Monday, August 30, 2010
Eligible transfers 2011
The following is a list of transfers eligible for the upcoming season. These only include transfers whose most recent school was D-I. Thanks to kenpom.com head researcher Nic Reiner-Parra for putting this together. Drop me a line if someone needs to be added, removed, or changed.
Name Pos Ht/Wt Year To From Quincy Diggs F 6-6/195 So Akron New Orleans Charles Hinkle* G/F 6-5/210 Jr American Vanderbilt Troy Brewer SG 6-5/175 Jr American Georgia Anthony Breeze F 6-5/230 Jr Appalachian St. Coastal Carolina Omar Carter F 6-5/220 Jr Appalachian St. Char. Southern Alex English C 6-10/235 Jr Arizona St. Colgate Jeff Peterson PG 6-0/192 Jr Arkansas Iowa Malcoln Kirkland PF 6-8/230 Jr Arkansas St. Oklahoma St. Dusty Mills G 5-7/160 Jr Ball St. Kentucky Chris Kurz F 6-8/210 So Boston U. Arizona St. Darryl Partin G 6-6/190 Jr Boston U. La Salle Matt Griffin G 5-10/180 Jr Boston U. Rider Patrick Hazel F 6-6/220 Jr Boston U. Marquette Frankie Dobbs G 6-3/185 So Bryant Ohio Chris O'Brien G 6-4/205 So Cal Poly San Francisco Drake U'u G 6-5/210 So Cal Poly Hartford Andre Hardy F 6-6/230 Jr CS Fullerton Oral Roberts Bryce Smith G 6-5/205 So CS Northridge San Diego St. Keishawn Mayes F 6-7/225 Jr Campbell Md. Eastern Shore Gaby Belardo G 6-2/180 So Canisius South Florida Terry Tidwell* F 6-8/230 So Central Ark. Ark. Pine Bluff Tom Herzog C 7-0/250 Sr Central Florida Michigan St. Jamar Briscoe PG 5-10/165 So Charlotte NC Central Omar Wattad F 6-5/225 Jr Chattanooga Georgetown Mike Holmes* PF 6-7/230 Sr C. Carolina South Carolina Anthony Raffa G 6-0/165 So C. Carolina Albany Wes Eikmeier SG 6-3/175 So Colorado St. Iowa St. Greg Echenique* PF 6-9/260 So Creighton Rutgers Clint Mann F 6-8/222 So Davidson Iowa St. Josh Parker PG 6-0/186 Jr Dayton Drake Trevor Noonan C 6-9/225 Jr Denver Air Force LaMarcus Lowe F/C 6-11/200 So Detroit Western Michigan Jordan Clarke SF 6-8/243 So Drake Vermont Kraidon Woods SF 6-8/200 Jr Drake Binghamton Seth Curry PG 6-1/175 So Duke Liberty Devin McDonald G 6-0/185 Sr E. Kentucky New Orleans Kore White F 6-8/245 So Fla. Atlantic Marshall Kevin Cantinol* C 6-9/250 Jr Fla. Gulf Coast Mississippi Alex Legion SG 6-5/200 Sr Fla. Int'l Illinois Brandon Moore F 6-10/207 So Fla. Int'l Arkansas Jeremy Allen G 6-4/186 Jr Fla. Int'l Central Michigan Jonathan Wills SG 6-6/180 Jr Fresno St. New Mexico Gerald Robinson PG 6-1/165 Jr Georgia Tennessee St. Zane Johnson SG 6-6/210 Jr Hawaii Arizona Mike Moore G 6-5/195 Jr Hofstra Fordham Trumaine Johnson G 6-2/180 Jr Houston San Diego Lamar Thomas F 6-9/205 So Houston Baptist Fordham Paul Carter PF 6-8/203 Sr Ill. Chicago Minnesota Trey Blue SG 6-3/200 So Illinois St. Fordham Darion Anderson SG 6-2/205 Sr Iowa St. Northern Illinois Stephen Thomas G 6-1/170 Jr IUPUI Dayton Earl Pettis G 6-5/240 Jr La Salle Rutgers C.J. Garner G 5-10/160 So Long Island South Alabama David Perez G 6-3/190 Jr La. Lafayette Centenary Fred Brown SG 6-2/190 Jr La. Monroe Kansas St. Malcolm White PF 6-9/225 Jr Louisiana St. Mississippi Chris Smith G 6-2/200 Jr Louisville Manhattan Demetrius Jemison PF 6-8/240 Sr Manhattan Alabama Eladio Espinosa PF 6-7/220 So Marshall South Florida Johnny Thomas SF 6-6/205 Jr Marshall North Carolina St. Travis King PG 6-2/215 Sr UMBC George Washington Charles Carmouche SG 6-2/175 Jr Memphis New Orleans Cookie Miller PG 5-7/165 Jr Miami OH Nebraska Jason Jones F/G 6-6/200 So Middle Tenn. Texas El Paso Jimmy Oden G 6-3/188 Jr Middle Tenn. Lipscomb Nick Williams SG 6-4/225 So Mississippi Indiana Reggie Chamberlain G 6-0/170 Jr UMKC Wichita St. Dion Nesmith G 6-0/185 So Monmouth Northeastern Phil Wait C 7-1/250 So Monmouth St. John's Drew Kelly* F 6-7/253 Fr Morehead St. Miami OH Kamyron Brown PG 6-2/180 Jr Nebraska Oregon Malik Story SG 6-5/225 So Nevada Indiana Olek Czyz* PF 6-7/240 So Nevada Duke Quintrell Thomas PF 6-8/245 So UNLV Kansas Drew Gordon PF 6-9/245 Jr New Mexico UCLA Emmanuel Negedu PF 6-7/220 So New Mexico Tennessee Kevon Moore G 6-3/185 Jr Niagara NC Wilmington Justin Knox PF 6-9/240 Sr North Carolina Alabama Justin Leemow PG 6-1/175 Jr NC Central South Florida Landon Clement SG 6-2/180 Jr NC Central NC Greensboro Josh Snodgrass* G 6-4/220 Fr North Florida American Parker Smith G 6-3/150 So North Florida Tennessee St. Reggie Hamilton PG 5-11/175 Jr Oakland UMKC Alex Kellogg PF 6-7/225 Jr Ohio Providence Barry Honore PF 6-7/270 Jr Oklahoma Southern Carl Blair PG 6-3/205 So Oklahoma New Orleans Nate Lozeau C 6-10/270 Jr Portland St. San Diego DeShawn Mitchell G 6-5/205 So Rider UNLV Femi Akinpetide F 6-6/220 So Sacred Heart UMKC Chris Gabriel C 6-10/260 So San Diego New Mexico St. James Rahon SG 6-5/202 So San Diego St. Santa Clara Mark McLaughlin SG 6-6/200 Fr Seattle Baylor Eniel Polynice G 6-5/220 Sr Seton Hall Mississippi Brandon Walters PF 6-9/246 Jr Siena Seton Hall Malik Cooke SF 6-6/210 Jr South Carolina Nevada Ron Anderson PF 6-8/255 Jr South Florida Kansas St. Jio Fontan* PG 6-0/185 So Southern Cal Fordham Diamond Taylor* SG 6-4/175 Fr Southern Ill. Wisconsin Horace McGloster G/F 6-7/201 Jr St. Bonaventure Houston Mike Davis C 6-11/255 Jr St. Francis NY Seton Hall Kenton Walker II F 6-9/235 Jr St. Mary's Creighton Blaise Ffrench G 6-1/185 So St. Peter's Texas El Paso Jeronne Maymon* PF 6-6/240 So Tennessee Marquette John Fields PF 6-9/230 Sr Tennessee NC Wilmington Matt Marseille F 6-5/205 So Tennessee Tech Centenary Zac Swansey G 6-1/180 Jr Tennessee Tech Georgia Liam McMorrow C 7-0/260 So Tennessee Tech Marquette Hank Thorns PG 5-9/160 Jr Texas Christian Virginia Tech Brandon Provost G 6-3/189 So Tx Pan American Air Force Ivory McGilvery G 6-0/200 Jr Tx Pan American Prairie View A&M Perry Petty G 6-1/180 Jr Tx Pan American Santa Clara Garland Judkins* SF 6-3/195 Jr Tx San Antonio Arizona Harrison Smith G 6-3/205 Sr Texas Southern Texas Kevin Galloway F 6-7/215 Sr Texas Southern Kentucky A.J. Stewart F 6-9/240 Jr Texas St. Kentucky Matt Staff PF 6-9/220 So Texas St. New Mexico Anthony Wright SF 6-6/235 Sr Toledo Michigan Braxton Dupree PF 6-8/260 Jr Towson Maryland DeAndrae Ross G 6-2/175 Jr Troy South Alabama Flynn Cayman F 6-8/212 Jr Troy Colorado St. Will Weathers G 6-0/165 So Troy Central Florida D.J. Magley PF 6-9/255 Jr Tulsa Western Kentucky Scottie Haralson SG 6-4/220 So Tulsa Connecticut Eddie Miller G 6-5/205 Jr UC Davis California Daman Starring G 6-4/190 So UC Irvine Centenary Morgan Grim F 6-8/220 Jr Utah St. Utah Matt Glass F 6-8/210 Jr Vermont Massachusetts Allan Chaney PF 6-9/235 So Virginia Tech Florida Nikita Meshcharakov* PF 6-7/215 Jr Wake Forest Georgetown B.J. Porter G 6-3/190 So Weber St. Portland Juan Pattillo SF 6-6/215 Sr W. Kentucky Oklahoma Teeng Akol PF 6-11/230 So W. Kentucky Oklahoma St. Christian Wolf F 6-9/250 So Wis. Milwaukee Florida Gulf Coast Mitchell Carter C 6-10/270 Jr Wis. Milwaukee South Carolina Johann Mpondo F 6-8/230 Jr Wright State New Orleans James Dean G 6-2/185 So Wyoming Wis. Milwaukee Damian Eargle F 6-7/215 So Youngstown St. NC Greensboro *Eligible 2nd semester
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The ten unlikeliest wins in the 2010 season, part 2
Let’s continue the countdown of the least likely victories from the past season…
#5
The Game: Austin Peay at Akron, November 15.
The Situation: Akron 72, Austin Peay 57, 7:36 left, Austin Peay ball. (1.6%)
The Outcome: Austin Peay 80, Akron 77
The Quote: “First off, when you’re up 15 points with 7:36 to play, you should win the game. We can say whatever, we can blame the players or me but I thought today we did a very poor job of handling prosperity first and adversity second.” – Akron head coach Keith Dambrot
I think it was Tony Robbins who said that if you can’t handle prosperity or adversity, you are not likely to be very successful. But all things considered, the season opener isn’t a bad time to produce an epic collapse. There are always about 30 more games to make amends, and the Zips would end up winning 24, which earned them a CIT appearance. But in this one, they somehow blew a 15-point lead over a final stretch that included but 13 possessions. And it wasn’t like Akron missed a bunch of free throws – they only took four in the final five minutes. Their scoring over the final 7:36 was a pair of free throws by Steve McNeed at 5:26, and a fairly meaningless three-pointer Anthony Hitchens with three seconds to go.
#4
The Game: Stetson at East Tennessee State, January 14.
The Situation: East Tennessee St. 30, Stetson 19, 19:41 left (Stetson ball) (1.3%)
The Outcome: Stetson 54, East Tennessee St. 52
The Quote: “It’s a tough loss. We didn’t play well. I want to commend Derek (Waugh) and his team. They played a good game. We felt OK after the first half, but we obviously struggled on the offensive end in the second half. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am with this one.” – ETSU head coach Murry Bartow
If you weren’t in tune with the A-Sun last season (and I’m not going to pretend that I was), then the significance of Stetson winning at ETSU while needing to overcome an 11-point deficit in the second half is lost on you. Given the home court advantage, the chances of a Hatters’ win before the game were approaching 16-over-1 levels. Even after Stetson went on a 10-0 run to close the game to 30-29, WP kept the Hatters’ chances under 5%. On the final possession, ETSU had a chance to force an OT in which they would have been heavily favored again. “MISSED LAYUP by HUBBARD, Tommy” is all the play-by-play says, without a mention of how this occurred in the game account. ETSU would win the return game at Stetson by 15.
#3
The Game: Fairleigh Dickinson at Sacred Heart, February 25.
The Situation: Sacred Heart 43, Fairleigh Dickinson 24, 11:52 left (Sacred Heart ball) (1.3%)
The Outcome: Fairleigh Dickinson 64, Sacred Heart 59 (OT)
The Quote: “I wasn’t around with the Romans when that fell, but it probably felt the same way.” – Sacred Heart head coach Dave Bike
Amazingly, these two teams pulled off a virtual reenactment of game #7 on this list. The rematch was a much lower scoring game, what with FDU missing 19 of its first 20 shots, but the rest of the script played out just as it did in the January meeting. The difference here was that Sacred Heart was on its home floor, making the large lead slightly more difficult to blow.
#2
The Game: Illinois at Clemson, December 2.
The Situation: Clemson 57, Illinois 35, 16:48 left (Illinois ball) (1.2%)
The Outcome: Illinois 76, Clemson 74
The Quote: “It was certainly a tale of two halves. We couldn’t play much better in the first half. At halftime, we talked about the fact that Illinois would give us everything we had in the first five minutes. We gave up some threes that allowed them to get back into the game. Illinois just kept coming.” – Clemson head coach Oliver Purnell
With home court, the Tigers were a decent favorite (77%) to win this one from the outset. Clemson’s chances were at around 98% when they held a 61-46 lead with just under 15 minutes to go., and then Illinois scored 17 straight in about five minutes to take the lead. Clemson had two possessions to take the lead in the final minute, both of which produced missed field goal attempts. The Purnell era at Clemson saw its share of crazy comebacks, but none more unlikely than this one.
#1
The Game: Fairfield at George Mason, March 16 (CIT 1st round).
The Situation: George Mason 63, Fairfield 36, 16:08 left (Fairfield ball) (1.2%)
The Outcome: Fairfield 101, George Mason 96 (OT)
The Quote: “This is the best comeback I have ever been a part of.” – Fairfield freshman point guard Derek Needham
I realize this was the CIT and all, but how come this game slipped under the collective radar of hoops’ nation? It was the biggest comeback in D-I post-season tournament history. The Stags scored 36 points on their first 43 possessions, and 65 on their last 41 over 21:08. The Patriots were still in great shape with just over a minute left in regulation, owning a nine-point lead and a 93% chance of victory. But the Stags would force overtime on a Mike Evanovich three-pointer with 20 seconds left. You might wonder why Fairfield’s chances were as high as 1.2% when trailing by 27. Well, there aren’t many cases of evenly matched teams separating themselves by 27 points in 24 minutes, and here we have a case where a team blew that lead.
Honorable Mention: The least likely overtime
The Game: Indiana State at Missouri State, January 19.
The Situation: Missouri State 58, Indiana State 34, 13:24 left (Missouri St. ball) (0.5%)
The Outcome: Missouri State 99, Indiana State 92 (OT)
The Quote: “Great job” - Missouri State head coach Cuonzo Martin (Martin isn’t the most verbose fellow, judging from his own recap of the game. Although he doesn’t get much help from the show’s host in that clip.)
It was disappointing that no team was able to overcome less than a 1.2% chance of winning, so I had to look for other games that almost produced a more remote comeback. At home, Missouri State was a significant favorite over the Sycamores and when the Bears jumped out to early leads of 10-2, 22-5, and 34-12, there couldn’t have been much expectation for late-game drama. A 20-point halftime lead grew to 24 with about 13 minutes left before ISU would produce a 14-possession offensive explosion that looked like so: 2-2-0-3-4-2-3-3-2-2-2-3-2-2. Over that stretch, the Trees made all ten of their field goal attempts (including five threes) and 7-of-8 free throws, with just one turnover accounting for the lone scoreless possession. That improbable 32-point sequence was what it took…to get within seven. The Sycamores then had to erase a ten-point deficit with two minutes left, forcing OT on a three by Harry Marshall with nine-tenths of a second left. That capped a 60-point/35-possession second half. This from an offense that ranked ahead of only Evansville in the MVC.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
The ten unlikeliest wins in the 2010 season, part 1
With a nearly complete database of win probability calculations for each possession played last season, it’s time to do something reasonably fun with the data. What follows is not a compendium of the biggest comebacks in terms of points. It is a mix of those kinds of situations and cases where an underdog spotted its opponent some points, thereby enhancing its longshot status during the game. These are the ten most improbable comebacks last season, accounting for time and score, as well as the difference in ability between the opponents.
#10
The Game: San Diego State at Wyoming, January 9. (Highlights)
The Situation: San Diego State 75, Wyoming 61, 4:47 left (San Diego State ball) (1.8% chance of winning)
The Outcome: Wyoming 85, San Diego State 83.
The Quote: “We just weren’t quite tough enough to weather the storm, and when teams get on runs and they can make shots, they can bank in threes, and make shots that they don’t normally make.” – San Diego State head coach Steve Fisher
Three long balls comprised the entirety of Wyoming’s scoring in the final minute, but that was enough to allow them to give a foul on the Aztecs’ final possession in order to preserve a three-point lead. San Diego State would recover to make the NCAA tournament. Wyoming would suffer personnel losses during the conference season that transformed them from merely bad to completely uncompetitive by March. They would lose nine of their last 10, with only one of those defeats by fewer than 16 points. The win was at home against Air Force.
#9
The Game: SIU Edwardsville at Drake, December 4.
The Situation: Drake 46, SIU Edwardsville 39, 10:28 left (Drake ball) (1.8%)
The Outcome: SIU Edwardsville 60, Drake 58.
The Quote: “Our guys made plays down the stretch. Whether it was making free throws or coming up with big rebounds, they did it.” – SIU Edwardsville head coach Lennox Forrester
This isn’t much of a comeback in traditional terms, but keep in mind that SIUE would win three games against D-I opponents all season. This was one of them, and another was the next night over Texas-Arlington in the final of the Drake Hy-Vee Classic. Of all the unlikely tournament outcomes last season, SIUE winning the DHVC may have been the most improbable.
#8
The Game: UAB at SMU, January 16.
The Situation: SMU 50, UAB 26, 12:46 left (SMU ball) (1.8%)
The Outcome: UAB 63, SMU 62.
The Quote: “This is probably a bad analogy, but it’s like the girl that gets a makeover. Does she believe she’s the new pretty girl or does she believe she’s the other girl?” – SMU head coach Matt Doherty
Matt Doherty has put SMU through a steady, if slow, makeover since arriving in Dallas. This, however, was one of the uglier moments of his tenure. After seeing UAB stumble to 25 points in its first 39 possessions, the Blazers erupted for 37 points over its next 18 trips. When George Drake (23%) and Elijah Millsap (24%) are draining three’s, you can only chalk some of that run up to bad defense. There was a fair amount of bad karma hanging over the Mustangs that night as well.
#7
The Game: Sacred Heart at Fairleigh Dickinson, January 2.
The Situation: Sacred Heart 67, Fairleigh Dickinson 45, 11:20 left (Fairleigh Dickinson ball) (1.7%)
The Outcome: Fairleigh Dickinson 88, Sacred Heart 85.
The Quote: “We played man-to-man the entire game and wore them out. This game came down to heart and desire.” – Fairleigh Dickinson head coach Greg Vetrone
Dave Bike was in his 32nd season of coaching Sacred Heart basketball, the second longest tenure in Division I. This has to be one of the most improbable collapses he has witnessed. FDU needed just a little over seven minutes to pull even in this one, putting together a 32-10 run that covered a mere 15 possessions, 14 of which resulted in a Knights’ score. Fortunately, Sacred Heart would get another shot at their conference rival in about five weeks. A good time to exact some revenge, yes?
#6
The Game: Grambling at Alcorn State, January 11.
The Situation: Alcorn State 56, Grambling 35, 9:09 left (Grambling ball) (1.7%)
The Outcome: Grambling 82, Alcorn State 74 (OT).
The Quote: No known press or, for that matter, spectators at this game.
Who knows if this really happened since Grambling sports information mentions a mere 17-point comeback, and Storming the Floor cites a 19-point deficit. The official play-by-play records a 21-point difference at the 9:09 mark. But according to the play-by-play, there was no action for a six-minute stretch in the first half, and the score was 69-64 at the end of regulation (hence the bizarre WP plot at the end of regulation). Nonetheless, Alcorn State blew some sort of large lead at home and would have to wait until February 13 to pick up their first win.
Tomorrow: The top five, including the biggest post-season comeback of all times, a few words on revenge, plus an honorable mention.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Replaying Isner/Mahut a million times
There have been a few write-ups on the Isner/Mahut marathon tennis match already. Most notably this one by Carl Bialik of the Wall Street Journal. None have addressed the core issue - was this a conspiracy just so John Isner could appear on Letterman?
Unfortunately, tennis stats are not sophisticated enough to do a proper investigation. Given the extremely limited data provided by Wimbledon, about the most interesting thing to do with the marathon fifth set is to replay it point-by-point using the return percentages of each player in the fifth set.
In the fifth set, Mahut was able to successfully win 23% of points while returning serve, compared to 19% for Isner. I replayed the fifth set one million times given these low return rates in order to see just how unlikely it was to get to 138 games. The results suggest the length of the fifth set wasn’t completely crazy (but kind of crazy) given the poor return rates for each player. Some random findings…
- 3.94% of the fifth sets were at least 138 games in length. This figure is a bit low and suggests the points that were won by the receiver may not have been randomly distributed in the real match. Were I one to believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives planted by the U.S. Government, I might take this and run with it. But the figure isn’t low enough to be convincing.
- It could have been a lot worse. The longest fifth set in the million-match series finished at 281-279. This actually happened twice.
- One of the 281-279 sets had 53 break points before the final point was successfully converted. That would have been suspicious.
- However, that wasn’t the worst conversion percentage observed on break points. Two matches had 57 break points before a success.
- Due to the woeful return games of each player, you might think a single break would guarantee victory. But that’s not quite true. In 2.3% of matches, there was more than one break, and in 156 of the matches, serve was broken at least five times.
- The most breaks in the fifth set occurred in match #719672, where seven of 14 chances were converted in a 16-14 Mahut victory. Somehow, serve was broken in four of the first eight games in that one.
- My favorite match is #695460. Mahut broke first, but incredibly not until it was 145-145. Then Isner saved the match with a break of his own. The match continued to 158-158 when Mahut broke again. But fake Isner miraculously broke back. The match concluded with a Mahut victory, 182-180.
- A total of 49 matches finished at 6-0. Mahut won 48 of them.
- Even with a significant advantage in return percentage, Mahut won just 74.5% of the matches.
- In the real match there were seven break points in the fifth. That seemed low to me, but of the 1,793 simulated matches that finished at 70-68, 249 (13.9%) contained seven break points or fewer.
- In two of those matches, there was just a single break point.
- The longest fifth set with only one break point occurred in match #361739. Isner converted to win 100-98.
In conclusion, if both players were truly unable to return serve in the way that their fifth-set stats suggest, then what happened isn’t completely out of line. It will remain a mystery as to why nothing anywhere close to this has occurred in the history of the game. Perhaps this was the right combination of great servers and horrible returners, but it’s hard to believe that hasn’t happened many times before.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Win probability for every college game
Well, nearly every game. You’ll have to look hard to find the missing games involving two D-I teams. Just head over to your favorite team’s page and click on the score of the game.
Since these are adjusted win probabilities, games involving non D-I teams are not included. While you might be looking for raw win probability, adjusted is the only way to go. Nobody was watching the opening moments of the Kansas/Alcorn State game with any notion that the game would be competitive, even when Alcorn State somehow scored the first four points. From a strategy standpoint, this is how the participants are (or should be) looking at the game.
If you’re a regular visitor, then you’ll be able to pick up on what’s going on with a little effort. The only new concept in the chart is leverage, which is a take-off of Tom Tango’s baseball version. It measures how much is at stake on a particular possession. The cut-offs for the five categories are fairly arbitrary at this point. You can think of it as a proxy for the watchability of a game at that point.
The colors range from blue, where win probability is largely unaffected by the potential outcome of a possession, to yellow, where the outcome of a possession can have significant impact on the win probability (more precisely, at least a 10% swing between a 2-point possession and zero points). Leverage is not based on what happened during the possession, but is the range of win probability based on what could have happened.
I’m comfortable that the probabilities are well-calibrated, although there’s a bit more work to be done. The limiting factors to their accuracy are the quality of the play-by-play data available and the algorithm I use to parse possessions. Therefore, there are games where the possession count is too low, and there may be long gaps between possessions. However, the most important part of the play-by-play for these purposes is time and score, and it’s also the most reliable piece of information in the play-by-play. I am using end of season ratings for to compute the initial win probability, which obviously has some limitations.
My goal is to have an easy reference for the evolution of a game in a way that goes beyond the final score to truly characterize the competitiveness of the contest. This will surely get some more tweaks, but I wanted to share it now since you may be bored tracking the latest in NCAA investigations and I won’t be able to put much more into it for the next few weeks. Rest assured, this kind of framework for describing a game opens the door for other avenues of research.