"My rule was I wouldn't recruit a kid if he had grass in front of his house.
That's not my world. My world was a cracked sidewalk." —Al McGuire

Thursday, March 19, 2020

Marquette Player Cards for 2020 Season - Jayce 6th Best Rebounder

Denied the chance to celebrate or mourn Marquette's NCAA opener, I spent a lot of time calculating and working up player cards for all 100 teams projected to make the NCAA or NIT tournament. Here is a copy of each player's card followed by an explanation of what each line means. I refer to Markus' card in the explanations just to make it easier to follow, but also note things like Theo John having one of the best shot blocking cards, and Jayce Johnson having the 6th best rebounding card of all 100 teams. After finishing the cards, I played my first Value Add Basketball Game of the tournament today, and NC State rallied to beat Richmond in the closing minute, 71-67, in a play-in game to advance to play 6-seed Penn State in the first round of the East Region.





Here is a description of what each line on the card means:

  • Markus Howard #0 - The top line is just the players name and jersey number.
  • Marquette BE, Rank: #5 - The team and conference follow (and a note if they won the conference) followed by the players Value Add ranking at www.valueaddbasketball.com - in Markus case he is rated as the 5th best player in the game.
  • Play time: PG 41-1 - The player card suggests Markus Howard plays the final 41 of 44 possessions of the game (the game starts with a 20-20 tie so we are playing the final 44 possessions of each game). The top right card is for Symir Torrence, suggesting he plays the first three possessions (44th, 43rd and 42nd). This is calculated based on assuming all players already played some of the first 22 possessions accounting for the 20-20 tie when the game actually starts. (it is easier to have the reserves play first, then finish the game with starters for as long as they can go.)
  • Gets ball on: 1(PG) 6 7 - the 8-sided die determines which player gets the ball each possession, so when Marquette has the ball, it goes to Markus on a roll of 1, 6 or 7.
  • 5'11" Start,Bench,Out: 29,0,1 - Markus is listed at 5-foot-11, and during the season he started 29 games, did not come off the bench in any of the games, and missed the one game due to injury.
  • 11-66 roll and three lines under it - on the 11-66 roll of two dice when when Markus is on defense and the opposing point guard gets the ball, he steals the ball on a roll of 11-13 (of the 11-16 possible steals), never blocks an opponent's shot (21-20 indicates not even the 21 is a block), and he only fouls on rolls of 35-36 (the players who foul a lot foul on 33-36). If he has the ball we look at the right side and he turns it over only only two of the six possible turnover numbers (a 41 or 42) which is very few for a point guard who needs to handle the ball so much. All Marquette players dunk (or in Markus case hits a scoop shot haha) on a 51-56, which is actually a calibrated adjustment for level of competition played over the course of the season. In other words, a player in the American East who had the same stats as Markus would have a much lower dunk range (perhaps even 51-50 or none) to adjust for how each player would play against average competition. On the flip side all Marquette players have a 0 on their defensive figure which adjusts the opponent's dunk range - an average defense but mediocre for a power conference team. On blocked shots note that Theo is one of the few players in the country who blocks shots on all possible block numbers, an 11-16 and then no matter who on the court has the ball he blocks it on a roll of 32.
  • 20-sided die result - if Markus has the ball and nothing happens on the 11-66 roll, then you refer to the 20-sided die and he scores a 3-pointer on a roll of 1-4, makes a 2-pointer on a roll of 5-7, draws a foul and gets two shots on 8-11, misses a 3-pointer on 12-16 and misses a 2-pointer on a 17-20.
  • 1 to 17 = free throw good Stamina 41 - if he is fouled the 20-sided die is rolled twice, and he makes the free throw on a 1-17 and misses it on a 18-20, making him an 85% free throw shooter. The Stamina number tells you how many possessions a player can play before being tired. In his case his Stamina of 41 means he will get tired if he plays more than 41 possessions (thus the suggested play possession 42-1 above) every roll of every dice is adjusted one against him (an 11 on the 20-sided die would be change to a 12 and he would miss instead of being fouled, a 34 would be a foul because it would be increased to a 35, etc,). Note that Symir has great ratios, but since his Stamina is only 3 if you play him more than 3 possessions his card gets much worse.
  • Offensive Rebound if 1 to 1, Defensive Rebound if 1-3 - Half of all rebounds go to the defense automatically, however on the other possessions the dice roll determines which player has a chance to get the rebound on a 1-6 roll. If Markus has a chance for an offensive rebound her rarely gets it (just 1 on the six-sided die) while if he has to beat an opposing offensive player to the offensive rebounder for the ball he gets it half the time (1-3). However, here is where we have a headliner. While most players just get rebounds in the 1-6 range there are some rolls in the game where the "highest on the court" gets the rebound, and if Marquette misses a shot in the game and Jayce Johnson is on the court for a potential miss then he grabs the offensive rebound as one of nine players with a higher offensive rebound number than any player's defensive rebound number with a 1-11. In fact, Jayce's 1-8 defensive rebound number means on the flip side he almost always wins the "highest on court" meaning overall he is tied as the sixth best rebounder on any of the 100 teams in the game. 

  • RebounderOff RebDef RebTotalRow2.1
    Kevin Morris #316521South Alabama
    Oscar Tshiebwe #3413821West Virginia
    Austin Wiley #5012921Auburn
    Blake Preston #3213720Liberty
    Sam Freeman #3215520Minnesota
    Jayce Johnson #3411819Marquette
    Tyrique Jones #411819Xavier
    Scottie James #3111819Liberty
    Trevion Williams #5012719Purdue

  • The team card for Marquette indicates if you simulated thousands of games using these cards against the strongest non-tournament teams, Marquette would average winning by 9 points 73-64. It also reflects that www.kenpom.com calculates Marquette is the 31st best team in the country, the 14th best offense, the 73rd best defense and played against the 20th toughest schedule in the country.  Going by Bracket Matrix, we note that Marquette would be the 9-seed in the Midwest (we ignored the rules against having teams face another team from their own conference and the s-curve and just placed each group of 4 teams with the same seed roughly based on their actual geography. We also provided seeding for 32 NIT teams and on the bottom of each card seeded them in an overall combined NIT/NCAA tournament with 25- to 1- seeds.  
To Print Out Your Teams

If you want to print out any other teams, click here and you should a list of all 300 team files like this. Each image file is numbered, so to find your team just look down the alphabetical list of teams and corresponding page numbers. Once you know the page numbers, scroll to them to print out the three pages you need and print - you will need to cut each page into four sections to have the 12 player cards for each team you plan to play.



TeamPages
AkronPages 1 to 3
AlabamaPages 4 to 6
ArizonaPages 7 to 9
Arizona St.Pages 10 to 12
ArkansasPages 13 to 15
AuburnPages 16 to 18
BaylorPages 19 to 21
BelmontPages 22 to 24
Boston UniversityPages 25 to 27
BradleyPages 28 to 30
ButlerPages 31 to 33
BYUPages 34 to 36
CincinnatiPages 37 to 39
ColgatePages 40 to 42
ColoradoPages 43 to 45
ConnecticutPages 46 to 48
CreightonPages 49 to 51
DaytonPages 52 to 54
DukePages 55 to 57
East Tennessee St.Pages 58 to 60
Eastern WashingtonPages 61 to 63
FloridaPages 64 to 66
Florida St.Pages 67 to 69
FurmanPages 70 to 72
GeorgetownPages 73 to 75
GonzagaPages 76 to 78
HofstraPages 79 to 81
HoustonPages 82 to 84
IllinoisPages 85 to 87
IndianaPages 88 to 90
IowaPages 91 to 93
KansasPages 94 to 96
KentuckyPages 97 to 99
LibertyPages 100 to 102
Little RockPages 103 to 105
Louisiana TechPages 106 to 108
LouisvillePages 109 to 111
LSUPages 112 to 114
MarquettePages 115 to 117
MarylandPages 118 to 120
MemphisPages 121 to 123
MerrimackPages 124 to 126
MichiganPages 127 to 129
Michigan St.Pages 130 to 132
MinnesotaPages 133 to 135
Mississippi St.Pages 136 to 138
Murray St.Pages 139 to 141
N.C. StatePages 142 to 144
New Mexico St.Pages 145 to 147
North Carolina CentralPages 148 to 150
North Dakota St.Pages 151 to 153
North FloridaPages 154 to 156
North TexasPages 157 to 159
Northern IowaPages 160 to 162
Northern KentuckyPages 163 to 165
Notre DamePages 166 to 168
Ohio St.Pages 169 to 171
OklahomaPages 172 to 174
Oklahoma St.Pages 175 to 177
OregonPages 178 to 180
Penn St.Pages 181 to 183
Prairie View A&MPages 184 to 186
ProvidencePages 187 to 189
PurduePages 190 to 192
RadfordPages 193 to 195
Rhode IslandPages 196 to 198
RichmondPages 199 to 201
Robert MorrisPages 202 to 204
RutgersPages 205 to 207
Saint LouisPages 208 to 210
Saint Mary'sPages 211 to 213
San Diego St.Pages 214 to 216
Seton HallPages 217 to 219
SienaPages 220 to 222
South AlabamaPages 223 to 225
South CarolinaPages 226 to 228
South Dakota St.Pages 229 to 231
St. John'sPages 232 to 234
StanfordPages 235 to 237
Stephen F. AustinPages 238 to 240
SyracusePages 241 to 243
TennesseePages 244 to 246
TexasPages 247 to 249
Texas TechPages 250 to 252
TulsaPages 253 to 255
UC IrvinePages 256 to 258
UCLAPages 259 to 261
USCPages 262 to 264
Utah St.Pages 265 to 267
VCUPages 268 to 270
VermontPages 271 to 273
VillanovaPages 274 to 276
VirginiaPages 277 to 279
West VirginiaPages 280 to 282
Wichita St.Pages 283 to 285
WinthropPages 286 to 288
WisconsinPages 289 to 291
Wright St.Pages 292 to 294
XavierPages 295 to 297
YalePages 298 to 300

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Simulation Sunday

Today was supposed to be Selection Sunday. For those of us that put brackets together, this is the day we look forward to all season long, to see how we did, what we got right, what we got wrong, and most important, where our team is going. Since we don't get the Selection Show, I'm going to do my Simulation Show here. I'll go region by region with the full S-Curve down at the bottom. Let's dive in:



We begin in the Midwest with the #1 overall seed, the Kansas Jayhawks, who are headed to Omaha. They will take on the winner of the First Four game in Dayton between 16-seeds UNC Central and Robert Morris. Also in Omaha it's the 8-seed Arizona Wildcats taking on the 9-seed Rutgers Scarlet Knights, making their first tournament since 1991. Moving down to St. Louis, the 5-seed BYU Cougars take on Anthony Lamb and 12th seeded Vermont, representing the America East. Also in St. Louis, the 4th seeded Louisville Cardinals out of the ACC will meet the 13-seed Liberty Flames, who earned their first ever NCAA win a year ago.

The bottom half of the bracket begins in Cleveland, where 6-seed West Virginia opens their NCAA campaign against our first representative from the Atlantic 10, the 11-seed Richmond Spiders. The winner of that game will face the winner of the game between Tom Izzo's 3-seed Michigan State Spartans and the 14-seed Eastern Washington Eagles out of the Big Sky. In St. Louis, the 7th seeded Houston Cougars will take on Mike White and the 10th seeded Florida Gators. We also have our first representative from the Big East as the 2-seed Creighton Blue Jays face off with Summit League champion and 15-seed North Dakota State Bison.


Staying on the right side of the bracket, the top seed will be the Baylor Bears, who head to Omaha to take on the 16-seed Northern Kentucky Norse. The winner there will meet the winner of 8-seed St. Mary's Gaels and your 9-seed Marquette Golden Eagles. In Greensboro, the 5-seed Ohio State Buckeyes open up against a popular giant-killer, the 12-seed Stephen F Austin Lumberjacks. Also in Greensboro, it's John Calipari and his 4th seeded Kentucky Wildcats facing off with Brian Wardle's 13-seed Bradley Braves, returning to the tournament for a second straight year.

In the bottom half of the south, we start with the 6-seed Colorado Buffalos, who will meet up with the 11-seed Indiana Hoosiers in Albany. Staying in Albany, Big East Player of the Year Myles Powell, who undeservingly looted the award for the 3-seed Seton Hall Pirates will meet up with the 14-seed Hofstra Pride and Eli Pemberton. In Tampa, it's National Player of the Year contender Luka Garza and the 7-seed Iowa Hawkeyes facing off with Bobby Hurley's 10th seeded Arizona State Wildcats. We wrap up the South also in Tampa, as the 2-seed ACC-but-not-yet-national-champions Florida State Seminoles will meet the 15-seed Little Rock Trojans who won the Sun Belt.


Let's head to the East, where we begin in Cleveland. National Player of the Year candidate Obadiah Toppin leads the #1-seed Dayton Flyers in their opening game against first-year coach Carm Marciarello and the 16-seed Siena Saints. Also in Cleveland, the 8th seeded LSU Tigers will face off with the 9th seeded Oklahoma Sooners. Moving to Tampa, it's Kamar Baldwin and the 5-seed Butler Bulldogs facing off against the 12-seed Utah State Aggies, champions of the Mountain West. Staying in Tampa, the Maryland Terrapins are the 4-seed and hoping to make their first Final Four since 2001 as they open play against the 13-seed New Mexico State Aggies, led by coach Chris Jans.

The bottom of the bracket opens in Greensboro, where the 6-seed Michigan Wolverines will take on the winner of the First Four game from Dayton between the 11th seeded Northern Iowa Panthers, who may surprise some with their inclusion, and the Cincinnati Bearcats, returning to the tournament in Coach John Brannen's first year there. Also in Greensboro, it's Coach K and the 3-seed Duke Blue Devils squaring off with another first-year coach, Casey Alexander and his 14th seeded Belmont Bruins. Moving to Albany, Pat Chambers and the 7-seed Penn State Nittany Lions both return to the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2011, but also the first time together. They take on Steve Forbes and the East Tennessee State Buccaners, champions of the Southern Conference. The winner of that game will square off with the winner of another game in Albany as the 2-seed Villanova Wildcats take on the 15-seed UC Irvine Anteaters.


The last region, and last hope for teams on the bubble, will come in the West. We begin with Mark Few and his top seeded Gonzaga Bulldogs, who head to Spokane to meet the First Four 16-seed winner as the Prairie View A&M Panthers will meet the Boston University Terriers. The winner of that game will face off with two teams that know each other well, as this will be the third time in five years that Ed Cooley and his 8-seed Providence Friars will open NCAA play against the USC Trojans, who are the 9-seed. In Sacramento, the Auburn Tigers will try to reach a second straight Final Four as a 5-seed; they begin play against the 12-seed Yale Bulldogs. Also in Sacramento, the 4-seed Wisconsin Badgers will take on the 13-seed Akron Zips out of the MAC.

Back to Spokane, the defending champions and 6-seed Virginia Cavaliers will open play with the winners of the 11-seed First Four game between the Xavier Musketeers and the 2019 runners-up, the Texas Tech Red Raiders. This pod also includes the 3-seed Oregon Ducks, who face off against the 14-seed North Texas Mean Green from Conference-USA. Our last pod will be in Sacramento, where the 7-seed Illinois Fightin' Illini will meet the 10-seed Wichita State Shockers. And the last game we have is the 2-seed San Diego State Aztecs, who were the last undefeated team in the nation this year, meeting the 15-seed Winthrop Eagles.

Here is the full 2020 NCAA bracket:


Comments from Selection Committee Chair: "This was a year where the 1-seeds were all clear. There was complete agreement on both those teams and the regions they went to. The closest team to the top line was San Diego State, who could've got there had they won their conference tournament, but were clearly off the top line after that loss.

"There was quite a bit of discussion about the bubble. The last two teams in were Northern Iowa and Cincinnati. Both of those teams had some tough losses, but their winning records against teams in the top two quadrants and generally stronger computer numbers were what propelled them into the field over the teams that will headline the NIT."

Here is the complete seed list, as well as the top two seed lines for the NIT:

1-Seeds: 1-KANSAS 2-GONZAGA 3-Baylor 4-DAYTON
2-Seeds: 8-Villanova 7-FLORIDA STATE 6-CREIGHTON 5-San Diego State
3-Seeds: 9-Duke 10-Michigan State 11-OREGON 12-Seton Hall
4-Seeds: 16-WISCONSIN 15-Maryland 14-Louisville 13-KENTUCKY
5-Seeds: 17-Butler 18-Ohio State 19-Auburn 20-Byu
6-Seeds: 24-Colorado 23-Virginia 22-Michigan 21-West Virginia
7-Seeds: 25-HOUSTON 26-Penn State 27-Iowa 28-Illinois
8-Seeds: 32-Arizona 31-St. Mary's 30-Providence 29-Lsu
9-Seeds: 33-Marquette 34-Rutgers 35-Usc 36-Oklahoma
10-Seeds: 40-EAST TENNESSEE STATE 39-Wichita State 38-Arizona State 37-Florida
11-Seeds: 41-Richmond 42-Indiana 43-Xavier/44-Texas Tech 45-Northern Iowa/46-Cincinnati
12-Seeds: 50-VERMONT 49-STEPHEN F AUSTIN 48-YALE 47-UTAH STATE
13-Seeds: 51-LIBERTY 52-AKRON 53-BRADLEY 54-NEW MEXICO STATE
14-Seeds: 58-EASTERN WASHINGTON 57-HOFSTRA 56-NORTH TEXAS 55-BELMONT
15-Seeds: 59-UC IRVINE 60-NORTH DAKOTA STATE 61-LITTLE ROCK 62-WINTHROP
16-Seeds: 68-NC CENTRAL/67-ROBERT MORRIS 66-PVAMU/65-BOSTON UNIVERSITY 64-SIENA 63-NORTHERN KENTUCKY

NIT 1-Seeds: NC State, UCLA, Texas, Stanford
NIT 2-Seeds: Arkansas, St. Louis, Mississippi State, Rhode Island

Last Four Byes: Arizona State, Wichita State, Richmond, Indiana
Last Four In: Xavier, Texas Tech, Northern Iowa, Cincinnati


Multibid Leagues
Big 10: 10
Big East: 7
Pac 12: 5
Big 12: 5
ACC: 4
SEC: 4
WCC: 3
American: 3
Atlantic 10: 2
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 2

Soon Releasing Player Cards for Top 100 Teams for Simulated March Madness

While insignificant in the the whirl of world events, I decided to go ahead and produce player cards for 68 teams who theoretically would have been in this year's NCAA and another 32 that would have theoretically made the NIT tournament. I may just play them off in one 100-team tournament once I've made them available (for free as always) here.

While the player cards will take at least a couple of days to calculate and produce, the quick math on Markus Howard is that he is one of 34 players in all of college basketball who will have possession of the ball on three of the 8-sided die rolls (he had the ball 37.4% of the time, and any player with at least 31.3 percent of their team's possessions gets the ball on three rolls).

If he gets the ball and the defender doesn't stop him or he doesn't get a free basket based on a level of competition factor that helps MU's cards due to the tough defense and offenses faced then the result of the 20-sided die determines if he gets a shot off or is fouled.

On a 20-side roll Markus Howard:

  1. Makes a 3-pointer on a roll of 1-4
  2. Makes a 2-pointer on a roll of 5-7
  3. Gets fouled and 2 free throws on a roll of 8-11
  4. Misses a 3-pointer on a roll of 12-16
  5. Misses a 2-pointer on a roll of 17-20

If he is fouled he makes each free throw on a roll of 1-17 and misses on an 18-20. I won't go through all the rolls for turnovers, rebounds, steals, blocked shots etc., but that's the basic.

The way the seeding sets up I would play Marquette as the 8-seed in the West against Colorado in the opening round. However, if I go with the 25-team regions in one big tournament, then Marquette would need to first defeat 25-seed Prairie View A&M and Colorado would need to beat 24-seed Radford, shipped out West because there was no western team among the four 24-seeds.

Just Concluded All-Time Great Tournament


The two All-Time great teams did not do well in my all-time tournament as Dwyane Wade's Final Four team was upset by a West Virginia team they could not keep off the offensive glass, and the National Champs defeated Rick Majerus' Utah Final Four team before losing by a point to the historic 1966 West Texas team, which then went all the way to the Elite 8.

Wade's team was explosive but had one of the worst few defensive teams of the 96 all-time greats, while the 1977 National Champs had one of the best few defensive teams.

We just finished playing off this All-Time March Madness tournament (with Bill Walton's UCLA beating Michael Jordan's UNC in the final) when the 2020 March Madness was cancelled. We plan to make playing cards for the 100 teams that would have made March Madness based on the following criteria:

1) Conference Champions to NCAA: If a team had already won their conference tournament ("Tourn"), or was the team still alive in their tournament with the highest www.kenpom.com rating ("Top") they were considered the automatic qualifier to the NCAA from their conference.

2) Regular Season Champ Gets at Least NIT: If a different team from the conference won the regular season or even was tied for the conference title (unless the third or three tied teams based on the www.kenpom.com rating), then they are guaranteed of at least an NIT bid.

3) We then seeded the teams within each tournament based on their www.kenpom.com rating. We broke up the regions based on the basic direction of the four teams with that seed, giving preference to keeping the better rating closer to home if two were in the same region. However, as far as actually playing off the tournament I may just combine the NCAA and NIT into a 100-team tournament with the 1- through 7-seeds getting a first round bye and the 8-seeds vs. 25-seeds playing in the opening round etc.

Note: I actually decided to choose my seeds by going with the composite NCAA Bracket at the Bracket Matrix, and then I basically followed the Barking Crow NIT Bracketology, though I had to make a few adjustments for teams they had listed that made the final NCAA Bracket and vice versa. I made cards for those 100 teams - made on of the tournaments by one of those methods - and keep in mind some teams won their regular season title but were eliminated from their conference tournament prior to everything being cancelled - and those teams are guaranteed at least an NIT bid.

Player Cards Will Be Produced for These Teams


Here is how the teams rank and the regions in which I'd set them up.

TeamW-LConf/Champ?KenPomOffDeftourneySeedRegion
Kansas28-3Top B12182NCAA1Midwest
Gonzaga31-2Tourn WCC2143NCAA1West
Baylor26-4B123174NCAA1South
Dayton29-2Top A104238NCAA1East
Duke25-6ACC5912NCAA2East
San Diego St.30-2Reg MWC61110NCAA2West
Michigan St.22-9Top B1071013NCAA2South
Ohio St.21-10B1081319NCAA2Midwest
Louisville24-7ACC91230NCAA3Midwest
West Virginia21-10B1210673NCAA3East
Maryland24-7Tri-B10111822NCAA3South
Creighton24-7Top BE12378NCAA3West
BYU24-8WCC13760NCAA4West
Houston23-8Top Amer142221NCAA4South
Florida St.26-5Top ACC153215NCAA4East
Michigan19-12B10162028NCAA4Midwest
Oregon24-7Top P1217676NCAA5West
Villanova24-7Tri-BE181536NCAA5East
Arizona21-11P12193514NCAA5Midwest
Seton Hall21-9Tri-BE202925NCAA5South
Texas Tech18-13B1221479NCAA6South
Wisconsin21-10Tri-B10224017NCAA6Midwest
Iowa20-11B1023597NCAA6West
Purdue16-15B10245011NCAA6East
Butler22-9BE252542NCAA7Midwest
Penn St.21-10B10264323NCAA7East
Minnesota15-16B10273041NCAA7West
Rutgers20-11B1028726NCAA7South
Kentucky25-6Top SEC292452NCAA8East
Illinois21-10B10303835NCAA8Midwest
Marquette18-12BE311473NCAA8West
Florida19-12SEC322761NCAA8South
Auburn25-6SEC333355NCAA9South
Indiana20-12B10346526NCAA9East
Colorado21-11P12355432NCAA9West
Oklahoma19-12B12365829NCAA9Midwest
LSU21-10SEC374179NCAA10South
Saint Mary's26-8WCC381696NCAA10West
Wichita St.23-8Amer391178NCAA10Midwest
Providence19-12BE407527NCAA10East
Utah St.26-8Tourn MWC414948NCAA11West
Virginia23-7ACC422341NCAA11.5East
Stanford20-12P12431437NCAA11.5South
Cincinnati20-10Tri-Amer445951NCAA11Midwest
Xavier19-13BE4510320NCAA11.5South (MW if 25)
Richmond24-7A10465354NCAA11.5East
Arkansas20-12SEC475557NIT1West
Mississippi St.20-11SEC4819119NIT1South
Northern Iowa25-6Reg MVC4923108NIT1Midwest (West if 25)
N.C. State20-12ACC504279NIT1East (South if 25)
Syracuse18-14ACC5121116NIT2Midwest
Connecticut19-12Amer526459NIT2East
Oklahoma St.18-14B12538446NIT2South
Washington15-17P125411231NIT2West
USC22-9P125514518NIT3West
East Tennessee St.30-4Tourn SC566965NCAA12South
Notre Dame20-12ACC5741100NIT3East
Yale23-7Tourn Ivy587367NCAA12East
Memphis21-10Amer592105NIT3Midwest
Alabama16-15SEC6037114NIT3South
Texas19-12B126115324NIT4South
Saint Louis23-8A106211144NIT4Midwest
Arizona St.20-11P126310849NIT4West
Georgia Tech17-14ACC6417116NIT4South
Rhode Island21-9A106512639NIT5East
St. John's17-15BE6610453NIT5Midwest
Georgetown15-17BE6736125NIT5South
Tennessee17-14SEC689662NIT5West
South Carolina18-13SEC6912250NIT6South
Davidson16-14A107026163NIT6East
Louisiana Tech22-8CUSA716090NIT6West
Clemson16-15ACC7215533NIT6Midwest
VCU18-13A107313845NIT7South
Vermont26-7Top AE769868NCAA12Midwest
North Texas20-11Top CUSA7734146NCAA12West
Liberty30-4Tourn ASun7910769NCAA13East
Akron24-7Top MAC8266103NCAA13Midwest
New Mexico St.25-6Top WAC9180113NCAA13West
Stephen F. Austin28-3Tourn Slnd10015275NCAA13South
UC Irvine21-11Top BW106121109NCAA14West
Bradley23-11Tourn MVC10792134NCAA14Midwest
Hofstra26-8Tourn CAA10862187NCAA14East
Belmont26-7Tourn OVC10997132NCAA14South
North Dakota St.25-8Tourn Sum11291148NCAA15Midwest (W if 25)
Colgate25-9Reg Pat11886182NIT7East
South Dakota St.22-10Co-Sum11946241NIT7West (MW if 25)
Eastern Washington23-8Top BSky124120142NCAA15West
Little Rock21-10Top SB12999184NCAA15South
Wright St.25-7Reg Horz133132157NIT7Midwest
Murray St.23-9Co-OVC136178110NIT8West
Winthrop24-10Tourn BSth140136169NCAA15East
Northern Kentucky23-9Tourn Horz144191120NCAA16South
Siena20-10Top MAAC14587236NCAA16East
Boston University21-13Tourn Pat159166186NCAA16.5Midwest
North Florida21-12Co-ASun16631324NIT8South
Radford21-11Co-BSth186118272NIT8East (West if 25)
Robert Morris20-14Tourn NEC207212205NCAA16.5West (East if 25)
Prairie View A&M19-13Top SWAC213282131NCAA16.5West
Merrimack20-11Reg NEC227325101NIT8Midwest
North Carolina Central18-13Top MEAC272319193NCAA16.5Midwest (South  25)

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Bracket in the Time of Corona

Obviously this is all overshadowed by the looming specter of COVID-19, so we will see what happens with games going forward, if there even are any more.

This update is addressing the auto-bid awarded last night, which dropped Colgate out, put Boston University into Dayton, and moved Eastern Washington and Winthrop up a seed line.

There was a lot of chaos on the bubble, with Xavier and Stanford both losing and NC State winning. I haven't done a deep dive this morning, but am moving Xavier down to the First Four, dropping Stanford from the field, and putting Cincinnati into Dayton as the last at-large bid. I will be doing a full rescrub of the bracket in the next day or two. As always, I don't put a lot of stock in Championship Week results, but results on Wednesday are early enough to matter.

Here's the full S-Curve:

1-Seeds: 1-KANSAS 2-GONZAGA 3-Baylor 4-DAYTON
2-Seeds: 8-Villanova 7-FLORIDA STATE 6-CREIGHTON 5-San Diego State
3-Seeds: 9-Duke 10-Michigan State 11-OREGON 12-KENTUCKY
4-Seeds: 16-WISCONSIN 15-Maryland 14-Louisville 13-Seton Hall
5-Seeds: 17-Butler 18-Ohio State 19-Auburn 20-Byu
6-Seeds: 24-Colorado 23-Virginia 22-Michigan 21-West Virginia
7-Seeds: 25-HOUSTON 26-Penn State 27-Iowa 28-Illinois
8-Seeds: 32-Arizona 31-St. Mary's 30-Providence 29-Lsu
9-Seeds: 33-Marquette 34-Rutgers 35-Usc 36-Oklahoma
10-Seeds: 40-EAST TENNESSEE STATE 39-Wichita State 38-Arizona State 37-Florida
11-Seeds: 41-Richmond 42-Indiana 43-Xavier/44-Texas Tech 45-Northern Iowa/46-Cincinnati
12-Seeds: 50-VERMONT 49-STEPHEN F AUSTIN 48-YALE 47-UTAH STATE
13-Seeds: 51-LIBERTY 52-AKRON 53-BRADLEY 54-NEW MEXICO STATE
14-Seeds: 58-EASTERN WASHINGTON 57-HOFSTRA 56-NORTH TEXAS 55-BELMONT
15-Seeds: 59-UC IRVINE 60-NORTH DAKOTA STATE 61-LITTLE ROCK 62-WINTHROP
16-Seeds: 68-NC CENTRAL/67-ROBERT MORRIS 66-PVAMU/65-BOSTON UNIVERSITY 64-SIENA 63-NORTHERN KENTUCKY

NIT 1-Seeds: UCLA, Texas, NC State, Stanford
NIT 2-Seeds: Arkansas, St. Louis, Mississippi State, Rhode Island

Last Four Byes: Arizona State, Wichita State, Richmond, Indiana
Last Four In: Xavier, Texas Tech, Northern Iowa, Cincinnati

Multibid Leagues
Big 10: 10
Big East: 7
Pac 12: 5
Big 12: 5
ACC: 4
SEC: 4
WCC: 3
American: 3
Atlantic 10: 2
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 2

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Wee Morning Hours Update

Not  much changes with the exception of some teams punching their tickets. Everyone we had projected in yesterday won in their conference tournaments. Marquette did effectively add two wins over tournament teams as non-con opponents North Dakota State and Robert Morris won the automatic bids from the Summit League and Northeast Conference, respectively.

Here's the full S-Curve:

1-Seeds: 1-KANSAS 2-GONZAGA 3-Baylor 4-DAYTON
2-Seeds: 8-Villanova 7-FLORIDA STATE 6-CREIGHTON 5-San Diego State
3-Seeds: 9-Duke 10-Michigan State 11-OREGON 12-KENTUCKY
4-Seeds: 16-WISCONSIN 15-Maryland 14-Louisville 13-Seton Hall
5-Seeds: 17-Butler 18-Ohio State 19-Auburn 20-Byu
6-Seeds: 24-Virginia 23-Colorado 22-Michigan 21-West Virginia
7-Seeds: 25-HOUSTON 26-Penn State 27-Iowa 28-Illinois
8-Seeds: 32-Arizona 31-St. Mary's 30-Providence 29-Lsu
9-Seeds: 33-Marquette 34-Rutgers 35-Usc 36-Oklahoma
10-Seeds: 40-Xavier 39-Wichita State 38-Arizona State 37-Florida
11-Seeds: 41-EAST TENNESSEE STATE 42-Stanford 43-Richmond/44-Indiana 45-Texas Tech/46-Northern Iowa
12-Seeds: 50-VERMONT 49-STEPHEN F AUSTIN 48-YALE 47-UTAH STATE
13-Seeds: 51-LIBERTY 52-AKRON 53-BRADLEY 54-NEW MEXICO STATE
14-Seeds: 58-HOFSTRA 57-COLGATE 56-NORTH TEXAS 55-BELMONT
15-Seeds: 59-EASTERN WASHINGTON 60-UC IRVINE 63-NORTH DAKOTA STATE 64-LITTLE ROCK
16-Seeds: 68-NC CENTRAL/67-ROBERT MORRIS 66-PVAMU/65-SIENA 64-WINTHROP 63-NORTHERN KENTUCKY

NIT 1-Seeds: Cincinnati, UCLA, Texas, NC State
NIT 2-Seeds: Arkansas, St. Louis, Mississippi State, Rhode Island

Last Four Byes: Arizona State, Wichita State, Xavier, Stanford
Last Four In: Richmond, Indiana, Texas Tech, Northern Iowa

Multibid Leagues
Big 10: 10
Big East: 7
Pac 12: 6
Big 12: 5
ACC: 4
SEC: 4
WCC: 3
American: 2
Atlantic 10: 2
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 2

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Back to the Bracket

After a vacation week to start March, it's time to get back into the bracket. While there's been some movement at the top of the field, all the talk right now is about bid thieves and bubble teams. Let's start with bid thieves.

With ETSU and Gonzaga winning last night, it guaranteed no bid thieves out of the SoCon or WCC. Utah State already stole a bid, based on our current S-Curve, they took it from Cincinnati, who many still have in as the American auto-bid but I have out as I slotted Houston in there. There are now a maximum of 8 possible bids that can be stolen. Based on this Curve, Marquette is guaranteed safety as there are 12 teams between them and the NIT. Even a loss to Seton Hall on a neutral (Q1A loss) wouldn't significantly change that.

So where could we see bid thieves? There could still be bid thieves in the American (44.8% chance of a thief per Ken Pomeroy), A-10 (30.2%), ACC (9.7%), Big East (4.2%), Big 10 (7.3%), Big 12 (2.7%), Pac 12 (12.6%), and SEC (28.2%). Every other league remaining is either a one-bid league or their winner is guaranteed to be a team that will be in the field regardless. As spoilers drop out, this number will be reduced.

Finally, let's talk about the actual bubble. Right now, we have 11 total teams on the bubble: Wichita State, Xavier, Stanford, Richmond, Indiana, Texas Tech, Northern Iowa, Cincinnati, UCLA, Texas, and NC State. I don't believe anyone above Arizona State is in any danger (barring every bid possible being stolen) nor is anyone below NC State worth considering for an at-large bid. Here are a few thoughts on those teams:

Wichita State: (23-8, NET 41, NCSOS 139, 2-5 Q1, 7-3 Q2) Nothing terrible on the resume, but nothing eye-popping. Their biggest pros are solid computer numbers, but the downside is their two Q1 wins are at the very back end of the quadrant.

Xavier: (19-12, NET 44, NCSOS 65, 3-11 Q1, 7-1 Q2) The Musketeers should be safe, though that Q1 record is ugly. They only have one loss outside the top-40, however, and beating Seton Hall on the road is huge. I don't put a lot of stock in Championship Week results barring title games, but for the sake of blood pressures in Cincinnati, DLTD.

Stanford: (20-11, NET 30, NCSOS 219, 4-7 Q1, 3-3 Q2) The Q1 record is solid but their sub-200 NCSOS is the worst of teams on the bubble. The Selection Committee has punished teams like that before. I think the NET is good enough for inclusion, but I'm not certain.

Richmond: (24-7, NET 37, NCSOS 85, 3-4 Q1, 3-2 Q2) The Spiders greatest asset and biggest deficiency are neutral court results: a win over Wisconsin and loss to Radford. There's really nothing terrible on the resume but they are clearly the best chance for the A-10 to be a two-bid league beyond a bid thief.

Indiana: (19-12, NET 60, NCSOS 71, 4-10 Q1, 5-2 Q2) Archie Miller is clinging to Strength of Record, which is the only metric that has the Hoosiers in the top-30, like Ernie clings to his Rubber Duckie on Sesame Street. Their 2 Q1A wins stand out and are what warrants inclusion. They compare favorably to poor NET high-major teams like St. John's and Arizona State that played in Dayton last year.

Texas Tech: (18-13, NET 22, NCSOS 182, 3-10 Q1, 4-3 Q2) Teams that have a losing Q1+2+3 record don't usually fare well on the bubble, and the Red Raiders are 10-13 in that category. They benefit a ton from the computer numbers, but the poor NCSOS and low quantity of wins given a ton of opportunities could cost them. I'm not nearly as sold as others on their chances. Like Xavier, I don't put much stock in this week's results, but they really don't want to take a loss to Texas this week.

Northern Iowa: (23-6, NET 48, NCSOS 114, 1-1 Q1, 3-2 Q2) Northern Iowa has a resume that's nearly identical to Belmont from last year, which was good enough to get into Dayton. The difference is UNI's best win is better than anything Belmont had and they have far fewer Q4 games than the Bruins did. I am in the minority in having them in and they really need to cheer for the favorites this week to have any chance of staying here.

Cincinnati: (20-10, NET 51, NCSOS 27, 2-6 Q1, 7-0 Q2) The Bearcats could benefit from a tough NCSOS, but carrying 4 losses in Q3 with no Q1A wins is quite the anchor on their resume. A lot of others have them in as the American champ, I went with Houston in that slot. It will be interesting to see how they are handled considering how average the American is this year.

UCLA: (18-12, NET 76, NCSOS 202, 6-7 Q1, 3-3 Q2) The Bruins are everyone's darling right now, but I would caution everyone to remember recent play is not a metric. The 3 Q1A wins are great, but their NET, NCSOS, and computer numbers are all really bad. I still think they need the autobid, despite the great work Cronin did to turn things around.

Texas: (19-12, NET 69, NCSOS 120, 5-8 Q1, 2-4 Q2) The Longhorns have some nice wins at the top of the resume, but there's very little meat after that and their 7-12 record in the top two quadrants is pretty bad. While the resume compares nicely in many ways with Texas Tech, who we have in, that 47 spot difference in the NET is pretty stark when you consider that is the NCAA's own sorting tool.

NC State (19-12, NET 54, NCSOS 90, 4-5 Q1, 4-5 Q2) The Wolfpack have the win over Duke, but other than that, not much to hang their hat on. Losing records in each of the first two quadrants with mediocre computer numbers doesn't scream at-large team to me, especially with two Q3 losses. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Here's the full S-Curve:

1-Seeds: 1-KANSAS 2-GONZAGA 3-Baylor 4-DAYTON
2-Seeds: 8-Villanova 7-FLORIDA STATE 6-CREIGHTON 5-San Diego State
3-Seeds: 9-Duke 10-Michigan State 11-OREGON 12-KENTUCKY
4-Seeds: 16-WISCONSIN 15-Maryland 14-Louisville 13-Seton Hall
5-Seeds: 17-Butler 18-Ohio State 19-Auburn 20-Byu
6-Seeds: 24-Virginia 23-Colorado 22-Michigan 21-West Virginia
7-Seeds: 25-HOUSTON 26-Penn State 27-Iowa 28-Illinois
8-Seeds: 32-Arizona 31-St. Mary's 30-Providence 29-Lsu
9-Seeds: 33-Marquette 34-Rutgers 35-Usc 36-Oklahoma
10-Seeds: 40-Xavier 39-Wichita State 38-Arizona State 37-Florida
11-Seeds: 41-EAST TENNESSEE STATE 42-Stanford 43-Richmond/44-Indiana 45-Texas Tech/46-Northern Iowa
12-Seeds: 50-VERMONT 49-STEPHEN F AUSTIN 48-YALE 47-UTAH STATE
13-Seeds: 51-LIBERTY 52-AKRON 53-BRADLEY 54-NEW MEXICO STATE
14-Seeds: 58-HOFSTRA 57-COLGATE 56-NORTH TEXAS 55-BELMONT
15-Seeds: 59-EASTERN WASHINGTON 60-UC IRVINE 63-NORTH DAKOTA STATE 64-LITTLE ROCK
16-Seeds: 68-NC CENTRAL/67-ROBERT MORRIS 66-PVAMU/65-SIENA 64-WINTHROP 63-NORTHERN KENTUCKY

NIT 1-Seeds: Cincinnati, UCLA, Texas, NC State
NIT 2-Seeds: Arkansas, St. Louis, Mississippi State, Rhode Island

Last Four Byes: Arizona State, Wichita State, Xavier, Stanford
Last Four In: Richmond, Indiana, Texas Tech, Northern Iowa

Multibid Leagues
Big 10: 10
Big East: 7
Pac 12: 6
Big 12: 5
ACC: 4
SEC: 4
WCC: 3
American: 2
Atlantic 10: 2
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 2

Monday, March 09, 2020

Yeah it's bad, real bad.

We're back, but we kind of wish we weren't given how terrible #mubb played this week. We don't really dive into the nuts and bolts of the games but instead focus on what is wrong with the team and why nothing seems to change. We talk about how unplayable Koby is right now and why. We also talk about how Wojo seems to treat each game as if this is the game everything hes been trying with finally click(it never does). We then close out with some post season talk and wonder out loud if someone will take Wojo off our hands. Enjoy!

https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/ma3qgm/scrambledeggs_edit_030820.mp3

Monday, March 02, 2020

Settle in, we're going to talk this out

It was an up and down week, though in the emotions of senior day and we need to spend some time talking about it. We kick the podcast off with a discussion of the game against Seton Hall especially trying to breakdown what went wrong. We also talk about the senior day festivities a little but we aren't going to spend any time right not eulogizing Howard's #mubb career just yet. We then turn to what seems to be the hot topic, Wojo. We play a game of Point-CounterPoint that gives us a framework to really work through the Wojo discussions all fans are seeming to have. We then talk the week ahead and how worried we are about finishing out the season on a mini-slump. It's a process, try to enjoy. https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/9cq5rq/scrambledeggs_edit_030120.mp3

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

We're in Lenten Season, Patience is the Order of the Day.

I'm BAAAACCCCCKKKKKK

Don't panic, this blog post shouldn't be as long as the previous one. It'll be ramble-ly to be sure but I think we can get to the point more rapidly. First, the feedback and commentary from the first post was tremendous and I truly appreciate the support because this isn't really my thing. Second, I'd like to highlight a tweet I got from someone on Twitter.


A bit of a side commentary(oh boy, I've really got a case of the rambles), Rubie Q is my favorite Wojo hater on Twitter. He is thoughtful, informed, very snarky, and not a dick. The lesson, push back all you want but don't be a dick.

Any whosie, this tweet hit home because I had this concern when I was doing my analysis. I was leaving out any analysis of whether other not Wojo-led teams are competitive in the general sense not just in the close game sense. Rubie is spot on, one of the "yeah, buts" of the Wojo era has been that he gets blown out in games and I didn't address it. So now I've got to go back to the ole' hypothesis drawing board. The good news, I think the work previously done is still valid but I have an additional hypothesis to test. So what is that hypothesis?

Hypothesis: Wojo-led teams have more non-competitive games lost than the average coach.

OK, big breath.....how the hell do I figure out THAT data set?? Paint Touches rode in with a suggestion (and a very good one) to use the T-Rank website (wonderful website I suggest you visit, it's like KenPom with a two drink minimum and free) which has a +/- metric which basically breaks down as the average margin for each game that the team had. So a -10 in the +/- metric means the team in question was losing on average by 10 through out the game, and when you combine that with a win in that game it would tell you that was a furious come-back win versus something like a +2 result with a win which might tell you it was a dog fight through out. The only flaw in this approach is that the T-Rank data does not cover the full extent of my control group because it doesn't go back that far, plus it would enable/force a different classification system than I originally started out with. I think this approach has a lot of merit going forward but seems like it's an analysis with a slightly different hypothesis to test(definitely something I'll consider as a future article if they don't take the keys to this website away from me). So back to the drawing board, I guess. Now, it's important to remember I'm lazy so I thought about the data I already had and it struck me, if I had every game for the teams I am analyzing I already have the hard analysis done....I know what games were competitive! Ergo, by definition any games that weren't in the list were non-competitive (ie a blow out win or loss). To that end, with a little more information collection I was able to grab the full season results for the Wojo-seasons plus the control group and classify each game in one of four categories: Non-competitive loss, Competitive loss, Competitive win, and Non-competitive win. So with that, we arrive at our first visual.



Lot of numbers, rows and lines....not much to take away from this view alone though it is interesting to note that the control group average for non-competitive losses a season is 3.5. Considering the control group has some very well regarded coaches and a couple of national championship winning teams it seemed a little high to me. So let's look at that information with with some context, I want my loses to be low in number(especially non-competitive) and my wins to be high in number(especially non-competitive) so let's apply some conditional formatting and voila:



As we already knew from the previous article I bored you with, Wojo has been getting steadily better in competitive games but it also appears that he is getting better about not having non-competitive losses. He is certainly not at an elite level in that regard (knock me over with a feather) but he isn't the garbage results he was in the first couple of years at Marquette. We should also acknowledge that he is not good at blowing other teams out so Wojo is generally going to win but not that convincingly. This years team has at least 6 games left to play, I'd expect MU to win the majority left but to do so in a non-blow out fashion, that's a good thing (maybe we aren't collapsing, who knows). However, I wanted to apply another bit of analysis to this....it's easy to not get blown out when you are playing "easy" teams, so let's apply the KenPom rankings to this



The analysis is simple here, Wojo's Achilles heal is that if he doesn't beat an elite team he gets blown out by them....but that's true of most of the coaches. Put another way, it seems like Wojo is probably a good coach(or above average considering the control group) but hasn't yet figured out how to beat the elite teams consistently and/or be really competitive in those games. However.....here's where I use that pesky trend term again.....Wojo's results have been trending upwards with each season. Wojo is getting more competitive against sterner competition as he has gone on. He's definitely not where we want him to be, but if the trend holds, he'll get there in the next couple of seasons. OK, but wait there's more! I then took all this data I now have and wanted to look at it in a weighted quad fashion (which does a good job of reflecting game location and team rank) to see if there was anything that stood out there. Long story short, each category type got a rating of 1 through 4 (1 being non-competitive loss and 4 being non-competitive win) and I multiplied the number of games in each category based on the weight then categorized them by the quad type and this is the visual you get.



Some housekeeping, the brown toned bars are the control group while the blue toned ones are the MU teams under Wojo. The red bars represent the average value of the control group metric in each quad. One really important thing to keep in mind when looking at this chart.....this years team has at least 6 more games to play this season and they are all going to be Quad 1 or 2 games so the darkest blue bar in the Quad 1 and 2 graph is going to get higher no matter what. Two major take-aways by looking at the data this way: Wojo's team this year is performing about where the non-national championship coaches of the control group performed in their seasons and that pesky trend is aiming positively again.

The conclusion from all of this is, once again, I think Wojo is victim of some narrative forming early in his career at MU that he simply hasn't been able to eliminate and as a consequence the "bad losses" result in more of the "here we go again" response as opposed to being able to reflect on those types of games becoming fewer. In other words, it feels like Wojo is performing as bad as ever, but he's actually getting better. I don't think he is where we want him to be, but this review gives me hope that he can get to where we want him to be. Will he? Very tough to say, but I don't have any evidence that he can't at this point which I will take and run with.

One more piece of context I want to provide as part of this analysis is a bit of commentary on expectations. In a very lucky happenstance, Alan Bykowski (he's the one that does all the good work on Cracked Sidewalks and the lead acolyte in the Howard for NPOY campaign), collected data on all of the coaches that have been to a Final Four in the last 20 years (41 coaches in total). He has data on how long it took the coach to first achieve an NCAA bid, how many seasons it took to reach both a Final Four and(if relevant) a National Championship, as well as how many coaching jobs before they achieved those goals. Below is the list of 41 coaches and the cells colored green are those coaches that have achieve one of the goals faster than Wojo has to date, ie. if a coach got to a Final Four in 5 years or less the cell is green because Wojo definitely hasn't done that (otherwise I wouldn't have to write an article like this)



Puts it in a little perspective, for me any ways. Yes, we are leaving out that Wojo hasn't won an NCAA game nor reached something more achievable like a Sweet Sixteen berth(which are totally reasonable expectations) but there are also a lot of coaches that went on to make a Final Four who didn't even appear in an NCAA game in their third season. Further, the average length in role to make a Final Four is just over 11 years! I'd also like to look at this list in one more way, what does the list look like if we apply these filters: coaches who made an NCAA bid in 3 years or less, made a Final Four, and did all of that in their first head coaching gig:



That's it, that's the list. Three of the five guys on the list (of the last 20 years) went to the Final Four on the backs of other coaches players and never found success anywhere else again. A fourth is struggling in his second gig (#DoneDeal) and the fifth is Brad Stevens who left for the NBA where he is clearly proving to be a very, very good coach. I don't offer this up as some sort of full-throated rebuttle to the concerns over Wojo....it is definitely concerning that he hasn't won an NCAA tournament game and that he hasn't yet found a way to beat elite teams. We also might be in the midst of another late season collapse which would be a huge red flag. What I do offer this up as is food for thought....do we need to be reactionary here or do we play the long game and see where it plays out? I think the expectation should be to win an NCAA tournament this year and earn a Sweet Sixteen berth within three years, and if he doesn't meet those expectations we gotta think about moving on. In the interim, the data tells me #mubb has a coach who is improving and showing little to no signs of having hit his ceiling yet. That's good enough for me anyway.