That Ain't Beer, Son

Things that tell me it must be spring in Michigan: baseball, 12 days of straight rain and the release of frou-frou seasonal beers. Specifically Bell's Oberon and Leinenkugel's Summer Shandy both of which I will be griping about today.

Oberon

I don't know when this stuff was first released but it entered my consciousness circa 1997. In those days, sophisticated beer drinkers drank things like Michelob Light and Lowenbrau.  Then along came Oberon.  Poor college kids would pool their money to afford a six-pack for $4.50, split it five ways and leave one in the fridge as a conversation piece.  There was nothing else like it and everybody loved it.  A couple years later I found myself working in a restaurant that happened to have Oberon on tap.  Now, the restaurant was struggling big time and a busy night might net a server twenty bucks. As recompense, our understanding manager would let us do some damage to the bar after closing.  Naturally, we college kids went for the good stuff choosing to dull the indignity of working in a failing restaurant with a schooner of Oberon.  Or two schooners.  But not three.  You see, the Oberon of the late 90's is not the stuff we have today with its own annual release party and found on the fountain at Burger King.  The old stuff was sweet tasting rocket fuel with chunks of tree bark in it that if abused could take you out of the game for a night or two.  At some point between then and now they messed with the recipe either to produce it more cheaply or make sure people could drink their fill.  The present version, I am more likely to use for boiling noodles or putting out grass fires.

Summer Shandy

There's a great marketing case-study here somewhere.  Bartles & James, Zima, Mike's.  All of these wine-cooler products had their success but ultimately fell back into a niche and eventually obscurity.  What Leinie's did differently is they called their wine cooler beer, sold it in brown beer bottles next to real beer and then eventually in cans and on-tap.  Shandy let people say "I like beer too."  And it's good, not saying it isn't.  But you know what's better (besides actual beer)?  A real shandy.  Here's the recipe: pour real beer in a glass, pour real lemonade in the same glass with the beer.  You literally can't screw it up unless you miss the glass and it's 10 times better than  capital "S" Shandy.

Convenient Treatment of Vacated Wins

Like most of you that will read this, I have been following the 2013 NCAA basketball tournament and Michigan's run to the Final Four. Congratulations to those players and best of luck next week against Syracuse and beyond.

Now that that is out of the way, let me talk about what has interested me since long before this tournament- vacated wins, particularly as a penalty for rules violations.  The theory of this penalty makes sense to me but the gray area of its application has always been confusing.  I searched high and low for a good definition of what it means to vacate a win by the NCAA's standards without any luck.  The best definition I found (by what I imagine the NCAA implies) was from Merriam-Webster: "To give up incumbency or occupancy". In other words, when a team vacates a win, they no longer occupy the position that victory provided; they have vacated it, leaving the position empty or unclaimed.

The #2 image result for the search: Michigan Basketball

The gray area I referred to is most visible in the media's treatment of vacated wins.

1. Before the  tournament, I posted a link to a rivals.com blog post that tallied the Big Ten schools' historical tournament performances.  The article counted wins and achievements of Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio State with no mention that they had been vacated due to various infractions.  
2. As CBS televised Michigan's games this weekend, the references to the school's last Final Four run(s) were unsurprisingly a main storyline complete with images of Steve Fisher hugging various players.  
3. Last night mgoblue.com, THE official website of University of Michigan athletics, posted a write-up on the current team's run that couldn't get past the first sentence without referencing the schools last Final Four.

The only reason I can see for the inconsistencies is convenience.  It makes an easy storyline to sell. It's difficult to make allowances for people ignorant of the back-story.  It's easy to say how two things are the same. It's difficult to say how they are different.  It's easy to subtract wins on paper. It's difficult to reconcile that achievements were a benefit of those vacated wins.  Just to make a point on that, with all of the references to Michigan's Final Four appearances, when do you think you'll next hear Joe Paterno referred to as the winningest college football coach?

Vacating wins is obviously something the NCAA is serious about as evidenced by its actions.  Schools obviously don't want to vacate wins as evidenced by their appeals to the punishment.  Why then does the NCAA not enforce logical reporting and treatment of vacated games by its partners (CBS) and members (UofM)?

For further reading on vacated wins I recommend:

• The Theory and Practice of Vacating Games from the NCAA's own blog
• What does vacating wins really mean? from ESPN

 

Final Breakdown: Big Ten Scenarios and Tournament Seeding

With one day of games remaining among the B1G contenders, the possibilities are starting to dwindle.  On Monday and Wednesday, I had looked at the eight most likely scenarios and the resulting conference tournament seedings.  Now with four games remaining between the front-runners, I give you the four scenarios based on the Illinois-Ohio State game and the Indiana-Michigan game assuming that Michigan State and Wisconsin hold serve against Northwestern and Penn State respectively.  Within each scenario, I show what will happen if Michigan State OR Wisconsin lose their respective game.  In the unlikely event that BOTH teams lose their games, the seedings would certainly shuffle but Wisconsin would remain outside of the top four seeds.

Sunday's Games:

12:00 UW @ PSU
12:30 UI @ OSU
4:00 IU @ UM
6:00 NU @ MSU

Scenarios:

A) Ohio State, Michigan win

1. IU
2. OSU
3. UM
4. MSU
5. UW

If MSU loses in this scenario: no seeding change but MSU loses share of conference title
If Wisconsin loses in this scenario: no change

B) Ohio State, Indiana win

1. IU
2. OSU
3. MSU
4. UW
5. UM

If MSU loses in this scenario: no change 
If Wisconsin loses in this scenario: UM gets 4-seed, UW gets 5-seed

C) Illinois, Indiana win

1. IU
2. MSU
3. UW
4. OSU
5. UM

If MSU loses in this scenario: OSU gets 3-seed, UW gets 4-seed 
If Wisconsin loses in this scenario: OSU gets 3-seed, UM gets 4-seed, UW gets 5-seed

D) Illinois, Michigan win

1. IU
2. UM
3. MSU
4. UW
5. OSU

If MSU loses in this scenario: OSU gets 4-seed, UW gets 5seed, MSU loses share of conference title
If Wisconsin loses in this scenario: OSU gets 4-seed, UW gets 5-seed

Note: Green Bolding denotes a share of the conference championship

Further Breakdown: Big Ten Scenarios and Tournament Seeding

With Ohio State's win over Indiana last night the picture for the B1G title and tournament seeding got a lot more interesting with several teams' hopes likely coming down to Sunday's match-up between Indiana and Michigan.  On Monday, I looked at scenarios based on outcomes of three games.  One of those games was the IU-OSU game so now I am looking a little deeper since I can make some stronger assumptions.  The remaining games involving teams with title (and Thursday tourney bye) hopes are:

March 6: UM @ Purdue
March 7: UW @ MSU
March 10: UW @ PSU, UI @ OSU, IU @ UM, NU @ MSU

For the scenarios, I am only considering the yellow-bolded games.  I am now including the Illinois-Ohio State game.  As I said on Monday, the other games are "handle your business" games.  Sure, anything can happen but it just opens up too many (unlikely) possibilities. So here are the eight most likely scenarios and the resulting Big Ten tournament seedings. Teams that take a piece of the conference title are green-bolded.

Scenarios:

A) Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana win

1. IU
2. UW
3. OSU
4. MSU
5. UM

B) Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan win

1. UW
2. IU
3. UM
4. OSU
5. MSU

C) Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan win

1. UW
2. UM
3. OSU
4. IU
5. MSU

D) Wisconsin, Ohio State, Indiana win

1. IU
2. UW
3. OSU
4. MSU
5. UM

E) Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan win

1. IU
2. OSU
3. UM
4. MSU
5. UW

F) Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana win

1. IU
2. OSU
3. MSU
4. UW
5. UM

G) Michigan State, Illinois, Indiana win

1. IU
2. MSU
3. UW
4. OSU
5. UM

H) Michigan State, Illinois, Michigan win

1. IU
2. UM
3. MSU
4. UW
5. OSU

 Bullet Points:

• Again, the Indiana-Michigan match-up will answer most questions.  An Indiana win secures them the outright title and relegates Michigan to a Thursday tournament game.  An Indiana loss opens the door to a three or four-way tie for the crown.
• I have commented on the imbalance of the schedule before.  Of the five contenders, Wisconsin benefits by playing Indiana and Michigan only once.  To their credit, they won both contests which gives them a huge advantage in tie-breaking procedures.
• For Michigan State and Michigan fans, scenarios A, D & H likely set up a tournament rematch between those teams.

Big Ten Scenarios and Tournament Seeding

The B1G hoops season has one week to go with five teams in the mix for a piece of the title and one of the top four seeds in the conference tournament.  Indiana has locked up at least a share and can win the conference outright with either a win at home against Ohio State or at Michigan.  The other four, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Wisconsin are also battling for a Thursday bye in the conference tournament as they jockey for a more favorable NCAA seeding.

In the next week, these five teams play seven games amongst themselves. Seven games means there are 128 potential possible endings (2^7) to the regular season.  The games to be played are:

March 5: OSU @ IU
March 6: UM @ Purdue
March 7: UW @ MSU
March 10: UW @ PSU, UI @ OSU, IU @ UM, NU @ MSU

128 possibilities is far too much to look at but luckily each outcome is not equally likely.  Four of the above games are "handle your business" games (they are the un-bolded games); if those teams handle their business, the league finish will get decided by three games with eight (2^3) more or less equally likely scenarios.  I know it's the B1G and handling your business is not always just that.  Should any one of the teams lose games they are expected to win they would likely drop to fifth place and lose a bye in the conference tourney.  If multiple teams fail to handle their business, well it becomes a shit-storm and you can throw this whole thing out the window.

Bullet Points:

• Today, Indiana has a better than 75% chance of winning the conference outright.  Tuesday's game against OSU will decide a lot and is arguably the least in doubt of the big three (yellow bolded) games.
• If all teams handle their business, Michigan will need to beat Indiana to avoid the 5-seed regardless of anything else. They really get stung by tie-breakers having lost their only game against Wisconsin.
• If Indiana beats OSU on Tuesday, the title is decided leaving the other teams scrapping for a tournament bye with four scenarios.  In two of those scenarios, Michigan falls to the 5-seed. In another scenario, OSU gets the 5-seed.  In the final scenario where MSU loses to Wisconsin, MSU and OSU would go deep into tie-breakers for fourth place relying on the finish of Minnesota and/or Illinois.
• If OSU and Michigan both beat Indiana, it likely creates a four-way tie and the MSU-UW game becomes very important with the winner sharing the B1G title and the loser falling to the 5-seed.  Wisconsin would also get the #1 seed with a win over MSU.

Disclaimer: This all relies on my proper interpretation of the B1G tie-break procedures which I got here.  Go State.