They may have performed well but a loss is still a loss; people usually just look at the win/loss column and don't bother to check the point spread.

If I may speak frankly, if all someone looks at is W/L and doesn't even look at margin of victory, much less the rest of the box score, then I do not care about that person's opinion. The point of the game is to win of course, but if one wants to know how well a team played then one has to look at more than just W/L.

Which is why I look at the numbers I do.

Arrgh... The ASC got four teams into the playoffs, and it looks like all four of them got knocked out in the first round.  This isn't going to help us look like a strong conference.

LC only lost by 3 and UMHB by 2, so those games could easily have gone the other way. As I understand it, McMurry was close to Whitworth through most of the game which bodes well for them. Only CTX didn't really perform well, and I'll admit they weren't the strongest possible team. Could the ASC have done better? Yes, but we hardly embarrassed ourselves.

Looks like everyone has left his/her computer to hit the road to Belton!

Well, if you really want to have a discussion, I'll throw this out there:

Chris Barnes should not have won East POY, and it should have gone to Jeremy LaGarde of ETBU. Statistical case to follow later tonight/tomorrow when I have my data available (I hate closing shifts at call centers).

First blog post on ASC individual stats is up!

Thanks!  I love your analysis, especially your point about consistency.  This was McM's problem all year — beating good teams and then collapsing with poor ones.  If we revert to form in the playoffs, as you note, we won't be in the game for long. But at least we got the championship.

Incidentally, congratulations on your CUA women.  They came out of nowhere and took it all.  (Don't forget that two of your players are former McM students, who transferred when Coach Rainbolt got the job with you!)

Flags fly forever!

An interesting exercise in statistics: the team that won the conference didn't score in any of your categories!  Do you need some other category to cover whatever McM did to win out?

McMurry's ASC Tournament Margins
2/24: +0.28, McMurry (1.13), East Texas Baptist (0.85)
2/25: +0.12, McMurry (1.12), Mary Hardin-Baylor (1.00)
2/26: +0.06, McMurry (1.10), Hardin-Simmons (1.04)

McMurry was absurdly consistent (and very good) offensively. That tends to help. I don't think they really got worse on defense as much as they faced a series of increasingly better offenses.

McMurry Tourney Opponent Offenses
ETBU: Season, 1.01; Game, 0.85; -15.8%
UMHB: Season, 1.05; Game, 1.00; -4.8%
HSU: Season, 1.05; Game 1.04; -1.0%
MCM: Season, 1.07; Tourney 1.12; +4.7%

So, they played very good to average defense, and managed to consistently improve upon the second-best offense in the conference over three games. Now, the downside of this is that nobody is that consistent over an extended period, so McMurry is "due" for a relatively poor offensive game, meaning back down to the 1.02-1.05 range. Which can still win, it's just harder.

Congratulations to the CTX women! From picked fourth in the West, to the top seed in the division, to a conference title and NCAA bid! Way to go 'Nados!

Top Performances of the Tournament

Best Offense: 0.93, McMurry vs. Mississippi College, 2/24
Best Defense: 0.61, Concordia-Texas vs. Texas-Dallas, 2/25
Biggest Win: +0.26, Louisiana College (0.89) vs. McMurry (0.63), 2/25
Closest Win: +0.04, Texas-Dallas (0.82) vs. Howard Payne (0.78), 2/24
Most Offense: McMurry (0.93) vs. Mississippi College (0.87), 2/24
Least Offense: Concordia-Texas (0.81) vs. Texas-Dallas (0.61), 2/25

Yeah, avoiding LC is definitely a good thing. I just don't understand how they can play that fast and not turn the ball over more. Maybe the Concordia men could take notes.