Thursday, May 19, 2011

The Wothism Preakness Preview

Animal Kingdom was one of my top three picks in the
Kentucky Derby two weeks ago. Will he be a pick again?
I should have gloated more.

After ANIMAL KINGDOM won the Kentucky Derby at 20-1 as one of my top three picks, I should have been trumpeting my prowess at this game.

But it felt a bit hollow. Even though I had correctly called ANIMAL KINGDOM, SOLDAT was my top pick, and he floundered late despite a perfect trip to finish outside of the top 10.

Oh well. The Preakness field was drawn yesterday and I have another chance to prove just how intelligent I am. Here we go:

Many people try to say that the Preakness is SO MUCH different than the Kentucky Derby. It's really not that different. The Derby is perceived as SO CHALLENGING for horses who have never run 1 1/4 miles in their lives. The Preakness is indeed shorter ... but only one-half furlong shorter. It's still 1 3/16 miles. It's still further than most of these horses have run before, and it's still further than many will ever run again.

The other comment overplayed comment about the Preakness compared to the the Derby is that the turns at Pimlico are tighter than the turns at Churchill Downs. Not true. They SEEM tighter because there's less banking (aka wide trips are harder on horses because their speed wants to carry them out wider), but they're actually not tighter turns.

So we WILL downgrade outside posts and horses that will have wider trips, but not much. It's just an extra thought in the back of our minds as we look at the 14 horses in the field one-by-one.

NOTE: This will not be nearly as long as the Derby preview. You can all thank me later.

1. Astrology (15-1 ML): Interesting in the sense that there's a pattern of steady improvement this year. His first start off the layoff produced a 93 speed fig and his second produced a 98. The Preakness average winning speed fig is 107, but that's not a huge jump to take for a three-year-old. Having the rail and early speed could be huge. Should love the distance. Beat TO HONOR AND SERVE, perhaps a better horse than any other in this field, in a maiden race last summer. Hasn't finished worse than second in races at more than a mile and appears classy enough. Interesting prospect at 15-1.

2. Norman Asbjornson (30-1 ML): Finished second in the Gotham to Stay Thirsty before finishing fourth in the Wood this year. Speed fig left something to be desired in each (91/92), and now he's off a pretty big layoff. Don't think the distance fits. Breeding is pretty underwhelming. Definite pass.

3. King Congie (20-1 ML): Ah, another turf horse trying the dirt. He finished third in the Blue Grass behind Derby also-rans BRILLIANT SPEED and TWINSPIRED, but we're throwing that race out, anyway. Beyond that, he's won three turf races (ended up third in one due to disqualification). Distance could be an issue. Class could be an issue. Performance is a definite issue. No thanks.

4. Flashpoint (20-1 ML): This horse could be a legendary sprinter or miler one day, but this is probably too much for him. He's actually the top-ranked horse in the Brisnet's Prime Power Ranking (a composite ranking the horses in the field from top-to-bottom), but he faded late in the Florida Derby in his only try at more than a mile. He's now off a layoff since that race on April 3, and it's hard to believe he'll be fit enough to finish this longer race out.

5. Shackleford (12-1 ML): I won't be able to pass him up, but I'm hearing that he doesn't look nearly as good as he did before the Derby. He has no works since then, which certainly isn't a surprise -- needs the rest -- but it's worrisome. On the other hand, running half a furlong less would seem to be just what this horse needed in the Derby -- he didn't give way to NEHRO or ANIMAL KINGDOM until pretty darn late. The other way to look at it, of course, is that he has never been able to hold off late runners in any graded race ... but I won't take that chance. SHACKLEFORD will be on my radar.

6. Sway Away (15-1 ML): Of the horses coming out of the Arkansas Derby in this race, this wouldn't be my pick. He did post a 103 speed fig at 7 furlongs in his debut this year, but was sixth in the Rebel and then fourth in the Ark. Derby. He did have a bit of trouble in both races, though, so this is one to keep an eye on. A quick early pace would be useful for this one. More on how SWAY AWAY fits in this race later.

7. Midnight Interlude (15-1 ML): Some really interesting thoughts on this horse's inclusion in the race. Either it's trainer Bob Baffert's ego or the horse really simply did not like Churchill Downs. Word on the street is that MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE is doing much better now that he's no longer at Churchill, but even so, I'm not sure he seems worthy here. Even if you throw the 16th-place finish at the Derby out, there are only three maiden races and a second-place finish a narrow win in a weak Santa Anita Derby to go on. Too many questions on this one.

8. Dance City (12-1): A horse with early speed who I would like more if not for SHACKLEFORD's presence. Distance should be OK, breeding is good, a reluctant third-place finish in the Arkansas Derby was good, a May 15 workout was great ... there's not a whole lot to not like. On the other hand, even if going off at 30-1 (which I bet) in the Ark. Derby was too high, this field is much stronger than that one. Does 12-1 make sense after being 30-1 in a worse field? Interesting horse but questionable value.

9. Mucho Macho Man (6-1): I was hoping that NEHRO would enter because I would feel more comfortable fading him as the second or third choice than I do MUCHO MACHO MAN. There's the sense that this horse is only going to keep improving as he's not even 3 years old yet, and an improvement off of the third-place Derby finish would probably put him in the winner's circle here. The 102 speed fig he put up there was pretty good for a horse running off a pretty lengthy layoff, so the question now is if he'll bounce off of that huge effort (regress) or continue on that trajectory. Off of his previous two layoffs, he had promising results: improving from a 97 speed fig to a 101 speed fig in the first set, and improving from a fourth-place finish to a first-place finish in the second. And yet ... I don't know. This horse seems to have a case of not-quite-good-enough. The best horse he beat to win a race was SANTIVA. That's not a terrible horse, but he finished sixth in the Derby and isn't here today. I think others are probably better, but this is a major player, regardless.

10. Dialed In (9-2): Ugh, these outside posts are giving me a headache. My initial reaction to this line was, "OH BABY, GIMME SOME DIALED IN!" And then I thought ... "WAIT A MINUTE. I THOUGHT HE WAS WAY OVERVALUED IN THE DERBY, AND NOW I WANT TO BET HIM AT 9-2?" Like MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE, there are two lines of thinking for this horse. The first is that he's not as good as was advertised before the Derby, and that he's only running because he's eligible for a $5.5 million bonus if he wins (thanks to his previous Florida Derby win). The second is that his trainer, Nick Zito, never wanted to win the Florida Derby in the first place -- $5.5 million is a lot of ching, and this race was the one he was aiming for. In fact, those that believe the second line of thinking believe that he USED THE KENTUCKY DERBY AS A PREP RACE. An interesting line of thinking, to be sure. I'm going to say no. If he was really aiming at the Preakness, why even run a grueling race like the Derby two weeks prior. There were other options. Additionally, lots of horses win both legs of the Triple Crown, so there's no reason to not take both seriously. He was no doubt a victim of the slow early going in the Derby, and he certainly did close with aplomb from well-back. If the pace is really fast here, he could win ... but I'll stay away again. Other folks are saying he just looks flat-out sore, so I'll go back to what I said in the Derby preview: "In (his) three wins, the pace after half a mile was 45.4 seconds, 46.2 and 46.2. In the loss, which came against much lesser competition, the pace after half a mile was 49.4 seconds. As previously stated, I think this race will have a pretty blistering early pace, so the fractions will almost certainly be closer to 46 than 49. However, even with fast early fractions (half mile in 46.2), DIALED IN was barely able to overtake front running longshot SHACKLEFORD in the Florida Derby win. I like SHACKLEFORD a lot and Gulfstream Park (where the Florida Derby is contested) favors frontrunners, but that makes you wonder just how good DIALED IN actually is."

11. Animal Kingdom (2-1): After popping off a 105 speed fig and winning the Kentucky Derby in impressive fashion, ANIMAL KINGDOM is a deserving favorite. He closed on leaders that really "shouldn't" have been closed on due to the slow early fractions. He has one of the most likable trainers in the game. And, man, I would be beyond happy if he wins again and we have another potential Triple Crown winner. But at 2-1, I absolutely can not include him as worthy of a bet. 2-1 implies that he will win this race once in three runnings. With at least five other pretty darn good horses and 14 animals total, that's a pretty big leap of faith. I think ANIMAL KINGDOM is good ... I'm still not sure that he's great. Everyone wants to bet on the potential of greatness in this race. I want to, but I won't.

12. Isn't He Perfect (30-1): Amazingly irrelevant. I'm not sure why he's here. He hasn't finished better than fifth in three graded races. Figures to sit mid-pack and just hang out there for the whole race. I would be absolutely floored if this horse won.

13. Concealed Identity (30-1): Probably the least well-bred horse in the field, but at least this one has a fairly strong history of four wins in eight starts. Of course, all of his races have come against fairly poor competition. This is also a hometown favorite-type horse with all of his races to date having come in Maryland. In five non-graded stakes races, he has won two and finished out of the money in three others. Did post a 96 in his last start and has gone 92-89-94-92-96, but it's hard to imagine this one winning.

14. Mr. Commons (20-1): This is the only horse above 15-1 on the morning line that I think might have some chance. That said, his breeding is fairly suspect, and I think the distance might be a bit much. On the other hand, his trainer, John Shirrefs, is really quite averse to shipping horses out of his homebase in California, so there's the idea that he really thinks Mr. Commons has a chance. But ... no. He's on the outside, which is doubly bad, and I'd be surprised if he wasn't pressing the pace from be wide throughout. I'm tossing this one, as well.

Lots of carnage in my picks for this race. I'm crossing out a good bit of the field straight away.

The horses I'm considering at this point are:

ASTROLOGY
SHACKLEFORD
SWAY AWAY
DANCE CITY
MUCHO MACHO MAN
DIALED IN

I'll add the caveat that if ANIMAL KINGDOM were to be sent off at above 3-1, I'd take a piece of that.

Anyway, here's how I expect the race to play out:

FIRST TIER: DANCE CITY, FLASHPOINT, SHACKLEFORD

SECOND TIER: ASTROLOGY, MR. COMMONS

THIRD TIER: MUCHO MACHO MAN, NORMAN ABJORNSON, CONCEALED IDENTITY, MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE, ISN'T HE PERFECT

FOURTH TIER: ANIMAL KINGDOM, KING CONGIE, SWAY AWAY, DIALED IN

The expected pace duel never arose in the Derby, and I frankly think it's less likely to happen in this race.

SHACKLEFORD has been a stone-cold frontrunner in his last two races and I don't expect that to change. DANCE CITY and FLASHPOINT will provide some semblance of pressure, but I don't think FLASHPOINT, in particular, wants to go out too hard -- if he's going to have any hope at the end, it'll have to be a slow pace. I'll call for a first half-mile of :47.4 -- not as slow as the Derby's :48.6, but still pretty leisurely. The one wild card in all of this is how ASTROLOGY breaks from the rail -- he's going to want to break sharply, but not so sharply that he heads out to the lead. If that happens, I would expect SHACKLEFORD to press him hard and that could lead into a bit of a meltdown situation up top. I don't think it's likely, but you never know.

One other note on the tiers in general: After the poor showing from DIALED IN in the Derby, I would expect him to be closer up today and really try to stay right with ANIMAL KINGDOM.

Anyway, as the field hits the top of the stretch, I see FLASHPOINT falling away as SHACKLEFORD and DANCE CITY press on. ASTROLOGY and MUCHO MACHO MAN loom large in behind them, and SWAY AWAY is coming through near the fence while ANIMAL KINGDOM and DIALED IN are moving almost as one around the outside of the pack.

SWAY AWAY encounters some trouble, though, and he's essentially done. ANIMAL KINGDOM and DIALED IN are closing nicely, but they're still well-back of SHACKLEFORD, who puts away DANCE CITY with a furlong to go.

SHACKLEFORD is far from in the clear, though, as he's tackled by ASTROLOGY and MUCHO MACHO MAN. These three battle heads apart as DIALED IN and ANIMAL KINGDOM continue to close.

With 100 yards to go, SHACKLEFORD gives way. ASTROLOGY and MUCHO MACHO MAN are noses apart as the line approaches. Meanwhile, the crowd roars as ANIMAL KINGDOM is getting the best of DIALED IN as these two continue to close from just a few lengths back.

ASTROLOGY is edging clear of MUCHO MACHO MAN, but just barely. Meanwhile, it's ANIMAL KINGDOM a neck ahead of DIALED IN as these four approach the wire.

It's too close to call at the line. ASTROLOGY and ANIMAL KINGDOM finish noses apart, while MUCHO MACHO MAN and DIALED IN weren't much more than a neck back of those two.

In the end, it's ASTROLOGY edging ANIMAL KINGDOM, with MUCHO MACHO MAN third and DIALED IN fourth.

In closing:

HORSES CURRENTLY WORTHY OF WIN BETS:
ASTROLOGY 15-1 ML

POTENTIALLY WORTHY:
SHACKLEFORD 15-1 ML
DANCE CITY 12-1 ML (NEED 20-1)
DIALED IN (NEED 6-1)
ANIMAL KINGDOM (NEED 4-1)
MUCHO MACHO MAN (NEED 10-1)
SWAY AWAY (NEED 15-1)

HORSES I WON'T BET:
NORMAN ABJORNSON
KING CONGIE
FLASHPOINT
MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE
ISN'T HE PERFECT
CONCEALED IDENTITY
MR. COMMONS

And that's that. Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if any of the top 7 horses won this race. Somehow, even with five less horses, this race seems tougher to handicap than the Derby.

I have a definite feeling that ANIMAL KINDOM or DIALED IN will be hard-pressed to catch whoever emerges out of the top five or six horses early. Routes at Pimlico are won in the middle part of the race. It's going to be tough for late horses, no doubt.

I'm still praying for a Triple Crown, and I think ANIMAL KINGDOM is extremely well-suited to winning the Belmont Stakes should he get this one. He's just going to be up against a slow pace and a speed-favoring racetrack that will make continuing his quest past Saturday will take something really special.

UPDATE 5/21/11: Everyone and their mother seems to believe that this is actually going to be a relatively fast pace. In fact, I was reconsidering that I might be downright wrong with my take until I saw Jerry Bailey give the same take that I had -- mid-47 seconds. He sees roughly the same race shape as I do, with the exception being that FLASHPOINT will go straight to the front and SHACKLEFORD will be the horse off the pace.
I don't know that I agree there -- despite claims to the contrary, SHACKLEFORD seems to be a need-the-lead type -- and if FLASHPOINT does go straight to the front, then I think we do have the speed meltdown that everyone is calling for.

As another point: we're only four races in, but every race (including a turf race, so we can disregard that one) has been won from off the pace. DIALED IN and ANIMAL KINGDOM are looking better and better.

If I'm taking a stand against one horse today, it's MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE. Bob Baffert is still saying he expects much better, but I see little to no chance of this horse competing. If he does, I'll be hurting by 6 p.m.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

The Wothism Kentucky Derby Preview

Soldat is my pick to win The Run for the Roses this year.
Welcome to the third annual Wothism Kentucky Derby Preview. I like to tell myself that the preview just keeps getting better with each passing year, but the truth is probably that it just keeps getting longer without adding any real substance.

The truth is, however, that I've learned a lot in these three years. In the past year alone, I've read a handful of handicapping books and nearly ended up giving my daughter the middle name "Zenyatta" (yes, her name would be Clara Zenyatta Wothe if Zenyatta had gotten past Blame in the Breeders’ Cup Classic last November). I watch as many stakes races as I can, and I watch far more bottom barrel races than I care to admit.

As for the horses in this year's Kentucky Derby, I've known about most of them since they debuted last summer or fall. I've seen the majority of them run live multiple times, and I've watched replays of the few I haven't.

All of which is a short way to say that I FEEL like I should have a fairly good grasp on these horses and what they're capable of.

And all of which is a short way to say that I probably don't.

In fact, my increased knowledge probably only serves to make this preview harder to read for others. I'll talk about speed figures and pace and rating and splits and it will absolutely confuse most of the people who read this. So, in an effort to combat that, allow me to give a brief overview of SPEED FIGURES, PACE and WEATHER:

SPEED FIGURES: There are a few different sources for speed figures, but I use BRISnet's numbers. Speed figures exist to represent how fast a horse ran in a given race based upon how fast all other races at that track were run that day. Confused yet? Well, they exist because running one mile in 1:36 might actually be more impressive than running one mile in 1:35 depending on the track. For instance, Animal Kingdom won a race at Turfway Park at 1 1/8 miles in a time of 1:52 and received a speed figure of 97. Meanwhile, at Santa Anita, Anthony's Cross (a horse that ultimately didn't make the trip for the Derby) won a race at 1 1/8 miles in a time of 1:48. Yet Anthony's Cross had a speed figure of just 93! How can this be? Well, the Turfway track is just that much slower than Santa Anita. Speed figures allow us to account for the fact that some tracks are faster or slower than others on given days or all days depending on what the track consists of, how hot or cold it is, etc. The caveat with these figures is that they can sometimes be controversial (different methods for calculating them exist and don't always paint the same picture) and overemphasized by the public, but they give you at least a reasonable idea of how a horse performs on a race to race basis. The average winning speed figure in the Kentucky Derby is 107, which is in elite territory. To really over generalize, anything above 100 is great. 90-99 is good. 80-89 is OK. 70-79 is below average, and below 70 is generally garbage.

PACE: You may have heard the expression, "Pace makes the race." As it pertains to horse racing, we're talking mainly about early speed -- which will get to the front first, and how fast will they run for the first half of the race? Think of it this way: Imagine you have a friend who is a great sprinter and will always beat you in a 100 meter dash. But by yourselves, this same friend's best mile time is 9 minutes, whereas you can run it in 8 minutes. So you challenge your friend to a mile race. If you keep pressing his pace -- in other words, forcing him to continue to run fractions of two minutes per quarter mile -- he's going to wear out, and you'll eventually pass him around the 3/4 mile mark. However, if you lay back and let him run each fraction at 2:15, meaning that you've still got ground to make up at that 3/4 mile mark ... you're screwed. You're not going to outsprint your friend to the finish line. The same concept applies in horse racing. If you let a fast horse get away with an easy lead ... you're screwed. That fast horse will get to the lead, and then his jockey will pull him back to keep his lead within a length of the next horse -- the slower the better. That forces the horse to save his energy for the stretch run, and if he can save enough -- if nobody's pushing him along -- he's going to win. So, if there are a lot of fast horses in the race vying for the lead, that usually means one thing: they're all going to wear themselves out! Finally, I'll mention the opening quarter mile and half mile times often. Use the following as a frame of reference on a fast track: For the first quarter mile in a race at 1 1/4 miles, 22 seconds is blazingly/suicidally fast, 23 seconds is pretty quick, 24 seconds is probably slightly on the slow side, and 25 seconds would be pretty darn slow. For the half at 1 1/4 miles, 45 seconds would be ridiculously fast, 46 is quick/grueling, 47-48 is rather neutral and 48+ is pretty slow. Fast early splits favor closers, and slow early splits favor frontrunners.

WEATHER: Do I really need to define weather for you? In this case, yes. The Derby is fairly like to come up with a wet track on Saturday, and there are a few tools to handicap such a possibility. One is Tomlinson figures, which "rate a horse's off-track potential based on progeny of the sire and maternal grandsire. The higher the number, the better. A rating of 320+ means the horse merits further consideration as one that could run particularly well over a wet track."

Based on the Tomlinson figures, there are quite a few horses you could reasonably upgrade if it's raining in Louisville. Twice The Appeal is best in the field at 423, and he's followed by Uncle Mo at 419, Shackleford at 418, Mucho Macho Man at 415, Soldat at 407 and Watch Me Go at 402.

The lowest ranked runners in the field are Animal Kingdom at 260, Decisive Moment at 262, and Comma to the Top at 305.

All others are sandwiched between 398 (Archarcharch) and 334 (Master of Hounds).

Another way of approaching the weather is to use BRISnet's pedigree ratings to compare a horse's past performances on a fast track to what they might do on a wet track. Using this approach ...

Horses expected to improve on a west track are: Mucho Macho Man

Horses expected to fall off at least slightly are: ArchArchArch, Twice The Appeal, Decisive Moment, Dialed In, Derby Kitten, Twinspired, Master of Hounds, Santiva, Shackleford, Midnight Interlude, Animal Kingdom, Nehro, Watch Me Go

All others are expected to be no better or worse.

So, as you can see, this is far from an exact science. BRISnet would expect Twice The Appeal, the best Tomlinson-rated horse and a horse that has already won his only race on a wet track, to actually not do as well on an off track as he would on a fast track.

And just when you might be ready to throw out Animal Kingdom, note that some people expect him to improve on a wet track due to the clay content of the Churchill Downs strip giving off less kickback (which could be a problem on dry dirt) when it's wet. Yeesh.

All that considered, I would upgrade/downgrade horses on a make on a wet track as follows. If they're not mentioned, I either don't think they're necessarily better or worse on one or the other or I simply don't know.

Upgrade: Soldat, Mucho Macho Man, Pants On Fire, Stay Thirsty and Shackleford

Downgrade: Nehro, Santiva, Master of Hounds, Derby Kitten, Dialed In

So, keep all of that in the back of your mind as you read on. And, if the track comes up fast, forget about this portion entirely.

OK, enough of that. I'll sum up how I think the race will play out at the end, so if you want to skip the horse-by-horse breakdown, start scrolling. And scroll some more. And keep scrolling. Because this is LONG.

The one note I will make now about the complexion of this race is this: There are a number of horses in this race who seem to be unable to win from more than a length or two off the pace -- in other words, they're essentially NEED THE LEAD types. My belief is that there will be a number of horses gunning for that early lead, which would seem to indicate a pretty good possibility of a pace meltdown, not too unlike the Breeders' Cup Classic last year where four horses went nuts on the lead and all ran each other into the ground. So, keep that in mind as I break down the contestants.

FINALLY, before I get started: I opted to use odds from thegreek.com first (which are probably more accurate due to the fact that they have at least been determined through somewhat of a marketplace as opposed to one man's opinion) followed by the morning line. So, Archarcharch is 16-1 at Greek and 10-1 on the morning line.

Here we go:

1. Archarcharch (16-1/10-1): One of the few horses that should love the distance, ARCHARCHARCH has probably the perfect running style. He has won from close up and far back, so he should offer a fair amount of versatility. In three graded stakes tries, he has two wins and one third. The one subpar speed fig -- a 69 -- on his resume can be thrown out due to some dense fog that makes you question why they were even racing. Other than that, he's went 89-96-93-98-99. This is a game horse that seems to be on the uptick. There are two question marks. The first is the post position: Last year, the favorite, LOOKIN’ AT LUCKY, got hammered around as the rest of the field crashed over on him to get to the rail. ARCHARCHARCH probably won't try to be as forwardly placed, so that might help, but the one hole is pretty darn tough. The other big question I have is if ARCHARCHARCH is capable of the greatness that winning a Kentucky Derby requires. We know he's a solid horse, but that's all he may be -- he may lack that special IT factor. He's bred well enough, but he just hasn't submitted any eye-popping performances. Still, I can't find anything wrong here. I won't be betting him to win at this price, but he could round out some exotics.

2. Brilliant Speed (30-1/30-1): This horse won the Bluegrass on April 16, but man, that race was a joke. It played out like a turf race -- :50.2 for the first half mile -- and considering that BRILLIANT SPEED has made five of his eight career starts on turf, that's probably why he won it. He's bred for turf and is only in the Derby due to it being the Derby. The 97 speed fig in the Bluegrass was nice, but his only two actual dirt starts yielded speed figs of 74 and 60, which resulted in well-beaten 4th and 7th place finishes. This is one I feel pretty darn comfortable throwing out altogether.

3. Twice the Appeal (40-1/20-1): It took this horse SEVEN tries before he won a race. That’s a pretty bad sign. In his three-year-old season, though, he has two firsts and one second, all on dirt. That’s a pretty bad sign. In his three-year-old season, though, he has two firsts and one second, all on dirt. That’s more than you can say for many of the horses in this field. HOWEVER, the competition was surely the worst of any horse in the field. If the competition in the Derby is like the NFL, then the competition that most horses faced was like the SEC ... and TWICE THE APPEAL was playing Sun Belt teams. Or something like that. It's a huge class jump, and just because you can beat the Florida Atlantic's and Middle Tennessee's of the world does not mean you can beat the Florida's and Tennessee's. That's basically what you're looking at with TWICE THE APPEAL. The speed figs aren't great, but they do show steady improvement since he finally won -- 86-88-86-95 -- so you can make the argument that he's capable if he runs his best race. He has a favorable running style for the Derby, as he's rallied from fourth or worse in all of his wins. And the X factor for this horse is that Calvin Borel has the mount. Borel, as even  my grandma knows, is the master of the Kentucky Derby. He has won three of the last four runnings of the Derby, including with MINE THAT BIRD in 2009. Both MTB and TWICE THE APPEAL came out of the Sunland Derby, a generally overlooked prep race. But TWICE THE APPEAL actually WON that race, while MTB finished fourth. Believe it or not, though, that's exactly why I won't bet TWICE THE APPEAL. The public knows Borel and will overbet him. I would bet that, as the morning line indicates, this closes under 30-1 simply due to the Borel factor. And so an intriguing longshot will lose all of its value.

4. Stay Thirsty (22-1/20-1): Horse racing is a funny game. When Mike Repole dished out $500,000 to buy STAY THIRSTY in Feb. 2010, he thought he was buying the next Derby winner. The only other horses that were purchased for more than $200,000 were UNCLE MO and DIALED IN ... you know, the two favorites. STAY THIRSTY even has the same trainer as UNCLE MO: supertrainer Todd Pletcher. He's regally bred by BERNARDINI and has the finest trainer money can buy. And somehow he's been totally average. Two wins and two seconds in six starts isn't bad, but his flop in the Florida Derby was pretty pathetic -- a 7th place finish and an 82 speed fig. He was also an even 5th at last year's BC Juvenile, and considering that those two races are the most indicative of the competition he'll face in the Derby, it's hard to believe he'll become the first horse since 1957 to finish worse than fourth in his final Derby prep to win the Roses. On the other hand, he has the pedigree. He should love the distance. He rallied from 4th to win the Gotham over TOBY'S CORNER. He has been working extremely well at Churchill Downs in the past week. I'm not sure I like it in the 20-1 range, but STAY THIRSTY could be an interesting longshot at 25-1 or 30-1.

5. Decisive Moment (60-1/30-1): A speedball who figures to go out for the early lead and not much else. If COMMA TO THE TOP doesn’t drive him into the ground by the half mile, another horse will run by him after that. DECISIVE MOMENT did run a solid second in the Spiral, but that was on the fake stuff. His most Derby-like race to date was the Risen Star, where he finished fifth, well-beaten by MUCHO MACHO MAN and SANTIVA. I don’t see how he belongs in this field at all.

6. Comma to the Top (30-1/30-1): I took a chance on a horse like this last year -- CONVEYANCE. Like CONVEYANCE, COMMA TO THE TOP will almost absolutely make the lead early and set a blistering pace. CONVEYANCE led at the midway point, and even at the 3/4 mile mark. And then he fell apart. COMMA TO THE TOP sure appears to be the exact same kind of horse, and he is 100 percent bred for sprint races. On top of that, quite frankly, COMMA TO THE TOP isn't even that well-bred in the grand scheme of things. COMMA TO THE TOP has shown some grit in past races and might have a BIT more fight in him than CONVEYANCE, but seeing as how he was stopping badly in the Santa Anita at 1 1/8, I see absolutely no way he gets 1 1/4.

7. Pants On Fire (35-1/20-1): At first glance, PANTS ON FIRE seems rather overlooked to me. He beat NEHRO and MUCHO MACHO MAN in the Louisiana Derby while nearly on the lead with some pretty fast fractions. So, naturally, part of you says, well, if you like NEHRO or MUCHO MACHO MAN, why not take a horse that beat both in his last race and has a better price? The speed figs are strong enough: 102-91-92-89-97. I start to get excited. Then I consider the negatives. He WAS beaten by MUCHO MACHO MAN in the Risen Star, and it was so soundly, at 7 1/4 lengths back, that it's hard to give him any benefit for being extremely wide in both turns. There's also a concern about PANTS ON FIRE's layoff, as that Louisiana Derby win came all the way back on March 26. Then there's my real concern: He hasn't really passed horses since his first-ever race. If you look at his first call position (after two furlongs in sprints – less than a mile – and four furlongs in routes – more than a mile) to his finishing position in each of his eight races, it's a bit sobering: the first race, he moved up from 7th to 2nd. Second: 4th to 4th. Third: 1st to 1st. Then 1st to 2nd, 1st to 3rd, 1st to 2nd, 7th to 6th, and 2nd to 1st. In other words, he just doesn’t pass other horses late in races. He does his best early and then holds on. So, realistically, we know this colt is going to have to be on or almost on the lead for 1 1/4 miles to win -- and he hasn't run for quite a while, so it would seem he might not be as sharp as a horse that ran more recently. And in a race with pace like this one figures to have, not being quite as sharp as perhaps he could be and then trying to run on the lead just seems nearly impossible. Finally, he's also not as well-bred as many others in the field, and it's just really hard to envision PANTS ON FIRE getting the race he needs to win. Women should note that the jockey for PANTS ON FIRE is a female. A woman has never won the Kentucky Derby, but they also rarely get a chance to ride -- Rosie Napravnik is just the sixth female jockey to ever get a Derby mount and the first since 2003. It should also be noted that the best finish by a female jockey in six starts to date (Julie Krone had two mounts) is 11th. That said, my second biggest problem with this horse is the fact that he has a female jockey, and it has nothing to do with sexism. Rather, it’s because I would expect your average female fan to find out that there's a woman jockey and say, "Hey, there's a girl in this race? Let's bet on her!" It happens with fillies in the race every year, and a jockey will likely be much the same. Combined with the apparent inability to pass horses, this might not be great value.

8. Dialed In (4-1/4-1): This horse has done nothing wrong, and yet has proven nearly nothing. His best speed figures of 101 and 104 are among the best in the field, but with just four races under his belt, there are plenty of questions. He beat a few good horses in winning the Florida Derby (SOLDAT, TO HONOR AND SERVE and SHACKLEFORD), but the race absolutely couldn't have set up better for him. DIALED IN is a closer that will be well back early and needs a quick early pace to run into, so he does at least have that going for him. In four lifetime starts -- three at a mile or longer -- he has won three, with the lone loss coming on March 6 at 1 1/8. The difference between that race and his three wins? The early splits. In the three wins, the pace after half a mile was 45.4 seconds, 46.2 and 46.2. In the loss, which came against much lesser competition, the pace after half a mile was 49.4 seconds. As previously stated, I think this race will have a pretty blistering early pace, so the fractions will almost certainly be closer to 46 than 49. However, even with fast early fractions (half mile in 46.2), DIALED IN was barely able to overtake front running longshot SHACKLEFORD in the Florida Derby win. I like SHACKLEFORD a lot and Gulfstream Park (where the Florida Derby is contested) favors frontrunners, but that makes you wonder just how good DIALED IN actually is. They say you can't fault a horse for winning, but that doesn't mean you have to bet on an overbet favorite. I might use DIALED IN on the bottom of some exotics, but there’s too much traffic to negotiate in the Derby to play a closer at this price.

9. Derby Kitten (52-1/30-1): Considering that this horse only got into the field with the defection of TOBY’S CORNER, a horse that would have been a fairly legit contender but was withdrawn with an injury, it's hard to give him DERBY KITTEN much consideration. DERBY KITTEN’s lone career race on real dirt resulted in a speed fig of 68 and a seventh-place finish. This looks like a potentially decent turf horse, and his win on the fake stuff in the Lexington on April 23 serves to bolster that theory. The one good thing I can say about this horse is that he shouldn't have a problem with the distance. That's all.

10. Twinspired (52-1/30-1): Since we decided we’re throwing out the Blue Grass (see BRILLIANT SPEED) TWINSPIRED’s other best speed figure is among the worst “bests” in the field at 90 … and even that was on the fake stuff. His lone dirt start came against pretty weak competition back in December, and he posted a speed fig of 80 while finishing eighth. As for the Blue Grass, you do have to say that he lost it in fairly impressive rallying fashion … but whatever. It was just a joke 100 times over. And-considering that it was TWINSPIRED’s best performance – his other was a well-beaten third place finish in the Spiral Stakes, where he was bested by Animal Kingdom and Decisive Moment – you can’t hang your hat on the Blue Grass at all. This is another one that should like the distance better than many of the other horses in the field, but it’s asking way too much to think Twinspired could win. Forget about it.

11. Master of Hounds (14-1/30-1): Certainly the hardest read in the field, as past performances tell us little to nothing in the first place -- he's a shipper from England, so the usual data about splits and positions is not on the past performance sheets -- and even less about this horse's ability to handle dirt, as he's never run on the real stuff. His only non-turf start was actually quite impressive: a second-place finish in the UAE Derby, which is run at 1 3/16 miles and contested over the Tapeta surface in Dubai. The tough thing with this horse is that he has TONS of class in his bloodlines, so there's something to be considered here. Normally, a Euro shipper can be pretty much summarily tossed – no Euro invader has ever won the Derby – but he’s pretty easily the classiest horse in the field. Additionally, we CAN tell from the notes that he will likely be placed anywhere from 3rd to 8th or so, which I still do believe is theoretically the best spot to be in the Derby (I prefer mid-pack to way back because of the myriad traffic issues in this race). So these are all positive things. In watching the UAE Derby, though, it becomes obvious that it was run completely differently than the Kentucky Derby will be. The first quarter was run in TWENTY SIX seconds! Truly slow. You can't entirely discount his second-place finish, but he was basically jogging around out there in a forwardly-placed position in third, about a length off the lead. It set up perfectly for him. So it's not quite as impressive as it would be at first glance. Additionally, this is a horse with just one win in seven starts. In his lone U.S. start to date, the BC Juvenile Turf last November, he was sixth, beaten by SOLDAT on a surface that he really SHOULD be better on. At 14-1, I’ll probably pass. At 30-1 like the morning line indicates? Uh, yes, please.

12. Santiva (32-1/30-1): For the last time: Let's just agree to toss out the Blue Grass as a race that can teach us anything. And if you ignore that ninth-place finish as a favorite, SANTIVA is an interesting horse. He ran a pretty impressive race in finishing second in the Risen Star – and if he hadn't given up so much ground going 4-5 wide in both turns, you can definitely argue that he would have beaten MUCHO MACHO MAN. SANTIVA is pretty well-bred and should love the Derby distance. The biggest concern with this one would be the lack of an eye-popping speed figure, as his best was 96 in the Risen Star. I also have concerns about the light race schedule, but that’s not so unlike many others in this field. Finally, SANTIVA has shown the ability to rate (sit back behind other speed horses rather than just go all out early trying to beat them), and he also showed early speed and the ability to carry it through 1 1/16 in the Jockey Club at Churchill last November. I love that versatility in this race. Ultimately, the only race I really care to draw any conclusions from is the Risen Star. And given that long route he took around both turns, I would posit that SANTIVA is around the same level as MUCHO MACHO MAN, a horse you’ll read more about in a minute. MUCHO MACHO MAN is in the 12-1 to 14-1 range. At 20-1 or better, SANTIVA is worth a look.

13. Mucho Macho Man (14-1/12-1): This horse is tough to figure for a few reasons. MUCHO MACHO MAN has only two wins in eight starts despite not always facing the greatest competition, and he has already been beaten by PANTS ON FIRE, NEHRO and DIALED IN. On the surface, it's hard to envision that third win coming against the Derby field. I’m not terribly impressed with his breeding and I don't think the distance is his forte. Finally, this is the youngest horse in the field. All horses age another year on January 1 – so even if a horse is born in the summer or fall, they turn 1 year old at the New Year. Because of that, most Derby horses are foaled early in the year, or at least spring. This one is a June colt. Even a non-fan could look at MUCHO MACHO MAN next to some of the other horses here and notice that he looks young and a bit undeveloped physically. That said, the speed figs have been consistently good since last November -- 97-101-98-97-96 -- and he's a near-the-lead-but-not-on-it type that figures to do well here. In all of his starts in 2011, the PP comments indicate at least mildly troubled trips: "Bumped hard chute" "3-4 w2nd trn" "3w turns." That makes me interested. I like horses that have experienced some trouble but still performed well. And yet … in his two wins, he was within a length and a half of the lead the entire race. That’s going to be too close in this race. Can he rate and come from 5-8 lengths back? I’m not betting on it unless I can get 20-1 or higher. That said, if MUCHO MACHO MAN does happen to win the Derby, look out -- he's only going to mature and get better.

14. Shackleford (12-1/12-1): Argh. 12-1?!?!? Even just last week, the “predicted” morning line for SHACKLEFORD was 40-1. I LOVED that idea. At 12-1, my whole approach to writing this horse up has changed. In his first actual dirt start, he broke his maiden at Churchill last fall with a speed fig of 93 at 25/1. After winning an allowance race at 1 1/8 miles in his first start of the year off the layoff (speed fig 94), SHACKLEFORD didn't get much respect in the Fountain of Youth (he was sent off at 17-1) and eventually finished 5th in a race that Soldat won. SHACKLEFORD only turned in a speed fig of 77 there after running a very pedestrian race. In the Florida Derby, he impressed the hell out of me, though. At 68-1, he ran a ridiculously great race on the lead and was only narrowly beat by DIALED IN at the wire. The fractions were quite honest in that race, too -- 23.3 for the quarter and 46.35 for the half -- and yet he just kept pushing on and put away other competitors at the top of the stretch. He should love this distance. He has looked amazing in his tune-up workouts for the Derby. On the other hand, Gulfstream was a frontrunner’s paradise and that Florida Derby performance may be more of an indictment of DIALED IN than anything. He was sent off at 68-1 in his last race against overall competition much worse than this. The betting public is often wrong, but THIS wrong? I don’t think so. I need at least 25-1 and I’m praying that I get it.

15. Midnight Interlude (8-1/10-1): I'm pretty sure that all of the California runners are frauds this year, and MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE was 11-1 in the Santa Anita Derby before winning it by beating COMMA TO THE TOP in somewhat hilarious fashion – COMMA TO THE TOP was basically falling all over himself trying to get to the line, and MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE almost ran him over from behind before being sharply corrected mid-stretch and nosing him out. The speed figs are OK at 83-93-92-98, but that first race came on January 11, and I have to wonder if this horse couldn't use a break at this point. In any event, expecting Midnight Interlude to ship across the U.S. and beat far better horses than he's ever faced at less than 10-1 is silly. (I will now guarantee that this horse wins after I totally dismissed him.)

16. Animal Kingdom (25-1/30-1): One of the most lightly raced horses in the field with only four career starts, ANIMAL KINGDOM appears to be quite well-bred, and the speed figs are strong at 70-93-96-97. I like that show of steady improvement, and he is coming off a win at 1 1/8 miles in the Spiral. So why is he here at 25-1? Well, three of the four starts -- and all of the 90+ speed fig starts -- came on polytrack or turf. That's a definite concern and question mark, but he did handle the dirt well in a 6 furlong work last Saturday in 1:13. His running style seems to fit the preferred profile, as he has been 10th, 2nd, 4th and 7th at the first call in his starts before rallying for 2nd, 1st, 2nd and 1st. He also looked extremely visually impressive in winning the Spiral, where he defeated TWINSPIRED and DECISIVE MOMENT. But if you’ve been paying attention, you already know that's the problem: beating those two doesn’t say much, and those are the best that ANIMAL KINGDOM has faced. So even if you’re comfortable declaring that he's obviously better than those two, it's a long leap to say that this apparent turf horse can win this race. Then again, the competition is not exactly stout this year, and the same legitimate questions apply to MASTER OF HOUNDS. As with MASTER OF HOUNDS, 30-1 with this horse is a yes, please.

17. Soldat (14-1/12-1): If I could make just one bet in this race, it would be on SOLDAT. After one bad race after he washed out (got extremely hot and sweaty) pre-race as the favorite in the Florida Derby (over DIALED IN, by the way), SOLDAT is up here at 12-1 or 14-1? I love it! So that I don’t get too over-exuberant, I should note that SOLDAT didn't have much of an excuse for his fifth-place finish in the race itself. He had no problems with the trip, had room to run at the top of the stretch ... and just didn't. So, that's a concern, but all indications are that this horse LOVES the cooler weather in Kentucky and looks like a million bucks. My other semi-concern with SOLDAT, once again, is that this may actually be a horse that’s better on turf! He ran second to PLUCK in the BC Juvenile Turf last year. The fact is, though, that SOLDAT has proven himself on dirt. He was favored in each of his last three races, and went on to win two of them with extremely impressive speed figs of 104 and 108. In eight career starts, he has three wins and four seconds. All that said, I do have one major worry: those two huge speed figs came in front running efforts, and he hasn’t shown the ability to pass horses late on dirt. And I don’t want anything to do with frontrunners in this race. The real question is this: If SOLDAT is cool on Derby day, can he sit fifth like he did in the Florida Derby, but this time explode home when he’s called upon? That remains a pretty big question, but sometimes you just have a hunch. I don’t love the post position, especially if Uncle Mo gets the jump on him and gets in front of him, but I don’t think there’s a horse in the field that has proven more in his three-year-old season to date than SOLDAT. That’s a risk I’m willing to take at 12-1.

UPDATE 5/6: UNCLE MO HAS BEEN SCRATCHED (See end of post for details)! 18. Uncle Mo (5-1/9-2): There is now some doubt whether UNCLE MO will even make the start on Saturday, adding to the intrigue with this horse. Last fall, he looked like the next great horse. UNCLE MO won every race he ran last year (he ran three), including the Breeders Cup Juvenile, by at least four lengths (including his maiden by 14 lengths). Then, he debuted in 2011 with another comfortable win, although it was only by 3 3/4 lengths. And then came his collapse as a 1-10 favorite in the Wood Memorial. Later, it came out that he had an infection -- at least according to his connections. So, is he SECRETARIAT or just a horse that everyone else caught up to? His speed figures went from 110-102-110 in his sophomore year to 95-96 this year. Was he sick in the Wood? Maybe, maybe not. Does he have the highest ceiling in this field? Probably. If he can give his best (accusations of pin firing this horse and medications are swirling like crazy), he should win. That’s something you can’t discount, and his last workout at Churchill Downs was outstandingly good. The issues are that we don’t know if he can give his best. Despite the big speed figs at more than a mile last year, 1 1/16 is a whole different game than 1 1/4 in horse racing, and UNCLE MO isn’t bred for this distance. Additionally, even if he can make the distance, he’s either been on the lead at the first call or in second in every race he’s ever ran. Can he battle with COMMA TO THE TOP and DECISIVE MOMENT and SHACKLEFORD, put them away, and still have enough left in the tank to hold off DIALED IN and NEHRO? That’s a darn tough sell at 5-1 with the distance and health questions. There’s a part of me that is screaming that this horse could absolutely destroy this field. And he could. But I have too many questions to bet this horse at single digits.

19. Nehro (14-1/6-1): People are in love with this horse, and I just don't see it. NEHRO didn't run at all until December, and then finished fourth and tenth in his first two starts. He finally won his third start before closing like a freight train in his past two starts to finish second by a neck both times. But that's just it -- SECOND. His speed figures have been 80-57-88-96-99. So, sure, you see the improvement. I suppose you could argue that if he keeps improving, he’ll run in the 105 range and be right there. He is fairly well-bred and should like the distance, and it’s easy to see why folks think he’ll only get better with more room to run. But that usually doesn’t happen in the Derby. I used to be smitten by horses like these -- the TIAGO's and PYRO's of the world that came with tremendous runs late from deep in the pack -- but there's so much traffic in the Derby that it's really asking a lot for a deep closer to get there. ICE BOX closed like no other in last year's Derby and just ran out of time. NEHRO can hit the board, for sure, but he'd have to get awfully lucky to get the win.

20. Watch Me Go (102-1/50-1): Last May 22, this horse put up a 100 speed fig in its first start and appeared like it might be one to watch. Instead, it's a performance that simply hasn't been matched. Since that maiden win, WATCH ME GO has three wins in nine starts, with the most impressive coming in the Tampa Bay Derby at odds of nearly 44-1. That race at 1 1/16 aside, though, this looks like a sprint horse to me. Every other win came at 6 1/2 furlongs or less, and a fading sixth place finish at 1 1/8 in the Illinois Derby, hardly a hotbed for Derby talent in the first place, seems to bolster that view. Finally, much like Twice the Appeal, Watch Me Go is making a big class jump. I'm pretty comfortable tossing this one out.

----------

Whether you’re still with me or just skipped ahead, I appreciate it. So where does this all leave us? Let’s break this down by where I expect certain horses to be at the first call of the race:

PACE SETTERS: COMMA TO THE TOP, DECISIVE MOMENT, SHACKLEFORD

SECOND TIER: UNCLE MO, SOLDAT, PANTS ON FIRE

THIRD TIER: MUCHO MACHO MAN, MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE, SANTIVA, MASTER OF HOUNDS, STAY THIRSTY

FOURTH TIER: WATCH ME GO, ANIMAL KINGDOM, TWICE THE APPEAL, ARCHARCHARCH

WELL BACK: TWINSPIRED, BRILLIANT SPEED, DERBY KITTEN, DIALED IN, NEHRO

It’s tough because many of the horses in that second and third tier could be sent forward based on past failures to rate. Or they could be held back because everyone knows COMMA TO THE TOP and DECISIVE MOMENT are just cheap speed in this race. Frankly, I think it’s suicide for horses to get involved in that early duel, and I think most of the connections realize this.

As the field hits the final turn and things start to happen, I expect COMMA TO THE TOP and DECISIVE MOMENT to make fairly quick exits, with SHACKLEFORD getting tackled by UNCLE MO and SOLDAT. PANTS ON FIRE won’t be much of a match as MUCHO MACHO MAN, SANTIVA, MASTER OF HOUNDS and STAY THIRSTY begin to roll.

Somewhere along the way as some of these early pacesetters fall back like they’re dying, one or more of that fourth tier or the closers is going to be forced to check and ruin their momentum. In that moment, their race will be lost.

SHACKLEFORD gets overtaken by UNCLE MO and SOLDAT midway through the turn and begins his own descent back in the field.

At the top of the stretch, I expect UNCLE MO, SOLDAT, SANTIVA and MUCHO MACHO MAN to be the clear contenders heading the field with ANIMAL KINGDOM and ARCHARCHARCH looking like the main threats to run them down from behind.

As he did in the Wood Memorial, UNCLE MO will be asked for more and come up empty. MUCHO MACHO MAN will continue to run hard but lack that extra kick. SANTIVA will soldier on for home with vigor, but SOLDAT will begin to pull away.

ARCHARCHARCH will run past a few of the fading horses but lack the full closing ability to make up the gap. ANIMAL KINGDOM will be closing furiously, but SOLDAT will stay on as the wire draws near.

I’m truly assuming that either DIALED IN or NEHRO, or both, will run into serious traffic issues. That said, the early pace should set up well for them and I think they can certainly make it interesting late with a huge late run, a la ICE BOX last year.

With a looping run, DIALED IN or NEHRO will enter the picture on the outside and threaten late, but it’s SOLDAT holding off one of that duo and ANIMAL KINGDOM to win the Kentucky Derby.

At least that's how I roughly expect it to play out. Last year, I was pretty close to spot on with Noble's Promise striking the front as the field turned for home ... only he hung as Super Saver rolled by him on the inside. So close.

Anyway, taking ALL of the above into account, my HOTLY ANTICIPATED picks are:

Currently worthy of win bets:
SANTIVA
ANIMAL KINGDOM
SOLDAT

Close to worthy:
MASTER OF HOUNDS
STAY THIRSTY

I’ll consider these if prices change significantly:
PANTS ON FIRE
MUCHO MACHO MAN
ARCHARCHARCH
TWICE THE APPEAL
SHACKLEFORD
UNCLE MO

Horses I won’t bet under any circumstances:
WATCH ME GO
NEHRO
DIALED IN
MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE
TWINSPIRED
DERBY KITTEN
BRILLIANT SPEED
DECISIVE MOMENT
COMMA TO THE TOP

I don't much get into the idea of exotics in a 20-horse race, but for the hell of it, my superfecta is SOLDAT-ANIMAL KINGDOM-DIALED IN-ARCHARCHARCH.

And after writing more than 7,100 words and filling 13 pages of a Word document, that's all I've got. I have bestowed every bit of my useless insight unto you. You can now regale other people who don't care about horse racing with your newfound knowledge.

If you're betting on the race, good luck. If you're betting on any of my selections, you'll need even more luck.

Finally, remember: Derby Day is the best day of the year. Live it up!

UPDATE 5/6: UNCLE MO has officially scratched. That's actually kind of too bad, as he was certain to attract plenty of money just for being the biggest name in the Derby. On the other hand, that's one less big question mark we have to deal with. I like SOLDAT even more now, however. As I mentioned, I felt he was the most talented colt in the field other than UNCLE MO. The health question that hung over UNCLE MO made me a bit hesitant: If he was healthy and at his best, he could take down SOLDAT. Now, I think if SOLDAT gets his trip, he's the best colt here.


UPDATE 5/7: The forecast is for scattered showers throughout the day at Churchill Downs, but Track Superintendent Butch Lehr says that he should be able to keep the track labeled FAST if the predicted amount of precipitation is what actually falls. I love SOLDAT regardless, but some would argue he's only deserving of an upgrade if the track comes up sloppy.

The other thing of note is that the odds are unbelievably nutty. TWICE THE APPEAL is at 9-1 currently. PANTS ON FIRE is at 7-1. I sort of liked PANTS ON FIRE at 15-1 or 20-1, but my goodness. Hilarious. Now at 22-1, I'll likely take a shot on SHACKLEFORD.

SANTIVA remains juicy at 32-1 and SOLDAT is currently at 14-1. ANIMAL KINGDOM, unfortunately, has been bet down a bit to 20-1.

Those are my final four, though: SOLDAT, SANTIVA, ANIMAL KINGDOM and SHACKLEFORD.

The bets on SANTIVA, ANIMAL KINGDOM and SHACKLEFORD will be relatively small.

In a 20-horse field, nothing is a sure thing. Far from it. But I just love SOLDAT. Yeah, he might not win. He might not even come close. But I feel really good about this one. In year's past, I've ended up with a good bit of action in the Derby based on matchups, exactas, trifectas, etc. This year, I'm skipping all of that. It all goes to SOLDAT.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Are things really that bad?

A new national poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News reveals that 70 percent of Americans feel that "things in this country ... have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track."

Lordy loo.

I get pretty upset about certain things quite a bit, but is it really THAT bad?

If you believed these polls, you would come to the conclusion that the economy is getting worse. I think pretty much every indicator I've seen recently states that is not the case.

Funniest of all is the idea that a major reduction in the annual federal budget deficit would create jobs. SPLIT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE! I suppose the people that believe this are operating under the idea that if the deficit went down, taxes would go down, people would spend more money and businesses would be free to hire more people. It's semi-plausible, but it's more likely that businesses would keep making it work with less staff, making more money for the top percentage of earners and only further stratifying America.

Frankly, while I'm certainly not thrilled with everything President Obama has done, he really has started to get the wheels turning in the past year. Health care reform, while far from perfect, was a necessary first step. Despite the 75 percent of Republicans that believe health care is not something the government should be involved in, the majority of Americans are on board with it. So far, he has walked a fine line with the budget crisis.

I wouldn't say that Obama has necessarily delivered the CHANGE that he promised, but he has delivered PROGRESS. And, my God, that's a lot more than we've been able to say since 2000.

Still, an overwhelming percentage of Americans believe the country is SERIOUSLY on the wrong track. How? Why?

I think, frankly, most Americans are painfully uninformed about what's going on. The union busting tactics in Wisconsin were quite absurd indeed, but the whole process is still playing itself out. Besides, I would be shocked if Democrats weren't elected in the next cycle and restored most of the power to the people.

But people see that on the news or hear that from a neighbor and are PISSED. THINGS ARE GOING TO HELL, they say. And, you know, maybe they are. But as much as I hate the concept of patriotism in general, if these 70 percent of people ever had the opportunity to travel to another country, they would be singing a different tune.

It's still pretty good here in America.

At least if you're college-educated and white.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Mr. Krugman? Back on my good side

I'll write up a fuller explanation of this at some point next week, but this is SPOT THE F ON:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Ralph Nader was right. Kind of.

It's an argument that Outside The Lines seems to cover every other day. It's an argument that you've probably had with your Uncle Joe a few times.

Should college athletes be paid?

It seems there's a new allegation every other day that college players are ALREADY being paid, only under the table. The Cam Newton storyline dominated the college football landscape last fall.

So, what's new? Well, Ralph Nader got involved.

Regardless of your political leanings and his 2000 Presidential candidacy allowing George W. Bush to be elected (I'm still bitter), it would be hard to argue that Nader has affected a lot of good changes in America.

Nader calls for doing away with athletic scholarships and replacing them with need-based aid.

The idea is pretty sound. He's on the right track. He just doesn't get all the way there.

It's time to do away with athletic scholarships, yes. And athletes should be eligible for need-based aid when the situation calls for it.

But what we really ought to replace it with is full-on pay for play.

Yes, this runs counter to Nader's main argument -- that we need to stop professionalizing college sports.


That's just silly, though. Aside from the quaintness of the idea, there really is no logical reason that we continue to uphold this virtue of amateurism as so important. Collegiate athletes -- even those in sports that you don't ever hear about -- devote an insane amount of time to their sports. They deserve compensation just like any other student that works a job in college.

For their part, the NCAA keeps sticking its head in the sand. The NCAA keeps playing the part of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, standing and screaming ALL IS WELL as their fantasy world of amateur sports is crumbling around them.

For example, NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said "that referring to college athletes as professionals defies logic."
"They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship," he said.

Right, except that any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship receives that scholarship due to their merit AS A STUDENT.


One of the main problems with athletic scholarships is that they're not equal across the table. The value of an education at, say, Notre Dame, is not equal to the value of an education at Purdue or Indiana. This may not seem to be that big of a deal, but the end result is that there are situations where kids have to choose one school with a lesser education because that's where they can get a scholarship. They end up going to a school they don't really want to attend because it's the place they've been offered a scholarship. Is that fair to the kid? Is it even fair to the school?

Notre Dame is a more prestigious academic institution than Indiana, and while they do hold even their athletes to strict academic standards, they certainly offer athletic scholarships to kids who would never get merit-based academic scholarships. The end result is that Notre Dame is slighting itself as an academic institution.

So, what's the solution? Consistent PAY rates across the board at institutions by division. Minnesota, for instance, would pay a Division I basketball player the same rate as UC Santa Barbara. Appalachian State would pay a Division II football player the same rate as James Madison. And so on.

I hear you crying already (I'm good at foreshadowing like that). "But wait, Bob! Texas football makes A LOT more money than Troy State football! Why pay them the same? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WHEN SOME INSTITUTIONS MAKE BIG BUCKS AND OTHERS LOSE MONEY?"

OK, you might be right.

The 2004-2009 NCAA Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report (available here) stated that:
A total of 14 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2009 fiscal year, which represents a decrease from the 25 reported in 2008. The gap between the “profitable” programs and the remainder continued to grow, however a bit more slowly.
Just 14 of 119 FBS programs reported a profit in 2009! INCREDIBLE.

Furthermore:
In all three subdivisions, athletic aid and compensation are the two largest expense items. In the FBS, athletic aid as a percentage of total operating expenses remained at 16 percent in 2009. FCS schools also stayed steady at 28 percent. The same ratio for DI without football increased from 28 percent in 2008 to 29 percent in 2009, which is a reduction from the 2004 ratio of 30 percent. Total compensation as a percentage of total operating expenses has remained stable for all subdivisions, although the FBS saw a slight increase from 33 to 34 percent and DI without football increased from 32 to 33 percent.
So, clearly, scholarships are costly. Paying coaches and AD's and support staff is even more costly.

If you feel like taking a look at that monster of a PDF file the NCAA released, Page 21 of 105 is the most interesting. The fifth item on the chart is "Generated Revenues as percentage of total athletic expenditures (self-sufficiency).

Quite frankly, it's even worse than I thought. FBS schools had athletic programs that were just 71.9 percent self-sufficient in 2009, and "the median big-university subsidy from general funds to sports is $10 million per school, the NCAA found," according to Gregg Easterbrook's article here.

How do you explain that? If you had to explain that arrangement, where the everyday student and/or the taxpayer is paying to support a sport like, say, women's golf at a university, how would you do it? How would you explain the reasoning behind a university paying for sports that can't support themselves?



It's what everyone fears and abhors as "communism." (This is not accurate nor true communism, but that's for another time.) It's what so many people hate about welfare, only this is worse -- it's not a life-or-death, quality of life situation. It's taking from the rich and giving to the slightly less rich.

Now, I should note that boosters are HUGE in most of these non-revenue sports. I don't have the numbers to support this claim, but I'm sure many of the non-revenue producing sports out there will tell you that they're self-sustaining not because of revenue, but because of their boosters that donate funds to build new facilities and provide new equipment.

Still, that $10 million a year from general funds to support athletics doesn't lie. If a sport isn't able to sustain itself from a combination of boosters and other revenue, it shouldn't exist. Taxpayers and particularly other students should not be responsible to prop up these sports. If these kids want to play their sport, there are plenty of club teams at universities (yes, I realize these are often supported by the university as well, but at a much smaller price).


In the end, you just have to ask yourself: Is it really worth it? Do academic institutions really need to be involved with athletics at all?

While there's certainly something to be said about the student experience of going to high-profile sporting events, the majority of students at most schools don't take part. And they certainly don't take part in the lower profile sports like ... well, let's pick on men's tennis this time.

The bottom line is that athletic scholarships need to go. We need to pay coaches less. We need to do away with sports that can't support themselves. I'm proud of kids like those at the University of New Orleans, who said enough is enough.

And we need to, above all, pay kids who do produce money for the university. They put in the time, they make the money -- let's compensate them accordingly. If boosters start throwing bigger money at the kids, what's the problem?

In fact, that may be the best way to tackle the differing compensation rates that I discussed earlier. Boosters may be best able to pick up the slack for paying better players at bigger schools. Why not? If there's an equal "minimum wage" for paying kids in sport X in Division I, Division II, etc., but some schools can afford to pay more ... why not? Explain to me why this would be a bad idea.

After all, with the hours these kids put in, these sports ARE like a job.

And as long as a student -- any student -- does the work in the classroom, they're free to work wherever they please outside of the classroom.

If that so happens to be as a football player, what's the difference?

Thursday, March 31, 2011

In defense of the GOP

You won't read those words often here.

Wothism generally stands in direct opposition to the Grand Old Party. I certainly don't hold all of the Democratic Party's ideals near to my heart, but I usually don't vehemently disagree with what the party does. That's usually not true of the GOP's actions.

For the first time that I can remember, though, here I am, defending those bastards.

On Monday, Paul Krugman wrote this piece for The New York Times. Most days, I find Mr. Krugman to be dead-on with his assessments. Monday was not one of those days.

If you're not familiar with the situation between UW-Madison professor William Cronon and the state government, here's a quick rundown:

Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state’s political turmoil. He started a blog, “Scholar as Citizen,” devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin’s Republican governor has turned his back on the state’s long tradition of “neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.”

I loved Mr. Cronon's piece in The Times. It was astoundingly good and spot-on, pointing out the absolute lunacy of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's recent moves. He summed up Walker's "ram it through" philosophy nicely when he wrote:

I have found myself returning over the past few weeks to the question posed by the lawyer Joseph N. Welch during the hearings that finally helped bring down another Wisconsin Republican, Joe McCarthy, in 1954: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Comparisons of Gov. Walker to Joe McCarthy aside, Mr. Cronon's article was actually fairly balanced. He describes himself as a lifelong independent, and he writes as a historian more than anything.

Still, the GOP didn't like it. It made the GOP look bad, and the GOP doesn't ever take too kindly to that. Their response really should have been expected:
(The GOP issued a) demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon’s university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word “Republican” and the names of a number of Republican politicians.
In  his article, Krugman excoriates the GOP for undertaking this type of action in an attempt to publicly smear those that dare to criticize them.

I'm not writing to condone smear campaigns, though.

I'm writing to say that accessing someone's publicly available records in the interest of doing ANYTHING isn't something to criticize.

What bothers me most is the final paragraph of Mr. Krugman's column:
What’s at stake here, in other words, is whether we’re going to have an open national discourse in which scholars feel free to go wherever the evidence takes them, and to contribute to public understanding. Republicans, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, are trying to shut that kind of discourse down. It’s up to the rest of us to see that they don’t succeed.
It's unclear what kind Mr. Krugman thinks "the rest of us" should do to see that Republicans don't succeed in shutting discourse down, although we can infer from a few paragraphs prior that he doesn't think the open records laws should apply to scholars.

Mr. Krugman thinks that scholars will be "deterred from even doing research on topics that might get them in trouble." This, apparently, is because scholars will be scared of facing "witch hunts whenever they say things the G.O.P. doesn’t like."

PUH-LEASE.

Is that really any different from any other part of life? Whenever you make a true stand for something you believe in, you're bound to face criticism and you're bound to be closely scrutinized.

Most of all, let's be fair to the law and the public -- the public that pays Mr. Cronon's salary and pays for the computer he uses and the network he uses his computer on. Anyone -- from Joe Smith down the street to the GOP -- has an unalienable right to access his emails. Mr. Cronon, to his credit, is no dummy and said he has always been careful not to use his university email for personal reasons.

If anything, Mr. Krugman's idea that "the rest of us" need to do something to stop this would lead to LESS discourse and LESS openness.

Public records are public. Period.

Perhaps the most interesting part of it all is that Mr. Cronon even wrote this in his original column:
Among (Wisconsin's) proudest traditions is a passion for transparent government that often strikes outsiders as extreme. Its open meetings law, open records law and public comment procedures are among the strongest in the nation.
And it should stay that way.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

An intrepid reader adds a wrinkle

Reader David McCoy has done the unthinkable by combining the best portions of the Wothism proposal and the best portions of the current system. As he explains:

My own personal belief is that 64 teams is perfect. The first two days of the tournament, when there are 32 games, those are the two best sports days of the year. It's marvelous. And let's not discount how much fun the bracket pools are. Going down to 32 removes a whole round of fun.

I can't help but agree. Once it's down to the round of 32, that means eight games a day, and it's just not the same. If only there were a way to keep the 64-team format intact ... David continues:

First, we include all regular season conference winners, AND all conference tournament winners. I like this because if you have a great regular season and win your regular season title, but slip up in the conference tourney, you still get in. It rewards you for being good all year. But also, if you have a rough start, or a key player misses a bunch of games, you've still got your shot in the conference tourney. That fixes the issue that you brought up before, about waning interest when a team is eliminated. With my method, nobody is eliminated until their season is over.
 
Boom. That was indeed one of my biggest problems with my own proposal -- once a team was mathematically eliminated from winning their conference, their season became almost entirely meaningless. Keeping the tournaments as an avenue to get in means there's always a light at the end of the tunnel and is a reason for these teams to stay sharp and fans to stay interested.

So far, I'm feeling this.

David's next step is where I start to question the methodology just a bit. If not even one conference were to have the same regular season and conference tournament champion, there would be no at-large bids. I'm OK with that. However, at-large bids "open up," for lack of a better term, when a team wins both the regular season and tournament conference crown.


The ideology here, I think, is that if a team wins both the regular season and the conference tournament, you can't really say it was a fluke or that another team deserved to make it. That's fair. Where I get a little bit bothered is that this will only serve to prop up the participation from the BCS conferences because of David's methodology for picking at-larges:

At-large bids awarded according to strength of conference; according to regular season conference standings. Conferences with .9xxx receive one more bids than conferences with .8xxx and so on. First teams selected for auto-bids will be second-place regular season finishers. If that (second-place) team already has auto-bid due to conference tourney title, third place team is NOT selected until other conferences fill their bids.

The reference to ".9xxx" and ".8xxx" is from the same source that I culled my conference rankings earlier -- the esteemed Dr. Po-Po, Ken Pomeroy. I think the end result is that it ends up giving too many at-large bids to the best conferences.

David put together the following list to explain how the idea would have looked this season:

Big Ten: Ohio State (Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois)


Big East: Pittsburgh, U-Conn (Notre Dame, Syracuse, Louisville)


Big 12: Kansas (Texas, Kansas State)


ACC: North Carolina, Duke (Florida State)


Pac 10: Arizona, Washington (UCLA)


SEC: Florida, Kentucky (Alabama)


MWC: BYU, SDSU


CUSA: UAB, Memphis


A10: Xavier, Richmond


MVC: Missouri St., Indiana St


Colonial: George Mason, ODU


Horizon: UW-Milwaukee, Butler


WCC: St. Mary's, Gonzaga


WAC: Utah St.


Ivy: Princeton


MAAC: Fairfield, St. Peter’s


Big West: Long Beach St., UCSB


MAC: Kent St., Akron


Summit: Oakland


Southern: College of Charleston, Wofford


ASun: Belmont


OVC: Murray State, Morehead State


Big Sky: Northern Colorado


Patriot: Bucknell


Northeast: Long Island


Sun Belt: FAU, UALR


Big South: Coastal Carolina, UNC Asheville


Southland: McNeese St., UTSA


America East: Vermont, Boston U


MEAC: Bethune Cookman, Hampton


SWAC: Texas Southern, Alabama State


Auto: 53


At large: 11 - Purdue, Notre Dame, Texas, Wisconsin, Syracuse, Kansas St, Florida St, UCLA, Alabama, Illinois, Louisville

Anything bother you? I'll tell you what bothers me: the fact that some conferences get punished for having one very strong team that stands above the rest.

Let's call it the "Memphis Problem." From 2006-2009, Memphis lost a TOTAL of 14 games. FOURTEEN! Some other teams in the conference were pretty darn good -- UAB comes to mind in a few of those seasons -- but their chances of an auto bid under David's system were nearly null and void, and the conference as a whole was too far down the list for consideration under the .9xxx or .8xxx rules. As it stands under David's solution, the WAC, for instance, only gets one team despite being a much stronger conference than the SWAC, which gets two teams.

I know, it kind of feels like grasping at straws. And I can see the other side of the argument -- if a league doesn't have another team that's capable of knocking off that top team, that top team is the only truly deserving squad. That's all well and good, but when we take bids away from these smaller conferences and give them to the bigger conferences, we're still rewarding mediocrity in those larger conferences!

Finally, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if some of these cash-strapped conferences have more of an incentive to "throw" the conference tournament to a team that hadn't won the regular season tournament, thereby pushing two teams through and getting a bigger piece of the NCAA tourney cash pie. (Mmmm. Cash pie.)

So, what's the solution? I think a more level distribution of the at-large bids is the ticket. David's method clustered the bids at the top due to the .9xxx and .8xxx idea.

I think if we apply one of David's own clauses to the entire nation rather than just the best conferences, we can fix this: "First teams selected for auto-bids will be second-place regular season finishers. If that (second-place) team already has auto-bid due to conference tourney title, third place team is NOT selected until other conferences fill their bids."

There were nine conferences with just one auto bid under David's system: Big Ten, Big 12, WAC, Ivy, Summit, ASun, Big Sky, Patriot, Northeast.

My adjustment to what David did is as follows: distribute at-larges in a top-to-bottom (in order of conference strength) fashion.

So, starting at the top, we get Purdue, Texas, Boise St., Harvard, Oral Roberts, East Tenn. St., Montana, American, Quinnipiac. Now, every conference has an equal amount of bids and we can start back at the top, awarding the final two spots to the top two conferences: the Big Ten and Big East. Wisconsin and Notre Dame are the final two teams into the tournament.

The teams that David had in that I would be leaving out are: Syracuse, Kansas St, Florida St, UCLA, Alabama, Illinois, Louisville. Since only one (Florida St.) of these teams made it to the Sweet 16, I don't think we're losing much. (Kansas St. lost in the second round -- the real second round, not the third round like the NCAA and CBS want us to believe -- UCLA lost in the second round, Alabama didn't make it at all, Illinois lost in the second round and Louisville lost in the first round.)

So, here's how my modified David field looks:

Big Ten: Ohio State (Purdue, Wisconsin)

Big East: Pittsburgh, UConn (Notre Dame)

Big 12: Kansas (Texas)

ACC: North Carolina, Duke

Pac 10: Arizona, Washington

SEC: Florida, Kentucky

MWC: BYU, SDSU

CUSA: UAB, Memphis

A10: Xavier, Richmond

MVC: Missouri St., Indiana St

Colonial: George Mason, ODU

Horizon: UW-Milwaukee, Butler

WCC: St. Mary's, Gonzaga

WAC: Utah St. (Boise St.)

Ivy: Princeton (Harvard)

MAAC: Fairfield, St. Peter’s

Big West: Long Beach St., UCSB

MAC: Kent St., Akron

Summit: Oakland (Oral Roberts)

Southern: College of Charleston, Wofford

ASun: Belmont (East Tenn. St.)

OVC: Murray State, Morehead State

Big Sky: Northern Colorado (Montana)

Patriot: Bucknell (American)

Northeast: Long Island (Quinnipiac)

Sun Belt: FAU, UALR

Big South: Coastal Carolina, UNC Asheville

Southland: McNeese St., UTSA

America East: Vermont, Boston U

MEAC: Bethune Cookman, Hampton

SWAC: Texas Southern, Alabama State

Auto: 53

At large: 11 - Purdue, Texas, Boise St., Harvard, Oral Roberts, East Tenn. St., Montana, American, Quinnipiac, Wisconsin and Notre Dame

We're still acknowledging the better overall strength of the top conferences without bowing down to their greatness. I LIKE IT!

Finally, one other topic to tackle is the number of empty seats at many of these sites. Does anyone go to these games?!?!?

The best solution is to structure the tournament in legitimate geographic terms and actually make it possible for more fans to take in a game. I'm sure UConn fans love their team and would love to see them play -- only they were out in Arizona this year!

Now, in the current NCAA format, it wouldn't work because we'd have one region with 11 Big East teams.

Under the Wothism/McCoy format, though, we don't have to worry about that since each conference has at most three teams. David's seeding method was as follows:
Teams are seeded in reverse, starting with the 16s (weakest teams from weakest conferences). At-larges are seeded according to conference strength, in reverse order. All at-larges will be seeded BEFORE any auto-bids from conferences that have an at-large team in the field. After non-at-large conference teams are seeded, then at-large teams will be seeded (in reverse order, weakest to strongest), then conference tournament winners are seeded in reverse order of conference quality. Then regular season winners are seeded in reverse. THEN, teams that won both their Regular Season and Conference Tournament will get a one-seed advance (i.e. a 16 according to conference quality gets bumped to 15.)
I will follow that guideline with one exception: I will regard regular season champions as more worthy than their equivalent conference tournament champions. So, the 16 seed line will consist of the bottom four conference tournament champions. The 15 seed line will consist of the bottom four conference regular season champions. (Note: In some cases, I will expand this to five conferences if it keeps one team significantly closer to home. Care was also taken to avoid second-round matchups between teams from the same conference.) FINALLY, when two teams on the same seed line are roughly the same distance from a site, the higher-regarded team will stay closer to home, even if it means a slightly lower seed.

Here goes!

MIDWEST (Chicago): 16) Hampton, 15) McNeese St., 14) UALR, 13) Oakland, 12) East Tenn. St., 11) Morehead St., 10) Murray St., 9) Harvard, 8) Kent St., 7) Gonzaga, 6) UW-Milwaukee, 5) Memphis, 4) Xavier, 3) Wisconsin, 2) Purdue, 1) Ohio State

NORTHEAST (Newark): 16) Boston, 15) Vermont, 14) Quinnipiac, 13) American, 12) Long Island, 11) Bucknell, 10) College of Charleston, 9) St. Peter's, 8) Princeton, 7) Butler, 6) ODU, 5) George Mason, 4) Richmond, 3) Notre Dame, 2) Connecticut, 1) Pittsburgh

MOUNTAIN (Denver): 16) UTSA, 15) Texas Southern, 14) Montana, 13) Northern Colorado, 12) Oral Roberts, 11) UCSB, 10) Long Beach St., 9) Boise St., 8) St. Mary's, 7) Utah St., 6) Indiana St., 5) San Diego St., 4) Washington, 3) BYU, 2) Arizona, 1) Kansas

SOUTHEAST (Atlanta): 16) Alabama St., 15) Bethune Cookman, 14) NC Asheville, 13) FAU, 12) Coastal Carolina, 11) Wofford, 10) Belmont, 9) Akron, 8) Fairfield, 7) Missouri St., 6) Kentucky, 5) Florida, 4) UAB, 3) Duke, 2) Texas 1) North Carolina

(You do not want to know how long that took or how tedious that was.)

So, here's the final result. It doesn't get any better than this.



1 OHIO ST.
16 HAMPTON


8 KENT ST.
9 HARVARD


5 MEMPHIS
12 EAST TENNESSEE ST.


4 XAVIER
13 OAKLAND


6 WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE
11 MOREHEAD ST.


3 WISCONSIN
14 ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK


7 GONZAGA
10 MURRAY ST.


2 PURDUE
15 MCNEESE ST.



MOUNTAIN
1 KANSAS
16 TEXAS SAN ANTONIO


8 ST. MARY'S
9 BOISE ST.


5 SAN DIEGO ST.
12 ORAL ROBERTS


4 WASHINGTON
13 NORTHERN COLORADO


6 INDIANA ST.
11 UC SANTA BARBARA


3 BRIGHAM YOUNG
14 MONTANA


7 UTAH ST.
10 LONG BEACH ST.


2 ARIZONA
15 VERMONT



NORTHEAST
1 PITTSBURGH
16 BOSTON U


8 PRINCETON
9 ST. PETER'S


5 GEORGE MASON
12 LONG ISLAND


4 RICHMOND
13 AMERICAN


6 OLD DOMINION
11 BUCKNELL


3 NOTRE DAME
14 QUINNIPIAC


7 BUTLER
10 COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON


2 CONNECTICUT
15 VERMONT



SOUTHEAST
1 NORTH CAROLINA
16 ALABAMA ST.


8 FAIRFIELD
9 AKRON


5 FLORIDA
12 COASTAL CAROLINA


4 UAB
13 FLORIDA ATLANTIC


6 KENTUCKY
11 WOFFORD


3 DUKE
14 NC ASHEVILLE


7 MISSOURI ST.
10 BELMONT


2 TEXAS
15 BETHUNE COOKMAN