NCAA Tournament–Final Four Preview

Welcome back to the PiRate Ratings’ Bracketnomics.  A quick tutorial about Bracketnomics:  We have studied numerous statistical factors of all Final Four Teams from the 1950’s until 2011.  We isolated the statistical similarities of those teams and found certain shared statistical characteristics.  For the last eight years, we have been applying it to the NCAA teams trying to discover which ones shared these same statistics as the Final Four teams of yesteryear.  In five of the last seven years, we were pretty spot on with our selections.  For instance, in 2009, whenKentucky,Kansas, andOhioStatewere listed as the heavy tri-favorites, our system showed Duke to be the top-rated team.  We went with Duke even though the Blue Devils were not being highly considered.  Now admittedly, we did not seeButlercoming through to the Finals that year, or last year either, but we did rateButleras one to watch to get to the Elite 8.

If you want all the details behind our PiRate Criteria Score, please refer to our Bracketnomics 505, 2012 edition at: https://piratings.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/bracketnomics-505-2012-edition/

 

2012 PiRate Ratings Final Four Preview—Semifinal Round

Saturday, March 31, 2012

The Superdome—New Orleans

CBS Television—Announcers: Jim Nantz, Clark Kellogg, and Steve Kerr

 

Game 1: Kentucky vs. Louisville – 6:09 PM EDT

Game 2: Kansas vs. Ohio State – Approximately 8:49 PM EDT

 

Game Previews

 

#1S Kentucky (36-2) vs. #4W Louisville (30-9)

 

Kentucky Wildcats

 

No.	Name	Pos.	Ht.	Wt.	Yr.	Hometown (Last School)
1	Darius Miller	G	6-08	235	SR	Maysville,Ky.(MasonCounty)
3	Terrence Jones	F	6-09	252	SO	Portland,Ore.(Jefferson)
4	Jon Hood	G	6-07	215	JR	Madisonville,Ky.(North Hopkins)
5	Jarrod Polson	G	6-02	185	SO	Nicholasville,Ky.(West Jessamine)
10	Twany Beckham	G	6-05	205	JR	Louisville,Ky.(MississippiState)
12	Ryan Harrow	G	6-02	175	SO	Marietta, Ga. (N.C. State)
13	Sam Malone	G	5-11	190	FR	Scituate,Mass.(Scituate)
14	Michael Kidd-Gilchrist	F	6-07	232	FR	Somerdale,N.J.(St. Patrick)
20	Doron Lamb	G	6-04	210	SO	Queens,N.Y.(OakHillAcademy)
23	Anthony Davis	F	6-10	220	FR	Chicago,Ill.(Perspectives Charter)
25	Marquis Teague	G	6-02	189	FR	Indianapolis,Ind.(Pike)
30	Eloy Vargas	F	6-11	244	SR	Moca,Dominican Republic(Miami-Dade CC)
32	Brian Long	G	5-09	150	FR	Dumont,N.J.(River Dell)
33	Kyle Wiltjer	F	6-09	239	FR	Portland,Ore.(Jesuit)
Coaches and Staff
John Calipari – Head Coach
Orlando Antigua- Assistant Coach
Kenny Payne – Assistant Coach
John Robic – Assistant Coach

 

Results   Opponent	UK	Opp
Marist	108	58
(n)Kansas	75	65
(n)Penn State	85	47
(n) Old Dominion	62	52
Radford	88	40
Portland	87	63
St. John’s	81	59
North Carolina	73	72
at Indiana	72	73
Chattanooga	87	62
Samford	82	50
Loyola (Md.)	87	63
Lamar	86	64
Louisville	69	62
(n) Arkansas-Little Rock	73	51
South Carolina	79	64
at Auburn	68	53
at Tennessee	65	62
Arkansas	86	63
Alabama	77	71
at Georgia	57	44
at L S U	74	50
Tennessee	69	44
at South Carolina	86	52
Florida	78	58
at Vanderbilt	69	63
Ole Miss	77	62
at Mississippi State	73	64
Vanderbilt	83	74
Georgia	79	49
at Florida	74	59
(n) L S U	60	51
(n) Florida	74	71
(n) Vanderbilt	64	71
ncaa Western Kentucky	81	66
ncaa Iowa State	87	71
ncaa Indiana	102	90
ncaa Baylor	82	70

 

Statistics

Player	G-GS	Min	Avg	FG-Att	Fg%	3 FG-Att	3Pt %	Ft-Att	Ft%
Anthony Davis	38-38	1206	31.7	202-319	.633	3-20	.150	136-191	.712
Doron Lamb	38-33	1179	31.0	164-348	.471	73-155	.471	116-140	.829
Terrence Jones	36-32	1052	29.2	170-339	.501	16-48	.333	98-153	.641
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist	38-37	1187	31.2	152-313	.486	13-50	.260	139-184	.755
Marquis Teague	38-38	1236	32.5	136-330	.412	24-77	.312	83-116	.716
Darius Miller	38-11	989	26.0	137-290	.472	54-143	.378	51-65	.785
Kyle Wiltjer	38-0	451	11.9	69-158	.437	34-79	.430	22-27	.815
Sam Malone	6-0	13	2.2	3-6	.500	0-0	.000	0-0	.000
Eloy Vargas	31-1	195	6.3	12-36	.333	0-1	.000	4-13	.308
Brian Long	12-0	17	1.4	0-1	.000	0-0	.000	2-4	.500
Jarrod Polson	11-0	31	2.8	0-2	.000	0-1	.000	1-4	.250
Twany Beckham	16-0	44	2.8	0-1	.000	0-0	.000	0-0	.000
Kentucky	38	7600	200.0	1045-2143	.488	217-574	.378	652-897	.727
Opponents	38	7600	200.0	843-2248	.375	210-667	.315	407-586	.695
Player	Reb O	Reb D	Tot	F-DQ	Ast	TO	Blk	Stl	Pts
Anthony Davis	113	272	385	74-1	43	35	175	50	543
Doron Lamb	14	91	105	69-0	56	39	2	19	517
Terrence Jones	93	165	258	85-3	51	60	64	46	454
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist	101	186	287	92-5	73	82	36	39	456
Marquis Teague	16	81	97	85-1	183	105	11	36	379
Darius Miller	35	66	101	83-0	82	55	11	31	379
Kyle Wiltjer	25	44	69	44-0	16	27	17	4	194
Sam Malone	0	2	2	0-0	1	4	0	0	6
Eloy Vargas	20	36	56	25-0	2	6	10	3	28
Brian Long	1	1	2	0-0	0	0	0	0	2
Jarrod Polson	0	4	4	4-0	1	5	0	2	1
Twany Beckham	2	6	8	0-0	2	1	0	1	0
Team	49	57	106	9
Kentucky	469	1011	1480	564-10	510	428	326	231	2959
Opponents	457	754	1211	718-x	404	445	124	207	2303
Player	Scoring		Rebounding
Anthony Davis	14.3		10.1
Doron Lamb	13.6		2.8
Terrence Jones	12.6		7.2
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist	12.0		7.6
Marquis Teague	10.0		2.6
Darius Miller	10.0		2.7
Kyle Wiltjer	5.1		1.8
Sam Malone	1.0		0.3
Eloy Vargas	0.9		1.8
Brian Long	0.2		0.2
Jarrod Polson	0.1		0.4
Twany Beckham	0.0		0.5
Team			2.8
Kentucky	77.9		38.9
Opponents	60.6		31.9

 

Louisville Cardinals

#	NAME	POS	HT	WT	Yr	HOMETOWN (PREVIOUS SCHOOL)
1	Angel Nunez	F	6-07	190	Fr	Washington Heights,N.Y.(Notre Dame Prep)
2	Russ Smith	G	6-00	160	So	Brooklyn,N.Y.(Archbishop Molloy/South Kent)
3	Peyton Siva	G	6-00	180	Jr	Seattle,Wash.(Franklin)
4	Rakeem Buckles	F	6-07	215	Jr	Miami,Fla.(Monsignor Pace)
5	Chris Smith	G	6-02	195	Sr	Millstone, N.J. (Manhattan)
10	Gorgui Dieng	C	6-11	235	So	Kebemer,Senegal(Covenant/Huntington Prep)
11	Luke Hancock	F	6-06	200	Jr	Roanoke,Va.(George Mason)
12	Zach Price	C	6-10	235	Fr	Louisville,Ky.(Jeffersontown)
14	Kyle Kuric	G/F	6-04	195	Sr	Evansville,Ind.(Memorial)
15	Tim Henderson	G	6-02	185	So	Louisville,Ky.(ChristianAcademy)
21	Jared Swopshire	F	6-08	200	Jr	St. Louis,Mo.(IMGAcademy)
22	Elisha Justice	G	5-10	175	So	Dorton,Ky.(ShelbyValley)
23	Kevin Ware	G	6-04	185	Fr	Conyers,Ga.(RockdaleCounty)
24	Chane Behanan	F	6-06	245	Fr	Cincinnati,Ohio(Bowling Green)
25	Wayne Blackshear	G/F	6-05	225	Fr	Chicago,Ill.(Morgan Park)
33	Mike Marra	G	6-05	200	Jr	Smithfield,R.I.(NorthfieldMt.HermonSchool)
44	Stephan Van Treese	F	6-08	235	Jr	Indianapolis,Ind.(LawrenceNorth)

 

Coaches
Rick Pitino – Head Coach
Richard Pitino – Associate Coach
Wyking Jones – Assistant Coach
Kevin Keatts – Assistant Coach

 

Results

Opponent	UL	Opp
UT MARTIN	83	48
LAMAR	68	48
at BUTLER	69	53
ARKANSAS STATE	54	27
OHIO	59	54
LONG BEACH STATE	79	66
VANDERBILT	62	60
IUPUI	90	60
FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON	80	58
MEMPHIS	95	87
COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON	69	62
WESTERN KENTUCKY	70	60
GEORGETOWN	68	71
at KENTUCKY	62	69
at ST. JOHN’S	73	58
NOTRE DAME	65	67
at Providence College	59	90
DEPAUL	76	59
at MARQUETTE	63	74
at PITT	73	62
VILLANOVA	84	74
at SETON HALL	60	51
RUTGERS	78	66
CONNECTICUT	80	59
at WEST VIRGINIA	77	74
SYRACUSE	51	52
at DEPAUL	90	82
at CINCINNATI	56	60
PITTSBURGH	57	54
SOUTH FLORIDA	51	58
at SYRACUSE	49	58
(n) SETON HALL	61	55
(n) MARQUETTE	84	71
(n) NOTRE DAME	64	50
(n) CINCINNATI	50	44
ncaa DAVIDSON	69	62
ncaa NEW MEXICO	59	56
ncaa MICHIGAN STATE	57	44
ncaa FLORIDA	72	68

 

Statistics

Player	GP	Min.	Avg	FG-Att	Pct	3FG-Att	Pct.	FT-Att	Pct.
Kyle Kuric	37-35	1341	36.2	162-383	.423	75-229	.328	72-90	.800
Russ Smith	38-7	811	21.3	145-404	.359	41-133	.308	109-142	.768
Chris Smith	39-37	1076	27.6	119-291	.409	66-166	.398	74-100	.740
Chane Behanan	39-36	1005	25.8	142-277	.513	6-34	.176	80-136	.588
Gorgui Dieng	39-39	1272	32.6	142-266	.534	1-2	.500	72-107	.673
Peyton Siva	37-37	1172	31.7	117-290	.403	16-67	.239	86-117	.735
Mike Marra	2-0	25	12.5	5-8	.625	1-4	.250	1-2	.500
Rakeem Buckles	11-1	149	13.5	16-37	.432	2-5	.400	10-18	.556
Jared Swopshire	38-2	505	13.3	45-115	.391	5-24	.208	33-48	.688
Wayne Blackshear	14-1	91	6.5	9-36	.250	5-18	.278	5-9	.556
Angel Nunez	12-0	55	4.6	8-21	.381	6-16	.375	2-4	.500
Mark Jackson	3-0	12	4.0	2-4	.500	1-1	1.000	0-0	.000
Stephan Van Treese	3-0	20	6.7	1-3	.333	0-0	.000	2-4	.500
Tim Henderson	11-0	57	5.2	4-11	.364	3-7	.429	3-6	.500
Kevin Ware	20-0	105	5.3	8-27	.296	0-5	.000	4-12	.333
Elisha Justice	24-0	122	5.1	10-26	.385	1-11	.091	2-3	.667
Zach Price	19-0	82	4.3	4-13	.308	0-0	.000	4-15	.267
Total……….	39	7900	202.6	939-2212	.425	229-722	.317	559-813	.688
Opponents……	39	7900	202.6	829-2184	.380	216-713	.303	497-746	.666
Player	Reb O	Reb D	Reb Tot	Fl-DQ	Ast	TO	Blk	Stl	Pts
Kyle Kuric	41	113	154	78-0	45	38	19	46	471
Russ Smith	26	69	95	108-3	75	87	1	85	440
Chris Smith	40	102	142	56-0	75	43	0	34	378
Chane Behanan	115	174	289	75-2	32	70	18	32	370
Gorgui Dieng	130	221	351	130-5	40	77	124	45	357
Peyton Siva	19	99	118	112-5	208	128	5	64	336
Mike Marra	1	4	5	0-0	2	2	0	1	12
Rakeem Buckles	18	24	42	20-0	3	15	2	7	44
Jared Swopshire	30	79	109	41-0	17	22	9	13	128
Wayne Blackshear	6	11	17	8-0	2	7	1	3	28
Angel Nunez	2	6	8	1-0	2	6	2	1	24
Mark Jackson	0	3	3	1-0	0	2	0	0	5
Stephan Van Treese	4	2	6	5-0	0	1	1	1	4
Tim Henderson	3	6	9	7-0	6	6	0	1	14
Kevin Ware	4	10	14	12-0	9	21	4	7	20
Elisha Justice	1	8	9	15-0	9	12	0	6	23
Zach Price	6	9	15	18-1	0	3	3	2	12
	53	33	86	3		10
Total……….	499	973	1472	690-16	525	550	189	348	2666
Opponents……	503	908	1411	731-x	444	607	137	277	2371
Player	Scoring		Rebounding
Kyle Kuric	12.7		4.2
Russ Smith	11.6		2.5
Chris Smith	9.7		3.6
Chane Behanan	9.5		7.4
Gorgui Dieng	9.2		9.0
Peyton Siva	9.1		3.2
Mike Marra	6.0		2.5
Rakeem Buckles	4.0		3.8
Jared Swopshire	3.4		2.9
Wayne Blackshear	2.0		1.2
Angel Nunez	2.0		0.7
Mark Jackson	1.7		1.0
Stephan Van Treese	1.3		2.0
Tim Henderson	1.3		0.8
Kevin Ware	1.0		0.7
Elisha Justice	1.0		0.4
Zach Price	0.6		0.8
Total……….	68.4		37.7
Opponents……	60.8		36.2

 

PiRate Criteria	UK	Pts	UL	Pts
Scoring Margin	17.3	8.7	7.6	3.8
Field Goal % Margin	11.3	5.7	4.5	2.3
Rebounding Margin	7.0	4.2	1.5	0.9
Turnover Margin	0.4	0.2	1.5	0.8
Steals	6.1		8.9
R + T *	8.70	3.5	5.08	2.0
Strength of Schedule ^	.5716	2.2	.5880	3.8
Road W-L #	90.0	4.5	73.7	2.5
TOTAL	UK:	29.0	UL:	16.1

 

Prediction: Kentucky 73  Louisville 66

Kentucky will take advantage of the size difference and force Louisville to take too many shots outside of their comfort zone.  The Wildcats will hold Louisville under 40% from the field, and they will control the boards to keep the Cardinals from getting many second chance shots.

 

Louisville must try to force Kentucky to turn the ball over, and the Cardinals will have to apply pressure while at the same time trying to force the ball out of the paint.  While the Cats may turn the ball over a little more than they normally do, Kentucky will get some easy stuff shots and close-in crips to counter.

 

 

#2MW Kansas (31-6) vs. #2E Ohio State (31-7)

 

Kansas Jayhawks

 

No.       Player                           Pos      Ht         Wt        Yr        HomeTown(Last Team)

 

0          Thomas Robinson          F          6-10      237       JR       Washington, D.C./Brewster [N.H.] Academy

 

1          Naadir Tharpe                G          5-11      170       FR       Worcester, Mass./Brewster [N.H.] Academy

 

2          Conner Teahan              G          6-06      212       SR       Leawood, Kan./Rockhurst HS

 

4          Justin Wesley                F          6-09      220       SO      Fort Worth,Texas/North CrowleyHS/Lamar

 

5          Jeff Withey                    C          7-00      235       JR       San Diego, Calif./Horizon HS

 

10         Tyshawn Taylor             G          6-03      185       SR      Hoboken, N.J./St. Anthony HS

 

15         Elijah Johnson               G          6-04      195       JR       Las Vegas,Nev./CheyenneHS

 

20         Niko Roberts                 G          5-11      175       SO       Huntington, N.Y./Saint Anthony’s HS

 

21         Christian Garrett            G          6-03      170       FR       Los Angeles,Calif./IMGAcademy

 

22         Merv Lindsay                 G          6-07      195       FR       MorenoValley,Calif./CanyonSpringsHigh School

 

23         Ben McLemore              G         6-05      185       FR        St. Louis,Mo./ChristianLifeCenter[Texas]

 

24         Travis Releford              G          6-06      207       JR       Kansas City,Mo./Bishop Miege HS

 

25         Jordan Juenemann         G          6-03      195       SR       Hays, Kan./Hays HS

 

31         Jamari Traylor               F          6-08      215       FR       Chicago,Ill./IMGAcademy[Fla.]

 

40         Kevin Young                  F          6-08      185       JR       Perris,Calif./Perris High School/Loyola Marymount

 

 

 

 

 

Coaches

 

 

 

Bill Self – Head Coach

 

Joe Dooley – Assistant Coach

 

Kurtis Townsend – Assistant Coach

 

Danny Manning – Assistant Coach

Results

Opponent	KU	Att.
Towson	100	54
(n) Kentucky	65	75
(n) Georgetown	67	63
(n) UCLA	72	56
(n) Duke	61	68
Florida Atlantic	77	54
South Florida	70	42
Long Beach St.	88	80
Ohio State	78	67
(n) Davidson	74	80
at Southern Cal	63	47
Howard	89	34
North Dakota	84	58
Kansas State	67	49
at Oklahoma	72	61
at Texas Tech	81	46
Iowa State	82	73
Baylor	92	74
at Texas	69	66
Texas A&M	64	54
at Iowa State	64	72
Oklahoma	84	62
at Missouri	71	74
at Baylor	68	54
Oklahoma State	81	66
at Kansas State	59	53
Texas Tech	83	50
at Texas A&M	66	58
Missouri	87	86
at Oklahoma State	70	58
Texas	73	63
vs.Texas A&M	83	66
vs. Baylor	72	81
ncaaDetroit	65	50
ncaa Purdue	63	60
ncaa North Carolina State	60	57
ncaa North Carolina	80	67

 

Statistics

Player	gp-gs	min	avg	fg-fga	fg%	3fg-fga	3fg%	ft-fta	ft%
Thomas Robinson	37-37	1169	31.6	247-482	.512	7-14	.500	154-226	.681
Tyshawn Taylor	37-36	1230	33.2	215-446	.482	57-148	.385	131-192	.682
Elijah Johnson	37-36	1190	32.2	137-322	.425	65-194	.335	32-46	.696
Jeff Withey	37-37	902	24.4	109-199	.548	0-0	.000	123-155	.794
Travis Releford	37-36	1138	30.8	113-226	.500	24-77	.312	63-98	.643
Conner Teahan	37-2	784	21.2	67-181	.370	50-147	.340	26-31	.839
Kevin Young	36-0	410	11.4	47-96	.490	3-9	.333	33-49	.673
Jordan Juenemann	15-1	47	3.1	8-18	.444	1-6	.167	2-6	.333
Justin Wesley	37-0	324	8.8	17-30	.567	0-0	.000	11-26	.423
Merv Lindsay	12-0	26	2.2	5-9	.556	1-3	.333	0-1	.000
Naadir Tharpe	32-0	175	5.5	11-38	.289	6-22	.273	1-2	.500
Niko Roberts	7-0	14	2.0	0-4	.000	0-1	.000	0-2	.000
Christian Garrett	7-0	15	2.1	0-0	.000	0-0	.000	0-0	.000
Anthony West	1-0	1	1.0	0-0	.000	0-0	.000	0-0	.000
Total……….	37	7425	200.7	976-2051	.476	214-621	.345	576-834	.691
Opponents……	37	7425	200.7	783-2061	.380	222-658	.337	490-685	.715
Player	Reb-O	Reb-D	Reb-Tot	Fl-DQ	a	to	blk	stl	pts
Thomas Robinson	105	333	438	104-2	71	101	34	41	655
Tyshawn Taylor	7	77	84	75-0	174	128	6	50	618
Elijah Johnson	14	100	114	87-2	134	65	2	54	371
Jeff Withey	77	153	230	93-1	28	44	129	22	341
Travis Releford	60	97	157	77-0	67	37	7	43	313
Conner Teahan	24	55	79	62-1	38	36	1	27	210
Kevin Young	48	58	106	57-0	23	27	14	20	130
Jordan Juenemann	1	7	8	4-0	2	2	1	1	19
Justin Wesley	26	33	59	69-1	1	11	14	6	45
Merv Lindsay	0	3	3	3-0	1	0	1	1	11
Naadir Tharpe	3	7	10	12-0	21	22	0	7	29
Niko Roberts	0	2	2	4-0	3	2	0	2	0
Christian Garrett	1	1	2	0-0	1	1	0	0	0
Anthony West	0	0	0	0-0	0	0	0	0	0
Team	60	40	100
Total……….	426	966	1392	647-7	564	480	209	274	2744
Opponents……	397	786	1183	686-x	413	510	119	242	2278
Player	Scoring		Rebounding
Thomas Robinson	17.7		11.8
Tyshawn Taylor	16.7		2.3
Elijah Johnson	10.0		3.1
Jeff Withey	9.2		6.2
Travis Releford	8.5		4.2
Conner Teahan	5.7		2.1
Kevin Young	3.6		2.9
Jordan Juenemann	1.3		0.5
Justin Wesley	1.2		1.6
Merv Lindsay	0.9		0.3
Naadir Tharpe	0.9		0.3
Niko Roberts	0.0		0.3
Christian Garrett	0.0		0.3
Anthony West	0.0		0.0
Team			2.7
Total……….	74.2		37.6
Opponents……	61.6		32.0

 

Ohio State Buckeyes

NO	NAME	POS	HT	WT		CLASS					HOMETOWN
0	Jared Sullinger	F	6-9	265		SO					Columbus,OH
1	Deshaun Thomas	F	6-7	225		SO					Fort Wayne,IN
2	Jordan Sibert	G	6-4	185		SO					Cincinnati,OH
3	Shannon Scott	G	6-1	180		FR					Alpharetta,GA
4	Aaron Craft	G	6-2	190		SO					Findlay,OH
10	LaQuinton Ross	F	6-8	225		FR					Jackson,MS
12	Sam Thompson	F	6-7	190		FR					Chicago,IL
14	Alex Rogers	G	6-2	195		JR					Cincinnati,OH
15	J.D. Weatherspoon	F	6-6	215		SO					Columbus,OH
23	Amir Williams	C	6-11	220		FR					Birmingham,MI
30	Evan Ravenel	F	6-8	260		JR					Tampa,FL
32	Lenzelle Smith, Jr.	G	6-4	205		SO					Zion,IL
44	William Buford	G	6-6	220		SR					Toledo,OH
55	Trey McDonald	C	6-8	225		FR					Battle Creek,MI
Coaches
Thad Matta – Head Coach
Dave Dickerson – Associate Head Coach
Jeff Boals – Assistant Coach
Chris Jent – Assistant Coach

 

Results

Date	OSU	Opp
Wright State	73	42
Florida	81	74
Jackson State	85	41
North Florida	85	50
VMI	107	74
Valparaiso	80	47
Duke	85	63
Texas-Pan American	64	35
at Kansas	67	78
USC-Upstate	82	58
at South Carolina	74	66
Lamar	70	50
Miami (O)	69	40
Northwestern	87	54
at Indiana	70	74
Nebraska	71	40
at Iowa	76	47
at Illinois	74	79
Indiana	80	63
at Nebraska	79	45
Penn State	78	54
Michigan	64	49
at Wisconsin	58	52
Purdue	87	84
Michigan State	48	58
at Minnesota	78	68
at Michigan	51	56
Illinois	83	67
Wisconsin	60	63
at Northwestern	75	73
at Michigan State	72	70
Purdue	88	71
(n) Michigan	77	55
(n) Michigan State	64	68
ncaa Loyola (Md.)	78	59
ncaa Gonzaga	73	66
ncaa Cincinnati	81	66
ncaa Syracuse	77	70

 

Statistics

Player	gp-gs	min	avg	fg-fga	fg%	3fg-fga	3fg%	ft-fta	ft%
Jared Sullinger	36-35	1084	30.1	223-420	.531	16-38	.421	172-224	.768
Deshaun Thomas	38-38	1201	31.6	240-453	.530	49-138	.355	81-109	.743
William Buford	38-38	1285	33.8	199-479	.415	59-168	.351	90-109	.826
Aaron Craft	38-38	1215	32.0	111-219	.507	21-61	.344	91-128	.711
Lenzelle Smith, Jr	38-38	958	25.2	86-181	.470	29-77	.377	53-87	.609
Evan Ravenel	38-3	383	10.1	46-85	.541	0-0	.000	41-59	.695
J.D. Weatherspoon	25-0	157	6.3	29-47	.617	0-2	.000	18-31	.581
Jordan Sibert	24-0	273	11.4	24-79	.304	13-50	.260	10-18	.556
Sam Thompson	38-0	401	10.6	34-69	.493	1-14	.071	12-22	.545
LaQuinton Ross	9-0	35	3.9	5-15	.333	2-8	.250	6-7	.857
Amir Williams	28-0	188	6.7	19-36	.528	0-0	.000	10-28	.357
Shannon Scott	36-0	382	10.6	20-71	.282	1-18	.056	2-9	.222
Trey McDonald	13-0	38	2.9	1-6	.167	0-0	.000	0-0	.000
Total……….	38	7600	200.0	1037-2160	.480	191-574	.333	586-831	.705
Opponents……	38	7600	200.0	815-2006	.406	231-710	.325	408-585	.697
Player	Reb-O	Reb-D	Reb-Tot	Fl-DQ	a	to	blk	stl	pts
Jared Sullinger	110	219	329	106-1	44	69	36	42	634
Deshaun Thomas	98	107	205	61-0	34	46	9	15	610
William Buford	33	154	187	68-0	103	81	9	32	547
Aaron Craft	22	104	126	94-2	178	82	7	95	334
Lenzelle Smith, Jr	51	125	176	74-0	76	46	5	34	254
Evan Ravenel	31	51	82	69-1	9	28	8	10	133
J.D. Weatherspoon	16	11	27	8-0	4	8	4	6	76
Jordan Sibert	5	28	33	21-0	18	14	1	11	71
Sam Thompson	10	30	40	34-0	27	19	14	7	81
LaQuinton Ross	0	4	4	5-0	1	3	0	0	18
Amir Williams	27	35	62	23-0	2	8	23	4	48
Shannon Scott	4	34	38	47-0	60	36	2	18	43
Trey McDonald	3	3	6	3-0	1	4	0	0	2
Team	45	50	95	3		3
Total……….	455	955	1410	613-4	557	447	118	274	2851
Opponents……	315	802	1117	717-16	383	562	109	187	2269
Player	Scoring		Rebounding
Jared Sullinger	17.6		9.1
Deshaun Thomas	16.1		5.4
William Buford	14.4		4.9
Aaron Craft	8.8		3.3
Lenzelle Smith, Jr	6.7		4.6
Evan Ravenel	3.5		2.2
J.D. Weatherspoon	3.0		1.1
Jordan Sibert	3.0		1.4
Sam Thompson	2.1		1.1
LaQuinton Ross	2.0		0.4
Amir Williams	1.7		2.2
Shannon Scott	1.2		1.1
Trey McDonald	0.2		0.5
Team			2.5
Total……….	75.0		37.1
Opponents……	59.7		29.4

 

PiRate Criteria Scores

PiRate Criteria	KU	Pts	OSU	Pts
Scoring Margin	12.6	6.3	15.3	7.7
Field Goal % Margin	9.6	4.8	7.4	3.7
Rebounding Margin	5.6	3.4	7.7	4.6
Turnover Margin	0.8	0.4	3.0	1.5
Steals	7.4		7.2
R + T *	8.04	3.2	12.74	5.1
Strength of Schedule ^	.5858	3.6	.5890	3.9
Road W-L #	71.4	2.0	72.2	2.0
TOTAL	KU:	23.7	OSU:	28.5

Prediction: Ohio State 75  Kansas 69

We expect this game to stay close for most of the 40 minutes.  These teams are evenly matched, and Ohio State enjoys only subtle advantages in this game.  The Buckeyes are a tad better at rebounding and turnover margin, and we show OSU with about five extra scoring opportunities in this game

 

 

 

* R+T is the PiRate Ratings’ estimate of the margin of extra scoring opportunities per game for each team.  The formula is: (Rebounding Margin) + (0.2 *  Avg. Steals Per Game) + (1.2 * Turnover Margin).  The result shows how many more scoring opportunities the team gets than its opponents.  If the R+T is 10, that means a team averages 10 more scoring opportunities per game over its opponents.

 

^ Strength of Schedule is taken from the RPI ratings from CBS Sports.

 

# Road W-L% includes true road games and neutral site games.

PiRate Ratings Sweet 16 Preview

Sweet 16 NCAA Tournament PiRate Criteria Ratings

Team	W – L	Pts	FG%	Reb	TO	Stl	R+T	SOS	Road%	PiRate #
Arizona	29-7	8.7	2.5	3.6	-0.1	5.2	4.52	55	63	4
Brigham Young	32-4	14.1	4.0	3.0	3.5	8.0	9.72	58	86	18
Butler	25-9	7.8	1.5	2.9	1.7	6.0	5.35	54	65	4
Connecticut	28-9	7.7	3.5	4.8	0.3	6.5	5.27	60	75	11
Duke	32-4	17.1	7.1	3.1	2.7	7.3	7.83	58	79	17
Florida	28-7	9.1	4.2	6.0	0.3	5.9	6.42	60	78	15
Florida State	23-10	7.3	7.7	4.6	-0.8	8.5	5.34	54	61	5
Kansas	34-2	17.1	11.8	7.9	0.8	7.8	9.40	59	95	23
Kentucky	27-8	12.2	6.9	4.0	1.5	5.3	5.91	60	60	16
Marquette	22-14	7.0	2.9	2.7	2.1	7.3	6.38	57	44	3
North Carolina	28-7	9.0	4.7	6.5	0.7	6.1	7.52	60	65	16
Ohio State	34-2	18.0	7.6	4.9	4.8	7.1	13.08	58	88	23
Richmond	28-7	9.2	6.0	-1.9	2.1	6.0	1.12	52	81	3
San Diego State	34-2	13.2	7.1	6.9	1.6	6.2	9.28	58	95	19
V C U	25-11	3.9	2.0	2.1	-0.6	8.3	0.90	54	65	-1
Wisconsin	25-8	9.9	1.8	3.8	2.1	3.5	5.56	57	53	9

 All Times EDT

Number in (Parentheses) indicates PiRate Criteria Rating

For a detailed explanation of the PiRate Criteria Rating, click on the following link:

https://piratings.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/bracketnomics-505-2011-edition/

PiRate Criteria Numbers Updated To Reflect 1^st Three Round Results

Thursday, March 24, 2011

7:15 PM on CBS 

West Regional @ Anaheim

#2 San Diego State 34-2 (19) vs. #3 Connecticut 28-9 (11)

Connecticut faces the first team in the tournament that has the defensive capacity to slow down Kemba Walker.  If Walker has a below-average game, the Huskies’ shooting percentage will head too far south, because UConn does not shoot all that well.

 

The Aztecs can make life miserable on opposing shooters, so if they contain Walker, SDSU has the advantage at the other four positions on the floor.  Kawhi Leonard and Malcolm Thomas remind us somewhat of former UCLA greats Sidney Wicks and Curtis Rowe.

 

The Aztecs’ eventual downfall may come when they are exploited by a defense that forces them to beat them from outside.  Connecticut just may be able to pull that off, so this game cannot be considered a slam dunk for the #2 seed Aztecs.

 

Prediction: San Diego State 67  Connecticut 61

 

7:27 PM on TBS 

Southeast Regional @ New Orleans

#2 Florida 28-7 (15) vs. #3 Brigham Young 32-4 (18)

This one should be interesting, as Florida tries to get revenge for a first round overtime loss to BYU last year.

 

We did not have much faith in the Cougars after Brandon Davies was dismissed for the season.  BYU recovered in the second and third rounds, and the 22-point win over Gonzaga was quite impressive.

 

Still, we discount the Cougars by three points with the absence of Davies.  This makes this game a tossup in our eyes. 

 

Florida is playing inspired ball, but we still do not believe the Gators are on par with their prior two national champion teams.  Offensively, the Gators spread the ball around, and all five starters typically score double figure points.  Defensively, they are underneath, and they frequently find ways to pressure the ball out front.  However, the top defender, Kenny Boynton, may not be 100% in this game.  He has an important assignment.

 

That assignment happens to be guarding Jimmer Fredette.  If Fredette tops 30 points without taking 30 shots to do so, the Cougars could easily give the Mountain West Conference a second team in the Elite Eight.

 

We are split on this game, and we did not come to a conclusion which way to go.  So, we will stick with the higher-rated PiRate Criteria score and go with the Cougars.

 

Prediction: B Y U 82  Florida 78

 

9:45 PM on CBS

West Regional @ Anaheim

#1 Duke 32-4 (17) vs. #5 Arizona 29-7 (4)

With Kyrie Irving back in the fold, Duke has the best eight-deep roster in the nation.  We believe the Blue Devils are the third best team in the Sweet 16 with Irving back.  He scored 25 points in the two games in Charlotte in just 41 minutes, and he picked up some rebounds as well.

 

The Blue Devils’ only thing close to a liability is their defense at forward.  Kyle Singler, Miles Plumlee, and Ryan Kelly have trouble against sneaky fast opponents.

 

Arizona’s forwards have that quickness.  Derrick Williams is as important to the Wildcats as Kemba Walker and Jimmer Fredette are to their teams.  Jesse Perry only averages seven points per game, but he can take it to the basket against a slower defender.

 

Arizona’s weakness is their defense against power offense.  Duke’s slower forwards as well as center Mason Plumlee can take advantage of the Wildcats’ defensive deficiencies. 

 

Coach K deserves to be compared with John Wooden.  Wooden’s UCLA teams won four games in the NCAA Tournament to win the championship in a field of 22-25 teams.  Krzyzewski’s have been forced to win six in a field of 64, 65, and 68.  We believe he is worth an extra five to 10 points, and we will select Duke to make it to the Elite Eight.

 

Prediction: Duke 77  Arizona 68

 

9:57 PM on TBS

Southeast Regional @ New Orleans

#4 Wisconsin 25-8 (9) vs. #8 Butler 25-9 (4)

Pick against Butler at your own risk.  If the Bulldogs can beat Pittsburgh, there is no reason to believe they cannot return to the Final Four.

 

We did not believe Wisconsin could make it to the Sweet 16 either.  As many readers know, we have ties to U Dub, and this group of Badgers did not look strong enough to us to make it to the second week of the tournament.

 

The PiRate Criteria indicates that Wisconsin is the favorite, but with our internal numbers that we do not advertise, we rate this game as a 50-50 affair.

 

Butler has the experience in close games.  They keep finding a way to win.  However, Wisconsin is one of those tough teams that can neutralize what has been working for Coach Brad Stevens’ Bulldogs.

 

This game could very well come down to the final few possessions, and the winner may struggle to top 55 points.  We do not see any more than 100 field goal attempts, and as few as eight players could score points in this game.

 

Matt Howard can force Wisconsin to bring a big man outside, and that will allow Andrew Smith to work with a little more clearance inside.  If Shelvin Mack keeps his hot streak going, Butler can win this one.

 

If Howard is not on target, and the Badgers do not have to respect his outside shooting ability, Coach Bo Ryan’s team will pack it in, control the boards, and then work patiently to set up Jordan Taylor and Jon Leuer.  The tandem could score 40 points with the rest of the team adding just 15, and it could be enough to win this game.

 

Prediction: Wisconsin 55  Butler 54

 

Friday, March 25, 2011

 

7:15 PM on CBS

East Regional @ Newark

#2 North Carolina 28-7 (16) vs. #11 Marquette 22-14 (3)

We do not believe the Tar Heels are Final Four candidates this season.  No matter which team wins the game in the adjacent bracket, we see the Tar Heels losing in the Elite Eight.  However, the margin should be slim.

 

This is the Sweet 16 game, and Coach Roy Williams’ team is more than talented enough to advance to Sunday.  With the outside shooting of Kendall Marshall and Leslie McDonald combined with the take-it-to-the-hoop skills of Harrison Barnes and John Henson and the mandatory doubling down on big center Tyler Zeller, North Carolina will score a lot of points in this game.

 

Marquette’s only hope is for three players to be hot from the field, because Buzz Williams’ Golden Eagles will have to outscore North Carolina to win this game.

 

Marquette cannot go head-to-head inside and win this game.  They will have to hit 50% from the field to keep this game close.  From among Jimmy Butler, Darius Johnson-Odom, Jae Crowder, and Dwight Buycks three of these players will need to score 15-25 points each.  We see the Golden Eagles coming up short in this one.

 

Prediction: North Carolina 82  Marquette 79

 

7:27 PM on TBS

Southwest Regional @ San Antonio

#1 Kansas 34-2 (23) vs. #12 Richmond 29-7 (3)

Richmond apparently was seeded a few spots to low.  The Spiders have shown that the Atlantic 10 Conference is just below the top six or seven conferences in the nation and well above the average mid-major league.

 

Chris Mooney’s team can shoot the ball and prevent the opponent from shooting the ball.  With an inside-outside punch in big forward Justin Harper and sharpshooting guard Kevin Anderson, Richmond can score points consistently, albeit at a slower pace. 

 

Two things will do the Spiders in Friday night.  They are vulnerable against power teams and teams that can get on the boards for offensive rebounds.  Xavier and Old Dominion showed the blueprint for beating Richmond.

 

Kansas can take that blueprint and build a super foundation.  The Jayhawks are the best passing team in the tournament, and Coach Bill Self’s big men know how to move and get open to receive those passes.  Marcus and Markieff Morris can hit the boards at both ends, and Brady Morningstar and Tyshawn Taylor know how to get the ball to them.  KU will advance to play for a spot in the Final Four on Sunday.

 

Prediction: Kansas 73  Richmond 62

 

9:45 PM on CBS

East Regional @ Newark

#1 Ohio State 34-2 (23) vs. #4 Kentucky 27-8 (16)

This is the first contest in the tournament where both teams are rated worthy of making the Elite Eight. 

 

Ohio State has actually moved a couple of percentage points ahead of Kansas for the top overall Criteria score.  The Buckeyes are strong where Kentucky is strong, but Coach Thad Matta’s team also has strength were Kentucky has been vulnerable.  Tough perimeter defense forced George Mason to wilt in the Round of 32, and in William Buford, Jon Diebler, and David Lighty, Ohio State can cut off the perimeter game of most teams. 

 

With the great Jared Sullinger roaming the low post and baseline areas, Kentucky has to dedicate a big man to roam with him.  That will be the Wildcats’ downfall Friday night.  If Terrence Jones is forced to guard Sullinger, expect Josh Harrellson to have a hard time defending the paint against Ohio State’s quicker forwards and slashing guards.  If Harrellson goes out to guard Sullinger, he will have a hard time guarding the nation’s top big man.  Coach John Calipari will have to pick his poison.

 

Kentucky will need a great night from Brandon Knight and Doron Lamb.  If the two players and Darius Miller do not combine for 50 points, Kentucky will be heading back to Lexington, and the sports fans in the Commonwealth can turn their attention to Uncle Mo and the first Saturday in May.

Prediction: Ohio State 76  Kentucky 69

 

9:57 PM on TBS

#10 Florida State 23-10 (5) vs. #12 Virginia Commonwealth 25-11 (-1)

This game guarantees that one double-digit seed will make it to the Elite Eight, and Kansas fans must be quite happy about it.

 

We have two teams that have found a new gear in their engine at the most opportune time.  VCU was not even supposed to be in this tournament after failing to win the Colonial Athletic Association Tournament.  Instead, the Rams just became the first team to win three NCAA Tournament games in less than a week since Texas Western in 1966.  Texas Western went on to upset Kentucky and win the National Championship.  VCU is not Texas Western.  That TWU (Now UTEP) team was rated in the top five in the nation.

 

Florida State has not been to the Final Four since Hugh Durham took the Seminoles to the 1972 National Title game.  This team is not in that FSU team’s league.

 

So, what do we have here?  Florida State is a team that in most years would have been fortunate to win one game.  VCU is a team that in most years would probably be playing this week for a trip to Madison Square Garden and the NIT semi-finals.

 

VCU has a negative PiRate Criteria score, but it is moving close to zero.  Still, we cannot recall a negative criteria score making it to the Elite Eight.

 

Note: Both FSU Coach Leonard Hamilton and VCU Coach Shaka Smart are being mentioned as possible candidates for the vacant Tennessee job.

 

Prediction: Florida State 65  Virginia Commonwealth 60

 

Coming Saturday Morning: We will preview the Southeast and West Regional Final games.

2011 PiRate NCAA Basketball Tournament Preview

1. Which teams meet the upper range criteria in every category?  That means they outscored their opponents by eight or more per game; their field goal percentage was greater than 7.5% better than their opponents; they outrebounded their opponents by five or more per game; they forced at least three more turnovers per game than they committed; and they stole the ball 7.5 or more times per game.

 

ANSWER—No teams this year meet all the perfect criteria described above.  Six teams come close to meeting the perfect criteria, but all fall short in at least one statistic.  This means there is no clear-cut favorite—only six teams that most closely resemble the great champions of the past.  Of the six, three come from power conferences.  These three are Kansas, Ohio State, and Syracuse.

 

Kansas fails to meet the turnover margin requirement, but the Jayhawks surpass all the other qualifications.  Ohio State comes up a tad bit short in field goal percentage margin, rebounding margin, and steals per game, but just misses in all three.  Syracuse misses in rebounding and turnover margin, but they Orangemen do not miss by much. 

 

2. Which teams can be immediately eliminated due to a negative R+T rating?  Which teams have an incredibly low R+T Rating (<2.0)?

 

ANSWER—Three teams can immediately be eliminated due to negative R+T Ratings.  It comes as no surprise that Alabama State and Texas-San Antonio, two teams facing off in the First Round in Dayton, have negative R+T ratings.  The third team is Michigan.  The Wolverines were outrebounded by 1.9 boards per game, and they only had a +1.4 turnover margin with just 4.7 steals per game.

 

Five other teams finished with R+T ratings less than 2.0.  This usually means one and done for these teams, unless they have outstanding FG% margins or cupcake opponents with worse criteria numbers.  Those five teams are: Penn State, Richmond, St. Peter’s, UCLA, and UCSB.

 

3. Which teams are capable of winning it all?

 

ANSWER—We separate the contenders from the pretenders by looking at the total PiRate Criteria score and then looking to see if the high criteria scoring teams receive merit on every individual statistic.

 

Last year, Duke was head and heels better than the other 64 teams.  The Blue Devils had the highest score overall, and they satisfactorily rated in every PiRate category.

 

No teams appear to be as strong this year as the Blue Devils were last year, but nine teams meet most of the minimum requirements to be considered Final Four contenders this year.

 

It should come as no surprise that the top two teams, Ohio State and Kansas, rank at the top in the Criteria.  Kansas actually has the highest score of the 68 teams, a score of 23.  The Jayhawks outscored their opposition by 17.2 points, shot 11.7% better from the field than their opponents, and outrebounded their opponents by 7.8 boards per game.  These stats are worthy of a powerhouse.  However, KU enjoyed just a 0.9 turnover margin and stole the ball 7.9 times per game, giving the Jayhawks an R+T Rating of 9.5.  We tend to look for teams with an R+T Rating in excess of 10, so KU is not a great favorite to go all the way. 

 

Ohio State’s total Criteria score is 21, good for second best.  However, the Buckeyes enjoy an R+T Rating of 13.2, which is a number we really like in a Final Four contender.  This number correlates to 13 extra scoring opportunities that their opposition does not receive.  OSU outscores their opponents by 17.3 points per game, shot 6.9% better from the field than they allows, outrebounded their opponents by 4.9 per game, had a turnover margin of +4.8, and stole the ball 7.2 times per game. 

 

San Diego State comes in third with 19 total criteria points.  BYU, Pittsburgh, and Texas come in next with 18 points; the Panthers have an R+T rating above 10.  The other three teams with PiRate Criteria scores showing themselves to be strong contenders for a Final Four berth are Syracuse, Purdue, and Duke. 

 

Florida, North Carolina, and UNLV are actually almost in a statistical tie with Duke, meaning those three are dark horse candidates for the Final Four.

 

Overall, this is the weakest field by far in the six tournaments where we have ranked the teams according to our criteria.  Looking back, this could be the weakest field since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. 

 

North Carolina State, Kansas, and Villanova won national titles in the past with less than stellar numbers.  We do not have all the statistics from those years, so we cannot really calculate criteria numbers for those three champions.  Could this be a season in which one team gets hot for six games and comes from out of the pack to win it all?  It could happen, but we are sticking with this mechanical system and going with its results.  Kansas, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, and Texas appear to be the best PiRate Criteria matches to past Final Four teams, and they are the quartet we officially pick to make it to Houston.  Syracuse becomes the wildcard team that could sneak into the mix.

 

Here is a look at the First Four Round One games and the 32 second round games.  The number in (parentheses) represents the PiRate Bracketnomics criteria number.

 

First Four Round

 

#16 Texas-San Antonio 19-13 (Elim) vs. #16 Alabama State 17-17 (Elim)

At first, we thought this was highly ironic, but upon further review, we consider it sort of a compliment.  These two teams both must be eliminated based on negative R+T ratings.  Of course, one of them must win this game so that they can advance to a 25-point or more loss in the next round.

 

Most of you filling out your brackets do not have to worry about these games in Dayton.  You get to turn in your choices after these games have been played.

 

UTSA has better criteria numbers after you factor out both teams’ R+T numbers. 

 

Prediction: Texas-San Antonio 64  Alabama State 55

 

 

#12 U A B 22-8 (2) vs. #12 Clemson 21-11 (1)

If you have been following the “experts” since the pairings were announced Sunday evening, then you know that these two teams do not belong in the tournament in their opinion.  It is not our mission statement to declare which teams should and should not have been included in the Big Dance, but we will tell you that Harvard and Saint Mary’s enjoyed Criteria scores several points better than these two teams, while Colorado and Virginia Tech had equal numbers to these two.

 

This game should be as close as the criteria scores show.  UAB has a one-point advantage in the criteria, but the Blazers just do not excel in any stage of the game.  Clemson’s strong point is forcing turnovers by way of steals, and that leads to a lot of cheap baskets.  Cheap baskets pay off big time in the NCAA Tournament, so we will take the Tigers in this one.

 

Prediction: Clemson 74  UAB 67

 

#11 Southern Cal 19-14 (-1) vs. #11 Virginia Commonwealth 23-11 (-1)

The winner of this game is going home two days later.  Neither team merits inclusion in the Big Dance this year. 

 

Southern Cal has no apparent weakness according to the PiRate Criteria.  In fact, they have a great resume—for an NIT team.

 

The Trojans outscore their opponents by four points per game, and they outshoot them by 3.3%.  They have a small rebounding margin of 1.2, and they have an even smaller turnover margin of 0.6.  They average six steals per game and have a R+T rating of 2.1.  On top of these modest numbers, their schedule was average.

 

VCU is much in the same boat as USC with two exceptions.  They have a negative turnover margin, but they also average 8.5 steals per game.

 

The only other difference in these teams is their records away from home.  USC won only 41% of their games, while VCU won 60%.

 

This one is quite tough to pick, but we will go with the Trojans due to their superior inside talent.  We expect USC to win the rebounding edge by at least five.

 

Prediction: Southern Cal  65  V C U  60

 

#16 UNC-Asheville 19-13 (-5) vs. #16 Arkansas-Little Rock 19-16 (-13)

Obviously, we have two teams that would not even merit NIT bids had they lost in the championship games of their conference tournaments.  UALR has one of the lowest Criteria Scores in the seven years we have been calculating this data.

 

UNC-Asheville actually has a couple of positive Criteria stats.  Their R+T is 5.5, which had it come against a more difficult schedule, would have made them worthy of becoming a possible team to watch in the Round of 64.

 

We will go with UNCA here, as schedule strength is about the same for both teams.

 

Prediction: UNC-Asheville 69  Arkansas-Little Rock 59

 

 

Second-Round Games

 

East Regional

 

#1 Ohio State 32-2 (21) vs. #16 UTSA (Elim)/Alabama State (Elim)

This game will be over quickly.  There will be no scare, not even for two TV timeouts.  The second highest Criteria score versus one of the teams with an R+T Rating of “Eliminate.”

 

The Buckeyes outscored their opponents by more than 17 points per game.  Their strength of schedule was 13 points better than UTSA and 16 points better than Alabama State. 

 

We will go under the theory that UTSA will be the opponent in this game.  Using our Criteria Rating, Ohio State figures to be 30-40 points better than UTSA.  Coach Thad Matta will definitely empty his bench early in this game, so the Buckeyes may “only win” by 25-30. 

 

Prediction: Ohio State 78  Texas-San Antonio 50

 

#8 George Mason 26-6 (8) vs. #9 Villanova 21-11 (5)

George Mason is the higher seed in this game, so if they win, it cannot really be considered an upset.

 

Villanova was on course to be a four-seed when the Wildcats were 16-5 and contending for the Big East Conference regular season title.  The Wildcats could not compete down low against the more physical teams in their league.

 

George Mason has a higher PiRate Criteria Score, but it is not an insurmountable advantage.  The key stat for this game is the R+T Rating.  For GMU, it is 6.8.  For VU, it is 4.9.  Considering that Villanova played a harder schedule, these numbers basically cancel each other out, thus making this a tossup game.

 

There are two variables to consider here.  George Mason performed much better on the road, and Villanova is banged up a bit.

 

Prediction: George Mason 66  Villanova 62

 

#5 West Virginia 20-11 (6) vs. #12 UAB (2)/Clemson (1)

We believe the Mountaineers will be facing Clemson in this game, but the prediction will hold up if they play UAB. 

 

West Virginia is not as good this season as last season, and the Mountaineers will not advance to the Final Four, or even the Elite Eight.  They are liable to be out by the end of the weekend.  However, they are strong enough to get into the Round of 32. 

 

The Mountaineers best attribute is that they put up decent numbers against one of the toughest schedules in the country.  Of the NCAA Tournament teams, only Georgetown played a tougher schedule.  They will have to limit turnovers, or else this game will be close and go down to the wire.  We believe Coach Bob Huggins will be able to keep the pace at a level he likes and not allow Clemson (or UAB) to force the Mountaineers into enough mistakes to turn the tide.

 

Prediction: West Virginia 69  Clemson 62 (Or UAB 58)

 

#4 Kentucky 25-8 (14) vs. #13 Princeton 25-6 (-2)

Princeton has pulled off the big upset in the past, and they came within a missed jumper at the buzzer of becoming the only #16 seed to beat a #1 seed.  However, that was two decades ago.  The Tigers have not been to the NCAA Tournament in seven years, and that big win over UCLA was 15 years ago. 

 

Kentucky is not the type of team that will allow Princeton’s style of play to affect their style of play.  The Wildcats should actually play better than their norm with fewer mistakes. 

 

We believe that Princeton will actually crumble under relentless man-to-man pressure and turn the ball over enough times in the opening minutes of the game to allow the Wildcats to open a quick double-digit lead.  This group of Cats tends to fiddle around a little once they get a quick double-digit lead and then play uninspired ball until the opponent makes a run.  Then, they go on the attack at the right time and put the game away.

 

Adolph Rupp had a team just like this in 1958.  They were called “The Fiddlin’ Five.”  They were also called National Champions.  We won’t go so far as to put UK into this category, but we will advance the Wildcats into the next round and then into the Sweet 16.

 

Prediction: Kentucky 72  Princeton 59

 

#6 Xavier 24-7 (8) vs. #11 Marquette 20-14 (3)

If you are looking for a tough, hard-fought game with two Midwestern teams, then tune into this game Friday evening.

 

If the Musketeers were a little more competent at forcing turnovers, they could be a dark horse candidate to advance to the Elite Eight.  XU shoots the ball well and plays well on defense when it comes to preventing a lot of easy shots.  They do well on the boards, and against a team that cannot exploit their ball-handling and ball-hawking deficiencies, they will hold their own inside.  The only other possible problem for the Musketeers is a lack of depth, but in the NCAA Tournaments, TV timeouts are longer.  It is hard to wear a team down with such long breaks every four or so minutes.

 

Marquette does not have enough depth to take advantage of Xavier’s lack of depth, so this factor will become a non-factor.  The Golden Eagles got to this tournament due to their ability to put the ball into the basket.  Marquette needs to shoot better than 46% to win, while Xavier is adept at holding teams under 45% as a rule.

 

Prediction: Xavier 71  Marquette 65

 

#3 Syracuse 26-7 (17) vs. #14 Indiana State 20-13 (-4)

Syracuse has been getting very little national exposure since their 18-0 start ended with an 8-7 finish.  The Orangemen are a team to watch in this tournament.  If not for a pedestrian 71% winning percentage away from the Carrier Dome, we would have them as one of the top four teams in this tournament.

 

Coach Jim Boeheim’s team outscores their opposition by 10.3 points per game; they outshoot them by 7.6%, and they outrebound them by 3.6 boards per game.  Their turnover margin is +1.9, and they averaged almost nine steals per game.  Their R+T Rating is 7.6, and their Strength of Schedule is somewhere between above-average and very good.  This is the Criteria Score of a team that will advance to the Sweet 16 and compete for an Elite Eight and Final Four berth.

 

Indiana State needs the return of Larry Bird to win this game.  They are too perimeter-oriented.  The Sycamores do not have the beef down low to contend in the paint, and even though Syracuse plays a 2-3 zone, teams rarely beat the Orangemen by firing up 25 long-range bombs.

 

This one smells like a blowout.

 

Prediction: Syracuse 81  Indiana State 62

 

#7 Washington 23-10 (13) vs. #10 Georgia 21-11 (2)

Washington is one of those teams that can play with anybody in this tournament—when they are playing up to their potential.  The Huskies could also exit in the first round if they play like they did the weekend they went to Oregon and Oregon State.

 

Georgia is much more consistent, but their best effort will not defeat the Huskies’ best effort.

 

Washington lacked the seasoned experience this season, and it showed when they ventured away from Seattle.  The Huskies lost to weaker opponents because they lacked the composure to win on foreign courts.  That changed when they arrived in Los Angeles for the Pac-10 Tournament.  Isaiah Thomas took over command of the team and led them to the tournament title.  This makes UW a scary and dangerous team capable of returning to the Sweet 16.

 

Georgia must really dominate the glass in this game, because we believe they will turn the ball over too many times against UW’s pressure man-to-man defense.  It is our opinion that the Bulldogs will play a little timidly at the start of this game and find themselves in a hole.

 

The Bulldogs had trouble against Alabama’s defense, and Washington is similar but with a much better offense.

 

Prediction: Washington 78  Georgia 70

 

#2 North Carolina 26-7 (15) vs. #15 Long Island 27-5 (-1)

 

Long Island is just the type of team that can forget that their opponent is a dynasty program that chews up and spits out little programs like this.

 

Teams from Brooklyn don’t intimidate easily, especially when they are led by a trio of Texans.  So, LIU will not be intimidated, but will they be talented enough to make a game of this contest?

 

That’s the rub.  They lack the defensive ability to slow down the Tar Heels, while Coach Roy Williams’ team will be able to hold the Blackbirds under their scoring average.  The big problem for LIU will be holding onto the ball, and we could see North Carolina forcing 20 turnovers in this game.  When the Tar Heels force more turnovers than they commit, they are almost unbeatable.  This game could be interesting for a short time, but it will eventually get out of hand.

 

Prediction: North Carolina 88  Long Island 70

 

West Regional

 

#1 Duke 30-4 (15) vs. #16 Hampton 24-8 (-8)

Duke has nothing to worry about here.  This will be like one of their November/December home games where they quickly put the cupcake away with a barrage of power and speed.  You know the type: a 37-point win over Princeton; a 34-point win over Miami of Ohio; a 52-point win over Colgate.

 

Hampton got to the Dance using an aggressive defense and three-point shooting barrage on offense.  Duke will not be affected by the defensive pressure, and they will cut off the open shots from the outside.  It will be a mercy killing, and it will be quick.  Look for the Blue Devils to be up by more than 15 points before the halfway point of the first half.  By the time Coach K empties the bench, the Blue Devils should be up by 25-30 points.

 

Prediction: Duke 81  Hampton 61

 

#8 Michigan 20-13 (Elim) vs. #9 Tennessee 19-14 (10)

Michigan is the highest-rated team that fails to meet our R+T Rating requirement, so the Wolverines are automatically tabbed as a first-round loser.

 

Coach Jim Beilein has been in a similar position before.  He guided a West Virginia team with not-so-flashy Criteria numbers to the Elite Eight, where they forced Louisville to come from 20 points down to rally for the victory.  That WVU team had one of the worst negative rebounding numbers of any team in Elite Eight history, but that team made few mistakes and had a nice turnover margin.

 

This Michigan team was only outrebounded by two a game, but they do not create enough extra possessions with their miniscule turnover margin of 1.4 and their average of just 4.7 steals per game.

 

Tennessee has been up and down, and the Volunteers are not going to make a repeat run to the Elite Eight this year.  However, Coach Bruce Pearl’s troops will control the boards in this game and maybe force more turnovers than they commit.  We figure that Tennessee will have 10 more opportunities to score in this game, and that is too many for the Wolverines to make up with their three-point shooting.

 

Prediction: Tennessee 74  Michigan 69

 

#5 Arizona 27-7 (3) vs. #12 Memphis 25-9 (-1)

Memphis was not going to earn an at-large bid this season had they failed to win the Conference USA Tournament.  They received an ideal first round opponent, and the Tigers actually have a fighting chance to pull off yet another classic #12-seed over #5-seed upset.

 

Arizona needs to pound the ball inside and rely on numerous offensive rebounds to win this game.  Other teams might be able to exploit Memphis’s poor ball-handling skills, but the Wildcats do not have the defensive acumen to take advantage here.

 

Memphis will try to make this an up-tempo game where they can neutralize Arizona’s height advantage inside.  It has a chance of working, but Arizona probably has too much power inside and just enough quickness to stop the Tigers’ transition game.

 

Prediction: Arizona 76  Memphis 69

 

#4 Texas 27-7 (18) vs. #13 Oakland 25-9 (3)

This has become a popular upset pick in the media.  Oakland has generated a lot of positive press, and many “experts” are calling for the upset in this game.  We are not one of them.  Not only do we believe the Longhorns will take care of Oakland with relative ease in this game, we believe Texas is a force to be reckoned with in the next two or three rounds. 

 

Let’s look at Texas’ Criteria Rating.  At 18, the ‘Horns rate as our sixth best team in the tournament.  They have a 13.5 point scoring margin, a 7.1% field goal margin, a 6.6 rebounding margin, and a 1.2 turnover margin.  Their only Achilles Heel is a low amount of steals resulting in a R+T Rating of 8.3.  Had that number been above 10, we would be selecting Coach Rick Barnes’ team for the Final Four.

 

Oakland won this year with strong rebounding and an excellent ability to force their opponents into bad shots.  Center Keith Benson is a future NBA player, but he is not enough to propel the Golden Grizzlies into the next round.

 

Prediction: Texas 77  Oakland 65

 

#6 Cincinnati 25-8 (9) vs. #11 Missouri 23-9 (10)

On paper, this looks like the best game of this round between a team with contrasting styles.

 

Cincinnati is one of the top defensive teams in the tournament.  The Bearcats are tough inside, and they have quality depth to continue playing hard in the paint. 

 

Missouri uses the “40 minutes of Hell” approach that Coach Mike Anderson learned under his mentor Nolan Richardson.  The Tigers press full court and run the fast break as often as they get the chance.  They are perimeter-oriented and can score a lot of points in a hurry.

 

When we try to decide tossup games, we look to the all-important defense and rebounding stats, since that is what wins close games in the Big Dance. 

 

Missouri is vulnerable in both of these crucial areas.  They have given up a lot of cheap baskets this year when teams solved their press.  The Tigers were outrebounded by 1.7 boards per game.

 

Cincinnati owns a +2.7 rebounding margin, and the Bearcats held onto the ball quite competently.  We believe Coach Mick Cronin’s crew will advance.

 

Prediction: Cincinnati 68  Missouri 65

 

#3 Connecticut 26-9 (9) vs. #14 Bucknell 25-8 (-4)

Ask Kansas Coach Bill Self if it is wise to underestimate Bucknell.  The Bison know how to hold onto the ball and work for intelligent shots.  Give them an opening, and they can bury you with a high field goal percentage.

 

Connecticut did the unthinkable by winning five games in five days.  Their defense does not get the merit it deserves, because Kemba Walker gets more attention for his offensive antics.  The Huskies actually held teams under 40% from the field.

 

Coach Jim Calhoun knows how to prepare a team for tournament action.  He will have UConn ready for this game, and the Huskies will not overlook the Bison.

 

Prediction: Connecticut 73  Bucknell 58

 

#7 Temple 25-7 (5) vs. #10 Penn State 19-14 (-1)

Temple’s score must be tempered by the fact that they are a wounded team coming into this tournament.  Two starters suffered injuries late in the season, and one is out for the remainder of the year, while the other may or may not be ready to play.  We must throw out Temple’s score of “5” in the PiRate Criteria, because 40% of the key players that produced that number will either not play or be greatly less effective.

 

Penn State is a lot like Southern Cal in this tournament.  The Nittany Lions have the look of a strong NIT team.  Aside from a so-so record against a strong schedule, they really have little to offer outside of one star player. 

 

We believe this Keystone State rivalry game will be close, and it could come down to the last shot.  Because the Owls are limping, we will go with the Big Ten representative.

 

Prediction: Penn State 59  Temple 56

 

#2 San Diego State 32-2 (19) vs. #15 Northern Colorado 21-10 (-6)

Most of you reading this probably cannot remember Texas Western University, but you may have scene the movie where the Miners were too quick for Kentucky and pulled off the big upset to win the 1966 National Championship.  Maybe some of you remember the Long Beach State 49ers ascension into the top 10 under Jerry Tarkanian and then Lute Olson.  Still more can remember when Tark the Shark moved to UNLV and turned the Runnin’ Rebels into a national power.

 

San Diego State is the next Western team to fit this bill.  The Aztecs are legitimate contenders to advance deep into this tournament.  They have few exploitable weaknesses, and they are the best team West of the Rockies.  Coach Steve Fisher knows how to get teams ready for tournament play, as he has three Final Fours on his resume and one National Championship.

 

SDSU’s PiRate Criteria numbers are flashy.  Their scoring margin is 13.3 points per game.  Their FG% margin is 7.1%.  They outrebound their opposition by almost seven per game, and they force 1.6 more turnovers than they commit.  Their one weak spot is a pedestrian 6.2 steals average.  If they run up against a more powerful team inside, they could have trouble getting enough extra scoring opportunities.

 

Northern Colorado will not be one of those teams that can cause trouble for the Aztecs.  The Bears are a good rebounding team, but their rebounding prowess came against a schedule that rates 10 points weaker than San Diego State’s schedule.

 

Prediction: San Diego State 73  Northern Colorado 51

 

Southwest Regional

#1 Kansas 32-2 (23) vs. #16 Boston U 21-13 (-11)

Kansas is a team on a mission.  The Jayhawks will not allow a repeat of what happened last year, and that extra incentive should be enough to send KU to Houston.

 

Kansas has the top PiRate Criteria Score this year.  They meet the basic requirements that most prior National Champions have met—scoring margin: 17.2; FG% margin: 11.7; Rebounding margin: 7.8; Turnover Margin: 0.9; Steals per game: 7.9; R+T Ratings: 9.5.

 

How do you beat this year’s KU team?  Kansas State and Texas pulled it off by matching up well inside and going head-to-head with them in the paint.

 

Boston U has the second lowest PiRate Criteria score of the 65 teams that have positive R+T Ratings.  The Terriers are way overmatched in this game, and they will have to be glad they just made it here.

 

Prediction: Kansas 90  Boston U 62

 

#8 U N L V 24-8 (15) vs. #9 Illinois 19-13 (1)

If our ratings are worth their salt, then this game should not be all that close.  UNLV may be just the third best team in the Mountain West, but the MWC was better overall this year than the Pac-10.  Third best in the MWC makes the Runnin’ Rebels one of the dozen or so teams capable of making a two weekend run.

 

Coach Lon Kruger has taken two different teams to the Elite Eight (Kansas State and Florida).  His teams play intelligently without being flashy.

 

UNLV went 24-3 against teams not named Brigham Young or San Diego State.  They are not particularly strong on the boards, and this will eventually be their downfall.  The Rebels shoot the ball brilliantly, and they alter enough opponent shots to force a lower field goal percentage.  They also take care of the ball and do not make a lot of floor mistakes.

 

Illinois is an inconsistent, underachieving team.  This can be dangerous for the prognosticator, because it is difficult if not impossible to predict which schizophrenic state will appear for each game.

 

The Illini are not particularly strong on the glass or at taking care of the ball, and that is a recipe for disaster when the opponent is as good as UNLV.  Even if Illinois comes out playing their best basketball, it may not be enough to beat UNLV playing their typical game.

 

Prediction: U N L V  72  Illinois 64

 

#5 Vanderbilt 23-10 (5) vs. #12 Richmond 26-7 (2)

Here is another game getting a lot of attention due to its upset potential.  Historically, the #12 seed produces the a lot of great upsets.

 

This game could go either way.  Both teams have exploitable weaknesses, and it just so happens that both teams’ have the assets capable of exploiting the other’s weaknesses.

 

Let’s start with Vanderbilt.  The Commodores are not particularly strong on the defensive perimeter.  Worthy opponents have been able to beat them off the drive and get a lot of open inside shots.  This weak perimeter defense has also led to frontcourt players having to help, thus leaving open holes near the basket.

 

Richmond’s offense is a modified version of the Princeton Offense.  The Spiders have the talent to get open shots inside and in the five to ten-foot range.

 

Richmond cannot rebound against more physical teams.  The Spiders make up for their rebounding liabilities by seldom throwing the ball away.

 

Vanderbilt has an excellent physical presence inside with three beefy players that can rebound the ball on offense and defense.

 

So, which team gets the edge in our PiRate Ratings?  We always look to defense in rebounding in tossup games.  Vanderbilt holds the rebounding edge, while Richmond holds the defensive edge.  It is basically a wash, so we have to look elsewhere.  While Richmond has been much better away from home, Vanderbilt’s schedule is seven points more difficult.  We’ll go with the power conference team, but not by much

 

Prediction: Vanderbilt 70  Richmond 67

 

#4 Louisville 25-9 (12) vs. #13 Morehead State 24-9 (3)

This should be an interesting game, but in the end the big brothers are going to defeat their little brothers in this battle of two Bluegrass State teams.

 

40 years ago this week, another little brother upset a big brother on their way to a surprise appearance in the Final Four (later vacated).  In 1971, Western Kentucky did not just upset Kentucky, the Hilltoppers ran the Wildcats off the floor.  Can there be a repeat two score later?  No!

 

Coach Rick Pitino’s Cardinals are vulnerable on the boards, and Morehead State has the nation’s best rebounder in the nation in Kenneth Faried.  However, the Eagles do not have enough talent or depth to keep up with Louisville.  They may emerge with a slight rebounding edge in this game, but it will not be enough to make up for all the open shots the Cardinals will get.

 

Louisville is going to run into trouble when they meet up with a team that can rebound and play credible defense.  That would be Kansas in the Sweet 16.  Until then, they have a relatively easy route to the Sweet 16.

 

Prediction: Louisville 78  Morehead State 62

 

#6 Georgetown 21-10 (8) vs. #11 Southern Cal (-1)/Va. Commonwealth (-1)

Last year, we discussed Georgetown’s vulnerabilities and the probability that they would fail to make it past the first weekend.  We expected the Hoyas to fall as a favorite in their second game, but they were a one and done team.

 

This year’s team is not much better than last year’s Hoya team, but they received a much more favorable draw.

 

Coach John Thompson III’s Hoyas once again have a rather low R+T Rating thanks to a turnover margin of -1.9 and a low amount of steals per game.  They will exit from the tournament in the next round unless there is a monumental upset in their pairing.

 

Neither USC nor VCU has the talent to take advantage of Georgetown’s deficiencies.  The three teams combined have a R+T rating below Purdue’s.

 

One additional note: The Hoyas will be a tad bit better than their Criteria Score in the tournament.  Chris Wright suffered a hand fracture in the middle of the schedule, and he is expected to be near 100% for the tournament.  You have to add maybe one point to their Criteria Score, but that is not enough to put them over the top in their second game.

 

Prediction: Georgetown 69  Southern Cal 61 (or VCU 60)

 

#3 Purdue 25-7 (16) vs. #14 St. Peter’s 20-13 (-7)

If only… Purdue fans will never know just how good their team might have been with Robbie Hummel joining JaJuan Johnson and E’Twaun Moore playing together.  This would have been the best Boilermaker team since Rick Mount led Purdue to the Championship Game against UCLA in 1969.

 

The Boilermakers no longer have that one glaring weakness that Gene Keady’s teams had and thus prevented Purdue from getting past the second round.  This team does well on the boards like most of those past Purdue teams, but they are particularly strong when it comes to forcing turnovers and taking advantage by converting steals into points.  It is the way many teams go on runs that put opponents out of commission.

 

St. Peter’s just barely avoided being immediately eliminated with a negative R+T Rating.  They squeaked by at 0.1.  It might as well be a negative number, as the Peacocks were outrebounded by 0.4 per game and had a turnover margin of -0.9 against a schedule that was four points below average and seven points weaker than the schedule Purdue faced.

 

Prediction: Purdue 73  St. Peter’s 56

 

#7 Texas A&M 24-8 (8) vs. #10 Florida State 21-10 (2)

The Big 12’s third best team has enough talent to challenge for a Sweet 16 berth.  We’ll leave the next round for another time and talk about this game.

 

The Aggies have no glaring weakness, and they have a few strengths, namely rebounding and defense (which wins games in the NCAA Tournament).  They are much like Kansas Lite.  A&M was not a team of surprises during the regular season.  They beat the teams they were supposed to beat and failed to upset the teams better than they were.  We expect the trend to continue.  They are better than the Seminoles.

 

Florida State does not take good care of the ball, and that costs them in confrontations against good opponents.  The Seminoles do not play particularly well away from Tallahassee, and they should be making a quick exit from the Dance.

 

Prediction: Texas A&M 73  Florida State 65

 

#2 Notre Dame 26-6 (11) vs. #15 Akron 23-12 (-9)

This is the best Irish team since Digger Phelps led Notre Dame in the late 1980’s.  Throw in the fact that this team has a chip on its shoulders following a first round exit last year, and the Irish have to be considered the Sweet 16 favorite in their four-team pairing this weekend.

 

The Irish finished the regular season with a scoring margin of 10.4 points per game.  Down the stretch, they went 7-2 against teams in this tournament.  The Selection Committee placed Notre Dame in a bracket that should provide a very memorable Sweet 16 contest against one of their most bitter arch-rivals.

 

Akron has a big seven-foot center, but the Zips do not rebound the ball all that well.  Zeke Marshall, the aforementioned big man, concentrates his efforts on blocking shots, and he frequently is not in position to rebound the ball.  So, the blocked shot frequently turns into a made basket off an offensive rebound.  The Zips did not fare well on the road this year, and with a considerably weaker schedule than average, this does not bode well.

 

Prediction:  Notre Dame 81  Akron 57

 

Southeast Regional

#1 Pittsburgh 27-5 (18) vs. #16 UNC-Asheville (-5)/U A L R (-13)

One of us here at the PiRate Ratings might be dating himself, but he sees a lot of the 1962 Cincinnati Bearcats in this year’s Pitt team.  The Panthers have a dominating inside power game that will pulverize any finesse team that cannot hit 10 three-pointers.  Neither UNCA nor UALR has a remote chance to make this game a close contest.

 

Pitt outscored their opposition by 13.1 points per game.  This stat looks even better when you factor in that they compiled this gaudy stat playing in a league that produced 11 NCAA Tournament teams.  The Panthers outshot their opponents by 7.6%, and they totally dominated the glass with a 10.4 rebounding advantage.  If you are thinking the way to beat them is to play a packed in zone, think again.  Ashton Gibbs can bury you from outside with his near 50% three-point accuracy, and Brad Wannamaker can still get the ball inside to one of the bruisers waiting to punish you with a thunder dunk.

 

Only a negative turnover margin prevents the Panthers from being there with Kansas as a co-favorite for winning all the marbles.

 

Pitt’s cupcake opponent will have to be happy with winning their First Four game, because they will be humiliated in this game.

 

Prediction: Pittsburgh 78  UNC-Asheville 54 (or UALR 48)

 

#8 Butler 23-9 (7) vs. #9 Old Dominion 27-6 (10)

This is the second best matchup in this round, and the winner will put a scare into Pittsburgh in the next round and even have a decent shot at the upset.

 

Butler is now the hunted rather than the hunter.  The Bulldogs will not sneak up on anybody this year.  More importantly, they are not as talented as they were last year.  The Bulldogs fared much better on the road last year than this season.  However, down the stretch, Butler started to look like a team proficient enough to get past the first weekend once again.

 

Old Dominion has the talent to advance past the first weekend as well.  The Monarchs are a miniature version of Pittsburgh, the team they would face in the next round should they win this game.

 

ODU is the nation’s number one rebounding team with a +12.2 margin.  The Monarchs’ schedule was not outstanding, but it was on par with several teams from the so-called power conferences, and they finished 6-4 against teams in this tournament.  This is a better ODU team than the one that upset Notre Dame in the first round last year, and this game should be one you do not want to miss.

 

 

Prediction: Old Dominion 72  Butler 70 in overtime

 

#5 Kansas State 22-10 (9) vs. #12 Utah State 30-3 (14)

This is the one game where a number 12 seed winning would not really be all that much of an upset.  Utah State should have been a top eight seed in this tournament.  If we were conspiracy buffs, we would say that the Selection Committee searched for a team that the Aggies do not match up with all that well and placed them in this spot to verify their actions.

 

Kansas State does not take care of the ball well enough to advance very deep into this tournament, but their first game opponent cannot take advantage of that weakness.

 

Utah State has dominated their opponents by forcing them to play a patient half-court game with very little scoring in transition.  They prefer to work the ball patiently for a good shot and then force opponents to take a low-percentage shot.  Thus, the Aggies outrebound their opponents, but they do so by forcing more bad shots than by out-leaping their opponents.

 

Kansas State has the talent to force Utah State to play at a quicker tempo and force them to defend one-on-one.  Jacob Pullen is a poor man’s (and smaller) Derrick Rose.  He can break down most opponents off the dribble, and he should be able to force USU to resort to some type of combination defense to keep him from going wild.

 

What scares us most about Utah State is that they had two opportunities to show they are deserving of their lofty ranking.  They lost to BYU and to Georgetown, and they never really threatened to pull of the upset in either game.

 

This is one game where we are going to go against our own chalk.  Kansas State’s schedule was seven points tougher, and the Wildcats can exploit the Aggies’ weaknesses.

 

Prediction: Kansas State 70  Utah State 63

 

#4 Wisconsin 23-8 (7) vs. #13 Belmont 30-4 (9)

This game has become the most-picked upset special around the nation.  Belmont is being compared with Butler of last year.  The Bruins are lofty of all this attention-gathering admiration, but Wisconsin is not the Washington Generals.

 

Belmont has the highest scoring margin in the nation at 18.4 points per game.  The Bruins outshot their opposition by 5.7% per game, and they took a lot of three-point attempts.  They outrebounded their opponents by 3.9, and they had an eye-popping 5.3 turnover margin.  They share the top steals per game average in this tournament with Missouri at 9.7, and their R+T Rating is the best in the tournament at 16.2 (three better than number two Ohio State).

 

Of course, these statistics were compiled against inferior competition.  Belmont’s schedule strength is nine points below the national average and a dozen below their first round opponent.  Against the opponents that made it to this tournament, they were 1-3.  They beat Alabama State by 13.  The three losses were on the road to in-state rivals Tennessee (twice) and Vanderbilt, but they led in the second half of those games.

 

The last time Belmont was in the Big Dance, the Bruins came within a missed last shot of sending Duke home.   

 

Wisconsin was not expected to be this good in 2011.  This was supposed to be a minor rebuilding season for the Badgers.  The Badgers usually run Coach Bo Ryan’s Swing Offense with great efficiency, rarely turning the ball over.  They outscored their opponents by 9.9 points per game, and they outshot they outrebounded them by 3.8 boards per game. 

 

The Badgers have been a hot and cold team this year.  When they have been hot, they have been nearly unbeatable, because Ryan’s teams always limit possessions.  When they have been cold, they have been easily beatable, because Ryan’s teams always limit possessions.  They finished the season as cold as ice, so the Badgers must be considered a slight underdog in this game.

 

Prediction: Belmont 74  Wisconsin 70

 

#6 St. John’s 21-11 (9) vs. #11 Gonzaga 24-9 (13)

Here is a game where we believe the seedings should be switched.  Gonzaga has been here enough times to be considered a regular in the NCAA Tournament, like Duke, Kansas, Ohio State, and Connecticut.  This makes a baker’s dozen consecutive appearances in the Big Dance for the Bulldogs. 

 

In past years, Gonzaga had a big scorer that could take over games.  Adam Morrison comes to mind.  This year, the Zags are more difficult to prepare for, because they are more team-oriented.  There is not a big star on the roster, but all five starters are capable of taking the team on his shoulders with a hot night.

 

In their nine-game winning streak to close the season, Gonzaga eliminated Saint Mary’s from the Dance party with two victories.  The Bulldogs scoring margin in those nine games was 76-58.  This is a good team playing its best ball of the year, and we expect Coach Mark Few to win yet another NCAA Tournament game.

 

St. John’s comes into the tournament minus one of its stars.  Starting forward D. J. Kennedy went down for the season with a knee injury in the Big East Tournament, and the Red Storm is now suspect in the paint.  Their Criteria Score of nine should be discounted by two to three points.  It is enough to take this contest from tossup status to near-comfortable status for Gonzaga.

 

Prediction: Gonzaga 74  St. John’s 66

 

#3 Brigham Young 30-4 (18) vs. #14 Wofford 21-12 (-1)

So, you didn’t get a chance to see Pete Maravich play at LSU in 1968, 1969, or 1970, eh?  We must admit that nobody will ever be the collegiate equal for Maravich, but Jimmer Fredette may be the closest thing to him.

 

Throw out the floppy socks and floppy Beatles haircut and throw out some of the most unbelievable passes in the history of the game (so unbelievable that Maravich’s teammates frequently could not see them coming), and Fredette is not that far behind Maravich.

 

The sports nation will be turning its eyes to this game just to see if Fredette can make a run at a single game scoring mark.  If we remember correctly, Notre Dame’s Austin Carr set the mark back in 1970 with 61 points against Ohio U in a regional qualifier game.

 

BYU may have been a strong Final Four contender had Brandon Davies not loved his girlfriend so much.  The Cougars averaged 8.7 fewer points per game once Davies was suspended. 

 

Wofford will not be able to take much advantage of Davies’ absence.  The Terriers fared well in all PiRate Criteria categories, but they did not meet even the minimum “numbers to look for” in any category, and their schedule strength was five points below the norm. 

 

Prediction: Brigham Young 75  Wofford 63

 

#7 U C L A 22-10 (-3) vs. #10 Michigan State 19-14 (1)

If only this were a few years ago.  Neither of these historically dominating teams is going to make waves in this year’s tournament, and the winner will be around for just one more game.

 

UCLA would be a national title contender if Kevin Love had stuck around for four years.  Imagine Love as a senior on this team.  Can you say Bill Walton-like numbers?  Alas, the Bruins must get by with a couple of well above-average forwards instead of the best three-man tandem in the nation.

 

The Bruins have the worst turnover margin of any team in this tournament.  At -3.4, UCLA would need to dominate on the boards, and while they usually win that battle, it is anything but dominating.

 

Michigan State’s one asset year in and year out under Coach Tom Izzo has been their rebounding acumen.  For most teams, a +4.3 edge on the boards would be considered outstanding, but in East Lansing, this is considered a down year. 

 

Neither team has done all that well away from their home court this season, and there really is only one stat where one team stands out ahead of the other.  MSU’s schedule was four points tougher than UCLA’s schedule.  That’s our spread for this game.  

 

Prediction: Michigan State 64  UCLA 60

 

#2 Florida 26-7 (15) vs. #15 UC-Santa Barbara 18-13 (-10)

The Gators looked like a potential Final Four team in the last month, at least when they were not playing Kentucky.  UCSB is not Kentucky. 

 

Florida tends to commit too many floor mistakes to win four games in this year’s tournament.  They have enough talent to get through the first weekend, but we do not see the Gators extending their stay after that.

 

UCSB upset Long Beach State to get here, and the Gauchos are one of the weakest teams in the tournament according to our Criteria Score.  With negative rebounding and turnover margins, they just barely escape automatic elimination with a R+T rating of 0.3. 

 

Prediction: Florida 76  U C S B  54

 

 

 

Our Bracket

 

You have seen the 32 teams that we believe will win the second round games.  Here is how we fill out the rest of our bracket.

 

Third Round Winners

Ohio State over George Mason

Kentucky over West Virginia

Syracuse over Xavier

North Carolina over Washington

Duke over Tennessee

Texas over Arizona

Connecticut over Cincinnati

San Diego State over Penn State

Kansas over UNLV

Louisville over Vanderbilt

Purdue over Georgetown

Notre Dame over Texas A&M

Pittsburgh over Old Dominion

Kansas State over Belmont

Gonzaga over Brigham Young

Florida over Michigan State

 

Sweet 16 Winners

Ohio State over Kentucky

Syracuse over North Carolina

Texas over Duke

San Diego State over Connecticut

Kansas over Louisville

Purdue over Notre Dame

Pittsburgh over Kansas State

Florida over Gonzaga

 

Elite 8 Winners

Ohio State over Syracuse

Texas over San Diego State

Kansas over Purdue

Pittsburgh over Florida

 

Semifinal Winners

Ohio State over Texas

Kansas over Pittsburgh

 

National Championship

Kansas over Ohio State

Sweet 16 Preview

 

From Sweet to Elite

Advanced Level Bracketnomics

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

East Regional

 

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

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

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

 

Prediction: Kentucky 88  Cornell 64

 

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

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

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

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

Prediction: West Virginia 73  Washington 66

 

South Regional

 

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

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

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

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

Prediction: Baylor 78  St. Mary’s 71

 

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

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

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

Prediction: Duke 81  Purdue 67

 

Midwest Regional

 

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

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

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

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

Prediction: Ohio State 69  Tennessee 63

 

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

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

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

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

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

Prediction: Michigan State 56  Northern Iowa 51

 

 

West Regional

 

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

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

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

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

Prediction: Syracuse 74  Butler 60

 

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

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

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

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

Prediction: Kansas State 77  Xavier 61

 

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