Bracketnomics 2013: National Championship Game–April 8, 2013

2013 NCAA Tournament— Championship Game, April 8, 2013

Time Eastern Daylight

 

Site: Georgia Dome in Atlanta

Network: CBS

Time	Favorite	Underdog	Line
9:23 PM	Louisville (34-5)	Michigan (31-7)	4

Elite 8 Record: 1-1

Tournament Total: 39-23

Teams Remaining In Bracket: 1 of  2  (Louisville)

 

PiRate Ratings Criteria Formula Statistics

Criteria	Louisville	Michigan
Scoring Margin	16.0	12.4
FG% Margin	6.4	6.0
Rebound Margin	3.6	3.1
Turnover Margin	5.9	2.8
Steals	10.8	6.2
R+T	12.84	7.58
SOS	59.41	55.94
RD W%	82.6	70.0
Qualifiers	6	4
PiRate #	84.22	56.53
Modified	123.92	65.03

 

PiRate Criteria Means for 2000-2012 National Champions

 

Criteria	Champ Avg.
Scoring Margin	15.5
FG% Margin	8.7
Rebound Margin	6.2
Turnover Margin	1.3
Steals	7.8
R+T	9.29
SOS	57.09
RD W%	73.8
Qualifiers	7
PiRate #	75.88
Modified	94.78

 

 

Louisville Cardinals

Roster

#	NAME	HT	WT	POS	CL	HOMETOWN (PREVIOUS SCHOOL)
2	Russ Smith	6-00	165	G	JR	Brooklyn, N.Y. (Archbishop Molloy/South Kent)
3	Peyton Siva	6-00	185	G	SR	Seattle, Wash. (Franklin)
5	Kevin Ware	6-02	175	G	SO	Bronx, N.Y. (Rockdale County (Ga.))
10	Gorgui Dieng	6-11	245	C	JR	Kebemer, Senegal (Covenant/Huntington Prep)
11	Luke Hancock	6-06	200	F	JR	Roanoke, Va. (George Mason)
12	Mangok Mathiang	6-10	200	C	FR	Melbourne, Australia (IMG Academy (Fla.))
14	Logan Baumann	6-00	165	G	FR	Hartford, Ky. (Ohio County)
15	Tim Henderson	6-02	195	G	JR	Louisville, Ky. (Christian Academy)
20	Wayne Blackshear	6-05	230	G/F	SO	Chicago, Ill. (Morgan Park)
21	Chane Behanan	6-06	250	F	SO	Cincinnati, Ohio (Bowling Green)
22	Jordan Bond	6-00	165	G	FR	Louisville, Ky. (duPont Manual)
24	Montrezl Harrell	6-08	235	F	FR	Tarboro, N.C. (Hargrave Military Academy)
25	Zach Price	6-10	250	C	SO	Cleveland, Ohio (Jeffersontown)
32	Michael Baffour	6-02	170	G	JR	Lexington, Ky. (Bryan Station)
33	Mike Marra	6-05	215	G	SR	Smithfield, R.I. (Northfield Mt. Hermon School)
44	Stephan Van Treese	6-09	245	F	SR	Indianapolis, Ind. (Lawrence North)

 

Coach: Rick Pitino 12^th year at UL: 309-111

28 seasons overall: 663-239

(Hawaii, Boston U, Providence, Kentucky, Louisville)

 

Team Stats—Louisville

Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
Russ Smith	39	39	1179	229	544	.421	61	183	.333	220	273
Gorgi Dieng	32	31	989	121	228	.531	0	0	.000	73	112
Peyton Siva	39	39	1211	133	329	.404	38	130	.292	79	92
Chane Behanan	38	36	990	146	288	.507	1	12	.083	73	135
Luke Hancock	39	8	867	92	220	.418	58	153	.379	60	78
Wayne Blackshear	38	33	763	102	243	.420	43	136	.316	43	62
Montrezl Harrell	39	3	637	96	167	.575	0	0	.000	32	63
Kevin Ware	37	1	616	59	132	.447	15	37	.405	34	51
Stephan Van Treese	36	1	412	26	40	.650	0	0	.000	12	17
Zach Price	16	7	123	8	15	.533	0	0	.000	4	8
Tim Henderson	26	0	98	8	23	.348	6	20	.300	0	0
Logan Baumann	4	0	11	0	4	.000	0	0	.000	2	2
Michael Baffour	6	0	12	0	3	.000	0	2	.000	2	4
Jordan Bond	5	0	17	0	3	.000	0	2	.000	0	0
Totals	39	39	7925	1020	2239	.456	222	675	.329	634	897
Opponents	39	39	7925	800	2041	.392	213	678	.314	462	705
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
Russ Smith	.806	98	0	114	105	2	83	131	3.4	739	18.9
Gorgi Dieng	.652	81	3	60	57	80	43	302	9.4	315	9.8
Peyton Siva	.859	100	3	223	104	6	86	88	2.3	383	9.8
Chane Behanan	.541	66	0	41	60	16	53	242	6.4	366	9.6
Luke Hancock	.769	80	1	52	39	3	38	104	2.7	302	7.7
Wayne Blackshear	.694	95	0	24	24	10	33	121	3.2	290	7.6
Montrezl Harrell	.508	50	0	8	23	27	20	145	3.7	224	5.7
Kevin Ware	.667	58	1	31	42	4	39	66	1.8	167	4.5
Stephan Van Treese	.706	45	0	9	13	11	18	114	3.2	64	1.8
Zach Price	.500	23	0	0	5	5	1	22	1.4	20	1.3
Tim Henderson	.000	7	0	3	6	1	6	12	0.5	22	0.8
Logan Baumann	1.000	1	0	0	1	0	0	3	0.8	2	0.5
Michael Baffour	.500	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.2	2	0.3
Jordan Bond	.000	1	0	1	0	0	1	3	0.6	0	0.0
Team					7			85	2.2
Totals	.707	705	8	566	486	165	421	1439	36.9	2896	74.3
Opponents	.655	751	X	398	718	129	221	1300	33.3	2275	58.3

 

 

Schedule

Opponent	Score
MANHATTAN	79-51
SAMFORD	80-54
MIAMI (OH)	80-39
vs NORTHERN IOWA  (Bahamas)	51-46
vs MISSOURI  (Bahamas)	84-61
vs DUKE  (Bahamas)	71-76
ILLINOIS STATE	69-66
at COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON	80-38
MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY	99-47
at MEMPHIS	87-78
FIU	79-55
vs WESTERN KENTUCKY  (Nashville)	78-55
KENTUCKY	80-77
PROVIDENCE	80-62
at SETON HALL	73-58
USF	64-38
at CONNECTICUT	73-58
SYRACUSE	68-70
at VILLANOVA	64-73
at GEORGETOWN	51-53
PITTSBURGH	64-61
MARQUETTE	70-51
at RUTGERS	68-48
at NOTRE DAME	101-104
ST. JOHN‘S	72-58
at USF	59-41
SETON HALL	79-61
at DEPAUL	79-58
at SYRACUSE	58-53
CINCINNATI	67-51
NOTRE DAME	73-57
vs VILLANOVA  (BE Tourn.)	74-55
vs NOTRE DAME  (BE Tourn.)	69-57
vs SYRACUSE  (BE Tourn.)	78-61
vs NORTH CAROLINA A&T  (ncaa)	79-48
vs COLORADO STATE  (ncaa)	82-56
vs OREGON  (ncaa)	77-69
vs DUKE  (ncaa)	85-63
vs WICHITA STATE  (ncaa)	72-68

 

 

Michigan Wolverines

Roster

#	Name	Ht.	Wt.	Pos.	Year	Hometown (High School)
1	Glenn Robinson III	6-06	210	F	FR	St. John, Ind. (Lake Central)
2	Spike Albrecht	5-11	170	G	FR	Crown Pt., Ind. (Northfield Mt. Hermon Prep MA)
3	Trey Burke	6-01	190	G	SO	Columbus, Ohio (Northland)
4	Mitch McGary	6-10	250	F	FR	Chesterton, Ind. (Brewster Academy [N.H.])
5	Eso Akunne	6-02	225	G	SR	Ann Arbor, Mich. (Gabriel Richard)
10	Tim Hardaway Jr.	6-06	205	G	JR	Miami, Fla. (Palmetto Senior)
11	Nik Stauskas	6-06	190	G	FR	Mississauga, Ontario (St. Mark’s School MA)
13	Matt Vogrich	6-04	200	G	SR	Lake Forest, Ill. (Lake Forest)
15	Jon Horford	6-10	250	F	SO	Grand Ledge, Mich. (Grand Ledge)
20	Josh Bartelstein	6-03	210	G	SR	Highland Pk., Ill. (Phillips Exeter Acad. [N.H.])
22	Blake McLimans	6-10	240	F	SR	Hamburg, N.Y. (Worcester Academy [Mass.])
23	Caris LeVert	6-05	170	G	FR	Pickerington, Ohio (Central)
32	Corey Person	6-03	210	G	GS	Kalamazoo, Mich. (Central)
44	Max Bielfeldt	6-07	245	F	FR	Peoria, Ill. (Notre Dame)
52	Jordan Morgan	6-08	250	F	JR	Detroit, Mich. (University of Detroit Jesuit)

 

Coach: John Beilein 6^th year at UM: 122-84

35 seasons overall: 673-402

(Erie CC, Nazareth, LeMoyne, Canisius, Richmond, West Virginia, Michigan)

 

Team Stats

Michigan Wolverines
Player	G	GS	Min	FG	FGA	FG%	3pt	3ptA	3pt%	FT	FTA
Trey Burke	38	38	1352	252	549	.459	73	193	.378	126	157
Tim Hardaway, Jr.	37	37	1289	196	447	.438	73	191	.382	75	107
Nik Stauskas	38	32	1171	137	296	.463	79	180	.439	74	87
Glenn Robinson, III	38	38	1274	164	288	.569	23	70	.329	65	97
Mitch McGary	38	7	740	131	218	.601	0	0	.000	23	52
Jordan Morgan	35	27	565	71	121	.587	0	0	.000	22	41
Jon Horford	31	4	276	34	59	.576	0	0	.000	19	27
Caris LeVert	32	1	344	28	88	.318	13	42	.310	7	14
Spike Albrecht	38	0	289	22	50	.440	14	28	.500	9	10
Eso Akunne	18	0	51	8	26	.308	4	12	.333	1	2
Max Bielfeldt	20	0	106	9	20	.450	0	2	.000	5	12
Matt Vogrich	26	6	125	9	27	.333	5	19	.263	3	4
Corey Person	13	0	43	3	7	.429	2	3	.667	2	3
Blake McLimans	16	0	20	4	15	.267	2	11	.182	1	2
Josh Bartelstein	6	0	10	0	1	.000	0	0	.000	0	2
Totals	38	38	7655	1068	2212	.483	288	751	.383	432	617
Opponents	38	38	7655	913	2160	.423	234	729	.321	325	480
Player	FT%	F	DQ	Ast	TO	Bk	Stl	Reb	Avg	Pts	Avg
Trey Burke	.803	69	0	257	82	19	62	120	3.2	703	18.5
Tim Hardaway, Jr.	.701	73	0	89	69	17	26	172	4.6	540	14.6
Nik Stauskas	.851	23	0	50	43	9	21	114	3.0	427	11.2
Glenn Robinson, III	.670	43	0	41	32	10	39	209	5.5	416	10.9
Mitch McGary	.442	88	0	24	46	27	41	240	6.3	285	7.5
Jordan Morgan	.537	50	1	13	33	3	15	153	4.4	164	4.7
Jon Horford	.704	45	0	9	14	16	8	69	2.2	87	2.8
Caris LeVert	.500	38	0	25	9	2	5	33	1.0	76	2.4
Spike Albrecht	.900	23	0	28	12	1	12	30	0.8	67	1.8
Eso Akunne	.500	4	0	5	1	0	0	12	0.7	21	1.2
Max Bielfeldt	.417	8	0	3	3	1	3	31	1.6	23	1.2
Matt Vogrich	.750	8	0	5	3	0	2	23	0.9	26	1.0
Corey Person	.667	4	0	2	1	0	0	1	0.1	10	0.8
Blake McLimans	.500	4	0	1	1	1	1	13	0.8	11	0.7
Josh Bartelstein	.000	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0.0	0	0.0
Team					7			119	3.1
Totals	.700	481	1	553	356	106	236	1339	35.2	2856	75.2
Opponents	.677	583	10	476	461	121	200	1219	32.1	2385	62.8

 

 

Schedule

Opponent	Score
vs. Slippery Rock	100-62
vs. IUPUI TV (nit)	91-54
vs. Cleveland State (nit)	77-47
(n) Pittsburgh (nit)	67-62
(n) Kansas State (nit)	71-57
vs. No. 18 North Carolina State	79-72
at Bradley	74-66
vs. Western Michigan	73-41
vs. Arkansas	80-67
vs. Binghamton	67-39
(n) West Virginia (Brooklyn)	81-66
vs. Eastern Michigan	93-54
vs. Central Michigan	88-73
at Northwestern	94-66
vs. Iowa	95-67
vs. Nebraska	62-47
at No. 15 Ohio State	53-56
at No. 9 Minnesota	83-75
vs. Purdue	68-53
at Illinois	74-60
vs. Northwestern	68-46
at No. 3 Indiana	73-81
vs. No. 10 Ohio State	76-74 ot
at Wisconsin	62-65 ot
at Michigan State	52-75
vs. Penn State	79-71
vs. Illinois	71-58
at Penn State	78-84
vs. No. 9 Michigan State	58-57
at Purdue	80-75
vs. No. 2 Indiana	71-72
vs. Penn State (B10)	83-66
vs. No. 22 Wisconsin (B10)	59-68
vs. South Dakota State ncaa	71-56
vs. VCU ncaa	78-53
vs. No. 3 Kansas ncaa	87-85 ot
vs. No. 14 Florida ncaa	79-59
vs. No. 8 Syracuse ncaa	61-56

 

Positional Matchups

Point Guard: Louisville—(3) Peyton Siva               Michigan—(3)Trey Burke

This is where Michigan has to have a big night.  Burke is ice cold in the tournament so far, hitting a paltry 23-71 from the field and 8-31 from three-point territory.  The Wolverines were able to overcome Burke’s cold shooting, but the Cardinals will shut off the UM inside game on enough possessions to force Burke to beat them from the outside.

 

Siva is a talented play-maker and even better defender, so Burke may not get many open looks.  Siva does not have to score to be effective.  He is just one of several secondary options on the Cardinals’ team.  A steal at a key juncture of this game could change momentum and become the deciding factor in a close game, and Siva is much more likely to get that steal than any Michigan player.

 

Advantage: Push

 

Shooting Guard: Louisville—(2) Russ Smith          Michigan—(10) Tim Hardaway, Jr.

Smith has been hot during the tournament, and he has oftentimes carried the offensive load for Pitino.  He can be a streaky shooter, and in the last two weeks, that streak has been scorching to the nets.  Beilein’s game plan must start with keeping the ball away from him as much as possible.

 

Hardaway is a quality 2-guard who would be superior to about 62 of the other teams in the Big Dance.  However, Louisville is not one of those teams.  He will need help handling Smith, and he will need to use a lot of additional energy helping Burke against the Cardinals’ Matchup Press defense.

 

Advantage: Louisville

 

Small Forward: Louisville—(20) Wayne Blackshear        Michigan—(11) Nik Stauskas

This is the weakest position in this game, but it could become vitally important.  Stauskas is a hit or miss proposition.  If he hits a three-pointer early, his confidence could lead him to following that up with several more.  If Louisville’s perimeter is too quick for him, and he cannot get open looks, he will disappear on offense and not be much help on defense.

 

Blackshear is a proven commodity, but that commodity is not blue-chip.  He is a tough, hard-worker who will muscle his way on the boards and play consistent defense, but he will not win or lose this game.  Pitino knows what he will get from him and knows he will be rather consistent.

 

Advantage: Wildcard (It is a push, but only because Stauskas has a 50% chance of having a large advantage or large disadvantage depending on which Stauskas shows up).

 

Power Forward: Louisville—(21) Chane Behanan           Michigan—(1) Glenn Robinson, III

This should be a great matchup between like-minded players.  Both opponents help their teammates and make them look better, but neither player can carry the load.

 

Look for both players to score around 10 points and get 8 rebounds.  Behanan may be a little better inside, while Robinson is a little better helping on the perimeter.

 

Advantage: Push

 

Center: Louisville—(10) Gorgui Dieng       Michigan—(4) Mitch McGary

This position features two future NBA players that are just starting to reach their potentials.  Dieng is a fantastic defensive stopper in the paint, and he can imitate Dikembe Mutombo in the Geico commercials.  He is also a major force on the boards, and he can grab the ball on both ends of the floor.  His ability to stop the dribble-drive gives the rest of the team an opportunity to gamble in the press.

 

McGary is more of a prototypical post player.  He has more moves on the offensive end, and when the inside is crowded, he can locate the open perimeter and deliver a sharp, accurate pass that allows his teammate to shoot quickly.

 

Advantage: Michigan

 

Bench:

Pitino uses his bench more the Beilein, but when the Michigan reserves are in the game, they contribute without weakening the team.

 

The loss of Kevin Ware takes away a considerable part of the Cardinals’ bench production, but on the other hand, his teammates will get a boost with him there to cheer them on.

 

Advantage: Push

Our Pick: Here is how we see this game.  In the first half, both teams will be a little tight, and scoring will be rather low, much like the norm for this season.  It will appear to be dull for the first 10-12 minutes with the scoring at a sub-100-point pace (something like 12-10).

 

The offenses will step up and start to get untracked in the final 8 minutes of the half, and Louisville will finish on a mini-run to go into the locker room with a small lead (28-25 or so).

 

Michigan will gain some momentum early in the second half and have their best showing of the night during the first two of the four-minute stretches.  The Wolverines will take the lead and gain a little momentum, with the score looking like 37-34 with 12 minutes to play.

 

At this point, the Wolverines will start to tire.  Their starters played too many minutes in the semifinal win over Syracuse, and the relentless Cardinal pressure will start to have an effect.  A couple of turnovers and some forced shots due to fatigue will allow Louisville to regain the lead.  Beilein will have to take a timeout with UL leading 43-39 with 9 minutes left.

 

After a brief recovery, the fatigue will prove fatal, and Louisville will go for the jugular with a big run.  By the under 4 timeout, the Cardinals will have a nice cushion, something like 55-46.  Michigan will begin to force multiple ill-advised shots, and Louisville will get a couple of cheap baskets to ice the game.  A couple of late three-pointers will give the Wolverine fans some hope, but the Cardinals will hit some foul shots to clinch the national title.

 

FINAL SCORE: Louisville 62  Michigan 55

 

 

A ONEderful Final Four–April 4, 2008

 

A ONEderful Final Four

Wow!  All four number one seeds have advanced to the Final Four for the first time since teams began to be seeded in the NCAA Tournament.  I did a little research and went back 60 years trying to find a year where the top team in each region advanced to the Final Four, and I couldn’t find another season where such a thing happened.  I found only one year where the four semifinalists were all ranked in the final regular season Top Five.  In 1970, UCLA, St. Bonaventure, Jacksonville, and New Mexico State finished the regular season ranked second, third, fourth, and fifth respectively.  Number one Kentucky fell to Jacksonville in the Mid-east Regional Finals.  The 1970 Final Four entered semifinal play with an incredible combined record of 103-6 (143-9 this year).  Jacksonville, led by twin towers Artis Gilmore and Pembrook Burroughs downed St. Bonaventure, who was missing superstar center Bob Lanier.  UCLA, a team that was not picked to win its conference after losing Kareem Abdul Jabbar to the Milwaukee Bucks, turned out to have the best frontline trio in the nation with Steve Patterson, Sidney Wicks, and Curtis Rowe, combined with fabulous guards Henry Bibby and John Vallely.  The Bruins dismissed New Mexico State.  In the title game, Wicks did the unbelievable by blocking shots by Gilmore multiple times, leading the Bruins to their fourth consecutive title and sixth in the last seven seasons.

This Final Four is the first one in many years where a good case could be made for any of the quartet to win all the marbles.  All four teams have unique features that other teams will have a tough time stopping or attacking, yet all four teams have Achilles’ heals that can be exploited.   If the semifinal matchups were best of seven series, I would expect both to go seven games.  This doesn’t mean that the three final games will be nail-biters; it means that any of this group could potentially blow out any of the other teams.

Here is a breakdown of the two Semi-final Games.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

6:07 PM EDT

UCLA 35-3  vs. Memphis 37-1

UCLA	Stat	Memphis
73.8	PPG	80.3
58.5	Def PPG	61.6
47.9	FG%	46.9
41.8	Def. FG%	38.8
35.1	3pt %	35.1
32.3	Def 3pt %	30.3
73.0	FT%	60.7
+8.6	Reb. Margin	+6.6
+1.8	TO Margin	+4.2
7.3	Stls/G	8.4
4.3	Blk/G	6.2
11.8	R+T	15.1
15	PiRate	19
57.71	SOS	57.49

 

For explanation of R+T, PiRate, and SOS, see Bracketnomics 505 from March 17, 2008, and the subsequent blog story of March 18, 2008.  I have adjusted SOS by already multiplying by 100.

Starters

Center

UCLA: #42 Kevin Love, 6-10 260 Fr.

17.6 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 56.5% FG, 36.3% 3pt, 76.4% FT, 1.9 ast, 1.4 blk, 0.7 stl

Memphis: #3 Joey Dorsey, 6-9 260 Sr. (plays this position as a forward)

7.1 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 65.2% FG, 0-1 3pt, 37.8% FT, 0.5 ast, 1.9 blk, 1.1 stl

Power Forward

UCLA: #23 Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, 6-8 230 Jr.

8.7 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 48.3% FG, 20.0% 3pt, 68.1% FT, 1.6 ast, 0.4 blk, 1.1 stl

Memphis: #2 Robert Dozier, 6-9 215 Jr.

9.2 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 44.4% FG, 29.0% 3pt, 67.5% FT, 1.0 ast, 1.8 blk, 1.1 stl

Small Forward

UCLA: #3 Josh Shipp, 6-5 220 Jr.

12.3 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 43.7% FG, 32.4% 3pt, 78.6% FT, 2.2 ast, 0.4 blk, 1.4 stl

Memphis: #14 Chris Douglas-Roberts, 6-6 200 Jr.

17.7 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 54.5% FG, 41.6% 3pt, 70.9% FT, 1.8 ast, 0.4 blk, 1.2 stl

Shooting Guard

UCLA: #0 Russell Westbrook, 6-3 187 So.

12.5 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 46.2 FG%, 32.4% 3pt, 71.3% FT, 4.3 ast, 0.2 blk, 1.6 stl

Memphis: #5 Antonio Anderson, 6-6 200 Jr.

8.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 40.9% FG, 33.3% 3pt, 57.7% FT, 3.5 ast, 0.3 blk, 1.2 stl

Point Guard

UCLA: #2 Darren Collison, 6-1 165 Jr.

14.8 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 49.1% FG, 53.0% 3pt, 87.2% FT, 3.8 ast, 0.1 blk, 1.8 stl

Memphis: #23 Derrick Rose, 6-4 195 Fr.

14.6 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 48.1% FG, 34.7% 3pt, 69.8% FT, 4.7 ast, 0.4 blk, 1.2 stl

Key Reserves

UCLA

#14 Lorenzo Mata-Real, 6-9 240 Sr. C

3.1 ppg, 3.5 rpg

#12 Alfred Aboya, 6-8 235 Jr. F/C

2.9 ppg, 2.2 rpg

#13 James Keefe, 6-8 220 So. F

2.7 ppg, 2.7 rpg

Memphis

#20 Doneal Mack, 6-5 170 So. G/F

7.2 ppg, 1.7 rpg

#0 Shawn Taggart, 6-3 230 So. F/C

6.0 ppg, 4.1 rpg

#1 Willie Kemp, 6-2 165 So. G

5.3 ppg, 1.0 rpg

Note: Backup point guard Andre Allen has been suspended for the Final Four.

My Guess at the Game

UCLA will slow the tempo down in this game and force Memphis to beat them in a half-court game.  The Bruins talented backcourt should not have too much difficulty avoiding the costly turnovers that lead to cheap baskets for Memphis.  The Tigers will need a half-dozen cheap baskets to win this one.

UCLA will isolate Love and/or Mbah a Moute down low with the hopes of forcing Dorsey to foul.  Dorsey has a problem with fouling in the paint, and he will have to log at least 30 minutes for the Tigers to compete.

If the game becomes an issue of depth, the sons of Westwood have superior inside reserves, while the bullies from the Bluff have superior perimeter reserves.

Basically, when two outstanding teams face off on a neutral court, you look at which team will get more scoring chances by way of rebounding and turnover margin, and you look at which team is likely to get more high percentage shot opportunities.

When I look at all the statistics and talent, I definitely see evidence that UCLA will win the battle of the boards by a moderate amount, while Memphis forces the Bruins into a few extra turnovers.  It comes down to who gets the open shots.  I don’t think the Bruins will give up more than a handful of easy shots, while Memphis will gamble for steals and give up some open looks.   I look for Darren Collison to burn the Tigers from outside and open up the lane for Love about 12 minutes into the game.  It will lead to Dorsey committing some fouls and having to go to the bench.  When that happens, UCLA will get some offensive rebounds and putbacks.  Look for UCLA to advance to the title game.

Prediction: UCLA 67  Memphis 59

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Approximately 8:47 PM EDT

Kansas 35-3  vs. North Carolina 36-2

Kansas	Stat	N. Carolina
80.6	PPG	89.2
61.2	Def PPG	72.2
50.7	FG%	49.1
37.9	Def. FG%	42.3
40.1	3pt %	37.9
33.3	Def 3pt %	32.6
69.6	FT%	75.5
+7.7	Reb. Margin	+11.5
+2.6	TO Margin	+1.8
8.8	Stls/G	8.2
5.9	Blk/G	4.5
13.2	R+T	15.0
19	PiRate	15
55.94	SOS	59.21

Starters

Center

Kansas: #00 Darrell Arthur, 6-9 225 So.

12.7 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 54.3% FG, 16.7% 3pt, 69.6% FT, 0.8 ast, 1.3 blk, 0.5 stl

North Carolina: #50 Tyler Hansbrough, 6-9 250 Jr.

22.8 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 54.2% FG, 0% 3pt, 80.6% FT, 0.9 ast, 0.3 blk, 1.5 stl

Power Forward

Kansas: #32 Darnell Jackson, 6-8, 250 Sr.

11.2 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 62.0% FG, 2-6 3pt, 68.3% FT, 1.1 ast, 0.5 blk, 0.7 stl

North Carolina: #21 Deon Thompson, 6-8 240 So.

8.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 48.1% FG, 0% 3pt, 58.6% FT, 1.1 ast, 1.3 blk, 0.7 stl

Small Forward

Kansas: #25 Brandon Rush, 6-6 210 Jr.

13.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 42.3% FG, 42.9% 3pt, 79.0% FT, 2.1 ast, 0.8 blk, 0.9 stl

North Carolina: #1 Marcus Ginyard, 6-5 218 Jr.

7.1 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 44.7% FG, 42.9% 3pt, 64.9% FT, 2.2 ast, 0.1 blk, 1.1 stl

Shooting Guard

Kansas: #15 Mario Chalmers, 6-1 190 Jr.

12.7 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 52.2% FG, 47.6% 3pt, 74.6% FT, 4.4 ast, 0.6 blk, 2.4 stl

North Carolina: #22 Wayne Ellington, 6-4 200 So.

16.6 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 47.1% FG, 41.4% 3pt, 82.5% FT, 2.1 ast, 0.2 blk, 1.1 stl

Point Guard

Kansas: #3 Russell Robinson, 6-1 205 Sr.

7.4 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 42.2% FG, 32.1% 3pt, 77.5% FT, 4.1 ast, 0.4 blk, 2.0 stl

North Carolina: #5 Ty Lawson, 5-11 195 So.

12.8 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 52.3% FG, 35.8% 3pt, 82.9% FT, 5.3 ast, 0.0 blk (1), 1.6 stl

Key Reserves

Kansas

#4 Sherron Collins, 5-11 205 So. G

9.2 ppg, 2.1 rpg

#24 Sasha Kaun, 6-11 250 Sr. C

7.3 ppg, 4.0 rpg

#5 Rodrick Stewart, 6-4, 200 Sr. G

2.8 ppg, 2.2 rpg

North Carolina

#14 Danny Green, 6-6 210 Jr. F/G

11.4 ppg, 4.9 rpg

#32 Alex Stepheson, 6-9 235 So. F/C

4.4 ppg, 4.7 rpg

#11 Quentin Thomas, 6-3 190 Sr. G

3.2 ppg, 1.4 rpg

My Guess at the Game

This has the potential to rank among the best semifinal games in the last 50 years (a list of some great ones follows this preview).

Much like the first game, this game will be won by the team that gets the combination of the most extra scoring opportunities and best looks at the basket.  Can any team playing North Carolina keep the rebounding margin at a stand-off?  Kansas can probably keep the Tar Heel advantage at a minimum and then offset that advantage by winning the turnover margin battle.  That means this game will be decided by shot selection and prevention of good shots.  If that is the case, Kansas is one of the best, if not the best, teams at winning the battle for high percentage shots.

North Carolina still has the ace in the hole in Hansbrough.  He can neutralize the perceived Jayhawk advantage by matching the entire Arthur and Jackson combined in scoring and rebounding.  Again, I think the frontcourts of both teams are basically even.

In the backcourt, I see a decided advantage that I think will eventually tilt the game in the winner’s advantage.  North Carolina has a terrific trio in Ellington, Lawson, and Green.  The Tar Heel guards can destroy an opponent in a matter of two minutes with a fast-break outburst.  One momentary lapse can lead to a 10-0 Carolina run.

So, you see me picking the Tar Heels, yes?  No!  I see Kansas with the advantage in the backcourt.  The Jayhawks perimeter players, Rush, Chalmers, Robinson, Collins, and Stewart, are the best combined quintet of guards in the nation.  As a whole, this group has superior scoring ability from the outside (Chalmers & Rush), the best penetrator to the hoop (Rush), excellent passing (Chalmers, Robinson, Collins), excellent ball hawks (Chalmers & Robinson), excellent defenders on the ball (all five, especially Rush), and even some added rebounding strength (Rush & Chalmers).  Collins could not only start on most of the other NCAA Tournament teams, he could be an all-conference player on most of them!

I see Kansas controlling the tempo for most of the game and preventing North Carolina from making any great, extended scoring runs.  Kansas had its shock game against Davidson, and the Jayhawks have yet to play their best game in this tournament.  I think they will Saturday, and I think it will put them in the Title Game on Monday Night.

Prediction: Kansas 77  North Carolina 73

My List of the 20 Best Semifinal Games in Last 50 Seasons

1959: California 64  Cincinnati 58

1962: Cincinnati 72  UCLA 70

1968: UCLA 101  Houston 69

1969: UCLA 85  Drake 82

1971: Villanova 92   Western Kentucky 89 2ot

1973: UCLA 70  Indiana 59

1974: North Carolina State 80  UCLA 77 2ot

1975: UCLA 75  Louisville 74 ot

1977: North Carolina 84  UNLV 83

          Marquette 51  UNCC 49

1978: Duke 90  Notre Dame 86

1983: Houston 94  Louisville 81

1987: Indiana 97  UNLV 93

1989: Michigan 83  Illinois 81

1991: Duke 79  UNLV 77

          Kansas 79  North Carolina 73

1992: Duke 81  Indiana 78

1996: Kentucky 81  U Mass. 74

1998: Kentucky 86  Stanford 85 ot

2004: Connecticut 79  Duke 78