After another weird March Madness, I was wondering what to think of college basketball's power teams. It seems like mid-majors are catching up, so the definition of what a "power" team is might be changing. I want to focus on teams that have good programs but can't win in the tournament. This will not be a very in-depth analysis of the college game, because frankly, I haven't paid much attention to it since graduating and have merely dabbled to get a look at pro prospects.
I was chuckling to a few Pitt fans (having grown up in the middle of the Pitt - Penn State rivalry, I always liked to rib them, even if basketball isn't really the main sport to do so over) about their loss to Butler. I remarked that Pitt went from being a surprisingly good program to now maybe being a little overrated. I said that, while they have had amazing success in the regular season, they sure seem to fall apart quickly in the big dance.
Several people told me that Pitt is overachieving, given that Western PA locally does not care about basketball nearly as much as football, they don't get top recruits, that they don't have the glamour of the other Big East programs, and they have to scrap for people. I won't argue with that. But since they can beat those other Big East teams in the regular season, and the Big East is maybe the strongest conference around (and put 11 schools in the tourney this year), why can't they win in March? Are they now one of the biggest chokers? Or are they just overachievers whose talent level is exposed late? I don't know. But I wanted to have some data.
I decided to look at which major basketball programs had the most embarrassing losses in the tournament recently. I knew some obvious ones off the top of my head, but I wanted to go back and check for the past decade or so.
What counts as an embarrassing loss? I decided to qualify it as this:
A team loses to another team slotted at least 6 spots less than them (1 loses to 7 or lower, 2 loses to 8 or lower);
1 and 2 seeds who don't get out of first weekend;
3 seed or 4 seed loses in the first round.
I think that's pretty good for determining an embarrassing loss. If you are a 1 or 2 seed, the NCAA committee expects you to go pretty far. Not making it out of the first weekend is a disappointment. 3 and 4 seeds shouldn't lose in the first round. 5 seeds do often, as we know, but it hurts.
Let's look at some major programs with some bad losses in the tourney over the past 15 years....
Kansas
1998 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend
2005 - 3 lost to 14 in first game
2006 - 4 lost to 13 in first game
2010 - 1 lost to 9 in first weekend
2011 - 1 lost to 11 (but made elite eight)
Kansas has had some awful, awful showings. They couldn't make a final four in the late 90's with a stud lineup that included Paul Pierce, Jacque Vaughn, Raef LaFrentz and others. They couldn't have had an easier route this year, but blew it. They have a lot of bad upsets... but, of course, they won it all in 2008, almost won it all in 2003, and made another Final Four in 2002. That's 3 Final Fours in a decade, which is pretty nice. Considering their recruiting, they really should be a contender every year, so the pressure is high.
Duke
1997 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2008 - 2 lost to 7 in first weekend
Duke doesn't have a ton of very bad losses, but they have a lot of losing in the Sweet Sixteen, which I did not include on here. Considering their recruiting, they should be a 1 or 2 seed every year... and they are, usually. For all their losses as a 1 seed before the Final Four, they do have two titles and another FF appearance this decade, plus a near title in '99. Although I will contend that they never faced anyone that great last year. Yes, I'm still pissed.
Cincinnati
1998 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2000 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2002 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend
The Bearcats under Bob Huggins were an erratic team. They recruited well by recruiting shady guys, dominated a mid major, and always seems to blow it in the tourney. But, he did get them to a Final Four in the early 90's. And they might have done more in 2000 with a healthy Kenyon Martin.
Wisconsin
1999 - 5 lost to 12 in first game
2007 - 2 lost to 7 in first weekend
2008 - 3 lost to 10 (but they did make sweet sixteen)
2010 - 4 lost to 12 in first weekend
It's hard to believe that Wisconsin is even considered a power, but they usually get a decent seed for the tournament. I don't think they get any of the best recruits in the Big Ten, but they win in the regular season. Are they comparable to Pitt? They have their one shining moment, though, making the Final Four as an 8 seed.
Wake Forest
2003 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2005 - 2 lost to 7 in first weekend
2009 - 4 lost to 13 in first game
Wake Forest isn't a consistent power, but they've had some very good teams and 3 good players. They haven't made a Final Four despite a few good years from Tim Duncan and Chris Paul. Duncan did make the Elite Eight, but to have a dominant big man for 4 years and later the best point guard for 2 ... and never get to the Final Four? Somewhat disappointing?
Vanderbilt
2008 - 4 lost to 13 in first game
2010 - 4 lost to 13 in first game
2011 - 5 lost to 12 in first game
I didn't think Vanderbilt was such a consistent tournament team, but they make it more often that not. Considering that they are the only academically-minded school in the SEC, I guess it's nice that they can compete. It would be helpful if they ever won a game, though. (They did make a Sweet Sixteen earlier this decade.)
Stanford
1999 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2000 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend
2004 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend
For a while, Mike Montgomery had Stanford at the top of the Pac Ten. He made a surprise Final Four trip in 1998 and helped them get big seeds for a while before he left. They had a few bad losses as high seeds, however, and haven't done much in the past five years.
Georgetown
2008 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2010 - 3 lost to 14 in first game
After making a Final Four in 2007, Georgetown has done awful in the tournament despite some good players and some high seeds. They don't recruit like they did in the 80's, but they do have access to the D.C. metro area, which has produced some of the best talent of late. If it wasn't for that '07 run, they might be considered one of the biggest disappointments.
Pitt
2002 - 3 lost to 10 (but did make sweet sixteen)
2006 - 5 lost to 13 in first weekend
2011 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend
Lastly, here's Pitt. Since 2002, they've been in the tourney consistently. They've had a couple high seeds and a couple mid seeds. They only made the Elite Eight once, no Final Four. They only have 3 losses that stand out, and two of them weren't extremely terrible. They're less of a choker than some other big name programs... but, they don't have that Final Four appearance to give them some credibility. Out of all these programs I've listed, most have made the last weekend at least once. Pitt has not, despite some chances.
Let's try one more stat: I'm going to list all the schools that have gotten a number one seed over the past 15 years and how many times they did it, since Pitt has done it twice. Let's see....
Duke - 10 times a # 1 seed
Kansas - 7 times
North Carolina - 6 times
Michigan State, UConn, Arizona, Kentucky, Stanford - 3 times
Pitt, Ohio State, Illinois, Memphis - 2 times
Syracuse, UCLA, Florida, Villanova, Louisville, Washington, St. Joseph's, Oklahoma, Texas, Cincinnati, Maryland, Auburn, Minnesota - once
As I expected, Pitt is the only team in the past 15 years to receive a # 1 seed more than once, but yet not make a Final Four in that span. [Notice that a lot of these schools did NOT make the Final Four in the year that they got the # 1 seed, but in another year.] Out of the 25 teams here, only 5 of them did not make any Final Four in the span.
And as for the teams that just had one great showing... Pitt is not just a one time wonder (like St. Joe's or Auburn or Minnesota); they've had several high seeds. That seems disappointing.
I don't know if these number suggest Pitt is a failure or not. There are so many factors here, from recruiting to officiating to the parity that seems to exist now in college basketball. Pitt's staff from Ben Howland to Jame Dixon to the whole athletic department deserves a ton of credit for turning them around. I never expected them to become a perennial power back in the late 90's. I thought maybe their football team would return to some relevance, but basketball has been way more successful. I just don't know what to make of their tournament problems. As Gene Keady or John Chaney will tell you, having a good program but not making any Final Fours will leave you wanting. We'll see if Dixon can get them there.
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
brackets 09
In a saddened state for the pro game, the college game remains strong, because you can't pay the players.... right?
[insert early 90's UNLV joke]
I haven't paid much attention this year, so I am not entering any real (i.e. paid) bracket pools. Not that I ever did.... cough.... but I'm not this year because I didn't study enough, and when I did recently, I found that I liked zero teams to win it all.
That's right, zero.
Usually, there a few teams that feel good, or at least one or two obvious favorites, even if you know they'll probably fail. This year, I have an overwhelming sense of meh about all the big teams. In my previous March Madness columns, I've listed a bunch of rules for eliminating teams. They've been pretty good for me over the years. Eventually, though, the process of elimination only goes so far and you have to pick teams you actually like. This year, I really don't like anyone.
UNC and UConn are big name picks, but they both have key people missing and I wonder about their depth. Pitt always falls apart in the tourney because they don't have shooting. Duke relies too much on shooting and doesn't have enough inside help, which has hurt them for the past 4 years. Michigan State is unimpressive. Kansas and Memphis did surprisingly well considering all the people they lost, but it's hard to make big runs twice with that many changes. Louisville is playing well, but I didn't really hear much about them during the season until they suddenly won the Big East tourney and got a # 1 seed. I watched them to get a view on draft prospect Earl Clark, and nothing really stood out. Oklahoma is intriguing, although I hate to go with a team led by underclassmen, although it doesn't really matter anymore. But they seem too obvious? Maybe?
Those are the top 9 teams in the country, and I have problems with all of them. Someone has to win, but I don't know who. There are some teams in the next range whom I like for upsets - Villanova, Washington, Wake Forest, Arizona State, Missouri, maybe UCLA. I don't like Gonzaga, despite their record. I also think that one of the many Big East teams that isn't getting hype - Nova, Marquette, West Virginia - will go farther than some of the others, like in '96.
My instinctive final four was Washington, Louisville, UNC, and Villanova. Other times, I went with all four # 1 seeds (never would've before last year, but the barrier has been broken). Oklahoma is tempting, but UNC has always been dependable to at least make it to the final four. My trouble bracket this year is Louisville's - I don't feel good about them, Michigan State, or Kansas. Wake Forest could pull it off but they could lose early too.
As for the finals? UNC-Lousiville or UNC-UConn will be popular choices. I said UNC over UW. But I don't trust anyone.
[insert early 90's UNLV joke]
I haven't paid much attention this year, so I am not entering any real (i.e. paid) bracket pools. Not that I ever did.... cough.... but I'm not this year because I didn't study enough, and when I did recently, I found that I liked zero teams to win it all.
That's right, zero.
Usually, there a few teams that feel good, or at least one or two obvious favorites, even if you know they'll probably fail. This year, I have an overwhelming sense of meh about all the big teams. In my previous March Madness columns, I've listed a bunch of rules for eliminating teams. They've been pretty good for me over the years. Eventually, though, the process of elimination only goes so far and you have to pick teams you actually like. This year, I really don't like anyone.
UNC and UConn are big name picks, but they both have key people missing and I wonder about their depth. Pitt always falls apart in the tourney because they don't have shooting. Duke relies too much on shooting and doesn't have enough inside help, which has hurt them for the past 4 years. Michigan State is unimpressive. Kansas and Memphis did surprisingly well considering all the people they lost, but it's hard to make big runs twice with that many changes. Louisville is playing well, but I didn't really hear much about them during the season until they suddenly won the Big East tourney and got a # 1 seed. I watched them to get a view on draft prospect Earl Clark, and nothing really stood out. Oklahoma is intriguing, although I hate to go with a team led by underclassmen, although it doesn't really matter anymore. But they seem too obvious? Maybe?
Those are the top 9 teams in the country, and I have problems with all of them. Someone has to win, but I don't know who. There are some teams in the next range whom I like for upsets - Villanova, Washington, Wake Forest, Arizona State, Missouri, maybe UCLA. I don't like Gonzaga, despite their record. I also think that one of the many Big East teams that isn't getting hype - Nova, Marquette, West Virginia - will go farther than some of the others, like in '96.
My instinctive final four was Washington, Louisville, UNC, and Villanova. Other times, I went with all four # 1 seeds (never would've before last year, but the barrier has been broken). Oklahoma is tempting, but UNC has always been dependable to at least make it to the final four. My trouble bracket this year is Louisville's - I don't feel good about them, Michigan State, or Kansas. Wake Forest could pull it off but they could lose early too.
As for the finals? UNC-Lousiville or UNC-UConn will be popular choices. I said UNC over UW. But I don't trust anyone.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
of course
Of course this is the year that all # 1 seeds make it.
Of course.
Forget everything I said. Again.
I'm not even sure if UNC - UCLA is happening now. Memphis looks damn good.
Quick note for the pros circuit: I explained why lowly East teams didn't have much to play for, except for Atlanta, but I never thought about the good news for West teams. Portland would have liked to make the playoffs, but they'll take the 13th pick and use it (Stephen Curry? think about it...).
As I pointed out, the East teams in the lottery will almost certainly all be picking in the top 11. The difference between 8th and 9th seed is three spots. But look out west, where three teams are struggling to get in. The difference between the 8th and 9th seed? A whopping seven spots. The last team out in the west will pick 14th, but the last team in will probably be picking at 21 or 22. I know none of these three teams wants to miss the playoffs, but that's a nice consolation prize.
Now, Golden State and Denver have a lot of young talent and might be psychologically hurt by not making it, especially when they know they could wreak havoc as low seeds. For Dallas, it would be a disaster after the whole Kidd trade.... but wouldn't it be appropriate? This team needs a kick in the ass, and maybe this would be it. Dallas misses the playoffs and Avery might realize he needs to adjust some things. It would put pressure on them, but they need it. They can always blame Dirk's injury if that makes you feel better, Dallasites (Dallasans? Dallasers?).
They made a sly move in having their draft pick lottery-protected this year in case of emergency. They keep it now if they miss the playoffs. Would you rather have a first round loss and a summer of infighting, or a decent pick (that could be traded or used on a shooter) in the late lottery? Nothing short of a finals appearance will stop the turmoil, and it ain't gonna happen. I know Dallas would never think this way, but they might take a mulligan here.
I'm rooting hard for them to be the odd one out... I don't need to see Kidd hoisting ugly shots and glaring at Avery while they get blown out by San Antonio, when I could have G State or Denver bringing much more excitement. I'm sorry, Cuban, but someone had to go and it's you.
Of course.
Forget everything I said. Again.
I'm not even sure if UNC - UCLA is happening now. Memphis looks damn good.
Quick note for the pros circuit: I explained why lowly East teams didn't have much to play for, except for Atlanta, but I never thought about the good news for West teams. Portland would have liked to make the playoffs, but they'll take the 13th pick and use it (Stephen Curry? think about it...).
As I pointed out, the East teams in the lottery will almost certainly all be picking in the top 11. The difference between 8th and 9th seed is three spots. But look out west, where three teams are struggling to get in. The difference between the 8th and 9th seed? A whopping seven spots. The last team out in the west will pick 14th, but the last team in will probably be picking at 21 or 22. I know none of these three teams wants to miss the playoffs, but that's a nice consolation prize.
Now, Golden State and Denver have a lot of young talent and might be psychologically hurt by not making it, especially when they know they could wreak havoc as low seeds. For Dallas, it would be a disaster after the whole Kidd trade.... but wouldn't it be appropriate? This team needs a kick in the ass, and maybe this would be it. Dallas misses the playoffs and Avery might realize he needs to adjust some things. It would put pressure on them, but they need it. They can always blame Dirk's injury if that makes you feel better, Dallasites (Dallasans? Dallasers?).
They made a sly move in having their draft pick lottery-protected this year in case of emergency. They keep it now if they miss the playoffs. Would you rather have a first round loss and a summer of infighting, or a decent pick (that could be traded or used on a shooter) in the late lottery? Nothing short of a finals appearance will stop the turmoil, and it ain't gonna happen. I know Dallas would never think this way, but they might take a mulligan here.
I'm rooting hard for them to be the odd one out... I don't need to see Kidd hoisting ugly shots and glaring at Avery while they get blown out by San Antonio, when I could have G State or Denver bringing much more excitement. I'm sorry, Cuban, but someone had to go and it's you.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
HIBBERT!!!!
Yeah, my new bracket plan didn't quite work, but I was on the right track. I decided to base my picks on whom I did NOT like, and I was on the right track. Unfortunately, I decided Georgetown was the least-hateable team in their bracket, but I still hated them, and I really should have seen the Davidson upset coming (the fact that they're darlings scared me off). I should have trusted my gut... of hate.
Two things to emphasize:
1. If you don't like a high seeded team, don't put too much stock in them. Georgetown lost, Duke lost (I had that), Tennessee nearly lost (I knew Butler could take them, and they really should have), and Stanford had to pull everything out to squeak by. I also didn't like UConn or Drake that much, so I should've seen a busted bracket there. Which leads me to my second point....
2. Mid majors who have an excellent season and get a decent seed tend to flame out early. My theory is that they are much better off a s low seeded giant killers, and actually getting a decent seed creates pressure. Remember, a few years ago, Gonzaga made a couple nice runs as a low seed, but then when they finally got some recognition from the committee, they lost early. The only team that did anything with a decent seed was the '06 team with Morrison and Turiaf, which was really too talented to be a cinderella (much like Memphis is). And they only made it to the sweet 16. Nope, mid-majors just can't have a decent seed (6 or above) and live up to it. They need to surprise.
That's why I was feeling very doubtful about Drake, and lo and behold, they lost to Western Kentucky, which had that darling 12 seed. Sometimes, I think I'd rather be a 12 seed than a 5. Honestly.
So I got 9 out of 16. It's something. And, I still have 3 out of 4 for the last 4, but I'm wondering if maybe Kansas has gotten over their choke problems and will make it now. Wisconsin, Davidson, and Villanova? They have to be the best there.... but I can see Nova making it tough.... hmm....
We will see.
------0
Some random NBA notes while I'm here:
The Sixers' streak didn't end with my jinxing. In fact, they've been one of the best teams in the league for the past few weeks. WTF????? I'm thoroughly enjoying this now. Considering how the other teams plodding for the 8th spot are doing, they are now not only in, but an easy pick to make it. Unbelievable. Get Mo an extension; I think he could sneak away with a few COY votes.
Without much time left, I'm finding it near impossible to make any serious predictions. I'm leaning towards Boston over Phoenix, but that changes everyday. I still like the Pistons, especially the way the pro brackets are going. I have no answer for the West yet - I thought there would be some seperation, but clearly, this is going to come down to the last day of the regular season.
The Lakers beating Dallas, Utah (in SL), and Golden State last week while the Cavs floundered may have pushed Kobe head of LeBron in many eyes, including mine. But then what about Chris Paul? I think Kobe wins because voters know they'll have plenty of chances to vote for Paul and LBJ over the next few years, and he's got extra fire this year. But for me, it's almost a three way tie right now.
That is all.
Two things to emphasize:
1. If you don't like a high seeded team, don't put too much stock in them. Georgetown lost, Duke lost (I had that), Tennessee nearly lost (I knew Butler could take them, and they really should have), and Stanford had to pull everything out to squeak by. I also didn't like UConn or Drake that much, so I should've seen a busted bracket there. Which leads me to my second point....
2. Mid majors who have an excellent season and get a decent seed tend to flame out early. My theory is that they are much better off a s low seeded giant killers, and actually getting a decent seed creates pressure. Remember, a few years ago, Gonzaga made a couple nice runs as a low seed, but then when they finally got some recognition from the committee, they lost early. The only team that did anything with a decent seed was the '06 team with Morrison and Turiaf, which was really too talented to be a cinderella (much like Memphis is). And they only made it to the sweet 16. Nope, mid-majors just can't have a decent seed (6 or above) and live up to it. They need to surprise.
That's why I was feeling very doubtful about Drake, and lo and behold, they lost to Western Kentucky, which had that darling 12 seed. Sometimes, I think I'd rather be a 12 seed than a 5. Honestly.
So I got 9 out of 16. It's something. And, I still have 3 out of 4 for the last 4, but I'm wondering if maybe Kansas has gotten over their choke problems and will make it now. Wisconsin, Davidson, and Villanova? They have to be the best there.... but I can see Nova making it tough.... hmm....
We will see.
------0
Some random NBA notes while I'm here:
The Sixers' streak didn't end with my jinxing. In fact, they've been one of the best teams in the league for the past few weeks. WTF????? I'm thoroughly enjoying this now. Considering how the other teams plodding for the 8th spot are doing, they are now not only in, but an easy pick to make it. Unbelievable. Get Mo an extension; I think he could sneak away with a few COY votes.
Without much time left, I'm finding it near impossible to make any serious predictions. I'm leaning towards Boston over Phoenix, but that changes everyday. I still like the Pistons, especially the way the pro brackets are going. I have no answer for the West yet - I thought there would be some seperation, but clearly, this is going to come down to the last day of the regular season.
The Lakers beating Dallas, Utah (in SL), and Golden State last week while the Cavs floundered may have pushed Kobe head of LeBron in many eyes, including mine. But then what about Chris Paul? I think Kobe wins because voters know they'll have plenty of chances to vote for Paul and LBJ over the next few years, and he's got extra fire this year. But for me, it's almost a three way tie right now.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
bracketology '08
Yes, it's bracket time. I know I haven't wrote much (er, anything) on college hoops this season, but I have been slowly paying more attention lately... mostly for prospects (i.e. freshman) but also getting a decent picture.
Then again, a decent picture is sometimes too much. People over-analyze and then the office pool goes to the secretary... or does it? The old cliche is true sometimes, but I've done okay in a few years. I've had some good calls (George Mason vs. Wichita State in the most improbable sweet sixteen in 2006; Florida over Duke in 2000; LSU over Duke in 2006) and a lot of misses. I think I can pick a decent bracket now based on one thing:
I know whom NOT to pick.
See, everyone wants to find the hot upstarts and cinderellas. That's hard. That requires a ton of luck. It's not always predictable to know who will get hot. BUT, I do think it is easy to spot high ranking teams with problems. Remember, it's very rare that more than two of the # 1 seeds make it to the final four. Usually, one does, but then you have a few from different spots. The 2 seeds can be good and bad. The rest of them all appear in random order.
I think the three best teams in this field are UNC, UCLA, and Kansas, and by a significant lead over others. I like them. But it's just mathematically unlikely that they all make it to San Antonio - and damn near impossible that Memphis does too. You say, they're all # 1 seeds for a reason! Yes, they are. They're the best. But I swear they aren't all gonna make it.
How did I pick some broken brackets that I managed to get right? By eliminating high seeds I didn't trust. In 2006, I think the high seeds in the East bracket were UNC, Tennessee and Michigan State, whom I both frowned upon. I saw George Mason and Wichita fully capable of pulling the upset, because I didn't like the look of those teams. I didn't put George Mason in the final four, but who did? This strategy has led me to call some good early round action, but it has left me on the dry for the late rounds. It's not full-proof.
I think now I will look at the tournament as who I hate the least. Maybe my pessimism will pay off this year. Unlike college football, this is a tournament - someone has to win. The process of elimination seems just as good as anything.
So here are my picks, and I'll explain my reasons for each segment:
EAST
Round 1 - UNC, Indiana, Notre Dame, Wash St, Oklhoma, Louisville, Butler, Tennessee
Round 2 (sweet sixteen) - UNC, Wash St, Oklahoma, Butler
Round 3 (regional finals) - UNC, Butler
UNC advances
I don't trust Tennessee because they're small and rely on shooting too much. If they go cold, they're done. I liked Washington State as a sleeper all year, but they have the same problem. UNC, when it has the top seed, has always been pretty good in the region. Last year, they lost in overtime in the regional final, but I think the last time before that when they didn't make it with a top seed was in 1994. They're one of the safe bets.
I don't really like anyone in the bottom half of that bracket. Louisville and UT look shaky as high seeds. Oklahoma could do some damage, but do they have guards? I like Butler. Mid-majors do better when they're seeded low.
MIDWEST
Round 1 - Knasas, UNLV, Villanova, Siena, USC, Wisconsin, Davidson, Gtown
Round 2 - Kansas, Nova, USC, Georgetown
Round 3 - Kansas, Georgetown
Georgetown advances
I really hate this bracket. Kansas is the best team by far, but they have a bad history of choking. I'm scared to pick them, but I don't love anyone else. I actually really like USC, but I could also see them losing in the first round. Wisconsin is okay. I can see Villanova in the sweet sixteen - one of the teams who barely got in always makes noise, espeically in the 5-12 game. Vanderbilt sucks if they're not at home. Georgetown is tough because they're not as good as last year, but I hate them the least out of all these people. Kansas State might be dangerous, but they have to face USC. Everyone is in love with Davidson as a sleeper, so I'm backing off them.
SOUTH
Round 1 - Memphis, Miss St, Mich St, Pitt, Kentucky, Stanford, Miami, Texas
Round 2 - Memphis, Pitt, Kentucky, Texas
Round 3 - Memphis, Texas
Texas advances
Memphis is another high seed with not enough size. I like how they play, but they've had good teams the past few years and haven't made the final four. I don't like Michigan State, and Pitt usually falls apart in the big tourney. I really don't like Stanford that much. I do like Kentucky; they've been playing well lately. Texas is my pick because they seem to be doing strangely better without Kevin Durant, and D.J. Augustin is playing well.
WEST
Round 1 - UCLA, Tex A&M, Drake, UConn, Baylor, Xavier, WVU, Duke
Round 2 - UCLA, Drake, Xavier, WVU
Round 3 - UCLA, Xavier
UCLA advances
UCLA is the one sure thing here, because no one else here looks that good. Xavier has a shot and I like them in the elite eight, but that's about it. I would like Drake, but as I said, mid-majors usually struggle when they get a decent seed. They're better off coming in low. But UConn doesn't really impress me either. Duke I could not hate more, and not just because they're Duke. They have NO inside game. You need one decent big man to make it in the tourney, no matter how good your guards are. WVU at least has a good history of upsets. Purdue? No dice. Sorry, Big Ten.
FINAL FOUR
UNC over G'town
UCLA over Texas
FINAL: UNC 70, UCLA 64
Yeah, I know, not an imaginative final. These are the two best teams, and I can't really find a good reason for UNC to lose. UCLA has some injury problems and I worry what they will do if any of their perimeter guys are out. Otherwise, they are great. I still don't like Georgetown here, but I can't think of who else to put.
------
AWARDS FOR COLLEGE
ALL AMERICA FIRST
Michael Beasley, KSU
Tyler Hansbrough, UNC (Player of the Year)
Kevin Love, UCLA
D. J. Augustin, Texas
Chris Lofton, Tennessee
SECOND
Brook Lopez, Stanford
Shan Foster, Vandy
Roy Hibbert, Georgetown
Chris Douglas-Roberts, Memphis
Stephen Curry, Davidson
THIRD
Sam Young, Pitt
Luke Harangody, Notre Dame
Darrell Arthur, Kansas
DeMarcus Nelson, Duke
O.J. Mayo, USC
HM
Eric Gordon, Ind
D. J. White, Ind
Derrick Rose, Memphis
Jarryd Bayless, Arizona
Brandon Rush, Kansas
Derrick Low, Wash. St.
Sean Singletary, Virginia
Jaycee Carroll, Utah St.
Dionte Christmas, Temple
ALL FROSH
Beasley
Love
Mayo
D. Rose
E. Gordon
Bayless
COY: Keno Davis, Drake
Then again, a decent picture is sometimes too much. People over-analyze and then the office pool goes to the secretary... or does it? The old cliche is true sometimes, but I've done okay in a few years. I've had some good calls (George Mason vs. Wichita State in the most improbable sweet sixteen in 2006; Florida over Duke in 2000; LSU over Duke in 2006) and a lot of misses. I think I can pick a decent bracket now based on one thing:
I know whom NOT to pick.
See, everyone wants to find the hot upstarts and cinderellas. That's hard. That requires a ton of luck. It's not always predictable to know who will get hot. BUT, I do think it is easy to spot high ranking teams with problems. Remember, it's very rare that more than two of the # 1 seeds make it to the final four. Usually, one does, but then you have a few from different spots. The 2 seeds can be good and bad. The rest of them all appear in random order.
I think the three best teams in this field are UNC, UCLA, and Kansas, and by a significant lead over others. I like them. But it's just mathematically unlikely that they all make it to San Antonio - and damn near impossible that Memphis does too. You say, they're all # 1 seeds for a reason! Yes, they are. They're the best. But I swear they aren't all gonna make it.
How did I pick some broken brackets that I managed to get right? By eliminating high seeds I didn't trust. In 2006, I think the high seeds in the East bracket were UNC, Tennessee and Michigan State, whom I both frowned upon. I saw George Mason and Wichita fully capable of pulling the upset, because I didn't like the look of those teams. I didn't put George Mason in the final four, but who did? This strategy has led me to call some good early round action, but it has left me on the dry for the late rounds. It's not full-proof.
I think now I will look at the tournament as who I hate the least. Maybe my pessimism will pay off this year. Unlike college football, this is a tournament - someone has to win. The process of elimination seems just as good as anything.
So here are my picks, and I'll explain my reasons for each segment:
EAST
Round 1 - UNC, Indiana, Notre Dame, Wash St, Oklhoma, Louisville, Butler, Tennessee
Round 2 (sweet sixteen) - UNC, Wash St, Oklahoma, Butler
Round 3 (regional finals) - UNC, Butler
UNC advances
I don't trust Tennessee because they're small and rely on shooting too much. If they go cold, they're done. I liked Washington State as a sleeper all year, but they have the same problem. UNC, when it has the top seed, has always been pretty good in the region. Last year, they lost in overtime in the regional final, but I think the last time before that when they didn't make it with a top seed was in 1994. They're one of the safe bets.
I don't really like anyone in the bottom half of that bracket. Louisville and UT look shaky as high seeds. Oklahoma could do some damage, but do they have guards? I like Butler. Mid-majors do better when they're seeded low.
MIDWEST
Round 1 - Knasas, UNLV, Villanova, Siena, USC, Wisconsin, Davidson, Gtown
Round 2 - Kansas, Nova, USC, Georgetown
Round 3 - Kansas, Georgetown
Georgetown advances
I really hate this bracket. Kansas is the best team by far, but they have a bad history of choking. I'm scared to pick them, but I don't love anyone else. I actually really like USC, but I could also see them losing in the first round. Wisconsin is okay. I can see Villanova in the sweet sixteen - one of the teams who barely got in always makes noise, espeically in the 5-12 game. Vanderbilt sucks if they're not at home. Georgetown is tough because they're not as good as last year, but I hate them the least out of all these people. Kansas State might be dangerous, but they have to face USC. Everyone is in love with Davidson as a sleeper, so I'm backing off them.
SOUTH
Round 1 - Memphis, Miss St, Mich St, Pitt, Kentucky, Stanford, Miami, Texas
Round 2 - Memphis, Pitt, Kentucky, Texas
Round 3 - Memphis, Texas
Texas advances
Memphis is another high seed with not enough size. I like how they play, but they've had good teams the past few years and haven't made the final four. I don't like Michigan State, and Pitt usually falls apart in the big tourney. I really don't like Stanford that much. I do like Kentucky; they've been playing well lately. Texas is my pick because they seem to be doing strangely better without Kevin Durant, and D.J. Augustin is playing well.
WEST
Round 1 - UCLA, Tex A&M, Drake, UConn, Baylor, Xavier, WVU, Duke
Round 2 - UCLA, Drake, Xavier, WVU
Round 3 - UCLA, Xavier
UCLA advances
UCLA is the one sure thing here, because no one else here looks that good. Xavier has a shot and I like them in the elite eight, but that's about it. I would like Drake, but as I said, mid-majors usually struggle when they get a decent seed. They're better off coming in low. But UConn doesn't really impress me either. Duke I could not hate more, and not just because they're Duke. They have NO inside game. You need one decent big man to make it in the tourney, no matter how good your guards are. WVU at least has a good history of upsets. Purdue? No dice. Sorry, Big Ten.
FINAL FOUR
UNC over G'town
UCLA over Texas
FINAL: UNC 70, UCLA 64
Yeah, I know, not an imaginative final. These are the two best teams, and I can't really find a good reason for UNC to lose. UCLA has some injury problems and I worry what they will do if any of their perimeter guys are out. Otherwise, they are great. I still don't like Georgetown here, but I can't think of who else to put.
------
AWARDS FOR COLLEGE
ALL AMERICA FIRST
Michael Beasley, KSU
Tyler Hansbrough, UNC (Player of the Year)
Kevin Love, UCLA
D. J. Augustin, Texas
Chris Lofton, Tennessee
SECOND
Brook Lopez, Stanford
Shan Foster, Vandy
Roy Hibbert, Georgetown
Chris Douglas-Roberts, Memphis
Stephen Curry, Davidson
THIRD
Sam Young, Pitt
Luke Harangody, Notre Dame
Darrell Arthur, Kansas
DeMarcus Nelson, Duke
O.J. Mayo, USC
HM
Eric Gordon, Ind
D. J. White, Ind
Derrick Rose, Memphis
Jarryd Bayless, Arizona
Brandon Rush, Kansas
Derrick Low, Wash. St.
Sean Singletary, Virginia
Jaycee Carroll, Utah St.
Dionte Christmas, Temple
ALL FROSH
Beasley
Love
Mayo
D. Rose
E. Gordon
Bayless
COY: Keno Davis, Drake
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
2008 college preview
While this is primarily and NBA blog, I do like to keep an eye on college hoops. My alma mater, La Salle, hasn't been relevant in nearly 20 years, so it's hard to keep up the passion.
Still, I like to watch the college game, which can be better than the pros in ways. It also keeps me up to date on the upcoming stars. And, since the rule changes, most guys have to play in school for at least one year now, so you will get to know them at least a little bit before they get drafted.
I don't pay nearly as much attention as teh NBA and can usually only name a handful of players, but I can tell you certain teams' lineups and I always do the bracket... legally, of course... I also like to pick my projected Final Four before the season, my sleeper, and some All-America teams, which always include peopel I never heard of in the end.
So for this year:
National Champs - North Carolina def. UCLA
Is that boring or what? Two of the most storied programs, and easy picks this year. I want to say something more interesting. But I can't see a lot of teams that have the depth or experience. It's a matter of attrition, and other teams just not having enough.
I like UNC's trio of Hansborough, Lawson, and Ellington. That's more power than most people have. UCLA finally looks good up front, but who's going to score now?
Other Final Four teams - Memphis, sleeper Washington State
Memphis has talent and can cruise through an easy conference schedule to get a high seed. They did make it to the Elite Eight last year, so I think they can go far in the real tourney. Derrick Rose is suppsoed to be sensational.
Washington State is my official sleeper pick. I suppose they aren't really a sleeper since they came out last year and they are ranked in the top 12. But no one really likes this team, and no one knows who they are. They play great D and get by without stars. I just have this feeling they'll be the team that makes it and still remains unknown. Also, it would be sweet irony if they made the F4 before in-state rivals UW and Gonzaga, who have been on the radar longer. I can see it happening for odd reasons. These things always do....
Random teams to watch:
Georgetown - Roy Hibbert came back. He should be a high pick if he keep improving, and teh Hoyas should be a contender. But without Jeff Green, it's all Roy all the time.
Kansas - Even though Roy Williams left, their penchant for choking hasn't. I loved this team the past two years and they couldn't break through. Despite their talent, I'm losing faith in them. I also think it will be hard to replace Julian Wright, who did so many things.
USC - I'm calling O. J. Mayo as the freshman and maybe the spotlight player with the highest scoring average in the country. But will they win? And will the other guys kill him? He's good, but I wonder if there's a reason Nick Young and Gabe Pruitt wanted to leave early....
Indiana - They have a nice tandem with D. J. White and frosh Eric Gordon. Plus, what's going on with the Big Ten? When did they start losing athletes? IU can rebound quickly.
Louisville - Can't name one guy but they are in everyone's top 5 or 6. Pitino, I'm waiting.
Duke - This is the least impressive Duke team I can remember since the Cherokee Parks days. They're small, and they have guys who were great in high school, but haven't become the next Hill or Laettner or Brand or even close. Prove me wrong, Dukies. And pre-emptive shut up to Butler.
Kansas State - Bob Huggins got recruits and then vanished. I want to see if Michael Beasley and Bill Walker are worth the hype. And they almost made it last year despite having no stars. Interesting team to keep an eye on, for scouting and other purposes.
Connecticut, Arizona, Michigan State, Kentucky - the official "teams that are usually good and will probably come through in the end, even though I can't name more than one guy on each."
Player of the year - Tyler Hansborough, UNC
This is a matter of attrition, although that usually doesn't work. But whatever... the best people are freshmen, and they won't have Durant-type years.
All-America FIRST
Hansborough, O. J. Mayo, Roy Hibbert, Drew Neitzel (Michigan State), Chris Lofton (Tennesee)
SECOND
D.J. White, Chris Douglas-Roberts (Memphis), Darren Collison (UCLA), Brandon Rush (Kansas), Bill Walker
OTHER POSS
Darell Arthur (Kansas), Derrick Rose, Chase Budinger (Arizona), D. J. Augustin (Texas), Derrick Low (Washington State), Bryce Taylor (Oregon), Shroomy McDoses (Gonzaga)
Still, I like to watch the college game, which can be better than the pros in ways. It also keeps me up to date on the upcoming stars. And, since the rule changes, most guys have to play in school for at least one year now, so you will get to know them at least a little bit before they get drafted.
I don't pay nearly as much attention as teh NBA and can usually only name a handful of players, but I can tell you certain teams' lineups and I always do the bracket... legally, of course... I also like to pick my projected Final Four before the season, my sleeper, and some All-America teams, which always include peopel I never heard of in the end.
So for this year:
National Champs - North Carolina def. UCLA
Is that boring or what? Two of the most storied programs, and easy picks this year. I want to say something more interesting. But I can't see a lot of teams that have the depth or experience. It's a matter of attrition, and other teams just not having enough.
I like UNC's trio of Hansborough, Lawson, and Ellington. That's more power than most people have. UCLA finally looks good up front, but who's going to score now?
Other Final Four teams - Memphis, sleeper Washington State
Memphis has talent and can cruise through an easy conference schedule to get a high seed. They did make it to the Elite Eight last year, so I think they can go far in the real tourney. Derrick Rose is suppsoed to be sensational.
Washington State is my official sleeper pick. I suppose they aren't really a sleeper since they came out last year and they are ranked in the top 12. But no one really likes this team, and no one knows who they are. They play great D and get by without stars. I just have this feeling they'll be the team that makes it and still remains unknown. Also, it would be sweet irony if they made the F4 before in-state rivals UW and Gonzaga, who have been on the radar longer. I can see it happening for odd reasons. These things always do....
Random teams to watch:
Georgetown - Roy Hibbert came back. He should be a high pick if he keep improving, and teh Hoyas should be a contender. But without Jeff Green, it's all Roy all the time.
Kansas - Even though Roy Williams left, their penchant for choking hasn't. I loved this team the past two years and they couldn't break through. Despite their talent, I'm losing faith in them. I also think it will be hard to replace Julian Wright, who did so many things.
USC - I'm calling O. J. Mayo as the freshman and maybe the spotlight player with the highest scoring average in the country. But will they win? And will the other guys kill him? He's good, but I wonder if there's a reason Nick Young and Gabe Pruitt wanted to leave early....
Indiana - They have a nice tandem with D. J. White and frosh Eric Gordon. Plus, what's going on with the Big Ten? When did they start losing athletes? IU can rebound quickly.
Louisville - Can't name one guy but they are in everyone's top 5 or 6. Pitino, I'm waiting.
Duke - This is the least impressive Duke team I can remember since the Cherokee Parks days. They're small, and they have guys who were great in high school, but haven't become the next Hill or Laettner or Brand or even close. Prove me wrong, Dukies. And pre-emptive shut up to Butler.
Kansas State - Bob Huggins got recruits and then vanished. I want to see if Michael Beasley and Bill Walker are worth the hype. And they almost made it last year despite having no stars. Interesting team to keep an eye on, for scouting and other purposes.
Connecticut, Arizona, Michigan State, Kentucky - the official "teams that are usually good and will probably come through in the end, even though I can't name more than one guy on each."
Player of the year - Tyler Hansborough, UNC
This is a matter of attrition, although that usually doesn't work. But whatever... the best people are freshmen, and they won't have Durant-type years.
All-America FIRST
Hansborough, O. J. Mayo, Roy Hibbert, Drew Neitzel (Michigan State), Chris Lofton (Tennesee)
SECOND
D.J. White, Chris Douglas-Roberts (Memphis), Darren Collison (UCLA), Brandon Rush (Kansas), Bill Walker
OTHER POSS
Darell Arthur (Kansas), Derrick Rose, Chase Budinger (Arizona), D. J. Augustin (Texas), Derrick Low (Washington State), Bryce Taylor (Oregon), Shroomy McDoses (Gonzaga)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
