Mid-season Thoughts

First off, I hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday season. Second, I wanted to do another article similar to the Opening Week Thoughts article, just to document what I've seen and thought about current college hoops season up to this point, so it will be a lot of opinion and conjecture. With roughly 95% of the remaining games being conference match-ups, it's perfect timing for such an article, and if anything else, it should have a lot of meaty thoughts for sports conversations around the holiday tables. Instead of reviewing important match-ups like the Opening Week article, I'm taking a conference-based approach in this write-up.

Big 12: These teams reach this point in the season with the best records top-to-bottom. The worst record is OKST's 8-4, and out of their total nineteen losses, seven B12 teams each have a loss to a BEC team. Each team also plays an SEC team in late Jan for the B12-SEC Challenge (arguably the best power-vs-power series for a number of reasons), so the results of that series could shift the balance. At the current moment, a composite of bracketologies have nine of the ten B12 teams in the 2023 tourney, and I would be very shocked if this holds. Last year, the B12 did not have a start as strong as this year's start, and only managed six of the ten teams, two of which having losing conference records. They could push for seven bids this year, but one out of KNST, OU, OKST and WVU need a strong conference showing (and this assumes TXTC is secure, and I'm not sure about that). Despite the hype of the sports media, I do not see a national title contender in this bunch, so you can squash the dreams of a conference three-peat. For the record, I wrote-off KU last year after the home-shellacking they took to UK in the B12-SEC Challenge last year. If I didn't screw up two of my models, they would have at least been on my radar in BCW last year. I also think TCU is the team with the best chance for a deep run in March.

B10: In terms of W-L records, this conference boasts the second-best from top-to-bottom, as all fourteen teams have above-500 non-conference records (to this point in the season). Compared to last year when the conference was balanced and anyone could be anyone on any given night, this year appears to be more tiered. You have the obvious bottom-feeders in NEB and MINN, followed by the treading-water group of PNST and IOWA who will likely sink once conference play takes full swing, followed by the potential bubble teams of NW, RUT and UMD, followed by the play-to-the-level-of-their-opponent group of PUR, WISC, MICH, and ILL, and finally the contenders group of IND, OHST, and MIST. I said in the opening week article that the B10 is down from last year (which is true from a number of perspectives) and that they would be lucky to get nine teams in the tourney (they might actually get lucky seeing that the top three groups contain ten teams). Strangely enough, I don't see a national champion in this conference either, and typically the national champ comes from one of the three strongest conferences. However, I think there are two teams that could make a F4 run.

SEC: Third in my non-scientific conference power rankings is the SEC with only two teams sporting a 500 non-conference record (and one of these two will likely finish 7-6). Up to this point in the season, this is the only power conference that has not played a single conference game. In the ETM article, I implied that the SEC was top-heavy, and it appears to be the case. In no particular order, there is TENN, ALA, ARK, and UK with a combined eight losses - three to P12 teams, two to GONZ, and three to contenders in other conferences (two more counting the two losses to P12 contenders). On the next level, you have AUB and MSST because they have strong records against teams very unlikely to make the tournament, meaning they need to do their damage in SEC play. I could just as easily put these two with the third group, which contains LSU, MIZZ, UGA and MISS. Of these ten teams, seven is starting to feel like a stretch, and a composite bracketology has six with two waiting in the wings. On paper and with the right path, any of the four teams in the first group have a chance to win the national title, but three of the four need to start improving and do it fast.

BEC: If not for one really bad team and two March-potential teams with current injury struggles, they would have been my third-ranked conference instead of the SEC. In the Opening Week article, I stated that CREI is probably the only team that will improve their seeding from 2022. While there is still a chance that CREI can improve above an 8-seed, CONN has already proven this statement to be wrong as they will be either a 1- or 2-seed, barring a collapse. There's also a chance MARQ could improve above a 9-seed, but every step they take forward this season, they follow it up with a step backwards. All in all, CONN and XAV are likely locks, also NOVA and CREI once healthy and start winning, MARQ will likely loom on the bubble but get in due to resume wins, which leaves maybe a sixth bid between PROV, JOHN, and HALL, but HALL has the only quality win (@RUT) on the worst of the three records. CONN is playing like a national champ would play in NOV and DEC, but titles are won three months later. CREI roster is built to win a title but Kalkbrenner needs to stay healthy and their defense has to get much better.

ACC: It's weird seeing the ACC as the fifth best conference in the country year after year, and if the P12 wasn't so bad every year, the ACC would probably be the worst of the power conferences. The ACC is simply in transition for a number of reasons, and it will be a few more years before it is back near the top. Although there is only one ACC team that could challenge for the national title (and it will take another heroic performance to return to that game), there are a lot of teams that can challenge for an NCAA berth. Three should be locks (DUKE, UVA, and MIA), but I don't see any of these teams better than 4-seed quality. There are four more (VT, PITT, CLEM, and WAKE) that have bubble-worthy resumes and need an above-500 showing in conference play to receive a bid. The advantage of playing in the ACC is a 20-game conference schedule, so there are a lot of resume-building wins to be gained. The disadvantage is the many resume-scarring losses to be gained as well (just ask 2022 WAKE or VT's most recent loss at BC).

P12: Finishing out our power conferences and, to be honest, barely edging out the AMER conference for sixth place is the P12. As hinted in an earlier conference summary, there are two contenders in the P12: ARI and UCLA, but I'm highly skeptical of the former. ARI is very starter-heavy with 79.6% of their points coming from starters, so one bad night for the starters (look at their individual stats from the @UTAH game) and it's another early exit from the tourney. UCLA is built like the two NOVA championship teams only lacking the defensive paint control. The development of freshmen Bailey and Bona would be the key to improving it. The next level of teams include USC and AZST, who at this point look like tournament teams on paper but need to win conference games to improve the resume. Finally, you have the bubble group of ORE, UTAH and COL. Each have a signature win, but two of the wins I would put asterisks beside if I was on the committee. The goal for these three teams is to win every conference game you are supposed to win and maybe steal a wins against a contender. It is kind of wild to think that the P12 has seven teams vying for a tournament berth compared to the last couple of years of three or four teams and none making it to the 2nd weekend. If last season's tournament results are a stepping stone instead of a cyclical peak, the P12 could be like last year's ACC.

AMER: This year's AMER conference looks good top to bottom. When your top team is HOU, then you're essentially starting a 10K at the 5K mark. I still worry about their shooting ability, but fundamentally they are one of the best in the country, especially on the defensive side. MEM is next on the list and has the look of a team that is better than the sum of their parts. Last year, they looked like five pro-level players that couldn't get out of each other's way, or put in competitive terms, each player couldn't get better without making another one worse off. They just lack shooting as well. UCF looks like a sleeper to make the tourney. Wins against OKST and MISS look like bubble wins right now, so they need to make the most of four games against the top two while not losing to anyone else.

MWC: Last year, this conference sent three teams to the tournament and a fourth to the R68, and all went back home even faster. In my opinion, five teams are in the mix for berths: UNLV, UNM, BOST, SDST, and COST. I'm thinking strength of schedule might get in SDST if they don't fall apart. The other four don't have enough games against quality competition. A regular-season and tournament win by SDST could be the worst result for the entire conference, as it turns the bubble debate into a 2nd place MWC team versus a 7th/8th place B10/B12 team and this wouldn't be good for the MWC.

A10: All I can say is that I'm thoroughly dissatisfied with the A10. I thought there was at least three good teams in this conference to make this a multi-bid league. Instead, the best three records (FORD, DUQ and MASS) combine for one win over a bubble team. The next best three (VCU, DAY and STL), who I thought were going to be the big three in this conference, have a combined 1-8 record versus likely tournament teams. These three are going to need the likes of a 17-1/16-2 conference records to be a multi-bid league in 2023. Good luck.

WCC: Despite having six teams with 10-win non-conference records, this conference doesn't have the quality it boasted last year. GONZ is not the Godzilla it has been in past years. They can win against the best teams, but they can lose to them too. A win against them usually meant a guaranteed at-large berth to the tourney, but it doesn't shine as bright on the resume this year. STMY and USF are not as good as they were last year, so they can't afford an undefeated GONZ regular season. With SCLR, LOYM and BYU looming large, these could be losses that keep STMY and USF home in March.

CUSA: There is a world where CUSA sends three teams to the tourney, although I feel like the most likely path would be two bids plus a third in the R68. UFLA has no bad losses, so if they just hold serve in the conference, they could get a bid. If UAB gets help from WVU and TOL, they would be in the same boat as UFLA. UNT has the most work to do, as in a 1-loss conference regular season or it's conference-tourney-or-bust mode. In all honesty, conference teams tend to beat up on each other so much that it's crabs in a barrel, so if that tendency holds, CUSA is most likely a 1-bid league.

CAA: This conference only has me intrigued because I've seen two games each from COFC and UNCW. Both are good teams that have R64 upset potential. COFC has a better chance for an at-large bid, but they would likely need to have an undefeated conference season and lose to UNCW in the finals of the conference tourney for both teams to get bids to the big dance.

Overall: My biggest concern this season is the offense-defense spread. Typically, national title teams have Kenpom ratings in the Top 25 in both offense and defense with the higher ranking in offense. Up to this point in the season, nine Top 25 offenses also have a Top 25 defense, with only three of these nine fitting the build (UCLA, UVA, and PUR). UVA can't shoot, so they need the right match-ups. PUR actually looks better defensively than offensively, but their numbers are the other way around. If I expand the net to Top 40 defense with a Top 25 offense on the assumption that defense will improve over the course of the season, then DUKE, CREI and UMD show up (assuming CREI returns to their pre-injury offensive form). It may just be a defensive-led year, which patterns 2011, 2013, and 2014. As for the officiating which I griped about a ton in the Opening Week article, I don't think much has changed. I haven't seen that many flopping technicals in December even though I still see flopping. I even saw officials review a flop, only to state that after review, there was no contact and therefore no foul. If there is no contact and a player falls to the floor as if there was, that is flopping and worthy of a flopping technical. I'm guessing this is the NCAA's typical politic-esque approach to solving a problem: If it doesn't get called, then it means it didn't happen, which proves it has been cleaned up. Finally, this mid-season review may become a staple article for PPB. I came into the season (though I don't think I stated it anywhere on PPB) believing only three teams were title contenders, though they each had their own glaring flaws. This review has opened that viewpoint to four more teams, all of which I briefly discussed. Furthermore, while rummaging through team schedules and team ratings/profiles for the writing of this article, I put together a list of teams that kept making appearances as a Cinderella watch list. I know I only mentioned two of them in the article, but these teams have to make the tourney first before this list can be any value, and even then, it can be another bias-trap, as I may personally value them more than they should be simply because they are on the list. But that is the purpose of this article, to document any personal or emotional components that could influence my picks in March.

As always, thanks for reading my work, and I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas. The next article should be the January QC Analysis, for which I got a little bit of prep work from this article.