Warming Up the Crystal Ball: 2019-2020 Edition

In the inaugural article, I promised an article that I had finished before it because I did a lot of the work for it over the summer. If you know me by now, you know that this article is not the promised article. I do intend to auto-publish that one at the beginning of December, which actually aligns better with my work schedule since I won't have a lot of time during those two weeks to put anything together. Instead you get this article, which has become sort of a standard for PPB and it does have a lot of valuable information in it for March. By putting my pre-season biases into the written record, it lets you the reader see my point of view from the start and see how the data is being used to confirm or reject my point of view. Likewise, I would like to publish my preseason thoughts before any other headline-grabbing upsets happen. Nonetheless, here's my outlook for the 2019-2020 season.

Meta-Analysis Applied to 2019-2020

One approach to bracket analysis is looking at how this year compares to other years in terms of the rules of the game and the structure of the tournament. I wrote a three-part series called the timeline that illustrates this concept (Links: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). For the 2019-2020 season, the biggest change is the extension of the three-point arc to 22 feet, 1.75 inches, except in the corners. The last time this particular meta-game change happened was the 2008-2009 season, so let's see what parallels we can draw from that season and apply to the current one.

• National Champ: UNC. A roster that included two prolific perimeter shooters in Wayne Ellington and Danny Green. They ranked 24th in the country in 3P% with 38.5%, a TO rate and an ORB% that was 9th-best and 19th-best in the country meaning most of their offensive possessions resulted in a shot, and they were the #1-ranked team in offensive efficiency by several ratings systems (which can be seen from the high ranks above).
• National Runner-Up: Michigan State. A roster that included three young 3-point shooters (Lucas, Summers and Lucious) and a stretch-center with a 43.8% 3pt-percentage. The team percentage is actually deceptively low because their top 3pt shooter in volume (29.4% of the team's total attempts) made three-pointers at a pedestrian 31.1%. They also began the tournament ranked 5th nationally in offensive and defensive rebounding percentage.
• Final Four: Connecticut. A veteran-laden team with a 7'3" anchor in the middle named Hasheem Thabeet, where they entered the tournament ranked 4th nationally in defensive 2pt percentage, allowing only 40.5% of 2pt shots to score. With him intimidating touches in the paint, the other four defenders could extend out to the perimeter, where they ranked 32nd nationally in defensive 3pt percentage with 31.3%. All of these stats were good enough for the third best team in defensive efficiency.
• Final Four: Villanova. A roster with two prolific perimeter shooters in Corey Stokes and Scottie Reynolds, both of which shot three pointers above a 34.9% clip. Entering the tournament, the team itself ranked 64th nationally in 3pt percentage at 36.8% and 31st nationally in Free Throw Rate at 42.7% (although this particular advanced stat is deceptive in my opinion, hint hint wink wink nudge nudge). Nonetheless, threes and frees have been a staple of the Jay Wright philosophy, so it should come as no surprise that all three of his Final Four appearances came in the 20'9 era of college basketball, and both of his national championships came in the Freedom of Movement era (fouls for simply playing defense). Considering NOVA is nationally ranked and Wright's philosophy is still the same, I would call them a sleeper pick for a 2020 F4 appearance with an extended three point arc this season.

These are roster profiles I would take into serious consideration when looking for F4/NC contenders for 2019-2020.

Preliminary Readings

If you follow the advanced metrics systems on a daily basis like I do, you can already see the early indications of a chaotic March. Yes, the early season numbers are empirical estimations based largely on last year's data, but they show a lot of weakness. In terms of tournament comparisons, they align best with 2006 and 2014. If you look at the current KenPom ratings and compare them with the season-end KenPom ratings for the aforementioned two years (Links: 2006 and 2014), the weakness is obvious. For tournament insanity like that produced by 2006 and 2014, we need top-to-bottom parity among the teams and we need a Selection Committee to produce a lot of over-seeds and under-seeds. The use of the power ratings in the Selection Process over the last two years have mitigated some of the insanity generated by the ineptness of the Selection Committee, but the top-to-bottom parity is pretty evident in 2020. There are still four months until Selection Sunday for strong teams to separate themselves, and this separation should be noticeable by the beginning of January when I hope to produce the first Quality Curve Analysis of the season. Until then, we can only speculate and play the waiting game.

The Tiered Approach

In past rubs of the crystal ball, I organized teams into tiers and gave my personal thoughts/opinions on their tournament chances. I actually did pretty well last year with this approach, so I'll try again here. If I had to group the 2020 litter of teams into tiers, here's how I would do it.

• Front-runners: MIST and LOU. MIST is built (in roster terms) much like 2018 NOVA, 2016 NOVA, and 2014 CONN. They are very guard-oriented with position-less big-men (forwards and centers that can switch onto guards in pick-and-roll defense). LOU reminds me of 2019 UVA with a system-oriented approach, a inside-out forward at the 4-spot and rim protection from the 5-spot.
• Challengers: UK, DUKE, and KU. DUKE and UK both bring back core pieces and add to them freshman talent. In other words, both teams have a lot of growing up to do in order to cut down the nets. KU also brings back critical pieces at the point guard and center positons, but the distractions from KU's off-court (legal) issues may be too much.
• Sleepers: NOVA, ORE, and PUR. NOVA has already been mentioned above, but I'll state one more fact about them. The 2016 title team was destroyed by OU early in the 2015-16 season like this year's team was destroyed by OHST, and it didn't stop that team from returning the favor in the F4. ORE is an experienced team returning core players from last year's narrow S16 loss to the eventual national champion, and the P12 should test them this year, unlike the lack of quality competition over the last two years. PUR has already played two quality teams early this season and came away with two losses (or two moral victories depending on how you want to look at it). They need to find offensive consistency, and Matt Haarms needs to use his over-energetic mannerisms on the defensive end of the court.
• Pretenders: FLA, UNC, and GONZ. FLA does not have legitimate shooters, and the addition of Kerry Blackshear from last year's VT S16 team does not justify a preseason ranking of 6th in the nation. Not to mention, many times when the camera flashes to head coach Mike White, he seems to have the look of a deer in headlights. UNC has talent but they do not have familiarity with each other or the Roy Williams system. The system has produced three national titles, all of which came from veteran-loaded teams that played two to three years with each other. This team does not fit that profile. GONZ is in rebuilding. They lost too many valuable pieces this year and are trying to fill the void with unproven transfers. Steam-rolling the WCC is not the same as six straight wins against the best the nation has to offer.

I am considering a criteria-based approach to title contenders as an article later in the season (as par for this year, it will happen if my work schedule allows it).

Rule Breakers

As a fun way to end this article, I wanted to address an interesting caveat regarding the past tournaments. As bracket pickers, we tend to rely on golden rules for guidance in picking. We want those sure-fire picks that are right 100% of the time. Unfortunately, the last six tournaments each have broken one of our golden rules, and I wanted to point them out, as well as potentially predict golden rules that could be broken by the 2020 tournament (especially if it ends up being as crazy as the numbers suggest).

• 2019: Tempo no longer matters. UVA defied the odds and won the title while posting the nation's worst tempo-adjusted pace of play. Before the start of the 2019 tournament, only five out of 68 F4 participants since 2002 have posted a 300+ ranking in the tempo category. 2018 MICH and 2015 WISC came the closest of these five teams to cutting down the nets. Seeing that three of those five teams occurred in the last five years, it should have been a clue that the slowdown is the trend instead of the exception.
• 2018: The 1v16 rule no longer matters. I don't even need to mention this one or write a long-winded paragraph. UMBC broke this golden rule.
• 2017: The 2-3-4 rule. Following the sanest tournament ever in 2007, every tournament since 2007 featured an upset of either a 2-seed, 3-seed or 4-seed. After nine straight years of a guaranteed upset in this group, all twelve teams in these groups won their R64 game.
• 2016: The 3/2 Ratio no longer matters. Basketball is an inside-out game, or at least it used to be without all of the garbage rule changes over the past decade. Teams that play outside-in have rarely had success in the tournament. Only 9 out of 56 F4 participants between 2002-2015 had ranked in the Top 100 in 3PA/FGA, and none of these nine won the title.
• 2015: Outside of the rule-breaking 2008 tournament which featured all four 1-seeds in the F4, no tournament during KenPom era (2002-present) saw more than two 1-seeds in the F4. 2015 broke this golden rule by featuring three 1-seeds in the F4. In fairness, the three 1-seeds were in a class of their own (or should I say, a "tier" of their own) in 2015 in terms of efficiency. The 2008 crop of 1-seeds of UNC, MEM, UCLA, and KU were also in a class (or tier) of their own in that season. Maybe a good thing to look for when projecting 1-seed dominant tournaments, but I don't think we will have to worry about that for 2020.
• 2014: The 1-2-3 rule. Never pick a national champion without a 1-seed, 2-seed, or a 3-seed. Then again, the craziness of 2014 broke a lot of golden rules.
• 2013: The win streak entering the tournament does not matter. The largest winning streak entering this tournament was seven straight wins by 2008 KU. The most common winning streak of a national champion entering the tournament was zero wins (the national champion entered the tournament on a losing streak). LOU cut down the nets with a ten-game winning streak, finishing the tournament and their season with an incredible sixteen-game win streak. Not to mention, this is the first year a 15-seed advanced to the Sweet Sixteen.

So what golden rule could break in 2020.

1. The first rule that comes to mind is the first conference tournament game rule. No eventual national champion has ever lost its opening game in their conference tournament. Maybe a team with NBA prospects decides to take it easy in the conference tournament and save their efforts for winning a national title. 
2. Another rule that comes to mind is the Roy Williams R64 rule. When a Roy Williams team makes the NCAA tournament, they always win at least one game, even when receiving a seed as low as an 8-seed. This year's team features a mix of highly touted freshman recruits, senior transfers from small conference teams, and single-digit scoring reserves from previous years. This is a team unlike any Roy Williams has put together, so it makes sense that this could be the team to finally snap the Roy Williams R64 rule.
3. Plead the 5th rule. Since 2014 broke all the rules with its insanity, this is one that 2020 could break if it proves to be equally insane. The only upper-seeded team to never win a National Championship is a 5-seed. An 8-seed won the very first 64-team tournament in 1985, and then three years later a 6-seed won the title. It took until 1997 for a 4-seed to win the title, and then 2014 for a 7-seed to win the title. The only one left is the 5-seed group, but three 5-seeds have advanced to the title game: 2000 FLA, 2002 IND, and 2010 BUT. Coaching may be the key to watch for teams in the 5-seed grouping. Billy Donovan (current OKC Thunder head coach) was the coach of 2000 FLA, Mike Davis was the heir apparent to Bob Knight at 2002 IND (much the same as other heirs have done when succeeding their mentors), and Brad Stevens (now the head coach of the BOS Celtics) was the coach at 2010 BUT.

Conclusion

The outlook for 2020 at the present moment looks to be a wild one. If the first QC Analysis in January trends toward supporting this theory, I will try to focus the year's remaining articles upon upset-laden tournaments. Until then, if you would like to join in the fun, feel free to leave in the comment section your own golden rules that could be broken in the 2020. The next article is auto-scheduled for December 1st, and it features a new metric I developed over the summer.