The Citadel has a new school president

This is not breaking news, to be sure, but The Citadel has announced that General Glenn M. Walters, the current Assistant Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, has been selected by the school’s Board of Visitors to become the school’s new president. Walters has to retire from active duty first; therefore, an interim president will be selected by the BOV later this month.

I suspect that most people reading this post are already familiar with the basic facts about Gen. Walters. If not, a few links of interest:

According to Wikipedia, Walters is originally from Charleston. Curiously, there is very little available information about his background before he went to college; I couldn’t find out where he went to high school, for example.

He is a 1979 graduate of The Citadel and apparently was in Charlie Company as a cadet, so at the very least Walters is an alumnus of the top battalion on campus.

I have no idea what to expect from him as a school president. Then again, when you come right down to it, nobody really does.

The general’s military résumé is exemplary, but obviously The Citadel is not just about overseeing a military operation. It isn’t just about running a university, either, which is why it is difficult to determine in advance if an individual has the skill set needed to successfully lead the institution.

That said, Walters had some promising things to say when he was hosted on campus as part of the search for a new president. He was the last of the four finalists for the position to do so (interviewing on April 4).

While at The Citadel, each of the candidates met with the BOV, lunched with top-ranked cadets, and held a 40-minute session with the faculty and staff.

The discussion with the faculty and staff for each of the finalists was nicely summarized by The Brigadier. It makes for interesting reading. Kudos to that publication.

Here are a few excerpts from the summary of Walters’ comments that I think are worth highlighting:

The Marine Corps University, was funded by Other People’s Money, or “OPM”, and [Walters] was responsible in part for its establishment…When the Secretary of the Navy found out about Gen. Walters interview at Citadel, he asked: “If you get the job, could The Citadel do this kind of research?” to which Gen. Walters responded, “I’ll ask”.

As it pertains to Strategic Partnerships and Opportunities, Gen. Walters made it clear that he wanted to know how to expand, especially with cyber and non-military opportunities.

Government and corporate partnerships are key at a school like The Citadel, as is fundraising in general. It is a major part of the school president’s job. A member of the faculty asked Walters about that:

When a faculty member asked how fundraising fit in the leadership package, Gen. Walters replied: “I need to learn and understand. Apparently we are doing well. Is it enough to get us where we need to go? I don’t know; I haven’t done that math. We need to get resources above Operation cost, then look at retention. Part of my sacred duty is to make sure that the resources are provided”.

Walters’ ability to raise money for the school may well define his presidency. That is the reality of college administration in the 21st century.

The general also touched on the importance of having people from varied backgrounds (with implications for student recruiting):

Gen. Walters highlighted the need to recruit, and to “have diversity at the highest levels”. His staff is made up of 5 officers; 3 are female. In order increase output of recruits, Gen. Walters moved to work with African-American Societies, telling his recruiters: “Go out to minority and female communities and tell them “yes this is something you can do”. He said that 3,600 people were recruited into the USMC, and 37% were minorities. He went on to tell a story about a female Lieutenant who came to him concerned about meeting the bi-annual command/career retention board because she was pregnant during a large portion of that time. He immediately had the policy changed to allow her to wait until she was at 24 months of actual service time before she went before the board. Gen. Walters got funding for mobile flight simulators, which actually visited the Citadel earlier this semester, at $600,000 a piece; 5 each for each district. Then he ordered them to put one at every female athletic event and to black colleges to say: “Come with us”.

Per the school website, statistics for the current student body are as follows:

  • Male: 91.4%
  • Female: 8.6%
  • Caucasian: 75%
  • Ethnic Minority: 25%

I believe that the student body should be more ethnically diverse, and that the number of female cadets at The Citadel needs to increase by a considerable amount. Both of those objectives need to be accomplished while maintaining the highest standards for new students, which makes recruitment in those areas all the more important. Walters’ comments are very much on point, in my opinion.

Someone asked about the importance of athletics. Check out this response from Walters, and especially the reveal at the end, one which would have pleased O. Henry:

A new addition to The Citadel’s faculty asked how important athletics would be to his vision. Gen. Walters immediately referenced the Corps’ Fitness pillar, the cohesion in corps, and the pleasure the alumni get with every win. He also said: “Sports teach leadership. Athletics taught us [USMC] where to go to get recruits. We went to Title 9 areas. Women’s volleyball makes great leaders.” He talked about teamwork and why we focus on cultural issues: “If we went to Korea and we weren’t a team, and we didn’t have dignity and respect for each other, we would lose”. He asked the new faculty member what her job was, and ironically, she replied that she was the Women’s Volleyball Coach. The room erupted in laughter, awe, and applause.

Side note: I’m not sure who the individual in question is who asked the question. The Citadel recently hired Dave Zelenock as its new volleyball coach. I’m guessing she may be a new assistant (if so, she hasn’t been listed on the school’s staff directory yet).

Presumably, one of the first things Walters will do as The Citadel’s president will be to hire a new director of athletics. That is just one reason it would be best if he begins his new job sooner rather than later.

I hope the general likes sports. I really hope he also likes winning…

Attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium, 1964-2017: an annual review

This post will cover home attendance at The Citadel, which is a subject I’ve written about several times before. I’m also going to discuss NCAA football attendance in general (including FCS and SoCon-specific numbers), because I think it is important to consider the program’s attendance issues in context with the rest of the sport.

Attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium, 1964-2017

The above link is to a spreadsheet that tracks attendance for The Citadel’s home football games, and which has now been updated to include the 2017 season.

The spreadsheet lists year-by-year totals and average game attendance, and the win/loss record for the Bulldogs in each season. There is also a category ranking the years by average attendance.

Other columns refer to the program’s winning percentage over a two-year, three-year, five-year, and ten-year period, with the “current” season being the final year in each category. For example, the three-year winning percentage for 1992 (69.44%, the highest percentage for that category since 1964) is made up of the 1990, 1991, and 1992 seasons. Incidentally, the second-highest percentage in this category since 1964 happens to be the overall record for The Citadel’s most recent three campaigns.

I include those categories primarily to see what impact, if any, constant winning (or losing) has on long-term attendance trends.

In past years, I’ve noted that walk-up sales appear to have had an impact on yearly totals; in other words, if the team is good, it is reflected in that season’s attendance. This is certainly not a spectacular revelation, but the numbers for The Citadel appear to be higher than expected when compared to attendance for the following year (when you might naturally expect an increase in attendance as a result of the previous season’s on-field success).

In the last few years, I have compared average attendance for the first two games of a season to the last two contests of the same campaign. Of course, there are plenty of opportunities for discrepancies when making such a comparison (weather, opponent fan base, etc.), but it strikes me as something worth following. I’ve added the 2017 numbers, so there is now a seven-year period to check:

  • 2011 [4-7 overall record]: First two home games, average attendance of 12,756; final two home games, average attendance of 12,387 (including Homecoming)
  • 2012 [7-4 overall record]: First two home games, average attendance of 13,281; final two home games, average attendance of 13,715 (including Homecoming)
  • 2013 [5-7 overall record]: First two home games, average attendance of 13,370; final two home games, average attendance of 12,948 (including Homecoming)
  • 2014 [5-7 overall record]: First two home games, average attendance of 9,700; final two home games, average attendance of 9,563 (including Homecoming)
  • 2015 [9-4 overall record]: First two home games, average attendance of 8,356; final two home games, average attendance of 12,465 (including Homecoming)
  • 2016 [10-2 overall record]: First two home games, average attendance of 13,299; final two home games, average attendance of 13,996 (including Homecoming)
  • 2017 [5-6 overall record]: First two home games, average attendance of 8,718; final two home games, average attendance of 9,496 (including Homecoming)

Since 1964, the Bulldogs’ record at Johnson Hagood Stadium is 187-114 (62.1%). The average home attendance over that time period is 14,055. However, there has not been a season in which home attendance averaged more than 14,055 since 2006.

As the current stadium capacity is less than 12,000 due to the demolition of the East stands in the spring of 2017, it will be a while before The Citadel can expect to enjoy a season with average game attendance in excess of 14,055. Whether or not surpassing that benchmark is even realistic going forward, regardless of the size of the facility, is an open question.

Last season’s average home attendance of 8,994 was the lowest for any year since attendance figures at Johnson Hagood Stadium can be accurately determined (in other words, the lowest in the last 54 seasons).

Note: that cutoff for accuracy in attendance numbers means that years like 1959 (eight wins), 1960 (bowl victory), and 1961 (SoCon championship) cannot be included for comparison in this review, not to mention any of the other years from 1948 (when the most recent iteration of Johnson Hagood Stadium opened) through the 1963 season. “Official” attendance figures prior to 1948 are (for the most part) even more dubious.

Now let’s look at FCS attendance as a whole.

2017 NCAA football attendance (all divisions)

Montana easily led the division in average home attendance again, with 25,535 (six games). That was higher than 45 FBS programs, and higher than the average home attendance for three FBS conferences (Sun Belt, MAC, C-USA).

James Madison was second overall, averaging 21,724. That included nine games, three of which were playoff contests (all of these numbers include playoff games).

Without the postseason matchups (and their generally lackluster attendance numbers), JMU would have averaged 24,841 fans per home game.

Seven FCS schools averaged more than 18,000 fans per game. Last season, five FCS schools hit that mark (after eight had done so in 2015).

The Citadel ranked 34th out of 123 FCS schools, but only fourth in the Southern Conference (behind Western Carolina, Mercer, and Chattanooga). Last year, the Bulldogs ranked 1st in attendance among fellow league teams. It was the first time in the last 12 years that The Citadel did not finish in the top 30 in FCS attendance.

Here is a table that includes various FCS squads and their respective attendance totals:

Team G Total Average FCS Rank
Montana 6 141,212 23,535 1
James Madison 9 195,514 21,724 2
Florida A&M 4 76,190 19,048 3
Yale 5 94,699 18,940 4
Montana State 6 111,702 18,617 5
Jacksonville State 6 110,328 18,388 6
North Dakota State 9 164,996 18,333 7
Prairie View A&M 5 89,016 17,803 8
Delaware 6 99,890 16,648 9
North Carolina A&T 5 78,486 15,697 10
South Carolina State 5 59,414 11,883 19
Western Carolina 5 52,735 10,547 23
Mercer 5 52,725 10,545 24
Harvard 5 52,055 10,411 27
Eastern Washington 5 50,617 10,123 28
South Dakota 5 46,736 9,347 32
Chattanooga 5 45,848 9,170 33
The Citadel 5 44,972 8,994 34
Texas Southern 5 43,994 8,799 35
Austin Peay 5 41,708 8,342 39
Norfolk State 6 49,908 8,318 40
Sacramento State 6 49,891 8,315 41
William and Mary 5 41,182 8,236 44
Richmond 5 40,925 8,185 45
East Tennessee State 6 48,050 8,008 46
Nicholls 6 47,295 7,883 47
Furman 5 38,875 7,775 48
Princeton 5 36,831 7,366 51
Lehigh 6 42,827 7,138 56
Elon 6 42,118 7,020 58
Kennesaw State 7 46,874 6,696 63
Wofford 6 38,831 6,472 68
Villanova 5 28,244 5,649 74
Campbell 6 33,276 5,546 77
Towson 5 26,884 5,377 80
Samford 6 32,024 5,337 81
Penn 5 26,374 5,275 82
Gardner-Webb 5 23,017 4,603 90
VMI 5 21,623 4,325 94
Savannah State 4 17,046 4,262 95
Davidson 6 20,119 3,353 100
Charleston Southern 5 11,727 2,345 110
Presbyterian 8 18,558 2,320 111
Georgetown 5 10,829 2,166 116
Delaware State 4 8,432 2,108 119
Jacksonville 6 12,536 2,089 120
Robert Morris 5 10,099 2,020 121
Stetson 6 11,647 1,941 122
Saint Francis (PA) 5 8,065 1,613 123

Apologies if that table is a bit too long, but I was trying to include a varied cross-section of FCS teams. I didn’t want to list all 123, but I wound up including 49 of them anyway…

Observations:

  • Yale ranked 3rd overall in FCS attendance in 2015, 35th in 2016, and 4th in 2017. Why the yo-yo effect? It’s all about the location of the Harvard-Yale game, which was played at the Yale Bowl in both of the odd-numbered years. Last season, that matchup drew 51,426 fans.
  • The lowest average home attendance for a team that made the 2017 playoffs: San Diego (2,142, which ranked 117th). Lowest average home attendance for a team that actually hosted a playoff game last season: Wofford.
  • Furman’s home attendance jumped over 2,000 fans per game in 2017, from 5,771 to 7,775. For the first time in four seasons, Furman outdrew Wofford.
  • Montana and Montana State combined to average 21,076 per home contest. No other western school packed in more than 10,123 fans per game (Eastern Washington). Keep in mind that neither Montana nor Montana State made the FCS playoffs last year; the two Treasure State institutions had a combined record of 12-10.
  • North Alabama, which is transitioning from Division II to D-1 and will be in the Big South for football, averaged 7,498 fans per home game last season.
  • Other D-2 home attendance averages of interest: Benedict (5,180); Newberry (3,212); North Greenville (3,147); Lenoir-Rhyne (4,330); Chowan (2,904); Catawba (2,472); Carson-Newman (3,109).
  • Hampton, which is also moving to the Big South (assuming its nasty fight with the MEAC is finally over), averaged 7,088 fans per home contest in 2017.
  • Campbell is adding football scholarships and moving its football program from the Pioneer League to the Big South (you will need a scorecard to keep up with the Big South for the next few years). Average home attendance for Campbell last season: 5,546.
  • Moving the other direction, Presbyterian is going to be playing football in the Pioneer League, leaving the Big South in that sport. PC averaged only 2,320 fans per game last season. On the bright side, that isn’t out of line with its soon-to-be colleagues in the Pioneer League, four of which averaged less than that total in 2017. The highest-ranked Pioneer League school in terms of attendance was Morehead State (72nd overall).
  • The football additions for the Big South will greatly help that league in terms of fan support. Last season, four of the five schools in the conference (not counting Liberty) ranked 90th or below nationally in FCS attendance.
  • South Carolina State got a nice bump in attendance (an increase of 1,702 fans per home contest) thanks in part to games in Orangeburg against North Carolina A&T and Howard (the latter was Homecoming).

The average home attendance for SoCon teams was 7,827, a decline on average of 559 fans per game from 2016. League averages for the last four years:

  • 2014: 8,204
  • 2015: 8,210
  • 2016: 8,386
  • 2017: 7,827

East Tennessee State could be considered the median of the SoCon in terms of home attendance, finishing fifth in the league with an average of 8,008 fans per game.

Average attendance across FCS last season was 7,798, though the median attendance was 6,762. Thus, the SoCon was just slightly above the national average in terms of attendance, despite ranking only 9th out of 13 FCS conferences in average attendance.

I decided to break down attendance by league games only — in other words, not counting any non-conference home games (regular or post-season) played by SoCon teams. The average attendance for those games (a total of 36) was 7,937. The median attendance in this category was 7,783.

The most attended conference game last season was Wofford’s game at Mercer on September 9, with an announced attendance of 12,727. On October 7, Samford played at VMI, a game that drew just 3,310 spectators, the smallest crowd to watch a league contest in 2017.

Major-college football experienced its largest per-game attendance drop in 34 years and second-largest ever, according to recently released NCAA figures.

Attendance among the 129 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams in 2017 was down an average of 1,409 fans per game from 2016. That marked the largest drop since 1983 when average attendance declined 1,527 fans per game from 1982.

The 2017 FBS average of 42,203 fans per game is the lowest since 1997.

That average attendance drop marked the second-sharpest decline since the NCAA began keeping track of college football attendance in 1948. For the first time in history, average attendance declined nationally for four consecutive seasons…

…Since establishing an all-time high average attendance in 2008 (46,971), FBS attendance has slipped a record 10.1 percent over the last nine years.

That quoted section is from a story on college football attendance written by Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports. Dodd also noted that the decline had even affected the ever-popular SEC. The reasons for the falloff in attendance are varied, but a former Southern Conference commissioner had some thoughts on the issue:

“It’s a technology issue,” said Wright Waters…”The public is ahead of us every day in what they can get from technology. We have not been able to keep up.”

A former TV executive quoted in the article put most of the “blame” on the lack of attendance on students not showing up to games, but a very good article in The Athletic strongly suggested that notion was a bit faulty. I’m not going to quote a lot from that particular piece, which is behind a paywall, but as the author (Michael Weinreb) wrote:

Let’s dispel with one stereotype up front: This decrease is not taking place merely because of the inherent laziness of millennials…

…It also is not about the lack of consistent Wi-Fi coverage at stadiums. Nels Popp, an assistant professor of sport administration at the University of North Carolina, says that despite colleges’ obsession with improving Wi-Fi, connectivity is the “lowest reliable variable” when it comes to attendance. In other words: People don’t stay home because of lousy Wi-Fi, even if they consider good Wi-Fi to be a bonus when they do show up.

“Our response when we see students aren’t coming tends to be, ‘Let’s throw more #### at them,'” says Robert Malekoff, Popp’s colleague in UNC’s Department of Exercise and Sport Science.

In a way, that might be true, but it’s not about literally hurling T-shirts or network passwords in their general direction (it may not be about social media blasts, either, if Popp’s research on the lack of impact of social media on attendance bears out with further study). It’s a more subtle, experiential thing.

That research article by UNC professor Nels Popp on the impact of social media on attendance is quite interesting. One of its conclusions: “Twitter ‘Followers’ and Facebook ‘Likes’ had no statistically relevant impact on either attendance or ticket revenue”. Rather, historical and current on-field (and on-court) success were the decisive factors, along with “belonging to a Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Conference”.

The Citadel is probably not going to be joining a power-five conference anytime soon, so let’s just win a lot of games…

Circling back to the subject of attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium, I have to mention the beer sales, or lack thereof:

The Citadel lost money selling beer at home football games in 2017, and it’s unclear whether beer sales will continue at Johnson Hagood Stadium for the 2018 season.

The school sold $21,718.24 worth of beer at five home games last season, The Citadel’s first effort to sell beer in public areas of the stadium.

But expenses to sell the beer, including $5,000 per game in rental costs to set up a beer garden, amounted to $32,858.62, leaving a net loss of $11,140.38.

The Citadel’s athletic department split the loss with corporate partner Sticky Fingers, leaving each party with a loss of $5,570.19 for the season.

Interim athletic director Rob Acunto told a committee of The Citadel’s Board of Visitors on Wednesday that the school’s beer vendor would not partner with The Citadel next season if the beer garden setup remains the same.

However, Acunto said, the beer vendor is interested in an expanded concept “because profitability would be virtually guaranteed if rental costs were eliminated.”

Without rental costs, he said, net revenue for beer sales would have been $13,859.62.

To be honest, I think $5,000 per game to set up a tent is a bit absurd, but maybe I’m missing something. Putting that aside for a moment:

  • The beer garden was located on the visitors’ side of the field, when most of the would-be customers were on the other side of the stadium
  • It was located next to a children’s play area
  • From what I understand, you couldn’t really watch the game from the tent; oddly enough, some people do like watching the game

I don’t know if selling beer is going to do much for attendance, and truthfully I’m somewhat ambivalent on the concept of selling beer at a small-college sporting event as it is. However, if you’re going to sell beer, my suggestion is to go ahead and make it part of the regular concessions package. Let the people sitting in the stands buy beer if they are of age (cadets excepted).

Also, if we’re determined to put food/beverage options on the visitors’ side (and why not?), add food carts to the mix.

One obvious issue with attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium is that currently about half of the stadium does not exist. Of course, right now nothing is going to happen on that front, because the school doesn’t have a president or a permanent director of athletics.

When the new president is in place, one of his top priorities should be getting a permanent structure built on the east side of the stadium. It should be the top priority for the new AD.

The first game of the season is less than five months away. Are you ready?

Schools that have never made the NCAA Tournament — the 2018 edition

Previous entries on this subject: The 2017 edition  The 2016 edition The 2015 edition The 2014 edition The 2013 edition The 2012 edition  The 2011 edition  The 2010 edition

All season records through February 25

As the regular season comes to a close in Division I basketball, the next two weeks will be filled with action, as conference tournaments begin across the nation. March Madness will arrive, with teams dreaming of boogieing down on the biggest dance floor of them all, the NCAA Tournament.

Most of those dreams will not come true; most of them won’t come close to coming true. There are 351 D-1 institutions that play men’s basketball, and only 68 of them will make the NCAAs. For some of those schools, though, the failure to make the tourney is a common occurrence — in fact, it is all they have ever known.

There are 29 schools that have been full members of Division I for at least a decade, but have never made a trip to the NCAAs. Now, there are 14 other schools in the division that have also never crashed the party, but there is a distinction to be made between schools that are fairly recent arrivals in D-1 (such as Central Arkansas or Bryant) and longtime never-beens (like Hartford or Western Illinois).

Of those schools with 10+ years in D-1 but no bids to show for it, 17 of them have been in D-1 for 30 years or more and are still waiting. For fans of UMKC, Stetson, or Denver (just to name three such schools), watching the CBS selection show with no vested interest in the brackets is a sad but seemingly inevitable tradition.

When I started writing about this topic in 2010, I listed the twenty schools with the longest waits for an NCAA tourney bid. That was eight years ago. Sixteen of those schools are still waiting to hear their name called on Selection Sunday. One of the four institutions no longer on the list, Centenary, eventually dropped out of D-1 after 50 years, never making the tournament.

However, there is hope. No fewer than five first-timers made the field of 68 in 2017. Two of them were relatively new to Division I (North Dakota and Northern Kentucky). UC Davis had been in D-1 since 2005, so it had bided its time, as had Jacksonville State (a member of the division since 1996).

Then there was Northwestern, one of the “Forgotten Five”. Now the Forgotten Five is known as the Forgotten Four, as the Wildcats became the last major-conference school to make an initial appearance in the NCAAs.

Before diving into this year’s rundown of the longtime non-invitees, there is another list of schools worthy of mention. There are numerous institutions that have made at least one NCAA appearance, but haven’t been back to the tournament in at least 20 years. A few of those schools have actually waited longer for a return to the NCAA tournament than most of the no-timers.

First (or perhaps last?) among this group of schools is Dartmouth. In both 1942 and 1944, the Big Green advanced to the NCAA title game. Dartmouth has made seven total appearances in the tournament, but last made the NCAAs in 1959.

That unfortunate streak will continue for another year, as the Big Green will not qualify for this season’s Ivy League conference tournament.

Other schools that have made at least one appearance in the NCAA Tournament, but haven’t been back since 1998 (or earlier) while continuously in D-1:

Tennessee Tech (last made the NCAAs in 1963), Columbia (1968), Bowling Green (1968), Rice (1970), VMI (1977), Duquesne (1977), Furman (1980), Toledo (1980), Loyola of Chicago (1985), Brown (1986), Jacksonville (1986), Marshall (1987), Idaho State (1987), Marist (1987), Loyola Marymount (1990), Idaho (1990), Louisiana Tech (1991), Towson (1991), St. Francis-PA (1991), Rutgers (1991), Howard (1992), Georgia Southern (1992), Campbell (1992), Fordham (1992), East Carolina (1993), Rider (1994), Tennessee State (1994), Tulane (1995), Canisius (1996), Colgate (1996), Drexel (1996), Montana State (1996), Northern Illinois (1996), Portland (1996), San Jose State (1996), Santa Clara (1996), ULM (1996), Western Carolina (1996), Charleston Southern (1997), Fairfield (1997), Texas State (1997), TCU (1998), Eastern Michigan (1998), Illinois State (1998), Navy (1998), Nicholls (1998), Prairie View A&M (1998), and San Francisco (1998).

Of note: Seattle (which made the NCAA championship game in 1958 thanks mostly to Elgin Baylor, but which last made the tournament field in 1969) and Houston Baptist (a tourney team in 1984) both left Division I and then later returned. Thus, they haven’t been in D-1 for all the years after making their most recent NCAA tourney appearances.

Seattle spent 15 years out of D-1, so it has not made the tournament in 34 non-consecutive Division I seasons. Houston Baptist has been absent from the NCAA tournament for 12 non-consecutive D-1 seasons.

Of the teams listed above, TCU is the only one with a reasonable chance of receiving an at-large bid this season. Indeed, the Horned Frogs have had a very solid 2017-18 campaign, and are likely to make the field.

Other schools mentioned above that would be favorites, or at least realistic contenders, to win their league tourneys: Loyola of Chicago, Idaho, Campbell, Marshall, Towson, Toledo, Illinois State, Nicholls, and Navy.

Now it is time to begin the rundown of the schools that have never made the NCAAs in at least a decade of trying. As mentioned earlier, there are 29 such schools.

The NCAA Tournament began in 1939. In 1948, the NCAA reorganized itself, and established separate divisions (college and university) for its member institutions. Of the schools that since 1948 have continuously been in what we now call Division I, four have never made the tournament field. All of them theoretically could have been in the tournament beginning in 1939, so for these four schools the wait is actually longer than their history as official members of Division I.

Due to Northwestern finally breaking through last season, this group of schools is now known as the “Forgotten Four”. The class of 1948 (or 1939, if you’re so inclined):

– William and Mary: William and Mary has been to its league championship game nine times in its history. Every time, it would have received a bid to the NCAAs with a victory.

The Tribe is 0-9 in those games. Two have come in the last five seasons.

This season, William and Mary has an overall record of 18-11 (11-7 CAA). The Tribe won’t be favored in the league tournament in Charleston, and has a brutal bracket (Towson, and if it wins then probably College of Charleston in the semifinals).

However, the Tribe is an excellent offensive team. Two games of hot shooting could put W&M in the conference final yet again.

– The Citadel: The Bulldogs have lost at least 20 games in seven of the last eight years, including this season’s campaign (10-20, 5-13 in the SoCon).

At one point this year, it appeared that The Citadel might be finally turning the corner. It didn’t.

– Army: The Cadets (13-16, 6-12 in the Patriot League) will be a major underdog in their conference tournament, as they were last year. In fact, Army has been 6-12 in conference play in each of the last two seasons.

If the Black Knights were to beat Loyola of Maryland on Wednesday, they would face top seed Bucknell on Thursday. That does not bode well for continuing to play over the weekend.

– St. Francis College: It has been three years since the Terriers were one game away from the NCAA tournament. Things didn’t go well that night for St. Francis.

This year, SFC is 13-17 overall, 10-8 in the NEC. The Terriers are much improved from last season, when they didn’t even qualify for the league tournament. As the five seed, SFC would probably have to win three road games to win the conference tourney. Unlikely, but not completely impossible.

Next up on the list of teams never to have made the tournament: “The Dour Duo”, two New England state schools that have been members of D-1 since 1962. Both are members of the America East conference.

– New Hampshire: In their previous three seasons, the Wildcats won a combined 59 games. UNH could never get past the league tourney semifinals, however.

This season, New Hampshire is 10-19 (6-9 in the America East), and has lost four straight games. Back to square one.

– Maine: Over the past five years, the Black Bears have won 6, 3, 8, 7, and (this season) 6 games.

New Hampshire and Maine play each other in the Hockey East tournament’s opening round, which may be of more interest to the two schools right now.

The rest of the rundown:

– Denver (D-1 from 1948 to 1980, then back to the division in 1999): Denver is 14-14 overall, 8-6 in the Summit League. The conference tournament is being held in Sioux Falls, and the two South Dakota schools (USD and SDSU) are the favorites.

According to kenpom, Denver has a 2.8% chance of winning the league tournament. Hey, it’s better than no chance at all.

– UT-Rio Grande Valley (class of 1969): Whether it has been known as UT-Pan American or UT-Rio Grande Valley, hoops success has always been hard to come by for the school located in southern Texas.

This year’s 15-15 record (6-7 in the WAC) is an improvement over recent years, as the Vaqueros had not broken the 10-win barrier in their last four campaigns. Expecting UT-RGV to make much noise in the league tournament may be a bit much to ask, at least this season, with New Mexico State the solid favorite in the WAC.

– Stetson (class of 1972): This year has been fairly typical for the Hatters, which are 12-19 overall, 4-10 in the Atlantic Sun. Stetson did make the league tournament this season, but that is only because the A-Sun is down to eight members (the Hatters will be the 7 seed).

As always, this post will note that the school’s most famous basketball player is the late Ted Cassidy. You rang?

– Grambling State (class of 1978): After being arguably the worst D-1 basketball program of them all over the last decade, this has been an excellent year for GSU hoops. At one point the Tigers won 11 straight games and held the nation’s longest active win streak, which deservedly grabbed a lot of attention.

Alas, Grambling State is banned from postseason play due to APR issues, so it will be at least another year before the Tigers can make their first NCAA tournament appearance.

– Maryland-Eastern Shore (D-1 in 1974-75, then back to the division for good in 1982): Three years ago, UMES won 18 games. Outside of that one spectacular outlier of a season, however, the Hawks have lost at least 20 games in fifteen of the last sixteen seasons, including this year (6-24, 2-13 in the MEAC).

– Youngstown State (D-1 in 1948, then returning to the division in 1982): The Penguins are 8-23, 6-12 in the Horizon League.

It is puzzling that YSU, a school with a significant winning tradition in football, has never been successful in basketball at the D-1 level. (The same could be said for Grambling State, too.)

– Bethune-Cookman (class of 1981): The Wildcats are 17-12 overall, 11-4 in the MEAC. That league mark currently leads a very balanced conference (at least at the top).

Bethune-Cookman has won five straight games and would love to carry that momentum into The Scope for the MEAC tournament. Could this be the year for the Wildcats?

– Western Illinois (class of 1982): The Leathernecks are 12-15 overall, 3-11 in the Summit League. Earlier, I mentioned that kenpom gave Denver a 2.8% chance of winning the Summit League tournament.

WIU has a 0.2% chance.

– Chicago State (class of 1985): In the two seasons before this one, the Cougars had a combined total of four D-1 victories. This year, Chicago State has none. The Cougars are 2-28 overall, 0-13 in the WAC.

On the bright side, CSU’s women’s basketball team recently broke a 59-game losing streak.

– Hartford (class of 1985): The Hawks are having a fine season. Hartford is 18-11 overall, 11-4 in the America East.

WCSC-TV sportscaster Kevin Bilodeau and the rest of Hartford’s faithful fans are hopeful this could be the year, but Vermont is the kingpin in the AE, and will be very hard to beat. That said, only Hartford alum Dionne Warwick knows for sure what the future holds.

– UMKC (class of 1988): UMKC is one of a fistful of WAC schools that have never been to the NCAAs. The Kangaroos are ahead of Chicago State in the “likely to break through” category, but that’s not saying a whole lot.

UMKC is 10-20 this season, 5-8 in league play. However, the Kangaroos have won four of their last five games and could be tough to bounce in the conference tournament.

– Sacramento State (class of 1992): Sacramento State is 6-23 overall, 3-13 in the Big Sky. This isn’t going to be the year.

– UT Martin (class of 1993): Last season, the Skyhawks advanced to the final of the OVC tournament, only to lose to a fellow never-been, Jacksonville State.

This season, UT Martin (10-21 overall, 5-13 OVC) did not even qualify for the league tourney.

– Quinnipiac (class of 1999): The Bobcats are 10-20 overall, 7-11 in the MAAC. There are no polls that have QU as the favorite to win the league tournament.

– Elon (class of 2000): The Phoenix are 14-16 overall, 6-11 in CAA play. Elon will be playing in an opening-round game of the league tournament, and thus has to win four games to emerge with an automatic bid. Odds of that happening are not good.

– High Point (class of 2000): High Point (14-15 overall, 9-9 Big South) is one of about eight teams that could conceivably win the Big South tournament. HPU does have a disadvantage in that it has to win four games to claim the conference tourney title, instead of three. However, the preliminary game is a home matchup against 6-25 Longwood, so the extra contest may not be an overwhelming burden.

– Sacred Heart (class of 2000): The Pioneers finished the season 10-21, 5-13 in the NEC. They did not quality for the league tournament, so Sacred Heart will have to wait for at least one more year.

– UC Riverside (class of 2002): UCR is currently eighth in the Big West standings with a 3-11 conference mark; overall, the Highlanders are 8-20.

The last-place team in the Big West does not get to play in the league tournament, so UC Riverside may need to win one of its last two games to ensure it advances to the conference tourney.

– Fort Wayne (class of 2002): The Mastodons (possibly the best nickname in D-1) are 18-13 overall, 7-7 in the Summit League. Fort Wayne is a solid outfit that won’t be favored to win the conference tourney, but won’t be an easy out either. Earlier this season, Fort Wayne beat Indiana 92-72 — in Bloomington.

Besides, as I always say: Mastodons may be extinct, but you still can’t count them out.

– Gardner-Webb (class of 2003): The Runnin’ Bulldogs are 14-17 overall, 9-9 in the Big South. As mentioned in the comment about High Point, there are about eight teams that have a realistic shot at winning the Big South tournament. G-W is one of them, and will face Winthrop in a quarterfinal contest played in Asheville, NC.

While Gardner-Webb has wins over both of the top two seeds in the league tourney, Winthrop (the 3 seed) swept the Runnin’ Bulldogs this year.

– Savannah State (class of 2003): The Tigers are only 13-16 overall, but are 10-4 in the MEAC. Savannah State is moving to Division II after the 2018-19 season, so this is one of just two remaining years in which the Tigers can make the NCAA tournament.

Originally, APR issues were going to keep SSU from participating in postseason play this season, but the school got a waiver. That means the nation’s fastest-paced team (the Tigers average almost 85 possessions per contest) will have a chance to win the MEAC tournament. They could be a serious threat in Norfolk.

– Lipscomb (class of 2004): The Bisons are 20-9, 10-4 in the Atlantic Sun. Only Florida Gulf Coast had a better conference record than Lipscomb. Of course, that was true last year as well, and FGCU won the league tournament (with Lipscomb losing in the conference semifinals).

Lipscomb has won five in a row and nine of its last ten. One of those victories was a road win over FGCU. After a couple of near misses, perhaps this could be the year of the Bisons.

Longwood (class of 2008): The Lancers are 6-25 overall, 3-15 in the Big South. After finishing last in the conference during the regular season, Longwood (which has lost 12 straight games) plays at High Point in a preliminary round tournament game. I wouldn’t put a lot of money on the Lancers advancing to the conference tourney quarterfinals.

A quick list of other Division I schools in search of their first NCAA tournament invitations, but which haven’t been full D-1 members for 10 years: Bryant, Central Arkansas, Kennesaw State, NJIT, Omaha, South Dakota, USC-Upstate, Utah Valley State, SIU-Edwardsville, Presbyterian, South Dakota, Massachusetts-Lowell, Incarnate Word, Abilene Christian, and Grand Canyon.

The last four schools on that list (Grand Canyon, Abilene Christian, Incarnate Word, and Massachusetts-Lowell) just completed their D-1 transitional phase and are eligible for an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament for the first time.

Of the “newbie” institutions, the best bets to win a conference tourney are South Dakota (which won the regular-season title in the Summit League) and Grand Canyon (the WAC school has a chance to finish with 20 regular-season victories).

Conversely, Bryant (3-28 overall, 2-16 in the NEC) did not qualify for its league tournament.

Can any of the longtime no-timers finally break through this year? Sure. There are several that would seem to have a reasonable chance of winning their respective league tournaments.

I would pay particular attention to Bethune-Cookman, Hartford, Savannah State, and Lipscomb.

If any of the never-beens make it, my main worry is that they could be forced into one of the play-in games (better known as the PIGs).

As I’ve complained about repeatedly, the play-in games limit the tournament experience of the automatic qualifiers. It is both unfair and unnecessary. If the PIGs have to exist (and there was nothing wrong with the 64-team tournament), at least make the last eight at-large teams play in them, as opposed to four teams that get automatic bids.

Automatic qualifiers should always, always be in the main draw — the real tournament.

Good luck to all the teams dreaming the biggest of dreams.

McAlister Musings: are the Bulldogs turning the corner?

Links of interest:

Zane Najdawi is the reigning SoCon player of the week for the second time this season

Bulldogs make huge comeback, beat Furman

On January 21, The Citadel was 6-13 overall, 1-6 in the league, and coming off of a very poor game at VMI. Things were not exactly looking up.

Two weeks later, the Bulldogs are 9-14, 4-7 in the league, with four straight encouraging performances, three of which resulted in victories. Birds are singing, and happy days are here again.

What happened? Well, for one thing, Duggar Baucom challenged his squad after the VMI loss, telling them they were “better than that”.

However, there has also been a tactical shift — at least, according to Furman coach Bob Richey:

It’s a totally different team. They are playing totally different.

…At our place, The Citadel played more zone defense, zone pressure back to a a zone. They were trying to out-score you. This team now is taking more pride in their defense, and they are guarding people now.

They change up their defenses, try to keep people on their heels. They’ve shrunk their rotation down, and are playing harder with a lot more belief. Najdawi is as good as any post in the league, and we couldn’t do anything with him. Frierson’s shooting the ball, Harris is shooting it, Frankie (Johnson) is driving it.

Look, they are good. If you ask any of the four coaches they’ve played in the last four games, they’d agree.

 —
Let’s break down the stats to see what Richey is talking about.

Possessions* PPP – TC PPP – Opp FTA/FGA – TC FT% – TC
WCU 86 0.92 0.94 0.46 0.55
@Furman 83 0.81 1.29 0.29 0.50
@Wofford 90 1.02 1.21 0.44 0.58
Samford 87 1.05 1.23 0.26 0.59
UTC 69 1.39 1.28 0.43 0.81
@UNCG 68 0.85 1.06 0.28 0.60
@VMI 81 1.00 1.09 0.38 0.80
@Mercer 68 1.12 1.09 0.26 0.86
ETSU 77 0.92 0.95 0.50 0.85
Wofford 75 1.07 1.04 0.34 0.82
Furman 69 1.28 1.18 0.49 0.73
First 7 80.57 1.01 1.16 0.37 0.63
Last 4 72.25 1.10 1.07 0.40 0.82

* Overtime possessions not counted (this applies to the home games versus UTC and Furman)

  • TC = The Citadel, obviously
  • PPP = Points per possession
  • FTA/FGA = Free throws attempted/field goals attempted
  • FT% = Free throw percentage

I broke down the numbers by totaling the first seven games (WCU through VMI) and the last four (Mercer through Furman).

Clearly the number of possessions have declined as the league campaign has progressed. It is possible that a trend in that direction began when the Bulldogs played Chattanooga, though A) I think the UTC game may have been an outlier due to the Mocs’ depth issues, and B) The Citadel reverted to an 81-possession contest versus VMI two games later.

The slight dialing down of the pace has benefited the Bulldogs on both sides of the court, at least statistically, but I believe The Citadel’s offense has been helped the most. The Bulldogs were not really scoring at a rate that would give them a chance to win most games, but of late that has markedly improved.

Of course, there is a symbiotic relationship between offense and defense in basketball, so it can be hard to say that one element is clearly the beneficiary of a switch in tempo.

One other major positive development, which I have included in the table above, has been the Bulldogs’ vastly improved free throw shooting. If The Citadel had shot from the foul line in its last four games as it did in its first four contests, the Bulldogs would have gone 0-4 in that stretch instead of 3-1.

The other thing to watch when it comes to the charity stripe is the number of opportunities The Citadel gets over the course of a game. This is generally reflected in FTA/FGA numbers (as opposed to raw totals).

The Bulldogs have done a much better job in this area in league play (the non-conference D-1 slate was not kind to them in that respect). They currently lead the SoCon in the category in league-only games.

Conversely, The Citadel is seventh in the conference in defensive FTA/FGA. The Bulldogs need to keep the opponents off the foul line as much as possible.

A few other stats of note (SoCon games only):

  • If you want to see a blocked shot, go watch a game involving The Citadel. Opponents are blocking 13.2% of the Bulldogs’ field goal attempts, most in the league. That isn’t good, but on the bright side The Citadel is blocking 10.1% of its opponents’ shots (third-best in the conference).
  • 53.9% of The Citadel’s field goal attempts in league play have come from three-point land, most in the conference — and that is really saying something, because teams in the SoCon love to hoist up shots from beyond the arc. No league in the country shoots a higher percentage of three-pointers as a whole.
  • The Citadel leads the conference in assist-to-made field goal rate (61.0%). Again, this is another area in which the league in general excels (second-best rate among all conferences).

What should The Citadel’s goal(s) be for the rest of the season?

I think the Bulldogs should aim for a top-6 seed in the league tournament. If a team finishes in the top six in the conference standings, it avoids having to play a first-round game on the first day of the SoCon tournament (which this year is Friday, March 2, in Asheville).

That would be ideal for The Citadel as far as the dream scenario is concerned (shocking the world by winning the tourney). Winning three games in three days is clearly easier than having to win four games in four days. It would also be good from a long-term perspective, as it would be tangible proof that the program is on the rise and will be a factor in the SoCon for the next few years to come.

It won’t be easy, although if the tourney were held on February 7, The Citadel would in fact be the sixth seed. Alas, the tournament doesn’t begin on February 7, and the schedule is not going to be particularly favorable for the Bulldogs down the stretch (only three of the remaining seven conference matchups are at McAlister Field House).

According to kenpom, The Citadel is projected to finish seventh in the SoCon with a 6-12 league record, a full three games behind the projected sixth-place finisher (Mercer). That is a reflection of the schedule, and also what the numbers say about the Bulldogs – namely, that The Citadel is still a bottom 50 team nationally according to the website.

The Bulldogs haven’t played like a bottom 50 team over the last two weeks, however. If they continue to improve (or even just maintain their current level of play), I think there is a solid chance The Citadel could indeed wind up as a top-6 seed.

The Citadel is currently only favored in one of its last seven games (the home game against VMI, which incidentally is going to be the day to Pack the Mac). At a minimum, the Bulldogs need to win three of the seven contests to have a shot at the top six. I suspect the Bulldogs will have to win two of their three home games, and at least one road matchup (if not two), to pull it off.

Winning at Chattanooga on Thursday would be a great way to start the stretch run…

I’ll finish off this post with some random statistics, many of them courtesy of Synergy Sports. Do I really understand all the numbers put out by Synergy Sports? No, I do not. Do I look at them anyway? Yes, I do.

These stats include all games — conference games, non-conference games, even the non-D1 matchups. Most are based on points per possessions (PPP).

  • The Citadel ranks 14th nationally in offensive PPP after timeouts (1.036). Boise State leads the nation in this category (1.09). Other teams in the top 10 include Campbell (2nd), Xavier, Kansas, Villanova, and Purdue.
  • The Bulldogs are not very good at making catch-and-shoot jump shots when guarded (bottom 20 nationally). However, opponents that don’t guard in that situation pay for it. The Citadel is 5th in the country in points per possession when shooting unguarded catch/shoot jumpers, just ahead of Kansas. Leading the world in this category: St. Mary’s.
  • The Citadel remains the shortest team in D-1 (per kenpom), with an “average height” of 74.0 inches.
  • Individuals who rank in the 85th percentile or better nationally in various offensive categories: Matt Frierson (overall PPP, transition scoring, shots off screens, and spot-up shooting), Zane Najdawi (post-up play), Alex Reed (spot-up shooting), Tariq Simmons (isolation), Quayson Williams (shots off screens), and Kaelon Harris (offensive rebound put-backs). Harris also ranks in the 92nd percentile in a category called “Miscellaneous”, which sounds like a we-don’t-know-what-he-did-but-he-somehow-scored kind of thing.
  • The Citadel actually ranks 5th in the nation in half court man-to-man defense, which seems more than a little odd. I’m going to guess that most of the Bulldogs’ man-to-man defending has come against its non-D1 opponents (notable exception: The Citadel extensively employed man-to-man against Wofford in the game at McAlister Field House). For the season, the Bulldogs have played man-to-man in the half-court only 28.6% of the time; as a comparison, Virginia has played half-court man-to-man 99.9% of the time. The two teams that have been truly dominant defensively this season, Cincinnati and UVA, rank 1-2 in this category.
  • The Bulldogs are poor defending plays in out-of-bounds situations along the endlines (1.055 PPP), but are very good defending out-of-bounds plays that originate from the sidelines (0.7 PPP). I don’t really understand why that would be the case.

Okay, that’s enough for now.

Go Dogs!

McAlister Musings: 2017-18 SoCon play begins for the Bulldogs

Link of interest:

The Citadel plunges into “scary” SoCon play

The Citadel is 5-7 so far this season, though only two of the Bulldogs’ victories have come against D-1 opposition. The big news in the early part of the schedule was negative, as 2017 SoCon Freshman of the Year Preston Parks was dismissed from the team and will transfer.

This post will cover the first three games of the SoCon campaign — December 30 versus Western Carolina, January 4 at Furman, and January 6 at Wofford.

First, some statistics. I decided to look at the numbers from the six games The Citadel played against “similar” opposition — in other words, none of the games played against non-D1 teams, and none of the contests against power-conference schools.

The games I selected:

The Citadel’s stats in those six contests (I’ve included national averages in some categories for comparison):

Poss Pts %2pt %3pt %FT 2M 2Att 2FG% 3M 3Att 3FG% eFG%
N.C. A&T 89 73 60.3% 20.5% 19.2% 22 46 47.8% 5 33 15.2% 37.3%
HPU 77 79 43.0% 38.0% 19.0% 17 39 43.6% 10 25 40.0% 50.0%
Marist 90 91 37.4% 49.5% 13.2% 17 37 45.9% 15 42 35.7% 50.0%
UMBC 78 72 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 18 40 45.0% 6 29 20.7% 39.1%
JMU 80 84 52.4% 39.3% 8.3% 22 35 62.9% 11 24 45.8% 65.3%
Campbell 74 77 57.1% 27.3% 15.6% 22 48 45.8% 7 26 26.9% 43.9%
Avg 81.33 79.3 49.6% 34.0% 16.4% 19.7 40.8 48.2% 9.0 29.8 30.2% 41.2%
Natl. Avg. 69.9 49.5% 31.4% 19.1% 49.9% 35.0% 50.9%

 

FT FTatt FTA/FGA FT% OR DR TR OR% A A/FGM
N.C. A&T 14 21 26.6% 66.7% 17 25 42 40.5% 8 29.6%
HPU 15 23 35.9% 65.2% 15 21 36 41.7% 13 48.1%
Marist 12 17 21.5% 70.6% 10 25 35 28.6% 18 56.3%
UMBC 18 29 42.0% 62.1% 15 23 38 39.5% 15 62.5%
JMU 7 11 18.6% 63.6% 3 27 30 10.0% 18 54.5%
Campbell 12 16 21.6% 75.0% 12 24 36 33.3% 12 41.4%
Avg 13.0 19.5 27.6% 66.7% 12.0 24.2 36.2 33.2% 14.0 48.8%
Natl. Avg. 33.9% 70.7% 29.2% 53.0%

TO TO% A/TO Blk Blk% Stl Stl% PF
N.C. A&T 18 20.2% 0.44 1 2.2% 9 10.1% 20
HPU 17 22.1% 0.76 5 12.8% 11 14.3% 14
Marist 12 13.3% 1.5 1 2.7% 9 10.0% 19
UMBC 10 12.8% 1.5 1 2.5% 9 11.5% 18
JMU 18 22.5% 1 4 11.4% 12 15.0% 20
Campbell 6 8.1% 2 3 6.3% 6 8.1% 19
Avg 13.5 16.6% 1.04 2.5 6.1% 9.3 11.5% 18.3
Natl Avg. 19.2% 9.4% 10.8%

 

The Citadel’s opponents’ statistics in those six games:

Poss Pts %2pt %3pt %FT 2M 2Att 2FG% 3M 3Att 3FG% eFG%
N.C. A&T 89 92 65.2% 22.8% 12.0% 30 43 69.8% 7 22 31.8% 62.3%
HPU 77 77 64.9% 19.5% 15.6% 25 53 47.2% 5 12 41.7% 50.0%
Marist 90 100 34.0% 54.0% 12.0% 17 23 73.9% 18 40 45.0% 69.8%
UMBC 78 98 40.8% 49.0% 10.2% 20 34 58.8% 16 42 38.1% 57.9%
JMU 80 82 48.8% 29.3% 22.0% 20 43 46.5% 8 25 32.0% 47.1%
Campbell 74 87 57.5% 27.6% 14.9% 25 48 52.1% 8 21 38.1% 53.6%
Avg 81.33 89.3 51.1% 34.7% 14.2% 22.8 40.7 56.1% 10.3 27 38.3% 49.8%
Natl. Avg. 69.9 49.5% 31.4% 19.1% 35.0% 50.9%

 

FT Ftatt FTA/FGA FT% OR DR TR OR% A A/FGM
N.C. A&T 11 15 23.1% 73.3% 6 41 47 12.8% 25 67.6%
HPU 12 12 18.5% 100.0% 14 27 41 34.1% 15 50.0%
Marist 12 17 27.0% 70.6% 6 37 43 14.0% 24 68.6%
UMBC 10 16 21.1% 62.5% 21 36 57 36.8% 24 66.7%
JMU 18 22 32.4% 81.8% 15 27 42 35.7% 18 64.3%
Campbell 13 20 29.0% 65.0% 16 35 51 31.4% 20 60.6%
Avg 12.7 17 25.1% 74.5% 13 33.8 46.8 27.8% 21 63.3%
Natl. Avg. 33.9% 70.7% 29.2% 53.0%

 

TO TO% A/TO Blk Blk% Stl Stl% PF
N.C. A&T 22 24.7% 1.14 3 7.0% 8 9.0% 18
HPU 20 26.0% 0.75 10 18.9% 12 15.6% 22
Marist 25 27.8% 0.96 6 26.1% 3 3.3% 17
UMBC 15 19.2% 1.60 4 11.8% 5 6.4% 23
JMU 17 21.3% 1.06 4 9.3% 10 12.5% 16
Campbell 9 12.2% 2.22 5 10.4% 3 4.1% 10
Avg 18 22.1% 1.17 5.3 13.1% 6.8 8.4% 17.7
Natl Avg. 19.2% 9.4% 10.8%

 

Observations based on those numbers (keeping in mind, it is just these six games, so sample size must be considered):

  • In these contests, The Citadel got more points as a percentage of its offense from 3-point shooting (34.0%) than does the average D-1 squad (31.4%). Free throws have not been a major part of the offense, at least compared to the rest of the country. Somewhat curiously, that has also been true for The Citadel’s opponents in this survey; in all games, however, that definitely isn’t the case.
  • The Bulldogs need to improve from the charity stripe, not just in quantity but in quality. The Citadel’s 66.7% rate isn’t good enough (and that number doesn’t significantly change when all games are included).  Conversely, Bulldog opponents are making their free throws at a solid rate.
  • Besides not shooting free throws all that well, The Citadel isn’t making a high enough percentage of three-point shots; the Bulldogs have been erratic at best from beyond the arc. That is why The Citadel has a below-average effective field goal percentage.
  • The Citadel’s offensive rebounding rate isn’t half-bad. Also, while the defensive rebounding rate for all games is terrible, when just these six games are surveyed, the Bulldogs look much better in that category. In other words, The Citadel is more or less holding its own on the boards against “like” opposition. The Bulldogs’ opponents have more rebounds mainly because The Citadel has missed more shots.
  • On offense, the Bulldogs’ turnover rate is acceptable. The defense is forcing its fair share of turnovers but needs to create even more, particularly of the “live-ball” variety.
  • The Citadel’s assist-to-made basket rate is slightly below average. Opponents are doing better than the Bulldogs in this area.
  • The steal rate for the Bulldogs is good, but is not nearly as impressive when the games against non-D1 teams aren’t counted.
  • According to kenpom, The Citadel’s average height (that is, the average height of the players on the court at any given time) is shorter than all but one D-1 team. (In case you were wondering, Southern Mississippi is 351st.) Therefore it is not much of a surprise that the Bulldogs do not block a lot of shots, and that their opponents will have an advantage on the other side of the court as well (the stat only takes 2-point shooting into account).

A few other points worth mentioning:

  • The Citadel’s bench minutes (all games) is second in all of D-1, behind only Northwestern State. This is reflected in the average minutes played by each player on the roster, with eleven Bulldogs averaging 10 or more minutes per game.
  • In terms of experience, the Bulldogs — well, they don’t have a lot. Per kenpom, The Citadel is 344th out of 351 teams in that category. That said, the Bulldogs do have a reasonable amount of returning experience, as their “minutes continuity” (the percentage of a team’s minutes played by the same players from last season to the current campaign) is basically average.

I’m still trying to decipher the myriad statistics provided via subscription by Synergy Sports, so I’m not going to do any serious breakdowns based on those numbers. (Synergy’s definition of a possession appears to be different from the one used by kenpom and most other analysts, which has complicated things.) That said, here are a few pieces of information to digest (all 12 games are included for these stats):

  • The Citadel is average to below average in most situational categories, but the Bulldogs are better than average at scoring when there is less than 4 seconds remaining on the shot clock. The Citadel is also better than most teams on the defensive side of the ball when the shot clock is about to expire. I’m not sure why that would be the case; perhaps routinely playing a chaotic style of basketball lends itself to keeping one’s head when the shot clock hits 5. Also, there is a sample size issue, since the shot clock is rarely a factor when the Bulldogs are playing.
  • The Bulldogs are good at running offense on out-of-bounds plays from under the basket, but are not nearly as good when in-bounding from the sidelines.
  • The Citadel’s most successful offense in the half-court is finding players coming off screens. Isolation plays and cuts to the basket have also been profitable.
  • The Bulldogs are below average on put-backs directly coming from offensive rebounds, and are not good at all running the pick and roll (the “roll man” only gets the ball 22.9% of the time on that play, if I’m reading the numbers correctly).
  • Defensively, The Citadel has struggled coming out of timeouts. Also, the Bulldogs have been poor defending out-of-bounds plays under the basket.
  • The Bulldogs have done a good job against the pick and roll. Conversely, spot-up shooters have fared well against The Citadel.

According to Synergy Sports’ statistical breakdown, the two most efficient offensive performers for the Bulldogs have been Matt Frierson and Alex Reed. In related news:

Freshman Alex Reed has earned a starting spot with his recent play, scoring 11 points in a Dec. 19 loss at Ohio State.

“Alex has turned into a really good player for us,” [Duggar] Baucom said. “He’s shooting well from 3-point range, gets to loose balls and is in the right place at the right time on defense.”

I’ll discuss more of the Synergy stuff when I more fully understand all the information, assuming I will actually manage to get to that point…

Below is a table of full-season D-1 only statistics of note for The Citadel (I’ll be using this same format when discussing the Bulldogs’ opponents). Keep in mind that A) this doesn’t include stats from the games against Oglethorpe, Trinity Baptist, and Point; and B) there are 351 teams in Division I.

– The Citadel’s adjusted tempo: 81.5 (second nationally; Savannah State is first)

The Citadel Offense Rank Defense Rank Natl Avg
Efficiency 99.3 257 113.2 334 103.5
Effective FG% 46.2 307 59.8 343 50.8
Turnover % 17.5 81 20.6 107 19.2
Off. Reb. % 26.9 239 37.3 345 29.2
FTA/FGA 25.5 325 26.8 44 33.9

Okay, let’s take a very quick look at the next three upcoming opponents:

Western Carolina — December 30, 1:00 pm ET, McAlister Field House

Western Carolina is 4-8, with two non-D1 wins. Seven of its eight losses are to kenpom top-150 opponents; the exception is a home loss to High Point.

WCU also has victories over Appalachian State and UNC-Asheville. Those are both decent wins (UNCA has beaten both Wofford and UNC-Greensboro).

– WCU’s average adjusted tempo: 70.5 (138th nationally)

WCU Offense Rank Defense Rank Natl Avg
Efficiency 98.1 275 108.3 271 103.5
Effective FG% 46.7 292 56.6 322 50.8
Turnover % 21.9 300 20.9 89 19.2
Off. Reb. % 26.0 263 35.5 331 29.2
FTA/FGA 28.9 281 42.2 303 33.9

Western Carolina doesn’t get to the foul line too often, but its opponents do. The Catamounts also struggle keeping opponents off the offensive glass.

WCU does force a lot of turnovers on defense, but it also commits way too many on offense.

Per one source that deals in such matters, Western Carolina is a one-point favorite over The Citadel. The over/under is 170.5.

The prediction from kenpom: The Citadel 88, Western Carolina 87

Furman — January 4, 7:30 pm ET, Timmons Arena

  • Streaming: SoCon Digital Network

Furman is 9-4 so far this year. The Paladins have some solid wins (UNC-Asheville, Elon, Northeastern). Three of FU’s four losses are to kenpom top-50 opponents, all on the road — Butler, Duke, and Tennessee. The game against the Volunteers wasn’t decided until the final seconds.

The Paladins also lost at home to Winthrop by 19 points. That seems to be an outlier.

Furman is led by reigning SoCon player of the year Devin Sibley, who averaged 17.7 points per game last season. So far in 2017-18, the senior from Knoxville is averaging 16.2 points per contest. If he can improve his free throw shooting, he has a chance to be a 50-40-80 player (FG%, 3FG%, FT%).

Before playing The Citadel, Furman will travel to VMI on December 30.

– Furman’s adjusted tempo: 70.1 (156th nationally)

Furman Offense Rank Defense Rank Natl Avg
Efficiency 105.5 123 101.8 136 103.5
Effective FG% 51.7 142 51.9 209 50.8
Turnover % 18.2 119 21.5 65 19.2
Off. Reb. % 29.7 164 33.4 302 29.2
FTA/FGA 28.0 300 29.9 99 33.9

Free throws seem to be an irregular occurrence in Furman games. Other than the lack of charity tosses, the Paladins’ offensive numbers are good across the board.

Furman’s opponents have had an edge on the offensive boards, but FU makes up for that by forcing plenty of turnovers.

The prediction from kenpom: Furman 96, The Citadel 78

Wofford — January 6, 7:00 pm ET, Richardson Indoor Arena

  • Streaming: ESPN3

Wofford is 8-4 this year, with the eighth of those wins a monster victory over North Carolina in Chapel Hill. The Terriers are 2-0 in the ACC this year, having also beaten Georgia Tech in Spartanburg.

WC’s losses are to South Carolina (in the game that opened Wofford’s new hoops facility), Texas Tech, California, and UNC-Asheville. All four of those defeats were by at least 14 points, which makes the success against the Tar Heels and Yellow Jackets all the more unexpected (well, at least the UNC game — Georgia Tech has also lost to Grambling State).

– Wofford’s adjusted tempo: 65.9 (330th nationally; the Terriers and Bulldogs will be an interesting contrast)

Wofford Offense Rank Defense Rank Natl Avg
Efficiency 106.5 112 107.3 259 103.5
Effective FG% 53.1 98 56.4 316 50.8
Turnover % 19.2 182 20.8 93 19.2
Off. Reb. % 22 326 30 208 29.2
FTA/FGA 28.3 295 40.5 281 33.9

Wofford’s blowout losses tend to skew the Terriers’ numbers to a certain extent. Wofford shoots the ball very well, but has also allowed some high-efficiency scoring games from its opponents (teams have taken advantage of the three-ball to an unusual degree against WC).

The Terriers are led offensively by Fletcher Magee, who is averaging 24.9 points per game. He is shooting an outrageous 55% from three-land, and that’s with a fairly high volume of shots (102 in 12 games). Magee is a junior from Orlando.

Wofford has two upcoming games before playing The Citadel. The Terriers travel to UNC-Greensboro on December 30, and host VMI on January 4.

The prediction from kenpom: Wofford 92, The Citadel 78

Happy hooping!

College Football TV Listings 2017, Week 14

This is a list of every game played during week 14 of the 2017 college football season involving at least one FBS or FCS school. All games are listed, televised or not.

For the televised games (only live broadcasts are listed), I include the announcers and sideline reporters (where applicable). I put all of it on a Google Documents spreadsheet that can be accessed at the following link:

College Football TV Listings 2017, Week 14

Additional notes:

– I include games streamed by ESPN3.com and Fox Sports Go; they are denoted as “ESPN3″ and “FS-Go”, respectively. This season, I will also list streamed games for NBC Live Extra and CBS Sports Digital.

– I also list digital network feeds provided by various conferences, but only when they are free of charge. For some of these feeds, the audio will be a simulcast of the home team’s radio broadcast. Other online platforms have their own announcers.

– I do not include PPV telecasts, regardless of whether or not the matchup in question features FBS or FCS schools. These games are increasingly rare.

– This week, I am also listing the Army-Navy game, which actually takes place on December 9.

– AP Poll (FBS):  Link

A lot of the information I used in putting this together came courtesy of Matt Sarzyniak’s remarkably comprehensive and simply indispensable site College Sports on TV, a must-bookmark for any fan of college football and/or basketball. It is also well worth following the weekly schedule put together by lsufootball.net.

As always, I must mention the indefatigable information collectors (and in some cases sports-TV savants) at the506.com. I am also assisted on occasion by helpful athletic media relations officials at various schools and conferences.

This will be the final college football TV listings post of the season.

College Football TV Listings 2017, Week 13

This is a list of every game played during week 13 of the 2017 college football season involving at least one FBS or FCS school. All games are listed, televised or not.

For the televised games (only live broadcasts are listed), I include the announcers and sideline reporters (where applicable). I put all of it on a Google Documents spreadsheet that can be accessed at the following link:

College Football TV Listings 2017, Week 13

Additional notes:

– I include games streamed by ESPN3.com and Fox Sports Go; they are denoted as “ESPN3″ and “FS-Go”, respectively. This season, I will also list streamed games for NBC Live Extra and CBS Sports Digital.

– I also list digital network feeds provided by various conferences, but only when they are free of charge. For some of these feeds, the audio will be a simulcast of the home team’s radio broadcast. Other online platforms have their own announcers.

For now, the digital networks I am including in the listings are those for the ACCBig SkyBig SouthCAAMountain WestNECOVC, Pac-12Patriot LeagueSoConSouthland, and WCC.

Occasionally individual schools (almost always at the FCS level) provide video feeds free of charge. When that is the case, I list those as well.

– I do not include PPV telecasts, regardless of whether or not the matchup in question features FBS or FCS schools. These games are increasingly rare.

– The local affiliates for the ACC Network “national” game of the week can be found on a link in the document, and here:  Boston College-Syracuse

– The regional sports networks carrying the ACC Network “regional” game of the week can be found on a link in the document, and here:  Duke-Wake Forest

– ESPN College Extra games (with blackout maps where applicable): Link

– Stadium’s streaming URLs:  Southern Mississippi-Marshall    UNLV-Nevada

– AP Poll (FBS):  Link

– FCS Coaches’ Poll:  Link

A lot of the information I used in putting this together came courtesy of Matt Sarzyniak’s remarkably comprehensive and simply indispensable site College Sports on TV, a must-bookmark for any fan of college football and/or basketball. It is also well worth following the weekly schedule put together by lsufootball.net.

As always, I must mention the indefatigable information collectors (and in some cases sports-TV savants) at the506.com. I am also assisted on occasion by helpful athletic media relations officials at various schools and conferences.