A PiRate Look At The Final Four

The PiRate All-Inclusive Look At The Final Four

Rosters, Stats, Results, PiRate Criteria Scores, and Analysis

National Semifinals

Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010

Place: Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis

Our PiRate NCAA Tournament Criteria correctly picked half the field this year, getting it right with Duke and West Virginia.  We just missed getting three as Butler edged our pick from the West Regional, Kansas State, in the Elite 8.

Our overall number one pick and selection to win the Big Dance back when the field was announced is still going strong, and if the Blue Devils win it all Monday night, the PiRate picking formula will have succeeded in picking the National Champion for the fourth time in five years.

If the NCAA Tournament expands to 96 teams as it looks like might happen, we aren’t sure we will be able to handle the extra work to get this published.  33 extra teams might just be too much to get ready in a couple days.  To tell you the truth, 96 teams would be too much to keep our attention.  We would forget the first three rounds and do something else.  Heck, we might forget the tournament altogether.

Okay, let’s get down to the meat of this edition—The National Semifinal Round.

Game One: 6:07 PM EDT

 

Butler Bulldogs (32-4) vs. Michigan State Spartans (28-8)

 

Butler

 

Roster

No.	Name	Pos	Ht	Wt	Yr	Status
1	Shelvin Mack	G	6-3	215	So	Starter
2	Shawn Vanzant	G	6-0	172	Jr	Key Reserve
3	Zach Hahn	G	6-1	176	Jr	Plays In Every Game
5	Ronald Nored	G	6-0	174	So	Starter
11	Alex Anglin	G/F	6-5	177	Jr	Seldom Plays
14	Nick Rodgers	G	6-2	168	Sr	Seldom Plays
20	Gordon Hayward	G/F	6-9	207	So	Starter
21	Willie Veasley	G/F	6-3	206	Sr	Starter
22	Grant Leiendecker	G	6-5	182	Jr	Seldom Plays
24	Avery Jukes	F	6-8	215	Sr	Plays In Every Game
30	Emerson Kampen	C	6-9	189	Fr	Seldom Plays
32	Garrett Butcher	F	6-7	209	So	Seldom Plays
33	Chase Stigall	G	6-4	195	Fr	Seldom Plays
44	Andrew Smith	C	6-11	239	Fr	Plays Considerable Time
54	Matt Howard	F	6-8	230	Jr	Starter
HC	Brad Stevens
Ast	Matthew Graves
Ast	Terry Johnson
Ast	Micah Shrewsbury

 

Record:32-4, 18-0 Horizon
Colors: Blue & White
Opponent	But	Opp
Davidson	73	62
at Northwestern	67	54
at Evansville	64	60
Minnesota (Anaheim)	73	82
UCLA (Anaheim)	69	67
Clemson (Anaheim)	69	70
at Ball State	59	38
Valparaiso	84	67
Georgetown (at NYC)	65	72
Ohio State	74	66
Xavier	69	68
at Alabama-Birmingham	57	67
UW-Green Bay	72	49
UW-Milwaukee	80	67
at Wright State	77	65
at Detroit	64	62	ot
Cleveland State	64	55
Youngstown State	91	61
at Loyola of Chicago	48	47
at Illinois-Chicago	84	55
at UW-Green Bay	75	57
at UW-Milwaukee	73	66
Detroit	63	58
Wright State	74	62
Loyola of Chicago	62	47
at Youngstown State	68	57
at Cleveland State	70	59
Illinois-Chicago	73	55
Siena (Bracketbuster)	70	53
at Valparaiso	74	69
UW-Milwaukee (Horizon Trn)	68	59
Wright State (Horizon Trn)	70	45
UTEP (NCAA)	77	59
Murray State (NCAA)	54	52
Syracuse (NCAA)	63	59
Kansas State (NCAA)	63	56

 

Stats

 

Player	Min/G	Pts	Reb	FG%	3pt %	FT%	Ast	Bk	Stl
Gordon Hayward	33.1	15.5	8.2	47.4	29.5	82.7	61	28	37
Shelvin Mack	31.0	14.2	3.8	45.5	38.6	73.6	112	5	49
Matt Howard	25.7	11.8	5.3	49.4	27.3	79.2	30	23	21
Willie Veasley	31.1	10.1	4.3	49.8	36.9	64.7	33	9	39
Ronald Nored	29.9	6.0	2.9	41.8	18.2	61.2	133	4	63
Zach Hahn	15.8	5.1	0.9	43.9	42.0	92.9	24	0	13
Shawn Vanzant	14.5	2.8	1.7	32.1	30.4	73.5	43	6	15
Avery Jukes	10.1	2.7	1.2	39.2	37.9	69.4	5	5	5
Garrett Butcher	5.6	0.5	1.0	19.4	11.1	33.3	1	1	2
Team Stats	But	Opp
Points	69.4	59.6
FG%	44.9	41.5
3PT %	34.5	31.7
FT%	73.9	68.3
Rebounds	32.6	29.7
Turnovers	12.2	13.9
Steals	7.0	5.3
Blocks	2.3	3.0
Off. Rebound %	27.5
Possessions/G *	65.1
* Possessions/G estimated and based on this formula
FG attempts + (.5* FT attempts) + Turnovers – Offensive Rebounds

 

PiRate Criteria Score

 

Stat	Butler
Scoring Margin	9.8
Points	3
FG% Margin	3.40%
Points	0
Rebound Margin	3.2
Points	1
Turnover Margin	1.7
Points	1
R+T *	6.06
Road W-L	15-4
Points	3
Schedule Strength	6.65
Sub-total	20.71
Butler Gets an extra 2 points for quasi-home court advantage
Total	22.71

 

* R+T is a formula that combines rebounding margin and turnover margin.  It is weighted
to give turnover margin a little more clout and steals even more clout based on the fact that
turnovers, especially steals, produce a higher percentage of easy fast break points than do most rebounds.
R+T Formula: R+T= (.2S * 1.2T)+ R
R = Rebounding Margin, T = Turnover Margin, S = Avg. Steals per Game
If Turnover Margin is a negative number, then Steals are dropped from the formula

 

 

 

 

Michigan State

 

Roster

No.	Name	Pos	Ht	Wt	Yr	Status
1	Kalin Lucas	G	6-0	190	Jr	Injured–Out For Season
2	Raymar Morgan	F	6-8	230	Sr	Starter
3	Chris Allen	G	6-3	205	Jr	Key Reserve
10	Delvon Roe	F	6-8	230	So	Starter
13	Austin Thornton	G	6-5	220	So	Plays Some in Every Game
15	Durrell Summers	G	6-4	205	Jr	Starter
20	Mike Kebler	G	6-4	205	Jr	Plays Infrequently
22	Isaiah Dahlman	G	6-6	195	Sr	Plays Infrequently
23	Draymond Green	F	6-6	235	So	Plays as Much as a Starter
25	Jon Crandell	F	6-8	230	Sr	Seldom Plays
34	Korie Lucious	G	5-11	170	So	Starter–replaced Lucas
40	Tom Herzog	C	7-0	250	Jr	Seldom Plays
41	Garrick Sherman	C	6-10	235	Fr	Plays Some in Every Game
44	Anthony Ianni	C	6-9	260	Jr	Does Not Play
50	Derrick Nix	C	6-8	280	Fr	Starter
HC	Tom Izzo
Ast	Mark Montgomery
Ast	Dwayne Stephens
Ast	Mike Garland

 

Record:28-8, 14-4 Big Ten
Colors: Green & White
Opponent	MSU	Opp
Florida Gulf Coast	97	58
Gonzaga	75	71
Toledo (Legends Classic)	75	62
Valparaiso (Legends Classic)	90	60
Florida (Legends Classic)	74	77
U Mass (Legends Classic)	106	68
at North Carolina (ACC/Big Ten)	82	89
Wofford	72	60
at Citadel	69	56
Oakland	88	57
I P F W	80	58
at Texas	68	79
Texas-Arlington	87	68
at Northwestern	91	70
Wisconsin	54	47
at Iowa	71	53
Minnesota	60	53
Illinois	73	63
Iowa	70	63
at Minnesota	65	64
at Michigan	57	56
Northwestern	79	70
at Wisconsin	49	67
at Illinois	73	78
Purdue	64	76
at Penn State	65	54
at Indiana	72	58
Ohio State	67	74
Penn State	67	65
Michigan	64	48
Minnesota (Big Ten Trn)	67	72
New Mexico State (NCAA)	70	67
Maryland (NCAA)	85	83
Northern Iowa (NCAA)	59	52
Tennessee (NCAA)	70	69

 

Stats

Player	Min/G	Pts	Reb	FG%	3pt %	FT%	Ast	Bk	Stl
Kalin Lucas-Inj.	31.1	14.8	1.9	45.3	35.4	77.2	131	2	40
Morgan Raymar	27.3	11.5	6.2	53.5	31.3	68.1	62	24	37
Durrell Summers	25.9	11.2	4.6	45.3	35.9	80.3	31	3	25
Draymond Green	25.4	9.8	7.8	52.7	13.3	68.3	111	32	44
Chris Allen	25.7	8.5	2.9	43.0	39.8	73.3	73	3	16
Delvon Roe	20.6	6.5	5.0	55.9	0.0	66.1	41	34	31
Korie Lucious	22.5	5.4	1.7	33.7	30.8	73.7	114	5	26
Derrick Nix	7.8	2.4	2.1	50.7	0.0	27.1	8	6	7
Garrick Sherman	7.2	1.9	1.6	58.8	0.0	55.6	3	5	4
Austin Thornton	5.7	1.1	1.1	35.0	20.0	100.0	9	0	3
Team Stats	MSU	Opp
Points	72.4	64.1
FG%	47.2	40.8
3PT %	34.3	33.1
FT%	68.8	70.9
Rebounds	38.6	29.9
Turnovers	13.8	12.5
Steals	6.6	6.4
Blocks	3.3	2.6
Off. Rebound %	39.9
Possessions/G *	67.2
* Avg Possessions estimated and based on this formula
FG attempts + (.5* FT attempts) + Turnovers – Offensive Rebounds

 

PiRate Criteria Score

 

Stat	Michigan St.
Scoring Margin	8.3
Points	3
FG% Margin	6.40%
Points	1
Rebound Margin	8.1
Points	3
Turnover Margin	-1.3
Points	-2
R+T *	6.54
Road W-L	13-6
Points	2
Schedule Strength	8.74
Total	22.28

 

 

Analysis: First things first.  Butler is not a surprise team in the Final Four, or at least not a surprise in that they come from a smaller conference.  UNLV was once a small team from a small conference that made four trips to the Final Four and won the most lopsided Championship Game ever.  Marquette was a small Midwestern school that became a national power in the late 1950’s through the late 1970’s.

Butler is no different than UNLV or Marquette.  The Bulldogs have been as powerful as a Villanova, Ohio State, or Tennessee in recent years.  They have been a regular fixture, like Gonzaga.

Throw in some home-town advantage, and it’s easy to see why the Bulldogs are actually favored in this game.  There is one problem.  They have very little inside depth to match up with the Spartans’ inside game.

Michigan State won’t have their all-star playmaker Kalin Lucas on hand, but the Spartans will be able to cover that weakness up against Butlers’ gamble-free defense.  Lucious has been more than adequate as a play-maker in Lucas’s place, and Green, Allen, and Morgan have become competent runners of the offense as point forwards.

Most Final Four games are decided by guard play, but we see this game being the exception.  We believe the outcome hinges on the performances of the teams’ frontcourts.  Butler has Howard and Hayward and little else, so neither player can afford to get into foul trouble. 

The Spartans, as usual, dominate on the glass in most games.  In addition to Morgan, Green, and Roe, guards Summers and Allen can rebound like forwards.  Izzo has more options in reserve inside. 

The Criteria show this game to be a tossup, and thus a clear-cut favorite cannot be established.  However, all five of us lean toward the Spartans to win based on their superiority inside.

Prediction: Michigan State 63  Butler 56

 

Game Two: 8:47 PM EDT

 

Duke Blue Devils (33-5) vs. West Virginia Mountaineers (31-6)

 

Duke

 

Roster

No.	Name	Pos		Ht		Wt	Yr		Status
2	Nolan Smith	G		6-2		185	Jr		Starter
3	Seth Curry	G		6-1		175	So		Does Not Play
5	Mason Plumlee	F		6-10		230	Fr		Key Reserve
12	Kyle Singler	F		6-8		230	Jr		Starter
13	Olek Czyz	F							Seldom Plays
20	Andre Dawkins	G		6-4		190	Fr		Key Reserve
21	Miles Plumlee	F		6-10		240	So		Key Reserve
30	Jon Scheyer	G		6-5		190	Sr		Starter
34	Ryan Kelly	F		6-10		220	Fr		Key Reserve
41	Jordan Davidson	G		6-1		180	Sr		Seldom Plays
42	Lance Thomas	F		6-8		225	Sr		Starter
51	Steve Johnson	F		6-5		210	Jr		Seldom Plays
52	Todd Zafirovski	F		6-8		240	Fr		Does Not Play
53	Casey Peters	G		6-4		185	Jr		Seldom Plays
55	Brian Zoubek	C		7-1		260	Sr		Starter
HC	Mike Krzyzewski
Ast	Steve Wojciechowski
Ast	Chris Collins
Ast	Nate James
Record: 33-5, 13-3 ACC
Colors: Royal Blue & White
Opponent			Duke		Opp
UNC Greensboro			96		62
Coastal Carolina (Pre NIT)			74		49
Charlotte (Pre NIT)			101		59
Radford			104		67
Arizona State (Pre NIT @NYC)			64		53
Connecticut (Pre NIT @ NYC)			68		59
at Wisconsin (ACC/B10)			69		73
St. John’s			80		71
Gardner-Webb			113		68
Gonzaga (at NYC)			76		41
Long Beach State			84		63
Penn			114		55
Clemson			74		53
Iowa State (at Chicago)			86		65
at Georgia Tech			67		71
Boston College			79		59
Wake Forest			90		70
at N. C. State			74		88
at Clemson			60		47
Florida State			70		56
at Georgetown			77		89
Georgia Tech			86		67
at Boston College			66		63
at North Carolina			64		54
Maryland			77		56
at Miami (FL)			81		74
Virginia Tech			67		55
Tulsa			70		52
At Virginia			67		49
at Maryland			72		79
North Carolina			82		50
Virginia (ACC Tournament)			57		46
Miami (FL) (ACC Tournament)			77		74
Georgia Tech (ACC Tournament)			65		61
Ark. Pine Bluff (NCAA)			73		44
California (NCAA)			68		53
Purdue (NCAA)			70		57
Baylor (NCAA)			78		71

 

 

Stats

Player	Min/G	Pts	Reb	FG%	3pt %	FT%	Ast	Bk	Stl
Jon Scheyer	36.7	18.2	3.6	39.5	38.1	88.2	183	8	62
Kyle Singler	35.7	17.6	6.9	40.9	39.1	79.4	89	30	40
Nolan Smith	35.4	17.4	2.8	44.4	39.6	78.3	104	9	45
Brian Zoubek	18.1	5.5	7.6	63.2	0.0	55.4	35	29	27
Miles Plumlee	16.6	5.4	5.1	56.6	100.0	66.1	12	25	18
Lance Thomas	24.9	4.8	4.9	43.2	0.0	74.3	36	8	21
Andre Dawkins	12.9	4.7	1.2	40.0	38.3	73.5	13	2	11
Mason Plumlee	14.7	3.8	3.3	46.2	28.6	54.3	30	29	17
Ryan Kelly	6.6	1.2	1.1	35.6	26.3	66.7	13	14	8
Team Stats	Duke	Opp
Points	77.4	61.1
FG%	43.9	40.2
3PT %	38.2	27.8
FT%	76.1	68.5
Rebounds	39.3	32.8
Turnovers	11.1	14.4
Steals	6.7	5.4
Blocks	4.1	4.0
Off. Rebound % ^	40.3
Possessions/G *	67.5
^ Offensive Rebound % is based on this formula
Offensive Rebounds/(Opponents’ Defensive Rebounds + Defensive Dead Ball Rebounds)
* Avg Possessions estimated and based on this formula
FG attempts + (.5* FT attempts) + Turnovers – Offensive Rebounds

PiRate Criteria Score

Stat Duke Scoring Margin 16.3 Points 5 FG% Margin 3.70% Points 0 Rebound Margin 5.9 Points 3 Turnover Margin 3.3 Points 3 R+T * 11.21 Road W-L 16-5 Points 3 Schedule Strength 10.39     Total 35.6

West Virginia

 

Roster

No.	Name	Pos	Ht	Wt	Yr	Status
1	Da’Sean Butler	F	6-7	230	Sr	Starter
2	Cam Thoroughman	F	6-7	240	Jr	Plays Some in Every Game
3	Devin Ebanks	F	6-9	215	So	Starter
4	Jonnie West	G	6-3	195	Jr	Seldom Plays–Son of Jerry West
5	Kevin Jones	F	6-8	250	So	Starter
12	Kenny Ross	G	6-0	175	Fr	Does Not Play
15	Bryan Lowther	G	6-6	215	Fr	Does Not Play
20	Cam Payne	G	6-4	225	So	Seldom Plays
21	Joe Mazzulla	G	6-2	200	Jr	Starter in Replace of Bryant
25	Darryl Bryant	G	6-2	200	So	Broken Bone in Foot Will Try To Play
30	Danny Jennings	F	6-8	260	Fr	Plays Infrequently
32	Dalton Pepper	G	6-5	215	Fr	Plays Infrequently
33	Casey Mitchell	G	6-4	225	Jr	Key Reserve
35	Wellington Smith	F	6-7	245	Sr	Starter
41	John Flowers	F	6-7	215	Jr	Key Reserve
42	Deniz Kilicli	F	6-9	260	Fr	Plays Infrequently

 

Record: 31-6, 13-5 Big East
Colors: Old Gold & Blue
Opponent	WVU	Opp
Loyola of Md	83	60
Citadel (at Charleston, WV)	69	50
Long Beach State (Anaheim)	85	62
Texas A&M (Anaheim)	73	66
Portland (Anaheim)	84	66
Duquesne	68	39
Coppin State	69	43
at Cleveland State	80	78
Ole Miss	76	66
at Seton Hall	90	84	ot
Marquette	63	62
at Purdue	62	77
Rutgers	86	52
at Notre Dame	68	70
at South Florida	69	50
Syracuse	71	72
Marshall (at Charleston, WV)	68	60
Ohio State	71	65
at Depaul	62	46
Louisville	77	74
Pittsburgh	70	51
at St. John’s	79	60
Villanova	75	82
at Pittsburgh	95	98	3ot
at Providence	88	74
Seton Hall	75	63
at Connecticut	62	73
Cincinnati	74	68
Georgetown	81	68
at Villanova	68	66	ot
Cincinnati (Big East Trn)	74	68
Notre Dame (Big East Trn)	53	51
Georgetown (Big East Trn)	60	58
Morgan State (NCAA)	77	50
Missouri (NCAA)	68	59
Washington (NCAA)	69	56
Kentucky (NCAA)	73	66

 

Stats

Player	Min/G	Pts	Reb	FG%	3pt %	FT%	Ast	Bk	Stl
Da’Sean Butler	36.0	17.4	6.3	41.6	35.7	78.3	117	15	36
Kevin Jones	32.9	13.7	7.2	52.4	40.6	67.6	40	33	22
Devin Ebanks	34.1	12.0	8.2	45.3	10.0	76.8	82	23	36
Darryl Bryant	24.3	9.3	2.2	34.6	31.5	75.7	108	1	25
Wellington Smith	23.0	6.5	4.1	46.0	35.3	59.5	46	36	27
Casey Mitchell	8.3	3.8	0.9	32.1	30.2	84.2	13	0	10
Deniz Kilicli	6.6	3.4	0.9	50.0	0.0	55.6	1	0	0
Dalton Pepper	7.8	3.2	0.6	37.1	33.3	72.7	16	1	4
John Flowers	14.4	3.0	2.4	43.6	31.8	46.8	45	28	21
Joe Mazzulla	15.6	2.6	1.8	36.7	12.5	57.1	85	1	24
Team Stats	WVU	Opp
Points	72.8	63.1
FG%	43.1	41.3
3PT %	33.6	31.6
FT%	70.3	67.8
Rebounds	38.9	32.3
Turnovers	11.9	13.6
Steals	5.7	6.2
Blocks	4.1	3.0
Off. Rebound %	38.8
Possessions/G *	65.8
* Avg Possessions estimated and based on this formula
FG attempts + (.5* FT attempts) + Turnovers – Offensive Rebounds

 

PiRate Criteria Score

Stat	WVU
Scoring Margin	9.7
Points	3
FG% Margin	0.18%
Points	0
Rebound Margin	6.9
Points	3
Turnover Margin	2.7
Points	1
R+T *	7.45
Road W-L	19-4
Points	3
Schedule Strength	10.96
Total	28.41

 

Analysis: Most fans, prognosticators, and pundits believe this is the real championship game between the two best teams left in the tournament.  We cannot disagree, as the criteria scores show both to be better than the other two teams.  What it should be is a more interesting game.  West Virginia’s 1-3-1 zone defense is a throwback to an earlier time when there was no three-point line.  Its natural weakness is on deep sides, where really good outside shooters can load up on three-point shots against it.  WVU rebounds exceptionally well out of this zone defense, thanks to the size and quickness of the three big men—Butler, Jones, and Ebanks.

Duke’s inside game isn’t as quick as the Mountaineers, but it could be even stronger.  Zoubek, Singler, and the Plumlee brothers know how to throw around their muscle.  This should make the inside game a wash.

We believe the Blue Devils will win this game because of their exceptional backcourt.  Scheyer and Smith will find the seams in the Mountaineer zone and hit crucial three-pointers throughout the game.  Singler will get into the act as well.

West Virginia’s only hope is that Butler (Da’Sean and not the school from Indianapolis) will have one of those terrific games.  He can keep WVU in it, but in the end we believe the Blue Devils will have just a little too many weapons.

Prediction: Duke 73  West Virginia 65

 

Coming Sunday—A look at the big game for all the marbles.

Sweet 16 Preview

 

From Sweet to Elite

Advanced Level Bracketnomics

 

Hello PiRate Basketball fans.  Our system worked well, but the idiots (us) in charge of the data didn’t have the guts to play all the upsets.  We still have nine teams alive, and our top-rated teams according to our system are still there, except for Kansas. 

We told you in the first round that Georgetown and Vanderbilt were the most ripe for upset bids based on their R+T scores just barely above zero.  We were there on other double-digit ups as well.

Before we preview the Sweet 16 games, let’s refresh you on the PiRate formula components.

Scoring Margin—We look for teams with a minimum scoring margin of 8 points per game, give precedence to teams with double-digit scoring margins, and develop huge crushes on teams with scoring margins of 15 or more points per game.  We award one point for as little as a 5-point scoring margin, 3 points for 8 or more, and 5 points for 10 or more. 

Teams with a negative margin who have made it to the Sweet 16 are eliminated and are automatically picked to lose the next game (unless of course there is a rare instance of their opponent also qualifying for elimination.)

Field Goal % Margin—We look for teams that have a +7.5 or better difference in field goal percentage versus opponents’ field goal percentage.  We give special consideration to teams with double-digit field goal percentage margins, and if we see a team hitting better than 48.0% and yielding less than 38.0%, we circle that team in red because they are going to be tough to beat if they are a member of one of the Big Six conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, or SEC).  We award one point for FG% margins of 5.0 or more, 3 points for margins of 7.5% or more, and 5 points for double-digit margins. 

Like above, teams arriving at the Sweet 16 with a negative field goal margin are eliminated.

Rebound Margin—This is actually part of a multiple statistical entry, as we combine it with turnover margin as well.  However, we do separate rebounding because offensive put backs are vitally important in the Big Dance.  We are looking for teams with a +5.0 or better rebounding margin.  We award one point for a rebounding margin of 3.0 or better and 3 points for a margin of 5.0 or better. 

Teams with a negative rebounding margin receive -2 points, but they are not eliminated yet.

Turnover Margin & Steals Per Game—Teams with negative rebounding margins can make up for it with exceptional turnover margins, especially if they get a lot of steals that lead to great fast break opportunities.  We don’t award points solely on turnover margin and steals; we incorporate those stats into a multi-statistical formula we call “R+T.” 

R+T is a formula that applies weighted advantages to steals and turnover margin, while adding rebounding margin into the equation.  Rebounding margin is already factored into the formula by itself, but it receives fewer awarded points.  This stat balances out the rebounding with the scoring and field goal margin, and it allows us to look at the number of extra scoring opportunities a team normally receives. 

The Formula for R+T is:  R+ (.2S*1.2T), where R is rebounding margin, S is steals per game, and T is turnover margin.  Whenever this stat is negative, this team is immediately eliminated.  If this stat is less than one, don’t figure on this team staying around in the Dance.  All four teams that fell below one in R+T lost in the first round, including heavy favored Georgetown and Vanderbilt.  We award the result of the R+T in points.

Power Conference & Strength of Schedule—We give extra weight to teams that are members of the Big Six conferences.  We give a little weight to the teams from the top of the mid-majors (such as Missouri Valley, West Coast, Colonial, and Mountain West).  We deduct for teams from the lower conferences (such as America East, MAAC, Big West, and Patriot). 

We look at the strength of schedule as produced by cbssports.com, and multiply that number by 100.  50.00 is a mid-point, so if that number is 52.37, we consider that schedule to be 2.37 points stronger than average.  If the number is 46.28, then that schedule is 3.72 points weaker than average.  This is incorporated into our criteria.

Record Away From Home—Every team is playing on a neutral floor, so we throw out the home won-loss records.  A team that is 26-9 overall, but 17-0 at home is actually a .500 team away from home.  Likewise, in some rare instances a team might be 22-10 with a home record of 14-6 and a record away from home of 8-4.  Winning two –thirds of one’s games away from home would make this team more likely to beat the 26-9 team on a neutral floor, all else being equal.

Before the first round, our formula picked Duke as the overall favorite based on their 34.4 PiRate score.  The Blue Devils no longer own the top score after the first two rounds.  Their criteria score fell a little, while another team elevated just enough to post a higher score.  The new leader in the clubhouse is none other than Kansas State.  This surprised us all here, but the Wildcats were impressive in wins over North Texas and BYU.  Their defense was stifling, and their offense, while not spectacular, clicked in spurts.  KSU controlled the boards in both games as well.

The Wildcats have had few great moments since in the last 20+ years.  This team is starting to bring back memories of the glory days in the Little Apple when Tex Winter introduced his triple-post (triangle) offense and Jack Gardner had the Cats running and gunning.

Of the 16 teams remaining, five come from conferences outside of the Big Six conferences, but each of the quintet’s PiRate criteria scores reveals that they belong in the Sweet 16.  None of the five (none of the entire 16) have scores in single digits.

Now, it’s time to look at the eight, Sweet 16 games, using these criteria.  The number you see in (Parentheses) after the team is their PiRate Criteria Score.  All of these scores have been update to reflect their two wins in the Big Dance.                                                                            

 

East Regional

 

#1 Kentucky (29.22) vs. #12 Cornell (14.56)

The Wildcats are the one team that also qualifies in the 48-38% field goal margin.  John Calipari no longer officially owns any Final Four appearances to his name, after the NCAA upheld the vacating of all Memphis wins during Derrick Rose’s playing career (his U Mass team had to vacate that appearance as well).  So, we can say he is still looking for his first official visit to the Final Four.  We don’t know with 100% certainty if the Wildcats will make it there, but we are safe in saying they will be one of the Elite 8.  Cornell cannot stop DeMarcus Cousins inside unless they totally sell out on the perimeter.  John Wall and Eric Bledsoe will make the Big Red pay for that tactic, and then Patrick Patterson will break their backs if he hits a three.

Cornell might stay close through one or two TV timeouts, but this game should get out of hand before halftime.

 

Prediction: Kentucky 88  Cornell 64

 

#2 West Virginia (29.08) vs. #11 Washington (21.93)

West Virginia wins ugly.  The Mountaineers don’t look pretty, but they keep pounding at opponents until they see an opening.  Then, like a crafty boxer, they exploit that opening and grab the lead on points.  They rarely record a knockout, but they are great at keeping the lead once they get it in the final half.

Washington does look pretty when they play.  Lorenzo Romar’s teams vaguely resemble many of the great UCLA teams from the past.  With Quincy Pondexter and Isaiah Thomas providing a great one-two punch, it is hard to stop the Huskies from scoring 70 or more points.

West Virginia doesn’t usually win games if they give up more than 75 points.  Coach Bob Huggins will devise a game plan to force UW’s big threats to work harder for open shots, and Washington will not reach 75 points in this game.

Prediction: West Virginia 73  Washington 66

 

South Regional

 

#3 Baylor (26.04) vs. #10 St. Mary’s (15.47)

This looks like a classic mismatch between a power team from a power conference and a team that should be just glad to have made it this far.  It could be, but we like the way St. Mary’s plays, and we think Coach Randy Bennett is possibly the next Lute Olsen if he so chooses to move on to a school from one of the Big Six conferences.

This will be a great battle between big men.  Baylor’s Ekpe Udoh and St, Mary’s Omar Samhan should balance each other out.  Samhan is a little better offensively, but Udoh is a little better defensively.  Samhan is the more likely to get in foul trouble.

Baylor has more potent weapons in LaceDarius Dunn and Tweety Carter, but the Gaels have more depth.  We just don’t see the Bears running away with this game.  We will pick them to advance.

Prediction: Baylor 78  St. Mary’s 71

 

#1 Duke (30.48) vs. #4 Purdue (15.37)

Credit must be given to the Boilermakers for making it this far without Robbie Hummel.  They played hard and won a couple of tough games.  Unfortunately, Purdue goes up against one of the big boys.  This is their final game of the season.

Duke may have fallen a notch in winning their first two games, but having to play the play-in winner lowered their strength of schedule.  Emptying the bench may have artificially lowered their criteria score, and we still think Coach K is sitting pretty with his club in a great bracket.

Prediction: Duke 81  Purdue 67

 

Midwest Regional

 

#2 Ohio State (22.24) vs. #6 Tennessee (21.16)

These may not be the two best teams left in the Big Dance, or even in this regional, but they may be the two best-coached teams.  Buckeye head guy Thad Matta has definitely produced a better record than his talent on hand should have produced, and Volunteer coach Bruce Pearl has squeezed every last drop of juice out of his big orange.

Two years ago, when Ohio State was the top-rated team, Tennessee built up a 20-point lead against OSU, before the Buckeyes chipped away and came back for the win in this same round.  Vol center Wayne Chism can remember that game well.

We look for this to possibly be the most entertaining game of this round, but we have to go with the Big Ten in this one.  Tennessee is having to go with players that would be considered bench-warmers at Ohio State for almost one quarter of the available playing time.  Pearl will either have to play five reserves for their usual 48 combined minutes per game or go with his top seven until they drop.  Either way, it tips the scale in favor of Brutus.

Prediction: Ohio State 69  Tennessee 63

 

#5 Michigan State (20.92) vs. #9 Northern Iowa (13.76)

This is another game where we have to discount a team for the loss of a player.  Spartan star guard Kalin Lucas is out for the rest of the year with a ruptured Achilles tendon.  He is the Spartans’ leading scorer, leader at getting to the foul line, leading passer, and best perimeter defender.  Losing him is almost like losing Magic Johnson. 

One thing MSU still has in its favor is a brutalizing inside force with a three-headed rebounding monster.  Raymar Morgan, Draymond Green, and Delvon Roe will see to it that Northern Iowa will not get many second-chance points.

Northern Iowa is primed to exploit MSU’s misfortune, but we expect the Panthers to come out flat following the huge upset over Kansas.  Jordan Eglseder is going to need help inside as the Spartans attempt to force their offense to score inside the paint.  Adam Koch cannot afford to risk foul trouble, so we see some difficulty here for NIU.  We also do not believe that Ali Farokhmanesh will drain threes all night in this game.  We can see him going 2 for 9.

It’s rather obvious that this is going to be a very low-scoring game, at least until the final minutes when one team may be getting a dozen trips to the foul line.

Prediction: Michigan State 56  Northern Iowa 51

 

 

West Regional

 

#1 Syracuse (27.88) vs. #5 Butler (19.35)

Quickness over brute force strength should be the difference in this game.  Syracuse has been flying a little bit under the radar so far, and the Orangemen are about to reveal to the rest of the nation that they are an Elite 8 team. 

Butler cannot be overlooked, as the Bulldogs are now the best team in the Hoosier state.  However, Butler doesn’t have the horses to exploit the cracks in the SU 2-3 matchup zone.  We see the Bulldogs going through stretches where they cannot score, and you can’t beat Syracuse that way.

A ‘Cuse win should set up the best Regional Final of the four, regardless of their opponent on Saturday.

Prediction: Syracuse 74  Butler 60

 

#2 Kansas State (31.21) vs. #6 Xavier (18.37)

Xavier has become a household name in the Big Dance, so it’s no longer much of a surprise to see the Musketeers advancing in this tournament.  They just happened to get the wrong team in the Sweet 16, because we just cannot see them matching up inside against the purple and white.  Kansas State can bring two wide-bodies off the bench, and the Wildcats’ guards can hit the glass as well.

The storyline of this game is that KSU will hold Xavier under 40% from the field and rarely give the Musketeers an offensive rebound.  Teams just don’t win in the Sweet 16 unless they can either control the boards of shoot a high percentage.

We look for the Wildcats to set up the game of the tournament in the West Regional Finals on Saturday.

Prediction: Kansas State 77  Xavier 61

 

Check back with us Saturday before game time for a preview of the Elite 8 Regional Final games.

 

A PiRate Look At The 2009 NCAA Basketball Championship Game

A PiRate Look At The NCAA Final Four

The National Championship Game

 April 6, 2009

Ford Field: Detroit

Tip Time: 9:21 PM EDT

 

Michigan State (31-6) vs. North Carolina (33-4)

 

Note: Team info courtesy of the two schools’ official athletic websites

 

Michigan State Spartans

 

No.	Name	Ht.	Wt.	Pos.	Year	Hometown/High School
00	Ibok, Idong	6-11	260	C	RS SR	Lagos, Nigeria/Montverde (Fla.) Academy
1	Lucas, Kalin	6-0	180	G	SO	Sterling Heights, Mich./Orchard Lake St. Mary’s
2	Morgan, Raymar	6-8	225	F	JR	Canton, Ohio/McKinley
3	Allen, Chris	6-3	205	G	SO	Lawrenceville, Ga./Meadowcreek
5	Walton, Travis	6-2	190	G	SR	Lima, Ohio/Lima Senior
10	Roe, Delvon	6-8	225	F	FR	Lakewood, Ohio/St. Edward
13	Thornton, Austin	6-5	210	G	RS FR	Sand Lake, Mich./Cedar Springs
14	Suton, Goran	6-10	245	C	RS SR	Lansing, Mich./Everett
15	Summers, Durrell	6-4	195	G	SO	Detroit, Mich./Redford Covenant Christian
20	Kebler, Mike	6-4	200	G	SO	Okemos, Mich./Okemos
22	Dahlman, Isaiah	6-6	200	G	JR	Braham, Minn./Braham Area
23	Green, Draymond	6-6	235	F	FR	Saginaw, Mich./Saginaw
25	Crandell, Jon	6-8	225	F	JR	Rochester, Mich./Rochester Adams
34	Lucious, Korie	5-11	170	G	FR	Milwaukee, Wis./Pius XI
40	Herzog, Tom	7-0	240	C	RS SO	Flint, Mich./Powers
41	Gray, Marquise	6-8	235	F	RS SR	Flint, Mich./Beecher

 

Coaches
Tom Izzo – Head Coach Mark Montgomery – Associate Head Coach Dwayne Stephens – Assistant Coach Mike Garland – Assistant Coach Jordan Ott – Video Coordinator Richard Bader – Director of Basketball Operations
2008-09 Michigan State Basketball                   Michigan State Combined Team Statistics (as of Apr 05, 2009)                                            All games      RECORD:                OVERALL      HOME        AWAY       NEUTRAL  ALL GAMES………..   (31-6)      (12-2)      (9-1)       (10-3)  CONFERENCE……….   (15-3)      (7-2)       (8-1)       (0-0)  NON-CONFERENCE……   (16-3)      (5-0)       (1-0)       (10-3)        DATE            OPPONENT                       W/L    SCORE  ATTEND    ————    ——————–           —    —–  ——    11/16/08        IDAHO                          W     100-62   14759    11/19/08     at IPFW                           W      70-59    6704    11/27/08     vs Maryland                         L    62-80    4464    11/28/08     vs Oklahoma State                 W      94-79    4658    11/30/08     vs Wichita State                  W      65-57    3768    12/03/08     vs North Carolina                   L    63-98   25267    12/07/08        BRADLEY                        W      75-59   14759    12/13/08        ALCORN STATE                   W     118-60   14759    12/17/08        THE CITADEL                    W      79-65   14759    12/20/08     vs Texas                          W      67-63   17074   @12/27/08     vs Oakland University             W      82-66   15361   *12/31/08     at Minnesota                      W      70-58   14625   *1/3/09       at Northwestern                   W      77-66    8117   *01/06/09        OHIO STATE                     W      67-58   14759    01/10/09        KANSAS                         W      75-62   14759   *1/14/09      at Penn State                     W      78-73   10270   *1/17/09         ILLINOIS                       W      63-57   14759   *1/21/09         NORTHWESTERN                     L    63-70   14759   *01/25/09     at Ohio State                     W      78-67   18767   *01/29/09     at Iowa Hawkeyes                  W      71-56   13640   *02/01/09        PENN STATE                       L    68-72   14759   *2/4/09          MINNESOTA                      W      76-47   14759   *2/7/09          INDIANA                        W      75-47   14759   *02/10/09     at Michigan                       W      54-42   13751   *02/17/09     at Purdue                           L    54-72   14123   *02/22/09        WISCONSIN                      W      61-50   14759   *02/25/09        IOWA HAWKEYES                  W      62-54   14759   *03/01/09     at Illinois                       W      74-66   16618   *3-3-09       at Indiana                        W      64-59   15006   *03/08/09        PURDUE                         W      62-51   14759    3-13-09      vs Minnesota                      W      64-56   13023    3-14-09      vs Ohio State                       L    70-82   15728    03/20/09     vs Robert Morris                  W      77-62   12814    03/22/09     vs Southern Cal                   W      74-69   14279    3/27/09      vs Kansas                         W      67-62   33780    3/29/09      vs Louisville                     W      64-52   36084    4/4/09       vs Connecticut                    W      82-73   72456  * = Conference game        ## SUMMARY              GP-GS   Min   FG%  3PT%   FT%  R/G  A/G STL BLK PTS/G  —————————————————————————–  01 Lucas, Kalin…….. 37-36  31.8  .397  .394  .810  2.2  4.6  39   6  14.7  02 Morgan, Raymar…… 34-25  22.6  .526  .238  .654  5.4  1.2  23   7  10.4  14 Suton, Goran…….. 31-28  26.6  .513  .409  .848  8.3  1.6  36  14  10.2  03 Allen, Chris…….. 37-5   19.1  .371  .325  .800  2.3  1.3  14   0   8.5  15 Summers, Durrell…. 37-13  21.4  .436  .387  .719  3.4  0.8  25  12   8.5  10 Roe, Delvon……… 37-30  18.0  .563  .000  .459  5.1  0.9  16  28   5.7  05 Walton, Travis…… 37-36  27.9  .415  .600  .578  2.3  3.4  56   1   5.2  41 Gray, Marquise…… 37-5    9.7  .584  .000  .674  2.9  0.3   4  12   3.2  23 Green, Draymond….. 36-0   11.4  .544  .000  .617  3.2  0.9  20   9   3.2  34 Lucious, Korie…… 37-1    8.9  .376  .351  .667  0.9  1.3  10   2   3.1  13 Thornton, Austin…. 26-0    3.7  .375  .235  .750  0.7  0.3   4   0   1.2  00 Ibok, Idong……… 27-5    6.1  .375  .000  .667  0.9  0.2   0   7   0.4  40 Herzog, Tom……… 15-1    2.1  .600  .000  .571  0.7  0.1   0   4   0.7  22 Dahlman, Isaiah….. 15-0    1.8  .500  .333  .250  0.6  0.0   0   0   0.7  25 Crandell, Jon…….  9-0    1.1 1.000  .000 1.000  0.0  0.0   0   0   0.4  20 Kebler, Mike……..  8-0    1.3  .500  .000 1.000  0.3  0.1   0   0   0.5  TM Team……………. 37-0    0.0  .000  .000  .000  3.2  0.0   0   0   0.0     Total…………… 37           .452  .357  .697 38.9 16.2 247 102  72.0     Opponents……….. 37           .414  .316  .696 29.5 11.5 220 131  63.0    SCORING              GP   FG-FGA   FG%  3FG-FGA  3PT%   FT-FTA   FT%   PTS PTS/G  ——————————————————————————–  Lucas, Kalin…….. 37  169-426  .397   41-104  .394  166-205  .810   545 14.7  Morgan, Raymar…… 34  131-249  .526    5-21   .238   87-133  .654   354 10.4  Suton, Goran…….. 31  116-226  .513   18-44   .409   67-79   .848   317 10.2  Allen, Chris…….. 37  104-280  .371   52-160  .325   56-70   .800   316  8.5  Summers, Durrell…. 37  112-257  .436   43-111  .387   46-64   .719   313  8.5  Roe, Delvon……… 37   80-142  .563    0-0    .000   51-111  .459   211  5.7  Walton, Travis…… 37   81-195  .415    3-5    .600   26-45   .578   191  5.2  Gray, Marquise…… 37   45-77   .584    0-0    .000   29-43   .674   119  3.2  Green, Draymond….. 36   43-79   .544    0-1    .000   29-47   .617   115  3.2  Lucious, Korie…… 37   38-101  .376   27-77   .351   12-18   .667   115  3.1  Thornton, Austin…. 26    9-24   .375    4-17   .235    9-12   .750    31  1.2  Ibok, Idong……… 27    3-8    .375    0-0    .000    4-6    .667    10  0.4  Herzog, Tom……… 15    3-5    .600    0-0    .000    4-7    .571    10  0.7  Dahlman, Isaiah….. 15    4-8    .500    1-3    .333    1-4    .250    10  0.7  Crandell, Jon…….  9    1-1   1.000    0-0    .000    2-2   1.000     4  0.4  Kebler, Mike……..  8    1-2    .500    0-1    .000    2-2   1.000     4  0.5  Total…………… 37  940-2080 .452  194-544  .357  591-848  .697  2665 72.0  Opponents……….. 37  811-1957 .414  224-708  .316  485-697  .696  2331 63.0                                      REBOUNDS  TOTALS               GP   MIN  OFF  DEF  TOT   PF  FO    A   TO  A/TO  HI  ————————————————————————-  Lucas, Kalin…….. 37  1178   26   54   80   47   0  169   78   2.2  24  Morgan, Raymar…… 34   768   62  121  183   85   2   41   61   0.7  29  Suton, Goran…….. 31   824   91  167  258   78   1   50   55   0.9  20  Allen, Chris…….. 37   706   27   57   84   62   0   47   50   0.9  21  Summers, Durrell…. 37   791   49   75  124   57   0   28   53   0.5  26  Roe, Delvon……… 37   665   76  113  189   80   1   35   41   0.9  16  Walton, Travis…… 37  1031   24   60   84   94   1  124   48   2.6  18  Gray, Marquise…… 37   358   38   69  107   57   0   12   35   0.3  12  Green, Draymond….. 36   410   37   78  115   63   2   31   22   1.4  16  Lucious, Korie…… 37   330    4   28   32   36   1   47   40   1.2  16  Thornton, Austin…. 26    97    4   14   18   14   0    7    6   1.2   9  Ibok, Idong……… 27   164    9   15   24   28   0    5   13   0.4   2  Herzog, Tom……… 15    31    3    8   11    3   0    1    0  99.0   5  Dahlman, Isaiah….. 15    27    3    6    9    1   0    0    0   0.0   6  Crandell, Jon…….  9    10    0    0    0    0   0    0    0   0.0   2  Kebler, Mike……..  8    10    1    1    2    0   0    1    0  99.0   2  Total…………… 37  7400  520  920 1440  706   8  598  511   1.2 118  Opponents……….. 37  7400  342  751 1093  734   –  427  508   0.8  98      TEAM STATISTICS                   MSU          OPP  ————————————————–  SCORING……………..         2665         2331    Points per game…….         72.0         63.0    Scoring margin……..         +9.0            –  FIELD GOALS-ATT………     940-2080     811-1957    Field goal pct……..         .452         .414  3 POINT FG-ATT……….      194-544      224-708    3-point FG pct……..         .357         .316    3-pt FG made per game.          5.2          6.1  FREE THROWS-ATT………      591-848      485-697    Free throw pct……..         .697         .696    F-Throws made per game         16.0         13.1  REBOUNDS…………….         1440         1093    Rebounds per game…..         38.9         29.5    Rebounding margin…..         +9.4            –  ASSISTS……………..          598          427    Assists per game……         16.2         11.5  TURNOVERS……………          511          508    Turnovers per game….         13.8         13.7    Turnover margin…….         -0.1            –    Assist/turnover ratio.          1.2          0.8  STEALS………………          247          220    Steals per game…….          6.7          5.9  BLOCKS………………          102          131    Blocks per game…….          2.8          3.5  ATTENDANCE…………..       206626       400377    Home games-Avg/Game…     14-14759     10-13162    Neutral site-Avg/Game.            –     13-20674    SCORE BY PERIODS:           1st  2nd    Total  ————————-  —- —-     —-  Michigan State………..  1290 1375  –  2665  Opponents…………….  1096 1235  –  2331

North Carolina Tar Heels

 

No.	Name	Ht.	Wt.	Pos.	Yr.	Hometown (High School)
1	Marcus Ginyard	6-5	220	G/F	SR	Alexandria, Va. (Bishop O’Connell)
2	Marc Campbell	5-11	175	G	JR	Wilmington, N.C. (Ravenscroft)
4	Bobby Frasor	6-3	210	G	SR	Blue Island, Ill. (Brother Rice)
5	Ty Lawson	5-11	195	G	JR	Clinton, Md. (Oak Hill Academy (Va.))
11	Larry Drew II	6-1	180	G	FR	Encino, Calif. (Woodland Hills Taft)
13	Will Graves	6-6	245	F/G	SO	Greensboro, N.C. (Dudley)
14	Danny Green	6-6	210	F/G	SR	North Babylon, N.Y. (St. Mary’s)
15	J.B. Tanner	6-0	185	G	SR	Hendersonville, N.C. (West Henderson)
21	Deon Thompson	6-8	245	F	JR	Torrance, Calif. (Torrance)
22	Wayne Ellington	6-4	200	G	JR	Wynnewood, Pa. (The Episcopal Academy)
24	Justin Watts	6-4	205	G	FR	Durham, N.C. (Jordan)
30	Jack Wooten	6-2	190	G	SR	Burlington, N.C. (Williams)
32	Ed Davis	6-10	215	F	FR	Richmond, Va. (Benedictine)
35	Patrick Moody	6-4	195	F	SR	Asheville, N.C. (T.C. Roberson)
40	Mike Copeland	6-7	235	F	SR	Winston-Salem, N.C. (R.J. Reynolds)
44	Tyler Zeller	7-0	220	F	FR	Washington, Ind. (Washington)
50	Tyler Hansbrough	6-9	250	F	SR	Poplar Bluff, Mo. (Poplar Bluff)

 

Coaching Staff

Roy Williams – Head Coach Joe Holladay – Assistant Coach Steve Robinson – Assistant Coach C.B. McGrath – Assistant Coach Jerod Haase – Director of Basketball Operations Chris Hirth – Head Athletic Trainer Eric Hoots – Video Coordinator Jonas Sahratian – Strength & Conditioning Coordinator

 

North Carolina Season Schedule/Results & Leaders (as of Apr 05, 2009)

 

North Carolina Combined Team Statistics (as of Apr 05, 2009)

                                           All games

 

 

 RECORD:                OVERALL      HOME        AWAY       NEUTRAL

 ALL GAMES………..   (33-4)      (14-1)      (8-2)       (11-1)

 CONFERENCE……….   (13-3)      (7-1)       (6-2)       (0-0)

 NON-CONFERENCE……   (20-1)      (7-0)       (2-0)       (11-1)

 

 

   DATE            OPPONENT                       W/L    SCORE  ATTEND

   ————    ——————–           —    —–  ——

   11/15/08        PENN                           W      86-71   19623

   11/18/08        KENTUCKY                       W      77-58   21538

   11/21/08     at UC Santa Barbara               W      84-67    6000

   11-24-08     vs CHAMINADE                      W     115-70    2500

   11-25-08     vs Oregon                         W      98-69    2500

   11-26-08     vs Notre Dame                     W     102-87    2500

   11/30/08        UNC ASHEVILLE                  W     116-48   18054

   12/03/08     vs Michigan State                 W      98-63   25267

   12/13/08        ORAL ROBERTS                   W     100-84   21269

   12/18/08        EVANSVILLE                     W      91-73   21291

   12/20/08     vs VALPO                          W      85-63   10645

   12/28/08        RUTGERS                        W      97-75   21750

   12-31-08     at Nevada                         W      84-61   10526

  *01/04/09        BOSTON COLLEGE                   L    78-85   21750

   01/07/09        COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON          W     108-70   20543

  *01/11/09     at Wake Forest                      L    89-92   14714

  *01/15/09     at Virginia                       W      83-61   13811

  *01/17/09        MIAMI                          W      82-65   21750

  *01/21/09        CLEMSON                        W      94-70   21750

  *01/28/09     at Florida State                  W      80-77   11333

  *01/31/09     at NC State                       W      93-76   19700

  *02/03/09        MARYLAND                       W     108-91   20863

  *02/07/09        VIRGINIA                       W      76-61   20879

  *2/11/09      at Duke                           W     101-87    9314

  *2/15/09      at Miami                          W      69-65    7200

  *02/18/09        NC STATE                       W      89-80   21750

  *02/21/09     at Maryland                         LOT  85-88   17950

  *02/28/09        GEORGIA TECH                   W     104-74   20959

  *03/04/09     at Virginia Tech                  W      86-78    9847

  *03/08/09        DUKE                           W      79-71   21750

   3/13/09      vs Virginia Tech                  W      79-76   26352

   3/14/09      vs Florida State                    L    70-73   26352

   03/19/09     vs Radford                        W     101-58   20226

   03/21/09     vs LSU                            W      84-70   22479

   3/27/09      vs Gonzaga                        W      98-77   17103

   3/29/09      vs Oklahoma                       W      72-60   17025

   4/4/09       vs Villanova                      W      83-69   72456

 

 

 

 ## SUMMARY              GP-GS   Min   FG%  3PT%   FT%  R/G  A/G STL BLK PTS/G

 —————————————————————————–

 50 Tyler Hansbrough…. 33-33  30.2  .517  .429  .850  8.2  1.0  42  12  20.8

 05 Lawson, Ty………. 34-34  29.7  .539  .486  .795  2.9  6.6  67   5  16.5

 22 Wayne Ellington….. 37-36  30.3  .480  .408  .773  4.9  2.7  36   6  15.8

 14 Danny Green……… 37-37  27.5  .470  .414  .852  4.7  2.7  66  51  13.3

 21 Deon Thompson……. 37-36  24.9  .495  .000  .642  5.8  0.7  35  40  10.6

 32 Ed Davis………… 37-2   19.0  .511  .000  .587  6.5  0.6  14  65   6.5

 13 Will Graves……… 20-0   11.2  .437  .278  .889  2.6  0.8   7   2   4.0

 44 Tyler Zeller…….. 14-2    8.3  .472  .000  .800  2.1  0.2   3   3   3.3

 04 Frasor, Bobby……. 37-4   17.3  .330  .278  .462  2.0  1.4  22   5   2.6

 11 Larry Drew II……. 37-0    9.7  .357  .231  .412  1.1  2.0  15   1   1.4

 01 Ginyard, Marcus…..  3-0   12.3  .250  .000  .500  2.7  1.3   2   0   1.3

 15 J.B. Tanner……… 20-0    2.2  .421  .357  .333  0.4  0.1   1   0   1.2

 35 Patrick Moody……. 20-0    2.2  .583  .000  .615  0.8  0.0   2   3   1.1

 40 Mike Copeland……. 16-1    2.6  .250  .000 1.000  0.8  0.1   0   0   0.8

 24 Justin Watts…….. 26-0    3.2  .226  .000  .429  0.7  0.2   2   3   0.7

 30 Jack Wooten……… 19-0    1.9  .364  .200  .250  0.3  0.1   0   0   0.5

 02 Campbell, Marc…… 19-0    1.9  .500  .000 1.000  0.2  0.5   2   0   0.2

 TM TEAM……………. 37-0    0.0  .000  .000  .000  3.1  0.0   0   0   0.0

    Total…………… 37           .481  .387  .754 42.2 18.2 316 196  89.8

    Opponents……….. 37           .411  .338  .692 35.5 13.6 265 162  72.0

 

 SCORING              GP   FG-FGA   FG%  3FG-FGA  3PT%   FT-FTA   FT%   PTS PTS/G

 ——————————————————————————–

 Tyler Hansbrough…. 33  217-420  .517    9-21   .429  243-286  .850   686 20.8

 Lawson, Ty………. 34  179-332  .539   51-105  .486  151-190  .795   560 16.5

 Wayne Ellington….. 37  208-433  .480   82-201  .408   85-110  .773   583 15.8

 Danny Green……… 37  182-387  .470   75-181  .414   52-61   .852   491 13.3

 Deon Thompson……. 37  161-325  .495    0-0    .000   70-109  .642   392 10.6

 Ed Davis………… 37   94-184  .511    0-0    .000   54-92   .587   242  6.5

 Will Graves……… 20   31-71   .437   10-36   .278    8-9    .889    80  4.0

 Tyler Zeller…….. 14   17-36   .472    0-0    .000   12-15   .800    46  3.3

 Frasor, Bobby……. 37   36-109  .330   20-72   .278    6-13   .462    98  2.6

 Larry Drew II……. 37   20-56   .357    6-26   .231    7-17   .412    53  1.4

 Ginyard, Marcus…..  3    1-4    .250    0-0    .000    2-4    .500     4  1.3

 J.B. Tanner……… 20    8-19   .421    5-14   .357    2-6    .333    23  1.2

 Patrick Moody……. 20    7-12   .583    0-0    .000    8-13   .615    22  1.1

 Mike Copeland……. 16    4-16   .250    0-2    .000    5-5   1.000    13  0.8

 Justin Watts…….. 26    7-31   .226    0-6    .000    3-7    .429    17  0.7

 Jack Wooten……… 19    4-11   .364    1-5    .200    1-4    .250    10  0.5

 Campbell, Marc…… 19    1-2    .500    0-1    .000    2-2   1.000     4  0.2

 Total…………… 37 1177-2448 .481  259-670  .387  711-943  .754  3324 89.8

 Opponents……….. 37  991-2413 .411  267-791  .338  414-598  .692  2663 72.0

 

                                   REBOUNDS

 TOTALS               GP   MIN  OFF  DEF  TOT   PF  FO    A   TO  A/TO  HI

 ————————————————————————-

 Tyler Hansbrough…. 33   995  102  167  269   74   1   32   61   0.5  34

 Lawson, Ty………. 34  1011   23   77  100   59   0  224   65   3.4  25

 Wayne Ellington….. 37  1120   55  127  182   55   0  101   62   1.6  34

 Danny Green……… 37  1016   68  107  175   79   2  100   61   1.6  26

 Deon Thompson……. 37   920   70  143  213   81   1   26   46   0.6  22

 Ed Davis………… 37   702   81  161  242   70   1   22   40   0.6  15

 Will Graves……… 20   224   22   29   51   32   0   15   23   0.7  10

 Tyler Zeller…….. 14   116   11   18   29   19   0    3    8   0.4  18

 Frasor, Bobby……. 37   639   22   52   74   49   0   53   26   2.0   9

 Larry Drew II……. 37   360    5   36   41   36   0   74   45   1.6   5

 Ginyard, Marcus…..  3    37    6    2    8    5   0    4    3   1.3   3

 J.B. Tanner……… 20    44    2    5    7    4   0    1    1   1.0   9

 Patrick Moody……. 20    43    4   11   15    7   0    0    3   0.0   6

 Mike Copeland……. 16    41    4    9   13    8   0    1    2   0.5   5

 Justin Watts…….. 26    84    6   13   19    6   0    5    9   0.6   9

 Jack Wooten……… 19    37    0    5    5    1   0    2    2   1.0   4

 Campbell, Marc…… 19    36    1    3    4    2   0    9    7   1.3   2

 Total…………… 37  7425  545 1017 1562  587   5  672  465   1.4 116

 Opponents……….. 37  7425  481  834 1315  757   –  505  584   0.9  92

 

 

 TEAM STATISTICS                    NC          OPP

 ————————————————–

 SCORING……………..         3324         2663

   Points per game…….         89.8         72.0

   Scoring margin……..        +17.9            –

 FIELD GOALS-ATT………    1177-2448     991-2413

   Field goal pct……..         .481         .411

 3 POINT FG-ATT……….      259-670      267-791

   3-point FG pct……..         .387         .338

   3-pt FG made per game.          7.0          7.2

 FREE THROWS-ATT………      711-943      414-598

   Free throw pct……..         .754         .692

   F-Throws made per game         19.2         11.2

 REBOUNDS…………….         1562         1315

   Rebounds per game…..         42.2         35.5

   Rebounding margin…..         +6.7            –

 ASSISTS……………..          672          505

   Assists per game……         18.2         13.6

 TURNOVERS……………          465          584

   Turnovers per game….         12.6         15.8

   Turnover margin…….         +3.2            –

   Assist/turnover ratio.          1.4          0.9

 STEALS………………          316          265

   Steals per game…….          8.5          7.2

 BLOCKS………………          196          162

   Blocks per game…….          5.3          4.4

 ATTENDANCE…………..       315519       365800

   Home games-Avg/Game…     15-21035     10-12040

   Neutral site-Avg/Game.            –     12-20450

 

 SCORE BY PERIODS:           1st  2nd   OT    Total

 ————————-  —- —- —-     —-

 North Carolina………..  1646 1669    9  –  3324

 Opponents…………….  1259 1392   12  –  2663

 

 

Player Matchups

Point Guard

Michigan State: Kalin Lucas

North Carolina: Ty Lawson

 

Lawson is the best point guard in the nation, but Lucas isn’t totally outmanned in this matchup.  Lucas is probably one of the top five point guards in the nation.

 

Lawson’s advantage here is small.  Expect a great matchup at this most important position.

 

Shooting Guard

Michigan State: Travis Walton

North Carolina: Wayne Ellington

 

Walton is the best defensive player from the Big 10, but stopping Ellington will not beat North Carolina.  Ellington may be held under 10 points, but North Carolina can win nine times out of ten when he scores in single digits.

 

We’ll give another slight advantage to North Carolina

 

Small Forward

Michigan State: Raymar Morgan

North Carolina: Danny Green

 

If Morgan plays as well as he did Saturday, then he should outpace Green.  Green is at a size disadvantage against Morgan, and Morgan has the speed and quickness to stay with Green all night.

 

We give Michigan State the advantage.

 

Power Forward

Michigan State: Delvin Roe

North Carolina: Deon Thompson

 

This will be an interesting matchup.  Thompson has the better moves around the basket, but Roe has the better power game.  It will be a study in contrasts. 

 

If North Carolina gets their offense running and gunning, Roe will have a tough time contributing on the defensive board.

 

An ever so slight advantage goes to Michigan State here.

 

Center

Michigan State: Goran Suton

North Carolina: Tyler Hansbrough

 

There haven’t been many classic matchups between two future NBA centers and major contributors in the NCAA Championship Game’s last 30 years (such as Rick Robey vs. Mike Gmisnki in 1978, Sam Perkins vs. Patrick Ewing in 1982, and Ewing vs. Akeem Olajuwon in 1984).  This one looks like one of those few exceptions.

 

We believe that Suton will slow Hansbrough inside and force him to take several shots from outside his comfort zone.  Meanwhile, Suton will try to force Hansbrough to guard some from outside the low post area.

 

Hansbrough’s advantage is not that large.  Suton missed the first game between these two teams, so his presence will mean a major turnaround from the earlier game.

 

Bench Play

Michigan State

Chris Allen

Durrell Summers

Marquise Gray

Draymond Green

 

North Carolina

Ed Davis

Bobby Frasor

Larry Drew, Jr.

 

If Davis and Frasor have good games, this could be enough to throw the game in North Carolina’s favor.  It’s not that these two guys will have to dominate to tilt the game, it’s that they will allow the Tar Heels to either make a run or play more consistently

 

Michigan State has a numbers’ advantage, but with the extra length of TV timeouts, this game will not require subs entering games.

 

A small advantage goes to North Carolina

 

PiRate Criteria see articles from the week of March 16-18 for explanation of this statistical formula

 

North Carolina had the second best criteria score of the 65 teams in the field, so the Tar Heels were selected to make it all the way to the last game.

 

Michigan State did not qualify as a superior team, but the Spartans have home court advantage of about three points.  Combined with a criteria score of seven, it gives them an opportunity to be there at the end with a chance to win.

 

The strengths of schedule are nearly equal, as Michigan State gets one additional point here.

 

Prediction

We believe this game will be close and the lead will never be all that large for either team.  Michigan State will desire to make this a lower possession game, while North Carolina will try to make it a game of race horse basketball.  The Spartans will crash the offensive glass, and that will limit the Tar Heels’ fast breaking opportunities.

 

When all is said and done, North Carolina has too many weapons to ever pick against them. 

 

North Carolina 74 Michigan State 69