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.

Sunday’s Regional Final Games

Sunday’s Regional Finals

Advanced Level Bracketnomics

 

The PiRate NCAA Tournament Criteria Formula worked like a charm in Friday night’s regional semifinal games.  Let’s see how it applies to Sunday’s regional final games.

South Regional

 

#1 Duke (30.48) vs. #3 Baylor (26.04)

We have been split whether to issue Baylor a partial home court advantage for this game, but we have decided to leave it as a 100% neutral game.  Baylor will have more fans for sure, but it won’t be like it would be if Duke were playing Kentucky in Nashville or Indianapolis.  The advantage for Baylor will be negligible.

Both teams in this game have crucial assets that prove to be winning tickets in games of this magnitude.  For Baylor, the Bears hit over 48% of their field goal attempts and give up less than 38%.  They have a scoring margin in double digits, and they control the boards by more than five per game.

For Duke, the Blue Devils outscore their opposition by 16 points per game and outrebound them by almost six per game.  The Dukies enjoy one of the best R+T* ratings in the nation, coming in at 11.64.  This number is so high because not only is their rebounding margin great, their turnover margin is also terrific at +3.7.  When a team consistently wins the battle of the boards and the turnover margin by healthy amounts, they have to really throw up bricks and give up easy layups to lose.

The two teams’ strengths of schedule are a wash—there isn’t even a half-point’s difference.  This game should be a see-saw affair with neither team pulling away until maybe the final minutes.  We’re going to stick with our pre-tournament favorite to win it all and take Coach K and company to earn the trip to Indianapolis.

Prediction: Duke 70  Baylor 63

 

Midwest Regional

 

#5 Michigan State (20.92) vs. #6 Tennessee (21.16)

Tennessee head coach Bruce Pearl faced a serious dilemma when he dismissed star forward Tyler Smith from the squad at the end of December.  His team also played a couple weeks without the services of three other players.  Yet, the Volunteers upset undefeated and number one Kansas in their next game.  While fans and media were expecting the orange and white to crumble to a losing SEC record, Pearl changed their style of play to a more conservative approach and guided the Vols to double-digit wins in the conference.  This marks the farthest Tennessee has ever advanced in the Big Dance.

Michigan State under Coach Tom Izzo has made a habit of making it this far and farther.  The Spartans made it to the Championship Game last year.  Now, Izzo is facing the same dilemma Pearl faced in December.  He must get by without the services of his top player—Kalin Lucas.

The Spartans edged Northern Iowa in their first game without Lucas, but they face a team in the regional finals that will definitely exploit Lucas’s loss.  Tennessee can pressure the perimeter in the frontcourt and force MSU to work the shot clock to its final seconds.  The Spartans will have to force up some shots against the Volunteers’ defense.

Michigan State can still win this game if the Spartans shoot 38%.  They will definitely win the rebounding battle in this game.  However, Tennessee will force more turnovers and pick up a couple of cheapie baskets.  It is more likely that the Vols will enjoy some type of scoring spurt in this game.  Since it is most likely to be a limited possession game, just one spurt of eight to 10 points will be enough to advance Pearl’s club to the school’s first Final Four bid in history.

Prediction: Tennessee 64  Michigan State 59

 

* For an explanation of R+T as well as the rest of the PiRate Criteria, go to: https://piratings.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/bracketnomics-505-how-to-pick-your-ncaa-tournament-brackets/

 

 

Coming Thursday: An in-depth look at the Final Four with expanded coverage.  We will have a one-stop look at the four teams, including rosters, statistics, schedules, the entire PiRate formulas, and of course, our predictions.

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

A PiRate Look At The NCAA Final Four: Semifinal Round–April 4, 2009

A PiRate Look At The NCAA Final Four

The Semifinals

 April 4, 2009

 

Ford Field: Detroit

 

Many basketball purists believe that the NCAA Tournament Semifinal is the top ticket in all of sports.  While we would argue that any ticket to a Green Bay Packers game would top it, this is the only time the top four teams in any sport meet on the same court back-to-back.

 

At Detroit’s Ford Field Saturday, there’s a good chance that the teams in the home uniforms will win more games in four hours than the regular tenant of the building won all season.  We know that’s a stab at the division rival Lions, but we had to do it.

 

For what it’s worth, our record through the first four rounds is 45-15.

 

Here is a guide for the two semifinal games.  We hope you have fun.

 

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

 

Game 1

Connecticut Huskies (31-4) vs. Michigan State Spartans (30-6)

Tip Time: 6:07 PM EDT

 

Rosters

 

Connecticut Huskies

 

NO	NAME	HT/WT	POSITION	YR/CLASS	HOMETOWN
4	Adrien, Jeff	6-7/243	Forward	SR	Brookline, Mass.
24	Austrie, Craig	6-3/176	Guard	SR	Stamford, Conn.
55	Bailey, Kyle	6-3/170	Guard	SO	Lancaster, N.H.
2	Beverly, Donnell	6-4/190	Guard	SO	Hawthorne, Calif.
10	Bird, Johnnie	6-0/165	Guard	SR	Fort Bragg, N.C.
11	Dyson, Jerome	6-3/180	Guard	JR	Rockville, Md.
33	Edwards, Gavin	6-9/230	Forward/Center	JR	Gilbert, Ariz.
30	Haralson, Scottie	6-4/215	Guard	FR	Jackson, Miss.
13	Hornat, Alex	6-5/205	Forward	JR	South Windsor, Conn.
45	Lindner, John	6-5/265	Forward	SR	Cheshire, Conn.
32	Mandeldove, Jonathan	6-11/220	Center	JR	Stone Mountain, Ga.
35	Okwandu, Charles	7-1/255	Center	SO	Lagos, Nigeria
12	Price, A.J.	6-2/190	Guard	SR	Amityville, N.Y.
21	Robinson, Stanley	6-9/220	Forward	SO	Birmingham, Ala.
34	Thabeet, Hasheem	7-3/265	Center	JR	Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
40	Veronick, Jim	6-8/200	Forward	SR	Durham, Conn.
15	Walker, Kemba	6-1/172	Guard	FR	Bronx, N.Y.

 

Coaches

Jim Calhoun – Head Coach George Blaney – Assistant Coach Andre LaFleur – Assistant Coach Patrick Sellers – Assistant Coach Beau Archibald – Director of Operations

 

 

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

 

Player Matchups

 

Ppg=points per game, rpg=rebounds per game, bpg=blocks per game, apg=assists per game, spg=steals per game, fg%=field goal percentage, 3pt= 3-point percentage, ft%=free throw percentage, mpg=minutes per game

 

Point Guard

Connecticut: A.J. Price (6-2, 190 Sr.)-14.7 ppg/3.4 rpg/40.3% 3pt/71.2% ft/4.8 apg

 

Michigan State: Kalin Lucas (6-0, 180 So.)-14.6 ppg/2.2 rpg/38.8% 3pt/81.4% ft/4.6 apg

 

This position is the reason why both teams made it this far.  Both players are 4-star leaders.  Their stats are similar, but the differences are Price’s experience and the fact that he compiled these stats in addition to leading the Huskies while Lucas is more of the go-to guy.

 

We give a slight advantage to UConn here.

 

Shooting Guard

Connecticut: Craig Austrie (6-3, 176 Sr.)-7.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 80.5% ft, 2.3 apg

 

Michigan State: Travis Walton (6-2, 190 Sr.)-5.3 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.5 spg

 

While Walton is one of the top defensive guards in the nation, stopping Austrie won’t shut the Huskie offense down.  He should be able to supply extra help defense though, and that should make up for his inability to shoot from outside or at the foul line.

 

Austrie has had some hot nights, but that isn’t required of him for his team to make it to Monday night.

                                                                 

We’ll give an ever so slight advantage to MSU.

 

Small Forward

Connecticut: Stanley Robinson (6-9, 220 So.)-8.2 ppg/5.7 rpg/49.5% fg

 

Michigan State: Delvin Roe (6-8, 225 Fr.)-5.8 ppg/5.0 rpg/56.5% fg

 

This is a tough one to figure out.  Neither player plays consistently.  If both play a good game, it will be close to a wash.  Roe cannot hit the broad side of a barn from the foul line, but Robinson is basically an in-close shooter with no real range.

 

We’re going to call this one a stand-off but with high deviation.  Either player could have a big game or disappear.

 

Power Forward

Connecticut: Jeff Adrien (6-7, 243 Sr.)-13.7 ppg/10.0 rpg/50.5% fg/1.1 bpg

 

Michigan State: Raymar Morgan (6-8, 225 Jr.)-10.2 ppg/5.3 rpg/52.5% fg/1.2 apg

 

Morgan has not had a great game in March.  He is not a great defender nor a dominant rebounder for his position.

 

Adrien plays much like Wes Unseld used to play.  He stops the opponent in the hot shooting area, and he punishes any opponent who dares try to rebound the ball in his area. 

 

We’ll give UConn a hefty advantage here.

 

Center

Connecticut: Hasheem Thabeet (7-3, 265 Jr.)-13.5 ppg/10.9 rpg/4.3 bpg/64.9% fg

 

Michigan State: Goran Suton (6-10, 245 Sr.)-10.4 ppg/8.4 rpg/51.6% fg/

 

Both players are prone to getting into foul trouble, but Thabeet is the more likely to foul out of a game.  Thabeet is a Bill Russell type player.  Unless another Wilt Chamberlain is opposing him, he is going to dominate the inside-as long as he is in the game and not sitting on the bench with foul concerns.

 

Suton doesn’t have the flashy numbers of his adversary, but he is a workhorse inside and won’t back down to Thabeet even though he is giving away five inches.  Suton plays strong defense.

 

In a surprise, we’re going to call this one a wash.

 

Bench Play

Connecticut

Kemba Walker (6-1, 172 Fr. G)-9.0 ppg/3.5 rpg/74.6% ft/1.1 spg/2.9 apg/25 mpg

 

Gavin Edwards (6-9, 230 Jr. F/C)-3.9 ppg/2.9 rpg/63.3% fg/74.5% ft/12 mpg

 

Michigan State

Chris Allen (6-3, 205 So. G)-8.7 ppg/2.3 rpg/80.0% ft/19 mpg

 

Durrell Summers (6-4, 195 So. G)-8.4 ppg/3.3 rpg/21 mpg

 

Marquise Gray (6-8, 235 Sr. F)-3.3 ppg/2.9 rpg/58.7% fg/10 mpg

 

Draymond Green (6-6, 235 Fr. F)-3.1 ppg/3.2 rpg/53.3% fg/11 mpg

 

Connecticut basically goes just seven deep since Jerome Dyson was lost 24 games into the season.  The two bench players are better than any two bench players for the Spartans.  However, MSU has great depth.  The Spartans can wear down the best opponents and still have something in the tank at the end of games. 

 

Edwards may have to play serious minutes in the paint if Thabeet picks up too many early fouls.

 

We’ll call this a win-win comparison.  UConn has the better seven deep bench, but MSU has the better depth by far.  Overall, give a slight edge to the Spartans.

 

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

 

Connecticut qualifies as one of the elite team with statistical data similar to many previous title holders.  Michigan State just barely fails to qualify with 7 total criteria points.  Of course, we must look at both strength of schedule and implied home court advantage.  MSU’s schedule was about two points per game stronger than UConn’s.  You can also add about three points home court advantage for the Spartans playing just over an hour away from campus.

 

Prediction

We are supposed to go with the criteria in virtually every game, and it would be hard to pick against Connecticut.  We think this is going to be a whale of a ball game.  Connecticut gives up just 37.6% shooting to opponents and blocks eight shots per game.

 

Michigan State gives up just 63 points per game and 41.4% shooting to opponents.  The Spartans are the dominant rebounding team in the land with an advantage of almost 10 per contest.  That advantage will be neutralized because UConn is just a hair behind at +9.2 per game. 

 

We expect the Huskies to stake themselves to the early lead and pad it a bit to the halfway point of the final period.  Then, the fatigue factor will begin to creep in.  At this point, Michigan State will mount a rally.  Connecticut will gain a second wind at the end and hold the Spartans at bay in the crucial time of this game.  Then, it will be up to the Huskies to hit their foul shots at the end of the game.  UConn hits 68% from the charity stripe.  It’s not great, but we believe Coach Jim Calhoun’s squad will advance to their third ever national title game.

 

Connecticut 67 Michigan State 63

 

 

Game 2

North Carolina Tar Heels (32-4) vs. Villanova Wildcats (30-7)

Tip Time: 30 minutes following the end of the

Connecticut-Michigan State Game

Approximately 8:47 PM EDT

 

Rosters

 

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

 

Villanova Wildcats

 

No.	Name	Pos.	Cl. (EXP)	Ht.	Wt.	Hometown	High School
0	Antonio Pena	Forward	RS SO (2L)	6-8	235	Brooklyn, N.Y.	St. Thomas More
1	Scottie Reynolds	Guard	JR (2L)	6-2	190	Herndon, Va.	Herndon
4	Jason Colenda	Guard	JR (1L)		205	Fairfax, Va.	Bishop O’Connell
10	Corey Fisher	Guard	SO (1L)	6-1	200	Bronx, N.Y.	St. Patrick’s (N.J.)
15	Reggie Redding	Guard	JR (2L)	6-5	205	Philadelphia, Pa.	St. Joseph’s Prep
20	Shane Clark	Forward	SR (3L)	6-7	205	Philadelphia, Pa.	Hargrave Military Academy
21	Maurice Sutton	Forward/Center	FR	6-11	215	Upper Marlboro, Md.	Largo
22	Dwayne Anderson	Guard/Forward	SR (3L)	6-6	215	Silver Spring, Md.	St. Thomas More
23	Russell Wooten	Forward	JR	6-4	210	Chula Vista, Calif.	St. Augustine
24	Corey Stokes	Guard	SO (1L)	6-5	220	Bayonne, N.J.	St. Benedict’s
31	Taylor King	Forward	RS FR	6-6	230	Huntington Beach, Cal.	Santa Ana Mater Dei
33	Dante Cunningham	Forward	SR (3L)	6-8	230	Silver Spring, Md.	Potomac
42	Frank Tchuisi	Forward	SR (3L)	6-8	215	Douala, Cameroon	St. Benedict’s

 

Coaches Jay Wright-Head Coach Patrick Chambers-Associate Head Coach Doug West-Assistant Coach Jason Donnelly-Assistant Coach Keith Urgo-Manager of Basketball Operations Kyle Neptune-Administrative Intern Jeff Pierce-Head Athletic Trainer Lon Record-Strength Coach

Player Matchups

 

Point Guard

North Carolina: Ty Lawson (5-11, 195 Jr.)-16.3 ppg/2.8 rpg/54.2% fg/48.5% 3pt/81.5% ft/6.5 apg/2.0 spg

 

Villanova: Scottie Reynolds (6-2, 190 Jr.)-15.2 ppg/2.8 rpg/35.3% 3pt/81.7% ft/3.3 apg/1.6spg

 

What can’t Ty Lawson do?  He is the best outside shooter in the Final Four.  He can penetrate and either take it to the hoop or dish the rock for an easy shot.  He can play defense better than any other guard.  He can also shoot craps better than anybody on the Canadian-American border.

 

Reynolds is the reason VU made it this far.  It was his buzzer beater that knocked Pittsburgh out of the Dance.  He has a good offensive game, but he cannot handle Lawson.

 

North Carolina receives a huge advantage here.

 

Shooting Guard

North Carolina: Wayne Ellington (6-4, 200 Jr.)-15.6 ppg/4.8 rpg/48.0% fg/39.7% 3pt/77.8% ft/2.7 apg

 

Villanova: Reggie Redding (6-5, 205 Jr.)-6.9 ppg/5.0 rpg/70% ft/3.1 apg/1.2 spg

 

Ellington is a streaky outside shooter.  When his shot is falling, North Carolina cannot be defeated. 

 

Redding is VU’s defensive sparkplug who gives the Wildcats a fourth inside presence.  He had yet to meet an opponent as talented as Ellington though.

 

We give North Carolina the advantage here, but it is not strong.

 

Small Forward

North Carolina: Danny Green (6-6, 210 Sr.)-13.3 ppg/4.8 rpg/47.3% fg/41.5% 3pt/85.2% ft/2.8 apg/1.3 bpg/1.8 spg

 

Villanova: Dwayne Anderson (6-6, 215 Sr.)-9.1 ppg/2.8 rpg/46.0% fg/83.9% ft/1.4 apg/1.6 spg

 

Green can do a little of everything, but he isn’t a go-to player.  Anderson is similar to Green, just not as talented.

 

North Carolina has a small advantage here as well.

 

Power Forward

North Carolina: Deon Thompson (6-8, 245 Jr.)-10.7 ppg/5.8 rpg/49.8% fg/1.1 bpg/1.0 spg

 

Villanova: Dante Cunningham (6-8, 230 Sr.)-16.2 ppg/7.4 rpg/52.9% fg/1.2 apg/1.3 bpg/1.2 spg

 

Thompson is North Carolina’s least talented starter, but that is not a slap in his face.  He’s just not the star that the other four starters are.  There have been times when Thompson has come up with big plays.

 

Cunningham is Villanova’s key weapon.  As he goes, so go the Wildcats.  VU’s only chance at getting to Monday night’s game is for him to have a Danny Manning/Jack Givens moment.  We doubt that will happen, but he should have a good, if not great game.

 

Villanova has a decided edge here.

 

Center

North Carolina: Tyler Hansbrough (6-9, 250 Sr.)-20.9 ppg/8.1 rpg/52.1% fg/85.8% ft/1.2 spg

 

Villanova: Shane Clark (6-7, 205 Jr.)-5.6 ppg/3.8 rpg/48.0% fg

 

Clark is a hard-nosed defensive stopper, but he cannot stop his opponent.  The top relief pitcher in baseball couldn’t consistently keep Babe Ruth from hitting one into the seats, and that’s why it will take two or two and a half defenders to keep Hansbrough from beating Villanova.

 

Hansbrough is like a loyal employee who always shows up for work on time, always does his job as well as helping others, and never complains when he doesn’t get a raise.  He may not be the most naturally talented big man in Tar Heel lore (James Worthy-Sam Perkins-Tom Lagarde-Bob McAdoo, etc.)

 

North Carolina has a major advantage here.

 

Bench Play

North Carolina

Ed Davis (6-10, 215 Fr. F)-6.6 ppg/6.6 rpg/51.4% fg/1.8 bpg/19 mpg

 

Bobby Frasor (6-3, 210 Sr. G)-2.7 ppg/1.9 rpg/1.4 apg/17 mpg

 

Villanova

Corey Fisher (6-1, 200 So. G)-10.7 ppg/2.2 rpg/78.8% ft/2.8 apg/1.3 spg/24 mpg

 

Corey Stokes (6-5, 220 So. G)-9.5 ppg/3.4 rpg/84.8% ft/1.0 apg/23 mpg

 

Antonio Pena (6-8, 235 So. F)-5.3 ppg/4.2 rpg/48.5% fg/18 mpg

 

While neither team can go 10-deep, the reserves that do play are good enough to start for most teams.  In Villanova’s case, the two Coreys are really starters and not reserves.  They enter the game after the opening tip, but they play the bulk of the minutes at their positions.

 

North Carolina’s Davis is a future NBA player as soon as he can add some bulk.  Frasor is the type of pesty player who can stick the dagger in the opposing team with a well-timed trey after the defense has played competently for 25-30 seconds.

 

We’ll call this a wash.

 

PiRate Criteria

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.

 

Villanova has teetered on the brink of qualifying as a superior team.  After the regional semifinal and final rounds, the Wildcats statistical gains have elevated their criteria score to 11, which now gives them superior status.  Still, they trail UNC by six in this category.

 

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

 

Prediction

North Carolina is clearly the better team.  It doesn’t mean Villanova has no chance, because a really good team can defeat a great team under certain conditions.

 

We believe this game will remain close throughout the first half, and Villanova could go to the locker room with a small lead.  The Tar Heels have too many quality options for the entire roster to have an off game.  Coach Roy Williams will figure out how to get his hot players the ball in the second half, and UNC will go on a run and put this game away by taking a double digit lead in the final 12 minutes. 

 

North Carolina 78 Villanova 66

 

Tune in here Sunday Night for a preview of the Championship Game.

A PiRate Look At The NCAA Tournament: The Elite 8–March 28-29, 2009

A PiRate Look At The NCAA Tournament

The Elite 8

 March 28-29, 2009

 

We’ve decided to combine the Saturday and Sunday games into one blog since this is being compiled late Friday night after the games have ended.

 

It’s not quite the Big East Tournament part two, but it looks like there will be two and as many as three Big East teams headed to Detroit.

 

Our Sweet 16 picking brought an end to our chances of hitting the national champion for a fourth consecutive season.  We missed that pick, although we did mention that we thought Missouri should be the true favorite in that game and that they could easily run out to a quick double-digit lead in the game.  We also must admit that our mentor and originator of this blog told us to watch Missouri knock Memphis out, and we didn’t listen as much as we should have.

 

So, which teams left in the tournament still possess all the PiRate Criteria necessary to win it all?  In the East, Pitt easily qualifies.  Villanova now qualifies if you factor in their win over Duke, since their points per game margin reached 10.0 following the easy win.  In the Southeast, North Carolina qualifies, but Oklahoma just misses.  In the Midwest, Louisville qualifies but not Michigan State.  In the West, Connecticut and Missouri both qualify.  Seven of the eight remaining teams qualify, and the one that misses does so by a mere one point. 

 

Of the original 11 teams we listed as super teams possessing the statistical criteria similar to past champions, five have made it to the Elite 8 round. 

 

Our record for the Sweet 16 was just 5-3, bringing the three round total to 43-13.

 

 

(numbers in parentheses are PiRate Criteria scores)

[number in brackets is Strength of Schedule advantage]

 

East Region @ Boston

 

Pittsburgh (14) vs. Villanova (9) [Pittsburgh 2]

Game Time: Saturday, 7:00 PM EDT

These teams played just once during the regular season with Villanova winning by 10 at home.  In that game, Pitt’s Dejuan Blair sat on the bench with foul trouble for much of the night.

 

With Blair staying out of foul trouble this time, we think the Panthers will advance to their first Final Four.

 

Prediction: Pittsburgh 72 Villanova 64

 

South Region @ Memphis

 

North Carolina (17) vs. Oklahoma (9) [Even Strength]

Game Time: Sunday, 5:00 PM EDT

What a great match between two dominant big men we have here!  Tyler Hansbrough and Blake Griffin are two of the top five college players in the game. 

 

Griffin may end up with the better numbers in this game, but Hansbrough has a much better supporting cast.  The Tar Heels will advance yet again to another Final Four.

 

Prediction: North Carolina 85 Oklahoma 73

 

Midwest Region @ Indianapolis

 

Louisville (10) vs. Michigan State (7) [Mich. State 1]

Game Time: Sunday, 2:20 PM EDT

The Two games on this side of the bracket provide us with great studies in contrast.  A quick, full-court team will take on an inside banger team that has some decent outside shooting.

 

Four of Louisville’s five losses came to teams that can bang the ball inside and get plenty of offensive rebounds.  Connecticut, Notre Dame, Minnesota, and UNLV all play a game similar to Michigan State.  The Spartans are capable of holding the Cardinals under 45% shooting and take 55% of the rebounds.  Capable yes, but we don’t think it will happen.  Rick Pitino will guide UL back to the Final Four.

 

Prediction: Louisville 70 Michigan State 63

 

West Region @ Glendale, AZ

 

Connecticut (14) vs. Missouri (12) [Connecticut 1]

Game Time: Saturday, 4:30 PM EDT

We think this will be the best game of the four in this round.  Missouri looked every bit as good as the 1994 Arkansas team that won the NCAA Championship, a team with current Tiger coach Mike Anderson on the bench as an assistant.

 

On the other hand, UConn looks every bit as good if not better than the two Husky teams that won national titles.

 

We don’t think Mizzou will be able to force all that many turnovers in this game, and if they only pick up 8-10 steals, it will not be enough.  They need 12-15 steals to have a chance to win this game.

 

Connecticut’s inside game will be too strong for MU, and we think it will force the Tigers into foul trouble. 

 

Prediction: Connecticut 86 Missouri 74

A PiRate Look At The 2009 NCAA Tournament: The Sweet 16

A PiRate Look At The NCAA Tournament

The Sweet 16

 March 26-27, 2009

 

As the Sweet 16 prepares to begin play tomorrow night, our PiRate Formula for picking teams that display the necessary statistics similar to the historical Final Four participants and National Champions are once again proving to be quite accurate.  We consider it the SABRmetrics of college basketball.

 

We originally told you about our list of the 12 Super Teams in this tournament.  We apologize for our not being able to count.  We only listed 11 teams.  Of those 11 teams, eight advanced to the Sweet 16.  One of the three teams, UCLA, lost to Villanova.  Villanova just barely missed out on qualifying for the Super Team list, and they basically got to host their first two games at the Spectrum.  Only Wake Forest and West Virginia’s losses can really be listed as misses.

 

On Sunday, our picks ran the table, going 8-0.  Combined with Saturday’s games, our second round success rate was 14-2.  For the tournament to date, we are now 38-10.

 

Without further adieu, here are the eight games for the third round.  The criteria scores and Strengths of Schedule have been updated to reflect the two games in the tournament.

 

(numbers in parentheses are PiRate Criteria scores)

[number in brackets is Strength of Schedule advantage]

 

East Region @ Boston

 

Pittsburgh (14) vs. Xavier (10) [Pitt 3]

Game Time: Thursday, 7:27 PM EDT

This is an interesting match if only because Xavier coach Sean Miller was once a starter on a great Pitt team. 

 

The way to beat Pitt is to force them to commit turnovers and play transition defense.  The Musketeers are more like Pitt than like the type of team needed to beat the Panthers.  Xavier cannot match up inside with the more muscular Pitt inside, and the Panthers will advance to the Elite 8.  Xavier’s only chance is to take 30 three-point shots and hit 40%.

 

Prediction: Pittsburgh 74 Xavier 64

 

Villanova (9) vs. Duke (14) [Duke 4]

Game Time: Thursday, approximately 9:42 PM EDT

Villanova missed out on being rated at 13 by just a hair.  This game is being touted as one in which the 3-seed Wildcats should be favored over the 2-seed Blue Devils. 

 

This game provides an excellent study in contrast.  VU has a great deal of talent inside with a surprising outside presence.  Duke has a great deal of talent on the perimeter with a surprising inside presence.

 

This should be a close game throughout the first half and a good deal of the second half.  Then, we believe the Duke defense will begin to force Villanova into mistakes and take advantage of those errors.  It should lead to a nice Blue Devil run in the last 10 minutes to move Coach K to the Elite 8.

 

Prediction: Duke 77 Villanova 70

 

South Region @ Memphis

 

Syracuse (4) vs. Oklahoma (9) [Syracuse 2]

Game Time: Friday, 7:27 PM EDT

This is the only Sweet 16 game in which neither team owns a double digit criteria score.  What it means to us is that the winner of this game will lose in the Elite 8 game Sunday.

 

This one should be a tight contest.  Syracuse’s zone defense should reduce the number of looks for Oklahoma’s Blake Griffin.  The Sooners have an ample trio of outside shooters, and they will have to step it up a notch to beat the Orangemen.  If Tony Crocker, Willie Warren, and Austin Johnson are hot, the Sooners will continue to play on Sunday.

 

Syracuse will have to pack in their zone to keep Griffin from killing them inside.  They will score points on offense, but they may give up points just even quicker if they cannot cover the perimeter when the ball is kicked out from the posts.

 

Prediction: Oklahoma 82 Syracuse 75

 

 

North Carolina (17) vs. Gonzaga (17) [N. Carolina 5]

Game Time: Friday, approximately 9:42 PM EDT

Gonzaga shares the second best PiRate criteria score with their opponent, but the Bulldogs compiled their stats against an inferior schedule.  Even though they played some big time teams, including Memphis and Connecticut, they played too many teams well beneath the average. 

 

North Carolina will not be able to just walk all over the Zags.  We expect GU to stay within striking distance for at least 30-32 minutes, and we wouldn’t be shocked if they led at any point of that time.

 

The Tar Heels will supposedly have Ty Lawson near 100% ready for this game.  Their bench is much more potent than Gonzaga’s, and we think they will eventually wear down the Bulldogs.

 

Prediction: North Carolina 85 Gonzaga 74

 

Midwest Region @ Indianapolis

 

Louisville (10) vs. Arizona (-2) [Louisville 2]

Game Time: Friday, 7:07 PM EDT

Arizona is the one team in the Sweet 16 that we feel doesn’t have the talent of the other 15 teams.  We didn’t think the Wildcats would make it this far, and we honestly felt that Penn State deserved to be here in their place.

 

The players heard for days that they didn’t deserve to be in the Dance, and that motivated them to play great ball last weekend.  We think this weekend will be different.

 

Louisville has not played like a number one seed of the entire tournament.  They got a virtual bye in the first round against Morehead State, and they could have easily lost to Siena in round two.  The Cardinals might stumble through for a third time and win only because their opponent is the weakest of the Sweet 16 teams.  It may be UL’s last win of the season if they don’t play more consistently.

 

Prediction: Louisville 69 Arizona 64

 

Kansas (10) vs. Michigan State (7) [Mich. St. 1]

Game Time: Approximately 9:22 PM EDT

This game should be a rugged, jaw-to-jaw contest of teams that like to bang it.  Both teams control the boards in their games, and it will be interesting to see if either can dominate the other.  We’ll call it a standoff in this stat.

 

Both teams’ weakness is their ability to take advantage of turnover margin.  If either team were playing somebody like Missouri this week, we would feel inclined to pick them to lose.  Since neither team will be able to force a bunch of mistakes and capitalize with a great fast break, we will call this a standoff as well.

 

We think the game will be decided by KU’s defense.  The Jayhawks will force MSU to shoot a lower percentage of shots and not receive their usual amount of offensive rebounds to hold the Spartans well below their points per game average.  We’re not sure MSU can do the same to the Jayhawks, so we’re picking the defending champions to return to the Elite 8.

 

Prediction: Kansas 72 Michigan State 67

 

West Region @ Glendale, AZ

 

Connecticut (14) vs. Purdue (6) [Even Strength]

Game Time: Thursday, 7:07 PM EDT

This looks like a potential mismatch, but some late developments may have the UConn players not ready mentally for this game.  A report by Yahoo Sports that the Huskies broke several NCAA rules when it recruited a former player may make it difficult for the players to properly prepare for this game.

 

Purdue doesn’t have the tools needed to beat Connecticut.  It takes a team with solid strength in the paint, and the Boilermakers don’t have the inside firepower.  Only a poorly played game by the top seed would make this one close.

 

We think the Huskies will start out a little bit off their game, but after a couple of TV timeouts, they should settle down and start playing well.  As long as Hasheem Thabeet stays out of foul trouble and plays about 25 minutes in this game, UConn should win by double digits.

 

Prediction: Connecticut 73 Purdue 60

 

Missouri (12) vs. Memphis (19) [Even Strength]

Game Time: Thursday, Approximately 9:22 PM EDT

This is the can’t miss game of the Sweet 16.  Both teams are strong in every aspect of the game.  Nary of foot of the court will be free parking for either team.  It will be a fast-paced game with the players on both teams trying to show up their opponents.

 

Yes, we picked Memphis to make it to the Championship Game and win it all, but we are not so sure they are the true favorite in this game.  Missouri won’t be intimidated, and if the Memphians come out flat like they did in the first round, Mizzou’s fast break game will quickly run out to a double-digit game.

 

All in all, we think Memphis will be pumped to play the Big 12 Tournament Champions.  This is a border war game, and neither team should be flat.  We’re going with Memphis only because we picked them to win the title.  In reality, we think this is a 50-50 contest.

 

Prediction: Memphis 77 Missouri 75

 

Come back Friday for a look at Saturday’s games and Saturday for a look at Sunday’s games.