota, San Diego State and Colorado State. Michigan is a team that isn't that far removed from the upper echelon, yet you can grab them at a whopping 30/1 in some places. The biggest argument against them is probably the tough potential second-round matchup against VCU, but they get Kansas -- the weakest 1 to my system -- and maybe even Georgetown -- the weakest 2.

In fact, you'll notice that the first three teams I listed there were all from the South regional. Minnesota figures to benefit greatly from getting outside of the Big 10 and has an easy matchup (for an 11 seed) against UCLA to open the tourney. Florida presents the biggest hurdle for them in round 2. Minnesota at 85/1 is not bad.

San Diego State is not as good as either of the above teams, but I think the odds you can get on them currently are totally out of line. 220/1! Compare that to 15/1 on New Mexico and, well ... the Lobos are not that much better than the Aztecs. Granted, I don't think they ought to be equal odds, but there's a solid overlay on San Diego State. Yeah, it's hard to see them going all the way, but if they can win a few, you could start hedging out of the position with ease.

I'm not going to get into detailed odds discussions about the following, but if you're looking for some longer shots to win various regions, I don't hate the following:

TO WIN MIDWEST REGION: CINCINNATI, COLORADO STATE, MICHIGAN STATE, OKLAHOMA STATE, ST. MARY'S

TO WIN SOUTH REGION: MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, SAN DIEGO STATE

TO WIN WEST REGION: BOISE STATE, WISCONSIN

TO WIN EAST REGION: COLORADO, ILLINOIS, MARQUETTE

Finally, here's some specific prop-based analysis that may vary depending on your betting outlet of choice:

TOTAL #1 SEEDS TO MAKE THE FINAL FOUR: I come up with .98 No. 1 seeds making the Final Four.

Total ACC wins = 8.813
Duke 2.39
UNC 1.09
Miami 1.99
NC State .95

Total Big East wins = 12
Louisville 2.73
Cincinnati .76
Pittsburgh 1.31
Notre Dame .90
Villanova .58
Georgetown 1.78
Syracuse 2.21
Marquette 1.73

Total Big 10 wins = 13.72
Michigan St. 2.18
Wisconsin 1.79
Ohio St. 2.33
Michigan 2.33
Minnesota 1.18
Indiana 2.89
Illinois 1.02

Total Big 12 wins = 5.39
Oklahoma St. 1.29
Kansas St. .81
Iowa St. .66
Kansas 2.11
Oklahoma .52

Total Pac 12 wins = 3.85
Oregon .58
Arizona 1.41
UCLA .5
Cal .55
Colorado .81

Total SEC wins = 3.61
Missouri .68
Ole Miss .37
Florida 2.56

Will a 12 seed win at least one game?

I give Cal a 38.4% chance of beating UNLV. Akron a 28.7% chance of beating VCU. Ole Miss a 24.2% chance of beating Wisconsin. Oregon a 35.3% chance of beating Oklahoma State.

We first need to calculate the likelihood none of the events occur, i.e. they all lose. So that’s .616 * .713 * .758 * .647 = .215. 1-.215 = .785 or a 78.5% chance that at least one No. 12 seed will win.

Will a 14, 15 or 16 seed win at least one game?

If you want exact probabilities on these, too bad. Suffice to say, using the same procedure as above, there is a 34.2% chance that a 14, 15 or 16 seed WILL NOT win at least one game; ergo, there is a 65.8% chance that at least one 14, 15 or 16 seed WILL win a game.

The Best March Madness Pool Ever is back

Last year, I introduced a revolutionary new idea that makes picking brackets more fun than ever before.

The idea was designed to mitigate the fact that, in most bracket formats, if your title team gets upset early, you're pretty much out of the running.

The idea was THE BEST MARCH MADNESS POOL EVER. 

And it's back for another run here in 2013.

Here's a quick overview of the rules:

1. Each person gets a budget of $100 each week of the tournament (before the second/third rounds, before the Sweet 16/Elite 8, and before the Final 4/Championship).

2. Each person will select as many teams as they desire as long as said teams can fit in their budget.

3. Teams will earn points as follows:

Second round win = 1 point
Third round win = 3 points
Sweet 16 win = 2 points
Elite 8 win= 6 points
Final 4 win = 3 points
Championship win = 9 points

If you're wondering why the scoring works this way, it's because A) It's harder to pick the second game of the weekend than it is the first, B) It's harder to pick games later in the tournament, C) You need more points when there are less games to more properly even the scoring out (even though it's not necessarily completely even, it's a bit more distributed this way).

4. The most points at the end of the tournament wins. The winner will take 60% of the pot, second will take 30%, and third will take 10%.

5. The entry fee will be $30.

If you're wondering how the price per team will be created, I'll simply use a proprietary spreadsheet uses a proprietary rating that gives each possible outcome in the tournament a percentage (for instance, Colorado has a .41% chance to win it all, VCU has a 4.9% chance to make the Final Four, etc.).

As an example, Michigan State is 62.63% likely to win two games and their opponent, Valparaiso, is 4.01% likely to win two games. 

The idea is to use these percentages to price each team by simply rather crudely cutting them in half. To use the above teams as an example, Michigan State will "cost" you $31 (rounding) and Valpo will "cost" you $2. If a team were somehow 100% likely to win both games, their cost would be $50.

So, without further ado, here is the price list for week 1:

INDIANA	38
LOUISVILLE	33
MICHIGAN	32
FLORIDA	32
OHIO ST.	32
SYRACUSE	32
DUKE	31
MICHIGAN ST.	31
KANSAS	30
GONZAGA	29
MARQUETTE	26
MIAMI FL	26
GEORGETOWN	25
WISCONSIN	25
NEW MEXICO	23
OKLAHOMA ST.	20
ARIZONA	20
SAN DIEGO ST.	18
ST. LOUIS	18
PITTSBURGH	16
BUTLER	15
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH	14
NORTH CAROLINA	14
MINNESOTA	13
ILLINOIS	13
NEVADA LAS VEGAS	12
ST. MARY'S	12
BOISE ST.	11
NOTRE DAME	10
COLORADO ST.	10
CREIGHTON	10
KANSAS ST.	10
COLORADO	10
NORTH CAROLINA ST.	9
OREGON	9
CINCINNATI	8
IOWA ST.	7
OKLAHOMA	7
VILLANOVA	7
MISSOURI	7
CALIFORNIA	6
BELMONT	6
BUCKNELL	6
WICHITA ST.	5
MEMPHIS	5
UCLA	5
MISSISSIPPI	5
NEW MEXICO ST.	3
AKRON	3
DAVIDSON	3
TEMPLE	3
VALPARAISO	2
HARVARD	2
PACIFIC	1
IONA	1
SOUTH DAKOTA ST.	1
FLORIDA GULF COAST	1
NORTHWESTERN ST.	1
MONTANA	1
WESTERN KENTUCKY	1
SOUTHERN	1
ALBANY	1
JAMES MADISON	1
NORTH CAROLINA A-T	1

Again, you can construct a squad of however many teams you would like AS LONG AS YOU STAY AT OR UNDER $100. You could literally have 28 teams in your stable! Unfortunately, almost none of these teams would be likely to win even one game, let alone two, so that's what you need to grapple with. Do you want to take a few near sure-things (like Indiana and Louisville) and a few longer shots, or do you take a ton of longshots? Or try for some happy medium?

Whatever you do, remember that even if your teams flame out this week, you'll be supplied with new team prices next week and should still have a chance to win regardless of what happened (last year, everyone was still in contention after the first weekend and only one of 11 people was eliminated entirely heading into the Final Four).

You can have as many entries as you want. Feel free to share with friends, but if we get above 20 entries somehow, I'm keeping 5% for myself for doing the legwork.

If you want to be in, send me an email at bobwothe@gmail.com titled 2013 NCAA POOL WEEK 1 TEAMS with your teams and $30 via PayPal gift (bobwothe@gmail.com) or check (2190 Willow Hill Dr., Neenah, WI 54956) by Thursday, 3/21, at 10 a.m. CST. If you haven't gotten me the money or made other arrangements by then, your entry will not count, PERIOD.

Last thing: In order to remove any issues with me knowing other people's picks before giving my own, I will send my picks to a new email account each week before 11:59 p.m. CST Monday of that week. You will then need to get your picks to me by 11:59 p.m. CST Tuesday of that week. Then, Wednesday night/Thursday morning of each week, I will send out an email with a spreadsheet containing everyone's picks AS WELL AS the login credentials to the email account that I create. This will provide a timestamped version of my picks so that you can rest assured that I am not cheating.

As for this first week, I have already sent my two entries on to this new email address, so you may send in your entries whenever you wish.

Let me know if you have any questions. Again, feel free to share this with others! 

3/3 NCAA Tourney Update

Read my last post for details on how I'm doing this.

Here are the current 31 projected conference winners:

A10	VCU
ACC	DUKE
AEAST	STONY BROOK
ASUN	MERCER
B10	INDIANA
B12	KANSAS
BEAST	LOUISVILLE
BSKY	WEBER
BSOUTH	CHARLESTON SOUTHERN
BWEST	PACIFIC
CAA	G MASON
CUSA	SOUTHERN MISS
HORZ	DETROIT
IVY	PRINCETON
MAAC	IONA
MAC	AKRON
MEAC	NC CENTRAL
MVC	CREIGHTON
MWC	SAN DIEGO ST
NEC	ROBERT MORRIS
OVC	BELMONT
P12	ARIZONA
PAT	BUCKNELL
SB	MIDDLE TENNESSEE
SOCON	DAVIDSON
SEC	FLORIDA
SIND	STEPHEN F. AUSTIN
SUM	NORTH DAKOTA ST.
SWAC	SOUTHERN
WAC	DENVER
WCC	GONZAGA

Notes on some changes and surprising non-changes:

• Mercer moved past Florida Gulf Coast in the Atlantic Sun.
• Charleston Southern took a bid from NC Asheville in the Big South.
• Southern Miss continues to hold on to Conference USA despite the fact that Memphis has handled them pretty easily twice now.
• Princeton was projected to win the Ivy last time I did this, which was at a time when Harvard appeared to be in full control. Well, now Princeton has three games they should win (all on the road, but still) to wrap up the Ivy.
• San Diego State is still projected to win the Mountain West, somehow. There are so many good teams clumped together there that it's a crapshoot, but my system kind of hates New Mexico.
• Robert Morris jumped Bryant in the NEC. All hail Bob Morris.
• Denver continues to hold on to the WAC, and by a pretty comfortable margin. They won't win the regular season crown barring some weird shit from La Tech, but I'll name them the favorite in the conference tourney.

At-larges (1-37):

1 WISCONSIN
2 MICHIGAN ST.
3 SYRACUSE
4 OHIO ST.
5 MINNESOTA
6 PITTSBURGH
7 MIAMI FL
8 COLORADO ST.
9 GEORGETOWN
10 NORTH CAROLINA
11 UNLV
12 NEW MEXICO
13 MARQUETTE
14 ILLINOIS
15 CINCINNATI
16 OKLAHOMA ST.
17 KANSAS ST.
18 BOISE ST.
19 KENTUCKY
20 BAYLOR
21 VIRGINIA
22 MISSOURI
23 ST. MARY'S
24 NORTH CAROLINA ST.
25 COLORADO
26 UCLA
27 WICHITA ST.
28 OKLAHOMA
29 ST. LOUIS
30 IOWA
31 NOTRE DAME
32 STANFORD
33 NORTHERN IOWA

LAST FOUR IN:
34 CALIFORNIA
35 IOWA ST.
36 OREGON
37 BUTLER

FIRST FOUR OUT:
38 VILLANOVA
39 MISSISSIPPI
40 LA SALLE
41 WYOMING

NEXT FOUR OUT:
42 PROVIDENCE
43 TENNESSEE
44 ARKANSAS
45 MEMPHIS

Notes on the above:

FALLERS:

• Northern Iowa has dropped quite a bit. In reality, they have little chance unless they go on a big run in the MVC tourney (probably need to win it, really -- at 18-13, their record is blah), but they haven't lost to any bad teams other than a clunker at Southern Illinois last Wednesday.
• Butler! In reality, wins over Marquette, North Carolina, Indiana and Gonzaga have the Bulldogs in absolutely no danger o missing the tourney. But they've struggled somewhat against some lesser A10 teams (and even awful teams like Ball State, Penn and New Orleans -- seriously, they only beat New Orleans by 13). And they lost to a middling Charlotte squad. And they've lost two straight against St. Louis (at home) and by 32 at VCU. It would be hard to logically argue against any team capable of beating Indiana in OT or Gonzaga not making the tourney, but that's where you have to consider: How much differently would you view Butler if they hadn't beat Marquette, Gonzaga and Indiana by a COMBINED margin of four points? And then consider how generally meaningless those close wins are ... and you realize that Butler can't exactly afford to blow any of their final two games. They'll get in because they're BUTLER, but in a perfect world they would have work to do.
• Wyoming's season has really gone down the drain with some injuries and suspensions. They have no business being in at this point, so I'm glad they are now pretty solidly out.
• Ole Miss has dropped to first four out territory. That last post I made came on Feb. 18. On Feb. 20, Ole Miss lost to South Carolina. Then, on March 2, they lost to Mississippi State. Those are the Nos. 185 and 228 teams in my rankings. That is, how you say, DAMAGING.
• La Salle was barely in last time, and now they're barely out.

RISERS:

• Oregon, Cal, and most emphatically Notre Dame moved to the right side of the bubble. ND got big wins over Pittsburgh and Cincinnati to cement their status as a tourney team.
• St. Louis made the least sense to me as a "next four out" team last time around, so I was glad to see that they're now solidly in. 

STANDING STILL:

• Villanova is still the first team out. Yikes. They had a chance to put themselves solidly in today at Pitt, but they blew it. I should note that these ratings did not include today's games, so I'm quite sure that kind of performance against Pitt would probably put them in.
• Providence remains in the next four out list. At 16-12, they probably don't have much of a chance in reality, but that's why pure win-loss is a shame -- they lost to Syracuse by 6, at Georgetown by 9, Pitt by 4, UConn by 3 ...they really did themselves in, though, around the New Year. They went from 8-2 to 8-7, with three of those losses coming to fairly poor Boston College, Brown and DePaul squads. 

FINAL THOUGHTS:

I'm still rolling with Florida as my best team, but it's less emphatic than it was in the last update. In fact, the team most likely to beat Florida is ... DRUMROLL PLEASE ... the Wisconsin Badgers. Yep, the same Wisconsin Badgers squad that Florida rolled by 18 back on Nov. 14, and the same Wisconsin Badgers squad that lost to Purdue today. By my numbers, Wisconsin is slightly more likely to knock off Florida than Indiana, which in turn is slightly more likely to knock off Florida than Duke. 

I know this will likely cause you to discount my numbers and musings altogether, but hear me out: It's likely to be a very defensive game with fewer possessions than you'd see in any of the other matchups listed above. A Wisconsin-Florida game would be in the 50s or low-60s. The others would be in the high-60s/low-70s. 

Now say it with me: FEWER POSSESSIONS = BETTER CHANCE FOR AN UPSET.

The easiest way to think about this is to boil it down in rather extreme terms: Let's say you play Michael Jordan in 1-on-1 for $10,000 (because Michael Jordan is a compulsive gambler and you have money to burn because your great aunt just died and left you $1 million). And let's say Mr. Jordan gives you two options: You can play first one to 15 wins OR you can play one possession each -- you each get the ball with a chance to score one time only. 

You don't even think about it, right? Assuming Jordan can dunk on you 80% of the time and make a 3 the other 15% of the time, he's going to score 95% of the time. You, on the other hand, have a 2% chance of scoring on some kind of ridiculous move going at Jordan, and a 5% chance of bombing in a 3 over him from 30 feet away.

Your odds are terrible either way, but if it's a one possession proposition, he doesn't score about 5% of the time and you DO score 7% of the time. Yes, your chance of beating Michael Jordan in 1-on-1 for even one possession is still less than one-half of one percent, but it's within the realm of reasonable conjecture.

On the other hand, if you play to 15, you enter scientific notation territory. You truly have a better chance of being struck by lightning. 

And yet teams seem to ignore this all the time. Yes, I'm entering diatribe territory here, but it kills me when I see inferior teams pressing the pace and trying to speed the game up. It's one thing to do this when it's truly meant to alter how the other team plays -- as much as I hate VCU, their style of play is a good example of this. But so many teams run without a purpose -- if teams take care of the ball against VCU, the Rams actually play fairly slow offensively. They're deliberate and take mostly good shots.

But a lot of teams artificially press the tempo and end up taking terrible shots and wasting possessions. Again, it could be one thing if this was part of your strategy, but the only place I know that truly successfully does that is Grinnell College. So many teams that play fast end up simply sacrificing efficiency on both ends and nothing more. 

So, it will kill me over the next couple of weeks when more or less awful teams with nothing to lose don't change things up and try to get into a 45-40 game with a much superior opponent. We'll see a pathetic Depaul team -- the third-fastest team in the nation and also 11-18 -- lose 90-70 in the Big East tournament and I will just shake my head. 

There is something to be said about a team having an identity and a preferred style, and that varying from that could negatively impact the team's overall efficiency. And while that may be true to some extent, when your team hasn't performed well all season, or if your team's year-to-date efficiency pales in comparison with your opponent's, why wouldn't you try to slow it down and hope to get some positive variance in your direction?

On the other hand, if you're the better team, it's harder to push the tempo to get more possessions, because you know that could negatively impact your efficiency if that's not your typical style of play. 

So, in some sense, assuming some level of ball control and ability to not turn the ball over, the underdog has the edge in dictating how a game is played. And yet coaches so often ignore this fact. 

Basketball is a simple game: You want to get the best shots you can get and force your opponents to take the worst shots possible. So many teams these days really seem to get off on PLAYING UP TEMPO, but it's an empty act -- tempo is meaningless on its own (unless, again, you're really at an extreme where you can affect the other team through conditioning). 

Good fast tempo comes from good defense. Bad fast tempo comes from good offense. 

Playing more slowly/deliberately won't necessarily make your team the next incarnation of the UCLA dynasty. But it will absolutely give you a better shot if you're outclassed.

A bias-free look at the NCAA tournament

It's that time of the year again.

Yeah, THAT time. The time when everyone with even a cursory interest in college basketball becomes the foremost expert on who belongs in the NCAA tournament and who belongs in the NIT.

It's both the best and worst time of the year. The anticipation of the next month leading up to Selection Sunday, the feeling that your team might be out if they don't win this game, or if this other team wins their game ... it's definitely part of the fun.

But it's also fairly silly. The idea that one game out of 30 is truly meaningful because a team NEEDS a road win for its resume, or NEEDS a win over a top-50 RPI team, and so on, is just ridiculous. They're all statistics that a committee of people who really don't know what they're doing can point to as a form of revisionist history to explain what really happened in the season.

As an example of how stupid this is, here's a typical example you'll see at this time of year to compare two teams:

TEAM A: 24-7 record, 0-3 vs RPI Top 50, 1-5 vs RPI Top 100
TEAM B: 19-10 record, 3-5 vs RPI Top 50, 5-8 vs RPI Top 100

It is, of course, immediately obvious that one team is a big conference team with a lot of chances for those so-called QUALITY WINS, and the other team is a small conference team that didn't beat anyone of import all season.

What's frustrating, of course, is that anyone with any sort of knowledge about the game at all knows that the way these teams played these games is extremely important. TEAM A may have lost those three games against the RPI Top 50 by a combined 7 points, and those three teams they lost to may all be Top 10 teams. Meanwhile, TEAM B may have won some nailbiters vs. fairly average times based on what amounts to luck, while getting blown out in many of their other games against quality competition.

So, obviously, looking at so-called resumes is really a poor way to go about selecting teams for a tournament. You need to look at the full picture.

---

As with many things in life, you have to know what question you're trying to answer before you spew something out.

One of the main problems with the NCAA tournament selection process over the years is that the question the committee is trying to answer keeps on changing. One year, we'll hear that the committee liked to see a team play a tough schedule even though it didn't necessarily pull out the big wins. Another year, we'll hear the committee placed a lot of value in a few select road wins despite an otherwise unimpressive "body of work."

In other words, the committee often answers one of two questions, only you're never exactly sure which:

1. Which team had the best season?
2. Which team is the better team?

It's a truly important distinction. Take the season we're going through right now, and take two teams in the Big 10: Ohio State and Illinois. Ohio State is 18-7, Illinois is 19-8. You would be pretty hard-pressed to say Ohio State is having a better season. Other than wins over Michigan and Wisconsin at home, they really haven't beaten anyone. On the other hand, Illinois has won AT Gonzaga, on a neutral floor against Butler, and has knocked off both Ohio State and Indiana at home.

But Ohio State is also pretty indisputably a better team. They lost to Duke by 5, Kansas by 8, Michigan State by 3 and Michigan by 2. As mentioned previously, if you have any concept of how to evaluate the game of basketball, you know that such results are a lot more meaningful and predictive of true future performance than wins and losses.

So, to sum this part of the conversation up, the goal of the NCAA tournament is to determine the best team. Therefore, I think the question that needs to be answered is not which team had the best season; rather, which teams are better than the others?

---

There's one final point of contention: How much do you weight recent results? And how much do you penalize a team for an injury that might really hurt them?

Kentucky is the obvious example this season. Although the Wildcats have only played one game without Nerlens Noel, they certainly look like a completely different, non-tourney-bid-deserving squad without him. So, if Kentucky flounders down the stretch, how do you reconcile their recent results without Noel with their results with him? Or what if another team that has been completely ordinary to date -- let's use 13-12 Clemson as an example -- goes on a tear and wins four of their final five regular season games, then makes the finals of the ACC tournament?

Simple: You have to look at the full season.

You might think my answer contradicts with my "best team, not best season" answer above, but it really doesn't: A sample size of a few weeks is pretty non-representative of a team's true skill. It's similar to the notion of a "hot hand" in basketball -- just because a guy makes 4 of his last 5 shots doesn't suddenly make him an 80% shooter. The Noel and other injury situations are more interesting in that you can argue that they're totally different teams without their best players, but I'd rather stick to the full season as a true example of a team's ability than a short sample and a lot of guessing at how good a team "really" is.

In short: You want the best teams over the course of the season.

---

With all of that said, I went through and used my proprietary set of numbers to select the 31 conference champions and 37 at-large teams based solely on the numbers. There was no evaluation of road wins or RPI Top 50 wins, etc. It was simply taking the top team in my system to win each conference, and then the top 37 teams that didn't win their conferences. Without further ado, here goes:


Conference winners:

A10 VCU
ACC DUKE
AEAST STONY BROOK
ASUN FL GULF COAST
B10 INDIANA
B12 KANSAS
BE LOUISVILLE
BSKY WEBER
BSTH NC ASHEVILLE
BW PACIFIC
CAA GEORGE MASON
CUSA SOUTHERN MISS
HORZ DETROIT
IVY PRINCETON
MAAC IONA
MAC AKRON
MEAC NC CENTRAL
MVC CREIGHTON
MWC SAN DIEGO ST
NEC BRYANT
OVC BELMONT
P12 ARIZONA
PAT BUCKNELL
SB MIDDLE TENNESSEE
SC DAVIDSON
SEC FLORIDA
SIND SF AUSTIN
SUM ND STATE
SWAC SOUTHERN
WAC DENVER
WCC GONZAGA

At-large bids (Nos. 1-37):

B10 MICHIGAN
B10 MICHIGAN ST
ACC MIAMI FL
B10 WISCONSIN
BE SYRACUSE
B10 MINNESOTA
BE PITTSBURGH
B10 OHIO ST
MWC COLORADO ST
B12 BAYLOR
SEC KENTUCKY
BE CINCINNATI
B10 ILLINOIS
ACC NORTH CAROLINA
B12 KANSAS ST
ACC NORTH CAROLINA ST
B12 OKLAHOMA ST
MWC BOISE ST
P12 COLORADO
MWC UNLV
MWC NEW MEXICO
BE GEORGETOWN
BE MARQUETTE
P12 STANFORD
WCC ST. MARY'S
MVC NORTHERN IOWA
MVC WICHITA ST
SEC MISSOURI
ACC VIRGINIA
A10 BUTLER
MWC WYOMING
SEC MISSISSIPPI
B12 OKLAHOMA
P12 UCLA
B10 IOWA
B12 IOWA ST
A10 LA SALLE

First four out:
BE VILLANOVA
P12 OREGON
P12 CALIFORNIA
BE NOTRE DAME

Next four out:
A10 ST LOUIS
WCC BYU
BE PROVIDENCE
MVC ILLINOIS ST.

Breakdown of bids by conference:

Big 10 (8): Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St., Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio St., Illinois
Big 12 (6): Kansas, Baylor, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., Oklahoma, Iowa St.
Big East (6): Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Georgetown, Marquette

MWC (6): San Diego St., Colorado St., Boise St., UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming

ACC (5) : Duke, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia
Pac 12 (4): Arizona, Colorado, Stanford, UCLA
SEC (4): Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi

A10 (3): VCU, Butler, La Salle

MVC (3): Creighton, Northern Iowa, Wichita St.

WCC (2): Gonzaga, St. Mary's

American East (1) : Stony Brook
Atlantic Sun (1): Florida Gulf Coast
Big Sky (1): Weber St.
Big South (1): NC Asheville
Big West (1): Pacific
Colonial (1): George Mason
Conference USA (1): Southern Miss
Horizon (1): Detroit
Ivy (1): Princeton
MAAC (1): Iona
MAC (1): Akron
MEAC (1): NC Central
NEC (1): Bryant
Ohio Valley (1): Belmont
Patriot (1): Bucknell
Sun Belt (1): Middle Tennessee
SoCon (1): Davidson
Southland (1): SF Austin
Summit (1): North Dakota St.
SWAC (1): Southern
WAC (1): Denver


A few surprises, obviously:

* Notre Dame is a No. 6 seed in Joe Lunardi's breakdown, but I have them missing the tournament currently. Of course, this is the bias-free world ... in the real world, a 20-6 Notre Dame team is solidly in, no matter how they played to get there. I think they will stumble repeatedly down the stretch and actually turn into the bubble team I currently have them as.

* Oregon is another team Lunardi has pegged as a No. 6 seed that I have on the outside looking in. This may seem surprising, but when you look at their results -- and I don't want to get into this type of breakdown too much because it's the very thing I'm trying to avoid -- you'll see that they have three wins that might warrant some positive impressions: AT UNLV, AT UCLA, and at home against Arizona. Beyond that, they've had some very narrow (read: potentially lucky) wins over the likes of Arizona State, USC, Washington and Washington State. The Ducks are overrated thanks to a good record in an exceedingly poor Pac 12.

* The Mountain West gets six teams in. Boise State is a surprise but widely presumed to be on the bubble ... Wyoming is the real surprise. But you have to remember ... this is BIAS-FREE. This team started 13-0 while beating Colorado, Illinois State and Denver, and has since notched a nice win over San Diego State. They've also narrowly lost to New Mexico and Boise State (twice). This team is 18-7! Let's put it this way: Give Notre Dame a resume like Wyoming's and they're solidly in. This is the problem with the current process.

---

From here, let's just go straight to matchups. I'm ignoring geography because that's a total joke, too -- just pairing the top team with the first four winners, and so on. I'll also predict scores as we go along. I should note that just because one team was rated above another in my overall listing does not necessarily mean that team will win -- my system accounts for a bunch of factors that may predict some (mostly mild) upsets. Here goes:

FIRST FOUR:

#16 George Mason def. #16 Bryant 68-65
#16 Florida Gulf Coast def. #16 Southern 69-67
#12 La Salle def. #12 Iowa St. 75-74
#12 UCLA def. #12 Iowa 73-72

That would be a fun first four, except for the state of Iowa. Let's hope the games are even remotely that close.

SECOND ROUND:

#1 Florida def. #16 Florida Gulf Coast 80-55
#9 Marquette def. #8 Georgetown 61-60
#5 Colorado St. def. #12 La Salle 72-65
#4 San Diego St. def. #13 North Dakota St. 61-57
#6 VCU def. #11 Butler 68-67
#3 Syracuse def. #14 NC Central 73-60
#7 Kansas St. def. #10 Virginia 60-58
#2 Wisconsin def. #15 Weber St. 64-56

#1 Louisville def. #16 Iona 86-71
#9 St. Mary's def. #8 Colorado 70-67
#5 Cincinnati def. #12 UCLA 72-70
#4 Ohio St. def. #13 SF Austin 58-48
#6 Illinois def. #11 Oklahoma 70-65
#3 Gonzaga def. #14 Denver 69-60
#7 Boise St. def. #10 Northern Iowa 67-66
#2 Duke def. #15 Davidson 77-63

#1 Michigan def. #16 NC Asheville 80-60
#8 UNLV def. #9 Stanford 68-67
#5 Kentucky def. #12 Belmont 70-67
#4 Kansas def. #13 Detroit 77-70
#6 UNC def. #11 Ole Miss 79-75
#3 Pittsburgh def. #14 Bucknell 63-55
#7 Oklahoma St. def. #10 Wichita St. 64-62
#2 Michigan St. def. #15 Stony Brook 65-56

#1 Indiana def. #16 George Mason 80-59
#8 New Mexico def. #9 Southern Miss 67-63
#5 Baylor def. #12 Middle Tennessee 71-67
#4 Arizona def. #13 Akron 71-64
#6 Creighton def. #11 Wyoming 63-62
#3 Minnesota def. #14 Pacific 66-58
#10 Missouri def. #7 NC State 79-78
#2 Miami def. #15 Princeton 66-57

Third round:

#1 Florida def. #9 Marquette 76-64
#5 Colorado St. def. #4 San Diego St. 65-64
#3 Syracuse def. #6 VCU 73-69
#2 Wisconsin def. #7 Kansas St. 63-58

#1 Louisville def. #9 St. Mary's 71-66
#4 Ohio St. def. #5 Cincinnati 67-63
#3 Gonzaga def. #6 Illinois 72-70
#2 Duke def. #7 Boise St. 76-69

#1 Michigan def. #8 UNLV 74-66
#4 Kansas def. #5 Kentucky 69-66
#3 Pittsburgh def. #6 UNC 69-65
#2 Michigan St. def. #7 Oklahoma St. 65-62

#1 Indiana def. #8 New Mexico 71-64
#4 Arizona def. #5 Baylor 72-69
#3 Minnesota def. #6 Creighton 72-67
#2 Miami def. #10 Missouri 72-68

Sweet 16 and Elite 8:

#1 Florida def. #5 Colorado St. 69-61
#2 Wisconsin def. #3 Syracuse 66-63
#1 Florida def. No. 2 Wisconsin 62-58

#1 Louisville def. #4 Ohio St. 67-66
#2 Duke def. #3 Gonzaga 73-72
#2 Duke def. #1 Louisville 72-71

#1 Michigan def. #4 Kansas 70-65
#3 Pittsburgh def. #2 Michigan St. 61-60
#1 Michigan def. #3 Pittsburgh 65-62

#1 Indiana def. #4 Arizona 73-69
#3 Minnesota def. #2 Miami 65-64

#1 Indiana def. #3 Minnesota 73-68

Final Four:

#1 Florida def. #2 Duke 70-65
#1 Michigan def. #1 Indiana 73-72

#1 Florida def. #1 Michigan 69-64

(As mentioned, there are some SLIGHT variations in my formula ... for instance, Indiana would be predicted to fare slightly better against Florida, losing 71-67, despite being predicted to lose against Michigan)

Anyway, the takeaways are as follows:

1. Take a look at the predicted scores again. This tournament is going to be TIGHT. I mean, REALLY TIGHT. Everyone says this is going to be a really fun March, and for once at least, the general narrative is pretty much spot-on. Except for ...

2. Florida is really, really good. I absolutely cannot understand how this team isn't considered a shoo-in for a No. 1 seed. There's really only one thing they don't do all that well: Get to the FT line. Beyond that, they are FAR AND AWAY the best team in the nation. They beat a very good Wisconsin team by 18. Marquette by 33. Missouri by 21. Ole Miss by 14. Kentucky by 17. And let's look at their losses. Arizona pulled a rabbit out of the hat by storming back for a 65-64 win on Dec. 15. Florida led 64-58 with less than a minute remaining, and somehow Arizona pulled it off. Florida's win probability was around 98% at that point, so that's just bad luck. Kansas State beat Florida the following Saturday, Dec. 22, 67-61. The Wildcats shot 29 FTs in that game as Florida was whistled for 20 personal fouls. Finally, there was the one real stinker put up against Arkansas where the Gators trailed by 27 at one point before making it look respectable down the stretch in an 80-69 loss.

Know how many other games they've played that have been decided by less than 10? ZERO. Yes, the SEC is down, but they're just destroying everyone. They're obviously very capable of losing with a poor effort -- we saw that against Arkansas -- but how anyone can see this team as anything other than the best in the country is beyond me.

3. Don't get too worked up about the lack of upsets. Obviously when the games are expected to be this close, it doesn't take much for a game to swing in either direction. Even seemingly clear-cut games take a surprising direction more often than you think they should, so a lot of these one or two-point games could be anyone's to take. In fact, there were a surprising number of games where the margin I came up with was LESS than 1, so take heart that I don't honestly expect 90% of higher seeds to win. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to arbitrarily pick and choose which slight underdog I expect to win when the numbers say they're only going to win 49.4% of the time.

The Second Annual Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview (Part III)

Hmmph. My first day of the 2012 Breeders’ Cup can be summed up as follows: I boxed up my top 4 horses in the Juvenile Fillies in search of hitting the tri, and it turned out that I would have hit the super if I had boxed up my top 5 for that bet. So, I did the logical thing and tried to hit the super in the Ladies’ Classic. This time, I would have hit the tri if I had tried boxing up my top 4. 

So, yeah … that’s just classic. 

The Second Annual Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview (Part II)

AWESOME FEATHER won the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies
two years ago and is undefeated in 10 lifetime starts.
Can she make it 11 for 11 in this year's Ladies' Classic?

Now the real fun begins.

There are six races to break down for Friday at the Breeders' Cup. After each horse, I'll list off their preferred BRIS running style (E=Early, E/P=Early/Presser, P=Presser, S=Sustained/Closer) and the morning line odds. From there, I'll discuss the pros and cons of each horse while explaining why I think that horse has a great shot/has no shot.

With so much to get to, let's just jump right in. Here goes ...

Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Sprint: Not a bad race to kick things off, although it did lose a bit of its luster to me when two speedy fillies who would have been among the favorites (Beholder and Kauai Katie) decided to go after the more lucrative Juvenile Fillies crown. This is the smallest field with just seven horses, and there’s a pretty good distribution of relatively experienced horses and highly touted newcomers. The morning line favorite is Merit Man at 8/5, and it appears warranted – he put up a 98 speed figure on this very track on Oct. 6 while running pace figures of 96-101-93, which almost exactly match the preferred shape of a winner: 96-103-93. Here’s a look at the field from the rail out:

1. HIGHTAIL (E3) 8/1 ML: The most experienced horse in the race is also the only maiden (horse yet to win a race). HIGHTAIL has run eight times and tried dirt sprints, polytrack routes, turf sprints and turf routes, but he hasn’t done better than finishing a neck back in one of the turf sprints. His trainer, D. Wayne Lukas, has made a habit of placing horses in over their heads recently, and nothing about HIGHTAIL makes me think he belongs here. He was seventh in the G2 Sanford and this field has roughly similar quality. His best running line has been 92-99-80 in a 6.5 furlong sprint at Saratoga on Aug. 4, and that doesn’t seem like enough to contend here.

The Second Annual Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview (Part I)

My favorite two days of the year are upon us.

The Breeders' Cup is back.

In keeping with tradition, it's time for me to churn out 20,000 words about what I expect to happen in each of the 15 races taking place at Santa Anita on Friday and Saturday.

I've always intended to make this more than just a place where I write about horse racing a few times a year, but since it's not yet, I'd like to draw attention to my last post, where I heartily endorsed the eventual Belmont Stakes winner UNION RAGS.

Anyway, in keeping with last year's format, Part I of the Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview is reserved for some frequently asked questions about the Breeders' Cup:

Question: What the hell is the Breeders' Cup?

Answer: The Breeders' Cup is a 15-race event that takes place on the first Friday and Saturday in every November and is essentially the world championship for horse racing. The Breeders' Cup Classic is akin to the Super Bowl of horse racing -- the best of the best.

Question: Uh, isn't the Kentucky Derby the Super Bowl of horse racing? 

Answer: No. I mean, kind of. The Kentucky Derby has more pomp and circumstance, but the Kentucky Derby is a race limited to only three-year-olds. The Breeders' Cup Classic is an event with no age limits on any races except for the four races limited to just two-year-olds. In other words, while the Derby winners are the horses who will be remembered by the general public, the winners of the Breeders' Cup races -- particularly the Classic -- are truly the best in the world.

Question: So, why the hell do they need 15 races to figure this out?

Answer: It's a question many people much smarter than you or I have asked. The simple answer is: More races = more handle = more money. But many of the races make good sense, especially when you consider that many horsemen simply don't like to run females against males if at all possible (you can draw your own sexual bias conclusions here, but the general feeling is that the ladies are often too stubborn and push themselves harder than they ought to against males, which leads to more injuries ... which is obviously the worst case scenario in horse racing). For instance, while the Classic is run on dirt at 10 furlongs (1 1/4 miles) -- the classic distance and what most folks in the industry believe is a true test of champions -- some horses simply weren't built to go that far, or don't like to race on dirt. So there are turf races (at varying distances) and dirt races (at varying distances) so that all types of horses have a chance to prove their mettle. It's the same reason track and field has races like the 100 meter, 200 meter, etc. Some races -- the Breeders' Cup Marathon, in particular -- are widely panned by critics as being unnecessary or even entirely meaningless, but most of the races are worthwhile and help to settle scores that may have not been settled throughout the year. (In horse racing, one of the most fun/irritating points of contention is East Coast vs. West Coast -- due to the amount of strain travel can impose on horses, some horsemen will only bring their horses East or West for the Breeders' Cup races, so this is the first time many of these horses will meet.)

Question: OK ... when are these races and when can I see them?

Answer: Here's the list of post times (listed in CST ... because that's where I live) and the accompanying television coverage:

FRIDAY:
(Dirt) Juvenile Sprint ($500,000) -- 6 furlongs -- 3:06 p.m. -- NBCSports
(Dirt) Marathon ($500,000) -- 1 3/4 miles -- 3:48 p.m. -- NBCSports
Juvenile Fillies Turf ($1,000,000) -- 1 mile -- 4:28 p.m. -- NBCSports
(Dirt) Juvenile Fillies ($2,000,000) -- 1 1/16 miles -- 5:08 p.m. -- NBCSports
Filly and Mare Turf ($2,000,000) -- 1 1/4 miles -- 5:48 p.m. -- NBCSports
(Dirt) Ladies' Classic ($2,000,000) -- 1 1/8 miles -- 6:40 p.m. -- NBCSports

SATURDAY:
Juvenile Turf ($1,000,000) -- 1 mile -- 1:50 p.m. -- HRTV/NBCSports (unclear)
(Dirt) Filly and Mare Sprint ($1,000,000) -- 7 furlongs -- 2:35 p.m. -- NBCSports
Dirt Mile ($1,000,000) -- 1 mile -- 3:14 p.m. -- NBCSports
Turf Sprint ($1,000,000) -- 6.5 furlongs -- 3:57 p.m. -- NBCSports
(Dirt) Juvenile ($2,000,000)  -- 1 1/16 miles -- 4:36 p.m. -- NBCSports

Turf ($3,000,000) -- 1 1/2 miles -- 5:18 p.m. -- NBCSports

(Dirt) Sprint ($1,500,000) -- 6 furlongs -- 5:58 p.m. -- NBCSports
(Turf) Mile ($2,000,000) -- 1 mile -- 6:40 pm. -- NBCSports
(Dirt) Classic ($5,000,000) -- 1 1/4 miles -- 7:30 p.m. -- NBC

I kind of hate this year's Breeders' Cup TV schedule even more than last year's, and I hated last year's quite a bit. Last year, ABC took a few hours in the middle of the day to show generally uninteresting races like the Juvenile Turf and the Turf Sprint, while the Classic was on ESPN.

This year, at least we get the Classic on a network in primetime, but at the cost of being stuck on NBCSports the rest of the weekend? Ugh. Maybe if the Breeders' Cup spent some of their purse money on securing better TV deals the sport might attract a larger fanbase.

Question: My God, that's a long time to watch horses intermittently run around the track ... which races might actually be worth watching?

Answer: Typically, the Classic on Saturday night is the race to watch if you're only going to tune in for one. This year, however, I would encourage you to tune in on Friday night instead.

This edition of the Ladies' Classic is LOADED. I'll get into specifics in my next post, but you have two undefeated horses that were 2-year-old champions (MY MISS AURELIA last year and AWESOME FEATHER in 2010) ... and they won't even be the favorites. That honor falls to ROYAL DELTA, who won the Ladies' Classic last year and has won three of her four last starts. And then you have LOVE AND PRIDE, the only horse to beat ROYAL DELTA in the last six months, and QUESTING, a horse that seems to have more pure talent and speed than any of the others and was a heavy favorite over MY MISS AURELIA in her last race. And then there's GRACE HALL, a horse that was favored over QUESTING just two months ago! And while neither of the final two have faced the same competition all of the above have, CLASS INCLUDED has 10 wins and six second-place finishes from 16 starts, while INCLUDE ME OUT is the locally-based horse that has won 4 of her last 6. Can you tell I'm excited about this one?

You should definitely watch it.

Beyond that, the Breeders' Cup did a pretty good job of packaging the best races as a lead-in into the Classic. Other than the Turf Sprint (which I think they should have put before the Dirt Mile), I could make a case for even a casual fan having an interest in all of the late-day races.

I'll work backward from the Classic, which is still obviously the big prize. Problem is, it doesn't have all that great of a field in my opinion. We had a lot of defections throughout the year, and the best 3-year-old we're left with is ALPHA, a horse that's on the morning line at 20/1. There are some very good to borderline great horses that are running, but I don't think any of these are brilliant horses that you HAVE to see race. GAME ON DUDE no longer has Chantal Sutherland on his back, and that will take away some of the luster for women. You don't have a horse like UNCLE MO that most people had heard of giving his elders a shot. You don't have anything like ZENYATTA, who carried this event for a couple of years there. (As heartbreaking as it is to share this video: Zenyatta just misses history, watch it and feel the excitement. Man, she was fun to watch even in defeat.)

But still, it's the Classic, and there are actually some horses I think are capable of brilliance -- they just haven't shown it yet. Those are the ones I want to bet on, but we'll get to that more later. Either way, you should watch because I said so.

The race right before it -- the (Turf!) Mile -- actually is a lot more intriguing from just about every viewpoint. Better horses, better storylines ... it's just a really interesting race. You have WISE DAN, a horse that has won on every surface and done so brilliantly. He's the best horse in America according to most. Then you have EXCELEBRATION, a European horse that has won 6 of his last 10 starts ... and the only times he didn't win was when he was facing the best horse in the world (possibly ever), FRANKEL. Then you have the former Kentucky Derby winner ANIMAL KINGDOM making a comeback after being away from the races since February with an injury. If you're only watching one race on Saturday, make it this one.

Finally, there's the Breeders' Cup Sprint. Of the big-name races, this has to be the most wide-open. First, it has 14 horses, so things could get crazy at the start. You have the defending champion of the race in AMAZOMBIE, a couple of speedy 3-year-olds (TRINNIBERG and THE LUMBER GUY) taking on their elders, a couple grizzled veterans in with a huge shot (COIL in particular) and FAST BULLET, a 4-year-old who has only run twice but is undefeated and could just be far and away the best. It doesn't have the storylines of the Turf Mile, but it's unrivaled as a betting race.

So, in short, the casual fan should plan on tuning into NBCSports at 6:30 on Friday night and watching the Ladies' Classic. Then, on Saturday, try to get to the couch by 5:45 for the final three races, or at least make it there by 6:30 so you can see the Mile and the Classic.

That's it for this part of the preview. In parts 2 and 3 (to come in the next few days), I'll break down Friday and Saturday's races.