The Turmoil at Michigan State

Disclaimer: The goal of this article is not to provide answers, but rather to ask more questions about what happened, who was involved, and how to move forward. This article will be periodically updated as new information is discovered. Additionally, the following assumptions will be made:

  • All identified victims’ stories are to be believed. The entire reason we are suddenly talking about so many events this week that occurred over a long period of time is because these stories were not initially believed. The first step towards finding a solution is acknowledging that a problem exists. If the reader feels this assumption is unfair, stop reading now.
  • The situation is fluid and non-binary. New information is arriving every day which may change the direction of this story completely. Nothing is 100% true or 100% false; memories fade, people stumble over their words, and mistakes occur. None of these scenarios void anything; we are living exclusively in the gray area. If the reader feels this assumption is unfair, stop reading now.
  • Sources with an unknown or non-existent track record are dismissed as not credible. When collecting information, always consider the source. Have they been reliable in the past? Have you heard of them before they provided the current information? If the answer to either of these questions is ‘no’ then they are not yet a credible source and their information will be dismissed. If the reader feels this assumption is unfair, stop reading now.

What Happened

On Friday January 26th, ESPN’s Outside the Lines released their findings on a 3-year-long investigative report which suggests that Michigan State University has a long history of withholding information related to sexual assaults on their campus. Additionally, Outside the Lines aired video segments of this report on Sportscenter on Friday the 26th and E:60 on Sunday the 28th, both on ESPN. These came on the heels of Larry Nassar’s sentencing, which suggests that these two stories are closely related. In many ways they are related: The nature and location of the offenses are quite similar, however the people involved do not overlap as much as it might first appear. MSU’s now former president Lou Anna Simon resigned on Wednesday, the same day as Nassar was sentenced. This was a direct result of her failure to oversee and stop his actions as early as should have been reasonably expected of someone in her position of power. Mark Hollis resigned on Friday, a few hours before the OTL report was made public. This initially suggested that he was resigning due to Nassar’s mishandling, since it was not yet publicly known what was in the OTL report. However, Hollis previously claimed that he had no knowledge of what Nassar had been doing, and even went as far as to say he was unsure if he had ever met Nassar. It seemed a little odd that he would have distanced himself so much from Nassar initially only to later resign as a result of those actions, but it was generally accepted that that was the case. Further, OTL referenced attempted communication with Hollis two days before his resignation in their report:

Hollis resigned Friday, two days after Outside the Lines asked MSU spokesman Jason Cody and the university’s sports information department for interviews with multiple MSU administrators and athletic officials, including Hollis, Izzo and Dantonio. Outside the Lines told Cody of the main findings of its reporting for this story. 

It can be reasonably inferred that Jason Cody relayed this information to Hollis prior to Friday, and therefore Hollis had knowledge when he resigned that the public did not yet have. This does not ensure he resigned because of the OTL report, but it certainly casts some doubt over whether he resigned purely because of Nassar. Only Hollis can provide a definitive answer to this, and as of this writing he has not provided that information publicly.

Who Was Involved

The report makes reference to the following individuals who were previously or are currently affiliated with Michigan State by name:

  • Mark Hollis, former athletic director
  • Mark Dantonio, current head football coach
  • Tom Izzo, current head basketball coach
  • Travis Walton, former basketball player and staff member
  • Adreian Payne, former basketball player
  • Keith Appling, former basketball player
  • Keith Mumphery, former football player

Several other former players are referenced, though not by name. From the report:

Since Dantonio’s tenure began in 2007, at least 16 MSU football players have been accused of sexual assault or violence against women, according to interviews and public records obtained by Outside the Lines.

Walton’s name would come up in another allegation involving a female MSU student. He and two basketball players — who played for him in the NCAA tournament — were named in a sexual assault report made by the woman and her parents to the athletic department, according to a university document obtained by Outside the Lines.

It is assumed that Mumphery is included in the “at least 16 MSU football players” count, and that Payne and Appling are not the same “two basketball players” which went unnamed. This brings the total to 5 basketball players (Walton, Appling, Payne, 2 unnamed) and at least 16 football players (Mumphery and at least 15 unnamed).

Neither Dantonio or Izzo committed any of the alleged assaults; their names are included because players on their teams were alleged to commit these assaults and it is unclear whether their players’ actions faced appropriate consequences.

Why it Matters

Aside from the obvious answer that it is important to seek justice for victims of these assaults, this particular report has become a lightning rod of conversation because of the coach’s names referenced in the report. The report implies that the coaches should have known what was happening with their players and did not take appropriate action to discipline their players and/or notify the appropriate authorities in all instances. The presumed fallout of admission of guilt would at the very least include a resignation of their roles as coaches, which is the biggest point of contention in all of this. The biggest question remaining is: Should the coaches be held as accountable for overseeing these incidents as former president Simon and former athletic director Hollis? In other words, should the coaches resign?

How should this be handled?

It depends who you ask. There is no consensus, only anecdotal observation of opinions. Based on my observations, there are 3 different opinions, and it is impossible to quantify which groups have the most and least support so I will not attempt a guess. The opinions are:

  • Group1: Both coaches should not be implicated (retain their positions)
  • Group2: Both coaches should be implicated (resign their positions)
  • Group3: We do not yet have enough information to make a valid decision

Dantonio and Izzo have each publicly stated that they have no intentions of resigning/retiring at this time, which puts each of them in Group1. The OTL investigative reporter’s and the interviewed former sexual assault counselor Lauren Allswede’s opinions appear to place them in Group2. The general public is disbursed throughout all 3 groups in an unknown distribution.

Since the assumption that the situation is fluid and non-binary has been made, I will go straight to the third opinion and seek to provide as much information as I can find. Please consider who the source is of each item before drawing any conclusions on the information provided. I have used my best judgment to not include any sources deemed to be not credible, but my judgment, like everyone’s, is not without flaws & biases.

The most important piece of information discovered so far is that Travis Walton lived in Tom Izzo’s basement the year after his eligibility as a player expired, while he was on Izzo’s staff. This from an article written last week:

http://www.limaohio.com/sports/281851/tom-izzos-coaching-dna-runs-deep-in-travis-walton

Note that this article was posted on January 23, 2018; 3 days before the OTL report was released. The byline of this article is as follows:

Bob Seggerson is a retired boys basketball coach and guidance counselor at Lima Central Catholic. Reach him at bseggerson@lcchs.edu

Excerpt:

Walton took a shot at playing at the next level, joining the Detroit Piston’s summer league team, but was not offered a contract. Faced with a decision about what to do next, it was Coach Izzo who stepped in and made Travis an offer he couldn’t refuse. “I was nine hours short of graduation,” Walton says. “Coach Izzo encouraged me to return to MSU, work with him as a student assistant coach, and earn my degree.”

Walton moved into Izzo’s basement and spent the year completing his degree, learning the art of coaching and staying in shape by working out with the team. It was an easy transition for Travis. “I was always a big film guy, so spending hours watching tape came easy for me,” Walton says. “I began to see the game through a coach’s eyes,” he added. “The same mistakes I made that drove coach Izzo nuts when I was playing for him, were driving me nuts now.”

After earning his degree, Walton spent three years chasing his dream of playing professional basketball, joining clubs in Switzerland and Germany and playing for three different teams in the NBA D league. But when coach Izzo connected him with an opportunity to join the coaching staff for the Utah Stampede in the NBA’s D league, Walton jumped at the opportunity.

Two articles from 2010 referencing Walton’s living arrangements at the time (the 2nd link is inactive so I had to pull it from an archived site):

http://blog.mlive.com/its-just-sports/2010/02/ager.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20100130222410/http://noise.typepad.com/hey_joe/2010/01/good-night-johnboy.html

 

For context of Izzo’s response below, excerpt from the OTL report:

The letter Allswede wrote says Walton was fired. In an interview with Outside the Lines, Allswede says little action was taken in regard to the players, and the report stayed within the athletic department, not to be investigated by anyone who handled student conduct or judicial affairs issues.

It is also worth noting that Izzo didn’t acknowledge Walton’s living arrangements in his response to questions about Walton.

Article on Dantonio/Izzo/Hollis relationship

Excerpts from this article:

Hollis was still a year away from being promoted to athletic director when his boss assigned him the task of finding Michigan State’s next football coach during the fall of 2006. 

Despite the fact that Hollis was not yet the athletic director, he was the one who hired Mark Dantonio.

From bowl destinations to NCAA Tournament sites to the occasional getaways to Mackinac Island they plan together, the three families spend a lot of time outside of East Lansing with one another. Their kids didn’t have much choice in becoming friends.

The oldest, Kristen Dantonio and T.R. Hollis, graduated from Michigan State a year ago. Katy Hollis and Raquel Izzo, both juniors, are roommates. They share a place a couple miles from where their dads lived together 30 years earlier. Lauren Dantonio, also a junior, is a frequent guest.

The relationships between Dantonio, Izzo, and Hollis extend significantly beyond their professional relationship. Their families are all very close. This should be considered for context as this story moves forward. Specifically, it demonstrates just how close Hollis is to both coaches. It is fair to assume that anything Hollis knows that is pertinent to either coaches is information that has been shared between them, and vice-versa. This is in contrast to Hollis’ description of his relationship with Nassar, whom he barely knew. The hypothesis drawn here is that Hollis resigned because of what he knew about Izzo/Dantonio, not because of what he knew about Nassar.

Advertisements

Checkmate

It started off so well. 29 of 32 in Round 1 with all of the Sweet 16 still intact. Then Wisconsin knocked out my national champion pick and my entire bracket is worthless. So, what went wrong?

  • Don’t ignore the immeasurables. I was so immersed in the numbers from this season in the week leading up to the tournament that I completely ignored the factors that are either not quantifiable or difficult to objectively quantify. Villanova was the defending champ, and thus had a high likelihood of complacency in this year’s tournament. Unless a defending champion is returning an absurd amount of talent (like Florida in the 2007 tournament or Duke in the 1992 tournament), they are unlikely to pull off the repeat. In fact, history shows they’re much more likely to have an early exit than to make a deep run. Wisconsin, on the other hand, was wildly under-seeded and likely ticked off about it. They were set out to show the committee that they were wrong, and did so emphatically by handling Virginia Tech with relative ease in Round 1, followed by the biggest upset of the tournament in Round 2 by knocking off the defending champs.
  • Protect the king! As I mentioned in my Bracket Guidelines last week, the early rounds don’t mean a thing if your champion gets knocked out early. It is vitally important to pick a viable champion; a safe champion. Villanova, despite what my formula proclaimed about their regular season successes, was not a safe pick. Their roster wasn’t nearly strong enough to justify a repeat championship, and their coach’s tournament history outside of last year is very underwhelming. Last year’s run was a historical anomaly for Jay Wright; this year was par for the course.

Aside from the wacky East region, the rest of my bracket turned out just fine, with 12 of my Sweet 16 advancing and 6 of the Elite 8 remaining. That one missing piece though is an absolute crater. I’ll be sure to make mention of the non-quantifiable factors next year prior to the start of the tournament.

I may post a tournament recap in a couple weeks if there is an interesting conclusion but otherwise will be shifting into off-season mode, which means a much lower frequency of posts. I do have a few off-season features in the works that aim to answer some misunderstood statistical claims:

  • Is it really that difficult to beat a team for a 3rd time in a season?
  • Just how significant is home-court advantage, and how much of it is attributable to officiating deference to the home team?

I’ll also update standings on my Best Dual Sports schools and shift data tables (such as the Best Dual Sports and college football win probabilities) to a Google Sheets format going forward. Follow me on Twitter for notifications on my latest posts.

 

My 2017 Bracket Picks

My bracket, along with explanations of upset picks and Final Four games:

2017 Bracket

Round 1

UNC-Wilmington over Virginia: Regular season champion with a strong record away from home as well as in close games against one of the slowest paced teams in the field. The pace will keep it close enough for UNCW to have a chance to eke out a win.

USC over SMU: The play-in game is often more beneficial to the participant than the awaiting team for the first round, as there has been a play-in game winner every year since the field expanded to 68 in 2011. I like USC more than Kansas State as this year’s version.

Wichita St over Dayton: Vegas doesn’t even consider this an upset. Horrible seeding by the committee gives Dayton a brutal round 1 draw.

Middle Tennessee over Minnesota: Again, Vegas doesn’t see this as an upset. This year’s version of MTSU is even better than the one that knocked off 2 seed Michigan State last year

Rhode Island over Creighton: Rhode Island is one of the hottest teams in the field coming in.

Vermont over Purdue: Vermont has to be considered the hottest team in the field coming in, as they haven’t lost a game since December.

Michigan St over Miami FL: 9 over 8 isn’t much of an upset, but it’s really hard to see an Izzo team getting bounced in round 1 two years in a row. They’ll find a way to get the W.

 

Round 2

Michigan over Louisville: This year’s greatest story, winning 4 games in 4 days after a plane crash. Their run continues just a little longer as they avenge their 2013 title game defeat against the Cardinals.

Sweet 16:

Michigan over Oregon: Oregon can only go so far without Chris Boucher. His loss will be felt in a big way in this match-up.

Elite 8:

Arizona over Gonzaga: Avenging an early-season loss, the Wildcats were identified in my ratings as one of the four strongest teams this season.

Kentucky over North Carolina: Another upset featuring a rematch, but this time the same team advances. North Carolina’s resume was a bit inflated due to fortunate scheduling in conference play, and this was validated in a disappointing ACC tournament showing. Meanwhile, Kentucky went out of their way to play everyone in the non-conference, and while they didn’t win all of them they are certainly battle-tested despite cruising through the SEC this year.

Final Four:

Villanova over Arizona: Last year’s champion is back with very strong team. It’ll be tough in a pseudo road game, but the extensive tournament experience will pay off on the biggest stage.

Kansas over Kentucky: Talent vs. Talent. There’s just a little bit more on the Kansas side this year.

Title game:

Villanova over Kansas: My ratings identify these as the two best teams this year, with Villanova receiving the edge as the top team. Will this be vindication for BoW after another bad score in the Bracket Matrix? We’ll find out in about 3 weeks.

Enjoy the madness, everyone!

 

 

Bracket Guidelines

I thought about writing a full preview of the bracket, complete with match-up breakdowns and identifying the most likely contenders. Upon researching however, I found that everything I planned to include is already out there for consumption; I would not be adding any value by piling on with yet another opinion. Instead, the goal of this preview is to provide a guide on how to set up your bracket to put it in position to win an office pool. Will this guarantee that your bracket will win? Absolutely not. The idea is to get out of your own way and focus on the important aspect of the bracket: identify teams which are most likely to advance. I have a few rules I like to keep in mind when filling out a bracket, and I only go against them when I have a really good reason for it.

  • First, set up your bracket with the 1 seeds advancing to the Sweet 16 and the 2,3, and 4 seeds advancing to round 2. Historically, these seeds have had at least an 80% success rate in these games, and there is a considerable drop-off from the 4 seed to 5 seed in round 1. If you have a good reason to go against a couple of these, go for it. Otherwise leave these as they are and move on.
  • Protect the king. Think of each round of the bracket like a group of chess pieces. The king is the most important; you must protect it at all costs. This is your eventual champion, and it is important to not voluntarily drop a potential champion in the first weekend. Historically, there is a 91% chance that the eventual champion is a 1,2,3 or 4 seed, which is why the first rule is to keep all of them at least one round. Similarly, think of all the latest rounds as the more valuable chess pieces and the 1-win teams as pawns. Upsets are fun to pick, but if you only have that team getting to the round of 32 at the expense of a team that could make a deep run it isn’t worth it.
  • A coach shouldn’t be picked to go more than 2 rounds further than their current best round. For example, if a coach has never taken a team to a Final Four, his current team should not be picked as a national champion. Similarly, if this is a coach’s first tournament appearance, his team should not be picked beyond the 2nd round (ignore play-in games). This is not a cover-all-scenarios rule; there certainly have been exceptions. But in general, it’s a good idea to keep a coach’s track record in tournaments in mind.
  • Be aware of recent injuries to key players. If a team has gone through most/all of the regular season with injuries, then this can be ignored as we have a good sense of what that team is already. A player who has been sidelined since early February or later should be factored in.
  • Superstar players can take over a game. Look at the list of Naismith semifinalists and all-conference 1st team players from the power conferences. Teams with multiple players on these lists are more likely to advance than teams with no players on these lists.
  • Veteran players with tournament experience. Teams with a lot of players who have played in tournament games will tend to perform more consistently to or even above their expectations. The first-timers are more likely to falter under the brighter lights.
  • High win percentage away from home. Teams that struggled on the road or at neutral sites during the season won’t all of a sudden figure it out at tournament time.
  • Capability to blow out teams. If a team struggled to put away bad teams during the season, they are ripe for an upset in the tournament. Look for upsets of teams who weren’t able to crush anybody during the regular season.
  • Strong record in close games. The tournament is full of them, so pick teams who tend to fare well in a tight match-up.

Metrics are important, but I’d tend to shy away from them unless they have a proven success rate over time. If you have something that you think is time-proof, test it out on the Algebracket over multiple years.

I’ll post my own bracket as soon as it is complete. Good luck out there!

 

 

2017 Bubble Analysis

The bubble is big and soft this year. Lots of teams remain in contention, many of which have left quite a bit to be desired in their play thus far. Let’s take a look at the multi-bid conferences to sort out this mess before championship week hits full stride.

ACC: 6 Locks (North Carolina, Louisville, Florida St, Duke, Virginia, Notre Dame); 4 on the bubble (Miami FL, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Syracuse); Projection: 9 teams in (one of Wake Forest/Syracuse may be left out, unless both make deep runs in the ACC tournament)

American: 2 Locks (Cincinnati, SMU); 1 on the bubble (Houston); Projection: 2 teams in

A10: 2 Locks (Dayton, VCU); 1 on the bubble (Rhode Island); Projection: 2 teams in

Big East: 3 Locks (Villanova, Butler, Creighton); 4 on the bubble (Marquette, Seton Hall, Xavier, Providence); Projection: 7 teams in. Xavier can’t lose to DePaul in the Big East opening round. Seton Hall and Marquette square off and as long as it’s not a blowout both are safe, and Providence just needs to keep it competitive with Creighton to be safe.

Big Ten: 4 Locks (Purdue, Minnesota, Maryland, Wisconsin); 5 on the bubble (Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan St, Illinois, Iowa); Projection: 8 teams in. The loser of Michigan/Illinois on Thursday might need some outside help to get a bid (see: Conference USA below); they’ll be cutting it awfully close.

Big XII: 5 Locks (Kansas, Baylor, West Virginia, Iowa St, Oklahoma St); 1 on the bubble (Kansas St); Projection: 5 teams in. Kansas St went 8-10 in conference play; they’ll need at least two wins in the Big XII tournament to earn an at-large bid. They open with Baylor, then would play West Virginia.

Conference USA: 0 Locks; 1 on the bubble (Middle Tennessee); Projection: 1 team in. Middle Tennessee needs to earn their auto-bid to truly feel safe. They should be good for an at-large at 27 wins (and counting) and their 15 over 2 upset win last year, but the CUSA doesn’t have a strong reputation like the Missouri Valley or West Coast so this is one to keep an eye on.

Missouri Valley: 1 Lock (Wichita St); 1 on the bubble (Illinois St); Projection: 2 teams in. Illinois St won 27 games this year. Even with a weak schedule, that should be good enough out of a mid-major conference with a stellar reputation.

PAC12: 4 Locks (Oregon, UCLA, Arizona, USC); 1 on the bubble (California); Projection: 4 teams in. The top-heavy PAC12 will demand more wins than Cal came up with this year to secure an at-large bid.

SEC: 4 Locks (Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas, South Carolina); 3 on the bubble (Vanderbilt, Georgia, Ole Miss); Projection: 4 teams in. Unless Vanderbilt earns the auto-bid, they will have 15 losses on the year, and no team has earned an at-large with more than 14.

West Coast: 2 Locks (Gonzaga, St Mary’s) 1 on the bubble (BYU); Projection: 2 teams in. If BYU can pull an upset Monday night over St Mary’s they’ll have a shot at an at-large, and if they can grab another win Tuesday they’ll have earned the auto-bid.

Total: 33 out of 47 (11 auto plus 36 at-large) are secured with 13 more projected in for a total of 46/47 spots. The ACC and Big Ten tournaments could produce a lot of chaos this week, with each conference having multiple teams on the wrong side of the bubble that could play their way in. Middle Tennessee and Vanderbilt will also be interesting to follow.

 

A Closer Look: Illinois

Previous editions: VanderbiltSyracuseGeorgetownCreighton, Butler

I was the first entry in the Bracket Matrix to include Illinois this season, and many others have joined since. However, their disappointing loss at Rutgers yesterday has moved the Illini down to my first team out (the Matrix has them as the 2nd to last team in as of this writing, which likely doesn’t factor in their loss yesterday for most entries). Let’s take a look at what else Illinois has to offer the committee this year:

BoW Strength of Schedule to date: 37th (out of 351)

Best wins: Northwestern twice (by 7 away and by 16 at home), VCU at a neutral site by 18, at Iowa by 4

Bad losses: Penn State at home, Winthrop at home, at Rutgers

Record: 18-13

Illinois probably needs two wins in the Big Ten tournament to make the committee forget about their dud at Rutgers yesterday and get some breathing room against potential bid-stealing in other conference tournaments this week. I’d project Illinois to be out if they go 0-1 in DC this week, in if they go 2-1 or better, and too close to call if they go 1-1 (leaning in if the win is over a team projected in the field, leaning out otherwise; margin of victory/defeat may also be a factor i.e. don’t get blown out).

A Closer Look: Vanderbilt

Previous editions: SyracuseGeorgetownCreighton, Butler

 

The Bracket Matrix currently has Vanderbilt as the 2nd team out while BoW has them as the 3rd to last team in. It’s possible that much of the Matrix hasn’t yet factored in their win yesterday over Florida, but let’s take a look at the rest of the Commodores’ season.

Best wins: Florida twice, at Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa State

Worst losses: Tennessee at home, Bucknell at home, at Missouri (by 20!)

Record: 17-14

Is Vanderbilt really going to be the first at-large bid with 15 losses? That seems extremely unlikely. My bracket still has them in at the moment mostly by default. The bubble is incredibly weak this year, but I’m not sure it’ll be weak enough to see a 15 -loss team earn an at-large bid.