Advanced Baseline women's tennis rankings (March 11, 2013)

March 11, 2013, 8:36 am

≫ Next: Rock-M-Tology, 3-11-13

≪ Previous: Advanced Baseline men's tennis rankings (March 11, 2013)

$

0

0

Some sports rely on rankings, and others use them for conversation. College basketball, for instance, really doesn't need polls of any sort, but college football relies on them (at least, until the impending playoff goes into effect). For some sports, point totals are everything -- NASCAR and soccer, for instance. But in no sport are rankings more relevant than in tennis. Rankings often determine not only seeding, but qualification. One break here, one ratings boost there, and you can move from qualifying tournaments to the bigger draws.

It is a bit problematic, then, that the systems used by the ATP men's tour and the WTA women's tour are a bit arbitrary and, in some cases, in no way indicative of actual skill. The luck of your tournament draw, especially in larger tournaments, determines almost as much of your ranking as your ability does.

Now, generally speaking, the best players are going to rank the highest in a system based on points. You don't need advanced analytics, in other words, to determine that Novak Djokovic is the best, most consistent tennis player in the men's game. But away from the top tier, your ranking is determined as much by which tournaments you qualified for or entered, and how many easy first-round matches you perhaps drew or byes you received. In this way, tennis rankings can be incredibly unfair.

So we've created a better way. Over the last few months, I've been working with Colin Davy to create a measure we're calling Advanced Baseline. Think of it as a Ken Pomeroy rankings system for tennis, one that is at once both evaluative and predictive, one that rewards actual performance.

(To be clear, by the way: Colin did the work here. I just helped with quality control checks, outliers, and, now, promotion.)

Here's Colin on some of the nitty gritty details.

What makes this rankings system fundamentally different from the ATP/WTA formula is that they’re volume-independent: unlike ATP/WTA rankings, they’re not a simple tally of wins with pre-determined point values according to tournament and round progression.

The basic procedure for determining the base ranking for each player is as follows:

• For each match in the evaluation period, the model estimates the probability of the winner being a better player than the loser based on the score of the match (so a 6-2, 6-1 victory will count more in the winner’s favor than a 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 victory).
• The score-to-probability conversion is based on a best-fit curve that’s constructed outside of the rankings algorithm itself. From there, the head-to-head probabilities are collided against each other to reconcile the messy and often-times contradictory results from actual match play (i.e. how good is Sloane Stephens really, given that she beat Serena Williams at the Australian Open but lost to Ursula Radwanska 2 months later at Indian Wells?), with greater weight placed on more recent results. The output of this process is a steady-state rank order of players that ends up being powerfully predictive.
• The surface adjustments to each player’s base ranking are calculated using a completely separate module that takes the base rankings as its input. The base rankings are used to predict head-to-head win probabilities for each future matchup. Over time, the module compares how often each player is expected to win (from the predicted win probabilities) to how often they actually win for each surface. The difference between expected win rate and actual win rate is the feedback signal that drives the surface adjustments: when Rafael Nadal starts winning on clay courts more often than the model says he will (or when Andy Roddick loses more often than he should), their rankings will be adjusted accordingly for that surface.

So what’s the benefit of using something this complicated to rank players over the existing ATP/WTA system? For one, it does a much better job of rewarding players that beat top-tier competition: if you beat a top 25 player, you get the same amount of credit no matter what round of the tournament in which it happened.

Second, it does a good job of filtering out players that get an oversized boost to their rankings from simply playing a high volume of tournaments and/or players that win tournaments with weak field strengths (i.e. Juan Monaco winning Hamburg 2012 when most top-tier players were resting for the Olympics).

And third, taking scoring margin into account provides a lot more insight: not only does it help filter out “lucky” wins, but it also helps differentiate between the lower-level players who can’t get accepted into anything besides Futures/Challenger Tour tournaments.

Quite simply, Advanced Baseline ranks players by their performance in matches, not tournaments.

Below are the Advanced Baseline women's rankings for March 11.

Some notes:

• The rankings back up what our eyeballs are telling us. Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka are a step ahead of everybody else, Maria Sharapova is comfortably No. 3, Aga Radwanska is a clear No. 4, and after that there's a giant mess. There's as much distance between Williams and Sharapova (0.207 base ranking points) as between No. 5 Na Li and No. 14 Nadia Petrova (0.205).
• When healthy, Svetlana Kuznetsova is still damn strong. (So is Venus Williams, of course.)
• Your Top 20 Americans:
  
  1. Serena Williams (No. 1)
  2. Venus Williams (No. 7)
  3. Sloane Stephens (No. 28)
  4. Jamie Hampton (No. 38)
  5. Madison Keys (No. 39)
  6. Varvara Lepchenko (No. 41)
  7. Christina McHale (No. 46)
  8. Bethanie Mattek-Sands (No. 56)
  9. Lauren Davis (No. 60)
  10. Vania King (No. 63)
  11. Alexa Glatch (No. 88)
  12. Coco Vandeweghe (No. 100)
  13. Nicole Gibbs (No. 104)
  14. Maria Sanchez (No. 108)
  15. Melanie Oudin (No. 132)
  16. Alison Riske (No. 142)
  17. Grace Min (No. 144)
  18. Madison Brengle (No. 168)
  19. Jessica Pegula (No. 179)
  20. Irina Falconi (No. 181)
• With seven players in the Top 46, it probably goes without saying that the state of American women's tennis is stronger than that of the men, even with both Williams sisters over 30 years old.

				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
1	Serena Williams	USA	1.993	-0.017	0.102	0.062	1	0
2	Victoria Azarenka	BLR	1.931	-0.004	0.138	0.009	2	0
3	Maria Sharapova	RUS	1.786	0.079	0.110	0.040	3	0
4	Agnieszka Radwanska	POL	1.567	0.009	0.077	0.001	4	0
5	Na Li	CHN	1.463	0.013	0.138	-0.010	5	0
6	Caroline Wozniacki	DEN	1.431	0.001	0.052	0.007	10	4
7	Venus Williams	USA	1.425	0.009	0.044	0.027	20	13
8	Petra Kvitova	CZE	1.419	0.004	0.068	0.010	7	-1
9	Angelique Kerber	GER	1.373	-0.002	0.043	0.033	6	-3
10	Ana Ivanovic	SRB	1.334	0.033	0.005	-0.009	13	3
11	Samantha Stosur	AUS	1.332	0.074	0.050	-0.023	9	-2
12	Svetlana Kuznetsova	RUS	1.299	0.044	0.067	-0.027	46	34
13	Sara Errani	ITA	1.291	0.137	0.068	-0.025	8	-5
14	Nadia Petrova	RUS	1.258	0.025	0.021	0.027	12	-2
15	Dominika Cibulkova	SVK	1.230	0.078	0.026	-0.024	14	-1
16	Maria Kirilenko	RUS	1.226	-0.011	0.096	0.013	15	-1
17	Kaia Kanepi	EST	1.207	0.054	-0.012	-0.028	41	24
18	Marion Bartoli	FRA	1.204	-0.075	0.058	0.017	11	-7
19	Roberta Vinci	ITA	1.189	0.011	0.100	0.014	16	-3
20	Mona Barthel	GER	1.168	0.022	0.023	-0.018	28	8
21	Ekaterina Makarova	RUS	1.163	0.005	0.063	0.044	19	-2
22	Jelena Jankovic	SRB	1.139	0.059	0.000	-0.004	23	1
23	Sabine Lisicki	GER	1.129	-0.001	0.034	0.030	36	13
24	Lucie Safarova	CZE	1.115	0.046	0.016	-0.027	18	-6
25	Elena Vesnina	RUS	1.115	0.023	0.047	0.027	30	5
26	Julia Goerges	GER	1.111	0.052	0.004	0.023	25	-1
27	Yaroslava Shvedova	KAZ	1.111	0.046	-0.040	0.004	34	7
28	Sloane Stephens	USA	1.090	0.041	0.041	0.013	17	-11
29	Monica Niculescu	ROU	1.077	-0.041	0.072	-0.021	58	29
30	Daniela Hantuchova	SVK	1.069	0.008	0.024	0.020	73	43
31	Andrea Petkovic	GER	1.068	0.090	0.032	-0.016	177	146
32	Shuai Peng	CHN	1.062	0.020	0.056	-0.005	38	6
33	Yanina Wickmayer	BEL	1.049	0.021	0.053	0.007	32	-1
34	Klara Zakopalova	CZE	1.049	0.077	-0.002	0.015	22	-12
35	Aleksandra Wozniak	CAN	1.047	0.028	0.067	0.007	45	10
36	Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova	RUS	1.042	0.013	0.068	-0.012	24	-12
37	Flavia Pennetta	ITA	1.035	0.029	0.030	-0.007	92	55
38	Jamie Hampton	USA	1.034	0.001	0.111	0.009	64	26
39	Madison Keys	USA	1.032	-0.017	0.065	-0.001	77	38
40	Ayumi Morita	JPN	1.027	0.026	0.042	0.009	52	12
41	Varvara Lepchenko	USA	1.009	0.073	0.034	-0.016	26	-15
42	Kirsten Flipkens	BEL	0.998	0.014	0.015	0.067	31	-11
43	Magdalena Rybarikova	SVK	0.993	0.023	0.036	0.012	55	12
44	Urszula Radwanska	POL	0.992	-0.012	0.043	0.031	37	-7
45	Francesca Schiavone	ITA	0.989	0.065	-0.009	-0.019	47	2
46	Christina McHale	USA	0.988	0.046	0.062	-0.004	48	2
47	Tsvetana Pironkova	BUL	0.986	-0.002	-0.028	0.011	50	3
48	Romina Oprandi	SUI	0.986	0.056	0.020	0.020	59	11
49	Laura Robson	GBR	0.982	-0.009	0.023	0.011	43	-6
50	Simona Halep	ROU	0.982	0.049	0.043	-0.018	56	6
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
51	Carla Suarez Navarro	ESP	0.973	0.112	0.028	0.002	21	-30
52	Sorana Cirstea	ROU	0.971	0.085	0.086	-0.001	29	-23
53	Vesna Dolonc	SRB	0.968	-0.032	0.046	-0.001	100	47
54	Galina Voskoboeva	KAZ	0.963	-0.022	0.031	-0.028	105	51
55	Petra Cetkovska	CZE	0.963	0.094	0.068	0.017	76	21
56	Bethanie Mattek-Sands	USA	0.958	0.023	-0.002	-0.017	132	76
57	Su-Wei Hsieh	TPE	0.957	-0.007	0.075	0.006	35	-22
58	Irina-Camelia Begu	ROU	0.957	0.112	0.008	-0.008	53	-5
59	Yung-Jan Chan	TPE	0.952	0.030	0.038	-0.031	90	31
60	Lauren Davis	USA	0.950	0.041	-0.002	0.000	72	12
61	Heather Watson	GBR	0.949	0.022	0.040	0.030	39	-22
62	Anabel Medina Garrigues	ESP	0.949	0.074	-0.012	-0.019	62	0
63	Vania King	USA	0.947	-0.008	0.049	-0.029	113	50
64	Kiki Bertens	NED	0.946	0.074	0.000	0.008	44	-20
65	Jie Zheng	CHN	0.941	-0.014	0.077	0.008	42	-23
66	Chanelle Scheepers	RSA	0.940	0.022	0.065	-0.015	60	-6
67	Kimiko Date-Krumm	JPN	0.939	-0.014	0.025	-0.012	75	8
68	Annika Beck	GER	0.938	0.030	-0.026	-0.003	66	-2
69	Maria-Teresa Torro-Flor	ESP	0.937	0.142	-0.016	0.000	86	17
70	Lourdes Dominguez Lino	ESP	0.929	0.089	0.029	-0.002	54	-16
71	Stefanie Voegele	SUI	0.926	0.017	0.038	-0.008	71	0
72	Virginie Razzano	FRA	0.925	-0.040	0.020	-0.008	197	125
73	Sofia Arvidsson	SWE	0.924	0.028	-0.013	-0.023	49	-24
74	Marina Erakovic	NZL	0.923	-0.003	-0.017	0.033	63	-11
75	Ksenia Pervak	KAZ	0.909	0.008	0.068	-0.001	93	18
76	Tamira Paszek	AUT	0.908	-0.011	0.022	0.039	27	-49
77	Alize Cornet	FRA	0.902	0.100	0.026	-0.017	33	-44
78	Ashleigh Barty	AUS	0.898	-0.004	0.015	0.022	193	115
79	Lucie Hradecka	CZE	0.896	0.048	0.001	-0.014	57	-22
80	Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez	ESP	0.895	0.092	-0.033	0.012	147	67
81	Olga Govortsova	BLR	0.895	0.026	0.019	0.006	67	-14
82	Kateryna Bondarenko	UKR	0.893	-0.018	-0.002	0.014	190	108
83	Petra Martic	CRO	0.891	0.001	0.012	-0.008	91	8
84	Andrea Hlavackova	CZE	0.886	-0.011	-0.006	0.004	65	-19
85	Lesia Tsurenko	UKR	0.886	0.039	0.062	-0.012	74	-11
86	Bojana Jovanovski	SRB	0.885	-0.004	0.063	0.000	40	-46
87	Kristina Mladenovic	FRA	0.883	0.027	0.003	-0.007	51	-36
88	Alexa Glatch	USA	0.882	-0.028	-0.024	0.022	121	33
89	Eugenie Bouchard	CAN	0.881	0.029	-0.013	0.037	123	34
90	Camila Giorgi	ITA	0.880	0.040	-0.015	0.018	80	-10
91	Vera Dushevina	RUS	0.876	-0.043	0.006	-0.016	164	73
92	Sesil Karatantcheva	KAZ	0.876	0.000	0.034	-0.004	120	28
93	Monica Puig	PUR	0.874	0.027	0.032	-0.013	102	9
94	Garbine Muguruza	ESP	0.870	0.052	0.045	-0.012	95	1
95	Anastasia Rodionova	AUS	0.869	0.015	0.057	-0.001	108	13
96	Elena Baltacha	GBR	0.862	-0.020	0.004	0.026	192	96
97	Yulia Putintseva	KAZ	0.862	0.008	0.006	0.008	94	-3
98	Johanna Larsson	SWE	0.860	0.054	0.027	-0.011	69	-29
99	Melinda Czink	HUN	0.855	0.008	0.011	0.014	97	-2
100	Coco Vandeweghe	USA	0.854	-0.003	0.005	0.005	99	-1
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
101	Jarmila Gajdosova	AUS	0.853	0.027	-0.026	0.022	165	64
102	Polona Hercog	SLO	0.851	0.173	-0.030	-0.021	81	-21
103	Karolina Pliskova	CZE	0.851	0.022	0.046	-0.003	84	-19
104	Nicole Gibbs	USA	0.848	0.006	0.014	-0.012	194	90
105	Anastasija Sevastova	LAT	0.846	0.026	0.042	-0.011	152	47
106	Karin Knapp	ITA	0.844	0.135	-0.021	-0.007	101	-5
107	Elina Svitolina	UKR	0.843	0.043	0.063	0.001	88	-19
108	Maria Sanchez	USA	0.843	0.049	0.039	0.000	112	4
109	Misaki Doi	JPN	0.836	-0.010	-0.016	0.007	83	-26
110	Silvia Soler-Espinosa	ESP	0.836	0.113	0.033	-0.008	68	-42
111	Pauline Parmentier	FRA	0.835	0.046	0.004	-0.017	78	-33
112	Timea Babos	HUN	0.834	0.006	0.016	0.019	117	5
113	Akgul Amanmuradova	UZB	0.833	-0.004	0.062	-0.011	145	32
114	Johanna Konta	GBR	0.831	-0.017	0.021	-0.012	154	40
115	Casey Dellacqua	AUS	0.825	-0.006	0.071	0.008	131	16
116	Michelle Larcher De Brito	POR	0.822	-0.037	0.059	-0.002	136	20
117	Timea Bacsinszky	SUI	0.821	0.031	-0.007	-0.014	186	69
118	Greta Arn	HUN	0.821	0.042	0.013	-0.001	184	66
119	Lara Arruabarrena-Vecino	ESP	0.819	0.096	0.036	0.008	87	-32
120	Iveta Benesova	CZE	0.818	0.028	0.042	-0.026	241	121
121	Donna Vekic	CRO	0.817	-0.008	0.046	0.019	98	-23
122	Eleni Daniilidou	GRE	0.817	-0.074	0.060	0.016	111	-11
123	Ajla Tomljanovic	CRO	0.816	0.030	0.013	0.006	253	130
124	Jana Cepelova	SVK	0.816	0.014	0.020	0.040	89	-35
125	Anna Tatishvili	GEO	0.814	0.065	0.032	-0.003	61	-64
126	Barbora Zahlavova Strycova	CZE	0.814	-0.007	-0.003	0.002	127	1
127	Mathilde Johansson	FRA	0.808	0.093	-0.029	0.014	82	-45
128	Ana Savic	CRO	0.806	0.015	-0.009	-0.017	222	94
129	Sharon Fichman	CAN	0.806	0.052	-0.019	-0.014	129	0
130	Candela Estrella Cabeza	ESP	0.805	0.071	-0.005	0.004	115	-15
131	Kai-Chen Chang	TPE	0.804	-0.029	0.020	-0.003	124	-7
132	Melanie Oudin	USA	0.803	0.021	-0.010	0.024	85	-47
133	Edina Gallovits-Hall	ROU	0.803	0.069	-0.006	-0.023	150	17
134	Luksika Kumkhum	THA	0.800	0.000	0.104	-0.010	130	-4
135	Paula Ormaechea	ARG	0.800	0.114	-0.004	-0.027	135	0
136	Arantxa Rus	NED	0.798	0.045	-0.021	0.019	70	-66
137	Mariana Duque-Marino	COL	0.798	0.089	-0.025	-0.028	160	23
138	Yi-Miao Zhou	CHN	0.796	-0.022	0.042	-0.013	155	17
139	Mirjana Lucic-Baroni	CRO	0.795	0.026	-0.007	0.064	109	-30
140	Tamarine Tanasugarn	THA	0.792	-0.043	-0.038	0.044	171	31
141	Laura Pous-Tio	ESP	0.791	0.072	-0.045	-0.021	149	8
142	Alison Riske	USA	0.787	-0.038	-0.021	0.012	202	60
143	Shahar Peer	ISR	0.786	0.014	0.027	-0.019	128	-15
144	Grace Min	USA	0.786	0.041	0.058	-0.009	187	43
145	Kristina Barrois	GER	0.784	-0.015	-0.028	-0.016	271	126
146	Alexandra Panova	RUS	0.784	0.016	0.022	-0.015	137	-9
147	Tatjana Malek	GER	0.784	0.004	-0.019	0.006	103	-44
148	Anne Keothavong	GBR	0.783	-0.049	-0.022	-0.002	188	40
149	Stephanie Dubois	CAN	0.783	-0.056	0.035	-0.004	151	2
150	Alison Van Uytvanck	BEL	0.777	0.014	0.006	-0.012	195	45
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
151	Anna Schmiedlova	SVK	0.776	0.019	0.018	0.000	198	47
152	Aravane Rezai	FRA	0.775	0.115	-0.009	-0.015	179	27
153	Shuai Zhang	CHN	0.775	0.004	0.051	-0.014	116	-37
154	Claire Feuerstein	FRA	0.775	-0.013	-0.013	0.004	134	-20
155	Beatriz Garcia Vidagany	ESP	0.772	0.048	0.037	0.006	239	84
156	Yuliya Beygelzimer	UKR	0.771	0.015	-0.063	-0.028	161	5
157	Maryna Zanevska	UKR	0.771	0.024	-0.014	0.000	167	10
158	Sacha Jones	AUS	0.768	0.003	0.033	-0.015	183	25
159	Patricia Mayr-Achleitner	AUT	0.766	0.082	-0.011	-0.014	162	3
160	Bibiane Schoofs	NED	0.766	0.033	-0.026	-0.003	236	76
161	Caroline Garcia	FRA	0.765	0.016	0.020	-0.013	144	-17
162	Ekaterina Bychkova	RUS	0.763	-0.046	-0.032	0.007	180	18
163	Zarina Diyas	KAZ	0.762	-0.015	0.018	-0.018	223	60
164	Valeria Savinykh	RUS	0.762	0.021	0.051	0.008	133	-31
165	Carina Witthoeft	GER	0.759	0.026	0.038	0.000	227	62
166	Mandy Minella	LUX	0.758	0.067	0.016	-0.021	96	-70
167	Yvonne Meusburger	AUT	0.757	0.062	-0.030	-0.008	141	-26
168	Madison Brengle	USA	0.756	-0.056	-0.002	-0.012	205	37
169	Alexandra Dulgheru	ROU	0.756	0.100	-0.033	0.007	491	322
170	Teliana Pereira	BRA	0.755	0.167	-0.020	-0.016	118	-52
171	Olga Puchkova	RUS	0.754	0.008	0.093	-0.015	79	-92
172	Kurumi Nara	JPN	0.753	-0.013	0.038	-0.012	156	-16
173	Arantxa Parra Santonja	ESP	0.750	0.039	-0.041	-0.001	225	52
174	Nina Bratchikova	RUS	0.750	0.001	0.053	-0.012	110	-64
175	Catalina Castano	COL	0.750	0.064	-0.011	-0.032	191	16
176	Kristyna Pliskova	CZE	0.750	-0.020	0.023	0.052	106	-70
177	Maria Joao Koehler	POR	0.750	-0.011	0.047	0.005	104	-73
178	Anna-Lena Friedsam	GER	0.747	0.054	-0.003	0.000	189	11
179	Jessica Pegula	USA	0.746	0.061	0.002	-0.014	142	-37
180	Dinah Pfizenmaier	GER	0.740	0.075	-0.018	-0.002	143	-37
181	Irina Falconi	USA	0.737	-0.016	0.001	0.002	140	-41
182	Maria Elena Camerin	ITA	0.735	0.038	0.013	0.005	168	-14
183	Shelby Rogers	USA	0.735	0.006	0.017	0.000	219	36
184	Olivia Rogowska	AUS	0.732	-0.014	0.035	0.009	159	-25
185	Alexandra Cadantu	ROU	0.730	0.114	-0.010	-0.008	119	-66
186	Renata Voracova	CZE	0.729	-0.009	-0.067	-0.020	248	62
187	Anett Kontaveit	EST	0.726	0.035	-0.006	0.001	362	175
188	Sachia Vickery	USA	0.726	-0.024	0.002	-0.005	314	126
189	Irena Pavlovic	FRA	0.726	0.009	0.005	0.009	178	-11
190	Marta Sirotkina	RUS	0.725	-0.020	0.029	0.017	122	-68
191	Daria Gavrilova	RUS	0.724	-0.001	0.022	-0.009	146	-45
192	Julie Coin	FRA	0.722	-0.045	0.015	-0.014	200	8
193	Alla Kudryavtseva	RUS	0.720	-0.038	0.051	-0.005	203	10
194	Gabriela Paz	VEN	0.719	-0.010	-0.011	0.000	315	121
195	Aleksandra Krunic	SRB	0.718	0.021	0.021	-0.014	170	-25
196	Sandra Zahlavova	CZE	0.716	-0.027	0.023	-0.012	232	36
197	Tereza Smitkova	CZE	0.715	0.002	0.035	0.000	284	87
198	Eva Birnerova	CZE	0.713	0.015	-0.034	-0.014	139	-59
199	Belinda Bencic	SUI	0.711	0.022	0.027	-0.012	499	300
200	Kathrin Woerle	GER	0.711	0.033	0.013	0.014	212	12
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
201	Olga Savchuk	UKR	0.710	-0.007	0.017	-0.003	208	7
202	Heidi El Tabakh	CAN	0.709	0.022	0.041	-0.006	174	-28
203	Rebecca Marino	CAN	0.709	0.030	0.028	-0.002	N/A	N/A
204	Alberta Brianti	ITA	0.708	0.019	0.006	-0.030	231	27
205	Ana Vrljic	CRO	0.704	-0.060	0.004	-0.018	230	25
206	Andreea Mitu	ROU	0.703	0.051	0.031	0.000	169	-37
207	Stephanie Foretz Gacon	FRA	0.702	0.033	0.022	0.015	114	-93
208	Sandra Zaniewska	POL	0.701	0.063	-0.018	0.006	163	-45
209	Irina Khromacheva	RUS	0.701	0.013	-0.026	-0.006	216	7
210	Tereza Mrdeza	CRO	0.698	0.116	0.030	0.000	157	-53
211	Angelique Van Der Meet	NED	0.697	0.093	-0.029	0.000	282	71
212	Valeria Solovyeva	RUS	0.697	-0.022	-0.003	0.000	176	-36
213	Severine Beltrame	FRA	0.697	0.013	0.033	0.022	240	27
214	Saisai Zheng	CHN	0.697	-0.014	-0.011	0.013	138	-76
215	Amra Sadikovic	SUI	0.695	0.012	-0.017	-0.008	244	29
216	Ying-Ying Duan	CHN	0.695	0.000	0.077	-0.001	107	-109
217	Bianca Botto	PER	0.695	0.079	-0.035	0.000	375	158
218	Nastassja Burnett	ITA	0.693	0.061	0.014	-0.018	153	-65
219	Laura Siegemund	GER	0.691	0.091	-0.037	-0.008	363	144
220	Sheng-Nan Sun	CHN	0.690	-0.024	-0.011	-0.002	264	44
221	Tara Moore	GBR	0.690	0.003	0.038	0.001	209	-12
222	Danka Kovinic	MNE	0.688	0.013	-0.009	0.000	252	30
223	Kateryna Kozlova	UKR	0.687	0.010	0.037	-0.005	196	-27
224	Margarita Gasparyan	RUS	0.682	0.022	-0.011	0.000	221	-3
225	Taylor Townsend	USA	0.682	-0.009	0.030	0.001	471	246
226	Mervana Jugic-Salkic	BIH	0.681	0.060	-0.008	-0.001	199	-27
227	Victoria Duval	USA	0.680	0.007	0.005	0.001	370	143
228	Mayo Hibi	JPN	0.676	-0.017	0.011	0.000	367	139
229	Stephanie Vogt	LIE	0.674	0.005	-0.001	-0.008	215	-14
230	Jasmina Tinjic	BIH	0.674	-0.005	0.006	-0.010	306	76
231	Julia Glushko	ISR	0.672	0.033	0.087	-0.016	181	-50
232	Cagla Buyukakcay	TUR	0.672	0.056	0.039	-0.008	158	-74
233	Richel Hogenkamp	NED	0.668	0.040	-0.017	-0.021	214	-19
234	Elena Bovina	RUS	0.667	-0.014	0.028	0.004	234	0
235	Julia Cohen	USA	0.666	0.028	-0.024	-0.019	126	-109
236	Florencia Molinero	ARG	0.665	0.063	-0.041	-0.010	229	-7
237	Chanel Simmonds	RSA	0.664	0.011	0.030	-0.026	175	-62
238	Gabriela Dabrowski	CAN	0.662	0.000	0.014	-0.008	294	56
239	Estelle Guisard	FRA	0.661	0.012	0.030	-0.006	319	80
240	Qiang Wang	CHN	0.660	-0.004	0.086	0.014	172	-68
241	Magda Linette	POL	0.655	0.007	-0.019	-0.009	283	42
242	Jill Craybas	USA	0.655	-0.021	-0.006	-0.021	210	-32
243	Ons Jabeur	TUN	0.654	0.040	-0.020	-0.005	263	20
244	Sarah Gronert	GER	0.651	-0.003	0.042	-0.015	301	57
245	Julia Kimmelmann	GER	0.649	0.006	-0.020	0.000	355	110
246	Masa Zec-Peskiric	SLO	0.647	0.047	-0.062	-0.011	250	4
247	Michaela Honcova	SVK	0.647	-0.021	-0.020	0.000	266	19
248	Anastasia Grymalska	ITA	0.646	0.065	-0.023	-0.007	311	63
249	Marta Domachowska	POL	0.646	-0.060	-0.020	-0.025	257	8
250	Marie-Eve Pelletier	CAN	0.645	0.000	-0.051	-0.011	226	-24
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
251	Samantha Crawford	USA	0.644	0.004	0.027	0.000	254	3
252	Raluca Olaru	ROU	0.643	0.085	-0.022	-0.013	218	-34
253	Aliaksandra Sasnovich	BLR	0.643	0.018	0.025	-0.012	368	115
254	Krista Hardebeck	USA	0.642	-0.016	-0.023	0.006	350	96
255	Noppawan Lertcheewakarn	THA	0.641	-0.017	0.009	0.003	246	-9
256	Nadiya Kichenok	UKR	0.641	0.016	0.019	0.000	204	-52
257	Veronica Cepede Royg	PAR	0.639	0.064	-0.009	-0.005	207	-50
258	Lauren Embree	USA	0.639	0.016	-0.018	0.000	601	343
259	Madalina Gojnea	ROU	0.639	0.000	-0.025	-0.020	275	16
260	Tadeja Majeric	SLO	0.638	0.107	0.041	-0.004	166	-94
261	Anna Danilina	KAZ	0.635	0.005	0.007	-0.017	351	90
262	Julia Boserup	USA	0.633	-0.013	-0.002	0.000	483	221
263	Monique Adamczak	AUS	0.632	-0.007	-0.017	0.047	185	-78
264	Gail Brodsky	USA	0.631	0.003	0.013	-0.007	409	145
265	Petra Rampre	SLO	0.631	-0.024	-0.031	0.021	280	15
266	Katarzyna Piter	POL	0.631	0.000	0.002	-0.011	359	93
267	Victoria Kan	RUS	0.630	0.044	-0.007	0.000	396	129
268	Anastasiya Yakimova	BLR	0.630	-0.013	0.019	0.010	259	-9
269	Junri Namigata	JPN	0.628	-0.021	-0.011	0.013	220	-49
270	Valentyna Ivakhnenko	UKR	0.628	0.034	0.008	0.000	228	-42
271	Ulrikke Eikeri	NOR	0.627	0.024	0.040	-0.008	290	19
272	Ksenia Lykina	RUS	0.626	-0.019	0.012	0.044	243	-29
273	Reka-Luca Jani	HUN	0.625	0.070	-0.006	-0.011	348	75
274	Anna Remondina	ITA	0.625	0.021	-0.003	0.000	325	51
275	Lyudmyla Kichenok	UKR	0.622	-0.028	-0.019	0.000	206	-69
276	Mihaela Buzarnescu	ROU	0.620	-0.023	-0.014	0.002	300	24
277	Anne Schaefer	GER	0.620	0.025	-0.014	-0.004	235	-42
278	Chiara Scholl	USA	0.619	0.028	0.007	0.000	173	-105
279	Arina Rodionova	RUS	0.618	-0.002	0.020	0.027	233	-46
280	Alize Lim	FRA	0.618	0.009	0.010	0.000	261	-19
281	Gioia Barbieri	ITA	0.617	0.001	-0.001	0.000	296	15
282	Antonia Lottner	GER	0.615	-0.006	-0.003	0.010	644	362
283	Melanie Klaffner	AUT	0.615	-0.001	0.003	0.056	312	29
284	Maria Irigoyen	ARG	0.612	0.030	0.024	-0.009	217	-67
285	Elitsa Kostova	BUL	0.611	-0.023	-0.006	-0.009	270	-15
286	Naomi Broady	GBR	0.611	-0.023	-0.051	-0.008	361	75
287	Asia Muhammed	USA	0.610	-0.027	-0.022	0.000	426	139
288	Diana Marcinkevica	LAT	0.609	0.051	0.004	0.000	238	-50
289	Kristina Kucova	SVK	0.609	0.007	0.011	-0.013	302	13
290	Victoria Larriere	FRA	0.608	-0.014	0.067	-0.005	245	-45
291	Constance Sibille	FRA	0.608	-0.017	-0.009	0.000	322	31
292	Pemra Ozgen	TUR	0.608	-0.034	-0.008	0.001	289	-3
293	Jovana Jaksic	SRB	0.607	0.061	-0.026	-0.012	341	48
294	Erika Sema	JPN	0.607	-0.015	0.050	0.003	182	-112
295	Nigina Abduraimova	UZB	0.607	0.000	-0.006	-0.003	303	8
296	Ashley Weinhold	USA	0.606	-0.035	-0.016	0.000	372	76
297	Giulia Gatto-Monticone	ITA	0.605	0.047	-0.003	0.000	308	11
298	Nudnida Luangnam	THA	0.603	-0.016	0.077	-0.016	201	-97
299	Eva Fernandez-Brugues	ESP	0.602	0.029	-0.024	0.000	329	30
300	Ilona Kremen	BLR	0.601	0.029	0.043	0.000	247	-53
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
301	Bojana Bobusic	AUS	0.599	0.010	0.019	-0.006	287	-14
302	Justine Ozga	GER	0.596	-0.023	0.000	0.000	431	129
303	Conny Perrin	SUI	0.596	0.043	-0.025	0.012	279	-24
304	Yuliya Kalabina	RUS	0.594	-0.002	-0.011	0.000	316	12
305	Katerina Vankova	CZE	0.591	0.046	-0.021	-0.001	334	29
306	Sachie Ishizu	JPN	0.591	-0.008	0.033	-0.002	286	-20
307	Yurika Sema	JPN	0.590	0.021	0.012	0.012	211	-96
308	Indy De Vroome	NED	0.590	0.003	-0.018	0.008	580	272
309	Yasmin Schnack	USA	0.589	-0.008	-0.009	0.000	769	460
310	Tamaryn Hendler	BEL	0.589	-0.013	-0.004	-0.003	323	13
311	Federica Di Sarra	ITA	0.589	0.017	-0.013	0.000	411	100
312	Anna Zaja	GER	0.588	0.074	-0.010	0.000	327	15
313	Sara Sorribes Tormo	ESP	0.587	0.036	0.000	0.000	450	137
314	Laura Thorpe	FRA	0.586	0.015	-0.014	-0.009	337	23
315	Barbora Krejcikova	CZE	0.586	0.027	-0.005	0.003	651	336
316	Corinna Dentoni	ITA	0.585	0.036	0.005	-0.010	213	-103
317	Varatchaya Wongteanchai	THA	0.585	0.016	0.077	-0.009	237	-80
318	Viktorija Rajicic	AUS	0.584	-0.032	0.034	0.019	436	118
319	Mailen Auroux	ARG	0.584	-0.046	-0.016	0.000	291	-28
320	Paula Kania	POL	0.583	0.036	0.003	0.000	224	-96
321	Shuko Aoyama	JPN	0.582	-0.007	0.023	0.011	277	-44
322	Maria Abramovic	CRO	0.582	-0.006	-0.008	0.004	419	97
323	Andreja Klepac	SLO	0.582	0.030	-0.027	-0.013	776	453
324	Yuxuan Zhang	CHN	0.582	-0.017	0.016	0.053	344	20
325	Alexandra Stevenson	USA	0.581	-0.008	-0.042	-0.012	508	183
326	Myrtille Georges	FRA	0.580	0.039	0.000	0.000	251	-75
327	Elena Bogdan	ROU	0.580	0.019	-0.008	-0.007	260	-67
328	Paula Cristina Goncalves	BRA	0.578	0.056	-0.002	0.000	339	11
329	Iryna Bremond	FRA	0.577	-0.011	-0.032	-0.020	379	50
330	Chin-Wei Chan	TPE	0.577	-0.004	0.026	-0.010	265	-65
331	Julia Mayr	ITA	0.577	-0.022	0.007	0.000	429	98
332	Nastja Kolar	SLO	0.576	-0.010	-0.015	-0.001	550	218
333	Samantha Murray	GBR	0.576	-0.009	-0.011	0.003	262	-71
334	Allie Will	USA	0.575	-0.008	0.006	0.000	415	81
335	Jennifer Elie	USA	0.574	-0.038	0.032	-0.003	288	-47
336	Charlene Seateun	FRA	0.574	0.036	-0.018	0.000	401	65
337	Zuzana Zalabska	CZE	0.573	-0.015	0.000	0.000	692	355
338	Laura Ioana Andrei	ROU	0.573	0.082	0.030	0.000	299	-39
339	Cristina Dinu	ROU	0.572	0.020	0.007	-0.007	249	-90
340	Rika Fujiwara	JPN	0.572	-0.012	0.000	0.000	324	-16
341	Natalia Ryzhonkova	RUS	0.572	0.022	-0.004	0.000	647	306
342	Misa Eguchi	JPN	0.571	0.012	0.013	-0.018	310	-32
343	Roxane Vaisemberg	BRA	0.570	0.015	-0.012	-0.011	464	121
344	Risa Ozaki	JPN	0.570	0.006	0.000	-0.004	295	-49
345	Alexandra Mueller	USA	0.570	-0.042	-0.018	0.000	453	108
346	Irina Ramialison	FRA	0.569	0.025	-0.010	0.000	527	181
347	Yuliana Lizarazo	COL	0.567	0.017	-0.021	0.000	484	137
348	Anais Laurendon	FRA	0.566	-0.008	-0.029	0.000	486	138
349	Sofia Shapatava	GEO	0.564	0.056	0.015	0.000	273	-76
350	Andrea Gamiz	VEN	0.564	0.050	0.009	-0.002	304	-46
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
351	Tetyana Arefyeva	UKR	0.564	0.048	0.011	-0.010	342	-9
352	Maia Beatriz Haddad	BRA	0.564	0.014	0.012	-0.008	477	125
353	Alexandra Kiick	USA	0.562	0.007	-0.004	-0.004	N/A	N/A
354	Lesley Kerkhove	NED	0.562	-0.016	0.006	-0.018	387	33
355	Ekaterina Ivanova	RUS	0.559	0.010	-0.020	-0.007	408	53
356	Anastasia Pivovarova	RUS	0.558	0.007	-0.016	-0.015	434	78
357	Danielle Harmsen	NED	0.558	-0.029	-0.022	0.000	546	189
358	Adriana Perez	VEN	0.558	-0.021	0.071	0.000	258	-100
359	Catalina Pella	ARG	0.557	0.065	-0.005	0.000	352	-7
360	Yi-Jing Zhao	CHN	0.557	-0.018	0.011	0.000	507	147
361	Chieh-Yu Hsu	USA	0.557	-0.024	0.025	0.000	278	-83
362	Yue-Yue Hu	CHN	0.556	-0.008	0.029	-0.019	318	-44
363	Tetiana Luzhanska	USA	0.556	-0.009	0.018	-0.026	452	89
364	Jia-Jing Lu	CHN	0.556	-0.019	0.040	0.000	285	-79
365	Dia Evtimova	BUL	0.554	0.042	-0.002	-0.005	255	-110
366	Ling Zhang	HKG	0.554	-0.019	0.043	-0.013	242	-124
367	Teodora Mircic	SRB	0.554	-0.018	-0.019	0.000	357	-10
368	Melanie South	GBR	0.553	-0.026	-0.069	0.008	390	22
369	Ellen Allgurin	SWE	0.553	-0.011	0.010	-0.018	731	362
370	Denisa Allertova	CZE	0.552	0.051	-0.014	0.000	556	186
371	Chantal Skamlova	SVK	0.552	-0.021	0.009	0.000	463	92
372	Lenka Jurikova	SVK	0.551	0.038	-0.003	-0.011	532	160
373	Chalena Scholl	USA	0.551	0.006	0.014	-0.022	765	392
374	Oksana Kalashnikova	GEO	0.550	0.028	-0.012	-0.002	389	15
375	Xinyun Han	CHN	0.550	0.008	-0.027	-0.019	332	-43
376	Xin Wen	CHN	0.549	0.040	0.027	0.000	393	17
377	Sanaz Marand	USA	0.549	0.002	0.005	0.000	472	95
378	Makoto Ninomiya	JPN	0.548	-0.002	-0.015	-0.017	384	6
379	Basak Eraydin	TUR	0.548	-0.003	0.049	-0.005	297	-82
380	Lara Michel	SUI	0.547	0.018	0.041	0.000	520	140
381	Quirine Lemoine	NED	0.546	-0.013	-0.002	0.024	514	133
382	Ines Ferrer Suarez	ESP	0.546	0.052	-0.018	0.010	269	-113
383	Yafan Wang	CHN	0.545	0.013	0.070	-0.003	377	-6
384	Romana Tedjakusuma	INA	0.544	-0.017	0.001	0.000	462	78
385	Barbara Haas	AUT	0.543	0.025	-0.007	-0.003	525	140
386	Ysaline Bonaventure	BEL	0.543	0.021	0.000	0.000	383	-3
387	Jan Abaza	USA	0.543	0.008	0.023	0.000	468	81
388	Diana Buzean	ROU	0.542	0.033	0.000	0.000	474	86
389	Jesika Maleckova	CZE	0.542	0.004	-0.010	0.000	641	252
390	Irina Buryachok	UKR	0.540	0.043	-0.032	-0.007	307	-83
391	Nikola Hofmanova	AUT	0.540	-0.019	-0.006	0.012	466	75
392	Aki Yamasoto	JPN	0.539	-0.013	0.012	0.014	346	-46
393	Alyona Sotnikova	UKR	0.539	0.010	-0.029	0.000	412	19
394	Doroteja Eric	SRB	0.538	-0.025	0.006	0.015	637	243
395	Veronika Kapshay	UKR	0.537	-0.023	0.004	0.038	276	-119
396	Iva Mekovec	CRO	0.537	0.038	-0.013	-0.010	506	110
397	Yvonne Neuwirth	AUT	0.536	0.018	-0.007	0.010	489	92
398	Leticia Costas	ESP	0.535	0.029	0.007	0.000	336	-62
399	Lenka Wienerova	SVK	0.535	0.001	-0.019	-0.013	443	44
400	Mi Yoo	KOR	0.534	-0.015	-0.011	0.000	544	144
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
401	Amanda Carreras	GBR	0.534	0.013	-0.031	0.000	321	-80
402	Marina Shamayko	RUS	0.534	0.031	0.003	0.000	385	-17
403	Lina Stanciute	LTU	0.533	-0.011	-0.020	-0.015	440	37
404	Anna Shkudun	UKR	0.531	0.069	-0.002	-0.015	458	54
405	Viktoriya Tomova	BUL	0.530	0.043	0.016	-0.004	480	75
406	Indire Akiki	CRO	0.529	-0.017	-0.006	0.000	563	157
407	Yana Buchina	RUS	0.529	0.009	0.009	0.011	516	109
408	Anastasiya Vasylyeva	UKR	0.528	0.013	-0.049	0.000	309	-99
409	Polona Rebersak	SLO	0.528	-0.007	0.011	0.000	746	337
410	Lisa Whybourn	GBR	0.526	-0.011	-0.009	0.003	281	-129
411	Vanesa Furlanetto	ARG	0.526	0.037	-0.002	0.000	413	2
412	Daria Salnikova	RUS	0.525	0.036	-0.003	-0.015	640	228
413	Agnese Zucchini	ITA	0.524	-0.013	-0.030	0.000	421	8
414	Storm Sanders	AUS	0.524	-0.008	0.134	-0.002	410	-4
415	Margalita Chakhnashvili	GEO	0.523	0.062	-0.022	-0.017	399	-16
416	Anastasia Frolova	RUS	0.523	-0.011	0.015	0.000	461	45
417	Xenia Knoll	SUI	0.523	-0.005	0.021	0.000	623	206
418	Oceane Dodin	FRA	0.522	0.009	0.008	0.000	648	230
419	Aleksandrina Naydenova	BUL	0.521	0.046	0.021	-0.013	268	-151
420	Ayu Fani Damayanti	INA	0.520	0.021	0.037	0.000	479	59
421	Alexandra Artamonova	RUS	0.519	-0.011	0.038	0.000	333	-88
422	Karolina Wlodarczak	AUS	0.519	-0.001	-0.011	0.000	540	118
423	Viktorija Golubic	SUI	0.519	-0.002	-0.004	0.000	610	187
424	Kumiko Iijima	JPN	0.518	-0.021	-0.039	-0.006	485	61
425	Katarzyna Kawa	POL	0.518	-0.001	-0.008	0.000	414	-11
426	Piia Suomalainen	FIN	0.518	-0.012	-0.041	0.000	490	64
427	Nicola Geuer	GER	0.518	0.002	-0.015	-0.005	382	-45
428	Tatiana Kotelnikova	RUS	0.517	0.005	-0.023	0.000	592	164
429	Bernarda Pera	USA	0.516	0.009	-0.018	0.000	646	217
430	Ganna Poznikhirenko	UKR	0.516	0.030	-0.013	0.000	560	130
431	Marina Melnikova	RUS	0.515	0.018	-0.018	0.000	392	-39
432	Zuzana Zlochova	SVK	0.514	0.078	-0.013	0.000	272	-160
433	Jessica Moore	AUS	0.514	-0.008	-0.010	-0.024	373	-60
434	Ana Bogdan	ROU	0.514	-0.012	0.036	-0.005	481	47
435	Natalija Kostic	SRB	0.514	0.016	-0.009	0.000	459	24
436	Katerina Kramperova	CZE	0.513	0.004	-0.023	-0.011	343	-93
437	Fangzhou Liu	CHN	0.509	-0.011	0.012	0.000	575	138
438	Karla Popovic	CRO	0.509	-0.001	0.000	0.000	654	216
439	Ksenia Palkina	KGZ	0.508	0.001	0.000	0.005	365	-74
440	Isabella Shinikova	BUL	0.507	0.028	-0.006	0.000	338	-102
441	Anne Kremer	LUX	0.507	-0.066	-0.029	-0.007	738	297
442	Lena Litvak	USA	0.506	-0.004	-0.018	0.000	497	55
443	Carol Zhao	CAN	0.505	-0.003	-0.018	-0.006	775	332
444	Zuzana Luknarova	SVK	0.505	0.041	0.022	0.000	380	-64
445	Jacqueline Cako	USA	0.504	-0.011	0.013	0.000	561	116
446	Elizaveta Ianchuk	UKR	0.504	0.012	-0.019	0.000	519	73
447	Tereza Martincova	CZE	0.504	-0.006	-0.013	0.000	534	87
448	Maria Fernanda Alvarez Teran	BOL	0.503	0.020	0.033	0.000	292	-156
449	Lena-Marie Hofmann	GER	0.503	0.058	-0.026	0.000	582	133
450	Celine Ghesquiere	FRA	0.502	-0.012	0.000	0.000	668	218
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
451	Tammi Patterson	AUS	0.502	-0.014	0.034	0.006	354	-97
452	Annalisa Bona	ITA	0.501	0.018	-0.010	0.000	498	46
453	Csilla Borsanyi	HUN	0.501	-0.022	0.000	0.000	802	349
454	Ekaterina Alexandrova	RUS	0.501	0.046	0.000	0.000	576	122
455	Audrey Bergot	FRA	0.501	-0.048	-0.029	0.000	600	145
456	Aiko Nakamura	JPN	0.501	-0.031	0.000	-0.015	406	-50
457	Yi-Fan Xu	CHN	0.501	-0.007	0.034	-0.013	256	-201
458	Azra Hadzic	AUS	0.500	-0.015	0.039	0.062	331	-127
459	Fernanda Brito	CHI	0.499	0.022	0.001	0.000	320	-139
460	Nina Zander	GER	0.498	-0.002	-0.024	0.000	848	388
461	Andrea Koch-Benvenuto	CHI	0.498	0.011	-0.027	0.000	305	-156
462	Sandra Roma	SWE	0.497	-0.012	-0.017	-0.013	475	13
463	Polina Vinogradova	RUS	0.497	0.006	0.053	0.000	515	52
464	Sabina Sharipova	UZB	0.497	-0.023	-0.025	0.011	326	-138
465	Ran Tian	CHN	0.497	0.011	0.028	-0.007	454	-11
466	Jade Windley	GBR	0.497	-0.007	-0.003	0.014	442	-24
467	Polina Pekhova	BLR	0.496	-0.013	0.017	-0.014	328	-139
468	Mari Tanaka	JPN	0.496	-0.003	0.030	0.010	353	-115
469	Ksenia Kirillova	RUS	0.495	-0.010	-0.023	0.004	366	-103
470	Su Jeong Jang	KOR	0.494	0.000	-0.014	0.000	627	157
471	Celine Cattaneo	FRA	0.494	-0.034	0.012	-0.023	585	114
472	Agnes Bukta	HUN	0.493	0.015	0.000	0.000	590	118
473	Katharina Lehnert	PHI	0.493	0.007	-0.012	-0.009	422	-51
474	Karen Barbat	DEN	0.493	-0.003	-0.008	0.000	551	77
475	Alexis King	USA	0.492	-0.027	-0.009	-0.005	609	134
476	Patricia Maria Tig	ROU	0.492	0.017	-0.008	0.000	402	-74
477	Maria Fernanda Alves	BRA	0.491	0.007	-0.027	-0.010	381	-96
478	So-Jung Kim	KOR	0.491	-0.011	-0.015	-0.012	578	100
479	Virginie Ayassamy	FRA	0.491	-0.020	0.002	0.000	653	174
480	Tina Schiechtl	AUT	0.490	-0.011	-0.024	0.000	417	-63
481	Nungnadda Wannasuk	THA	0.490	-0.032	0.025	-0.019	369	-112
482	Shiho Akita	JPN	0.490	-0.007	-0.007	0.000	501	19
483	Hilda Melander	SWE	0.490	0.022	-0.008	0.000	428	-55
484	Caitlin Whoriskey	USA	0.490	-0.017	-0.010	0.000	555	71
485	Tamara Curovic	SRB	0.489	-0.022	-0.019	-0.003	432	-53
486	Chen Tang Hao	CHN	0.489	0.007	0.010	0.001	394	-92
487	Natalie Pluskota	USA	0.489	0.026	0.002	0.000	579	92
488	Barbara Sobaszkiewicz	POL	0.488	0.019	-0.021	0.000	528	40
489	Sofiya Kovalets	UKR	0.488	0.011	0.001	-0.021	748	259
490	Emily Webley-Smith	GBR	0.488	0.010	0.026	-0.018	435	-55
491	Jelena Simic	BIH	0.487	0.040	-0.002	0.000	558	67
492	Jade Suvrijn	FRA	0.486	0.004	-0.018	0.000	620	128
493	Ani Amiraghyan	ARM	0.485	0.004	-0.011	0.000	494	1
494	Ivonne Cavalle-Reimers	ESP	0.485	0.017	-0.028	0.000	547	53
495	Ekaterine Gorgodze	GEO	0.484	0.002	-0.031	0.000	526	31
496	Olga Ianchuk	UKR	0.484	0.039	0.007	0.000	447	-49
497	Alice Moroni	ITA	0.483	-0.016	0.014	0.000	848	351
498	Hyun Hui Hong	KOR	0.483	0.023	-0.005	-0.012	666	168
499	Claudia Giovine	ITA	0.481	-0.030	0.004	0.000	570	71
500	Natela Dzalamidze	RUS	0.481	-0.021	0.059	0.000	809	309
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
501	Anna Floris	ITA	0.480	-0.019	-0.017	-0.002	267	-234
502	Sally Peers	AUS	0.480	-0.007	0.003	-0.006	360	-142
503	Amandine Hesse	FRA	0.479	-0.031	0.011	0.000	449	-54
504	Elyne Boeykens	BEL	0.478	0.029	0.013	0.000	531	27
505	Sofia Kvatsabaia	GEO	0.477	0.086	-0.004	0.000	482	-23
506	Natalia Orlova	RUS	0.477	0.034	0.032	0.000	511	5
507	Kai-Lin Zhang	CHN	0.477	-0.014	0.009	0.000	425	-82
508	Nicole Rottmann	AUT	0.477	0.012	-0.008	-0.013	356	-152
509	Martina Di Giuseppe	ITA	0.475	0.003	-0.016	0.000	732	223
510	Ksenia Milevskaya	BLR	0.474	0.031	0.012	-0.013	424	-86
511	Akiko Omae	JPN	0.472	0.000	-0.021	-0.019	293	-218
512	Eri Hozumi	JPN	0.472	0.010	-0.016	-0.006	407	-105
513	Sarah-Rebecca Sekulic	GER	0.472	-0.009	0.029	-0.011	667	154
514	Deniz Khazaniuk	ISR	0.471	0.009	0.011	0.000	577	63
515	Marianna Zakarlyuk	UKR	0.471	0.024	-0.001	0.000	559	44
516	Martina Caregaro	ITA	0.471	-0.015	-0.010	0.000	927	411
517	Erika Takao	JPN	0.470	0.009	-0.035	-0.001	420	-97
518	Ipek Soylu	TUR	0.470	0.006	0.006	0.026	690	172
519	Riko Sawayanagi	JPN	0.469	0.000	0.001	0.006	650	131
520	Angelica Moratelli	ITA	0.467	0.007	0.000	0.000	398	-122
521	Petra Krejsova	CZE	0.466	-0.004	-0.007	0.000	719	198
522	Justyna Jegiolka	POL	0.466	-0.011	0.014	-0.009	404	-118
523	Carolina Pillot	ITA	0.465	0.000	-0.018	0.000	446	-77
524	Gaia Sanesi	ITA	0.465	0.010	0.007	0.000	660	136
525	Lin Zhu	CHN	0.465	0.000	0.021	0.006	503	-22
526	Tatiana Bua	ARG	0.465	0.011	0.017	0.007	430	-96
527	Hua-Chen Lee	TPE	0.464	-0.012	0.002	0.000	478	-49
528	Zi Yang	CHN	0.464	-0.007	0.016	0.000	400	-128
529	So-Ra Lee	KOR	0.464	0.000	-0.002	0.010	371	-158
530	Peangtarn Plipuech	THA	0.463	-0.001	0.001	0.011	388	-142
531	Wen-Hsin Hsu	TPE	0.462	-0.013	-0.017	0.001	395	-136
532	Martina Kubicikova	CZE	0.462	0.027	-0.012	0.000	504	-28
533	Sung-Hee Han	KOR	0.462	-0.008	0.015	-0.014	298	-235
534	Varvara Flink	RUS	0.462	-0.005	-0.019	0.000	726	192
535	Nicha Lertpitaksinchai	THA	0.462	-0.010	0.011	0.008	340	-195
536	Zhaoxuan Yang	CHN	0.461	-0.021	0.000	-0.011	589	53
537	Natalie Piquion	FRA	0.460	0.015	-0.015	0.012	883	346
538	Akiko Yonemura	JPN	0.460	-0.012	-0.032	-0.012	545	7
539	Daria Mironova	RUS	0.459	0.023	-0.003	0.000	438	-101
540	Eugeniya Pashkova	RUS	0.459	-0.033	0.031	0.000	469	-71
541	Miki Miyamura	JPN	0.459	0.001	0.001	-0.009	502	-39
542	Miyabi Inoue	JPN	0.457	0.050	-0.006	-0.012	349	-193
543	Cindy Burger	NED	0.457	0.009	-0.011	0.000	642	99
544	Michaela Pochabova	SVK	0.456	-0.009	-0.017	0.000	810	266
545	Carolin Daniels	GER	0.456	0.012	-0.015	0.000	524	-21
546	Chang Liu	CHN	0.455	0.013	0.019	0.000	345	-201
547	Lucia Cervera-Vazquez	ESP	0.454	-0.020	0.011	0.000	683	136
548	Olga Doroshina	RUS	0.453	-0.012	-0.016	-0.007	1096	548
549	Fatma Al Nabhani	OMA	0.453	-0.007	-0.029	0.000	427	-122
550	Nicole Melichar	USA	0.452	-0.027	0.027	0.000	455	-95
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
551	Elizabeth Lumpkin	USA	0.452	-0.017	0.005	0.000	500	-51
552	Federica Grazioso	ITA	0.452	0.003	0.001	0.000	619	67
553	Despina Papamichail	GRE	0.451	-0.014	0.075	0.000	701	148
554	Anna Klasen	GER	0.450	0.008	0.000	0.000	678	124
555	Milana Spremo	SRB	0.450	0.010	0.000	0.000	630	75
556	Martina Borecka	CZE	0.449	-0.011	-0.015	0.000	596	40
557	Syna Kayser	GER	0.449	-0.030	-0.029	-0.017	971	414
558	Miharu Imanishi	JPN	0.448	-0.007	0.017	0.004	437	-121
559	Elena-Teodora Cadar	ROU	0.446	-0.002	0.017	0.000	682	123
560	Venise Chan	HKG	0.446	-0.006	0.017	-0.009	386	-174
561	Di Zhao	CHN	0.446	-0.005	0.008	0.000	935	374
562	Nicolette Van Uitert	NED	0.445	-0.004	-0.013	0.000	723	161
563	Kazusa Ito	JPN	0.444	-0.013	-0.037	0.020	456	-107
564	Christina Shakovets	GER	0.443	-0.015	-0.011	0.000	587	23
565	Dalila Jakupovic	SLO	0.443	0.022	0.037	-0.010	313	-252
566	Amy Bowtell	IRL	0.443	-0.026	-0.025	0.000	562	-4
567	Janina Toljan	AUT	0.442	0.007	0.011	0.000	530	-37
568	Vivian Heisen	GER	0.442	0.014	0.012	0.000	811	243
569	Anna Tyulpa	RUS	0.442	0.000	-0.002	0.000	760	191
570	Manon Arcangioli	FRA	0.440	0.012	-0.016	0.000	476	-94
571	Karin Morgosova	SVK	0.440	0.051	-0.002	0.000	552	-19
572	Silvia Garcia Jimenez	ESP	0.440	-0.013	-0.018	0.000	875	303
573	Rocio De La Torre-Sanchez	ESP	0.439	0.031	0.014	0.000	364	-209
574	Tori Kinard	USA	0.439	0.019	-0.016	-0.014	624	50
575	Alexandra Damaschin	ROU	0.439	-0.007	0.022	0.000	604	29
576	Patricia Iveth Ku Flores	PER	0.439	0.029	0.001	-0.014	335	-241
577	Andreea Vaideanu	ROU	0.439	-0.011	0.006	0.000	656	79
578	Alice Balducci	ITA	0.436	0.033	-0.016	-0.004	573	-5
579	Ting-Fei Juan	TPE	0.436	-0.007	0.006	-0.020	569	-10
580	Ximena Hermoso	MEX	0.436	0.024	-0.003	0.000	441	-139
581	Tjasa Srimpf	SLO	0.435	-0.017	-0.014	0.000	717	136
582	Elena Platon Raluca	ROU	0.435	-0.020	0.000	0.000	537	-45
583	Clothilde De Bernardi	FRA	0.435	0.041	0.001	0.000	605	22
584	Yuuki Tanaka	JPN	0.433	0.014	0.041	0.000	495	-89
585	Elizabeth Ferris	USA	0.433	-0.013	-0.023	0.000	445	-140
586	Marina Kachar	SRB	0.432	0.001	-0.010	0.000	733	147
587	Tena Lukas	CRO	0.431	0.074	0.000	0.000	855	268
588	Lucy Brown	GBR	0.431	0.016	-0.018	-0.005	684	96
589	Dejana Raickovic	GER	0.431	-0.005	-0.005	0.000	823	234
590	Julia Samuseva	RUS	0.430	0.016	-0.010	0.000	611	21
591	Aminat Kushkhova	RUS	0.430	0.021	-0.010	0.000	631	40
592	Natalia Kolat	POL	0.429	-0.016	-0.016	0.000	853	261
593	Mana Ayukawa	JPN	0.429	0.007	0.009	-0.015	663	70
594	Polina Leykina	RUS	0.429	0.061	0.062	0.000	548	-46
595	Karina Isayan	RUS	0.429	-0.012	0.004	0.000	613	18
596	Erika Zanchetta	ITA	0.428	-0.031	-0.015	0.000	879	283
597	Bianca Hincu	ROU	0.428	-0.002	0.000	0.000	741	144
598	Anna Fitzpatrick	GBR	0.428	-0.020	-0.033	0.026	788	190
599	Vlada Ekshibarova	UZB	0.428	0.002	0.050	0.000	505	-94
600	Lisa Sabino	SUI	0.427	0.009	-0.037	0.000	571	-29
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
601	Claudine Schaul	LUX	0.427	-0.058	0.017	0.016	752	151
602	Chen Liang	CHN	0.426	-0.018	0.004	0.000	418	-184
603	Marine Partaud	FRA	0.426	-0.004	0.000	0.000	808	205
604	Cristina Ene	ROU	0.425	0.020	0.000	0.000	835	231
605	Garcia Andrea Lazaro	ESP	0.425	0.006	-0.012	0.000	689	84
606	Diana Ospina	USA	0.425	-0.010	-0.042	0.000	697	91
607	Melis Sezer	TUR	0.423	-0.001	0.027	-0.007	376	-231
608	Ana Clara Duarte	BRA	0.423	0.016	-0.001	0.000	433	-175
609	Sina Haas	GER	0.423	0.005	-0.029	-0.020	1165	556
610	Giulia Sussarello	ITA	0.422	-0.001	0.000	0.000	565	-45
611	Miyu Kato	JPN	0.421	0.018	-0.016	0.020	703	92
612	Mai Minokoshi	JPN	0.421	-0.005	0.024	0.009	330	-282
613	Federica Quercia	ITA	0.420	-0.013	-0.007	0.000	797	184
614	Lidziya Marozava	BLR	0.420	-0.014	-0.010	0.000	639	25
615	Borislava Botusharova	BUL	0.419	0.010	0.006	0.000	659	44
616	Sherazad Benamar	FRA	0.419	0.010	0.018	0.000	448	-168
617	Ana Sofia Sanchez	MEX	0.418	0.012	0.011	0.000	465	-152
618	Sylwia Zagorska	POL	0.418	-0.004	-0.021	0.000	518	-100
619	Carolina Zeballos	ARG	0.417	-0.001	-0.005	0.000	374	-245
620	Alice Savoretti	ITA	0.417	0.021	0.000	0.000	614	-6
621	Demi Schuurs	NED	0.417	-0.013	0.000	-0.003	N/A	N/A
622	Kanae Hisami	JPN	0.417	0.010	-0.028	-0.012	566	-56
623	Vivian Segnini	BRA	0.416	0.022	0.010	-0.003	542	-81
624	Nikola Vajdova	SVK	0.416	0.004	0.033	0.000	711	87
625	Cecilia Costa Melgar	CHI	0.416	0.013	-0.009	-0.002	405	-220
626	Aranza Salut	ARG	0.416	-0.061	-0.006	0.000	517	-109
627	Vivien Juhaszova	SVK	0.415	0.021	0.000	0.000	681	54
628	Patrycja Sanduska	POL	0.414	-0.047	0.002	-0.012	538	-90
629	Daniela Seguel	CHI	0.414	0.053	-0.002	0.000	403	-226
630	Andrea Benitez	ARG	0.414	-0.003	-0.012	0.000	716	86
631	Kaori Onishi	JPN	0.414	-0.020	-0.009	0.017	612	-19
632	Polina Monova	RUS	0.413	0.013	-0.016	0.000	658	26
633	Maria Mokh	RUS	0.413	0.015	-0.010	0.000	722	89
634	Elixane Lechemia	FRA	0.410	0.007	-0.024	0.000	662	28
635	Eva Wacanno	NED	0.410	-0.011	0.000	0.000	1037	402
636	Nika Kukharchuk	RUS	0.409	0.041	0.005	0.000	467	-169
637	Kanami Tsuji	JPN	0.408	-0.013	0.006	0.000	935	298
638	Montserrat Gonzalez	PAR	0.408	-0.009	-0.011	0.026	759	121
639	Ema Mikulcic	CRO	0.408	0.019	0.000	0.000	707	68
640	Isabel Rapisarda-Calvo	ESP	0.408	-0.040	-0.012	0.000	734	94
641	Lucia Butkovska	SVK	0.407	-0.015	-0.026	0.000	871	230
642	Larra Olga Saez	ESP	0.406	0.037	-0.005	0.000	583	-59
643	Sandra Honigova	CZE	0.406	0.002	0.000	0.000	956	313
644	Francesca Fusinato	ITA	0.405	0.035	0.000	0.000	1037	393
645	Viktoria Malova	SVK	0.405	-0.031	0.000	-0.015	717	72
646	Sylvia Krywacz	USA	0.405	-0.001	0.001	0.000	799	153
647	Rishika Sunkara	IND	0.404	-0.005	-0.006	-0.001	512	-135
648	Camelia Hristea	ROU	0.403	-0.025	0.011	0.000	672	24
649	Na-Lae Han	KOR	0.403	0.018	-0.030	0.000	714	65
650	Tess Sugnaux	SUI	0.403	0.021	0.000	0.000	835	185
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
651	Macall Harkins	USA	0.402	-0.003	-0.022	0.000	791	140
652	Diana Sumova	CZE	0.402	-0.009	0.000	0.000	1104	452
653	Ekaterina Yashina	RUS	0.402	-0.021	0.019	0.000	509	-144
654	Lou Brouleau	FRA	0.402	-0.001	-0.004	0.000	725	71
655	Keren Shlomo	ISR	0.401	-0.016	-0.007	-0.002	439	-216
656	Isabella Holland	AUS	0.401	-0.021	0.012	-0.004	766	110
657	Pei-Chi Lee	TPE	0.401	0.047	0.020	0.000	626	-31
658	Anja Prislan	SLO	0.401	0.002	0.001	-0.011	523	-135
659	Olga Brozda	POL	0.401	-0.030	0.007	0.000	671	12
660	Sviatlana Pirazhenka	BLR	0.401	-0.024	0.007	0.000	695	35
661	Nikola Frankova	CZE	0.401	-0.041	-0.054	0.005	1027	366
662	Julia Wachaczyk	GER	0.400	-0.031	0.025	0.000	943	281
663	Anne-Liz Jeukeng	USA	0.399	-0.006	-0.018	0.000	740	77
664	Michaela Boev	BEL	0.399	0.012	0.018	0.000	986	322
665	Jessica Ginier	FRA	0.399	-0.018	-0.005	0.000	930	265
666	Yumi Miyazaki	JPN	0.399	0.004	0.026	0.019	594	-72
667	Jasmin Steinherr	GER	0.398	-0.001	0.012	0.000	635	-32
668	Natia Gegia	GEO	0.398	0.020	0.010	0.000	708	40
669	Chiaki Okadaue	JPN	0.397	0.003	0.045	-0.009	416	-253
670	Anastasia Kharchenko	UKR	0.397	-0.005	-0.022	0.000	473	-197
671	Camila Silva	CHI	0.397	-0.011	0.018	0.000	522	-149
672	Lavinia Tananta	INA	0.397	0.008	-0.023	-0.006	673	1
673	Simona Ionescu	ROU	0.396	0.023	-0.021	0.000	807	134
674	Alison Bai	AUS	0.395	-0.014	0.034	0.014	632	-42
675	Jasmina Kajtazovic	BIH	0.395	-0.030	-0.001	0.000	1068	393
676	Fiona Gervais	FRA	0.394	-0.019	-0.019	0.000	1000	324
677	Tereza Malikova	CZE	0.394	-0.048	-0.005	0.000	664	-13
678	Laetitia Sarrazin	FRA	0.394	-0.004	-0.018	0.000	535	-143
679	Yurina Koshino	JPN	0.393	0.015	0.017	-0.004	588	-91
680	Valeriya Strakhova	UKR	0.393	0.034	-0.008	0.000	894	214
681	Prerna Bhambri	IND	0.393	-0.003	0.026	0.025	543	-138
682	Yuka Higuchi	JPN	0.393	-0.005	0.029	-0.009	487	-195
683	Natalia Siedliska	POL	0.392	0.015	-0.005	0.000	855	172
684	Laura Pigossi	BRA	0.391	-0.010	0.038	-0.001	574	-110
685	Maria Sakkari	GRE	0.391	-0.016	0.023	0.000	625	-60
686	Akari Inoue	JPN	0.390	0.000	-0.011	0.009	643	-43
687	Laura Schaeder	GER	0.390	-0.015	-0.017	0.000	593	-94
688	Silvia Njiric	CRO	0.390	-0.063	-0.033	-0.005	572	-116
689	Nadiya Kolb	UKR	0.389	0.002	-0.023	0.000	708	19
690	Pilar Dominguez-Lopez	ESP	0.388	0.004	-0.026	0.000	950	260
691	Monique Zuur	NED	0.388	-0.017	0.000	0.000	986	295
692	Estelle Cascino	FRA	0.387	-0.015	0.016	0.000	652	-40
693	Lea Tholey	FRA	0.387	-0.006	0.044	0.000	584	-109
694	Valeria Podda	NED	0.387	0.001	0.020	0.000	923	229
695	Dunja Sunkic	SRB	0.387	-0.022	0.000	0.000	997	302
696	Arabela Fernandez Rabener	ESP	0.386	-0.013	-0.011	0.000	986	290
697	Julia Valetova	RUS	0.385	0.021	0.040	0.000	673	-24
698	Dalia Zafirova	BUL	0.385	0.018	-0.011	0.000	706	8
699	Anamika Bhargava	USA	0.384	0.006	-0.009	0.000	820	121
700	Margarita Lazareva	RUS	0.383	0.059	0.005	0.000	347	-353
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
701	Vanda Lukacs	HUN	0.383	-0.014	-0.014	0.000	488	-213
702	Ai Wen Zhu	CHN	0.382	-0.005	-0.022	0.000	783	81
703	Lina Gjorcheska	MKD	0.382	0.013	0.000	0.000	669	-34
704	Sara Sussarello	ITA	0.382	-0.012	-0.014	0.000	1000	296
705	Nan-Nan Zhang	CHN	0.382	-0.009	-0.007	0.000	944	239
706	Josepha Adam	FRA	0.381	-0.026	0.022	0.000	879	173
707	Jelena Durisic	SLO	0.381	0.000	-0.004	0.000	1066	359
708	Vladyslava Zanosiyenko	UKR	0.381	0.033	-0.010	0.000	848	140
709	Anastasia Vdovenco	MDA	0.379	0.003	-0.013	0.000	772	63
710	Lisanne Van Riet	NED	0.379	0.001	0.008	0.000	621	-89
711	Gabriela Talaba	ROU	0.379	0.009	-0.020	0.000	854	143
712	Anna Smolina	RUS	0.379	0.014	-0.008	0.000	1025	313
713	Francesca Stephenson	GBR	0.378	-0.027	-0.014	-0.018	830	117
714	Angelina Gabueva	RUS	0.378	-0.027	0.000	0.000	457	-257
715	Chinami Ogi	JPN	0.378	-0.004	0.002	0.002	553	-162
716	Kana Daniel	JPN	0.377	0.024	0.007	0.000	821	105
717	Chloe Paquet	FRA	0.376	0.004	0.010	0.000	679	-38
718	Veronika Zavodska	CZE	0.376	-0.019	0.000	0.000	1165	447
719	Guadalupe Moreno	ARG	0.376	-0.017	0.008	0.000	633	-86
720	Makiho Kozawa	JPN	0.374	-0.012	-0.024	-0.024	745	25
721	Alix Collombon	FRA	0.374	-0.023	-0.004	0.000	787	66
722	Ekaterina Tour	ISR	0.374	-0.006	0.010	0.000	871	149
723	Nicola Slater	GBR	0.373	-0.011	-0.012	0.003	770	47
724	Victoria Bosio	ARG	0.373	0.032	0.000	-0.003	510	-214
725	Yana Sizikova	RUS	0.373	0.013	0.021	0.000	521	-204
726	Yuka Mori	JPN	0.372	-0.009	0.024	-0.017	811	85
727	Bermet Duvanaeva	KGZ	0.372	-0.002	0.006	0.000	617	-110
728	Alexandra Romanova	RUS	0.372	0.029	0.020	0.000	397	-331
729	Anastasia Rudakova	RUS	0.371	0.028	0.006	0.000	859	130
730	Ju-Eun Kim	KOR	0.371	0.000	0.041	0.000	699	-31
731	Nuria Parrizas Diaz	ESP	0.369	-0.026	0.033	0.000	564	-167
732	Chihiro Nunome	JPN	0.368	-0.009	0.009	0.015	749	17
733	Anita Husaric	BIH	0.368	-0.018	0.026	0.000	1027	294
734	Neda Koprcina	CRO	0.368	0.004	-0.007	0.000	835	101
735	Chiara Mendo	ITA	0.365	0.013	0.019	0.000	800	65
736	Jade Schoelink	NED	0.365	0.018	0.000	0.000	956	220
737	Bernice Van De Velde	NED	0.365	-0.051	0.011	0.000	792	55
738	Stephanie Bengson	AUS	0.364	-0.001	0.005	0.008	657	-81
739	Corina Jaeger	SUI	0.364	0.002	-0.005	0.000	785	46
740	Steffi Distelmans	BEL	0.364	0.035	-0.023	0.000	933	193
741	Remi Tezuka	JPN	0.362	-0.011	-0.007	-0.001	1037	296
742	Carlotta Orlando	ITA	0.361	-0.032	0.000	0.000	1121	379
743	Nadezda Gorbachkova	RUS	0.361	-0.029	-0.003	0.000	761	18
744	Ji-Hee Choi	KOR	0.360	0.000	0.005	0.000	843	99
745	Zsofia Miko	HUN	0.360	-0.011	-0.024	0.000	N/A	N/A
746	Nathalia Rossi	BRA	0.359	-0.049	-0.007	0.000	496	-250
747	Julia Stamatova	BUL	0.359	-0.022	0.000	0.000	665	-82
748	Gracia Radovanovic	FRA	0.359	-0.007	-0.018	0.000	897	149
749	Chihiro Takayama	JPN	0.359	0.004	-0.016	-0.036	886	137
750	Natasha Fourouclas	RSA	0.359	-0.005	-0.008	0.000	831	81
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
751	Carolina Costamagna	ARG	0.359	0.006	0.000	0.000	708	-43
752	Jia Xiang Lu	CHN	0.358	-0.014	-0.004	0.000	688	-64
753	Emi Mutaguchi	JPN	0.357	-0.018	0.002	-0.006	917	164
754	Kim Grajdek	GER	0.355	-0.018	-0.015	0.000	541	-213
755	Ofri Lankri	ISR	0.354	0.002	0.014	0.000	794	39
756	Jeannine Prentner	AUT	0.354	-0.013	0.001	0.000	720	-36
757	Hulya Esen	TUR	0.353	0.000	0.008	0.000	615	-142
758	Madeline Bosnjak	GER	0.353	-0.013	-0.005	0.000	N/A	N/A
759	Gaelle Rey	SUI	0.352	-0.009	-0.018	0.000	1000	241
760	Gabriela Ce	BRA	0.351	0.048	0.019	0.000	444	-316
761	Elisabeth Fournier	CAN	0.351	-0.012	0.005	0.000	622	-139
762	Jainy Scheepens	NED	0.351	0.031	-0.004	0.000	1104	342
763	Martina Spigarelli	ITA	0.349	0.015	-0.010	0.000	868	105
764	Rio Kitagawa	JPN	0.347	0.013	-0.010	0.000	1165	401
765	Francesca Palmigiano	ITA	0.346	-0.017	0.005	0.000	804	39
766	Katie Ruckert	USA	0.345	-0.018	-0.038	0.000	855	89
767	Amandine Cazeaux	FRA	0.344	-0.020	-0.010	0.000	764	-3
768	Paulina Milosavljevic	SWE	0.343	-0.014	0.025	0.000	1104	336
769	Francesca Rescaldani	ARG	0.343	-0.001	0.000	0.000	655	-114
770	Pia Konig	AUT	0.341	-0.012	0.008	-0.016	844	74
771	Carla Forte	BRA	0.341	-0.010	0.006	0.000	492	-279
772	Barbara Luz	POR	0.341	0.028	0.001	0.000	861	89
773	Valeria Prosperi	ITA	0.341	-0.013	0.000	0.000	1165	392
774	Min Liu	CHN	0.341	0.000	-0.022	0.000	1037	263
775	Diana Marcu	ROU	0.340	-0.022	-0.021	0.000	1000	225
776	Carmen Lopez-Rueda	ESP	0.340	0.022	0.000	0.000	771	-5
777	Sultan Gonen	TUR	0.340	0.000	0.005	0.000	772	-5
778	Carolina Prats-Millan	ESP	0.338	-0.002	0.002	0.000	774	-4
779	Alona Fomina	UKR	0.337	-0.003	-0.001	0.000	1037	258
780	Maya Gaverova	RUS	0.337	-0.027	-0.014	0.001	917	137
781	Misa Kinoshita	JPN	0.337	-0.005	-0.011	0.018	1104	323
782	Victoire Mfoumouangana	FRA	0.337	-0.016	-0.020	0.000	N/A	N/A
783	Despoina Vogasari	GRE	0.336	-0.008	0.013	0.000	661	-122
784	Kyra Shroff	IND	0.335	0.010	0.027	-0.008	470	-314
785	Seda Arantekin	TUR	0.335	0.017	-0.012	0.000	815	30
786	Emma Flood	NOR	0.335	-0.013	-0.009	0.000	1121	335
787	Taisiya Zakarlyuk	UKR	0.335	-0.014	0.010	0.000	824	37
788	Barbara Bonic	SRB	0.335	0.005	0.008	0.000	797	9
789	Ankita Raina	IND	0.334	-0.011	0.017	-0.009	557	-232
790	Varunya Wongteanchai	THA	0.334	0.001	0.043	0.011	762	-28
791	Katarina Adamovic	SRB	0.334	-0.005	-0.010	0.014	1104	313
792	Nives Baric	AUS	0.333	-0.002	-0.003	-0.021	721	-71
793	Daiana Negreanu	ROU	0.332	0.005	-0.002	0.000	536	-257
794	Nadia Abdala	MEX	0.332	-0.005	-0.024	0.000	680	-114
795	Luciana Sarmenti	ARG	0.331	-0.026	0.001	0.000	675	-120
796	Katharina Negrin	AUT	0.331	-0.037	-0.019	0.000	N/A	N/A
797	Verena Schmid	GER	0.331	0.016	-0.012	0.000	796	-1
798	Karolina Nowak	GER	0.331	0.029	0.022	-0.006	554	-244
799	Sofia Luini	ARG	0.331	-0.042	0.000	0.000	591	-208
800	Nathaly Kurata	BRA	0.330	-0.001	0.001	0.000	586	-214
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
801	Nicole Clerico	ITA	0.330	-0.048	-0.032	-0.010	696	-105
802	Eduarda Piai	BRA	0.329	0.044	-0.018	0.000	513	-289
803	Sandra Martinovic	BIH	0.329	-0.019	-0.016	-0.007	1165	362
804	Csilla Argyelan	HUN	0.328	-0.030	-0.002	0.000	956	152
805	Abbie Myers	AUS	0.328	-0.002	0.007	-0.012	736	-69
806	Beatrice Cedermark	SWE	0.328	0.009	-0.017	0.000	645	-161
807	Cristina Adamescu	ROU	0.327	0.030	0.000	0.000	825	18
808	Valeria Osadchenko	SWE	0.326	0.002	-0.008	0.000	1068	260
809	Anastasia Mukhametova	RUS	0.325	-0.016	-0.027	0.000	1062	253
810	Lisa-Maria Moser	AUT	0.325	-0.009	-0.022	0.000	1096	286
811	Stefania Rubini	N/A	0.325	-0.004	-0.008	0.000	N/A	N/A
812	Napatsakorn Sankaew	THA	0.325	0.000	0.029	0.010	956	144
813	Agata Baranska	POL	0.324	0.017	-0.025	0.000	928	115
814	Ionela-Andreea Iova	ROU	0.324	0.008	-0.018	0.000	1052	238
815	Samira Giger	SUI	0.324	-0.024	-0.009	0.000	825	10
816	Morgane Pons	FRA	0.324	-0.057	-0.016	-0.006	1121	305
817	Sherry Li	USA	0.322	0.013	-0.022	0.000	986	169
818	Ai Koga	JPN	0.320	0.000	-0.010	0.004	923	105
819	Shu-Ying Hsieh	TPE	0.320	0.000	0.000	-0.020	1153	334
820	Ashley Keir	AUS	0.319	0.001	0.014	-0.003	905	85
821	Matilda Hamlin	SWE	0.317	0.004	-0.003	0.000	700	-121
822	Karis Ryan	AUS	0.316	0.020	-0.005	0.000	915	93
823	Miyu Kato	JPN	0.315	-0.021	-0.030	-0.005	703	-120
824	Phuong Dai Trang Huynh	VIE	0.315	0.023	-0.018	0.000	1052	228
825	Rosalia Alda	USA	0.315	-0.016	-0.011	0.000	1015	190
826	Sofia Blanco	ARG	0.313	0.002	0.000	0.000	1000	174
827	Julia Moriarty	AUS	0.313	-0.012	-0.006	-0.009	750	-77
828	Margarida Moura	POR	0.312	0.013	0.008	0.000	971	143
829	Yumi Nakano	JPN	0.312	-0.008	-0.020	0.009	879	50
830	Gabriela Porubin	N/A	0.310	0.030	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
831	Eveliina Virtanen	SWE	0.310	-0.016	-0.003	0.000	1153	322
832	Josephine Boualem	ESP	0.310	0.013	0.010	0.000	875	43
833	Giulia Bruzzone	ITA	0.309	0.016	-0.025	-0.002	1104	271
834	Kamila Kerimbayeva	KAZ	0.309	0.011	-0.008	0.000	705	-129
835	Ekaterina Pushkareva	RUS	0.309	-0.002	0.002	0.000	735	-100
836	Catherine Chantraine	BEL	0.308	-0.015	-0.027	0.000	786	-50
837	India Maggen	N/A	0.308	0.003	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
838	Vaszilisza Bulgakova	HUN	0.307	-0.031	-0.025	0.000	1153	315
839	Tyra Calderwood	AUS	0.307	0.023	-0.016	-0.010	803	-36
840	Boyan Wang	CHN	0.306	0.000	-0.008	-0.004	1027	187
841	Louise Brunskog	SWE	0.305	-0.001	0.012	0.000	1062	221
842	Paula Mocete-Talamantes	ESP	0.302	-0.022	-0.024	0.000	997	155
843	Elena Bertoia	N/A	0.301	-0.017	0.006	0.000	N/A	N/A
844	Lorenza Stefanelli	N/A	0.300	-0.035	-0.013	0.000	N/A	N/A
845	Tereza Hejlova	N/A	0.298	-0.008	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
846	Elizabeta Bauer	SRB	0.298	-0.011	0.000	0.000	1165	319
847	Louise Boinay	N/A	0.298	-0.013	-0.014	0.000	N/A	N/A
848	Alina Wessel	GER	0.297	-0.013	-0.006	0.000	793	-55
849	Alexandra Nancarrow	AUS	0.296	0.005	0.005	0.000	890	41
850	Sabrina Baumgarten	N/A	0.296	-0.006	-0.013	0.000	N/A	N/A
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
851	Amanda Rodgers	USA	0.294	-0.009	0.013	0.000	1068	217
852	Diana Stomlega	ROU	0.294	-0.037	0.022	0.000	917	65
853	Stephanie Scimone	ITA	0.294	-0.015	-0.016	0.014	741	-112
854	Hae-Sung Kim	KOR	0.293	0.023	0.016	-0.019	947	93
855	Zalina Khairudinova	KAZ	0.293	-0.014	-0.006	0.000	691	-164
856	Elena Cerezo Codina	ESP	0.291	0.014	0.043	0.000	1009	153
857	Agni Stefanou	GRE	0.290	0.001	-0.009	0.000	923	66
858	Ghislaine Van Baal	N/A	0.290	-0.003	-0.022	0.000	N/A	N/A
859	Stefanie Stemmer	GER	0.290	0.004	-0.012	0.000	1121	262
860	Darya Shulzhanok	BLR	0.290	0.011	0.007	0.000	1068	208
861	Jessica Lawrence	USA	0.289	-0.004	0.020	0.000	768	-93
862	Yukako Noi	N/A	0.288	-0.007	0.002	-0.003	N/A	N/A
863	Malou Ejdesgaard	N/A	0.288	-0.020	-0.027	0.003	N/A	N/A
864	Oceane Adam	FRA	0.287	-0.030	0.015	0.000	910	46
865	Jaimy-Gayle Van De Wal	N/A	0.287	-0.006	-0.013	0.000	N/A	N/A
866	Aleksandra Trifunovic	SWE	0.286	0.024	0.018	0.000	986	120
867	Dunja Stamenkovic	N/A	0.285	-0.030	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
868	Hirono Watanabe	JPN	0.284	-0.017	-0.003	-0.008	1121	253
869	Daria Afanasyeva	RUS	0.283	-0.012	0.000	0.000	1121	252
870	Kelly Versteeg	N/A	0.283	-0.002	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
871	Anaeve Pain	FRA	0.283	-0.004	-0.020	0.000	1165	294
872	Nicole Robinson	USA	0.282	0.020	0.012	0.000	840	-32
873	Isabella Robbiani	PAR	0.282	-0.028	0.028	0.000	595	-278
874	Agustina Serio	ARG	0.282	-0.018	0.000	0.000	1027	153
875	Sabrina Bamburac	GBR	0.282	0.008	0.006	-0.001	829	-46
876	Katherine Miranda Chang	PER	0.281	-0.018	0.000	0.000	986	110
877	Radina Dimitrova	BUL	0.280	0.027	-0.007	0.000	899	22
878	Danijela Tomic	SRB	0.280	0.004	-0.010	0.000	1009	131
879	Ella Leivo	FIN	0.276	-0.008	-0.003	0.000	1121	242
880	Martina Caciotti	ITA	0.276	-0.005	-0.020	-0.003	967	87
881	Carolina Betancourt	MEX	0.275	-0.003	0.031	-0.005	1015	134
882	Johanna Hyoty	FIN	0.273	-0.009	0.018	0.000	892	10
883	Ashley Murdock	USA	0.270	-0.013	0.003	0.000	1015	132
884	Gabriela Coglitore	VEN	0.269	-0.008	-0.008	0.000	814	-70
885	Michaela Frlicka	GER	0.268	-0.021	-0.001	0.000	781	-104
886	Linda Mair	ITA	0.267	-0.009	-0.010	0.000	712	-174
887	Giulia Gasparri	N/A	0.266	-0.035	-0.007	0.004	N/A	N/A
888	Busra Kayrun	TUR	0.265	-0.006	-0.014	0.000	1096	208
889	Giulia Pasini	N/A	0.265	-0.005	-0.013	0.000	N/A	N/A
890	Tatiana Carpio	N/A	0.261	-0.014	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
891	Costanza Mecchi	ITA	0.259	-0.016	-0.003	0.000	1165	274
892	Nikola Horakova	CZE	0.259	0.001	0.015	0.000	1165	273
893	Tea Faber	CRO	0.259	-0.012	0.012	0.000	1052	159
894	Alexandra Grinchishina	KAZ	0.258	0.016	-0.001	0.000	1015	121
895	Khristina Kazimova	N/A	0.257	-0.017	-0.003	-0.003	N/A	N/A
896	Nidhi Chilumula	IND	0.257	-0.004	0.024	0.021	677	-219
897	Yoshimi Kawasaki	JPN	0.257	0.001	-0.007	-0.010	1153	256
898	Diana Isaeva	RUS	0.255	-0.016	0.007	0.000	903	5
899	Guadalupe Perez Rojas	ARG	0.254	-0.006	0.000	0.000	915	16
900	Aida Martinez Sanjuan	ESP	0.252	-0.012	-0.009	0.000	1165	265
				Surface Factors
Rank	Player	Nation	Base Rank	Clay	Hard	Grass	WTA Rank	Diff
901	Laura Deigman	GBR	0.252	-0.009	-0.005	-0.003	1015	114
902	Sandra Gonzalez-Salas	N/A	0.252	-0.003	-0.011	0.000	N/A	N/A
903	Stefania Fadabini	N/A	0.252	-0.036	0.024	0.000	N/A	N/A
904	Evgeniya Svintsova	RUS	0.251	-0.017	0.007	0.000	879	-25
905	Jil Nora Engelmann	N/A	0.251	-0.012	0.009	0.000	N/A	N/A
906	Olga Parres Azcoitia	ESP	0.250	-0.007	-0.003	0.000	1000	94
907	Elena Burrone	N/A	0.250	0.003	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
908	Varvara Kuznetsova	RUS	0.250	-0.009	-0.010	0.000	1052	144
909	Ainhoa Atucha Gomez	ESP	0.249	-0.011	-0.007	0.000	1052	143
910	Alessia Camplone	N/A	0.248	-0.002	-0.008	0.000	N/A	N/A
911	Yasmine Guimaraes	BRA	0.246	-0.004	-0.005	0.000	739	-172
912	Martina Pradova	CZE	0.246	-0.017	0.000	0.000	1121	209
913	Milena Zubkov	TUR	0.246	-0.010	-0.008	0.000	1096	183
914	Dagmara Baskova	N/A	0.245	0.010	0.000	0.000	N/A	N/A
915	Noelia Zeballos	BOL	0.245	0.014	0.001	0.000	1121	206
916	Yelena Nemchen	KAZ	0.245	0.002	0.011	0.000	966	50
917	Flavia Guimaraes Bueno	BRA	0.243	0.005	0.001	0.000	763	-154
918	Lutfiye Esen	N/A	0.242	0.007	-0.009	0.000	N/A	N/A
919	Liz Tatiane Koehler Bogarin	BRA	0.240	-0.007	0.004	0.000	917	-2
920	Stefana Andrei	N/A	0.239	-0.011	0.013	0.000	N/A	N/A
921	Andjela Novcic	SRB	0.239	-0.014	-0.020	0.000	1068	147
922	Beatriz Maria Martins Cecato	N/A	0.237	-0.012	-0.026	0.000	N/A	N/A
923	Julie Tringa	FRA	0.235	-0.004	-0.004	0.000	1121	198
924	Maria-Jesus Ibanez-Galindo	N/A	0.234	-0.011	-0.007	0.000	N/A	N/A
925	Melina Ferrero	ARG	0.233	-0.014	0.013	0.000	1121	196
926	Simone Kalhorn	USA	0.233	-0.006	-0.001	0.000	1024	98
927	Oleksandra Piskun	N/A	0.233	-0.016	-0.002	0.000	N/A	N/A
928	Beatriz Morales Hernandez	N/A	0.230	-0.001	-0.015	0.000	N/A	N/A
929	Karina Venditti	BRA	0.227	-0.036	-0.001	0.000	855	-74
930	Jazmin Britos	PAR	0.225	0.007	0.000	0.000	1000	70
931	Raquel Piltcher	BRA	0.224	0.021	-0.005	0.000	1015	84
932	Veronica Saucedo	N/A	0.222	-0.017	0.004	0.000	N/A	N/A
933	Ingrid Vargas Calvo	N/A	0.221	-0.010	-0.003	0.000	N/A	N/A
934	Barbara Montiel	ARG	0.221	0.001	0.000	0.000	1009	75
935	Kerstin Peckl	N/A	0.221	0.028	-0.008	0.000	N/A	N/A
936	Alina Mikheeva	RUS	0.213	-0.018	-0.006	0.000	956	20
937	Dariya Berezhnaya	KAZ	0.208	0.005	-0.014	0.000	1121	184
938	Ani Vangelova	BUL	0.207	0.001	-0.005	0.000	1104	166
939	Jasmin Ladurner	N/A	0.205	-0.007	-0.021	0.000	N/A	N/A
940	Ekaterina Tsiklauri	N/A	0.203	0.001	0.002	0.000	N/A	N/A
941	Stamatia Fafaliou	GRE	0.201	0.000	-0.003	0.000	897	-44
942	Anette Munozova	SWE	0.199	0.016	-0.001	0.000	1121	179
943	Mary-Ann Balint	N/A	0.198	0.038	-0.021	-0.001	N/A	N/A
944	Flavia Dechandt Araujo	BRA	0.197	0.017	-0.002	0.000	1068	124
945	Anna Velica	N/A	0.195	-0.004	-0.013	0.000	N/A	N/A
946	Marcela Bueno	N/A	0.192	-0.023	-0.004	0.000	N/A	N/A
947	Paula Feitosa	BRA	0.190	0.000	-0.018	0.000	902	-45
948	Ivette Lopez	N/A	0.174	-0.015	-0.002	0.000	N/A	N/A
949	Aselya Arginbayeva	N/A	0.170	-0.017	-0.007	0.000	N/A	N/A

---

Rock-M-Tology, 3-11-13

March 11, 2013, 10:47 am

≫ Next: Missouri Spring Football 2013: Pinkel speaks

≪ Previous: Advanced Baseline women's tennis rankings (March 11, 2013)

$

0

0

Notes:

• This week, I'm comparing my bracket to that of Mr. Bracketology himself, Joe Lunardi. (He finally has a Monday update, so it's finally a relevant comparison.)
• All told, our rankings/seedings aren't that far apart ... except when it comes to Wisconsin. My numbers hate the Badgers compared to whatever Lunardi's using.
• The goal for the week: another Rock-M-Tology on Thursday, followed by the final update on Sunday.

Who's overrated?

The Pac-12 - I barely had California in the Field of 68, and Lunardi has the Golden Bears as a 9-seed. I had Oregon only slightly safer, and Lunardi has also has the Ducks as a 9. Of course, on the flipside, I have Arizona safely on the 4-line, and Lunardi has them a 5. So really it's just two teams that have me confused.

Wisconsin (21-10) - Actually, the Badgers might just be underrated by me. Regardless, they're very confusing. They lost to every decent team they played in non-conference (at Florida, vs Creighton, at Marquette, Virginia at home), and they lost by 13 to Purdue at home. And they barely beat Penn State this weekend. That screams "8-seed!" to me. But then there's the matter of them winning at Indiana, beating Ohio State and Minnesota and sweeping Illinois. I still think 4 is far too high for them, but I acknowledge that if the committee indeed weights good wins more than losses, they could be in good shape.

Villanova (19-12) - A minor quibble here, but the Wildcats are my last team in the field, and Lunardi has them an 11-seed, safely out of the Last Four In.

Baylor (17-13) - Honestly, I have no idea why they're even a "First Four Out" team.

Who's underrated?

Boise State (21-9) - At 9-7 in the Mountain West, with wins over Colorado State, San Diego State and UNLV (and Creighton in non-conference), I think the Broncos should be semi-safe at the moment, not among the Last Four In. The Mountain West has been absurdly strong this year, and despite an atrocious non-conference slate, BSU should be more comfortable than it actually is.

St. Mary's (26-5) - It's minor, but I have SMC on the 8-9 line, not as a teetering 10.

San Diego State (21-9) - When I initially laid out the numbers, I had them as a 7-seed, not a 9. So basically, the Pac-12 is overrated, and all the other western conferences are underrated. Not quite what I expected from these numbers, but we'll go with it.

Middle Tennessee (28-5) - The Blue Raiders just saw a 17-game winning streak end in the Sun Belt semis at the hands of Florida International, and Lunardi has them in his First Four Out. Come on. They're 28-5, they're No. 31 in Pomeroy's rankings, they're No. 28 in RPI, and they beat Ole Miss. Of their five losses, three were to likely tourney teams (Florida, Akron, and Belmont, all on the road), and a fourth was in overtime on the road (Arkansas State). They've earned a shot in the First Four if nothing else.

Last Few In

Names in italics would be among the last in without their conference's automatic bid.

Boise State (19-9)
Temple (23-8)
La Salle (21-8)
Oregon (23-8)
Middle Tennessee (28-5)
Kentucky (21-10)
California (20-10)
Villanova (18-12)
Bucknell (26-5)

First Few Out

Virginia (21-10)
Tennessee (19-11)
Southern Miss (21-8)
Iowa (20-11)
Ole Miss (23-8)
Stanford (18-13)
Baylor (17-13)
New Mexico State (20-10)

By Conference

8 - Big East
6 - Big Ten
5 - Atlantic 10, Big 12, Mountain West, Pac-12
4 - ACC
3 - SEC
2 - Missouri Valley, Sun Belt, WCC

The Bracket

FIRST FOUR (in Dayton)

Middle Tennesse vs. Villanova
Kentucky vs. California

Mount St. Mary's vs. Southern
Northeastern vs. Liberty

EAST REGIONAL (in Washington, DC)

1 Duke vs. 16 N.C. Central
8 Minnesota vs. 9 St. Mary's
in Lexington

5 Kansas State vs. 12 Middle Tennessee / Villanova
4 Syracuse vs. 13 Stephen F. Austin
in Austin

6 Pittsburgh vs. 11 Temple
3 Michigan State vs. 14 Davidson
in Auburn Hills

7 UCLA vs. 10 Iowa State
2 New Mexico vs. 15 Vermont
in Salt Lake City

WEST REGIONAL (in Los Angeles)

1 Gonzaga vs. 16 Pacific
8 Notre Dame vs. 9 Missouri
in San Jose

5 Butler vs. 12 Bucknell
4 Arizona vs. 13 Akron
in Salt Lake City

6 UNLV vs. 11 Belmont
3 Ohio State vs. 14 Harvard
in Philadelphia

7 North Carolina vs. 10 Oklahoma
2 Georgetown vs. 15 Florida Gulf Coast
in Philadelphia

MIDWEST REGIONAL (in Indianapolis)

1 Indiana vs. 16 Northeastern / Liberty
8 N.C. State vs. 9 Colorado
in Dayton

5 VCU vs. 12 Oregon
4 Marquette vs. 13 Valparaiso
in San Jose

6 Colorado State vs. 11 La Salle
3 Florida vs. 14 South Dakota State
in Austin

7 Creighton vs. 10 CincinnatI
2 Kansas vs. 15 Florida International
in Kansas City

SOUTH REGIONAL (in Arlington)

1 Louisville vs. 16 Mt. St. Mary's / Southern
8 San Diego State vs. 9 Illinois
in Dayton

5 St. Louis vs. 12 Kentucky / California
4 Oklahoma State vs. 13 Louisiana Tech
in Kansas City

6 Wisconsin vs. 11 Boise State
3 Michigan vs. 14 Weber State
in Auburn Hills

7 Memphis vs. 10 Wichita State
2 Miami vs. 15 Iona
in Lexington

My At-First-Glance Final Four

Duke-Georgetown-Indiana-Michigan

Second glance: Syracuse-Ohio State-Florida-Louisville

Missouri's inevitable path to destiny™ (ahem)

Notre Dame-Gonzaga-Arizona-Georgetown-Duke-Indiana. Let's do it.

Missouri Spring Football 2013: Pinkel speaks

March 11, 2013, 11:00 am

≫ Next: Mizzou Links, 3-12-13

≪ Previous: Rock-M-Tology, 3-11-13

$

0

0

A summary of Tweets from today's sitdown between Gary Pinkel and local media:

Pinkel talks with a few reporters today, describes himself frequently as "driven," after Missouri's first losing season since 2004.

— Joe Walljasper (@JoeWalljasper) March 11, 2013

Pinkel: "I don't need anybody to tell me the importance of going to bowl games. I'm driven, man."

— Joe Walljasper (@JoeWalljasper) March 11, 2013

Among other notable MU football news, Pinkel said Henry Josey recently ran 4.44 in the 40, did well in agility drills, is ready to practice.

— Joe Walljasper (@JoeWalljasper) March 11, 2013

A few highlights from a three-man sit down with #Mizzou coach Gary Pinkel: 1) Said RBs Hansbrough and Steward both ran laser-timed 4.3 40s..

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

Pinkel was very complimentary of redshirt freshman DT Harold Brantley. Said he wouldn't have redshirted at #Mizzou in most years.

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

3) TE Sean Culkin is up to 245 pounds and runs a 4.5. Pinkel also confirmed Josey's 4.4 40 and said he should be full go in spring camp.

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

Pinkel didn't get specific on offensive changes but hopes to involve tight end more with Waters and Culkin and use fewer empty backfields.

— Joe Walljasper (@JoeWalljasper) March 11, 2013

4) Pinkel made it clear that he's a competitor and he's excited about the upcoming season. Says he's given zero thought to retirement.

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

5) Pinkel also said it would be fair and accurate to say you'll see less empty sets this year, though #Mizzou will still be a spread team.

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

6) Pinkel on Maty Mauk, who seems to be very much in the QB race: "He's got a very strong arm. He can throw the ball 75 yards."#Mizzou

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

I think it's revealing that Pinkel - when talking about Mauk - again referred to Brad Smith, who beat out a three-year starter as a freshman

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

7) Pinkel said DGB rolled his ankle in mat drills and had his foot in a boot, but recently ran a 4.4 40 and he's "probably" faster than that

— Terez A. Paylor (@TerezPaylor) March 11, 2013

Henry Josey, DGB, Sean Culkin, fewer empty sets, Harold Brantley, Maty Mauk ... wow ... just tossing out red meat right and left there, huh?

Mizzou Links, 3-12-13

March 12, 2013, 6:33 am

≫ Next: 2013 Buffalo football's 10 things to know: Extensions and experience

≪ Previous: Missouri Spring Football 2013: Pinkel speaks

$

0

0

Mizzou Basketball Links

• SEC Tournament
  MUtigers.com: Mizzou Basketball Heads to the SEC Tournament
  The Trib: Without any dominant teams, SEC Tournament could be wild
  The Missourian: Missouri braces for SEC Tournament play
  KC Star: Tigers feel ready for their first SEC tournament game
  PowerMizzou: SEC Tournament Preview
  PowerMizzou: Mizzou's Second Chance
  The Maneater: Missouri basketball prepares for first SEC tournament
  The Dagger: SEC Tournament preview: Florida aims to prove it's reliable away from home
• Media Day
  The Trib (Steve Walentik): Tigers meet the media
  PowerMizzou: PMTV-HD: Hoops Media Day
• Well ... Yeah...
  Post-Dispatch: Mizzou's season will be defined by finish
• Do We Have To?
  KC Star: MU film room: Breaking down another close road loss
• Because We Didn't Have Enough Reasons To Like Him...
  MUtigers.com: Laurence Bowers Named to SEC Community Service Team

Other Basketball Links

• Fun
  Grantland: The Most Hated College Basketball Players of the Last 30 Years

Mizzou Football Links

• Spring Ball
  The Trib (Dave Matter): Tigers release pre-spring depth chart
  The Trib: Q&A with Gary Pinkel
  KC Star: Tigers set for first spring football practice
  Post-Dispatch: Pinkel eager to put 2012 behind with start of spring football
  PowerMizzou: Spring Preview: Linebacker

Mizzou Diamond Sports Links

• The Home Stand Continues
  MUtigers.com: Tigers Host Jackson State in Midweek Contest
  SimmonsField.com: MIZZOU MATCHUP: Jackson State Tigers
  MUtigers.com: Baseball Adds Game Wednesday vs. Truman State
• The Week That Was
  MUtigers.com: The Extra Nine
• WHATNOT
  SimmonsField.com: HI NOTES: Free Live Streaming is Back (and other less important whatnot)

Other Mizzou Links

• Mizzou Wrestling
  The Trib: MU wrestlers have chance to end school's national title drought
  KC Star: MU wrestlers win MAC title
  Post-Dispatch: Mizzou wins conference wrestling
• Mizzou Women's Basketball
  The Trib: Research says Missouri women in WNIT
• Mizzou Swimming & Diving
  MUtigers.com: Divers Ready for NCAA Zone D Championships
  MUtigers.com: Tigers Conclude Action at American Short Course Championships
• Mizzou Moves
  Mizzou Network (YouTube): Mizzou Moves at Paxton Keeley Elementary School

2013 Buffalo football's 10 things to know: Extensions and experience

March 12, 2013, 7:00 am

≫ Next: Spring football 2013: Pinkel vs. Pinkel

≪ Previous: Mizzou Links, 3-12-13

$

0

0

Confused? Check out the glossary here.

1. Jeff Quinn got himself a contract extension

You can understand fan discontent. In 2010, Jeff Quinn took over a Buffalo team that had won 18 games in three seasons after winning just 12 in the preceding eight years. Buffalo won six games per year in 2007-09 and has won just three per year since. That's not good. And when Quinn received a contract extension in November, as a 4-8 campaign was wrapping up, one had to figure Buffalo fans weren't altogether pleased. And they weren't.

Honestly? I kind of liked the move. It's true that Quinn still had two years left on his deal and was therefore not yet entering "lame duck" status. But it's also true that, after bottoming out in 2010 (2-10, No. 110 in the F/+ rankings), the Bulls improved in 2011 (3-9, No. 103), then improved again in 2012 (4-8, No. 92). Most programs are not in a place to fire somebody after two consecutive years of improvement unless they know they can get somebody better; Buffalo probably can't. In extending Quinn's deal, Buffalo was essentially saying that it sees what's ahead in 2013 -- an extremely experienced, rather interesting UB squad facing a MAC in transition -- and likes it. Progress has been both undeniable and slow, but the faith in Quinn could pay off in 2013.

(And if you want to question what the core of talent will look like after 2013, after a couple of years of pretty horrid recruiting rankings, go ahead. I only kind of liked the extention, after all.)

2. There are two ways to win in the MAC

Teams that win big in the MAC have either a breakthrough talent (probably at quarterback) or the most experienced squad. It is difficult to compile more experience than what Buffalo will have in 2013: two experienced starting quarterbacks (each of whom threw at least 160 passes last year), a solid pair of running backs (and an interesting junior college transfer), an interesting No. 1 receiver, 72 returning starts on the offensive line, and an aggressive 3-4 defense that returns eight starters, including linebacker Khalil Mack, who has amassed at least 20 tackles for loss in back-to-back seasons.

In all, Buffalo returns 17 starters -- a total that all but guarantees improvement -- and its entire special teams unit (which, honestly, might not be a good thing, but still). Quinn has been building with an eye on 2013 for a while now, and if the team stays healthy and grows as projected, the Bulls should expect to return to a bowl for the first time since Turner Gill's 2008 Bulls won the MAC.

2012 Schedule & Results

Record: 4-8 | Adj. Record: 4-8 | Final F/+ Rk: 92
Date	Opponent	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L
1-Sep	at Georgia	23-45	L	24.7 - 32.7	L
8-Sep	Morgan State	56-34	W	41.6 - 48.6	L
19-Sep	Kent State	7-23	L	14.8 - 22.8	L
29-Sep	at Connecticut	17-24	L	29.2 - 36.8	L
6-Oct	at Ohio	31-38	L	30.3 - 23.5	W
13-Oct	at Northern Illinois	3-45	L	19.1 - 29.7	L
20-Oct	Pittsburgh	6-20	L	22.0 - 20.2	W
27-Oct	Toledo	20-25	L	17.5 - 23.5	L
3-Nov	Miami (Ohio)	27-24	W	22.2 - 20.0	W
10-Nov	Western Michigan	29-24	W	25.8 - 23.6	W
17-Nov	at Massachusetts	29-19	W	22.6 - 25.3	L
23-Nov	Bowling Green	7-21	L	15.5 - 19.9	L

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
Points Per Game	21.3	101	28.5	69
Adj. Points Per Game	23.8	100	27.2	58

3. Three seasons in one

It was an odd fall at UB. In September, a good Buffalo offense was betrayed a bit by a shoddy defense. In October, the defense improved dramatically, and the offense regressed. In November, the defense improved even more, and the offense regressed again.

Adj. Points per Game (first 4 games): Opponent 35.3, Buffalo 27.6 (minus-7.7)
Adj. Points per Game (next 4 games): Opponent 24.3, Buffalo 22.3 (minus-2.1)
Adj. Points per Game (last 4 games): Opponent 22.2, Buffalo 21.5 (minus-0.7)

Over the final seven games of the season, Buffalo had one of the best mid-major defenses in the country. The Bulls were aggressive on all downs, and it looked good on them. Of course, having wrecking ball Khalil Mack at outside linebacker didn't hurt, but he got plenty of help. The offense, meanwhile, just couldn't quite fall into place. Quarterback Alex Zordich was competent, if scatter-shot, but results were sporadic, and he missed the final four games of the season with injury. His replacement, Joe Licata, wasn't any more accurate. In the end, Buffalo had a decent run game, a good line, and a couple of interesting receivers, but the passing game was just too inefficient, and it became more so as the year progressed. But that defense ... you can talk yourself into Buffalo because of hte defense alone.

Offense

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	85	111	113	107
RUSHING	47	89	93	84
PASSING	97	109	113	101
Standard Downs		97	105	90
Passing Downs		114	112	112
Redzone		49	48	51

Q1 Rk	109	1st Down Rk	74
Q2 Rk	100	2nd Down Rk	117
Q3 Rk	81	3rd Down Rk	108
Q4 Rk	99

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2013 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Comp	Att	Yards	Comp Rate	TD	INT	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Alex Zordich	6'3, 222	Sr.	** (5.3)	106	208	1,254	51.0%	9	7	11	5.0%	5.5
Joe Licata	6'2, 217	So.	*** (5.5)	86	163	1,045	52.8%	7	3	16	8.9%	5.3
Tony Daniel	6'5, 203	So.	** (5.3)	1	2	10	50.0%	0	0	0	0.0%	5.0
Collin Michael	6'5, 224	RSFr.	*** (5.5)

4. Accuracy is good

Alex Zordich looks the part. He's the proper size of an NFL quarterback, and he's a solid runner. But as the UB Bull Run meme above would suggest, he's got a bit of an accuracy problem.

In three starts as a freshman in 2010, Zordich completed just 41 percent of his passes, and while he absolutely improved in 2012 -- 14-for-24 against Georgia, 18-for-29 against Northern Illinois, 23-for-41 against Pittsburgh, 16-for-21 against Morgan State -- his low notes were still awfully low. In a 23-7 loss to Kent State, he had a rather unfathomable passing line: 4-for-22 for 92 yards, a touchdown and two picks. If you count his interceptions as completions, it still only raises his completion rate to 27 percent. Brutal. He also completed just 13 of 30 against UConn and five of 16 against Toledo.

Now, it's probably unfair to stick this all on Zordich. First of all, his replacement, Licata, really didn't fare any better when Zordich was hurt. Licata's completion rate was slightly higher but was more than mitigated by his propensity for taking sacks. That suggests that the receiving corps also left something to be desired. Despite two different quarterbacks, none of Buffalo's top six passing targets managed a catch rate better than 58 percent. That's not good.

Buffalo wants to lean on the run as much as possible, and with Zordich carving out yards alongside backs Branden Oliver and Devin Campbell, that could be a good thing. But they'll need to pass at some point. Can they?

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	TD	Adj. POE
Branden Oliver	RB	5'8, 202	Sr.	*** (5.5)	148	821	5.5	5.1	5	-2.6
Devin Campbell	RB	5'11, 195	So.	** (5.2)	115	502	4.4	4.1	2	-2.6
Alex Zordich	QB	6'3, 222	Sr.	** (5.3)	89	543	6.1	4.9	1	+11.2
Brandon Murie	RB	5'9, 186	Sr.	NR	56	221	3.9	2.7	2	-4.9
Rashad Jean	FB				17	73	4.3	1.7	0	-3.0
Joe Licata	QB	6'3, 222	Sr.	*** (5.5)	12	37	3.1	1.6	0	-2.7
Alex Dennison	TE	6'1, 246	Sr.	** (4.9)	7	18	2.6	0.5	2	-1.3
James Potts	RB	5'11, 196	Jr.	*** (5.6)	2	54	27.0	N/A	1	N/A

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Yds/ Target	Target Rate	%SD	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Alex Neutz	WR	6'3, 205	Sr.	** (4.9)	118	65	1070	55.1%	9.1	33.1%	56.8%	9.1	107.5
Devon Hughes	WR	6'0, 190	Jr.	*** (5.5)	40	23	228	57.5%	5.7	11.2%	60.0%	5.7	22.9
Fred Lee	WR	6'2, 201	Sr.	** (5.2)	33	17	261	51.5%	7.9	9.3%	51.5%	7.8	26.2
Rudy Johnson	WR	6'1, 186	Jr.	** (5.3)	32	16	182	50.0%	5.7	9.0%	43.8%	6.4	18.3
Jimmy Gordon	TE	6'5, 260	Sr.	** (4.9)	30	17	162	56.7%	5.4	8.4%	60.0%	5.4	16.3
Cordero Dixon	WR	5'11, 186	Jr.	** (5.4)	28	10	96	35.7%	3.4	7.9%	67.9%	3.5	9.6
Devin Campbell	RB	5'11, 195	So.	** (5.2)	27	21	171	77.8%	6.3	7.6%	48.1%	6.5	17.2
John Dunmore	WR	6'0, 177	Jr.	NR	18	10	106	55.6%	5.9	5.1%	61.1%	5.9	10.6
Alex Dennison	TE	6'1, 246	Sr.	** (4.9)	12	6	64	50.0%	5.3	3.4%	50.0%	5.4	6.4
Branden Oliver	RB	5'8, 202	Sr.	*** (5.5)	9	7	25	77.8%	2.8	2.5%	22.2%	1.7	2.5
Matt Weiser	TE	6'5, 244	So.	** (5.3)	5	1	15	20.0%	3.0	1.4%	40.0%	4.5	1.5
Brandon Murie	RB	5'9, 186	Sr.	NR	2	1	4	50.0%	2.0	0.6%	0.0%	0.8	0.4
Marcus McGill	WR	6'1, 211	RSFr.	** (5.4)
Jamari Elland	WR	5'11, 175	Fr.	*** (5.5)
Boise Ross	WR	5'11, 180	Fr.	** (5.4)

5. If the quarterback position is capable, things fall into place

Whoever wins the starting job -- be it Zordich, Licata or a third-party candidate -- inherits a strong backfield, a solid line (the left side of it, anyway) and a receiving corps that is, at least, quite a bit more experienced than it was last year. Junior college transfer James Potts joins the party at running back, Alex Neutz is a big-play threat in the No. 1 receiver spot, and some interesting youngsters could carve out a niche in the passing game. Two-year starting left tackle Andre Davis returns, and while the line must replace two starters on the right side, experienced former starters are available to replace them. There are plenty of reasons to assume Buffalo's offense will improve in 2013, but the velocity of the improvement will be determined by the reliability of the quarterback.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	105.3	3.09	3.36	39.9%	75.8%	15.9%	85.1	6.2%	6.9%
Rank	46	45	52	56	22	17	83	89	70

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Career Starts/Honors/Notes
Graham Whinery	RG				36 career starts
Andre Davis	LT	6'4, 303	Jr.	** (5.2)	24 career starts
Gokhan Ozkan	RT				24 career starts
Jasen Carlson	LG	6'1, 301	Sr.	** (5.2)	19 career starts
Trevor Sales	C	6'2, 318	Jr.	** (5.4)	12 career starts
Pat Wilson	LT	6'4, 278	Sr.	** (4.9)	11 career starts
Dillon Guy	RG	6'4, 318	Jr.	** (5.2)	6 career starts
John Kling	LT	6'7, 310	So.	** (5.2)
Robert Blodgett	LG	6'5, 306	So.	NR
Jessie Back	LG	6'4, 294	So.	NR
Gabriel Barbe	C	6'6, 298	Jr.	NR
Jake Silas	RT	6'7, 316	Jr.	NR
Robert Riche	OL	6'6, 270	RSFr.	** (5.4)

Defense

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	37	62	63	62
RUSHING	56	64	66	60
PASSING	31	65	60	70
Standard Downs		61	64	62
Passing Downs		57	55	58
Redzone		45	44	48

Q1 Rk	24	1st Down Rk	74
Q2 Rk	79	2nd Down Rk	59
Q3 Rk	108	3rd Down Rk	52
Q4 Rk	20

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	98.0	2.82	2.95	35.7%	69.8%	16.9%	151.9	5.6%	13.4%
Rank	68	46	38	27	79	94	5	31	3

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Steven Means	DE				12	58.5	8.8%	11	6.5	0	2	0	0
Colby Way	DE	6'4, 276	Sr.	** (5.2)	12	43.0	6.4%	10.5	7	1	2	0	1
Wyatt Cahill	NG				12	17.0	2.5%	0.5	0	0	1	0	0
Kristjan Sokoli	DE	6'5, 287	Jr.	** (5.2)	12	14.0	2.1%	3	0	0	1	0	0
Dalton Barksdale	NG	6'3, 297	Jr.	NR	11	7.5	1.1%	0.5	0	0	1	0	0
Beau Bachtelle	DL	6'5, 272	Sr.	** (5.2)	12	7.0	1.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Albert McCoy	DL	6'4, 276	RSFr.	** (5.4)
Tedroy Lynch	DE	6'2, 250	Jr.	** (5.2)
Brandon Crawford	DE	6'3, 228	Fr.	** (5.3)
Solomon Jackson	DE	6'2, 230	Fr.	** (5.3)

6. Buffalo was rock solid in the trenches (on both sides of the ball) in 2012

Top 50 in offensive Adj. Line Yards, top 70 in defensive Adj. Line Yards, great short-yardage blocking and a fierce pass rush? Buffalo's trench work was quite good in 2012. Two starters are gone from the defensive line, but a) end Kristjan Sokoli was solid in backup duty, and b) part of the defensive line's success had to do with support from the linebacking corps, three-fourths of which remains intact.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Khalil Mack	OLB	6'3, 245	Sr.	** (4.9)	11	73.0	10.9%	21	8	0	2	4	0
Lee Skinner	ILB	6'2, 226	Jr.	NR	12	62.5	9.4%	8.5	5	0	1	1	0
Jake Stockman	ILB	6'2, 235	Jr.	** (5.4)	12	43.0	6.4%	4	2.5	0	2	1	0
Willie Moseley	OLB				12	38.0	5.7%	5.5	2.5	1	0	0	1
Dalonte Wallace	OLB				6	18.0	2.7%	1.5	1	0	0	0	0
Scott Pettigrew	ILB				8	9.0	1.3%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Khari Brown	ILB	6'1, 229	Jr.	** (5.4)	12	6.0	0.9%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kendall Roberson	LB	6'2, 227	Jr.	** (5.2)	11	2.0	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Imani Chatman	OLB				6	0.5	0.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Blake Bean	LB	6'1, 235	Jr.	** (5.2)

7. Khalil Mack is a badass

Sometimes you uncover the proverbial diamond in the rough. As a recruit, Khalil Mack barely even garnered a two-star rating. But in three years, he has been one of the most terrifying mid-major defenders in the country. As a redshirt freshman in 2010, he was better than most upper-classmen, logging 14.5 tackles for loss and 4.5 sacks. In 2011, he raised his game: 20.5 TFLs, 5.5 sacks. And despite constant attention from opposing offenses, he somehow improved his stats again last fall: 21.0 TFLs, 8.0 sacks. He gets special attention and still thrives, and that (not surprisingly) does wonders for the players around him. Lee Skinner and Jake Stockman combined for another 12.5 TFLs from the inside, and returning end Colby Way had 10.5. Buffalo's pas rush was strong enough that opponents had to run to move the ball, and over the final two months of the season, Buffalo was equally strong at defending that. UB does have some losses to deal with in its front seven -- on the first string of the line and the second string of the linebacking corps -- but Mack and company should still expect to make a lot of stops in 2013. Two months of sustained improvement in 2012 suggests very good things about 2013.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Derek Brim	S	6'0, 188	Jr.	NR	12	40.0	6.0%	2	0	0	2	0	0
Najja Johnson	CB	6'0, 182	Sr.	NR	12	35.0	5.2%	0.5	0	5	6	0	0
Witney Sherry	FS	6'0, 185	Jr.	** (5.2)	7	32.5	4.9%	0	0	0	3	0	0
Cortney Lester	CB	6'0, 179	Jr.	** (5.2)	11	30.5	4.6%	0	0	4	6	0	0
Isaac Baugh	SS				12	29.0	4.3%	1.5	0.5	0	2	0	0
Adam Redden	SS	6'1, 193	Sr.	** (5.2)	10	22.5	3.4%	2	0	1	2	0	0
Okoye Houston	SS	6'0, 201	Sr.	*** (5.6)	12	19.0	2.8%	3	1	1	0	0	0
Carlos Lammons	CB	5'8, 176	Sr.	** (4.9)	10	15.5	2.3%	1	0	0	1	0	1
Marqus Baker	CB	5'10, 177	So.	** (5.3)	12	15.0	2.2%	2	0	0	6	0	0
Kyndal Minniefield	FS	6'0, 185	So.	** (5.2)	12	5.5	0.8%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dwellie Striggles	CB	5'10, 185	Jr.	** (5.4)	11	3.0	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Okezie Alozie	DB	6'0, 200	So.	** (5.3)	10	2.5	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Brandon Berry	DB	6'0, 201	RSFr.	** (5.4)
Houston Glass	DB	6'1, 190	Fr.	** (5.3)
James Coleman	DB	6'3, 195	Fr.	** (5.3)

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Tyler Grassman	6'1, 190	So.	80	35.3	3	28	19	58.8%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	TB%
Patrick Clarke	6'1, 197	Jr.	51	52.9	13	25.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Patrick Clarke	6'1, 197	Jr.	28-29	7-10	70.0%	4-5	80.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Okoye Houston	KR	6'0, 201	Sr.	13	19.1	0
Brandon Murie	KR	5'9, 186	Sr.	11	18.4	0
Devin Campbell	KR	5'11, 195	So.	10	21.9	0
Cordero Dixon	PR	5'11, 186	Jr.	10	3.1	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	119
Net Punting	121
Net Kickoffs	122
Touchback Pct	96
Field Goal Pct	57
Kick Returns Avg	109
Punt Returns Avg	106

8. Special teams was flaky

Buffalo had its moments in special teams -- the Bulls blocked two PATs versus Toledo, turned the UMass game around with a blocked punt, and got steady play from kicker Patrick Clarke all year -- but the unit was still lacking overall. Punt and kick coverage was dreadful (suggesting that there was not much athleticism on the team beyond the first string, since the coverage units are typically made of reserves), and the return men were lacking, too. This probably isn't going to change in 2013, but some more timely blocked kicks would certainly mitigate some of the damage here.

2013 Schedule & Projection Factors

2012 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
31-Aug	at Ohio State	10
7-Sep	at Baylor	36
14-Sep	Stony Brook	NR
28-Sep	Connecticut	58
5-Oct	Eastern Michigan	118
12-Oct	at Western Michigan	93
19-Oct	Massachusetts	124
26-Oct	at Kent State	80
5-Nov	Ohio	83
12-Nov	at Toledo	62
19-Nov	at Miami (Ohio)	106
29-Nov	Bowling Green	67

Five-Year F/+ Rk	97
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	123
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	-6 / +1.4
TO Luck/Game	-3.1
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	16 (9, 7)
Yds/Pt Margin**	+4.9

9. There are expectations

The folks at UB Bull Run are calling for 7-5 (6-2) against the above schedule. That may seem like a lot for a team that has won seven games in the last two years, but if it's going to happen, it's going to happen in 2013. Most of this team's difference-makers -- Mack, Oliver, Neutz, etc. -- are seniors. We don't know if a new window of opportunity will open for Quinn in 2014, but this one closes soon.

10. Buffalo should meet those expectations

Honestly, after a couple of blood-lettings against Ohio State and Baylor to start the year, the Bulls should have a chance in almost every game they play, aside from perhaps the trip to Toledo. A mature team with an interesting defense, Buffalo should expect at least six wins and bowl eligibility in 2013; anything less than that will represent a terrible missed opportunity and make that Quinn extension look awfully misguided.

Follow @SBNationCFBFollow @SBNRecruiting

Spring football 2013: Pinkel vs. Pinkel

March 12, 2013, 7:19 am

≫ Next: 2013 Missouri spring football practice: Tigers aim to forget 2012

≪ Previous: 2013 Buffalo football's 10 things to know: Extensions and experience

$

0

0

"To win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to ____." We heard that a lot from outsiders (usually accompanied by a condescending tone) heading into Mizzou's first football season in its new conference, and we heard it even more from Mizzou media and fans in the months following the disappointing 5-7 campaign. To win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to change up its offense. To win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to get bigger up front. And as we heard ad nauseum on and around National Signing Day, to win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to recruit better. The No. 41 class in the country just isn't going to cut it.

To be sure, there's truth here. If Missouri improves its offense (through changes, maturation, whatever), gets bigger (and, in theory, better) in the trenches, and starts landing better recruits, it will probably win more games. It's not rocket science. But at the same time, it kind of misses the point. Before we know what Missouri needs to do better or different, before we come to truly understand what pieces of Gary Pinkel's "process" need permanent alteration, we need to see what Missouri can do when it actually fields a Gary Pinkel team. Because we certainly didn't see it in 2012.

One of the benefits of using advanced stats is, of course, the opponent adjustment aspect of it. If you move to a better conference, your raw numbers might regress even if you stay the same or improve in terms of overall quality.

Over the past five seasons, Missouri's offense had ranked in the Off. F/+ Top 25 four times -- fourth in 2007, ninth in 2008, 17th in 2010 and 24th in 2011. If the Tigers' offense had once again been the 24th-best in the country in 2012, their raw numbers would have regressed a bit because of the fact that they played one of the most ridiculous slates of defenses in the country: five Missouri opponents ranked in the Def. F/+ Top 20 (No. 1 Alabama, No. 2 Florida, No. 7 South Carolina, No. 15 Texas A&M, No. 18 Georgia), and another three ranked in the Top 45 (No. 31 Arizona State, No. 35 Vanderbilt, No. 42 UCF). Of course Missouri's points and yards per game were going to regress; but they didn't just regress, they plummeted. Mizzou fell all the way to an unfathomable 85th in Off. F/+ in 2012. And remember, that's an opponent-adjusted figure.

We know why this happened, of course, at least to an extent. James Franklin got hurt on four separate occasions (shoulder in the spring, shoulder again in the Georgia game, MCL in the Vanderbilt game, concussion in the Syracuse game), Henry Josey was busy rehabbing a catastrophic knee injury, and Missouri's line got Elvis Fisher back (after missing 2011) just in time to lose Travis Ruth (for the season), Taylor Chappell (for the season), Jack Meiners (for most of the season), Justin Britt (for the last few games), Mitch Morse (for a while), and Fisher again (for a while).

The offensive coordinator was overworked, the quarterback couldn't stay healthy (and the backup was inconsistent at best), the best player on the team didn't suit up, and the line was a mishmash of spare parts. The offense would have certainly gained a few more yards and scored a few more points in the Big 12, but it would have stunk regardless. This, of course, flies in the face of the "They weren't ready for the SEC" meme that took shape. It's not that they weren't ready for the SEC; it's that they weren't ready to field even a decent offense. We can debate how much of the struggle was simply because of bad luck and how much was due to an unacceptable lack of depth (and it goes without saying that this year's team is going to have to figure out how to produce, injuries or no), but that doesn't really matter. Mizzou's offense stunk, and it would have stunk (relatively speaking) in any conference.

Year	Rivals.com Recruiting Class Rk	Rivals.com Per-Recruit Avg. Rk	5-Year Moving Avg. (per-recruit)
2002	29th	27th
2003	28th	29th
2004	46th	37th
2005	39th	31st
2006	47th	51st	35.0
2007	33rd	34th	36.4
2008	25th	32nd	37.0
2009	40th	50th	39.6
2010	21st	18th	37.0
2011	48th	29th	32.6
2012	31st	28th	31.4
2013	41st	34th	31.8

For years, Gary Pinkel has made his name taking Top 30-40 classes and creating a Top 15-30 product out of them. In 2007, Missouri produced a No. 9 final F/+ ranking with a roster that came from classes ranked 28th, 46th, 39th, 47th and 33rd (average rank: 38.6). In 2008, the Tigers ranked 14th with an average class rank of 38.0. In 2010, they ranked 13th with an average class rank of 33.2. In 2011, they ranked 22nd with an average class rank of 33.4.

At its best, Gary Pinkel's "process" produces results above what recruiting rankings would suggest. And if the "process" is operating properly, that doesn't have to change in a new conference. Granted, a Top 15 product is more likely to produce a 9-3 record instead of a 10-2 record in the SEC, but it would still be a Top 15 product. And granted, a Top 30 product might only go 7-5 or 8-4, but ... 7-5 is not 5-7. A 7-5 record in 2013 would represent a clear step forward. We'll worry about other steps after the first one.

QB James Franklin (6'2, 230, Sr.)
QB Corbin Berkstresser (6'3, 225, So.)
QB Maty Mauk (6'1, 200, RSFr.)
TB Marcus Murphy (5'9, 185, Jr.)
TB Russell Hansbrough (5'9, 185, So.)
TB Henry Josey (5'10, 190, Jr.)
WR-X Marcus Lucas (6'5, 220, Sr.)
WR-X Dorial Green-Beckham (6'6, 220, So.)
WR-H Bud Sasser (6'2, 210, Jr.)
WR-H Jimmie Hunt (6'1, 215, Jr.)
WR-Z L'Damian Washington (6'4, 200, Sr.)
TE Eric Waters (6'4, 245, Sr.)
TE Sean Culkin (6'6, 240, RSFr.)
LT Justin Britt (6'6, 320, Sr.)
LG Evan Boehm (6'3, 315, So.)
C Brad McNulty (6'4, 305, So.)
RG Max Copeland (6'3, 295, Sr.)
RT Mitch Morse (6'5, 305, Jr.)
RT Taylor Chappell (6'5, 320, So.)

There are a lot of exciting names on the pre-spring depth chart released yesterday. New offensive coordinator Josh Henson has quite a few toys in the toy box, and with the first semi-healthy two-deep in two years, he could engineer a pretty swift recovery. But after last season, the burden of proof is heavy. It doesn't really matter what the offense looks like on paper, or what its advanced ratings are; it has to produce. And it will have to even produce a little bit more to offset what could possibly be some regression on the defensive side of the ball.

To win in the SEC, you have to … field a good team. That's it. To win a lot in the SEC, you have to field a great team. It doesn't matter how you do it -- recruiting, development, blind luck -- it just matters that you do it. There's nothing saying the type of team Gary Pinkel produced for most of the 2006-11 range, with performance exceeding recruiting rankings by 10-20 spots, wouldn't fare alright in the SEC; maybe the records are slightly different (say, one win worse on average), and maybe at some point in the future we have to determine whether the quality of a good Pinkel product (Top 15-25 on average) is good enough. But in 2012, Missouri fielded its worst team since 2004. Maybe the Tigers pull off a 6-6 record in the Big 12, but last year didn't see the typical Pinkel product, and it's up to him to prove he can, at the very least, get Missouri back to where it was before the injuries came cascading in. Pinkel turned the program around starting in 2005; now he gets the chance to do it again.

In 2013, Gary Pinkel's goal isn't to change everything about his process because of Missouri's new conference; it's simply to prove that his process can still field a good team. That's it. And today, the work begins in earnest.

2013 Missouri spring football practice: Tigers aim to forget 2012

March 12, 2013, 7:24 am

≫ Next: Mizzou Links, 3-13-13

≪ Previous: Spring football 2013: Pinkel vs. Pinkel

$

0

0

Spring practice begins today.

"To win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to ____." We heard that a lot from outsiders (usually accompanied by a condescending tone) heading into Mizzou's first football season in its new conference, and we heard it even more from Mizzou media and fans in the months following the disappointing 5-7 campaign. To win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to change up its offense. To win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to get bigger up front. And as we heard ad nauseum on and around National Signing Day, to win in the SEC, Missouri's going to have to recruit better. The No. 41 class in the country just isn't going to cut it.

To be sure, there's truth here. If Missouri improves its offense (through changes, maturation, whatever), gets bigger (and, in theory, better) in the trenches, and starts landing better recruits, it will probably win more games. It's not rocket science. But at the same time, it kind of misses the point. Before we know what Missouri needs to do better or different, before we come to truly understand what pieces of Gary Pinkel's "process" need permanent alteration, we need to see what Missouri can do when it actually fields a Gary Pinkel team. Because we certainly didn't see it in 2012.

One of the benefits of using advanced stats is, of course, the opponent adjustment aspect of it. If you move to a better conference, your raw numbers might regress even if you stay the same or improve in terms of overall quality.

Over the past five seasons, Missouri's offense had ranked in the Off. F/+ Top 25 four times -- fourth in 2007, ninth in 2008, 17th in 2010 and 24th in 2011. If the Tigers' offense had once again been the 24th-best in the country in 2012, their raw numbers would have regressed a bit because of the fact that they played one of the most ridiculous slates of defenses in the country: five Missouri opponents ranked in the Def. F/+ Top 20 (No. 1 Alabama, No. 2 Florida, No. 7 South Carolina, No. 15 Texas A&M, No. 18 Georgia), and another three ranked in the Top 45 (No. 31 Arizona State, No. 35 Vanderbilt, No. 42 UCF). Of course Missouri's points and yards per game were going to regress; but they didn't just regress, they plummeted. Mizzou fell all the way to an unfathomable 85th in Off. F/+ in 2012. And remember, that's an opponent-adjusted figure.

We know why this happened, of course, at least to an extent. James Franklin got hurt on four separate occasions (shoulder in the spring, shoulder again in the Georgia game, MCL in the Vanderbilt game, concussion in the Syracuse game), Henry Josey was busy rehabbing a catastrophic knee injury, and Missouri's line got Elvis Fisher back (after missing 2011) just in time to lose Travis Ruth (for the season), Taylor Chappell (for the season), Jack Meiners (for most of the season), Justin Britt (for the last few games), Mitch Morse (for a while), and Fisher again (for a while).

The offensive coordinator was overworked, the quarterback couldn't stay healthy (and the backup was inconsistent at best), the best player on the team didn't suit up, and the line was a mishmash of spare parts. The offense would have certainly gained a few more yards and scored a few more points in the Big 12, but it would have stunk regardless. This, of course, flies in the face of the "They weren't ready for the SEC" meme that took shape. It's not that they weren't ready for the SEC; it's that they weren't ready to field even a decent offense. We can debate how much of the struggle was simply because of bad luck and how much was due to an unacceptable lack of depth (and it goes without saying that this year's team is going to have to figure out how to produce, injuries or no), but that doesn't really matter. Mizzou's offense stunk, and it would have stunk (relatively speaking) in any conference.

Year	Rivals.com Recruiting Class Rk	Rivals.com Per-Recruit Avg. Rk	5-Year Moving Avg. (per-recruit)
2002	29th	27th
2003	28th	29th
2004	46th	37th
2005	39th	31st
2006	47th	51st	35.0
2007	33rd	34th	36.4
2008	25th	32nd	37.0
2009	40th	50th	39.6
2010	21st	18th	37.0
2011	48th	29th	32.6
2012	31st	28th	31.4
2013	41st	34th	31.8

For years, Gary Pinkel has made his name taking Top 30-40 classes and creating a Top 15-30 product out of them. In 2007, Missouri produced a No. 9 final F/+ ranking with a roster that came from classes ranked 28th, 46th, 39th, 47th and 33rd (average rank: 38.6). In 2008, the Tigers ranked 14th with an average class rank of 38.0. In 2010, they ranked 13th with an average class rank of 33.2. In 2011, they ranked 22nd with an average class rank of 33.4.

At its best, Gary Pinkel's "process" produces results above what recruiting rankings would suggest. And if the "process" is operating properly, that doesn't have to change in a new conference. Granted, a Top 15 product is more likely to produce a 9-3 record instead of a 10-2 record in the SEC, but it would still be a Top 15 product. And granted, a Top 30 product might only go 7-5 or 8-4, but ... 7-5 is not 5-7. A 7-5 record in 2013 would represent a clear step forward. We'll worry about other steps after the first one.

QB James Franklin (6'2, 230, Sr.)
QB Corbin Berkstresser (6'3, 225, So.)
QB Maty Mauk (6'1, 200, RSFr.)
TB Marcus Murphy (5'9, 185, Jr.)
TB Russell Hansbrough (5'9, 185, So.)
TB Henry Josey (5'10, 190, Jr.)
WR-X Marcus Lucas (6'5, 220, Sr.)
WR-X Dorial Green-Beckham (6'6, 220, So.)
WR-H Bud Sasser (6'2, 210, Jr.)
WR-H Jimmie Hunt (6'1, 215, Jr.)
WR-Z L'Damian Washington (6'4, 200, Sr.)
TE Eric Waters (6'4, 245, Sr.)
TE Sean Culkin (6'6, 240, RSFr.)
LT Justin Britt (6'6, 320, Sr.)
LG Evan Boehm (6'3, 315, So.)
C Brad McNulty (6'4, 305, So.)
RG Max Copeland (6'3, 295, Sr.)
RT Mitch Morse (6'5, 305, Jr.)
RT Taylor Chappell (6'5, 320, So.)

There are a lot of exciting names on the pre-spring depth chart released yesterday. New offensive coordinator Josh Henson has quite a few toys in the toy box, and with the first semi-healthy two-deep in two years, he could engineer a pretty swift recovery. But after last season, the burden of proof is heavy. It doesn't really matter what the offense looks like on paper, or what its advanced ratings are; it has to produce. And it will have to even produce a little bit more to offset what could possibly be some regression on the defensive side of the ball.

To win in the SEC, you have to … field a good team. That's it. To win a lot in the SEC, you have to field a great team. It doesn't matter how you do it -- recruiting, development, blind luck -- it just matters that you do it. There's nothing saying the type of team Gary Pinkel produced for most of the 2006-11 range, with performance exceeding recruiting rankings by 10-20 spots, wouldn't fare alright in the SEC; maybe the records are slightly different (say, one win worse on average), and maybe at some point in the future we have to determine whether the quality of a good Pinkel product (Top 15-25 on average) is good enough. But in 2012, Missouri fielded its worst team since 2004. Maybe the Tigers pull off a 6-6 record in the Big 12, but last year didn't see the typical Pinkel product, and it's up to him to prove he can, at the very least, get Missouri back to where it was before the injuries came cascading in. Pinkel turned the program around starting in 2005; now he gets the chance to do it again.

In 2013, Gary Pinkel's goal isn't to change everything about his process because of Missouri's new conference; it's simply to prove that his process can still field a good team. That's it. And today, the work begins in earnest.

Mizzou Links, 3-13-13

March 13, 2013, 3:10 am

≫ Next: Mizzou Spring football 2013: Practice No. 1 reports

≪ Previous: 2013 Missouri spring football practice: Tigers aim to forget 2012

$

0

0

Mizzou Basketball Links

• All-SEC
  MUtigers.com: Mizzou's Pressey, Bowers Named All-Southeastern Conference
  The Trib: Pressey, Bowers make All-SEC
  KC Star: Missouri's Phil Pressey chosen first-team all-SEC by coaches
  Post-Dispatch: Pressey named first-team All-SEC
• SEC Tournament
  Ken Pomeroy: SEC log5 projections
  The Trib: Come close, lose, repeat -- Tigers try to break cycle
  KC Star: Pressure on Pressey when it comes to MU's hopes for success
  Mizzou Network (YouTube): Frank Haith SEC Tournament Preview 1 on 1
• Excellent Piece
  Post-Dispatch: Mizzou team built on transfers connects MU to future

Mizzou Football Links

So I figure I'll once again attempt breakout posts for practice reports. So expect those links shortly. But for now...

• Spring Ball
  MUtigers.com: Spring Football Primer
  The Trib (Dave Matter): Stories to watch unfold this spring
  PowerMizzou: Spring Preview: Defensive backs

Meanwhile, Mizzou's quietly annexing Lee's Summit and Blue Springs as Mizzou West. Mizzou scored a commitment yesterday from big, long (6'7, 225) Blue Springs South tight end Kendall Blanton yesterday. Like recent commit Darnell Green-Beckham, he is all potential with minimal production thus far; meanwhile, Mizzou now has four commits (Blanton, DGB2, Grant Jones, Markel Smith), and I haven't even gotten my initial "What to Expect from Recruiting This Year" post together.

• 2014 Recruiting
  PowerMizzou: Daily Recruiting Blast, March 12
• Crossover
  We Are Mizzou: Mizzou Family Crossover Dinner

Oh yeah ... and this:

Chiefs reached agreement in principle on three-year deal with former Saints QB Chase Daniel, who played at Missouri.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 12, 2013

Mizzou Diamond Sports Links

• Mizzou > Jackson State
  MUtigers.com: Mizzou Routs Jackson State, 9-3
  The Missourian: Long-tossing Missouri pitcher Alec Rash wins in first start
  KBIA Sports: Mizzou baseball notches big win over Jackson State
  SimmonsField.com: HI NOTES: Midweek Marshmallows - Delicious or Damaging?
• Today
  MUtigers.com: Softball to Host Evansville for Wednesday Doubleheader
• Polls
  MUtigers.com: Softball Ranked Eighth Nationally
  The Missourian: Missouri softball falls to No. 8 in latest polls

Other Mizzou Links

• Mizzou Swimming & Diving
  MUtigers.com: Bonuchi Qualifies for NCAA Championships
  MUtigers.com: Loren Figueroa Earns NCAA Championship Berth
  MUtigers.com: Clark Thomas Punches Ticket to NCAA Championships
• Mizzou Track & Field
  MUtigers.com: Track & Field Welcomes 27 Signees to the Tiger Family

Other

• Well ... Yeah...
  Grub Street: Anthony Bourdain Thinks Men 'Kind of Suck'
• I'm Listening...
  Food Republic: Irish Nachos Recipe

---

Mizzou Spring football 2013: Practice No. 1 reports

March 13, 2013, 6:00 am

≫ Next: 2013 Kent State football's 10 things to know: The impossible encore

≪ Previous: Mizzou Links, 3-13-13

$

0

0

MUtigers.com: Football Camp Report

Head Coach Gary Pinkel was pleased with what he saw at the beginning of his 13th spring camp at Mizzou.

"Overall it was a really good day, obviously we just had helmets on for NCAA rules, and it will be the same on Thursday," he said. "Just a high level of energy and excitement to get back out here again, it's been awhile, and I thought the team worked well. It's always about fundamentals, but certainly in practices like this where you don't have a lot of competitive drills because you don't have full pads on, it's real important, the details of their position and the fundamentals," he said.

Without full contact scrimmaging, the day focused mostly on position drills and a lot of one-on-one pass rush drills between the offensive and defensive lines. A highlight during 7-on-7 passing drills included QB Maty Mauk hooking up with WR Dorial Green-Beckham on a nice timing route over the middle for a gain of around 10 yards, until CB David Johnson swatted the ball loose from behind. Fellow CB Xavier Smith pounced on the ball for a takeaway by the defense.

The Trib (Dave Matter): Josey, Tigers practice for first time in 2013

The only other players who wore red pullovers for injuries during the open portion of practice—the first 45 minutes—were defensive tackles Matt Hoch and Harold Brantley. Pinkel has said the staff evaluated its training and practice regimens in regards to last year's flood of injuries.

"We've done a lot of analysis here," he said. "Last year we lost half our offensive linemen, which is unheard of. And then our quarterback problems we had injury-wise. But the rest of our team was as healthy as can be. It's not like we're doing things wrong. We look at all those things. We have to be more lucky, I think. I really think that's what it is. I'm telling the players, attitude-wise, just stay healthy. Hopefully they listen to me."

PowerMizzou: FIRST-LOOK NOTEBOOK: MARCH 12, 2013

There's plenty of chatter about redshirt freshman Sean Culkin becoming the next break-out star at tight end for the Tigers. He looks the part, that much is certain. He made a few leaping grabs during passing drills, but take everything with a grain of salt, as we're only able to see the offense go up against air during the open period.

PowerMizzou: Spring Notebook: Day 1

RB Henry Josey and LT Justin Britt did not wear red jerseys, and appeared to be full-go for the workout. Josey's return has been well-documented, although he's running third-team behind Marcus Murphy and Russell Hansbrough. However, Gary Pinkel said he's cleared for all drills this spring.

That doesn't mean there won't be an acclimation period for the former All-Big 12 running back.

"I think it's going to be a little psychological with him," Pinkel said. "Each practice is. He went through the winter conditioning, and did a great job with that....

"No one has any idea what he's gone through and all the work he's gone through, and his determination. What a story. He'll get the pads on, Friday will be the first time with full pads, and he'll also go through those moments where you earn that trust back. That's typical of anybody that comes off of any surgery like that."

PowerMizzou: PMTV-HD: Spring Practice Underway

PowerMizzou: Spring Practice 1 photos

Pinkel says Henry Josey is cleared to participate in all drills this spring.

— Dave Matter (@Dave_Matter) March 12, 2013

Unless something changes, DT Harold Brantley is the only Mizzou player beginning practice in a red pullover. That includes Josey and Britt.

— Pete Scantlebury (@PeteScantlebury) March 12, 2013

#Mizzou QB James Franklin talked at length today about being more of a leader. Seems energized by having to win his old job back.

— Dave Matter (@Dave_Matter) March 12, 2013

James Franklin, Corbin Berkstresser and Maty Mauk all got first team reps at QB at #Mizzou's first spring practice

— Gabe DeArmond (@GabeDeArmond) March 13, 2013

Will write about later, but Franklin talked about sticking up for embattled point guard Phil Pressey on Twitter. Said he can relate to PP

— Dave Matter (@Dave_Matter) March 12, 2013

L'Damian Washington on James Franklin: "I told him the only thing that matters is what you think about yourself."

— Gabe DeArmond (@GabeDeArmond) March 13, 2013

Pinkel on allowing music for warmups. "As long as it's clean I don't care. ... I just want some Earth, Wind & Fire."

— Dave Matter (@Dave_Matter) March 12, 2013

Gary Pinkel said Justin Britt and Henry Josey were ready to practice without restriction for #Mizzou

— Gabe DeArmond (@GabeDeArmond) March 13, 2013

Words can't even describe how happy I am 4 my brother @h_josey20 it's been a long time coming but he's back on the field ready 2 ball out!!!

— Quandre Diggs (@qdiggs6) March 13, 2013

2013 Kent State football's 10 things to know: The impossible encore

March 13, 2013, 8:01 am

≫ Next: Mizzou Links, 3-14-13

≪ Previous: Mizzou Spring football 2013: Practice No. 1 reports

$

0

0

Confused? Check out the glossary here.

1. No pressure, Paul Haynes

From the time Dennis Fitzgerald left town in 1977 (after seasons of 8-4 and 6-5) until the start of 2012, the glory days for Kent State football basically consisted of that one year where Glen Mason got them to 7-4 and then left (1987). In that span of 35 seasons, Kent State had a winning record twice, and won one or fewer games in a season 10 times. The program that gave Don James his first head coaching job and produced players like Jack Lambert and future coaches like Nick Saban and Gary Pinkel in the 1970s was a football wasteland for most of the last three decades, and while Doug Martin (head coach from 2004 to 2010) came really, really close to breaking through (5-7 with a pretty good defense in both 2009 and 2010), he never did.

Darrell Hazell, who coached under Jim Tressel at Ohio State from 2004-10, took over in 2011 and did not waste time putting together Kent State's best team in 40 years. His 2011 squad began the season 1-6 with three tight losses, but the Golden Flashes caught fire, winning 15 of their next 17 games, steadily improving on defense and figuring out how to run the ball really, really well.

Kent State headed into the 2012 MAC title game with an excellent shot at a BCS bowl bid; they lost both the conference title and the Orange Bowl slot in overtime to Northern Illinois, then lost Hazell to Purdue and the GoDaddy.com Bowl to Arkansas State, but that's really beside the point. This program, which hadn't won 11 games in a two-year period since 1986-87, went 11-3 and reached the doorstep of a BCS bowl. That's incredible.

Succeeding Hazell, then, is a monumental, almost impossible task, one that falls to another TresselBaller. Paul Haynes spent seven seasons (2005-11) in Columbus, mostly as Tressel's defensive backs coach, and after a year at Arkansas, he returns to Ohio to see if he can navigate a Kent State program that, for the first time in most of our lives, has an actual track record and expectations.

2012 Schedule & Results

Record: 11-3 | Adj. Record: 7-7 | Final F/+ Rk: 48
Date	Opponent	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L
30-Aug	Towson	41-21	W	19.5 - 32.2	L
8-Sep	at Kentucky	14-47	L	24.3 - 54.8	L
19-Sep	at Buffalo	23-7	W	25.8 - 18.0	W
29-Sep	Ball State	45-43	W	29.3 - 33.9	L
6-Oct	at Eastern Michigan	41-14	W	22.9 - 26.1	L
13-Oct	at Army	31-17	W	26.6 - 21.3	W
20-Oct	Western Michigan	41-24	W	30.8 - 26.3	W
27-Oct	at Rutgers	35-23	W	36.5 - 39.4	L
3-Nov	Akron	35-24	W	29.9 - 32.7	L
10-Nov	at Miami (Ohio)	48-32	W	39.3 - 37.8	W
17-Nov	at Bowling Green	31-24	W	45.3 - 30.3	W
23-Nov	Ohio	28-6	W	30.0 - 15.2	W
30-Nov	vs. Northern Illinois	37-44	L	18.1 - 26.1	L
6-Jan	vs. Arkansas State	13-17	L	24.4 - 17.0	W

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
Points Per Game	33.1	35	24.5	45
Adj. Points Per Game	28.8	60	29.4	76

2. How did 2012 happen?

Eventually, you become your record. That's the hope for any team that is putting wins on the board but not looking particularly impressive in doing so. Riding into 2012 after a hot finish to 2011 (they won four in a row before a season-ending loss to Temple disrupted a shot at bowl eligibility), with reasonably hopeful expectations (I called for a bowl bid), the Golden Flashes were anything but impressive early. They showed gaping holes on defense in allowing 21 points to Towson and, more egregiously, 47 points to Kentucky. But they survived a trip to Buffalo and outlasted a Ball State team that was better than we knew at the time, and slowly but surely, unimpressive wins turned into pretty damn impressive wins.

Adj. Points Per Game (first 5 games): Opponent 33.0, Kent State 24.4 (minus-8.6)
Adj. Points Per Game (next 4 games): Kent State 31.0, Opponent 27.4 (plus-3.6)
Adj. Points Per Game (last 5 games): Kent State 31.4, Opponent 25.3 (plus-6.1)

By the time Kent State headed to face undefeated, 18th-ranked Rutgers on October 27, the Golden Flashes were becoming a confident, interesting team with an above-average offense and a defense that was beginning to show the form it was supposed to show. Against Rutgers, they picked off two first-half passes, returned one for a touchdown, built a 28-10 lead midway through the third quarter, then just kept right on forcing turnovers. At the end of the game, they had forced seven (six picks and a fumble), running backs Trayion Durham and Dri Archer had combined for 210 yards in 40 carries against a good defense, and KSU had knocked off a Top 20 opponent, 35-23. And then they started to become their record. They handled Miami (Ohio) and Bowling Green on the road, then just dominated a decent (and banged up) Ohio squad, and despite being outgained significantly, they came oh so close to winning the MAC.

On paper, this team was good but not great; it ranked just 48th in the F/+ rankings, but over the last half (or so) of the season, it was a legitimate Top 25-35 squad. It survived early and thrived late. You'd rather dominate all year, but it doesn't usually happen that way.

Offense

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	74	75	107	62
RUSHING	18	37	74	17
PASSING	114	113	116	108
Standard Downs		56	90	43
Passing Downs		106	116	100
Redzone		90	103	78

Q1 Rk	103	1st Down Rk	67
Q2 Rk	66	2nd Down Rk	66
Q3 Rk	82	3rd Down Rk	118
Q4 Rk	49

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2013 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Comp	Att	Yards	Comp Rate	TD	INT	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Spencer Keith				183	333	2,021	55.0%	12	10	0	0.0%	6.1
David Fisher	6'0, 220	Sr.	*** (5.6)	14	23	230	60.9%	1	1	0	0.0%	10.0
Colin Reardon	6'0, 190	RSFr.	** (5.3)
Nathan Strock	6'4, 195	Fr.	*** (5.5)

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	TD	Adj. POE
Trayion Durham	RB	6'0, 250	Jr.	*** (5.5)	276	1,316	4.8	4.3	14	-7.0
Dri Archer	RB	5'8, 175	Sr.	** (4.9)	159	1,429	9.0	11.5	16	+65.9
Spencer Keith	QB				56	303	5.4	3.5	5	+3.6
Julian Durden	RB	5'7, 170	So.	*** (5.5)	27	131	4.9	7.8	1	-0.8
David Fisher	QB	6'0, 220	Sr.	*** (5.6)	14	69	4.9	7.7	0	-0.5
Anthony Meray	RB	5'7, 185	Jr.	** (5.3)	7	1	0.1	3.2	0	-3.8

3. Where did you come from, Dri Archer?

A recruiting after-thought, a two-star recruit from Laurel, Florida, brought to Kent by Doug Martin, Dri Archer averaged just 3.9 yards per carry in 2009-10 and didn't play in 2011, Hazell's first year in charge. He had shown potential as a kick returner and had scored four touchdowns through the air, but there was absolutely no reason to think that Archer was the key to a sudden offensive breakthrough for a team that hadn't scored even an average number of points since 2004. But he was an outright revelation, a part-time running back, part-time slot receiver and perfect complement to punishing power back Trayion Durham in the Kent backfield.

A player like Archer is why the Highlight Yardage measure was created. The idea of highlight yardage is to attempt to separate credit for yards between a line (full credit given for the first five yards or a loss, 50 percent credit given for up to five yards beyond that) and a runner (everything else); basically, anytime the line did its job and opened up space for Archer, he averaged a gain of almost 12 yards on his own. That's absurd.

2012 Highlight Yards Per Carry (>49 carries)
1. Dri Archer, Kent State (11.5)
2. Tavon Austin, West Virginia (11.2)
3. Ja'Terian Douglas, Tulsa (10.3)
4. Kerwynn Williams, Utah State (10.0)
5. James White, Wisconsin (9.9)
6. Melvin Gordon, Wisconsin (9.8)
7. Keith Marshall, Georgia (9.7)
8. Brian Kimbrow, Vanderbilt (9.4)
9. Damien Williams, Oklahoma (9.0)
10. Orwin Smith, Georgia Tech (9.0)

In somewhat open field, Archer, a complete unknown heading into 2012, was the most devastating runner in the country. And he chose to return for his senior season, which means great things for a skill position lineup that also returns Durham (as the thunder to Archer's lightning), four of last year's top five receivers (including Archer).

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Yds/ Target	Target Rate	%SD	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Matthew Hurdle	WR				83	35	333	42.2%	4.0	24.2%	49.4%	3.9	29.7
Dri Archer	RB/SLOT	5'8, 175	Sr.	** (4.9)	66	39	561	59.1%	8.5	19.2%	57.6%	8.5	50.0
Tyshon Goode (2011)	WR	6'1, 185	Sr.	*** (5.5)	51	24	316	47.1%	6.2	15.3%	54.9%	N/A	N/A
Chris Humphrey	WR	6'0, 190	Jr.	** (5.2)	43	26	319	60.5%	7.4	12.5%	37.2%	7.3	28.4
Tim Erjavec	TE	6'1, 250	Sr.	NR	37	19	181	51.4%	4.9	10.8%	40.5%	4.6	16.1
Josh Boyle	SLOT	5'9, 170	So.	** (5.2)	35	28	338	80.0%	9.7	10.2%	57.1%	9.8	30.1
Eric Adeyemi	WR				31	18	242	58.1%	7.8	9.0%	64.5%	7.6	21.6
Trayion Durham	RB	6'0, 250	Jr.	*** (5.5)	21	17	181	81.0%	8.6	6.1%	47.6%	9.0	16.1
Kyle Payton	TE	6'2, 245	Jr.	** (5.3)	11	7	38	63.6%	3.5	3.2%	81.8%	5.0	3.4
Sam Miller	WR	6'0, 190	Jr.	** (5.3)	3	2	16	66.7%	5.3	0.9%	33.3%	5.6	1.4
James Brooks	WR	5'9, 195	RSFr.	*** (5.6)
Brice Fackler	TE	6'3, 220	RSFr.	** (5.4)
Kyle Crum	TE	6'4, 230	RSFr.	** (5.4)
Brock Macaulay	TE	6'7, 240	Fr.	** (5.4)
Kris White	WR	6'1, 206	Fr.	** (5.4)
Chris Overton	WR	5'9, 160	Fr.	** (5.4)

4. The passing game has almost no choice but to improve.

You have to give it to Spencer Keith for this: the Kent State quarterback came up big at big times. He threw for three touchdowns in the tight win over Ball State, he was mistake-free (14-for-21 with two touchdowns) against Rutgers, and he led a couple of perfect, long scoring drives in a fourth quarter comeback against NIU in the MAC title game. But he was also limited, completing 56 percent of his passes in four years as a (mostly) starter and throwing 40 interceptions alongside his 45 touchdown passes. He was the quarterback of Kent State's best team in 40 years (and either best or second-best ever), and that means something. But Kent State ranked 113th in Passing S&P+ in 2012; that also means something.

In minimal action, likely 2013 starter David Fisher, a well-coiffed senior who came to Kent State via Palomar Community College in San Marcos, California, acquitted himself perfectly fine. He completed seven of 13 passes (with a pick) versus Buffalo and completed five of six combined (for 117 yards and a score) versus Towson and Eastern Michigan. We don't know what he'll do in a full season of work, but with a low bar and a receiving corps that combines experience with higher-upside youth (quite a few intriguing freshmen and/or redshirt freshmen could work their way into the rotation), it's hard to imagine he can't at worst duplicate Keith's effort.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	107.8	3.16	3.19	40.1%	73.5%	19.0%	115.3	3.8%	6.3%
Rank	32	27	63	52	32	64	48	45	62

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Career Starts/Honors/Notes
Brian Winters	LT				50 career starts; 2012 1st All-MAC
Josh Kline	LG				38 career starts; 2012 2nd All-MAC
Kent Cleveland	RT				36 career starts
Phil Huff	C	6'2, 290	Sr.	NR	17 career starts
Pat McShane	RG	6'4, 301	Sr.	*** (5.5)	14 career starts
Terrell Johnson	LT	6'3, 290	Jr.	** (5.2)	5 career starts
Tom Pizzurro	C	6'2, 290	Jr.	** (5.4)	3 career starts
Jason Bitsko	LT	6'3, 290	So.	** (5.2)
Max Plunkett	LG	6'7, 310	Sr.	** (5.2)
Jake Witucki	OL	6'4, 275	RSFr.	*** (5.5)

5. Holes on the line

So Archer and Durham return, and the passing game should expect to improve at least marginally. That's good. Less good: The line must replace two three-year starters and a four-year starter. Brian Winters, Josh Kline and Kent Cleveland had combined for 124 career starts by the end of last year, and despite the fact that the line still returns four players with starting experience (39 career starts), it's hard to imagine Kent State avoiding a dropoff here. This was a pretty good line that made life easy for Archer, Durham and Keith in 2012; the line will at least need to find competence to keep the engine rolling.

Defense

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	75	55	55	60
RUSHING	34	41	34	43
PASSING	108	70	92	69
Standard Downs		59	50	66
Passing Downs		61	76	56
Redzone		80	82	73

Q1 Rk	23	1st Down Rk	85
Q2 Rk	94	2nd Down Rk	72
Q3 Rk	56	3rd Down Rk	44
Q4 Rk	121

6. If Kent State had a step on you athletically, you were toast

Covariance gives us a hint regarding which teams played best against lesser opponents and which raised their games against better teams. Kent State was more the latter; the Golden Flashes were dominated statistically by Kentucky and Northern Illinois, two of the more athletic teams on the docket, but took full advantage of lesser offenses. The TresselBall ethos relies on superior defense, and Kent State's has been mostly strong in recent years. We'll see if that continues now that the head coach has changed. The Golden Flashes were particularly good when given time to plan -- they were great in the first quarter and good in the third but pretty poor in the second and fourth -- strong depth and youth could help them as a half progresses in 2013.

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	109.4	2.70	3.31	39.7%	58.7%	20.9%	139.2	6.0%	6.6%
Rank	27	29	68	69	12	38	11	25	58

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Roosevelt Nix	DT	5'11, 245	Sr.	** (5.2)	14	47.5	5.9%	15	6	0	2	3	1
Dana Brown, Jr.	NT				13	38.5	4.8%	9	5	1	3	1	0
Jake Dooley	DE				13	37.0	4.6%	9	7	0	0	0	1
Zack Hitchens	DE	6'1, 240	Sr.	** (5.3)	14	20.5	2.6%	3	1.5	1	0	1	1
Mark Fackler	DE	6'3, 255	Sr.	** (5.4)	14	18.5	2.3%	5	1.5	3	0	0	1
Richard Gray	DE	6'2, 260	Sr.	** (5.2)	12	12.5	1.6%	8.5	4.5	1	1	0	0
Nate Terhune	DT	6'3, 260	So.	** (5.4)	14	10.0	1.2%	0.5	0	0	1	0	0
Chris Fairchild	NT	6'2, 310	So.	** (5.4)	10	6.0	0.7%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Clay Miller	DE	6'4, 245	So.	NR	12	4.0	0.5%	1	1	0	0	0	0
Nate Vance	DE	6'1, 240	Jr.	NR	10	3.0	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Andrew Christopher	DE	6'4, 261	Sr.	NR	14	2.5	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Colton Kmetz	DE	6'5, 220	RSFr.	** (5.4)
Tyson Reinke	DT	6'3, 260	Fr.	** (5.4)

7. Roosevelt Nix is still one of the most interesting players in college football

Looking at stats alone, one would think that Roosevelt Nix is a mid-major Ndamukong Suh. From the tackle position, he has logged an incredible 52 tackles for loss in three seasons at Kent State, logging at least two in a game 14 times in his career. He is as disruptive a force as one will ever see from the tackle position. He's also 5'11, 245 pounds. The average lettering linebacker at Alabama is 6'3, 245.

It is amazing that he has had this level of success, even at the mid-major level, and while it makes sense that a lot of his best games have come against teams with inferior athleticism -- 4.0 tackles for loss versus Towson in 2012, 4.0 versus Eastern Michigan in 2011, 3.5 versus Akron and Bowling Green in 2010 -- he still serves as the face of an aggressive, disruptive defense as a whole. He has a chance to reach 70.0 tackles for loss in his career, which is a video game total and is made more amazing by the fact that this will be his third head coach in four years.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Luke Batton	MLB				14	111.5	13.9%	8	3.5	2	5	1	4
C.J. Malauulu	WLB				14	55.5	6.9%	2.5	0	1	3	2	0
DeVante' Strickland	SLB	6'1, 220	Jr.	** (5.2)	12	14.0	1.7%	2	1	0	1	0	0
Matt Dellinger	MLB	6'0, 215	So.	** (5.3)	14	13.5	1.7%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Andre Parker	SLB	6'1, 219	Jr.	** (5.2)	12	8.0	1.0%	0	0	0	0	0	1
Danny Gress	MLB	5'11, 235	Sr.	** (5.2)	13	7.5	0.9%	0	0	0	0	0	1
J.J. Sanders	LB	5'11, 209	So.	NR	7	3.5	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nick Conrad	WLB	5'11, 225	Jr.	NR
Darius Redmond	LB	6'1, 210	Fr.	** (5.4)
Kentrell Taylor	LB	6'0, 230	Fr.	** (5.4)
Terence Waugh	LB	6'2, 220	Fr.	** (5.4)

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Luke Wollet	SS	6'0, 195	Sr.	** (5.4)	14	92.5	11.5%	6	1	4	4	1	1
Sidney Saulter	CB				14	67.0	8.3%	4	0	1	5	1	2
Darius Polk	CB	5'11, 185	Sr.	*** (5.7)	14	50.5	6.3%	3	3	2	9	1	1
Norman Wolfe	CB				10	36.5	4.5%	1	0	2	6	1	0
Leon Green	FS				14	28.5	3.5%	0	0	3	4	0	1
Calvin Tiggle	S	5'9, 195	Jr.	*** (5.5)	6	26.5	3.3%	0.5	0	1	2	0	0
Dylan Farrington	CB	6'0, 190	Jr.	*** (5.6)	14	21.5	2.7%	0	0	0	6	0	0
Jordan Italiano	FS	5'10, 200	So.	** (5.4)	13	18.0	2.2%	0	0	1	1	0	0
Malcolm Pannell	CB	5'10, 165	Sr.	** (5.3)	14	7.5	0.9%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Keenan Stalls	CB	6'0, 175	So.	** (5.2)	8	5.0	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Fabrice Pratt	FS	6'1, 185	Sr.	** (5.2)	13	3.5	0.4%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Adam Maxie	CB	6'1, 170	RSFr.	*** (5.5)
Demetrius Monday	DB	5'11, 185	Fr.	*** (5.6)
Eric Church	DB	5'10, 172	Fr.	** (5.4)

8. Depth: the Golden Flashes have it

Darrell Hazell set the table nicely for 2013. His 2012 unit was laden with impact seniors -- linebackers Luke Batton and C.J. Malauulu, safety Sidney Saulter, corner Norman Wolfe, end Jake Dooley, tackle Dana Brown, Jr. -- but his ultra-young second string got plenty of rotation time. As a result, leaders like Nix, safety Luke Wollet and corner Darius Polk are joined by an influx of interesting underclassmen like corner Dylan Farrington, linebacker DeVante' Strickland, sophomore tackles Nate Terhune and Chris Fairchild (at 310 pounds, Fairchild could be a lovely, hefty complement to Nix), and some interesting freshmen and redshirt freshmen.

Now, these young guys have to prove that they can produce when given more responsibility, but they proved quite a bit in limited action last year, and that's all you can ask for in advance.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Anthony Melchiori	5'11, 185	So.	72	42.6	5	27	28	76.4%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	TB%
Freddy Cortez			86	60.9	34	39.5%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Freddy Cortez			58-58	14-15	93.3%	5-10	50.0%
Anthony Melchiori	5'11, 185	So.	0-0	0-1	0.0%	0-0	N/A

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Eric Adeyemi	KR			21	16.7	0
Dri Archer	KR	5'8, 175	Sr.	16	36.9	3
Josh Boyle	KR	5'9, 170	So.	6	13.3	0
Eric Adeyemi	PR			6	7.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	2
Net Punting	13
Net Kickoffs	56
Touchback Pct	51
Field Goal Pct	59
Kick Returns Avg	62
Punt Returns Avg	99

9. Special teams wins games

Kent State and Buffalo were reasonably similar on offense and defense last year. Kent State was certainly better, mind you, but not by as much as their respective records (11-3 to Buffalo's 4-8) would suggest. A big difference came on special teams, where Kent State was destructive (second in the country) and solid while Buffalo was just ... self-destructive (119th). It probably makes sense, then, that in the regular season Kent State went 2-0 in one-possession games (and 9-1 in games with a larger margin), and Buffalo went 2-3 (and 2-5). The Golden Flashes will have to replace Freddy Cortez, who was good on kickoffs and automatic inside 40 yards on place-kicks, and their punt return game could stand to improve. But with the return of Archer and punter Anthony Melchiori, the components are in place for another explosive, TresselBall-friendly Kent State special teams unit.

2013 Schedule & Projection Factors

2012 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
29-Aug	Liberty	NR
7-Sep	Bowling Green	67
14-Sep	at LSU	3
21-Sep	at Penn State	24
28-Sep	at Western Michigan	93
5-Oct	Northern Illinois	50
12-Oct	at Ball State	84
19-Oct	at South Alabama	119
26-Oct	Buffalo	101
2-Nov	at Akron	120
13-Nov	Miami (Ohio)	106
19-Nov	at Ohio	83

Five-Year F/+ Rk	94
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	95
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	+20 / +15.2
TO Luck/Game	+1.7
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	12 (7, 5)
Yds/Pt Margin**	-5.0

10. The encore will be acceptable

Kent State is not going to win 11 games in 2013. The Golden Flashes will be both breaking in new starters on defense (and on the offensive line) and getting up to speed with a new coaching staff, and most of their tougher games come in the first half of the season (at LSU, at Penn State, Northern Illinois).

A relatively slow start is reasonably likely, but the back half of the schedule is loaded with marshmallows, and a team built to improve as the year progresses should roll through most of them. I think a return to bowl eligibility and a potential 7-5 or 8-4 record is likely. That should always be suitable at Kent State, no matter what happened last year.

Follow @SBNationCFBFollow @SBNRecruiting

More in College Football:

• Let’s start a college football program

• What if college football had free agency?

• Denard Robinson wins NCAA Football 14 cover

• How long will the Harlem Shake survive?

• Penn State QB Matt McGloin's op-ed at Black Shoe Diaries

• College football recruiting coverage

Mizzou Links, 3-14-13

March 14, 2013, 3:06 am

≫ Next: Mizzou spring football 2013: Franklin vs. the World

≪ Previous: 2013 Kent State football's 10 things to know: The impossible encore

$

0

0

Mizzou Basketball Links

• SEC Tournament
  MUtigers.com: Wednesday at the SEC Men's Basketball Championship
  KC Star: Missouri looking to rebound in Nashville
  KC Star: SEC Tournament preview: (11) Texas A&M vs. (6) Missouri
  Al.com: Auburn's 'disappointing' season ends by coming up short against Texas A&M
  Al.com: Tony Barbee apologizes, Auburn's season mercifully ends. Rinse, wash, repeat.
• Mizzou vs. March
  The Trib: Tigers believe they're capable of deep postseason run
  The Missourian: Missouri looks to be successful at neutral sites
  Post-Dispatch: Alex Oriakhi preaching lessons of 2011 to Tigers
  PowerMizzou: Powered Up: A March to What?
• Flip
  The Trib: Phil Pressey 'frustrated' with final seconds of UT loss
  KC Star: Haith stands up for Pressey

Mizzou Football Links

• Spring Ball
  The Trib: Q&A with Gary Pinkel
  PowerMizzou: PMTV-HD: Senior Receivers
  KBIA Sports: Mizzou Football Begins Spring Practice
  We Are Mizzou: Mizzou Football Starts Spring Ball
• 2014 Recruiting
  Rivals.com: Mizzou offers Ohio tight end Darryl Long
  PowerMizzou: Lee's Summit LB Jimmie Swain swears off naming favorites
• Tickets
  Mizzou Network (YouTube): Mike Alden discusses '13 Football Ticket Renewals & Requests
• Andy Hill
  We Are Mizzou: Coach Andy Hill

Mizzou Diamond Sports Links

• No. 300
  MUtigers.com: Earleywine Wins No. 300 with Doubleheader Sweep of Evansville
  The Missourian: Ehren Earleywine earns bittersweet 300th victory
  KBIA Sports: Thomas gets her 1,000th strikeout, Mizzou squeaks out two wins
• Mizzou > Truman State
  MUtigers.com: Tigers Take Down Truman State, 14-4
  The Missourian: Tigers work out the kinks in rout of Truman State
  KBIA Sports: Mizzou baseball topples Truman State, 14-4
• Alec Rash
  The Trib: Rash embraces the college game
  SimmonsField.com: HI NOTES: Rash Up, Anderson Down, MU Recruits Up

Other Mizzou Links

• Mizzou Wrestling
  MUtigers.com: It's Official: Tigers Qualify All 10 Starters for NCAA Championships
  The Trib: MU wrestling qualifies 10, gets two 1 seeds
  KC Star: MU will send all 10 starers to NCAA wrestling meet
  NCAA.com: 2013 NCAA Division I Wrestling Championship Bracket (PDF)
  Mizzou Network (YouTube): Mizzou Wrestling & The McCormicks
• Mizzou Golf
  MUtigers.com: Women's Golf Prepares for Mountain View Collegiate
• Mizzou Soccer
  MUtigers.com: One on One: Erin Webb

Other

• Interesting...
  The Missourian: Missouri appears poised to pass sports incentives legislation

Mizzou spring football 2013: Franklin vs. the World

March 14, 2013, 6:00 am

≫ Next: 2013 Ball State football's 10 things to know: A track record and some turnover

≪ Previous: Mizzou Links, 3-14-13

$

0

0

The Trib: Q&A with Gary Pinkel

Q: With Franklin, was it just the injuries last year or did he just not play well even when he was healthy?

A: Well, what happens is, when you don’t play well, you don’t practice or your practice isn’t very good. You’re hurt. There’s a lot of things that goes with, "Well, he’s back for a game. He should be 100 percent, be perfect." There were certainly a lot of carryover things. There’s things about not transferring his weight in practice, so he goes down to Florida and the ball just sails on him, just gets away from him because he is compensating for it in practice, throwing off his back foot, not transferring his weight.

There’s a lot of things you look at, but I’ve coached the position for a long time, and I’ve never had a quarterback get beat up like he did. Tears his labrum, comes back, reinjures his shoulder in that joint, has strained ligaments in his knee and can’t play a couple weeks, has a concussion that keeps him out. I’ve never seen anything like it. In 34 or 35 years coaching college football, never even came close to seeing anything like it. To say you can evaluate his performance, we’re not going to evaluate his performance as a player. He didn’t play as well, but he was also hurt and missed half the season.

The Trib: Franklin accepts QB competition

Four separate injuries sidelined Franklin for parts or all of six games last fall. But Franklin knew the coaches opened the competition to sophomore Corbin Berkstresser and redshirt freshman Maty Mauk for reasons beyond his injuries.

"When I was playing, I wasn't performing well," Franklin said yesterday.

The senior quarterback, affable as always, said he doesn't mind having to compete for his old job after struggling through last year's 5-7 season.

"It's definitely a challenge, and it helps that I have so much motivation from last season," he said after splitting reps with Berkstresser and Mauk in the team's first spring practice. "Not saying it's good that we lost so many games, but it definitely gives me some intrinsic motivation to do well."

PowerMizzou: Expectations and reality

In his time off following the season, Franklin decided to get his head right. He began to read more on the topics of "leadership and spirituality," focusing on his attitude for his final season in Columbia.

"No matter what, you can always choose to have a positive attitude, and how effective that can be," Franklin said. "I know I didn't do a good job at that last season. I've really done a lot of studying up and reading and taking into account that no matter what happens, being positive is always going to be a better outcome."

He also readied himself for the inevitable -- an open competition at quarterback, with Corbin Berkstresser and Maty Mauk as his main challengers. Franklin understood that course of action would be necessary, and a January meeting with head coach Gary Pinkel confirmed that reality.

It's a competition that will play out largely without the prying eyes of the media, as new restrictions limit access to team drills during practice. It's a spring of firsts, with the limited access to practices and also the first real quarterback battle involving an established senior in Pinkel's tenure.

The Trib (Dave Matter): Franklin finds common ground with another MU passer

But first, as Franklin has prepared to compete for the Tigers' starting job this spring, he's discovered an appreciation for Missouri point guard Phil Pressey, another high-profile MU athlete under heavy scrutiny these days. The day after Missouri's Feb. 23 overtime loss at Kentucky — one of several road collapses by the Tigers — Franklin took to Twitter to stick up for his fellow passer: "So much for One-Mizzou: if a family member messes up, you should positively support them, not make them feel awful! Keep your head up Phil"

I asked Franklin after Tuesday's practice what prompted him to send Pressey the public pat on the back.

"I feel like I kind of know what he feels like," Franklin said. "Although they are team sports and it's not won by an individual. You could say, 'Laurence Bowers could have done this or ' " Earnest " ' Ross could have done that.' So I kind of know what it's like to be in his shoes. Everyone plays a key role, but when it comes down to crunch time, they trust him to have the ball in his hands. Whenever he'd miss a shot or have a turnover – some of the other guys missed shots or had turnovers earlier in the game — but because of the time and how much pressure was put on that situation it made it seem a whole lot worse than it was. I just wanted him to know and everyone to know and remind them that it's a team sport. Although one guy made a mistake at a key point he didn't lose a game. … He might feel like it's his fault, but it's a team sport. And I was trying to give him some positive re-encouragement."

Two years ago, James Franklin entered Mizzou's spring football practices embroiled in a quarterback battle that a lot people thought he was going to lose. Used in a Wild Tiger type of formation a bit during Missouri's 10-3 campaign in 2010, Franklin had to go toe-to-toe with Tyler Gabbert to win the starting job. And he did. And now, he's going through something similar. Following a nasty season that saw him both get hurt repeatedly and get destroyed by Missouri fans, he is healthy and ready to battle it out with Corbin Berkstresser and Maty Mauk for the right to start in his senior season.

Franklin is an incredibly affable, painfully respectful guy. He calls everybody "sir" (or "ma'am," I guess), he smiles more than a rational human being should, and it is easy to enjoy the thought of him representing your football program. And in 2012, he was beset with Kirk Farmer-esque injury luck; you can count his healthy quarters on two hands -- the SE Louisiana game, a couple of quarters in the Georgia game, a couple of drives in the Vanderbilt game, the first 2-3 quarters in the Syracuse game. He was mostly awful last season, but of course he was. He never had a chance.

The missed opportunities didn't help. Franklin was personally victimized by Georgia's Jarvis Jones twice in the fourth quarter; Jones picked him off, then sacked and stripped him, and the resulting turnovers turned a 27-20 game into a 41-20 game. And against Florida, offensive coordinator David Yost's most well-called game of the season, Franklin's footwork was altered by a wonky knee, and he missed a host of (surprisingly) open receivers in a seven-point loss. He rebounded against Tennessee; he was moving like an old man, but he led a second-half comeback and brilliant overtime win regardless. It looked like the season had turned around until a fourth injury, a concussion, knocked him out in the final stages of the Syracuse game. (Berkstresser entered that game and played perfectly well, of course; it was the defense that ended up losing that game for Missouri.)

Heading into 2013, Franklin gets one last opportunity to prove himself. Fans and writers alike seem to assume Maty Mauk will overtake him for the starting job at this point, and who knows, maybe he will. But most seem to be basing that assumption not on Mauk's talents (which few have actually seen) but on the simple fact that he's not James Franklin or Corbin Berkstresser. It is a trap that has snared people since football began: the quarterback you haven't seen must be better than the one you have.

Make no mistake: If Mauk wins the job, it will be because he's a pretty damn good quarterback. That's what it will take to beat out a healthy James Franklin. For this reason, I almost hope Mauk wins the job. It would mean pretty damn good things for the football team as a whole. But in the end, I expect Franklin to hold off his challengers, and I expect him to play reasonably well in 2013. I don't know what his ceiling is in the SEC, but I know that if he stays healthy and once again hints at the potential he showed in 2011, when he was a solid runner, steady leader and accurate passer (who, yes, let mistakes get the best of him at times), I'll feel pretty comfortable about the MIzzou offense this fall. As long as the damn line stays healthy this time around, anyway.

(Honestly, I'm much more worried about the defense. But we'll get to that at a later date.)

2013 Ball State football's 10 things to know: A track record and some turnover

March 14, 2013, 7:00 am

≫ Next: Rock-M-Tology, 3-14-13

≪ Previous: Mizzou spring football 2013: Franklin vs. the World

$

0

0

Confused? Check out the glossary here.

1. Pete Lembo is really, really underrated

The Ball State head coach has taken on three incredibly disparate coaching jobs -- the "no scholarships, but high expectations" Lehigh job, the "building something from nothing" Elon job, and now the Ball State job. And in 12 years as a head coach, he has experienced one losing season.

He inherited a nice Lehigh program from Kevin Higgins, went 11-1 in his first season, and won at least eight games in each of the next four years. At Elon, he inherited a Southern Conference program that was all-potential, minimal-production; the Phoenix had gone just 14-42 in the five years before his arrival. He went 5-6 in Year 1, then reeled off four straight winning seasons and a 2009 FCS playoff appearance. And at Ball State, he inherited a team in serious flux. The Cardinals had gone 12-2 in 2008, Brady Hoke's final year in charge, but they went just 6-18 in two years under Stan Parrish. Lembo engineered an immediate, two-game improvement in 2011, then reeled off a surprising 9-4 season in 2012.

In just over a decade, Lembo has won, and won pretty big, in the Patriot League (northeastern, with mostly need-based aid for players), the Southern Conference (an FCS powerhouse), and the MAC (a midwestern mid-major).

"One stat that one of my assistants threw at me recently: There are only seven head coaches that have won nine or more games at three or more schools," Lembo told me. He's one of them.

Nobody thought much of it when Ball State hired him two years ago ("To satisfy the constituent base, it's easier to say you just hired a Notre Dame assistant" instead of an FCS guy, Lembo says), but he has done impressive things in a short amount of time.

There isn't much flash to Lembo's style or his team.

"We don't have big egos, and we're not self-promoters," he said. "But we do believe in what we do and how we do it. It always gets back to culture, to organizational behavior. If the coaches are unified and have great chemistry, and if they keep their composure in close-and-late situations, when it's stressful, and there's a lot at stake, then it trickles down to the team."

It's kind of boring, really, but Ball State's improvement has been anything but. The Cardinals ranked 112th in the 2010 F/+ rankings, improved to 95th in 2011 and surged to 65th in 2012. Keep that up, and he'll soon get a chance to win nine games at a fourth school, this time in a BCS conference.

2012 Schedule & Results

Record: 9-4 | Adj. Record: 3-10 | Final F/+ Rk: 64
Date	Opponent	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L
30-Aug	Eastern Michigan	37-26	W	27.1 - 30.6	L
8-Sep	at Clemson	27-52	L	27.3 - 28.0	L
15-Sep	at Indiana	41-39	W	23.7 - 31.7	L
22-Sep	South Florida	31-27	W	32.3 - 41.2	L
29-Sep	at Kent State	43-45	L	38.7 - 33.4	W
6-Oct	Northern Illinois	23-35	L	37.0 - 29.0	W
13-Oct	Western Michigan	30-24	W	26.9 - 28.8	L
20-Oct	at Central Michigan	41-30	W	30.7 - 33.1	L
27-Oct	at Army	30-22	W	24.2 - 24.5	L
6-Nov	at Toledo	34-27	W	29.4 - 31.0	L
14-Nov	Ohio	52-27	W	58.3 - 28.2	W
23-Nov	at Miami (Ohio)	31-24	W	18.0 - 25.5	L
21-Dec	vs. Central Florida	17-38	L	26.2 - 33.3	L

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
Points Per Game	33.6	33	32.0	93
Adj. Points Per Game	30.8	47	30.6	89

2. Wins without stats

In essence, Ball State was the Kansas State of mid-majors last year, dominating the special teams and field position battles, finishing drives (as you see below, their red zone rankings were better than their overall offensive rankings), taking few chances, and proving more than happy to let opponents shoot themselves in the feet. The Cardinals' offense was quite efficient, if short in big-play ability, the offensive line was fantastic, and while the defense was lacking, there was usually a cap on its struggle; BSU's D was usually below average but rarely catastrophic.

Ball State also improved as the year progressed, at last until the last couple of games.

Adj. Points per game (first 4 games): Opponent 32.9, Ball State 27.6 (minus-5.3)
Adj. Points per game (next 7 games): Ball State 35.0, Opponent 29.7 (plus-5.3)
Adj. Points per game (last 2 games): Opponent 29.4, Ball State 22.1 (minus-7.3)

The Cardinals managed to take out Indiana and South Florida without playing particularly well, then played pretty well in losses to Kent State and Northern Illinois. The offense was magnificent against Ohio then mediocre at best in the final two games, but the defense continued to steadily improve.

Offense

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	27	68	44	90
RUSHING	28	74	60	83
PASSING	47	68	37	89
Standard Downs		57	26	83
Passing Downs		101	104	101
Redzone		45	22	71

Q1 Rk	54	1st Down Rk	65
Q2 Rk	69	2nd Down Rk	82
Q3 Rk	77	3rd Down Rk	66
Q4 Rk	88

3. An underdog-friendly offense

Ball State was lacking in explosiveness in 2012, but the Cardinals got a little crafty in moving the ball. They threw more than normal on standard downs, they ran more than normal on passing downs, they passed in the red zone, and they operated at an abnormal pace (in this case, a fast one). Ball State was far from predictable, checking off quite a few Underdog Tactics boxes in the process.

4. Wanted: big plays

Craftiness is great. Explosiveness is better. With Jahwan Edwards and Horactio Banks running behind an excellent line and Keith Wenning completing a host of high-percentage passes (often on running downs), Ball State was excellent at grinding out five yards at a time. But in college football, big plays create margin for error, and the Cardinals were lacking in this regard. Edwards was not particularly explosive (6.1 yards per carry is good, but it was based a lot on the line), and Wenning averaged just 10.3 yards per completion. None of Wenning's top four targets averaged even 13 yards per catch. This is, of course, a problem.

That most of BSU's skill position weapons return is certainly not a bad thing. But if a youngster with big-play ability were to emerge -- the best candidate is probably sophomore receiver KeVonn Mabon, last year's No. 5 target, though some redshirt freshmen (receiver Efe Scott-Emuakpor, perhaps) or freshmen (running back Teddy Williamson?) could certainly play a role -- the offense's upside might rise enough to offset the downside of a line ravaged by graduation.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2013 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Comp	Att	Yards	Comp Rate	TD	INT	Sacks	Sack Rate	Yards/ Att.
Keith Wenning	6'3, 220	Sr.	*** (5.5)	301	460	3,095	65.4%	24	10	11	2.3%	6.4
Kelly Page				16	29	178	55.2%	3	0	1	3.3%	5.6
Kyle Kamman	6'2, 180	So.	NR	0	1	0	0.0%	0	0	0	0.0%	0.0
Jack Miles	6'1, 195	Fr.	** (5.4)

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	TD	Adj. POE
Jahwan Edwards	RB	5'10, 225	Jr.	** (5.2)	232	1,410	6.1	4.7	14	+15.7
Horactio Banks	RB	5'10, 184	So.	** (5.4)	113	586	5.2	5.8	4	+1.4
Barrington Scott	RB				93	374	4.0	2.8	1	-11.6
Keith Wenning	QB	6'3, 220	Sr.	*** (5.5)	45	173	3.8	3.0	3	-4.9
Kelly Page	QB				15	97	6.5	3.6	1	+1.4
Toney Williams	RB				9	44	4.9	2.8	1	+0.4
Jamill Smith	WR-Z	5'8, 140	Sr.	NR	7	62	8.9	7.1	0	+2.7
Dwayne Donigan	RB				5	18	3.6	1.0	0	-0.6
Teddy Williamson	RB	5'10, 184	Fr.	** (5.4)

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Yds/ Target	Target Rate	%SD	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Willie Snead	WR-X	5'11, 193	Jr.	*** (5.5)	139	89	1148	64.0%	8.3	29.4%	68.3%	8.2	117.8
Jamill Smith	WR-Z	5'8, 140	Sr.	NR	103	69	706	67.0%	6.9	21.8%	67.0%	6.8	72.4
Zane Fakes	TE	6'3, 237	Sr.	** (4.9)	81	57	461	70.4%	5.7	17.2%	72.8%	5.8	47.3
Connor Ryan	WR-W	6'1, 194	Sr.	** (5.2)	60	44	357	73.3%	6.0	12.7%	70.0%	6.1	36.6
KeVonn Mabon	WR-X	6'3, 208	So.	** (5.3)	30	23	335	76.7%	11.2	6.4%	73.3%	10.7	34.4
Jahwan Edwards	RB	5'10, 225	Jr.	** (5.2)	13	10	51	76.9%	3.9	2.8%	53.8%	4.2	5.2
Jack Tomlinson	WR				10	5	49	50.0%	4.9	2.1%	50.0%	4.8	5.0
Chris Shillings	WR-Z	6'1, 205	Jr.	** (5.4)	9	4	51	44.4%	5.7	1.9%	66.7%	5.9	5.2
Horactio Banks	RB	5'10, 184	So.	** (5.4)	9	5	29	55.6%	3.2	1.9%	33.3%	4.8	3.0
David Schneider	TE	6'2, 240	Sr.	** (5.3)	8	5	23	62.5%	2.9	1.7%	87.5%	2.0	2.4
Dylan Curry	TE	6'5, 260	So.	*** (5.5)	4	3	51	75.0%	12.8	0.8%	75.0%	12.8	5.2
Barrington Scott	RB				3	2	14	66.7%	4.7	0.6%	100.0%	2.8	1.4
Trey Gardner	WR	6'4, 216	So.	** (5.4)
Efe Scott-Emuakpor	WR	6'3, 183	RSFr.	*** (5.5)
Calvin Blank	TE	6'4, 226	Fr.	*** (5.6)
Ralph Smith	WR	5'9, 166	Fr.	** (5.4)

5. Jamill Smith really is 5'8, 140

That's pretty awesome.

Smith carries a pretty big load for the offense, too; he averaged 8.5 touches (carries and targets) per game in 2012 and returned 33 kicks and 11 punts. He is probably better as a return man than a receiver, but his shiftiness is valuable to this efficiency attack.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	103.6	3.37	3.12	41.1%	65.3%	13.4%	209.8	1.3%	4.8%
Rank	56	8	72	39	78	3	11	4	36

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	Career Starts/Honors/Notes
Austin Holtz	LT				32 career starts; 2012 1st All-MAC
Cameron Lowry	RT				32 career starts; 2012 3rd All-MAC
Jordan Hansel	RG	6'4, 326	Sr.	** (5.2)	27 career starts; 2012 3rd All-MAC
Dan Manick	C				38 career starts
Kitt O'Brien	LG				37 career starts
Jacob Richard	C	6'1, 285	So.	NR	3 career starts
Chris Sparrow	LG				3 career starts
Matthew Page	LT	6'6, 300	Sr.	** (5.2)	2 career starts
Jalen Schlachter	LG	6'6, 317	So.	*** (5.6)	1 career start
Drake Miller	OL	6'4, 289	RSFr.	** (5.4)
P.J. Scott	OL	6'3, 290	Jr.	** (5.2)
Haris Vrabac	OL	6'7, 310	Fr.	** (5.4)
Pat Maloney	OL	6'4, 270	Fr.	** (5.4)
Vinnie Palazeti	OL	6'4, 285	Fr.	** (5.4)

6. A really good line replaces some really good pieces

Ball State's line ranked eighth in the country in Line Yards per carry on standard downs and ranked third in Stuff Rate (the ability to avoid getting a runner stuffed in the backfield). It kept Keith Wenning upright, as well (though the quick passing game is pretty naturally good at sack avoidance).

It was quite obviously the biggest strength of the offense as a whole, and it must now replace four multi-year starters. Austin Holtz, Cameron Lowry, Dan Manick and Kitt O'Brien combined for 139 career starts; all four started at least 32 games, or more than two and a half seasons. It is nearly impossible to suffer this kind of loss and avoid regression to some degree. Returning guard Jordan Hansel is a two-time all-conference selection, and three other returnees have gotten a little bit of starting experience. And size certainly won't be an issue here. But wow, did this unit lose a lot.

Defense

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	105	68	60	75
RUSHING	108	60	48	68
PASSING	96	74	89	72
Standard Downs		65	69	65
Passing Downs		76	59	82
Redzone		110	111	96

Q1 Rk	63	1st Down Rk	61
Q2 Rk	87	2nd Down Rk	91
Q3 Rk	19	3rd Down Rk	76
Q4 Rk	113

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	93.9	3.36	3.82	40.2%	75.0%	13.9%	100.1	4.7%	5.2%
Rank	86	117	113	75	106	121	62	62	86

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Nick Miles	DE	6'2, 265	Jr.	** (5.4)	13	40.5	5.3%	4.5	2	0	0	0	0
Jonathan Newsome	DE	6'3, 236	Sr.	*** (5.7)	11	38.5	5.1%	12.5	8.5	0	1	0	0
Nathan Ollie	DT	6'1, 295	Sr.	** (5.4)	13	35.5	4.7%	8	4	0	0	0	1
Brandon Newman	NT				13	22.5	3.0%	5	2.5	1	0	1	0
Joel Cox	DT	6'1, 288	Sr.	** (5.3)	13	11.0	1.4%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Donovan Jarrett	DT				7	6.0	0.8%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Michael Ayers	DE	6'1, 218	So.	NR	12	5.5	0.7%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Keenan Noel	DE	6'1, 270	So.	** (5.4)	13	4.0	0.5%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Osa Igbinosun	DE	6'2, 245	So.	** (5.2)	12	1.0	0.1%	0	0	0	0	0	1
Darnell Smith	DT	5'11, 275	Jr.	** (5.2)	11	0.5	0.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Daniel Garces	DE	6'2, 223	Fr.	** (5.4)
Anthony Winbush	DE	6'3, 220	Fr.	** (5.4)

7. Wanted: beef

As big and strong as the Ball State offensive line will be, the defensive line could use a bit more of a push. The Cardinals got shoved around up front on defense, and it cost them significantly. The pass rush had potential -- Ohio State transfer Jonathan Newsome had 8.5 sacks -- and Ball State's linebackers cleaned up quite a bit of messes. But the top three linebackers are all gone, and the safety net has been removed.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Travis Freeman	MLB				13	89.5	11.8%	2.5	0	0	2	1	0
Tony Martin	WLB				13	64.0	8.4%	3.5	1	1	3	0	1
Justin Cruz	WLB				13	44.5	5.9%	3	0	0	0	0	0
Kenneth Lee	LB	6'2, 224	Sr.	NR	12	28.0	3.7%	2.5	1	0	1	1	1
Ben Ingle	MLB	6'0, 224	So.	** (5.3)	12	8.0	1.1%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Julian Boyd	LB	6'2, 220	Jr.	** (5.3)	9	4.0	0.5%	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0
Trent Toothman	LB	6'0, 236	Jr.	** (5.4)	5	3.0	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Stephan Martin	LB	6'1, 230	Jr.	** (5.4)
Sean Wiggins	LB	6'3, 235	Fr.	** (5.4)
Stu Stanley	LB	6'1, 210	Fr.	** (5.4)

8. Selective attrition

Is it better to lose an equal number of contributors at each unit on the field, or would you prefer to return most units intact and have to focus on a couple of specific, ravaged units? Ball State returns almost everybody of importance at quarterback, running back, receiver, on the defensive line, and in the secondary. But wow, did the offensive line and linebacking corps get ravaged. Ball State's linebackers were underrated last year -- only one (Travis Freeman) received any sort of all-conference honor (second-team), but the linebackers clearly helped the run defense out tremendously: the Cardinals' line stats were poor, but they still ranked a healthy 60th in overall Rushing S&P+.

Now, a lineup consisting of senior Kenneth Lee (who began his career at tiny St. Joseph's College in Indiana), a host of young reserves, junior college transfer Stephan Martin (who redshirted last year) and potentially some freshmen will attempt to provide the same type of safety net Ball State benefited from in 2012.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Eric Patterson	CB	5'10, 193	Jr.	** (5.4)	13	53.0	7.0%	4.5	0	2	9	1	0
Jarrett Swaby	SS				13	52.0	6.9%	1.5	0	0	3	0	0
Jeffery Garrett	CB	6'0, 186	Sr.	** (5.4)	13	47.5	6.3%	1	0	0	6	0	0
J.C. Wade	FS	5'10, 195	Jr.	** (5.3)	12	41.5	5.5%	0	0	0	5	1	0
Quintin Cooper	NB	5'7, 184	Jr.	*** (5.5)	13	39.5	5.2%	1	0	2	2	0	1
Brian Jones	SS	5'10, 195	Jr.	*** (5.5)	10	27.5	3.6%	1	0	1	1	0	1
Jason Pinkston	CB				12	22.0	2.9%	1.5	0	0	4	1	0
Chris Pauling	FS	5'9, 183	So.	** (5.3)	8	14.0	1.8%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Armand Dehaney	CB				5	9.0	1.2%	0	0	0	3	0	0
Joseph Fazio	FS	5'11, 208	Sr.	NR	13	7.0	0.9%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Christopher Calloway	NB	5'11, 202	Jr.	** (5.4)	12	5.5	0.7%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Andre Dawson	CB				8	3.5	0.5%	1	0	0	0	0	0
Brandon Kish	S				5	3.5	0.5%	0	0	0	0	0	1
Tyree Holder	CB	5'11, 163	RSFr.	** (5.3)
Aaron Taylor	S	5'11, 191	RSFr.	** (5.4)

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Scott Kovanda			47	40.3	2	19	27	97.9%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	TB%
Scott Secor	5'8, 166	Jr.	84	60.3	23	27.4%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Steven Schott			50-51	16-20	80.0%	9-12	75.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2013 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Jamill Smith	KR	5'8, 140	Sr.	33	25.6	0
Jahwan Edwards	KR	5'10, 225	Jr.	7	16.7	0
Jamill Smith	PR	5'8, 140	Sr.	11	13.8	0
Jack Tomlinson	PR			5	5.0	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	5
Net Punting	23
Net Kickoffs	89
Touchback Pct	90
Field Goal Pct	36
Kick Returns Avg	30
Punt Returns Avg	28

9. A reload on special teams

Like Kent State, Ball State did itself serious favors with an altogether lovely special teams unit. Kickoffs were an issue, but the Cardinals were tremendous in the punting and return games and sufficient in the place-kicking department. But with both punter Scott Kovanda and kicker Steven Schott gone, there is a bit of a rebuild going on. And with how much field position meant to BSU in 2012 -- the Cardinals ranked 23rd in Field Position Advantage and fifth in Special Teams F/+ -- the loss of these two could mean as much as the losses on the line and at linebacker.

2013 Schedule & Projection Factors

2012 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
29-Aug	Illinois State	NR
7-Sep	Army	103
14-Sep	at North Texas	112
21-Sep	at Eastern Michigan	118
28-Sep	Toledo	62
5-Oct	at Virginia	65
12-Oct	Kent State	80
19-Oct	at Western Michigan	93
26-Oct	at Akron	120
6-Nov	Central Michigan	96
13-Nov	at Northern Illinois	50
29-Nov	Miami (Ohio)	106

Five-Year F/+ Rk	89
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	107
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	-3 / +2.2
TO Luck/Game	-2.0
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	14 (7, 7)
Yds/Pt Margin**	-0.8

10. Another October surge would be welcome

Last year, Ball State found its groove in late-September and cruised through October and much of November. It will be a little more difficult to do that this time around; after a light September that features four opponents projected 103rd or worse, Ball State's schedule features a season-defining stretch: Toledo, at Virginia, Kent State, at Western Michigan. Go 3-1 or 4-0 here, and you're potentially heading into November as the favorite in the MAC West. Go 1-3 or 0-4, and your bowl hopes are on life support.

Over the past 12 years, Pete Lembo has ground out winning season after winning season, and I expect him to do so again in 2013. The attrition on the offensive line and in the kicking unit is particularly worrisome considering how important those two units were to Ball State's success, and because of that I don't see BSU putting together a serious threat to win the MAC West. But with a positive home schedule and winnable road trips to North Texas, Eastern Michigan, Western Michigan and Akron, bowl eligibility is likely. Plus, I'm willing to bet on proven track records.

Follow @SBNationCFBFollow @SBNRecruiting

More in College Football:

• Let’s start a college football program

• Texas WR facing charges after punch

• Do spring stars pan out? Looking back at last year's standouts

• What if college football had free agency?

• Denard Robinson wins NCAA Football 14 cover

• College football recruiting coverage

Rock-M-Tology, 3-14-13

March 14, 2013, 8:12 am

≫ Next: Know your revenge opportunity: Texas A&M

≪ Previous: 2013 Ball State football's 10 things to know: A track record and some turnover

$

0

0

Notes:

• I'll have a final bracket posted Sunday late-morning/early-afternoon.
• Honestly, barring an early loss by Louisville in the Big East Tournament, I think we've got our No. 1 seeds. Gonzaga probably clinched, Duke is safe, and Indiana is probably safe. If Louisville slips, then I assume Georgetown and Kansas are next in line. (And if you desire the "Mizzou-Kansas in Kansas City" scenario, then you probably want to root for Kansas and against Louis--LOL SORRY couldn't get through that with a straight face.)
• For the bubble, I think we're basically down to seven spots for 10 teams: Boise State, California, Iowa State, Kentucky, La Salle, Middle Tennessee, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Villanova, and Virginia. Louisiana Tech has a pretty interesting case, but they were drubbed at both New Mexico State and Denver last week, and a loss in the WAC Tournament would probably finish them off. Again, it's a pretty favorable year to be a bubble team (7-in-10 is pretty good odds), but right now I've still got two SEC teams on the outside, looking in. (And I don't have Alabama very close to the bubble at all.)

Moving Up

Denver (21-8) - Since 2012 became 2013, Denver is 16-1; the Pioneers lost a competitive game to Louisiana Tech on December 29, and their only loss since then was against a decent New Mexico State team on the road. Unfortunately, their only interesting non-conference win was in BracketBusters versus Northern Iowa. Still, a 24-point home win over Louisiana Tech is interesting, as is their No. 28 Pomeroy ranking. If they make the WAC finals and barely lose to Louisiana Tech (and a bunch of other bubble teams play poorly), then maybe they get a long look.

Iowa State (21-10) - The 11-point home win over Oklahoma State last week probably solidified the Cyclones' bid, though today's Big 12 Tourney game versus Oklahoma is enormous.

Villanova (19-12) - The last eight days likely locked up their bid, and honestly, they might be safer than I have them (First Four). They beat Georgetown by 10 last Wednesday, and they beat St. John's last night. Take out Louisville today, and they're in for sure.

Moving Down

Minnesota (20-11) - Some teams just can't handle success. I called them underrated, and they proved it by beating Indiana and not just beating Penn State, but destroying them. The next week, they lost at Nebraska and Purdue. They could win the Big Ten Tournament, and they could lose by 20 to Illinois today. Nothing's going to surprise me.

Oregon (23-8) - Remember when Oregon was 18-2? Me neither. I do, however, remember when they lost at Colorado by 23, then lost at Utah to finish the regular season.

Oklahoma (20-10) - They're safe, but let's just say that a loss at TCU isn't really the best way to finish the regular season. Neither is going just 8-7 down the stretch.

Who knows?

Middle Tennessee (28-5) - I maintain that this is exactly the type of VCU-like team I could see getting a spot in the First Four. And my numbers like them a decent amount. But I acknowledge that I'm just about the only one on the bandwagon.

New Mexico (27-5) - The Lobos are No. 2 in RPI, but their No. 22 Pomeroy ranking suggests that they haven't looked as good as their record would suggest. And they lost to Air Force to finish the regular season. That probably solidified their 3-seed in the tourney, but I'm keeping them on the 2 line one last time as an acknowledgement that their resume is really, really strong. And if they win the MWC tournament, maybe they've still got a shot.

Illinois (20-11) - The committee could look fondly on their wins over Indiana, Ohio State, Minnesota, Gonzaga and Butler and bump them to about a 5- or 6-seed with a nice showing in the Big Ten Tournament. Or, the committee could look poorly on losses to Iowa, Northwestern and Purdue and dump them to about a 10 with a loss to Minnesota today. I do not have a good read on them at all.

Boise State (19-10) - A win over San Diego State yesterday would have helped them immensely. My numbers like them enough to keep them out of the First Four, but if they get in, that's probably where they're headed.

Last Few In

Names in italics would be among the last in without their conference's automatic bid.

Temple (23-8)
Iowa State (21-10)
Boise State (19-10)
La Salle (21-8)
Middle Tennessee (28-5)
Villanova (19-12)
Kentucky (21-10)
California (20-10)

First Few Out

Virginia (21-10)
Louisiana Tech (25-5)
Tennessee (19-11)
Ole Miss (23-8)
Akron (23-6)
Denver (21-8)
Iowa (20-11)
Maryland (20-11)

By Conference

8 - Big East
7 - Big 10
5 - Atlantic 10, Big 12, Mountain West, Pac-12
4 - ACC
3 - SEC
2 - Missouri Valley, Sun Belt, West Coast

The Bracket

FIRST FOUR (in Dayton)

Savannah State (17-13) vs. Long Island (20-13)
Southern (18-9) vs. Liberty (15-20)

Middle Tennessee (28-5) vs. Kentucky (21-10)
California (20-10) vs. Villanova (19-12)

EAST REGIONAL (in Washington, DC)

1 Duke (27-4) vs. James Madison (20-14)
8 Memphis (27-4) vs. 9 Missouri (22-9)
in Lexington

5 Oklahoma State (23-7) vs. Bucknell (27-5)
4 Syracuse (24-8) vs. 13 Stephen F. Austin (22-3)
in Salt Lake City

6 Butler (23-7) vs. 11 Iowa State (21-10)
3 Michigan State (23-7) vs. 14 Valparaiso (25-7)
in Auburn Hills

7 UCLA (23-8) vs. 10 Cincinnati (22-10)
2 New Mexico (27-5) vs. 15 Vermont (21-10)
in Salt Lake City

WEST REGIONAL (in Los Angeles)

1 Gonzaga (30-2) vs. 16 Pacific (17-12)
8 N.C. State (22-9) vs. 9 Illinois (20-11)
in San Jose

5 UNLV (23-8) vs. 12 La Salle (21-8)
4 Arizona (24-6) vs. 13 South Dakota State (22-9)
in San Jose

6 Pittsburgh (24-7) vs. 11 Boise State (19-10)
3 Ohio State (23-7) vs. 14 Weber State (22-5)
in Philadelphia

7 Wisconsin (21-10) vs. 10 Oklahoma (20-10)
2 Georgetown (24-5) vs 15 Harvard (18-9)
in Philadelphia

SOUTH REGIONAL (in Arlington)

1 Louisville (26-5) vs. 16 Savannah State / Long Island
8 Minnesota (20-11) vs. 9 Wichita State (26-8)
in Dayton

5 St. Louis (24-6) vs. 12 Middle Tennessee / Kentucky
4 Kansas State (24-6) vs. 13 Akron (23-6)
in Kansas City

6 Colorado State (23-7) vs. 11 Temple (23-8)
3 Miami (24-6) vs. 14 Florida Gulf Coast (22-10)
in Austin

7 North Carolina (21-9) vs. 10 Oregon (23-8)
2 Michigan (24-6) vs. 15 Iona (20-13)
in Auburn Hills

MIDWEST REGIONAL (in Indianapolis)

1 Indiana (26-5) vs. 16 Southern / Liberty
8 Notre Dame (24-8) vs. 9 St. Mary's (26-6)
in Dayton

5 VCU (24-7) vs. 12 Cal / Villanova
4 Marquette (23-7) vs. 13 Louisiana Tech (25-5)
in Austin

6 Creighton (27-7) vs. 11 Belmont (24-6)
3 Florida (24-6) vs. 14 Davidson (25-7)
in Lexington

7 San Diego State (20-9) vs. 10 Colorado (21-10)
2 Kansas (26-5) vs. 15 Western Kentucky (19-15)
in Kansas City

My At-First-Glance Final Four

Duke-Georgetown-Louisville-Kansas

Second glance: Michigan State-Ohio State-Michigan-Indiana. Hmm. That's ... probably not going to happen. And lord help us if it does.

Missouri's inevitable path to destiny™ (ahem)

Memphis-Duke-Syracuse-Michigan State-Georgetown-Louisville. Yeesh. Big East champs.

Know your revenge opportunity: Texas A&M

March 14, 2013, 11:39 am

≫ Next: Basketball live thread: Missouri vs. Texas A&M

≪ Previous: Rock-M-Tology, 3-14-13

$

0

0

Missouri could still be capable of digging out of the 8-9 hole in the NCAA tournament bracket with a good few days in Nashville. It begins with a rematch against Texas A&M.

Texas A&M Aggies (18-14)
Since Last Time

	A&M	Opp.
Pace (No. of Possessions)	63.7
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.04	1.06
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.22	1.30
2-PT FG%	48.2%	46.8%
3-PT FG%	36.6%	34.3%
FT%	70.5%	72.4%
True Shooting %	53.6%	54.1%
	A&M	Opp.
Assists/Gm	11.6	12.2
Steals/Gm	5.5	5.6
Turnovers/Gm	13.0	13.2
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.32	1.35
	A&M	Opp.
Expected Off. Rebounds/Gm	10.7	10.6
Offensive Rebounds/Gm	10.5	11.3
Difference	-0.2	+0.7

Texas A&M is a frustrating team to play in a tournament setting. By all means, Missouri should handle this game pretty well -- the Aggies are basically a three-man team, they lost four of five to end the regular season (including a home loss to LSU), and Pomeroy has Mizzou projected to win by 10 -- but A&M has hinted at high upside at times (they beat Mizzou, and they won at Kentucky), and Elston Turner is a "put the team on your back and go score 30 points" guy. If he gets hot, A&M could absolutely pull an upset. And if he doesn't, of course, they probably can't.

As we see above, A&M really hasn't been that great of late. They shoot reasonably well, but you do too. Their ball control numbers on offense are solid, but so are yours. And in terms of expected rebounds, they are losing by about a board a game despite some occasionally impressive work from Kourtney Roberson and Ray Turner. They can look good, but it's been a while.

Ken Pomeroy Stats

A&M Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	A&M Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	114	67	MU
Effective FG%	131	85	MU
Turnover %	246	291	A&M
Off. Reb. %	65	49	push
FTA/FGA	258	27	MU big
MU Offense vs A&M Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	A&M Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	9	106	MU
Effective FG%	64	128	MU
Turnover %	113	80	A&M
Off. Reb. %	8	244	MU big
FTA/FGA	193	156	A&M

Where the Aggies are weakest

They turn the ball over like crazy (which means they are not well-positioned to take advantage of one of Missouri's bigger weaknesses), they don't draw fouls (which is a shame because they shoot free throws pretty well), and they don't shoot many 3-pointers (which is a shame because they shoot them pretty well). On defense, they give up a ton of second-chance opportunities, they foul a bit too much, and they foul guards, who tend to make the free throws. Alex Caruso is a wild man up top, a long point guard capable of coming up with steals, disrupting passing lanes, and committing three fouls in about 14 seconds.

Where they are best

They generate a ton of second-chance opportunities of the own, and they turn you over. They are almost too selective from the 3-point line, but they make a lot of the ones they take. And they do have a time bomb in Elston Turner.

A&M's Season Since Last Time

• Wins (Team Rank is from KenPom.com)
  No. 18 Missouri (70-68)
  No. 45 Ole Miss (69-67)
  at No. 195 Auburn (65-56)
  vs. No. 195 Auburn (71-62)
  No. 214 South Carolina (74-56)
• Losses
  at No. 45 Ole Miss (73-82)
  No. 62 Tennessee (85-93, 4OT)
  at No. 74 Arkansas (62-73)
  at No. 92 Vanderbilt (56-63)
  at No. 93 Georgia (46-52)
  No. 95 LSU (57-68)

Say this much: A&M tends to keep it close. Since a 21-point loss to Florida on January 17, 13 of A&M's last 16 games have been decided by single digits. Granted, they're 2-5 in these games away from home, but "Keep things close and lean on your scorer late" is how you pull a tourney upset. Hopefully Mizzou can build some space early, pull down defensive rebounds, and force A&M into a more desperate role than it would prefer.

A&M Player Stats Since Last Time

Player	AdjGS*/Gm	GmSc/Min	Line
Elston Turner (6'5, 212, Sr.)	20.9	0.54	38.7 MPG, 22.4 PPG (52% 2PT, 35% 3PT, 88% FT), 2.2 RPG, 1.9 APG, 1.4 TOPG
Fabyon Harris (5'11, 172, Jr.)	13.4	0.39	34.3 MPG, 13.7 PPG (47% 2PT, 48% 3PT, 76% FT), 2.8 RPG, 1.7 APG, 1.7 TOPG
Kourtney Roberson (6'9, 234, So.)	11.7	0.44	26.7 MPG, 7.8 PPG (72% 2PT, 50% FT), 6.8 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.7 TOPG
Ray Turner (6'9, 230, Sr.)	7.9	0.32	24.7 MPG, 8.1 PPG (46% 2PT, 61% FT), 6.6 RPG, 1.6 TOPG, 3.4 PFPG
Alex Caruso (6'5, 176, Fr.)	7.0	0.25	27.6 MPG, 6.6 PPG, 4.4 APG, 2.8 RPG, 1.5 SPG, 2.6 TOPG, 3.6 PFPG
J'Mychal Reese (6'1, 173, Fr.)	2.4	0.11	22.5 MPG, 5.2 PPG (30% 2PT, 39% 3PT, 83% FT), 1.5 RPG, 1.5 APG, 1.6 TOPG
Jordan Green (6'5, 183, So.)	2.1	0.21	10.1 MPG, 2.5 PPG, 1.7 RPG
Jarod Jahns (6'6, 202, Sr.)	1.6	0.09	17.5 MPG, 1.5 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 2.8 PFPG
Andrew Young (6'8, 241, Jr.)	0.8	0.06	13.5 MPG, 1.8 PPG, 2.3 RPG

* AdjGS = a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It redistributes a team's points based not only on points scored, but also by giving credit for assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls. It is a stat intended to determine who had the biggest overall impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

• Highest Usage%: E. Turner (30%), Harris (22%), R. Turner (22%)
• Highest Floor%: Roberson (50%), Turner (42%), Harris (41%)
• Highest %Pass: Caruso (69%), Jahns (53%), Reese (50%)
• Highest %Shoot: R. Turner (59%), E. Turner (49%), Young (44%)
• Highest %Fouled: R. Turner (23%), Green (19%), Jahns (16%)
• Highest %T/O: Green (17%), R. Turner (14%), Roberson (11%)
• I'm going to miss Ray Turner. He is a fascinating "true outcomes" type of player; when the ball goes into his hands, he's either shooting, drawing a foul, or turning it over. He's an aggressive guy who gets too aggressive quite frequently, but he's entertaining. And this is probably my last opportunity to link to this.

Keys to the Game

1. Second chances. Both of these teams rank much better on the offensive glass than on the defensive glass. A&M doesn't shoot well enough to survive without second-chance opportunities, and Mizzou's biggest advantage often comes when Laurence Bowers, Alex Oriakhi and company are flying in on a shot from a Mizzou guard. If one team can derive an advantage on the defensive glass, it will go a long way.
   
   
2. The supporting cast. When A&M beat Missouri, Elston Turner didn't really have that great a game. He was fine, mind you -- 15 points on 5-for-13 shooting, four assists, three turnovers -- but he wasn't dominant. But J'Mychal Reese scored eight points, Alex Caruso dished six assists to just one turnover, and Ray Turner was able to play 28 minutes (and score 12 points) without fouling out. If you whittle A&M's options down to Elston Turner and offensive rebounds, you can eventually shut the Aggies down. So, uh, do that.
   
   
3. Flipadelphia. This will be a key for every game left on the schedule. Missouri is going to go as far in the postseason as Phil Pressey will take it. He is this team's engine. With Good Flip, Mizzou can make a Final Four. With Bad Flip, Mizzou could lose to A&M, then lose in the Round of 64 next week. If he is playing under control on offense and isn't a total liability on defense, Mizzou is a really, really dangerous team. He had four assists and seven turnovers and shot 4-for-11 from the field in Mizzou's loss to A&M. Do better than that, and Missouri probably wins tonight.
   
   

Prediction

Pomeroy says Mizzou 71, A&M 61. That sounds about right to me, though I'll say it's a little more high-scoring. We'll say Mizzou wins, 77-66, and gets ready to trade haymakers with Ole Miss tomorrow night.

---

Basketball live thread: Missouri vs. Texas A&M

March 14, 2013, 5:16 pm

≫ Next: Mizzou Links, 3-15-13

≪ Previous: Know your revenge opportunity: Texas A&M

$

0

0

What: The SEC Basketball Tournament
Who: Texas A&M Aggies (18-14) vs. Missouri Tigers (22-9)
When: 9:00(ish) p.m. CT
Where: Bridgestone Arena (18,160), Nashville

TV: SEC Network (affiliates)
Radio: Tiger Radio Network

Time to get hot, fellas.

What: The SEC Basketball Tournament
Who: Texas A&M Aggies (18-14) vs. Missouri Tigers (22-9)
When: 9:00(ish) p.m. CT
Where: Bridgestone Arena (18,160), Nashville

TV: SEC Network (affiliates)
Radio: Tiger Radio Network

Time to get hot, fellas.

Mizzou Links, 3-15-13

March 15, 2013, 3:13 am

≫ Next: Missouri faces Ole Miss in SEC Tournament quarterfinals

≪ Previous: Basketball live thread: Missouri vs. Texas A&M

$

0

0

Mizzou Basketball Links

• Mizzou >> A&M
  MUtigers.com: Oriakhi's Double-Double Sends Mizzou to 62-50 Win
  The Trib: Tigers shut down Aggies, advance to quarterfinals
  The Trib: Dunking Oriakhi does damage in win
  The Trib: PHOTOS: Missouri 62, Texas A&M 50
  The Missourian: Missouri defeats Texas A&M in SEC Tournament
  KC Star: MU wears out Texas A&M for 62-50 win in SEC Tournament
  Post-Dispatch: Determined Mizzou routs A&M 62-50
  PowerMizzou: Tigers clamp down and advance
  PowerMizzou: PHOTOS: The Baseline View
  The Maneater: Defense pushes Missouri past A&M in SEC tourney
  KBIA Sports: Mizzou rolls by Texas A&M in first round of SEC Tournament
  Team Speed Kills: SEC Tournament Day 2 Recap
  Mizzou Network (YouTube): SEC Tournament: Mizzou takes down Texas A&M
• Next
  KC Star: SEC quarterfinal preview: (6) Missouri vs. (3) Mississippi
• Next Week
  Post-Dispatch: Mizzou's place in NCAA could challenge committee
• Stop Making Us Like You, Party Starter
  Mizzou Network (YouTube): Bowers visits Vanderbilt Children's HospitalPost-Dispatch: Bowers is much more than a basketball player at MU

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

• SEC Network
  Yahoo! Sports: Commissioner: SEC to announce launch of TV network in mid-April

Mizzou Football Links

• Day 2
  PowerMizzou: Spring Notebook: Day 2

  On Thursday, we received our first real time to interview redshirt freshman quarterback Maty Mauk, who is in the running for the starting job along with Franklin and Corbin Berkstresser. Mauk did not play last year, and mainly ran the scout team in practice, but he did say there was a time when he came close to shedding his redshirt.

  "I think it was the first time James got hurt," Mauk said. "We were there on Thursday night and Coach Yost sent me up there, and he said I should be ready, basically. That's when I started to get focused and I started to hit the playbook a little bit harder that week, things like that, so there was a point, yeah."

  Mauk still remains a bit of an unknown, as the last time we saw him was August, his first camp at Missouri. Mauk said his style of play is similar to Franklin, in that he's a dual-threat in the backfield. In talking with new quarterback coach Andy Hill, it seemed like Mauk brings more "escapability" as he looks downfield.

• QB No. 1
  PowerMizzou: PMTV-HD: Franklin ready to go
• More From Coach Hill
  PowerMizzou: PMTV-HD: New QB Coach Andy Hill
• 2014 Recruiting
  PowerMizzou: In-State Star Will Check Out Mizzou

Other Football Links

• NERRRRRRDS--oh wait
  SI.com (Stewart Mandel): The potential impact of stats on the playoff selection committee

Mizzou Diamond Sports Links

• Stubble
  MUtigers.com: No. 8 Mizzou Set to Visit Ole Miss for First SEC Away Series
• Head Out To Taylor Stadium!
  MUtigers.com: Baseball Opens SEC Play with No. 5 Gamecocks This Weekend
  SimmonsField.com: MIZZOU MATCHUP: #5 South Carolina Gamecocks
  SimmonsField.com: SEC Weekend: South Carolina @ Taylor Stadium
• Pros
  SimmonsField.com: HI NOTES: Kyle Gibson to AAA Rochester

Other Mizzou Links

• Mizzou Swimming & Diving
  MUtigers.com: Tigers Send 12 to NCAA Men's Championships
  MUtigers.com: Nine Tigers to Compete at the NCAA Women's Championships
• Mizzou Women's Basketball
  MUtigers.com: Flores Joins San Antonio Silver Stars
  KBIA Sports: Former Mizzou Tiger Christine Flores signs deal with San Antonio
• Mizzou Gymnastics
  MUtigers.com: Gymnastics Closes Regular Season at Arizona
• Mizzou Tennis
  The Missourian: Missouri tennis team making difficult transition to SEC
• Mizzou Soccer
  MUtigers.com: Mizzou Game vs. FC Kansas City Moved to March 19

Missouri faces Ole Miss in SEC Tournament quarterfinals

March 15, 2013, 5:18 am

≫ Next: Study Hall: Mizzou 62, Texas A&M 50

≪ Previous: Mizzou Links, 3-15-13

$

0

0

Missouri and Ole Miss face off in the evening's final game tonight at 9:00 p.m. CT.

Your Trifecta: Oriakhi-Bowers-Brown. Your winner: Ausgiano.

Mizzou 62, Texas A&M 50

NCAA Basketball

	Mizzou	A&M
Pace (No. of Possessions)	64.8
Points Per Possession (PPP)	0.96	0.77
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.32	0.86
2-PT FG%	47.1%	21.4%
3-PT FG%	38.5%	31.3%
FT%	71.4%	70.8%
True Shooting %	55.1%	36.5%
	Mizzou	A&M
Assists	15	4
Steals	5	12
Turnovers	19	12
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.05	1.33
	Mizzou	A&M
Expected Offensive Rebounds	10	17
Offensive Rebounds	11	14
Difference	+1	-3

Pre-Garbage Time...

...the Points Per Possession averages were Mizzou 1.02, A&M 0.64. That late A&M run skewed things a bit, though the story here was clear: Mizzou was high-intensity on defense (which probably correlated a bit with offensive sloppiness), and A&M couldn't buy a bucket against either good defense or bad. I think we would trade a little offensive efficiency for defensive intensity, but I do think the two things were related. But that effort also translated on the glass, where A&M didn't pull in nearly enough second-chance opportunities.

Mizzou Player Stats

(Definitions at the bottom of the post.)

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	AdjGS	GmSc/Min	Line
Alex Oriakhi	17.2	0.69	25 Min, 13 Pts (6-7 FG, 1-2 FT), 10 Reb
Laurence Bowers	13.2	0.55	24 Min, 10 Pts (3-7 FG, 2-3 3PT, 2-2 FT), 3 Reb, 2 Ast
Jabari Brown	11.0	0.37	30 Min, 10 Pts (2-5 FG, 1-2 3PT, 5-6 FT), 4 Ast, 2 Reb, 3 TO
Tony Criswell	7.5	0.42	18 Min, 10 Pts (3-7 FG, 2-2 FT), 4 Reb, 2 TO, 4 PF
Phil Pressey	5.0	0.16	32 Min, 2 Pts (0-1 FG, 2-2 FT), 5 Ast, 4 Reb, 3 TO
Earnest Ross	4.6	0.19	24 Min, 7 Pts (3-9 FG, 1-2 3PT, 0-3 FT), 10 Reb (5 Off), 3 TO
Stefan Jankovic	1.4	0.46	3 Min, 2 Pts (1-1 FG)
Negus Webster-Chan	0.8	0.28	3 Min, 3 Pts (1-2 3PT)
Keion Bell	0.3	0.01	34 Min, 5 Pts (1-7 FG, 0-4 3PT, 3-4 FT), 6 Reb, 3 Ast, 4 TO
Corey Haith	0.3	0.28	1 Min
Danny Feldmann	0.0	0.00	1 Min
Ryan Rosburg	-2.4	-0.47	5 Min, 0 Pts (0-1 FG)

Player	Usage%	Floor%	Touches/ Poss.	%Pass	%Shoot	%Fouled	%T/O
Oriakhi	19%	64%	1.2	0%	72%	18%	10%
Bowers	17%	45%	2.7	57%	34%	8%	0%
Brown	19%	40%	3.9	64%	14%	14%	8%
Criswell	29%	40%	1.9	0%	65%	16%	19%
Pressey	8%	37%	3.5	84%	3%	5%	9%
Ross	30%	20%	2.7	29%	44%	13%	15%
Bell	20%	22%	3.0	55%	22%	11%	12%
Rosburg	21%	0%	1.3	0%	50%	0%	50%

• Oriakhi was just begging for a technical foul yesterday, wasn't he? And poor Corey Haith got it instead.
• Four assists, huh, Jabari Brown? A little more of that, and we'll start to expect it from you. (A couple of those assists were absolutely gorgeous, too.)
• Not that this was the intent, but this ended up being a pretty nice 'conservation of energy' situation. Bowers only played 24 minutes, Oriakhi 25. And Pressey played 32 but didn't have to do much. Pretty much exactly what you hope for when you have to play a warm-up game while your next opponent (Ole Miss) gets a bye.
• Those were five horrific minutes from Ryan Rosburg. Alas.

Three Keys Revisited

From yesterday's preview.

Second chances

Both of these teams rank much better on the offensive glass than on the defensive glass. A&M doesn't shoot well enough to survive without second-chance opportunities, and Mizzou's biggest advantage often comes when Laurence Bowers, Alex Oriakhi and company are flying in on a shot from a Mizzou guard. If one team can derive an advantage on the defensive glass, it will go a long way.

Mizzou Expected Rebounds: +4

Win.

The supporting cast

When A&M beat Missouri, Elston Turner didn't really have that great a game. He was fine, mind you -- 15 points on 5-for-13 shooting, four assists, three turnovers -- but he wasn't dominant. But J'Mychal Reese scored eight points, Alex Caruso dished six assists to just one turnover, and Ray Turner was able to play 28 minutes (and score 12 points) without fouling out. If you whittle A&M's options down to Elston Turner and offensive rebounds, you can eventually shut the Aggies down. So, uh, do that.

J'Mychal Reese: 7 minutes, 0 points (0-3 FG)
Ray Turner: 22 minutes, 8 points (2-5 FG), 5 fouls, 4 turnovers
Alex Caruso: 30 minutes, 4 points (1-7 FG), 0 assists, 2 turnovers
Jarod Jahns: 10 minutes, 0 points (0-2 FG)

Yeah, I'd say the supporting cast was tamped down pretty well. Combine that with Elston Turner shooting 3-for-17, and you wonder how Mizzou didn't win by 30. (It was 21 before the scrubs came in, I guess.)

Flipadelphia

This will be a key for every game left on the schedule. Missouri is going to go as far in the postseason as Phil Pressey will take it. He is this team's engine. With Good Flip, Mizzou can make a Final Four. With Bad Flip, Mizzou could lose to A&M, then lose in the Round of 64 next week. If he is playing under control on offense and isn't a total liability on defense, Mizzou is a really, really dangerous team. He had four assists and seven turnovers and shot 4-for-11 from the field in Mizzou's loss to A&M. Do better than that, and Missouri probably wins tonight.

Phil Pressey: 32 minutes, 2 points (0-1 FG), 5 assists, 3 turnovers, 1 steal

It wasn't Good Flip or Bad Flip, it was Cruise Control Flip.

Summary

Mizzou's played high-level defense just enough that it will be disappointing anytime we don't see that from here on out. It did come with a price, I think -- sloppiness and turnovers -- but that's acceptable.

Now do it again tonight.

---

AdjGS: a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It takes points, assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls into account to determine an individual's "score" for a given game. The "adjustment" in Adjusted Game Score is simply matching the total game scores to the total points scored in the game, thereby redistributing the game's points scored to those who had the biggest impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

Usage%: This "estimates the % of team possessions a player consumes while on the floor" (via). The usage of those possessions is determined via a formula using field goal and free throw attempts, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers. The higher the number, the more prevalent a player is (good or bad) in a team's offensive outcome.

Floor%: Via Basketball-Reference.com: Floor % answers the question, "when Player X uses a possession, what is the probability that his team scores at least 1 point?". The higher the Floor%, the more frequently the team probably scores when the given player is involved.

Touches/Possession: Using field goal attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers, Touches attempt to estimate "the number of times a player touched the ball in an attacking position on the floor." Take the estimated touches and divide it by the estimated number of possessions for which a player was on the court, and you get a rough idea of how many times a player touched the ball in a given possession. For point guards, you'll see the number in the 3-4 range. For shooting guards and wings, 2-3. For an offensively limited center, 1.30. You get the idea.

Anyway, using the Touches figure, we can estimate the percentage of time a player "in an attacking position" passes, shoots, turns the ball over, or gets fouled.

Study Hall: Mizzou 62, Texas A&M 50

March 15, 2013, 6:00 am

≫ Next: Now hiring new Football Study Hall writers

≪ Previous: Missouri faces Ole Miss in SEC Tournament quarterfinals

$

0

0

Your Trifecta: Oriakhi-Bowers-Brown. Your winner: Ausgiano.

Mizzou 62, Texas A&M 50

NCAA Basketball

	Mizzou	A&M
Pace (No. of Possessions)	64.8
Points Per Possession (PPP)	0.96	0.77
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.32	0.86
2-PT FG%	47.1%	21.4%
3-PT FG%	38.5%	31.3%
FT%	71.4%	70.8%
True Shooting %	55.1%	36.5%
	Mizzou	A&M
Assists	15	4
Steals	5	12
Turnovers	19	12
Ball Control Index (BCI) (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.05	1.33
	Mizzou	A&M
Expected Offensive Rebounds	10	17
Offensive Rebounds	11	14
Difference	+1	-3

Pre-Garbage Time...

...the Points Per Possession averages were Mizzou 1.02, A&M 0.64. That late A&M run skewed things a bit, though the story here was clear: Mizzou was high-intensity on defense (which probably correlated a bit with offensive sloppiness), and A&M couldn't buy a bucket against either good defense or bad. I think we would trade a little offensive efficiency for defensive intensity, but I do think the two things were related. But that effort also translated on the glass, where A&M didn't pull in nearly enough second-chance opportunities.

Mizzou Player Stats

(Definitions at the bottom of the post.)

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	AdjGS	GmSc/Min	Line
Alex Oriakhi	17.2	0.69	25 Min, 13 Pts (6-7 FG, 1-2 FT), 10 Reb
Laurence Bowers	13.2	0.55	24 Min, 10 Pts (3-7 FG, 2-3 3PT, 2-2 FT), 3 Reb, 2 Ast
Jabari Brown	11.0	0.37	30 Min, 10 Pts (2-5 FG, 1-2 3PT, 5-6 FT), 4 Ast, 2 Reb, 3 TO
Tony Criswell	7.5	0.42	18 Min, 10 Pts (3-7 FG, 2-2 FT), 4 Reb, 2 TO, 4 PF
Phil Pressey	5.0	0.16	32 Min, 2 Pts (0-1 FG, 2-2 FT), 5 Ast, 4 Reb, 3 TO
Earnest Ross	4.6	0.19	24 Min, 7 Pts (3-9 FG, 1-2 3PT, 0-3 FT), 10 Reb (5 Off), 3 TO
Stefan Jankovic	1.4	0.46	3 Min, 2 Pts (1-1 FG)
Negus Webster-Chan	0.8	0.28	3 Min, 3 Pts (1-2 3PT)
Keion Bell	0.3	0.01	34 Min, 5 Pts (1-7 FG, 0-4 3PT, 3-4 FT), 6 Reb, 3 Ast, 4 TO
Corey Haith	0.3	0.28	1 Min
Danny Feldmann	0.0	0.00	1 Min
Ryan Rosburg	-2.4	-0.47	5 Min, 0 Pts (0-1 FG)

Player	Usage%	Floor%	Touches/ Poss.	%Pass	%Shoot	%Fouled	%T/O
Oriakhi	19%	64%	1.2	0%	72%	18%	10%
Bowers	17%	45%	2.7	57%	34%	8%	0%
Brown	19%	40%	3.9	64%	14%	14%	8%
Criswell	29%	40%	1.9	0%	65%	16%	19%
Pressey	8%	37%	3.5	84%	3%	5%	9%
Ross	30%	20%	2.7	29%	44%	13%	15%
Bell	20%	22%	3.0	55%	22%	11%	12%
Rosburg	21%	0%	1.3	0%	50%	0%	50%

• Oriakhi was just begging for a technical foul yesterday, wasn't he? And poor Corey Haith got it instead.
• Four assists, huh, Jabari Brown? A little more of that, and we'll start to expect it from you. (A couple of those assists were absolutely gorgeous, too.)
• Not that this was the intent, but this ended up being a pretty nice 'conservation of energy' situation. Bowers only played 24 minutes, Oriakhi 25. And Pressey played 32 but didn't have to do much. Pretty much exactly what you hope for when you have to play a warm-up game while your next opponent (Ole Miss) gets a bye.
• Those were five horrific minutes from Ryan Rosburg. Alas.

Three Keys Revisited

From yesterday's preview.

Second chances

Both of these teams rank much better on the offensive glass than on the defensive glass. A&M doesn't shoot well enough to survive without second-chance opportunities, and Mizzou's biggest advantage often comes when Laurence Bowers, Alex Oriakhi and company are flying in on a shot from a Mizzou guard. If one team can derive an advantage on the defensive glass, it will go a long way.

Mizzou Expected Rebounds: +4

Win.

The supporting cast

When A&M beat Missouri, Elston Turner didn't really have that great a game. He was fine, mind you -- 15 points on 5-for-13 shooting, four assists, three turnovers -- but he wasn't dominant. But J'Mychal Reese scored eight points, Alex Caruso dished six assists to just one turnover, and Ray Turner was able to play 28 minutes (and score 12 points) without fouling out. If you whittle A&M's options down to Elston Turner and offensive rebounds, you can eventually shut the Aggies down. So, uh, do that.

J'Mychal Reese: 7 minutes, 0 points (0-3 FG)
Ray Turner: 22 minutes, 8 points (2-5 FG), 5 fouls, 4 turnovers
Alex Caruso: 30 minutes, 4 points (1-7 FG), 0 assists, 2 turnovers
Jarod Jahns: 10 minutes, 0 points (0-2 FG)

Yeah, I'd say the supporting cast was tamped down pretty well. Combine that with Elston Turner shooting 3-for-17, and you wonder how Mizzou didn't win by 30. (It was 21 before the scrubs came in, I guess.)

Flipadelphia

This will be a key for every game left on the schedule. Missouri is going to go as far in the postseason as Phil Pressey will take it. He is this team's engine. With Good Flip, Mizzou can make a Final Four. With Bad Flip, Mizzou could lose to A&M, then lose in the Round of 64 next week. If he is playing under control on offense and isn't a total liability on defense, Mizzou is a really, really dangerous team. He had four assists and seven turnovers and shot 4-for-11 from the field in Mizzou's loss to A&M. Do better than that, and Missouri probably wins tonight.

Phil Pressey: 32 minutes, 2 points (0-1 FG), 5 assists, 3 turnovers, 1 steal

It wasn't Good Flip or Bad Flip, it was Cruise Control Flip.

Summary

Mizzou's played high-level defense just enough that it will be disappointing anytime we don't see that from here on out. It did come with a price, I think -- sloppiness and turnovers -- but that's acceptable.

Now do it again tonight.

---

AdjGS: a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It takes points, assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls into account to determine an individual's "score" for a given game. The "adjustment" in Adjusted Game Score is simply matching the total game scores to the total points scored in the game, thereby redistributing the game's points scored to those who had the biggest impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

Usage%: This "estimates the % of team possessions a player consumes while on the floor" (via). The usage of those possessions is determined via a formula using field goal and free throw attempts, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers. The higher the number, the more prevalent a player is (good or bad) in a team's offensive outcome.

Floor%: Via Basketball-Reference.com: Floor % answers the question, "when Player X uses a possession, what is the probability that his team scores at least 1 point?". The higher the Floor%, the more frequently the team probably scores when the given player is involved.

Touches/Possession: Using field goal attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers, Touches attempt to estimate "the number of times a player touched the ball in an attacking position on the floor." Take the estimated touches and divide it by the estimated number of possessions for which a player was on the court, and you get a rough idea of how many times a player touched the ball in a given possession. For point guards, you'll see the number in the 3-4 range. For shooting guards and wings, 2-3. For an offensively limited center, 1.30. You get the idea.

Anyway, using the Touches figure, we can estimate the percentage of time a player "in an attacking position" passes, shoots, turns the ball over, or gets fouled.

Now hiring new Football Study Hall writers

March 15, 2013, 8:18 am

≫ Next: Know your rubber match: Ole Miss vs. Missouri

≪ Previous: Study Hall: Mizzou 62, Texas A&M 50

$

0

0

Quick announcement: This is Mike Nixon's final day as an SB Nation Research & Analytics Intern. His work has been tremendous over the last six months, both in growing as a writer and charting games like crazy, and I am really glad he applied for the position. It's been a pleasure, Mike.

Instead of hiring a new intern to go alongside Chris A. Brown, I've decided to attempt something a little different and have gotten the backing from SBN to do so: We're going to hire some part-time writers instead. It's time to spread the Study Hall brand, and to do that, we need more writers taking on the advanced FO rankings, more people diving into the charting data, more people diving into strategies and tactics, more people writing about this sport's strange history, and basically, more people churning out interesting content.

I don't have a specific number of writers I want to bring aboard -- it will depend on the depth and quality of the applicants, really -- but if you're interested, please send me an e-mail at Bill.Connelly@sbnation.com, fill me in a bit on some topics you'd love to explore*, and send me some writing samples if you have any. Make no mistake: This isn't going to pay much. But if you're looking for a reasonably visible outlet for wonking out, this will certainly be an opportunity for that.

* I'm not just looking for data wonks here. The goal of this site was to tie together exploration of stats, tactics, and college football history, really. It's about nerding out on college football, period, not just nerding out on its numbers.