Four weeks from Selection Sunday

Four weeks from selection Sunday.

Where are we?

Everyone seems to be on board with Arizona, Kansas, and Florida, especially after last night's win in Lexington.  Less so Syracuse, despite their undefeated record.

Supposedly it's either the Big Ten or the Big 12 (remember, of course, the now standard joke that the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 10 -- academics, you know) as the best conference in the country, which explains why Wisconsin beat Michigan in Ann Arbor and Nebraska beat Michigan State in Lansing (or it was a bad day in Michigan) won today.

But it's time to start thinking brackets.

First rule of brackets: don't pay so much attention to rounds one and two.

Yeah, everyone is into picking that surprise winner, but most brackets -- ESPN, Yahoo, CBSsports -- give only one point for those, then progressively more (2, 4, 8, 16, 32), so picking the final game is more important than picking those others.  Of course, to win a bracket pool, you need to do more than just pick one team through to the finals -- remember two years ago when everyone had Kentucky and they won?

I'd say right now that I'd like Syracuse, Arizona, and Florida.  I don't believe in Kansas.  Right now I'd go Duke -- but with both Michigan teams in waiting.  Let's see who plays well these last weeks, who wins the Big 10 title, then the tournament.

The Big 12?  Let's see if Kansas really gets through it all as their top team.  Oklahoma State, the early season favorite to unseat them, has come apart.  Texas looks like their biggest nemesis, though Iowa State, Baylor and Oklahoma have good teams.  In fact, right now, the only team you want to play in the Big 12 is TCU.

Duke is the #2 out of the once powerful ACC -- with the number one and four Big East teams 'cuse and Pitt.  UVa is a great story, but unless they win the tournament, I won't have them winning more than 2 games.

The former Big East?  Cincinnati might be a sleeper; Louisville, the defending champion (thank you, thank you, for winning me my brackets last year), is #13 in the country but no one is acting like they are serious contenders.

Let's not forget Kentucky.

And Wichita State went to the Final Four and is undefeated.  Don't count them out.

We "talk" more in the coming weeks on match ups, etc.

But now, for two weeks, I have to start looking at horses.  The Gotham is in 13 days and I have no idea who will run and be favorite (I need a horse named after a singing group like Hansen two years ago), or even, given this winter, what kind of day it will be.  Won't keep me from trying to find a way to cash tickets, just sayin'.

After yesterday's Purdue demolition of archrival IU, I can only finish (for Dbrolaw, Hoosier lover) "Boiler Up." #

Big Ten Bubble Watch: Dbrolaw watching Hoosiers with Hope

The Super Bowl is over.  Let me say -- figured defense would beat offense (again!) -- and it did.  Peyton looked bad.  The Seattle defense looked bad (and in a good way).  And Russell Wilson was magic.

Now it's time to think of March Madness.

The Big Ten is, by everyone's reckoning, the best conference in the country.  Both Bracket Brad & Joe Lunardi have 6 B10 teams making the tournament.

But IU's not one of them, yet.

Bracket Brad has them on the bubble looking in.

They are 4-5 in the Big 10, 14-8 overall.  Their RPI is 64th & they have quality wins over Wisconsin and Michigan (both at home).  For the second half of the B10 season, they have a series of winnable games, with Penn St, Northwestern, Nebraska & Purdue on the schedule.  With another upset -- say at Minnesota, or at home v. Ohio St -- they'd be 9-9 in the toughest conference in the country.  They'd need an opening round win in the B10 tourney in Indy, practically home court advantage.

I wish my Boilers were in that kind of shape. I was at yesterday's loss in State College, a debacle of bad play.  Too many turnovers; no one to stretch the defense (2-7 from trey?); sloppy switching defense, leading to lots of layups.  Ugly.

They needed that game.  Now 3-6 in the B10, they had an outside chance if they could beat the same teams on IU's list.  But having lost to Northwestern, though in OT, and now Penn State, it looks like they belong in something like the 10th slot in the B10.

So, we'll watch.  And hope for some quality wins.

My current F4:  Michigan St (assuming they are healthy), Arizona (assuming they are the West #1), Duke and Florida.

NFL Championship Week: Picking Confidently (as in Confidence)

Weary readers,

I have to admit to being disappointed with last week's "action" (in terms of confidence picking) in the Divisional Round.  It's a commonplace that Wild Card Weekend is the closest one, and this turned out to be true, with great games in Philly, Indy, & Green Bay.

The spreads in the Div Round were wide -- more than a touchdown to start in 3 of 4 games.  The Niners-Panthers were pick 'em by some lines at some points, but in my playoff confidence group, only one person put points on the Panthers.  Not exactly wide divergence.  Lots of people in my pool (including me, JG, and the famed Dbrolaw) picked every game right last weekend.  Ho hum.  Not a lot of separation and makes for tough strategy going into the penultimate weekend.

I have 9,6, & 1 left to play.

This week, unlike last, I've already gotten "Skittles" -- you know, the rainbow of opinion.  The Seahawks are about a FG fav and the Broncos almost a TD (depending on the line and movement).  Interestingly, the over/under on 'Chickens game is 40ish, Broncos is 55ish.  Two different kinds of games.

But I've heard and read experts picking the dog to win -- in short, the Niners are the better team (see wideouts and TE) & in the AFC game, there's all this MOJO -- Peyton doesn't win enough in playoffs and Brady and Belichick do.

If I was in first place, I'd put my 9 & 6 on the Seahawks and Broncos, in that order.

But I'm not. I need at least one game where I pick differently than those above me (I'm currently in 6th, 8 points behind, but with more left than most) and win to jump up.

So, on Tuesday, I'm tempted to go dog-dog.  It's not a horrid pick.  No one thinks BOTH favs will win, necessarily (it just rarely works that way and it'd be the two 1 seeds making the Super Bowl -- look up how often THAT happens), so a risk is worth taking.

Knowing the famed Dbrolaw (which I'm not) caveat: when trying to find the upset, if you pick wrong, that means you got two games wrong, not one (the upset you missed and the upset you picked incorrectly).  So, it's all or nothing.

Of course, I could save the 9 for the Super Bowl -- thinking of the combinations, which game would you want to weigh so heavily? -- but that's probably crazy.

Today, I'm on Pats 9, Niners 6 (it's the bigger bang)...but ask me again Sunday morning. :)

This Week's confidence pick Guesses (NFL Week 12)

Last week, in a misguided "Nate Silver moment," I tried to predict the week in the NFL.

I said that of 6 "BIG (6 pt favorite or more) spread teams", one would lose.  One did.  The Texans.  We now know that the Texans are...oh, no...(more later).

I said that of the 9 FG or less favorites, at least two would lose (three did).

I said the average confidence pick score would be 83.  It was 82.75 in my group.

I said the high score would be 113.  Someone in my group only missed one game and had a 126.  Can't predict someone being crazy good.

So, where's that put us this week?

By my research (Yahoo NFL odds), there are only 3 BIG games: NOLA-ATL, Jax-Hou, TB-Det.  As the Saints are on the road, road BIGs are pretty automatic.  Make that your 16 (you heard it here).

Houston?  Remember -- only 73% of home BIGs win.  Just sayin'.

On the FG end, this week there are only 6 of those (compared to 9 last week, a season high).  Of those, 5 of those are home (StL, CLE, Oak, AZ, NYG), and one on the road (DEN).  Home FGs only win 71% of the time.  Pick one or two of them to lose.  Denver is a 50-50 shot to win, as road FGs win only 54% of the time.

Prediction on points?  With fewer FGs (three road FGs all lost last week), AND fewer BIGs, it looks like a good week should be better than last week -- an average around 90 points.

I can't predict someone will go 14 for 15 (or this week 13 for 14), but given the trend lines, 120 isn't out of the question this week -- losing one BIG game (assuming they are 16, 15, 14), or one of the 3+ to 5+ games (SD@KC, CAR@MIA, NYJ@BAL, SF@WAS) and an FG, probably the Denver game.

That's what notNateSilver has this week.  GL.

538.com Week 11 Confidence Number

If Nate Silver can predict (and accurately) the number of electoral votes...

Dbrolaw (whose blog this isn't) and I often speculate on whether this will be a good week or a bad week based on how tough we think the games are to pick any given week.

The magic number this week is 113 (out of 135).

Why?

Get this JG: it's an algorithm.

If you combine the winning number each week for our confidence group, and do an algorithm with the number of spread favorites, and it gives you a trend line; this week's mix of BIG home & road favorites (4 and 1) and FG home & road favorites (3 and 2) & you end up with 1 high number loser (14?) and two low number losers (5 and 3?).

The average this week should be 84.  I hope my score is closer to 113 than 84.

Go Broncs.

Go Colts?

Confidence Picks Week 11 of NFL -- 538.com-ish

This blog is to help enlighten those doing confidence picks (NFL) this week (and beyond?).  If you don't understand what "confidence picks for NFL" are, read no farther.

As I pondered this week's picks, I thought I was doing some Nate Silver numerical analysis and thought I'd share.

First, notable in Week 11 of the NFL is that 9 games (Colts-Titans, Skins-Eagles, Ravens-Bears, Jets-Bills, Lions-Steelers, Falcons-Bucs, Chargers-Dolphins, 49ers-Saints, Pats-Panthers) have 3 point spreads or less (we'll call them FG games).  Likewise, 6 games have 6 point or more spreads (we'll call them BIG favorites).  

So, I wondered: are the FG games harder to pick (for confidence) than the BIG games?

You understand, right?  Those 6 games should be 16-15-14-13-12-11, right?

And the other nine 10 through 2, right?

Ah...

Here's this season's data:

In 56 BIG games, the favorites have only won 44 times, or 75%.  In 52 FG games, the favorites have won 31 times, or 60%.

I found this rather shocking.

First, I assumed that being a BIG favorite would be a much better bet to win.  (JG axiom: in confidence, the first thing is to pick the games right; in the history of my confidence pick group, NO ONE has ever picked every game in a week right.  The weighting is secondary -- pick right!)

Second, I thought there'd be a bigger differential between BIG favorites and FG favorites.

Third, EVERY week, one BIG favorite has lost.

What's that mean this week?  One of those 6 will lose.

No, I can't tell you which one.

But, the corollary is this: the other 9 will run more true to form than you would think.

And, to go a step farther, (assuming you followed this) -- home FG favorites win 64% of the time.  Home BIG favs only win 73% of the time.

Better is that BIG road favs win 84% of the time (this makes sense as they are almost a touchdown, or more, favorites over the standard 3-pt bias for home field).  As the Cardinals are the only team in this category, I'm feeling like they should be my 16 this week.

As road FG favs only win 54% of the time (a bit surprising as being the favorite over the 3-pt bias should mean more advantage), it moves the Chargers, Falcons, and Lions into the lower end of the spectrum.

That's what I've got.

I need a big week.  Good luck to you, too.

It's Not *About Time*

Opening premise:  I love Richard Curtis films.  Four Weddings & A Funeral  -- seen like ten times.  Love Hugh Grant in it (of course).  Notting Hill -- seen like twenty times. Love Hugh Grant.  Love his roommate.  Love Hugh's sister.  Love Actually -- seen it like thirty times (the family thinks it's a Christmas picture).  Not sure it's nearly as good as the other two, but there you have it.

About Time is Curtis's next effort.

It's a disappointment.

First, it's charming, like the others.  But it's not really funny.

Where to start?  The premise?  Time travel?  Okay, limited time travel.   Yes, it could be funny.  Isn't.

Curtis is famous for funny scenes and lines -- the best man speech in Four Weddings, the Horse & Hound line in Notting Hill, the Bill Nighy scenes in Love -- but there's no such thing here.  Yes, Curtis tries to resurrect the best man speech problem, but Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) can go back in time, so...well, it's never funny.  Nighy (Tim's father here) gives a sappy little speech that might embarrass Hugh Grant.

Then there's the chemistry.  It is called "acting," so I've never quite believed in chemistry.

But Gleeson and Rachel McAdams's Mary just are not believable.  She's, of course, adorable.  But you never get that "meant to be" thing you get with Grant and Andie McDowell, or Grant and Julie Roberts, or Grant and Martine McCutcheon.  Maybe it's the fact it's not Grant.

I love McAdams.  But the promos say "McAdams best work since The Notebook."  What does that even mean?  She's been in some decent movies, but she's not a prospect for Golden Globes or Academy Award, -- yet.

She's cute here.  She's charming.  But if this is McAdams's best work...well, we can hope there's a lot more upside.

So, yes, About Time is a disappointment.  Maybe it's trying to be too deep -- yes, there's an implicit message.

Maybe it's just wasn't time for Curtis's next movie.