A Look at What Broncos Fans Can Expect from Herb Sendek

Santa Clara hired Herb Sendek (above) to a six year deal on March 28th. Sendek formerly coached at North Carolina State and most recently at Arizona State until 2015.

So it seems official, Herb Sendek is going to be the new head coach for the Santa Clara Broncos. Shortly after the Pacific Tigers made a splash by hiring former NBA star and Arizona Wildcat Damon Stoudamire, the Broncos replaced the outgoing Keating, who had only two winning campaigns in his nine-year tenure at Santa Clara, with a proven head coach who has won in the MAC, ACC and Pac-12. In an earlier post, I felt Sendek was a good fit because of his proven resume not just as a head coach, but as a recruiter in the West Coast, and it looks like the Santa Clara administration ponied up the money and got the best guy for the job.

Let's take a look at some of the positive and negatives of Sendek coming to not just Santa Clara, but the WCC in general.


Positives of Sendek at Santa Clara

Sendek coming to the Broncos is a big boost for the coaching community in the WCC. Sendek has bountiful head coaching experience at the Division 1 level, as he has led three schools (Miami of Ohio, NC State and Arizona State) to the NCAA Tournament under his watch. He has a career record of 413-295, and he has only had a losing season three times in his 22-year coaching career. That is pretty damn impressive no matter how you cut it. When it comes to success on the court, Sendek has the kind of resume that can compete with the big coaching names in conference such as Mark Few of Gonzaga, Randy Bennett at St. Mary's and Dave Rose at BYU. That profile alone will make Santa Clara a bigger name not just in conference circles, but in national media circles as well. Do not be surprised to see the Broncos' name thrown out a lot in preseason magazines simply due to Sendek's name alone.

Another strong aspect of Sendek's profile is his ability to recruit, as he has been able to get sneaky good polished talent to lead his teams, both at NC State and Arizona State. With the Wolfpack, he was able to land Julius Hodge, who led them to a Sweet 16 appearance in the NCAA Tournament in 2005 and an 11-win ACC campaign and NCAA Tournament second-round appearance in 2004. At Arizona State, he most famously landed James Harden and had him stay for two seasons. Harden had a solid college career with the Sun Devils, leading the to the NCAA Tournament second round his second year. Furthermore, Sendek also brought in top talent like Jahii Carson (who led them to a tournament berth in 2014) and Jamelle McMillan (the son of former NBA player and coach Nate), so recruiting in the West Coast is something that Sendek is not only familiar with, but has a history of succeeding at considering the circumstances (Arizona State tends to lean more toward football and even baseball in terms of fan attention).

And lastly, the style of play typically seen from Sendek's teams plays well into the WCC's "wide-open" reputation. Though Sendek teams play typically a slow pace (only in his last two years did they have a tempo that ranked in the Top-150 when it came to speed), they are extremely perimeter-oriented and rely heavily on the 3-point shot. In terms of 3-point attempt percentage, his ASU teams ranked in the top-100 seven out of his nine years as a head coach (the lone exceptions being 2012 and 2015, his last year), and ranked in the top-15 in that category in 2009 (11th) and 2010 (9th). The fact that Sendek embraces the 3-point shot is a good sign for this Santa Clara team going into next year, as his philosophy plays well into what the Broncos have done offensively as of late under Keating. Since 2011, the Broncos ranked in the top-100 in 3-point attempt percentage every season. Considering Sendek is an accomplished coach whose teams' offensive efficiency, according to Ken Pom, have always ranked in the top-100 (with the exception of 2012, 2011 and 2007, his first season at ASU), the fact that he will be taking over a program that has played his style of basketball (being perimeter-oriented and relying on the 3-point shot) in the past half-decade or so is a good sign that the coaching veteran can pull a quick turnaround of sorts in his first season with the Broncos.


Negatives of Sendek's hire at Santa Clara

As with any coaching veteran who comes from a big school to a small school, the question for Sendek perhaps is not "if" he will pull a coaching turnaround but how long will he stick around when he achieves the first successful season in a while at Santa Clara (and by successful I mean NCAA Tournament berth). Though Sendek spent a lot of time in the West Coast at Arizona State, he is not a West Coast guy. He was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and he went to college in Pittsburgh at Carnegie Mellon. His jobs at Miami of Ohio and even NC State played more into his background than the Arizona State job, and many critics of his felt Sendek wasn't successful at ASU because he didn't fit into the mold of what is expected from a "West Coast" coach (i.e. he didn't make the necessary connections to have lasting recruiting impact there).

So with this being known, what if Penn State comes calling if Sendek succeeds early at Santa Clara? What about Pitt or another school in that rust belt area? Will Santa Clara's "fun and sun" of the South Bay be enough? Or will Sendek itch to be in a bigger conference at a bigger school should they come calling? That will be a major questions with Sendek going forward, simply because he doesn't have the kind of ties that could keep him long-term at Santa Clara unlike Gonzaga's Few (Oregon) and St. Mary's Bennett (Arizona) who grew up geographically close to their jobs, and Rose, whose personal background (being Mormon) is a major tie to him staying at BYU.

Another issue with Sendek is that his teams have had a history of not necessarily living up to expectations. Despite being a constant NCAA Tournament participant, his NC State team never made it past the Sweet 16, and that happened in his second to last year there, and they were sub-.500 in ACC play that season as well. At Arizona State, too many bad losses marred years where they could have been potential at-large participants, and as a result, his Sun Devils teams only made the NCAA Tournament twice in his 9 years there. And lastly, Sendek was mostly known for his 8-38 record at NC State against conference rivals Duke and North Carolina. While beating Duke and UNC is no easy task it makes you wonder how Sendek could do against Gonzaga and St. Mary's who own the WCC in a similar way to Duke and UNC in the ACC. Was Sendek's lackluster record a matter of luck, or is Sendek simply the kind of coach who can only maintain a mid-tier or slightly above program no matter the conference (his Arizona State teams never won a Pac-12 title under his watch) he is coaching in? If Sendek wants to make a splash and get Santa Clara to where it hasn't been since 1995 (the Big Dance), then he is going to need to go through the conference favorites to do so, and Sendek doesn't necessarily have the history to show that he can topple the best in conference over the whole course of a season.


What to expect from Herb?

Yes, Sendek did not have much success against Duke and North Carolina. Yes, he only made the NCAA Tournament twice at Arizona State. Yes, he is more of an Yinzer than a Beach Bum and that doesn't bode well for him "finishing" his career as a Bronco. But Santa Clara made a great hire nonetheless and one that I think will make them competitive immediately or at the least within the next three years. Sendek's a proven offensive coach whose style will mesh with the program currently, but the conference as a whole, which favors the outside-oriented game. It'll be interesting to see if Jared Brownridge, the Broncos' best offensive player the past couple of seasons, will stay in Santa Clara his senior season, as well as other major contributors, including guards such as to-be-sophomore KJ Feagin and to-be-junior Kai Healy and to-be-senior post Nate Kratch. If Sendek returns those players, it is entirely possible to see the Broncos as a bit of a dark horse, as Sendek's system and philosophy as a coach most likely will fit into the talent he will have next season.

But the big question though is if those guys will stay. In this day and age, it is a lot easier for a kid to go to another program after a coaching change than stick it out, especially in the Broncos' star player's case. After all, Brownridge may not be willing to go through the growing pains in what could be his last year as a collegiate player. It may be too big of a risk, and Sendek has had times before where he didn't mesh with star players (he kicked his top returning scorer at Arizona State in 2012 for "unacceptable content").

That being said, if Brownridge does stay, along with everyone else? Don't be surprised to see Santa Clara make some kind of run in the WCC in 2017. Sendek is that polished a coach and the situation and talent fit is that good for him next year.

Can a NIT Championship Redeem BYU's Season?

A NIT Championship would be big for senior Kyle Collinsworth (above) and the BYU Cougars after missing out on the big dance. However, they will have to get by a good Valparaiso team in the NIT Semis first.

It has been a bit of a disappointing season for Dave Rose and the BYU Cougars, who failed to make the NCAA Tournament for only the second time since 2007 (the other time they missed was in 2013). Considering they had all-around Swiss Army knife Kyle Collinsworth returning, many figured the Cougars would at least challenge Gonzaga and St. Mary's for the WCC crown or at least an at-large NCAA Tournament berth. Unfortunately, though the Cougars posted a respectable 22-9 record and 13-5 mark in WCC play in the regular season, their campaign was marred by some head-scratching losses.

On November 16th, their second game of the year, they lost 66-65 to a Long Beach State team that ranked 90th overall according to Ken Pom. However, that was only the tip of the iceberg as the Cougars also lost to Portland (ranked 212th according to Ken Pom) 84-81 and Pepperdine (139th) 71-65 on the road and Pacific (233rd) 77-72 at HOME (safe to say, the loss to the Tigers, who were playing with an interim coach, pretty much sealed the deal when it came to their candidacy as an at-large selection). The Cougars had some good wins on their resume, including beating Gonzaga in Spokane and St. Mary's in Provo, and over New Mexico and Northern Iowa (a tournament team) on a neutral court. But the bad losses just haunted them throughout the year, and that was a key reason why they weren't even hoping for an at-large spot on Selection Sunday.

Luckily for Cougar fans though, BYU did not take participation in the secondary-tournament as a slap in the face or a measly consolation prize. Unlike St. Mary's, who was throttled against Valpo on the road in the third round of the NIT, the Cougars made the Final Four of the NIT at Madison Square Garden, where they will face the same team that easily dispatched the Gaels a week earlier. Let's take a look at the Cougars' prospects and what a NIT championship would mean to BYU going forward.

NIT Championship Outlook

BYU has gotten some good wins in a NIT tournament that was loaded with worthy opponents who certainly deserved at-large consideration. They easily beat UAB, who was the regular season Conference USA champion (and whose coach is now the head man at Stanford) 97-79 in the first round of the tournament, and won an 80-77 nail biter against a much improved Virginia Tech team that will look to be a dark horse next year in the ACC under Buzz Williams, the former Marquette coach who will begin his third season next year. But the biggest win was over a Creighton team that looked a whole lot better statistically (ranked 40th in Ken Pom) than their record (20-15). In an up-tempo shootout (76 possessions) in Provo, the Cougars outscored the Jays 88-82 to clinch a Final Four spot in Manhattan.

Now, the Cougars will go against a Crusaders team more known for their defense than offense, something that the Cougars really didn't see so far in the early round of the NIT (all the teams had higher adjusted offensive ratings than defensive ones). Valpo's 92.7 points per 100 possession adjusted defensive rating was 8th best in the nation, and was key in big wins for them this year over the Gaels, Oregon State and Iona (the last two being NCAA Tournament teams). Unlike the Cougars, who like to push the tempo and get off quick shots as evidenced by their 74.2 adjusted tempo (11th fastest in the nation) and 14.5 second average possession length (7th fastest in the nation), the Crusaders prefer a slower, more half-court-oriented approach. Head Coach Bryce Drew's (yes, this same Bryce Drew) squad posted a tempo of 67.2 (263rd fastest in the nation) and had an APL of 17.6 (206th fastest). That being said, just because they are slower in their approach doesn't mean the Crusaders are a "throw it in the paint" kind of team. Instead, they are a very perimeter-oriented squad that can torch teams from beyond the arc. 32.4 percent of their points come from 3-point land and they play a pretty deep bench, as their 36.1 bench minutes percentage is 71st highest in the nation. Add that with an experienced squad (they are the 31st most experienced team in the nation) and some key players in combo forward Alec Peters (his 129.5 offensive rating was 13th best in the nation) and senior guard Keith Carter (his 29.3 assist rate was 98th highest in the nation) and the Cougars will certainly have their hands full tonight. The matchup between Peters and Collinsworth will be an interesting one to follow as whoever has the better night could be crucial in whether or not their team will garner a berth in the NIT Championship game.

If the Cougars do get by Valpo, a potential old-school MWC matchup with San Diego State is a possibility, as the Aztecs face George Washington after the BYU-Valpo tilt. Much like the Crusaders, Steve Fisher's squad relies on defense, as they ranked 2nd in the nation in adjusted defensive efficiency (89.9). Without a doubt, whether it's tonight or in the Championship, BYU will have to make their shots and pick it up on the defensive end against two very good defensive squads. The Cougars like their fast pace-style, as they have only played in 5 games this year where the possession mark was under 70. In order for the Cougars to maintain that pace, they are going to need to own the glass and generate turnovers on the defensive end, since Valpo (and maybe San Diego State) won't exactly feed into BYU's "early shot" tendencies.


What a NIT Championship Will Mean

The NIT isn't the NCAA Tournament, make no mistake about that. However, while BYU's chances seemed shot after their loss to Pacific, Valpo and San Diego State were two teams who had legitimate beefs with the NCAA Selection committee. Valpo beat Oregon State and was ranked 31st in the nation (almost 30 spot higher than the Beavers) according to Ken Pom. San Diego State was the best MWC team by far and was ranked 32nd in Ken Pom Ratings. If BYU can beat both of those teams on a neutral court, not only will it be a satisfying end for Rose's squad and make up for a disappointing campaign in the regular season, but it would be a nice way for Collinsworth to end his Cougar career after missing out in the Big Dance his senior season.

Of course, this won't be easy. As stated before, Valpo beat St. Mary's by 16 and held them to 0.75 PPP, one of their lowest totals of the season. The Crusaders can get after it defensively, and if the Cougars struggle to hit shots, that will make things very difficult at MSG. Collinsworth is the key sure, but the Cougars will need perimeter players such as Vandy transfer Chase Fischer and freshman Nick Emery to step it up offensively and defensively if they want to have a shot at winning this thing.

Yes, the WCC only gained 1 NCAA Tournament berth this year. But a Sweet 16 appearance and a NIT Championship? Well, that would be something to build on for next year and not just for Rose's program (he will still have returners in Emery, Kyle Davis, Corbin Kaufusi, and Zac Seljaas next season, meaning they have a good shot to compete for a WCC title next year), but the WCC as a whole.

Evaluating the WCC Open Coaching Positions

San Francisco's Rex Walters was one of four WCC head coaches let go after this season.

If you could characterize the 2010's in the WCC as one thing, you could probably describe it as a decade of stability. Since 2010, there haven't been many major coaching changes, something that contrasted to the Mid 2000's, where it seemed every school other than Gonzaga or St. Mary's suffered from major and dramatic coaching changes. Other than LMU replacing Max Good with Mike Dunlap two seasons ago (a good decision which I think will come into major fruition next year), Marty Wilson taking over for a retiring Tom Asbury in 2012 and Lamont Smith replacing Bill Grier in 2015, things have been relatively quiet on the coaching carousel front in the WCC.

That changed this off-season, as Pacific, Santa Clara, Portland and San Francisco decided to fire their current head coaches and look for new leaders to "change the direction of their programs" (common AD talk whenever there is a coaching change). Pacific has quickly made one of the biggest splashes not just in the WCC, but nationally as well in the hiring of former Arizona Wildcat, NBA veteran and Memphis assistant Damon Stoudamire. (More on that hire in another post.) Yet as of this moment, the Broncos, Pilots and Dons remain without coaches and it'll be interesting to see who can resurrect these once proud programs who have been unable to maintain consistent success despite sporting strong basketball history and being in talent-rich recruiting areas.

So, let's take a look at each program, what they have to offer and what the next guy will have to do to make those programs successful in the near future. While the WCC has improved competitively since the addition of BYU (mostly) and Pacific (not so much), as Mark Few "hotly" noted in an interview shortly before the NCAA Tournament, the WCC will only get more recognition for at-large berths if the middle-to-bottom tier programs "pick it up". Considering their major market status (San Francisco and Santa Clara being in the Bay Area and Portland in the Pacific Northwest), a coaching turnaround would not only benefit these long-struggling programs, but would also help the WCC become a better-recognized conference in Mid-Major circles in the near future as well.

Portland Pilots

Last Year:

12-20 overall, 6-12 in WCC play (tied for 6th). 4th in conference play in offensive efficiency and 9th in conference play in defensive efficiency. Ranked 214th in Ken Pom ratings.

The Previous Coach: 

Eric Reveno. Coached 10 years at Portland. Total record 140-178. Best season: 2010 where he had a 21-11 record, 10-4 mark in WCC play and was ranked 82nd in Ken Pom. Worst season: 2012 where he went 7-24, 3-13 in conference play and ranked 284th in Ken Pom ratings.

Why Reveno is gone:

No offense to Reveno, but the program really plateaued in 2011, where he really rode forward Luke Sikma to lasting success. Since then, the Pilots have remained in the middle of the pack in the conference (sans 2012), not really bottoming out, but not really competing in the upper echelon either. The Pilots kinda were what they were under Reveno: scrappy, usually good offensively but never a real serious threat to compete with the Gonzaga, BYU and St. Mary's triumvirate.

Reveno came as a highly-regarded assistant out of Stanford under Mike Montgomery and replaced Michael Holton (hat tip to Pilot Nation for the correction, I always get Brad Holland of San Diego and Holton confused), who had NBA ties.  He looked like he had the potential to build something lasting after he finished year two of his tenure, as the Pilots won 19, 21 and 20 games from 2009-2011. Unfortunately, that success proved to be the peak of his tenure, as the Pilots only enjoyed one more winning season in his tenure from 2012-2016 (a 17-16 campaign in 2015).  Reveno tried to employ a more free-wheeling style of play this season that relied on a blistering tempo (72.6 adjusted possession per game, 35th fastest in the nation) and emphasis on the 3-pointer (38.9 percent 3FGA), but it didn't translate into wins, and a 12-20 record was just not enough to salvage his job.

Why this job is enticing:

Portland is the only other school beyond Gonzaga to be located in the Pacific Northwest, and that is an advantage. Oregon and Washington are fertile recruiting states for talent, and Idaho and Montana also have potential for under-the-radar talent that often gets overlooked. Portland the city is also one of the coolest cities in the United States, with all the major amenities and culture of a major American city but with the laid back lifestyle typical of communities in the Pacific Northwest. And lastly, Portland is a basketball hub of sorts, especially considering the city's affinity for the Blazers. A legitimately good Pilots program will be recognized and lauded by the community, especially considering there is no NFL or MLB team in Portland (though the MLS team certainly has its strong fandom).

Why this job is difficult:

The Blazers are the main game in town when it comes to hoops, so that doesn't help. But Oregon and Oregon State have legions of fans and alums located in Portland, and when those teams are doing well, they pretty much dominate the college basketball scene in the city. Much to the Pilots' chagrin, it was a banner year for both the Ducks and the Beavers, as Oregon won the Pac-12, earned a No. 1 seed and made it to the Elite 8 while Oregon State made their first NCAA Tournament berth since 1990. Considering Ducks coach Dana Altman and Beavers coach Wayne Tinkle aren't going anywhere anytime soon, the two programs look to be primed for continued success in the coming seasons, which makes the Pilots' chances of making a splash in the Portland and Pacific Northwest media scene extremely difficult. 

Who do the Pilots need?

The Pilots need a flashy hire, plain and simple. As consistent as Reveno was, he just never really generated a ton of excitement about this program. To be fair to him, that's never been his MO. He came from a program that was known for excellence, but being boring in doing so. (Seriously, remember Mark Madsen and Brevin Knight guys?) The Pilots need a guy who can recruit the Pacific Northwest as well as the West Coast with reckless abandon, and find guys whom Oregon and Oregon State are missing out on. In this article by Oregon Live, a bunch of assistants such as Oregon State's Gregg Gottlieb and Gonzaga's Tommy Lloyd were mentioned, as well as mid-major coaches like Eastern Washington's Jim Hayford and Weber State's Randy Rahe (though don't know if Portland is a step enough for them to leave their current posts), but the name I like the most? Former Blazer legend Terry Porter, who still resides in Portland. Yes, he doesn't have the experience, but they need flash and a name to bring some attention to this program. There could be some growing pains in the first couple of years, but Porter is the kind of big name, high risk, high reward hire that could be a big boost to a program that has remained synonymous with anonymity under Reveno.

Santa Clara Broncos

Last year: 

11-20 overall, 7-11 in WCC play (5th in conference). 7th in conference in offensive efficiency. 10th in defensive efficiency. Ranked 245th in Ken Pom ratings.

The previous coach: 

Kerry Keating. Coached 9 years at Santa Clara. Total record 139-159. Best season: 2013 where they went 26-12 overall with a 9-7 mark in conference play and won the 2013 CBI championship and were ranked 73rd according to Ken Pom. Worst season: 2012 where they went 8-22 and went 0-16 in WCC play and were ranked 283rd according to Ken Pom.

Why Keating is gone:

Keating had big shoes to fill when the administration pushed out long-time head coach Dick Davey to hire Keating, a former UCLA assistant under Ben Howland. Keating's tenure could be one characterized by some massive highs, but mostly lows. In terms of the highs, he did have two 20-plus win seasons and won a CIT tournament in 2011 and a CBI championship in 2013. He also produced one of the conference's most dynamic players in Kevin Foster. But when you take those two 20-plus win seasons out of the equation, his resume looks a heck of a lot more pedestrian: no winning seasons beyond those two years, and his highest win total in conference play was 9 (and this includes those two seasons). At the end of the day, one has to look at what's more predominant, and it was obvious mediocrity was more common in his tenure than really lasting success.

Why this job is enticing:

Though most people don't realize it, Santa Clara has money and a sterling reputation as a school. The school's endowment is third-highest in conference, behind only BYU and Pepperdine. Furthermore, the school is ranked as one of the best academic institutions in the West Coast. If you take a look at their campus, it is beautiful and rivals bigger and more popular neighbors in the Bay Area such as Stanford in Palo Alto and California in Berkeley. Santa Clara has a lot of amenities to offer to make it a hotbed for recruits who may not be getting looked at bigger school in the West Coast.

Furthermore, the Broncos have some great basketball tradition. This is a school that has produced talent such as Kurt Rambis and more recently Steve Nash. The Leavey Center is one of the nicest venues in the WCC and can get absolutely rocking during big games. Santa Clara really is a sleeping giant when it comes to basketball and it could just take the right coach to channel all these campus and basketball factors to make it a player again in the WCC scene.

Why this job is difficult:

It is common to see many schools in the WCC leverage athletics to entice students to come to their school. Gonzaga is a prime example, utilizing their basketball success to lure students to come to a school that they may otherwise overlook. Santa Clara as a university doesn't seem to care about utilizing athletics to gain attention because they don't need to. Look at their school and they have so much to offer that they don't need a good basketball program to attract potential students. This a great sign for the school, but it makes things difficult for their athletic program since it is common to see student apathy with their basketball team. When I lived in San Jose, I attended many Bronco games, and I was appalled how sparsely attended they were beyond the Gonzaga and sometimes San Francisco and St. Mary's games (local Bay Area rivals). And it's not just student apathy, but the community's lukewarm attitude as well. It would not be surprising if the D-League's Santa Cruz Warriors had a higher attendance than the Broncos. If a D-League team is getting higher attendance than your school, it may be a sign that you're not really striking a chord with your community, as often has been the case with the Broncos the past few years.

Who do the Broncos need?

Unlike Portland, which needs flash, I think the Broncos need someone who has legitimate coaching chops. They tried to get flash in Keating with his UCLA ties, but that didn't prove to be very successful. Herb Sendek, the former Arizona and NC State coach, was reported to have met with the Broncos last week according to AZ Central.com and he would be the perfect candidate to build something viable for the Broncos. He's a proven coach, he's proven he can win and recruit in the West Coast, and he's a big enough name to compete with Mark Few, Randy Bennett and Dave Rose in WCC coaching circles. The big question though is whether the Broncos will "pony up" the money to hire Sendek or someone of his caliber, as their patience with Keating didn't exactly show that a "winning" basketball program was a major priority at the university.

San Francisco Dons

Last year:

15-15 overall, 8-10 in WCC play (4th in conference). 5th in conference in offensive efficiency. 7th in defensive efficiency. Ranked 194th in Ken Pom ratings.

The previous coach:

Rex Walters. Coached 8 years at San Francisco. 127-127 overall record. Best season: 2014 where they went 21-12 and 13-5 in conference (made CIT) and ranked 90th in Ken Pom ratings. Worst season: 2009 where they went 11-19, 3-11 in conference and were ranked 255th according to Ken Pom.

Why Walters is gone:

It's amazing to see this job open because Walters seemed like he was doing a good job on the Hill, especially considering where the program was at when he took over. The program stagnated under former Arizona assistant and Louisiana Lafayette Head Coach Jessie Evans, and there was a whole swirl of controversy surrounding Evans' firing mid-season and the temporary hiring of Eddie Sutton (who pretty much took the job to get his 1,000th career win). Walters seemed to inject some new life into the program, and he had some successful years. In 2014, they were a couple of plays away from upsetting BYU in the WCC semifinals, and the 13 wins in conference that year was the most of anyone on this list by far (and even more impressive since it was when BYU was in conference while Reveno's 10-win year was without the Cougars).

But, while the .500 record isn't horrible by any means, Walters was always mired in player issues in his time with the Dons. He had countless players transfer from the program in his tenure (two years ago it was already at 21 and that number went up since then, though I can't confirm how many exactly), and a controversial story involving former 3-year starting point guard Cody Doolin being forced to fight other players in practice by coaches (Walters especially) seemed to haunt him despite some on-court success. Walters seemed to bring out the most of his teams on the court, but off of it, his antics appeared to be too "Mike Rice-ish" and a .500 record simply isn't enough for an administration to condone anything close to that behavior (even if it wasn't full-blown Mike Rice-style). I'm guessing the administration decided to end his tenure before they hit completely bottom, which seemed likely next year with only 1 returning player.

Why this job is enticing:

No school in the WCC (Gonzaga and BYU included) can boast what USF has: two national championships. They also have a history of producing hall of fame players (Bill Russell, KC Jones) and have a campus located in the heart of San Francisco. The Dons also have a passionate fan base and booster and alumni who are willing to do what is necessary to put a successful product on the court (though this got them into trouble in the 80's). Portland suffers from anonymity. Santa Clara suffers from apathy. San Francisco doesn't have those issues, for even with the Warriors in nearby Oakland and the Bears in Berkeley, the Dons are always going to have a portion in the SF Chronicle simply due to the fact that they won two national championships in the 1950's. There's a lot of city pride in this college program, even if the star isn't as bright as it once was decades ago.

Why this job is difficult:

It could be said that Dons alumni and fans have an unrealistic expectation of where this program should be. Walters, player issues aside, seemed to have them in a good competitive place. They were a tough-out for the top tier teams on an annual basis, and looked to be clearly above some of the lower-tier teams in terms of present and future outlook. But, in all honesty, that doesn't seem to be enough for Dons fans and alumni. This is a city that is used to winners like the Niners, Giants and Warriors. This is a program that produced hall of famers. This is school that won two national championships. I am sure that Gonzaga and BYU and St. Mary's (especially this last one since St. Mary's for the longest time seemed to be the little brother to USF in both athletic and academic reputation until Bennett arrived) continuously being better than them gnaws at their pride immensely. That doesn't make things easy for any coach to build success, especially when the resources aren't what they once were and the Dons' location in a major sports market where it is hard to generate fan base beyond the hardcore nostalgic types or alums. 

Who do the Dons need?

Steve Lavin is being talked about as the potential replacement for Walters. To be fair, every time a Dons coach is fired, Lavin is the first name mentioned. And we get it. His dad, Cap, was former player for the Dons in the 1950's who was inducted into the Dons Hall of Fame. And he grew up in the Bay Area, and always seemed more like a fit in the West Coast. But Lavin always seemed to turn the gig down, either seeking bigger, greener pastures (St. John's) or being content in his media lifestyle.

However, Lavin would be a huge boost to this program. He has coached at two major jobs and found some, though not lasting, success with both of them (UCLA and St. John's). He is charismatic and can bring in recruits who normally would go elsewhere. He has always had a strong relationship with players in his history as coach, and unlike Walters, who seemed more abrasive, or at the very least uncomfortable, with the media, would be able to handle the SF media scene with relative ease.

I know Lavin won't be easy. He's turned down the Dons job countless times before. But, he's not a head coach (nor going to be one) at a major school and he's announcing Big East games on Fox, not exactly the limelight he once had at ESPN. Let's face it. USF needs Lavin sure, but Lavin also needs USF too more than ever before. A successful turnaround and Lavin could cement his uneven legacy in college basketball on a positive note.

Transfer Tape: Desmond Simmons, 6-7, 225 pounds, St. Mary's (via Washington)

As with most teams in the college basketball universe, many teams in the WCC will be experiencing a plethora of incoming transfers this upcoming year. Thanks to the "senior rule" (where transfers do not have to sit out a year if they already have their degree), it is becoming more enticing for squads to get that "free agent" for a year to help boost their team's chances for a NCAA Tournament berth for the upcoming season. The big squads that will be reliant on some big-time transfers are the usual suspects like Gonzaga (who will be depending on Kentucky transfer Kyle Wiltjer and USC transfer Byron Wesley) and San Francisco (who will be relying on a plethora of transfers that are too many to count), but St. Mary's is a surprising squad that will be more transfer-heavy than usual. One of the more interesting players they bring to campus this fall is Desmond Simmons, a local Bay Area kid from Vallejo, California (a city that produced talent like DeMarcus Nelson and MLB great CC Sabathia) who went to Salesian High School, but ended up playing for a talent-stacked Washington Husky squad for three seasons. Now a senior, Simmons has returned to the Bay Area to play for Randy Bennett, hoping to not only help the Gaels return to the NCAA Tournament after missing out last season, but also to experience his first NCAA Tournament game as well (the Huskies never went to the Tournament in his time there despite playing with such highly-touted players like CJ Wilcox, Terrence Ross, Tony Wroten, and Abdul Gaddy).

If you watched the video above from Simmons' time with Drew Gooden's Soliders AAU team based out of the Bay Area, its obvious that Simmons brings athleticism to this Gaels squad. While the Gaels have had their fair share of athletic forwards in Bennett's time there (Diamon Simpson being the most prime example), Simmons may be one of the most athletic players to make his way to Moraga. At 6-7, 225 pounds, Simmons has the potential to play in both the post and the wing, and his combo ability should help out post centerpiece Brad Waldow, who while a talented offensive player, has struggled on the defensive end against more athletic and talented post players. While Beau Levesque, the player Simmons most likely will be replacing in the rotation, was extremely talented as a shooter and defensive rebounder, Levesque also struggled physically against bigger power forwards, as his offensive rebounding rate was meager at 7.7 percent. Look at the three year numbers for Simmons in his time at Washington, playing in a more talent-heavy roster, and in a more competitive conference (Pac-12).

Via KenPom.com

Though his offensive rebounding rates went down in his last year there, his offensive rebounding rate average is 11.1 percent, which is a significant upgrade over Levesque. Add that with already good offensive rebounders on the squad like Garrett Jackson (16.7 in 21 percent minutes played), Matt Hodgson (13.1 in 25 percent minutes played) and Waldow (13.7 percent last year) and Simmons should make stronger an already good offensive rebounding Gael squad from a year ago (35.8 percent offensive rebounding rate, 54th in the nation).

Another area which could be key to Simmons' contributing to the Gaels squad will be his effectiveness on defense, which has not been a strength of the Gaels in Bennett's time there. While Bennett has succeeded with strong-shooting, very good offensive-oriented squads, defensively, they have left a little to be desired. After ranking 46th in the nation in eFG percentage allowed in the 2009-2010 season, the Gaels have only cracked the Top-150 in eFG percentage allowed once since (2012-2013). Their main struggles as a team centers around giving up high 3-point percentages (165th, 296th, 274th and 300th in opposing 3P % the past four season), which is alarming considering they usually rank low when it comes to opposing 3-point shots allowed (they've been in the top-10 in fewest 3-pointers allowed 5 out of the past 6 years). One of the main issues is that they haven't had the kind of athleticism in the perimeter or post to defend against that shot. Teams can hurt the Gaels with both on-ball and off-ball screens to free shooters on the perimeter, because the Gaels defenders aren't strong or quick enough to go through or play around the screens quick enough to properly defend the shot. Add that with Bennett's penchant for playing a shallow rotation, and the fatigue that sets in also has had an effect in terms of perimeter players losing their man (they are mostly a man-to-man based squad under Bennett) and giving up easy three point shots.

Simmons however could buck that trend. He's long enough to contest three-point shots, and he has the speed to play adequate defense on the perimeter and the strength to go through screens and not allow space for the three pointer. Furthermore, Simmons comes from a defensive system where they excelled in defending against the the three point shot. Last season, the Huskies ranked 52nd in the nation in 3 point percentage allowed and two years ago when they won the Pac-12 regular season title, they ranked 94th in the nation. While Simmons wasn't the sole culprit (Lorenzo Romar is known for recruiting athletic wings), the fact that he is been in that kind of defensive system and had the ability to play in it should be a huge boost to a Gaels program that has traditionally struggled in such an area.

The biggest question though is how Simmons' offensive game will transition to minutes in Bennett's rotation. As written in a post earlier in January, Bennett is not known for utilizing his bench much, and though this Gaels team will be deeper athletically in years past thanks to the slew of transfers, it is obvious that Bennett prefers a shallow rotation in comparison to most coaches in the WCC. It is also seen that Bennett prefers to have at least one post player who is able to step back and shoot the 3 pointer, and it is yet to be seen that Simmons has the shooting ability to fit into what the Gaels want to do offensively. Waldow is primarily a post player (only 1 3-point shot last season), and Simmons resembles the same kind of profile, as he only took 9 three point shots a year ago, a career low (he took 27 his freshman year). To make matters worse, Simmons overall shooting is pretty mediocre as well, as he sported an eFG percentage of 44.7, which was a career high. Considering Levesque had an eFG percentage of 49.2 percent last year, it doesn't bode well that Simmons is exactly the type of 4 player that Bennett has typically played or wanted for his offensive system (which is primarily a 4-out style of offense).

But, even though he is not strong as a shooter, Simmons has gone a long way to develop his offensive game. His offensive rating of 104.4 was better than Hodgson (93.4) or Jackson (98.2) a year ago and against better competition (4th best conference in comparison to 9th best conference according to KenPom). And, Simmons is not a player who needs the ball in his hands to succeed offensively either, as his usage rate of 15.1 percent last year makes him more a complimentary piece on the offensive end, which is what the Gaels really need considering their main scoring option will again be Waldow next season. So, even though Simmons may not fit the mold characteristic of 4-position players that have come through Bennett's system in years past, he is not a ball-killer kind of player (i.e. he doesn't hog it and need a lot of possessions to be effectively offensively), and if he can put up similar offensive efficiency to what he did in Washington, that might be good enough for Bennett to keep Simmons in the rotation, especially considering the upside he can bring to St. Mary's defensively.

It will be interesting to see how Simmons fits in the Gaels rotation, a team that initially looked to be in rebuilding mode until they landed high profile transfers such as Simmons and Stanford guard Aaron Bright. While Simmons may not be as high profile as some incoming WCC transfers (such as Wiltjer or Wesley for Gonzaga), he could be a complimentary piece that could help the Gaels bounce back after such a disappointing finish last season. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see how Simmons affects Bennett's recruiting in the future, as Simmons is very atypical of what Bennett has traditionally brought to Moraga in terms of profile and athleticism. If Simmons succeeds with the Gaels, and helps St. Mary's to another tournament berth, it could result in the addition of more higher-profile and athletic wing players to the Gaels program, not only as transfers, but perhaps as incoming freshmen as well.

A Slower, Defensive-Approach Separates San Diego from the WCC Pack

A defensive, slower approach by Bill Grier (arms apart above) has been a key reason why San Diego is a dangerous opponent for WCC teams

No team generates more interest with me than the San Diego Toreros. They are 12-10 and 3-6 in conference, and according to Ken Pomeroy, they are most likely to finish the year hovering at .500 at 16-15 (with a projected 7-11 conference record). So, at the surface, there is nothing really to like about San Diego or really glean from them in a major fashion. Most fans think, "Oh, hey San Diego, they can surprise you, but when push comes to shove, they're just another WCC team that is fighting to avoid the cellar with Loyola Marymount, Santa Clara and Pacific." But, I think the Toreros are a team that WCC fans should take notice of for the remainder of the year

I am not here to say that San Diego is going to jettison to the top of the WCC standings. That being said, what I like about San Diego and coach Bill Grier is that he has the Toreros playing a style of ball that is remarkably different from most other teams in the conference. As typical of years past, most schools in the WCC prefer a more "offensive-oriented approach" and for good reason: they are pretty good at it. When it comes to Adjusted Offensive Efficiency according to Ken Pomeroy, four schools rank in the Top-50 (Gonzaga, St. Mary's, San Francisco and BYU), two more rank in the Top-100 (Pacific at 89 and Pepperdine at 100) and two MORE rank within the Top-150 (Portland at 111 and Loyola Marymount at 123). As a conference, Ken Pomeroy rates the WCC as the fourth best conference in the nation when it comes to offensive efficiency at 108.1 (which is helped by a conference-wide 3 point percentage of 38.1 percent, best of any conference in the nation). This isn't 80's Big East basketball. The WCC is known for scoring, lots of it and in an efficient way, and that has been a primary reason why the WCC has achieved its highest conference ranking ever on KenPom.com at No. 9 (though I believe the Mountain West and Missouri Valley getting gutted due to conference re-alignment severely weakened those conferences, which were typically ahead of the WCC but now fell this season; but that's being nitpicky, as the WCC is the strongest its ever been top-to-bottom).

But, San Diego is a team that does not fit that "offensive-emphasis" mold. The Toreros rank last overall in Adjusted Offense in the conference ranking 183rd in the nation. In conference play, while they have played better, they still linger near the basement with a rating of 102.8, ninth-best in the conference play (ahead of only Loyola Marymount, who has struggled efficiency-wise after a strong start). While they do excel in the three-ball (they have the best three-point percentage in WCC play at 43.5 percent), they struggle inside the arc (9th best two-point percentage at 45.4 percent) and turn the ball over way too much (WCC high 20.2 percent turnover rate).

And yet, even though they rate as a pretty sub-par offensive team by WCC standards, the Toreros have been the most competitive team as of late, nearly knocking off Gonzaga on Thursday in Spokane, and upsetting Portland in the Rose City after the Pilots made national headlines with a 3 OT victory over a scorching BYU squad. They are nine points away from being 6-3 (with close single-digit losses to Pepperdine, USF and Gonzaga) rather than 3-6, and they suddenly look to be the kind of team that could ruin many WCC teams' postseason hopes. How are they doing it?

While you could credit it to a variety of factors, I think two major playing trends emerge: their slow tempo and defensive approach.

First off, San Diego is not the only squad in the WCC that plays at a slow tempo. St. Mary's has done this for quite some time under Bennett, and they also run a slow tempo to maximum offensive effectiveness (they rank second in offensive efficiency in conference despite playing the fourth-slowest tempo in conference play). Gonzaga, which originally started the year playing at a faster tempo, has slowed down considerably in conference play (third-slowest in conference), which has worked to their advantage in some games (BYU) and not so in others (San Diego). So, slowing it down and playing a more half-court approach isn't exactly ingenious or ground breaking on Grier's end, since many teams do it when they feel they lack depth or the faster perimeter players to do so. Furthermore, Grier's teams have typically played a slower tempo in his career at USD, as he has had only one team average over the 65 possession mark in his tenure at USD (the 2012 squad which averaged 66.1 possessions per game).

But San Diego has slowed it down considerably so, and that has worked to their advantage in many games. In two out of their last three games, the Toreros have played two sub-60 possession games (USF and Gonzaga). Both those games went down to the buzzer, as the Toreros lost by a buzzer beater to USF and they had a chance to tie at Gonzaga. For a team that lacks offensive consistency like the Toreros, shortening the game has proven to be a strong competitive equalizer for them, especially against better offensive teams (as was the case with USF). While they do have some talent in guard Johnny Dee and center Dennis Kramer, they do have some efficiency killers (Jito Kok may be the worst offensive player in the conference by far as evidenced by his 72.8 offensive rating) that'll keep them from being better than average overall. So, by limiting possessions and relying on the three point shot, the Toreros give themselves a fighting chance against the better teams in conference play. And it has worked, as the Toreros seem to be trending upward as a team, and still have valuable opportunities for possible upsets on the horizons with seven of their next nine games being at home (only St. Mary's looks to be the daunting one, and that could be tougher because the Gaels are in their element in slower-tempo games).

Contrast San Diego's approach with LMU, who has taken a higher-tempo approach to offense (second highest tempo at 69.2 in conference play). While the Toreros are 3-6 against primarily road-game loaded first half of the schedule, the Lions are 3-7 and have lost to conference leaders USF, St. Mary's and Gonzaga by double digits. While they did pull off the upset against BYU in their first conference game of the year, the higher tempo has exposed the Lions' poor offensive efficiency as a team, while the slower tempo has hid or at the very least minimized the Toreros' woes on the offensive end (remember, both teams rank 9th and 10th in conference play offensive efficiency). And how has this strategy of play affected to coaches' futures? Well, it looks like Grier may be on the way to finishing the season strong enough to merit another season, while Lions coach Max Good will have to do a lot to earn an extension at the end of the year.

So, tempo has been a key factor to the Toreros surprising success, though not the only key. The improved defense has also been a reason why the Toreros have also remained competitive, and since those two approaches complement each other nicely (defense and slow tempo) it's no surprise that they have transitioned to success on the court for San Diego. In terms of defense, numerically it's not all that impressive, as the Toreros' 110.7 defensive efficiency rating ranks seventh in conference play. That being said, their overall rating sits at 100.9, which is 108th best in the nation and the Toreros have had some really bad performances that have hurt their conference rating thus far (they gave up 1.31 points per possession in a 23 point loss at BYU). Going back to that rating though, the 100.9 mark, if the season ended today, would be the best mark for Grier since the 2009 season, when the Toreros finished with a defensive rating of 97.6, 77th best in the nation.

The mark is a nice wave of progression for Grier and the Toreros over the past couple of seasons. Grier made his mark as a defensive-coach as an assistant at Gonzaga, and he carried that in his first two years at the helm in San Diego. His first team, which went to the NCAA Tourney and upset UConn as a 13 seed, was a stout defensive squad as they ranked 49th in the nation in defensive efficiency at 95.9. However, after two seasons where his teams ranked in the Top-100 in defensive rating, they took huge steps in years three through five, as they posted mediocre defensive rating rankings of 162, 224 and 230, respectively. Suddenly, the strongest aspect of Grier's ability as a coach (the defensive side) looked to be a weakness after the initial wave of success.

However, Grier made one key hire after the 2011 season that has helped the Toreros defensively: he hired former LMU coach Rodney Tention as an assistant. Now, Tention was far from "good" as a coach at LMU. His 30-61 overall record looks bad in a variety of different lenses. But, Tention was a much better coach than people gave him credit for. For starters, Tention was actually a very decent defensive coach, and if you want to know why or how the Lions, despite being a 12-win team, came within a tip-in of beating an Adam Morrison-led Gonzaga team in the WCC Championship, the Lions' defense was the answer (remember, the Lions went 9-6 in conference play that year). In 2006, the Lions posted a defensive rating of 96.2, 60th best in the country, and in his second year, the Lions, though 13-18, still remained in the Top-100 in defensive rating at 93rd in the nation with a rating of 99.1. While things fell apart for them as a whole in 2008 (only six teams were worse overall than the Lions in 2008), Tention was actually a good defensive coach. The only problem was that he struggled to find consistency with his offense, and he opted for a style that didn't necessarily play to his teams' defensive strengths either (they ranked in the top-100 in terms of fastest tempo in his three years). And so, it made sense why things never worked out for Tention as the head man at LMU. Under Grier's staff though, Tention has seemed to help the Toreros and Grier find their mojo again on the defensive end. They have steadily improved the past couple of years, and I'm sure Tention's expertise on defense has meshed well with Grier's philosophy on defense and slowing it down (rather than speeding it up, as Tention did at LMU).

This season, the Toreros have the kind of squad that fits what Grier wants to do: slow it down, grind out opponents on the defensive end, have certain player (i.e. Gee) make some key shots, and keep games tight against opponents which may be more loaded than his San Diego squads. They still aren't as elite as his first-year squad, but it is obvious that they are making progress toward reaching that point. Tention's influence, though under the radar to most people, has been felt, especially when you look at the improvements in defensive ratings over the past three years. And, with this approach complementing their slow, half-court style, the Toreros remain different, an anomaly to what is typically seen from teams in the WCC.

In college basketball, different is good. Different is what worked for Princeton under Pete Carril, LMU under Paul Westhead and Arkansas under Nolan Richardson. And for Grier and San Diego, being different could give them a chance to replicate what they did in 2008 as soon as next season (though you never know come WCC tourney time).

The "Woolpert Award Watch": The Top 15 Players in the WCC Thus Far

Which WCC Player Will Win CCH's First-Annual "Woolpert Award" for the Best Player in the WCC? The list has been narrowed down to 15.

In lieu of the Wooden Award announcing their annual Mid-Season Top 25 list, I wanted to name an award on this blog for the best player in the WCC. My best idea centered on former USF coach Phil Woolpert, who led the Dons to two NCAA titles in his tenure with the Dons in the 1950's. Maybe there is already an award on Woolpert, and if there is, I can change it, but for now, Woolpert it is darn it!

Anyways, here is the criteria for the Woolpert Award player:

• Has to be at least a significant contributor on his team (Ken Pom characterizes this as at least a 20 percent usage rate). The more significant, the better their chances. I want to look at the player who is most essential to his team's success.
• Record is not the end-all, be-all, but the better the team is, the better the chances are for that player (especially if he is more of a major contributor).
• Advanced numbers will be what determines a player's candidacy. Traditional per game stats are thrown out the window here (I will write a post in due time why I don't rely solely on per game stats, and in fact use them as little as possible).
• Has to play a significant amount of games. Guys who miss significant time due to injury or suspension are not considered (sorry, but you need to play to have an impact on your team; I consider significant time if you have missed about four or more games so far, i.e. Gary Bell of Gonzaga).
• Can be a starter or bench player, but needs to have played at least 50 percent of his team's minutes (which correlates with the statement above).

Okay, here is a very early list of the Top-15 candidates who have earned their spot on the "Woolpert Watch" so far. Roughly, it comes out to 

(Note: this is not in any particular order nor a ranking. I'm just putting in guys randomly.)

1. Brad Waldow, St. Mary's
2. Sam Dower, Gonzaga
3. Brandon Clark, Santa Clara
4. Tyler Haws, BYU
5. Anthony Ireland, LMU
6. Brendan Lane, Pepperdine
7. Kruize Pinkins, USF
8. Andrew Bock, Pacific
9. Johnny Dee, San Diego
10. Kevin Pangos, Gonzaga
11. Kevin Bailey, Portland
12. Eric Mika, BYU
13. Stephen Holt, St. Mary's
14. Thomas van der Mars, Portland
15. Stacy Davis, Pepperdine

As stated before, the list above is NOT a ranking. This is just an initial list. And, much like the Wooden Award, if a player makes significant strides in the second half of the WCC season, I can also put them on the Woolpert Watch as well. Right now, I wanted to have no more than two players from a team on this list and at least 1 representative as well from each WCC squad. So while this list is a good gauge in terms of who is the most valuable player in the WCC this season, it's not an end-all, be-all list either.

If you feel I snubbed anyone, let me know and I would definitely be open to discuss about it. (Beau Levesque was a tough snub for me, but I didn't want to have three Gaels on there, especially considering they're in 3rd place as well).

I'll have a poll on the sideboard of the blog soon to take a tally of who "fans" should think should earn the award (though to be frank, I'll be awarding the vote myself, since it is a statistical award, not a fan vote...sorry guys).

Data Sheet Analysis: WCC Ratings Roundup, January 21st

Don't Understand This Chart? I'll Make Sense After Reading This Post...Hopefully

Though it's not even February yet, it's never a bad time to talk about postseason expectations. One thing I liked to do leading up to tournament time is looking up different ratings of basketball teams that are on "the bubble". In the WCC, it's usually only 2-3 teams, but nonetheless, I wanted to look at the conference as a whole and the ratings of each and see where there were major differences between ratings systems for certain teams. For a lot of the top teams in conference, the ratings were pretty consistent across the board (as I will show in a graph via the Data Sheet), but things got interesting as you look at the middle of the pack to the bottom of the WCC.

Before I go into the analysis of each team, I wanted to give people a brief synopsis of each ratings system I used leading up to the team analysis.

RPI (Rating Percentage Index)

• The most common and widely known ratings system. Used in the NCAA selection process. The formula for RPI is  (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25) (where WP is Winning percentage, OWP is opponent's win percentage and OOWP is Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage).

BPI (College Basketball Power Index)

• ESPN's own ratings index similar to RPI created in 2012. BPI accounts the most factors in games in comparison to the other Major Indexes, as it includes scoring margin, diminishing returns for blowouts, pace, game location, SOS beyond Opponent W-L, Wins (not really quality losses), and Key Players missing. While the positive is that it accounts all factors, the negative with BPI is that it can be the most subjective of all the ratings indexes with all the factors it accounts. For a more detailed explanation, check out this post here.

Ken Pomeroy Ratings

• More mathematical than the above, but in my opinion very informative in terms of "pure prediction" as he states on his "Ratings Explanation" page. Pomeroy seems less concerned with past results (since he knows upsets will happen and it's impossible to predict every upset or win), but in his words "to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. Since nobody can see every team play all (or even most) of their games, this system is designed to give you a snapshot of a team’s current level of play." The core of Pomeroy's system is based on the "pythagorean calculation for expected winning percentage", though he has incorporated some changes to his algorithms going into this year. Overall, Pomeroy's seems to be for the most mathematically or statistically inclined, but I like it the most because I find the data accurate in reflecting a team's profile.

Jeff Sagarin Ratings

• Sagarin's ratings are not only used by the NCAA Tournament committee, but they have also been a staple among oddsmakers in terms of determining lines for basketball games (and football, as his football ratings have been part of the BCS system since its inception). While the exact formulas for Sagarin's ratings aren't exact, according to Wikipedia (yes, I am quoting Wikipedia, shoot me English Teacher Nazi) his system is "the difference in two teams' rating scores is meant to predict the margin of victory for the stronger team at a neutral venue...teams gain higher ratings within the Sagarin system by winning games against stronger opponents, factoring in such things as home-venue advantage." Thus, Sagarin is more aimed toward the NCAA Tournament as the idea of playing on a neutral court is something that is rarely important in the regular season and more important come Tournament time (where all the teams play on neutral courts).

Ken Massey Ratings

• Massey's ratings are more predicated on measuring past performance rather than predicting future results. This emphasis varies from other ratings such as Pomeroy and Sagarin (which state their goal is to predict future results, albeit in different ways). Massey states two challenges, as he looks to eliminate "noise which obscures the true strength of a team" (which includes officiating, luck, not playing to potential, etc.) and differences in schedule. Thus, strength of schedule is heavily incorporated into the ratings, though Massey only factors in score, venue and date and no other statistics or factors in the strength of schedule rating.

After looking up all those ratings on their various Web site, I composed an aggregate rating which basically was an average of all their ratings combined. That way, the aggregate rating gives a true "real" rating of each WCC team, since some fluctuate surprisingly a lot.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's analyze each team in the WCC and their ratings thus far through the season.

Gonzaga Bulldogs (16-3 overall, 6-1 in conference)

• RPI: 25
• BPI: 21
• Ken Pom: 26
• Jeff Sagarin: 21
• Ken Massey: 29
• Aggregate Rating: 24.4

BPI and Sagarin love the Zags, as they rate them at 21 in both ratings. BPI is not surprising considering all the subjective factors they take in. The Zags have huge margin of victories in many games (especially during their first 3 games in WCC play against St. Mary's, USF and Santa Clara), have been hit hard by injuries (Gary Bell and Sam Dower), and have played some tough neutral court games (Maui Classic and Kansas State in Wichita). Sagarin also takes in margin of victory, and that too probably also explains why that rating also correlates similarly with ESPN's BPI.

Massey and Pom seem less in love with the Zags, as they both rate them higher than their aggregate rating. The Zags rate 17th in AdjO and 71st in AdjD, so when you factor in both those factors, as well as their 67.4 pace factor, and the Zags rating at 26 seems about right (SMU, which is rated 25, is similar in their AdjO and AdjD difference, though is flipped, as their D is better than their O). As for Massey, which had the lowest rating for the Zags out of any of the ones listed, it relies so heavily the teams' records and opponents records, and the strength of many of the opponents outside of Arkansas, West Virgina (though that's questionable), Kansas State and Dayton isn't all that great (New Mexico State started well early on but have faded and that has hurt the Zags' strength of schedule, which in return has hurt the Zags).

BYU Cougars (13-7 overall, 5-2 conference)

• RPI: 39
• BPI: 49
• Ken Pom: 49
• Jeff Sagarin: 41
• Ken Massey: 55
• Aggregate Rating: 46.6

RPI loves BYU and it's not surprising. The Cougars played the best out of conference schedule (7th hardest in the nation) out of anyone in the WCC. Stanford, Wichita State, Utah State, Iowa State, Texas, Utah, Oregon and UMass were all on BYU's non-conference slate and all those teams are Top-100 teams in almost every rating listed above. Though the Cougars went 3-5 against them, three of those teams started out the season with double digit wins before suffering their first loss (Iowa State, Oregon and Umass) and one is still undefeated (Wichita State). Thus, it makes sense that BYU's highest rating came in the RPI.

Massey was the least loving of the Cougars (though that tended to be the trend for many WCC teams, as the conference as a whole rated low in Massey's ratings). My guess for the low ratings is the Cougars' opening conference losses to LMU and Pepperdine (who rank low in the Massey Ratings) hurt, as well as that Dec.14-Dec.30 stretch where they lost four straight. Ken Pom and BPI also rated the Cougars above their aggregate rating, which makes sense considering the Cougars' mediocre defensive rating (86th in KP) and high pace (76.0). Still, the Cougars have had a relatively easy road so far in conference play (10th rated in conference SOS on Ken Pom), so it'll be interesting to see if this improvement is legit or just the product of an easy stretch.

St. Mary's Gaels (14-5 overall, 4-2 in conference)

• RPI: 50
• BPI: 47
• Ken Pom: 56
• Jeff Sagarin: 51
• Ken Massey: 65
• Aggregate Rating: 53.8

If you want to make the NCAA Bubble Case for the Gaels, you certainly can. They sneak in when it comes to RPI and BPI. Their opening win over Louisiana Tech may have been their most underrated win of the season so far (though LA Tech's loss to Southern Miss dampened it a bit) and wins over Boise State and North Dakota State are solid wins over solid mid-major teams who have a chance to make the NCAA Tournament (albeit by winning their conference tournaments, but still a chance nonetheless).

But, the Gaels look bad in Ken Pom and Ken Massey's ratings. In KP's ratings, their soft non-conference schedule (only two away games and two neutral games in the non-conference) and mediocre defensive efficiency (175th in the nation) hurts their case big time. As for Massey, a home loss to Santa Clara (it takes heavily into consideration home record) and a slow start in conference (4-2, unimpressive difference in Points Score and Points Allowed in Conf Play) probably is the key reason why they are barely on the bubble in his ratings.

Pacific Tigers (10-7 overall, 1-5 conference)

• RPI: 84
• BPI: 115
• Ken Pom: 121
• Jeff Sagarin: 116
• Ken Massey: 117
• Aggregate Rating: 110.6

I really believe the Tigers are due for a second-half turnaround in WCC play. Though they currently rank in the basement in the WCC with a 1-5 conference record, their RPI is surprisingly high for a last-place team, and they played well in the non-conference slate as well with good wins over Utah State and UC Irvine and tough games against Oregon and Princeton (who really is a contender to Harvard, though it is Harvard's conference to lose at this point). Furthermore, they have already played some of the toughest WCC opponents thus far, as they have played St. Mary's twice and Gonzaga in Spokane (all boosts to that RPI).

Now, I don't believe the Tigers are a top-100 team. But even when you look at their other ratings, they are obviously seen as a middle of the pack WCC team, not a last place team like the one you see currently. Even Ken Pomeroy, who has the Tigers rated the lowest out of all the ratings, still has them as the fifth highest rated team in the conference, and did rate their conference schedule as the hardest thus far for any WCC team. So, don't give up on this Tigers team yet, even though they certainly didn't do themselves any favors with that 1-5 start in conference play.

San Francisco Dons (12-8 overall, 5-3 conference)

• RPI: 102
• BPI: 121
• Ken Pom: 124
• Jeff Sagarin: 126
• Ken Massey: 114
• Aggregate Rating: 117.4

A pretty consistently rated team overall. The RPI is solid for their record, but it's not egregiously different from the other ratings like Pacific (where they had a 37 point difference between RPI, their highest ranking and Ken Pom, their lowest rating). USF was hurt from questionable losses early on, and it shows in their out of conference RPI of 177, which is third-worst in the conference. Ken Pom also rates their defense 263rd in the nation AdjD efficiency, so that is also another reason why KP has them hovering in the 120 range, well out of NIT territory and maybe even CIT or CBI consideration as well.

That being said, USF's offense is good (40th in the nation in AdjO efficiency) and they have played much better as of late with four wins in their last six conference games, and the two losses being on the road at St. Mary's and a tough loss to BYU (who is playing the best ball in conference). Those losses won't hurt, and the Dons only other conference loss is to Gonzaga on the road (though that was a BAAD conference loss as they were killed). If the Dons can keep winning WCC games against the middle of the pack (they already got a huge boon in a road win over Portland which is looking better and better with Portland's win over Gonzaga at the Chiles Center), and maybe pull one home upset over St. Mary's or Gonzaga (Winning at BYU would be tough), then I think the Dons could get a high enough status in the ratings to earn some kind of postseason berth.

Portland Pilots (11-8 overall, 3-4 conference)

• RPI: 152
• BPI: 107
• Ken Pom: 104
• Jeff Sagarin: 109
• Ken Massey: 126
• Aggregate Rating: 119.6

The Pilots earn the award for the most bi-polar team in the Ratings Roundup. RPI does NOT like Portland and rightfully so. Their projected OOC RPI is 169 and projected OOC SOS is 290. They are 7-2 against teams rated 200 or higher, but 6-6 against teams in the 51-100 range. The Pilots boast a profile with good wins over Gonzaga and Princeton, tolerable losses to Oregon State and Michigan State, and downright crappy losses to North Texas and Montana State. Portland may be a good team underneath all that fluff, but RPI is going to have a hard time seeing it, especially with those strength of schedule numbers hanging out there.

But sans RPI, the Pilots still profile as a decent team and have a good shot for the fourth spot in conference if they can use the momentum from the Gonzaga win to turn it around. Much like Pacific, they suffered from some bad losses early (though the conference strength of schedule wasn't nearly as difficult as Pacific's; it is rated as the 8th toughest so far) and while they don't excel in anything, they aren't really terrible in anything either (they rank 116th in AdjO and 123rd in AdjD according to KP). So, they'll always be a competitive team, though they'll probably lose some games they probably should win (as evidenced by losing to Pepperdine on Saturday, though that was in Malibu). While I like USF more, I think Portland has a decent chance to make a postseason berth if they can get some consistency.

Pepperdine Waves (12-8 overall, 5-3 conference)

• RPI: 118
• BPI: 135
• Ken Pom: 126
• Jeff Sagarin: 121
• Ken Massey: 113
• Aggregate Rating: 122.6

As we get to the bottom of the WCC, we start to see some trends emerge. When it comes to the top of the conference, the RPI is consistently higher than the Massey ratings. For the lower-tier WCC teams, the Massey ratings are actually better than their RPIs. Because BPI is so subjective and incorporates so many variables, it goes a variety of ways, and Pom and Sagarin are more scientific, so they kinda fall in line with BPI as well.  Pepperdine is pretty typical of what we see from the lower tier teams, though to be honest, they may be on the cusp of being a middling to borderline upper tier team, if they could just pull some sort of consistency and give fans a real idea what team they're going to be for the rest of the season.

Pepperdine suffers from many of the same problems of the lower-end WCC teams: bad OOC RPI (202, second worst in WCC), bad OOC SOS (282, third worst in WCC) and lack of quality wins (2-8 against top-100) along with some REALLY bad losses (San Jose State and Cal State Fullerton are rated 252nd and 241st respectively in KP's ratings). What boosts Pepperdine (or why you might argue in favor of Pepperdine) over Portland though is that the Waves have actually been better against teams ranked in the 101-200 range (8-4 to Portland's 6-6 mark). Add that with the fact that the Waves actually are better than average in something (86th in Adjusted Offense), and that gives the Waves a bit of an advantage over a team like Portland who is just pretty average all across the board. Yes, the Pilots have the better ratings now, but check back in two weeks and I have a feeling Pepperdine will have leaped them.

San Diego Toreros (11-9 overall, 2-5 conference)

• RPI: 189
• BPI: 160
• Ken Pom: 150
• Jeff Sagarin: 156
• Ken Massey: 171
• Aggregate Rating: 165.2

Initially, the feeling is to say that the Toreros are the worst team in the WCC. While Pacific is last, there is the feeling that they have just been unlucky. The Tigers played some decent teams in the non-conference, and as stated before, played the toughest conference slate of any WCC team thus far. Add that with the adjustment that comes with playing in a new conference (especially a conference upgrade to the WCC from the Big West), and it makes sense why the Tigers have struggled this season. But as for the Toreros? They played two Non-DI teams (inexcusable in my mind any way you cut it), have a projected OOC SOS of 276, and are 1-9 against Top-100 teams this season. Their 189 RPI is second-worst in the conference, and by all means, it is easy to categorize San Diego as the bottom feeder in the WCC.

But surprisingly, the Toreros aren't as bad as advertised. Sans a bad loss to Illinois Chicago on a neutral court (282nd in KP's ratings), the Toreros have taken care of business against bad teams (7-1 against teams rated in the 200 plus range). Their OOC RPI isn't as bad as expected at 170 (better than both USF and Pepperdine), and the advanced guys (Pomeroy and Sagarin) like them more than most, which means statistically, they have some potential (though certainly not a lot of it). San Diego's slower pace (second-slowest in WCC) also helps them in the more variable ratings (especially BPI and KP), so I can see why they rate higher in ratings other than RPI. So, the Toreros are bad...they're just not as bad as we want to think just yet.

Loyola Marymount Lions (10-10 overall, 2-6 conference)

• RPI: 164
• BPI: 181
• Ken Pom: 161
• Jeff Sagarin: 165
• Ken Massey: 166
• Aggregate Rating: 167.4

Oh how they mighty have fallen. Remember how sky high people were riding on the Lions after they whooped BYU in Los Angeles? Remember how the Lions were threatening to make their case as the conference's second or third best team? Well those days are long gone. According to the aggregate ratings, the Lions rank as the second-worst team in the WCC, and with their 2-6 record in the WCC, the ratings seem pretty spot on in this case. The Lions aren't just bad in one set of ratings, but go for all-around effect in terms of their lower tier in the ratings (though BPI seems to be the most lackluster at 181), thus cementing their spot currently in the basement of the WCC.

If you want to find any silver linings for LMU, Ken Pom rates them the highest at 161st, noting that the overall AdjO rating at 106.1 is actually not bad at 134th in the nation despite them ranking last in the conference in offensive rating in WCC games alone (100.4 offensive rating in conference games only). And, the Lions' OOC SOS was actually better than most WCC teams in the lower tier (241st, which would rank as the 6th toughest OOC SOS in the WCC). Add that with an OOC RPI that was rated as 117th and the Lions probably have been a victim of bad luck rather than just mere bad play (though there has been plenty of that going on for Max Good's squad). RPI-Forecast projects the Lions to finish with a RPI of 158.5. While that is not a huge difference, I think that is a sign people should expect the Lions to trend up not down during this second-half stretch of WCC play.

Santa Clara Broncos (10-11 overall, 3-5 conference)

• RPI: 193
• BPI: 184
• Ken Pom: 178
• Jeff Sagarin: 184
• Ken Massey: 184
• Aggregate Rating: 184.6

Thank God Kerry Keating signed that contract extension this year or he'd be in serious trouble. I get it, he has a couple of CBI titles to his belt, but he hasn't made the NCAA tournament, kind of a big deal considering the coach the administration pushed out (Dick Davey) to make room for him had numerous on his resume. That being said, it makes sense though that the athletic department signed him to a deal so early this season: it was going to be a rebuilding year after losing Kevin Foster and a few other key players, and Even Roquemore simply isn't the player efficiency-wise to carry a team. Thus, it makes sense why the Broncos rate as the worst team ratings wise so far, even though they're holding their head above water a little bit with a 3-5 conference record.

Let's look at the good: the Broncos have played the second toughest conference schedule so far according to Ken Pom, so things are bound to get easier down the stretch (they have already played Gonzaga and St. Mary's on the road and they played BYU recently at home). Their win over St. Mary's on the road may be what plays spoiler to the Gaels' chances for an at-large bid in the NCAA Tournament, so at least they can torment their Bay Area brethren in that regard. Other than that though? 9-9 record against teams rated 100-plus (i.e. not good), 292nd in OOC SOS (worst in WCC) and 256th in OOC RPI (also worst in WCC). And, terrible losses to Cal State Fullerton (241) on the road and Rice (300!) at home. Yes, as bad as it is to hear Rough Riders (all 50 of you...sorry, just kidding), you are indeed probably the worst team in the WCC this year unfortunately. Just hope it's only a one year thing.

Candidates to trend UPWARD in ratings:

• Pacific
• Pepperdine
• Loyola Marymount

Candidates to trend DOWNWARD in ratings:

• Portland
• BYU
• Gonzaga