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.

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

A PiRate Look At The NCAA Men’s Basketball Regional Finals–March 29, 2008

The Elitist of the Elite

A PiRate Preview of The Regional Final Games-March 29, 2008

Eight teams are left, and only Davidson, a team with a 25-game winning streak can be considered a surprise.  Xavier and Louisville may not have been expected to get this far, but both the Musketeers and Cardinals are no big surprises.

All four number one seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight.  Can all four make it to the Final Four for the first time since the current 64/65-team format has been in effect?  It’s possible, but it’s also possible that two of the four top-seeded teams could lose.

Of the eight Sweet 16 round games, seven of them were dull games.  Only the Xavier-West Virginia game was worth watching from start to finish.  Let’s hope the Regional Final games are a little more exciting.

In the statistics shown below, the records are up to date, but the stats do not include the Regional Semifinal games.  Those will be included in next week’s Final Four Previews.

Note:  In the statistics below, you will see a column marked other.  “B” means the player is an exceptional shot blocker.  “S” means the player is exceptional at stealing the ball.  “A” means the player is an excellent passer for assists.  “F” means the player is foul-prone.

West Regional-Phoenix

Saturday, March 29, 2008

6:40 PM EDT

#3 Xavier vs. #1 UCLA

Xavier Musketeers						Record: 30-6
Head Coach: Sean Miller
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
31	Jason Love	F/C	6-09	255	So.	6.1	5.4	57.4	0.0	60.4	B
5	Derrick Brown	F	6-08	225	So.	10.9	6.7	60.2	34.5	72.1
20	C.J. Anderson	F/G	6-06	220	Jr.	10.7	5.9	52.3	0.0	67.3
34	Stanley Burrell	G	6-03	210	Sr.	9.8	2.1	39.1	38.9	83.1	A
24	Drew Lavender	G	5-07	153	Sr.	11.0	2.6	43.6	40.4	86.8	A
	KEY RESERVES %
1	Josh Duncan	F	6-09	235	Sr.	12.1	4.7	50.4	41.8	85.4	F
11	B.J. Raymond	G/F	6-06	225	Jr.	10.1	3.1	44.9	41.1	86.1
25	Dante’ Jackson	G	6-05	205	Fr.	2.4	1.2	35.4	38.1	61.5	S/F

Statistical Analysis
XAV	Stat	Opp	Difference
47.8	FG%	40.6	7.2
39.1	3pt%	33.7	5.4
75.5	FT%	67.6	7.9
35.8	Reb	30.2	5.6
13.1	TO	13.0	-0.1
3.4	BK	3.6	-0.2
5.6	STL	6.6	-1.0
15.3	AST	13.1	2.2
	R+T  #		5.47
75.5	PPG	62.7	12.8
PiRate Score			8 *
Schedule Strength			.5720
	(*) Missed being 10 by very little
(#) For an explanation of R+T, PiRate Score, and Schedule
Strength, see “Bracketnomics 505” posted on 3/17/08
& how point values are assigned posted on 3/18/08
NCAA Tournament Results
Georgia		73-61
Purdue		85-78
West Virginia		79-75 ot

U C L A  Bruins						Record: 34-3
Head Coach: Ben Howland
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
42	Kevin Love	C	6-10	271	Fr.	17.3	10.6	55.7	36.5	76.5	B
23	Luc Rich. Mbah a Moute	F	6-08	232	Jr.	8.6	5.5	47.9	20.0	69.4
3	Josh Shipp	F/G	6-05	220	Jr.	12.4	3.2	44.0	32.5	79.2	S
2	Darren Collison	G	6-00	160	Jr.	15.1	2.6	49.4	51.6	87.6	S/A
0	Russell Westbrook	G	6-03	185	So.	12.3	3.8	46.8	31.9	70.5	S/A
	KEY RESERVES %
14	Mata-Real, Lorenzo	C	6-09	235	Sr.	3.3	3.7	50.0	0.0	45.2	B/F
12	Alfred Aboya	F/C	6-09	245	Jr.	3.1	2.3	50.0	33.3	52.8	F
41	Dragovic, Nikola	F	6-09	215	So.	2.6	1.4	33.9	23.8	12-12
13	James Keefe	G	6-08	225	So.	2.1	2.4	44.2	28.6	35.7	F

Statistical Analysis
UCLA	Stat	Opp	Difference
47.6	FG%	42.2	5.4
34.6	3pt%	32.5	2.1
73.0	FT%	67.0	6.0
36.3	Reb	27.9	8.4
12.4	TO	14.7	2.3
4.1	BK	2.6	1.5
7.4	STL	4.7	2.7
14.4	AST	11.3	3.1
	R+T  #		12.48
73.3	PPG	58.0	15.3
PiRate Score			15
Schedule Strength			.5751
NCAA Tournament Results
Mississippi Valley		70-29
Texas A&M		51-49
Western Kentucky		88-78

UCLA is looking to become the first team since Duke to make it to three consecutive Final Fours.  Of Course the Bruins went to the Final Four every year from 1967 through 1975, so three in a row is now big deal in Westwood.

Xavier is looking to become the first team from the Queen City to make the Final Four since Cincinnati did so in 1992 (The Bearcats also own a five consecutive streak from 1959-1963).

UCLA has a huge intangible in its favor.  The Bruins keep getting the benefit of several officials’ mistakes.  Going back to the end of the regular season when they won back-to-back games over Stanford and California, both ending in controversy, to the Pac-10 Tournament where they won a close game over Southern Cal, to the Texas A&M game in the second round of the Big Dance where the Bruins players were allowed to hold and push with no fouls being called, where the Aggies’ players were whistled for entering the same Zip Code, and it is a pattern that cannot be ignored.  I’m not saying this is a conspiracy.  I’m saying its probably human nature taking its course.  UCLA always got the benefit of the doubt during their great dynasty years.  I remember watching them foul Maryland all over the gym in December of 1973, while Maryland couldn’t get within an arm’s length without being whistled.  Somehow, the Terps had a chance to win at the end that night, but fell short by one basket.

UCLA probably doesn’t need any help to win this game, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see them benefit from a few calls or non-calls by the zebras.  While Xavier has the talent to keep this game close, I’m expecting the sons of Westwood to march to the Final Four with a victory.  The matchup between UCLA’s Kevin Love and Xavier’s Jason Love will be what decides this game, and we can make an educated guess which player will win.

Prediction: UCLA 73  Xavier 64

East Regional-Charlotte

Saturday, March 29, 2008

9:05 PM EDT

#3 Louisville vs. #1 North Carolina

 

Louisville Cardinals						Record: 27-8
Head Coach: Rick Pitino
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
4	David Padgett	F/C	6-11	245	Sr.	11.4	4.5	67.7	0.0	65.2	F
1	Terrence Williams	F	6-06	210	Jr.	11.0	7.3	40.5	34.3	56.7	S/A
5	Earl Clark	F/G	6-08	220	So.	10.9	8.0	46.2	23.1	65.5	B
34	Jerry Smith	G	6-01	200	So.	10.5	3.6	44.8	37.7	77.6	S
33	Andre McGee	G	5-10	180	Jr.	6.4	1.6	40.4	40.3	69.8	S/A
	KEY RESERVES %
32	Derrick Caracter	F/C	6-09	265	So.	8.5	4.5	55.7	1 of 1	63.1	B/F
10	Edgar Sosa	G	6-01	175	So.	7.6	1.7	38.5	37.4	63.6
3	Juan Palacios	F/C	6-08	250	Sr.	6.4	4.0	44.5	31.3	70.5	S

Statistical Analysis
U of L	Stat	Opp	Difference
46.0	FG%	38.4	7.6
35.2	3pt%	30.6	4.6
64.4	FT%	67.7	-3.3
37.3	Reb	34.5	2.8
13.3	TO	14.6	1.3
4.9	BK	2.7	2.2
8.1	STL	5.7	2.4
15.1	AST	12.2	2.9
	R+T  #		5.33
72.3	PPG	60.9	11.4
PiRate Score			9
Schedule Strength			.5852
NCAA Tournament Results
Boise State		79-61
Oklahoma		78-48
Tennessee		79-60

North Carolina Tar Heels						Record: 35-2
Head Coach: Roy Williams
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
50	Tyler Hansbrough	F	6-09	250	Jr.	22.8	10.2	54.1	0.0	81.2	S
21	Deon Thompson	F	6-08	240	So.	8.5	4.8	47.7	0.0	58.6	B/F
1	Marcus Ginyard	G-F	6-05	218	Jr.	7.4	4.5	44.6	42.9	66.3	S
22	Wayne Ellington	G	6-04	200	So.	16.8	4.3	47.9	42.1	81.5
5	Ty Lawson	G	5-11	195	So.	12.9	2.7	52.8	36.0	82.5	S/A
	KEY RESERVES %
14	Danny Green	G-F	6-05	210	Jr.	11.3	5.0	46.8	37.1	86.3	BSAF
32	Alex Stepheson	F	6-09	235	So.	4.4	4.8	53.2	0.0	43.2	B/F
11	Quentin Thomas	G	6-03	190	Sr.	3.4	1.5	57.3	25.0	78.1	A
4	Bobby Frasor	G	6-03	208	Jr.	3.2	1.8	34.2	30.0	50.0	S/A

Statistical Analysis
UNC	Stat	Opp	Difference
49.1	FG%	42.4	6.7
38.3	3pt%	33.0	5.3
75.4	FT%	66.9	8.5
44.0	Reb	32.4	11.6
14.3	TO	16.1	1.8
4.6	BK	4.9	-0.3
8.3	STL	7.9	0.4
17.3	AST	13.7	3.6
	R+T  #		15.19
89.9	PPG	72.9	17.0
PiRate Score			17
Schedule Strength			.5921
NCAA Tournament Results
Mount St. Mary’s		113-74
Arkansas		108-77
Washington State		68-47

Louisville Coach Rick Pitino has his Cardinals playing the best half-court defense of any team he has ever coached, including his 1996 national champs at Kentucky.  What UL did to Tennessee was amazing Thursday night.  However, for the Cards to have any chance of getting to the Final Four, they will have to play even better defensively tonight.

North Carolina is an unstoppable force right now.  Sure, Washington State held them to 67 points, but the Cougars didn’t do it with great defense.  They slowed the game down, making it a low possession game.  UNC still had a fantastic points per possession stat in the game.

I expect the Tar Heels to get their first taste of playing in an NCAA Tournament game that isn’t decided by the under 12 timeout in the first half.  The Heels may even get extended into the second half before they put this one away.

Prediction: North Carolina 78  Louisville 69

South Regional-Houston

Sunday, March 30, 2008

2:20 PM EDT

#2 Texas vs. #1 Memphis

Texas Longhorns						Record: 31-6
Head Coach: Rick Barnes
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
32	Connor Atchley	F/C	6-10	225	Jr.	19.2	2.9	44.3	38.0	77.9	B
5	Damion James	F/G	6-07	227	Jr.	13.2	10.7	46.4	44.6	56.3	B
24	Justin Mason	G	6-02	185	So.	7.1	4.3	42.2	34.2	66.2	A
3	A.J. Abrams	G	5-10	155	Jr.	16.6	2.8	42.8	38.1	80.9
14	D.J. Augustin	G	5-11	175	So.	19.2	2.9	44.3	38.0	77.9	A
	KEY RESERVES %
1	Gary Johnson	F	6-07	235	Fr.	5.7	4.0	41.6	0.0	55.6	F
34	Dexter Pittman	C	6-10	293	So.	2.7	2.3	54.8	0.0	60.5	B/F
15	Alexis Wangmene	F/C	6-08	240	Fr.	2.2	2.4	42.3	0.0	66.0	B/F

Statistical Analysis
UT	Stat	Opp	Difference
45.3	FG%	38.8	6.5
39.1	3pt%	32.6	6.5
68.2	FT%	67.9	0.3
38.1	Reb	35.1	3.0
9.6	TO	12.1	2.5
5.3	BK	2.8	2.5
6.0	STL	4.6	1.4
13.1	AST	12.4	0.7
	R+T  #		6.60
75.5	PPG	64.4	11.1
PiRate Score			9
Schedule Strength			.5950
NCAA Tournament Results
Austin Peay		74-54
Miami (Fla.)		75-72
Stanford		82-62

Memphis Tigers						Record: 36-1
Head Coach: John Calipari
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
3	Joey Dorsey	F/C	6-09	265	Jr.	7.0	9.7	64.7	0.0	37.9	B/F
2	Robert Dozier	F	6-09	215	Jr.	9.4	6.7	45.1	29.0	68.5	B
14	Chris Douglas-Roberts	G/F	6-07	200	Jr.	17.3	4.2	54.7	42.7	68.4
5	Antonio Anderson	G	6-06	210	Jr.	8.4	3.7	40.9	32.8	56.6	A
23	Derrick Rose	G	6-03	205	Fr.	14.1	4.3	46.9	35.1	68.4	A
	KEY RESERVES %
20	Doneal Mack	G	6-05	175	So.	7.7	1.8	39.7	37.1	66.7	F
0	Shawn Taggart	F/C	6-10	230	So.	5.8	4.2	51.0	37.5	63.9	B/F
1	Willie Kemp	G	6-02	175	So.	5.3	1.1	38.2	36.6	57.1	F
15	Andre Allen	G	5-10	205	Sr.	3.4	1.2	31.5	29.6	40.6	F

Statistical Analysis
Mem	Stat	Opp	Difference
46.6	FG%	38.5	8.1
35.3	3pt%	30.3	5.0
59.2	FT%	66.9	-7.7
40.9	Reb	34.2	6.7
12.0	TO	16.3	4.3
6.2	BK	3.3	2.9
8.5	STL	5.8	2.7
16.2	AST	10.7	5.5
	R+T  #		15.47
79.8	PPG	61.1	18.7
PiRate Score			19
Schedule Strength			.5749
NCAA Tournament Results
Texas-Arlington		87-63
Mississippi State		77-74
Michigan State		92-74

Memphis looked every bit as talented as the UNLV 1990-91 team Friday Night against Michigan State.  Sure, they surrendered some easy baskets, but they out-rebounded a Tom Izzo-coached team by nine boards!  That doesn’t happen often, if ever.  When you have a player like Derrick Rose, who can come off the bench and score 27 points and Robert Dozier who can almost record a double double while playing just half the game, and you see how complete this team really is.  Who says the Tigers cannot hit free throws?  26-35 is going to win a lot of close games.

Texas isn’t just horse fodder.  The Longhorns are talented enough to advance to the title game.  Just imagine how great this team would be if Kevin Durant had decided to play just one more season.  D.J. Augustin and A.J. Abrams won’t be intimidated by the Tigers’ defense, and the deadly duo can force Memphis to become lax in the paint.  Then, Connor Atchley and Damion James will take over inside. 

Give Texas some home court advantage for playing in Houston, but give Memphis that little extra to get over the hump and avoid falling in the Elite Eight round for the third consecutive year.  They won’t be denied a third straight time-not with this much talent.

Prediction: Memphis 78  Texas 75

Midwest Regional-Detroit

Sunday, March 30, 2008

5:05 PM EDT

#10 Davidson vs. #1 Kansas

Davidson Wildcats						Record: 29-6
Head Coach: Bob McKillop
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
15	Thomas Sander	F	6-08	220	Sr.	7.6	4.9	57.9	23.1	53.3	F
41	Andrew Lovedale	F	6-08	215	Jr.	6.7	5.4	53.6	0.0	66.7	F
14	Max Paulhus Gosselin	G/F	6-06	205	Jr.	3.6	3.5	36.7	12.5	65.5	S
30	Stephen Curry	G	6-03	185	So.	25.7	4.6	48.8	44.4	88.8	S/A
2	Jason Richards	G	6-02	185	Sr.	12.9	3.1	41.8	32.4	74.8	A
	KEY RESERVES %
5	Boris Meno	F	6-08	230	Sr.	7.3	5.6	49.5	5.6	66.7
22	Will Archambault	G/F	6-06	210	So.	5.2	1.9	39.1	27.8	69.0	F
24	Bryant Barr	G	6-04	195	So.	5.1	1.0	38.9	40.5	64.7
23	Stephen Rossiter	F	6-07	230	So.	3.1	3.4	60.3	0.0	67.6	S/F

Statistical Analysis
DC	Stat	Opp	Difference
47.1	FG%	42.3	4.8
36.2	3pt%	35.6	0.6
72.3	FT%	63.1	9.2
36.6	Reb	32.7	3.9
12.1	TO	16.9	4.8
3.3	BK	2.4	0.9
8.1	STL	5.6	2.5
17.1	AST	13.5	3.6
	R+T  #		13.23
78.6	PPG	63.5	15.1
PiRate Score			14
Schedule Strength			.5252
NCAA Tournament Results
Gonzaga		82-76
Georgetown		74-70
Wisconsin		73-56

Kansas Jayhawks						Record: 34-3
Head Coach: Bill Self
No.	Player	Pos	Height	Weight	Cl.	Pts.	Reb.	FG%	3pt%	FT%	Other *
	STARTERS
32	Darnell Jackson	F	6-08	250	Sr.	11.5	6.7	62.3	33.3	69.5
0	Darrell Arthur	F	6-09	225	So.	13.1	6.2	54.0	16.7	70.4	B/F
25	Brandon Rush	G/F	6-06	210	Jr.	13.0	5.0	42.5	43.9	77.6
15	Mario Chalmers	G	6-01	195	Jr.	12.6	3.1	52.5	47.1	73.3	S/A
3	Russell Robinson	G	6-01	205	Sr.	7.4	2.8	42.3	31.3	76.6	S/A
	KEY RESERVES %
4	Sherron Collins	G	5-11	205	So.	9.5	2.0	47.9	36.8	76.5	S/A
24	Sasha Kaun	C	6-11	250	Sr.	7.1	3.9	61.1	0.0	54.4	B/F
45	Cole Aldrich	C	6-11	240	Fr.	2.9	3.1	51.9	0.0	64.7	B/F
5	Rodrick Stewart	G	6-04	200	Sr.	2.9	2.3	49.3	31.3	60.7

Statistical Analysis
KU	Stat	Opp	Difference
50.8	FG%	38.0	12.8
40.1	3pt%	33.7	6.4
69.6	FT%	68.4	1.2
38.8	Reb	30.9	7.9
12.8	TO	15.8	3.0
6.0	BK	2.6	3.4
8.9	STL	6.2	2.7
18.4	AST	11.3	7.1
	R+T  #		14.31
81.4	PPG	61.4	20.0
PiRate Score			21
Schedule Strength			.5594
NCAA Tournament Results
Portland State		85-61
UNLV		75-56
Villanova		72-57

I have to admit that Stephen Curry and company did something I didn’t think they could do-they blew Wisconsin off the floor Friday night.  I underestimated just how fluid the Wildcats play.  This is actually their third trip to the Elite 8, with the other two coming in 1968 and 1969 (they lost both times to North Carolina by one possession).

Kansas is the team to beat.  The Jayhawks can dominate the game at both ends of the floor and in the stat book,  as they showed against ‘Nova Friday night.  I believe the Jayhawk defense will be able to combat the numerous perimeter screens set and keep Curry from putting up numbers reminiscent of Austin Carr when he played in the NCAA Tournament for Notre Dame.

I’m going with the Jayhawks, because I think they are as good as any National Champion in the last quarter century.  Davidson won’t lose because they are a small school from the Southern Conference.  In my opinion any other team in the field would also lose if they played Kansas in the Elite 8.

Prediction: Kansas 75  Davidson 60