SNL 39.15 Review - Lena Dunham, The National

Original Airdate - 3/8/14

Coming into this episode, I'm not sure how many people in the general public knew who Lena Dunham was.  I'll be honest, I knew Lena Dunham as the weird girl that randomly won a Golden Globe last year.  However, Dunham is becoming a household name as her hit HBO series Girls continues to rise in popularity.  SNL even parodied this show in one of the first sketches of the season.  How well would she perform on the live stage though.  Well, it turned out she did pretty well.  The material seemed to be fresher than it had been in recent episodes, which may have something to do with Lena Dunham being a writer as well.  Here's how the episode went.

Cold Opening

There's a lot of stuff going on in the world around us.  One of the biggest controversies out there right now is the situation in the Ukraine and the reaction of Russian president Vladimir Putin.  You know it's an important news story because SNL decided to use their cold opening to talk about it.  President Obama has tried everything to get Putin under control, so he had to bring in some outside help: a man with a particular set of skills.  It was a perfect cameo for the perfect moment.

Monologue

Much like Kerry Washington's monologue earlier in the year, they decided to use Lena Dunham's monologue to explain to the average viewer why their host is culturally relevant.  In the show Girls, Dunham is naked a lot (apparently ... I've personally never seen the show ... However, when they take two different opportunities to make light of this fact, it must be true.).  Since she is naked so much, many people ask her advice about their own sex lives like cast members and her grandmother.  It's not a particularly funny bit (until Kate McKinnon opens her mouth), but it is effective in letting people know who she is.

Weekend Update

This was a fun Weekend Update.  With Colin Jost's sophomore turn at the desk, you can tell he is settling in nicely.  In fact, the fresh blood has infused some new life into the segment.  Jost is willing to be a little edgier than Seth Myers was, which will be a great breath of fresh air moving forward.  The two groups of guests to come to the Update desk made this one of the stronger Weekend Updates of the season.  First was Matthew McConaughey brought to you by Taran Killam.  The recent Oscar winner that was also starring in the new hit show True Detective is an easy target for SNL with his southern drawl, many eloquent acceptance speeches, and a character on True Detective that makes a habit of speaking in a way that makes you unsure whether he is the smartest man or dumbest man in the world (mainly because you can't figure out what he's saying half the time).  Killam does a great caricature of Mr. McConaughey.  Following him was a comeback of Fred Armisen, now working just down the hall with Seth Meyers, teaming up with Vanessa Bayer as Vladimir Putin's friends from growing up.  It's a bit that really never gets old.

Best Sketch

The tone for the show was set with the first sketch following the monologue as it became the best sketch of the show.  Four friends got into the car and were singing along with a song playing through someone's cell phone.  However, that phone was also giving directions to their destination, and the directions would always come whenever Lena Dunham tried to sing along.  It was a funny premise and a solid sketch, however it's twist ending no one saw coming took this one over the top.

Worst Sketch

You know you have a solid show when the hardest thing to do is pick a bad sketch.  For shows like this, the category turns into the least good sketch because none of them were really bad.  The closest thing to a bad sketch was Mike O'Brien going to his girlfriend's women's group where it is revealed that he is an men's rights activist.  As you can imagine, this news does not go over well.  The sketch still has its moments, but it just didn't deliver quite like some of the other sketches did.

Dark Horse Sketch

I have to be honest, I don't know who Katt Williams is.  I've heard about him, I've seen some video clips of him, but I really have no idea what is significant about him.  However, Jay Pharaoh hosting the Katt Williams Show "Pimpin, Pimpin, Pimpin" showed me what he was all about.  This sketch was great because of the impressions that were brought to it.  First, Pharaoh's Katt Williams is scary good.  Next came Brooks Wheelen's Jared Leto accepting his Oscar.  It wasn't a great impression, but he said what everyone had on their minds, "I'd like to thank me band 30 Seconds to Mars for not being good enough to keep me away from acting."  Lena Dunham's take on Liza Minelli was just fun, but my favorite came last: Taran Killam's Harrison Ford.  If you haven't heard, Harrison Ford has become quite old and senile in his public appearances recently, and Killam brings this to life to perfection.  This is the type of sketch in past episodes that they would try to feature as one of their first sketches of the show and be disappointing.  Putting this sketch at the back end puts a sketch like this in the perfect spot to succeed, and it shows the strength of this episode.

Grade

This show surprised me.  I did not expect it to be this fresh and funny, especially considering some of the lack of originality that had been coming out through the recent episodes.  However, with Shasheer Zumata now firmly apart of the cast, Colin Jost settling into his new role, the show finally has stopped worrying about transitioning and adjusting and started with this episode to focus on being funny.  That's what this episode did.  Let's hope this is a trend and not an anomaly.

***A-***

View the entire episode here:

Divergent (2014) Review

Directed by
Neil Burger

            Imagine this: In a not-too-distant future, America has suffered through a mysterious war and has subsequently been divided into twelve five factions.  These factions are based on socio-economic class intellectual aptitude, and each year, young people who have come of age must battle each other in a fight to the death choose a faction to join, which will determine which other factions they will battle against in a fight to the death.   

            One fearless, plucky young woman, Katness Everdeen Beatrice Prior, is chosen among the ordinary masses.  She must fight in order to protect her sister brother and the rest of her family from some mysterious, dangerous government types.  Along the way, she endures a series of brutal physical trainings and discovers that she excels at bow and arrow knife throwing.  She has a love interest named Peeta Four, who must hide his admiration for her in order to himself survive.  All the while, the ominous President Snow Kate Winslet looks on, realizing that Katniss Beatrice has a special ability to resist conformity and lead a revolution against the evil people in charge.

            OK, so Divergent isn’t the world’s most original concept.  Like The Hunger Games, it adapts a popular Young Adult book series on to the big screen and opts to tell a dark, dystopian story that’s clearly too adult for Disney.  But let’s give it credit where credit is due – it does manage to be different than The Hunger Games in a few notable ways.  The Hunger Games holds an 84% approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes; Divergent only has 40% approval.  The Hunger Games grossed an extraordinary $190 million in its opening week, while Divergent only grossed a modest $68 million.  And while The Hunger Games managed to entertain both fans of the book as well those who were uninitiated, Divergent is impaired because of numerous loose story ends, which may have been accounted for in the book series but remain underexamined over the course of the nearly two-and-a-half hour film. 

            The story.  On the surface, its most obvious similarities are to The Hunger Games, but viewers older than 15 years old will also recognize parallels to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Minority Report and Inception (there’s even a scene where two characters hook up diodes to each other’s brains and enter a dream world).  As Beatrice explains in the most jam-packed opening two minutes of exposition since the first scene of Casablanca, the survivors of the unnamed war now inhabit what remains of greater Chicago, and are divided into five factions: Erudition, Dauntless, Amity, Candor and Abnegation (one wonders whether the book series was published with the hopes of boosting teen readers’ verbal SAT scores).   Beatrice and her family belong to the Abnegation clan, which operate the government because of their selflessness and care for humanity.  As she reaches adulthood, she must take a personality exam which will advise her which faction to join.  Once she makes her choice, it is permanent, meaning that if she chooses to join a group other than Abnegation, she will likely never see her family again.

            But why?  What is the point of this seemingly unnecessary and burdensome dispersal of the small remaining human population?  Even after seeing this movie, I’m still not sure I can answer this question (and like a couple of the houses at the Hogwarts School, at least two of the factions seem entirely irrelevant to the story).  Of course, we didn’t have all the answers at the end of The Hunger Games either, but that was OK because the main thrust of the narrative was simple to understand – two dozen kids killing each other in front of giddy audiences.  But the lack of clarity sticks out in Divergent like a sore thumb.  Every time we begin to become involved with the story, nagging unresolved issues frustratingly come into the fray, and fail to get sufficiently answered.

            The best part of the movie is in the first hour, when Beatrice has decided to reject her family and its faction by joining Dauntless.  She does this because the personality test she takes indicates that she has characteristics of Dauntless, Abnegation and Erudite – in other words, her results indicate that she is a “divergent,” which we’re told is dangerous because – well, again we’re never really told why.  Oh well, maybe they’ll explain it more in the sequel.  So concealing her true test results, she joins Dauntless, which is supposed to be the military clan, but the ways in which they crawl up buildings and leap off trains make them seem more like delinquent hoodlums.  The movie shows rites of initiation, and Beatrice (who renames herself “Tris”) must learn to suppress her “divergent” psychological tendencies and instead channel bravery and gleefully approaching dangerous situations. 

            These training scenes work because, like the training sequences in Rocky, Hoosiers or any sports movie, we like to see characters gradually transform themselves into more confident and powerful people – especially when it involves sweat, knife-throwing, and an upbeat soundtrack.  But even here, basic logic interferes with the skillfulness of these scenes.  What are they training for?  Is this future society preparing for war?  The stakes are never fully established until midway through the film, when we learn that Erudition is attempting to launch a coup against Abnegation’s unilateral control of the government.  But even this explanation is unsatisfactory because Dauntless is never able to put up a fight after Erudition induces them with a magical serum (gotta love those magical serums!) in which they blindly follow the orders of the radical and deranged would-be revolutionaries (headed by Kate Winslet, looking uncomfortably close to Hilary Clinton and invoking the diabolic spirit of Jodie Foster in Elysium).  Meanwhile, all people who are divergent, like Tris, are sought after because . . . well, maybe someone who read the books can explain this better than I can.

            You’ve probably had enough of reading about this ludicrous plot (I’m sick of writing about it), but let me just point out the most ridiculous part of the story.  Remember how I said Tris has to take a personality exam?  Well, the person who administers the test (played by Nikita’s Maggie Q) is the one who tells her to conceal her result of “divergent.”  So the movie moves on and we don’t expect to ever see her again, until suddenly, midway through the film, she shows up with the Dauntless people as – get this – a tattoo artist!  That’s right, after her daytime job as a tester on behalf of the state authorities, she moonlights nights at an underground tattoo parlor, where she is conveniently able to remind Tris that she’s in mortal danger and must not tell anyone about her divergence.  What are the odds!  She must have taken the second job because those Abnegations in charge must be underpaying their valuable employees at the testing center.  And that must be the reason why the government is being overthrown, since the screenplay doesn’t offer any other clear explanation. 

            So let’s remove the logic factor for a second and consider whether this movie is worth seeing so long as you are able to completely and totally shut off all deductive reasoning for 140 minutes.  Admittedly, there are good things about it.  As Tris, Shailene Woodley is likable and convincing (although it never feels quite right seeing her run around with a shotgun in her arms) and she has good romantic rapport with her fellow Dauntless member, Four (played by Theo James, effectively able to combine Team Edward and Team Jacob into one analogous dreamboat).  As stated above, the training sequences are lively and the movie manages to move along at a brisk pace (save the climactic battle scenes at the end, which drag on far too long).  CGI Chicago looks great.  Fans of the book will undoubtedly enjoy it.  And even though the story is preposterous, there is something undeniably interesting about it (and it’s not like The Hunger Games is exactly Tolstoy).  Defenders of Divergent will say it is an underdeveloped introduction to a rich and complex world where your personality decides your fate; cynics will say that its appeal is a direct result of its close resemblance to better films in the already well-represented “dystopian future” genre.  But unfortunately for the film, in the internal battle between my heart and my brain, Amity is no match for Erudition. 

Rating: 2.5 stars

SNL 39.14 Review - Jim Parsons, Beck

Original Airdate - 3/1/14

The show took a month off from filming thanks to the Olympics.  When it came back, SNL was starting a new era.  (By the way, I have never seen a show make so many significant changes in the middle of a season.)  Seth Meyers had moved on, and head writer Colin Jost had moved into the Update desk to take his place.  This now makes 7 featured players in the cast.  I know Weekend Update is just a small part of the show, but it has been the backbone of the show since the first episode.  This was a big deal.  Add to that the first hosting gig for Sheldon, I mean Jim Parsons, you have quite the episode of firsts to start a new era in Saturday Night Live.

Cold Opening

How do you start the show airing the night before the Oscars?  Well, when you have possibly the best impersonator of the host on the cast, it only makes sense to start with the Ellen Show.  Kate McKinnon, as always, gives a haunting impression of the Oscar host (it's actually like a strange mix between Ellen and McConaughey, but whatever).  Her guest was Johnny Weir, played by Jim Parsons, making the fourth time in five shows the once-rare occurrence of the host appearing in the cold open has happened.  What makes this sketch work though is McKinnon.  She has definitely emerged as the new leader of the ladies with some of the best characters since Wiig was around.

Monologue

One of the time-honored traditions of Saturday Night Live is making a host (especially a first-time host) give a little song and dance number in his opening monologue.  I'll admit, I never thought I'd see Jim Parsons sing a song, and I don't really care if I see it again, but it was a fun way to start the show.  The best part of the song was seeing everyone's impressions of other actors who are known more for their characters than their actual personalities.  I would really like to see some more of Bobby's George Kost ... I mean Jason Alexander.

Weekend Update

The big question going into this episode was how would Colin Jost's debut as Weekend Update co-anchor go.  The verdict turned out to be a solid effort for a first-timer.  He definitely has some potential, but you can tell he's been stuck in the writer's room for a few years.  He needs to get used to being in front of the camera, which shouldn't take long.  Outside of Colin's debut, this turned out to be one of the strongest Updates of the season.  It featured another appearance from SNL's favorite basketball commentators, Charles Barkley and the absolutely ridiculous Shaquille O'Neal.  The best part of this bit is how much Kenan and Jay just make each other crack up.  It also featured what has the potential of being the new Stefon, Taran Killam's 19th century critic Jebidiah Atkinson.  With the Oscars the next day, the obvious topic of Jebidiah's disgust was the Oscar nominees.  You know it's funny when Killam, possibly the actor with the straightest face SNL has ever seen, cracks himself up with something new every time Atkinson pops up.

Best Sketch

Parsons's song in his monologue was entitled "I'm Not That Guy" as he tried to prove Jim Parsons is not Sheldon Cooper.  The sketch that best proved this was the hunt for the Dance Floor Killer.  Parsons makes a pretty convincing sociopath as he plays a serial killer that hides in plain sight.  It's stupid I know, but it's pretty hilarious at the same time.

Worst Sketch

As has been the case with most episodes recently, for every great sketch that comes along there have been some real clunkers.  More times than not, these clunkers have been placed at the beginning of the show where they normally place their strongest sketches.  This episode, the sketch right after the monologue turned out to be the weakest of the night.  The sketch showed Parsons being cast all too perfectly as Peter Pan, coming back to take the children back to Neverland.  However, Tinkerbell was not available so her crude sister showed up instead, Tonkerbell.  The idea was original, but the sketch just wasn't funny.

Dark Horse Sketch

There is something in the hearts of every boy and man in America that makes us laugh every time at poop jokes.  I don't know what it is, they're just funny.  Here is the latest one.  I have nothing else to say ... just enjoy.

Grade

Every time something happens on SNL where a star moves on to bigger and brighter things, everyone freaks out and thinks the show is coming to an end.  However, that's the great thing about Saturday Night Live.  It creates stars, and lets them move on and become the bigger stars they are meant to be.  When they leave, the next man steps up and becomes the next star.  Seth Meyers moved on, but the show will be fine; a little different, but just fine.  On the other side of things, Jim Parsons proved his point he set out to prove in his monologue, he is much more than the nerd from The Big Bang Theory.  None of the sketches were landmark in any way, but it was a solid episode that was still entertaining.

***B-***

Watch the full episode here:

SNL 39.13 Review - Melissa McCarthy, Imagine Dragons

Original Airdate - 2/1/14

Melissa McCarthy is the first repeat host from last season to come back for Season 39, and it is one of the last ones I wanted to come back.  McCarthy's turn hosting in Season 38 was possibly the biggest disappointment of the season.  Needless to say, I was not looking forward to this episode.  Then she goes and does something like this ... and TOTALLY REDEEMS HERSELF!!!  Everything that came off as stupid and juvenile last time around worked for the most part this time around.

Cold Opening

This episode originally aired on the eve of the Super Bowl, the first New York City Super Bowl in fact.  SNL couldn't resist commenting.  In their hypothetical situation, Bruno Mars and the Red Hot Chili Peppers got caught in traffic on the way to the Super Bowl and couldn't perform at the halftime show.  So they brought in some Broadway talent that didn't quite understand the essence of football.  What follows is a Super Bowl themed Broadway number that causes one to drop their jaw in utter shock.  It also includes a rare appearance by the host in the cold open (something that has been happening more and more recently).

Monologue

Although this episode was a lot of fun, the monologue was pretty stupid.  Bobby calls Melissa out on a disagreement they had the last time she hosted, and they fight to the death Japanese style while suspended from the ceiling.  It was pretty pointless, but at least it's interesting.

Weekend Update

This was it.  This episode marked the end of Seth Meyers's run on SNL.  They tried to play it off as just another Weekend Update until the end.  Several people came by to bid Seth farewell and good luck on Late Night.  Cecily was moved almost to tears.  It was a great moment for one of the show's standards over the last decade.

Best Sketch

February is Black History Month so SNL decided to take advantage of their latest push for diversity on the show.  The show's three black cast members play three students in a high school history class that are asked to give a special report of their ancestry.  They sing a song called "28 Reasons," giving 28 reasons why African Americans should be celebrated during the 28 days of February.  Believe or not, the list was easier to come up with than you might think.

Honorable Mention: Kyle Mooney hits the streets to interview people about the upcoming Super Bowl.  You couldn't write this stuff.

Worst Sketch

The worst sketch from this episode was the one repeat offender from her last turn as host.  This time around, the abusive Sheila Kelly has become a US Senator as she terrorizes reporters passers-by and cops.  I didn't particularly find it funny when she did it the first time as a basketball coach, and it wasn't funny this time either.

Dark Horse Sketch

There are few hosts that can come in and be truly featured like one of the cast members.  This sketch shows that Melissa McCarthy is one of those hosts.  A women's group is meeting to talk about their passions and dreams.  Well, there's one that doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the group, and she really doesn't fit in.

Grade

Melissa McCarthy really shows why she is such a popular comic personality in this episode.  Not every sketch hit perfectly, but like I said, it went so much better than her last effort.  Add to that the end of the Seth Meyers era, and this really turned out to be a pretty solid effort.

***B***

Watch the full episode here:

SNL 39.12 Review - Jonah Hill, Bastille

Original Airdate - 1/25/14

I have fallen a little behind in my reviews, but it's time to catch up.  2014 has gotten off to a mediocre start with some top flight stars doing their thing, but the writing has been inconsistent keeping up.  A perfect example of this was the Jonah Hill episode.  I love Jonah Hill.  He is turning into one of the most well-rounded and versatile actors out there.  I mean, he was able to get an Oscar nomination the same year he was in This is the End.  That's impressive.  This was his third time hosting the show, and if one thing has been proven in those three shows, it's that Jonah will be consistently funny no matter what he's doing.

Cold Opening

In preparation of the upcoming Olympics, SNL had to take as many shots at Russia as it could.  Here was the first.  One of the biggest issues going into these Olympics (which turned out to be a non-issue) was Russia's ban on homosexuality when some sports in the Winter Olympics are predominantly (or at least stereotypically) done by homosexuals.  So in case there was an issue, SNL decided to hold a heterosexual figure skating competition.  So you have dude in football jersey playing air guitar, black gangster realizing black people done't skate, and more.  As silly and stupid and demeaning all the reinforcements of stereotypes are, it's actually pretty funny.

Monologue

Jonah Hill has made it tradition to make fun of himself and how he's a silly slapstick comedian now with two Oscar nominations in his monologues.  A guy like that has to be getting a big head.  Well, there's nothing that can keep you humble quite like your buddy Leonardo diCaprio (notorious for being full of himself) coming out and treating you like a 10 year old.  This all leads to a top 3 moment of the season so far.  (By the way, when is Leo going to host his own SNL?  I think it's a little long overdue.)

Weekend Update

As the countdown to Seth Meyers's departure continued, there didn't seem to be any signs of change in the near future.  There were two featured guests on Weekend Update.  The first, the cop who arrested Justin Bieber, was less than groundbreaking but topically funny.  The second featured the latest shot at Sochi society as Kate McKinnon portrayed a desperate Russian woman wondering why anyone would ever choose to come to Russia.  She has had characters like this before, and they keep coming back back simply because they are absolutely hilarious.

Best Sketch

You know you can be considered an SNL regular when you have a recurring sketch as a host.  It's even better when your recurring sketch is the first sketch of the show every time and is consistently the funniest sketch of the episode.  That's the case with Jonah Hill's Adam Grossman, a 6 year old Jewish boy chatting it up with those sharing a table with him and his parent at Benihana.  It's hilarious, even though he's always "JUST KIDDING!  I'M SIX!!!"

Worst Sketch

With as hilarious as Jonah Hill can be, there were definitely some duds.  In fact, there may have been more duds than hits this episode.  Here is the biggest dud of them all, possibly the biggest dud of the season.  Jonah and Cecily are taking care of a horse who kicks them and punches them.  That's the sketch!  That's it!  And yes, it's as stupid as it sounds.  Even the last bad joke gets ruined.  It's just bad (so bad it's not available online, but this one was bad too).

Dark Horse Sketch

Almost immediately following this crappy sketch came this gem.  Jonah is trying to impress his boss at a dinner at his house.  He is so nervous that he keeps making silly little mistakes in casual conversation.  Every time he does that, he goes to the bathroom for a pep talk the whole party can hear.  Jonah yelling at himself.  Priceless.

Grade

This seems to be a common theme of SNL recently.  They have some amazing talent, top-notch hosts.  The problem is the writing is just no good.  More times than not, no matter how good the acting is, the writing just hasn't been able to keep up.  This episode is a perfect example.  Jonah Hill, when he was allowed to be Jonah Hill, made the sketches work.  However, too often the sketches couldn't get out of their own way.  It's almost like they try to be too creative.  Either way, Jonah Hill (with some help from Leo) made this episode better than average.

***B-***

Watch the full episode here:

2014 NCAA Tournament Predictions: A Statisical Analysis using Championship Range Score (CRS)

            “Man, Team X is playing really well.  They’re gonna be a dangerous 4 seed in the tournament.”

            “What do you mean, Team X?  Did you see them a few weeks ago against Team Y?  They’re going to lose in round one to Random-13-Seed.”

            “OK, Team X might not win the whole thing, but come on, they’re not going to lose to Random-13-Seed.”

            “So not even a chance of that happening?  Why not?”

            “I don’t know.  I can’t put my finger on it, but I just don’t see it.”

- Typical conversation before Sabermetrics   

This week marks two significant milestones in the new and exciting world of data-driven analysis of real-world events.  The first is the launching of Nate Silver’s new Grantland-esque website, Five Thirty Eight.  The comparisons to Bill Simmons’ online domicile are striking, with typical articles with the titles “How Statisticians Could Help Find That Missing Plane” and “Three Rules to Make Sure Economic Data Aren’t Bunk.”  Heck, even the graphic layout looks the same (one is left wondering whether Silver can do a baseball podcast with his Yankee fan friend, Black-O).  But in all fairness, Silver’s website is a great contribution to those of us who are sick of glib pundits giving their opinions based solely on their own half-assed assumptions.  The rest of you can turn on Fox News or Chris Matthews and go back to the 1970s; here in 2014, it has become imperative that machines help derive data that can support or repudiate our assumptions about the way we live, work, and function.

The second event is the 2014 NCAA Basketball Tournament.  This means everyone and their mother is filling out their own bracket, gleefully informing their friends that they picked Dayton to make the Sweet 16 or have Kentucky eliminated in the first round.  This is typically followed by a conversation much like the one at the beginning of this article, with little factual evidence supporting which teams do and don’t advance.  What’s left is mostly inarticulate speculation and awkward attempts to save face and change the subject after Dayton loses by 20 the first Thursday of the tournament. 

This is OK for two main reasons.  The first is that no one can possibly watch every team in the NCAA play every game for an entire season.  In fact, most of the talking heads who are supposed to know this stuff are, in reality, closer to a layman’s interpretation of events rather than those of an “expert.”  Think about it: The people who are supposed to be most knowledgeable about NCAA Basketball should (at least, in theory) be the members of the tournament committee, but the fact that three 15 seeds have advanced in the last two seasons are indicators of gross misinterpretation.  But this relates to the second reason, which is that March Madness is fun because of all the upsets and unpredictability.  A perfect committee would mean that no 9 seed or below would ever advance.  This would mean that George Mason would have been eliminated by Michigan State in the first round of the 2006 tournament, Butler’s near-miracle 2010 run would have ended in the Sweet 16, and Florida Gulf Coast would still be a school no one ever heard of. 

But I’m still uncomfortable with the notion that sports predictions (not only limited to college basketball) for the most part tend to be apocryphal.  We still have idiots like Lou Holtz predicting that Notre Dame will win the national championship.  Now does anyone take Lou Holtz seriously?  Maybe not, but he has a job at ESPN and you and I do not.  Even my NFL playoff prediction articles tend to be ridden with unproven gut feelings instead of statistically-based indicators.  Seattle won this year’s Super Bowl, but because I don’t like them and because I remember many years of the playoffs where they were one-and-done, I failed to account for statistics that positioned them as clearly the NFL’s best team.  Human prejudices and oversights are just as capable of producing off-target predictions as they are forecasting the George Masons of the world.  But without data-based statistics, there’s no road map, just impressionistic gut feelings.

This week, I did something I’ve wanted to do for a long time: My own statistical analysis of the NCAA Tournament.  I call my method the “Championship Range” (CR).  I used ten categories from Kenpom:

Pythagorean Score

Adjusted Offense

Adjusted Defense

Adjusted Tempo

Luck

Opponents Strength of Schedule – Total

Opponents Strength of Schedule – Offense

Opponents Strength of Schedule – Defense

Non-Conference Strength of Schedule

Then, I looked at teams that won the NCAA championship going back to 2003.  I derived a range in each of these categories that each championship team fell into (for example, no team had an Adjusted Defense score of under 86.4 and above 92.9).  I call this the “championship range.”  Then I found which teams in this year’s tournament fit into each of those ranges.

Not all statistical measures are equal, so knowing this, I scored each of Pomeroy’s ten categories from 1-10.  The category which had the fewest total number of 2014 teams in this year’s tournament (Opponents’ D SOS) got a 10.  The category which boasted the most teams (Non-conference SOS) got a 1.  Then I marked each time a 2014 team fell into a championship range in one of the ten categories and applied the score I gave each category.  Then I added up the scores.  Based on the where the fewest 2014 tournament teams fit within the championship range, here is how I scored Pomeroy’s categories:

Opponents Strength of Schedule – Defense (two 2014 teams): 10 points

Pythagorean Score (five teams): 9 points

Adjusted Defense (10 teams): 8 points

Adjusted Offense (23 teams): 7 points

Opponents Strength of Schedule – Offense (26 teams): 6 points

Opponents Strength of Schedule – Total (28 teams): 5 points

Adjusted Tempo (40 teams): 4 points

Total losses (41 teams): 3 points

Luck (45 teams): 2 points

Non-Conference SOS (55 teams): 1 point

So, for example, let’s take my beloved Kansas Jayhawks.  They fit into four championship ranges (Adjusted Offense, Adjusted Tempo, Opponents’ Strength of Schedule – Total, Total Losses).  They could have fit into the other Opponents SOS categories, but actually exceeded the ranges of both (this could be considered a flaw in my method).  When you add the four championship ranges (7+4+5+3), you get a Championship Range Score (CRS) of 19.  This is higher than Eastern Kentucky, who gets a score of 10 for fitting into the championship ranges of Adjusted Tempo, Total Losses, Luck, and Nonconference SOS (4+3+2+1).  Because 19 is higher than 10, I project Kansas to beat Eastern Kentucky.  However, because Eastern Kentucky has the same CRS as 9-seeded Colorado, the committee may have seeded one or both improperly.

There are obviously flaws in my method.  One could be: Why consider these particular ten metrics when other predictors may be more accurate?  Well, the answer is that those are the indicators that are available to a non-subscriber on Kenpom.  Another question would be if the wider championship ranges are less accurate than others (for example, the range for Adjusted Tempo was broad).  That’s why I structured my analysis around the idea that the more inclusive the range, the less exclusive the metric.  Only two teams fit within the top range, Opponents SOS – Defense (Nebraska and Wisconsin).  Because of this exclusivity, this metric was considered the most valuable.

Other metrics tell interesting stories. Consider Luck, for example.  Most teams which have won the title have had very little oscillation in luck, either positive or negative.  In other words, consistent teams play well in the tournament.  Too much luck may mean an early exit, while too little luck may doom you to a low seed.  Another interesting metric is Adjusted Tempo.  I tend to think that of the ten categories, this is the most useless, since the last ten champions vary greatly and tempo doesn’t necessarily reflect quality.  But in reality, the most useless metric is Non-Conference SOS.  So much for those who criticize major schools for not scheduling enough Davids.

When all is said and done, here are the final tallies based on my analysis (I’ve put each teams seeding in parenthesis).

Team	Champ. Range Score (CRS)	Should Be Seeded	Actual Seeding
Florida	41	1	1
Louisville	38	1	4
Wichita State	36	1	1
Virginia	35	1	1
Arizona	28	2	1
Nebraska	28	2	11
Wisconsin	28	2	2
Saint Louis	24	2	5
Iowa State	22	3	3
Michigan State	22	3	4
Oklahoma	22	3	5
Pittsburgh	22	3	9
Ohio State	21	4	6
Oregon	21	4	7
Cincinnati	20	4-5	5
San Diego State	20	4-5	4
UConn	20	4-5	7
UMass	20	4-5	6
Villanova	20	4-5	2
Kansas	19	5-6	2
NC State	19	5-6	12
Tennessee	19	5-6	11
Iowa	18	6-7	11
Michigan	18	6-7	2
Creighton	17	6-7	3
Oklahoma State	17	6-7	9
UCLA	17	6-7	4
G. Washington	16	7-8	9
Kentucky	16	7-8	8
Manhattan	16	7-8	13
Memphis	16	7-8	8
New Mexico	16	7-8	7
Baylor	15	9	6
Delaware	15	9	13
North Carolina	15	9	6
Providence	15	9	11
St. Joseph’s	14	10	10
VCU	14	10	5
Arizona State	13	10-11	10
Brigham Young	13	10-11	10
Duke	13	10-11	3
N.D. State	13	10-11	12
Kansas State	12	11	9
Stanford	12	11	10
Syracuse	11	11	3
Colorado	10	12	9
Eastern Kentucky	10	12	15
Gonzaga	10	12	8
Texas	10	12	7
Dayton	9	12	11
NM State	8	13	13
W. Michigan	8	13	14
Coastal Carolina	7	13	16
Texas Southern	7	13	16
Cal Poly	6	14-15	16
Harvard	6	14-15	12
La-Lafayette	6	14-15	14
NC Central	6	14-15	14
Steph. F. Austin	6	14-15	12
Mercer	5	15	14
Milwaukee	5	15	15
Tulsa	5	15	13
Albany	3	16	16
Weber State	2	16	16
Wofford	2	16	15
American	1	16	15
Mt. St. Mary’s	0	16	16
Xavier	0	16	12

            Obviously, statistics tell an incomplete story.  Syracuse fans would be livid to see their team, ranked first in the country one month ago, reduced to 11 seed.  It would be difficult to explain why teams like UCLA and Baylor didn’t see a favorable bounce by the committee after their successful conference tournament runs.  The human factor is absent here.  This is based on raw, empirical data.  But from this data, we can draw a few interesting observations about how the 2014 NCAA Tournament might shape out:

1. The most underseeded teams – A.K.A. potential Cinderella teams – are (in rough order) Nebraska, Pittsburgh, North Carolina State, Tennessee, and Manhattan.  

It may be surprising to see Nebraska ranked so high according to CRS.  But the Huskers played a difficult schedule and were one of the two beneficiaries from that much-desired Opponent SOS- Defense championship range.  Of the five teams listed above, I trust them the most to advance, and I have them losing narrowly to Arizona in the Elite Eight.  Since the Cornhuskers and Wildcats each have a CRS of 28, I had to look closer at the individual matchup and determine a tiebreaker based on considering which CRs they fit into were more valuable.  This may be the Sabermetric equivalent of "overtime."  In other words, if Arizona-Nebraska is an Elite Eight matchup, expect it to be a very close, low scoring game.

            As for the other four, Pitt has the great misfortune of a potential round-two matchup with Florida, who I project will win the tournament without a great deal of difficulty.  The CRS does suggest that the Pitt-Colorado 8-9 matchup will actually be one of the most one-sided of the first round, so expect a Panther blowout.  North Carolina State, Tennessee and Manhattan also play teams with a higher CRS in the round of 64 (why couldn’t they have faced Duke or Syracuse?)  Of those three, Tennessee may have the best shot, since their CRS of 19 is only one below UMass’ 20.  Whoever wins that game (which I project UMass to) should reach the Elite Eight, where they lose to Louisville.  I would love to see Manhattan advance though.

2. The most overvalued teams – A.K.A. vulnerable to early upsets – are (in rough order) Syracuse, Duke, VCU, Texas and Michigan.

Syracuse fit in the three lowest championship ranges and the Opponents SOS- Total, which negatively affected the Orange's CRS pretty dramatically.  14-seeded Western Michigan has a CRS of 8, which isn't great but is only three below Syracuse's 11.  Watch for the upset. But even if the Orange advance, they will be awaiting a tough matchup with Ohio State in the round of 32.  The Buckeyes have a CRS of 21, meaning they should beat Syracuse without great difficulty.  In fact, CRS projects the Buckeyes to even beat the slightly overvalued Jayhawks to reach the Elite Eight.

            The only one of the remaining four on serious upset alert is Texas, which is projected to lose to Arizona State based on CRS.  I can believe it; Texas is a boring team that can’t shoot, played poorly on the road, and has a hard time slowing down teams.  Arizona State is seeded properly, and should advance.  Fortunately for the 99 percent of us who are Duke haters, the Blue Devils shouldn’t move past the round of 32, as they have a lower CRS than UMass, Tennessee and Iowa.  It’s interesting that for all of the talk about the “incredible” strength of the Midwest bracket, three of its teams are overvalued, each of them are on the same half of the bracket.  This should be enticing to Louisville and Wichita State.

            It’s also noteworthy that three of the four 3 seeds are overvalued according to CRS (Syracuse, Duke and Creighton).  Only Iowa State is worthy of its seeding, and I project the Cyclones to reach the Elite Eight. 

 

3. Stop getting excited about Harvard, North Dakota State, Stephen F. Austin and Mercer.

According to CRS, those upsets aren't happening. Sorry. North Dakota State has a respectable CRS of 13, but Oklahoma is also undervalued. Stephen F. Austin may have the coolest name in the tournament and is playing an overrated VCU team but just because you win 30 games against teams like Elmhurst, Houston Baptist, and Incarnate Word does not make you a legit Cinderella contender.  Duke is overrated, yes but Mercer has a lower CRS than two 16  seeds.

            As for Harvard, yes, they are a trendy pick because (A) they won as a 14 seed last year, (B) they only lost four games this season, two of which were competitive road games against Colorado and UConn, and (C) Cincinnati always seems like a team that loses early.  But CRS was not kind to Harvard, as its score of 6 was derived in the three weakest categories.  Cincinnati and its west coast doppelganger, San Diego State, each have a CRS of 20, which is good enough to win their first games, but probably not good enough to make it to next weekend.  Interestingly, they were two of the most accurately seeded teams in the tournament, according to CRS. 

4.  What you should be getting excited about are these super-close games in the Round of 64

Memphis-George Washington, North Carolina-Providence, and UMass-Tennessee.  In the cases of the first two matchups, the CR scores are identical, meaning that the games are virtually crapshoots.  In the case of UMass-Tennessee, both stand a very good chance of advancing to the Elite Eight.

            It’s interesting that only one of these matchups is an 8-9, and the other two are 6-11.  What are other matchups which according to seeding should be good, but according to CRS will be one-sided?  7-seeded Oregon (CRS: 21) should take care of 10-seeded BYU (CRS: 13) and Oklahoma State as a 9 seed (CRS: 17) shouldn’t have too many problems with Gonzaga (CRS: 10).  The biggest mismatch of Round One that does not involve a 1 seed?  North Carolina State (CRS: 19) vs. Xavier (CRS: 0).  Yes, amazingly Xavier did not get any points, and their 15-point loss on Tuesday night was an early demonstration of CRS’s accuracy (Mount Saint Mary’s, Tuesday night’s other casualty, was the only other team without a single CRS point).

5. It won't happen, but the 16 seed with the best chance of an upset is:

Weber State.  No, their CRS of 2 won’t impress many, but they did beat North Dakota

three times, played UCLA and BYU, and allowed the fewest 3 pointers in the country (not that Arizona will make many).  They have a pair of 6-10 centers and have only had 51 blocked shots against them, the fewest in the nation. 

            If we’re looking at realistic double-digit seeds which could advance, I would nominate Western Michigan, Delaware, Mercer (sort of), Eastern Kentucky, and North Dakota State (this doesn’t include Nebraska because none of these teams are expected to win).  Delaware is particularly intriguing because everyone is overvaluing Michigan State getting healthy again.  Not to indulge in the pre-Sabermetric mentality, but doesn’t it seem like every year there is the one team that everyone feels proud to pick but gets  stunningly upset on the first day?  I call this the “Sorrentine Effect.”  And, as has been noted in about 100 percent of text messages I’ve sent since Sunday, Eastern Kentucky made over 300 three-pointers on the season, and is far and away the best 15 seed according to CRS. 

6. The high seeded mid-majors will perform ________ in the tournament.

This specifically refers to Wichita State, Creighton, San Diego State, New Mexico,

UMass and Gonzaga, all of whom frequently make the tournament, but none of whom have made it very far, save the Shockers’ Final Four run last year.  The only teams which CRS projects to move on to the Sweet 16 are Wichita State and UMass, but both are expected to eventually fall to Louisville in the Midwest.  In other words, this may not be a great year for mid-majors.

            But if I were to reject the CRS data and purely go off the “eye” test, the team that would jump out at me most is San Diego State.  Quite simply, they play the best defense I’ve seen of any team all season.  They’ve been to the tournament before (seeded 2 in 2011), beat Kansas in Lawrence, nearly beat Arizona, and only had two games allowing over 70 points.  Xavier Thames is an electric offensive force, and I don’t think anyone doubts Steve Fisher’s coaching credentials.  Oklahoma and Arizona seem offensively vulnerable at times, and like Wichita State last year, the Aztecs appear like the sneaky mid-major few people are seriously paying attention to.  They lost some CRS points because they aren’t offensively great and their schedule was weak, but there’s little doubt that on any given day, they could upset anyone in the country.  Miles and Jack would agree.

 

7.      _____ and ______ could play each other, and it would be a phenomenal game.

Clearly you can see from the chart above which tournament teams are the most evenly

matched for one another.  But seeing as it is pretty unlikely that the championship game will feature New Mexico vs. Manhattan, so we need to consider which potential matchups are likely within particular regions, and which matchups live up (or fail to live up to) their hype.

            The best potential for great games comes in the West region, believe it or not.  Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nebraska have identical CRS scores of 28.  Oregon, Oklahoma and San Diego State are all above 20, and Oklahoma State and Creighton aren’t far behind.  Arizona-Nebraska, Arizona-Wisconsin, or Nebraska-Wisconsin would be epic.  Meanwhile, Dana Altman squaring off against his old team would be must-see TV, and who knows what Marcus Smart is capable of doing on any given night.  Arizona has the weakest CRS of any 1 seed, meaning that the West is arguably the most wide-open bracket.  I still like the Wildcats, but barely.

            Florida should run away with the South, but Ohio State-Kansas, separated by two CRS points, could be a great rematch of their memorable Final Four game in 2012 (many people here in Lawrence still have a disdain for Aaron Craft).  Same goes for Virginia in the East; in fact, the Cavaliers are 13 CRS points above the second-best teams in the region, Iowa State and Michigan State.  UConn and Villanova would be a great (former) Big East matchup in round two, and Cincinnati-Michigan State are only separated by a couple of CRS points.

            We’ve already demystified the “epic” Midwest, but it is worth noting that two of the three best teams in the country according to CRS are in that region.  Their potential Sweet 16 matchup would probably be the best game of the entire tournament (CBS better schedule that game for prime time if they don’t want to see some serious complaints).  The winner should have the inside track to the championship game.  The Shockers’ CRS did fall slightly due to their poor schedule, but they did fit in the championship range for Opponents SOS- Offense.  Contrary to what many “experts” believe, Wichita State has as good a shot as anyone to win the tournament, and the NCAA committee scheduling them in the same bracket as Louisville is a shortsighted move, in my opinion.  Whoever loses that Sweet 16 game will not be remembered as favorably as they should be, which is a disservice to each team, the entire tournament and all fans.

 

8.      At the end of it all . . .

CRS projects Florida over Louisville in the National Championship game (Virginia and

Arizona round out the Final Four).  However, Louisville played the 110^th toughest schedule in the country, and outside of schizophrenic Kentucky and Tennessee, Florida’s SEC opponents weren’t exactly exceptional.  Nevertheless, both fit within the championship range for Opponents SOS- Offense, and Florida met Opponents SOS- Total, which ultimately pushes the Gators’ CRS score over the Wildcats.

             Florida’s toughest competition on its way to the championship comes in the form of Pitt (CRS: 22), Ohio State (CRS: 21), and Virginia (CRS: 35).  In other words, should they be champions at the end of it all, they will have earned it in mostly fair fashion, playing four of the top 14 teams in the tournament (contrast this with UConn’s 2011 championship run, where they didn’t have to square off against a single 1 seed; according to Pomeroy, they are unquestionably the weakest national champion of the last decade).  They also really resemble a lot of the previous NCAA champions: Not the most talented group necessarily, but the most tight-knit and defensively sound, with excellent senior leadership, experience in past tournaments, and solid coaching.  One of their losses was by a single point, another was a 6-point loss in Madison on November 12.  This is one of those rare years where it appears that humans and computers agree.

            As for the future of CRS, we will have to wait and see how this year’s tournament pans out.  If it is an accurate model, then I’ll look like a genius.  If not, then I’ll look like someone who doesn’t understand the proper analytical frameworks of Sabermetrics; in other words, I’ll look like most everyone else. 

            Thoughts?  Disagreements?  Think statistical analysis is stupid because I didn’t predict Duke to win it all?  Let me know below.