Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Wow…George Mason eh? And LSU beats Duke? And Villanova crumbles against Florida? And then Memphis is stifled by UCLA? Wow…it’s all you can say…

Final Four…here’s my take:

UCLA - UCLA's defense is very tough…like Purdue in the 80’s tough… They held Gonzaga to 29 second-half points and Memphis to 36 points below its season average….and their defence enables them to slow the pace of the game, so they get to set tempo too…however they can’t score…even though they came back from 17 down to beat Gonzaga, in the first half of the Memphis game, UCLA had a stretch from the 9:45 mark to the 1:17 mark without a FG….then in the 2nd half: UCLA recorded exactly one FG between 17:13 and 4:16 for a total of 4 FGs for the half…against LSU UCLA must control the game's tempo, and the backcourt of Jordan Farmar and Arron Afflalo needs to keep up the scoring.

LSU – like Memphis in that they are really athletic, but LSU has post up options in the halfcourt in Glen "Big Baby" Davis and Tyrus Thomas that Memphis did not have…this team can play any tempo…good, but not great rebounding team…Tyrus Thomas is the best shot blocker in the world right now…in reality, LSU has the best frontcourt in college basketball…if you include freshman small forward Tasmin Mitchell, LSU has three future pros…they dominated Duke and Texas inside and should do the same to the UCLA’s Ryan Hollins, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Alfred Aboya and Lorenzo Mata who combined might add up to the same weight as a Davis breakfast at Denny’s…

In the end it’s UCLA’s guards against LSU’s bigs…Call it LSU 61, UCLA 52…

George Mason – very versatile team…can hit the three (9 of 18 vs. UConn)…can rebound (out-rebounded Michigan St. 38-23)…can defend inside (UNC shot only 36 pct)…can defend the 3 (Wichita St. shot 3/24 3-pt)…is remarkably resilient (shot 5/6 in OT vs. UConn)…heck as an 11 seed they beat 3 teams coached by current or future Hall of Famers (Tom Izzo, Roy Williams and Jim Calhoun)…they certainly have proved they belong in the Final Four… Tony Skinn, Folarin Campbell and Lamar Butler hit the 3-pointer better than any group of guards left in the tourney…
however, they are hot….really hot…white hot… Kent State in 2002 hot…don’t forget Kent State got to the Elite Eight in 2002 and lost to Indiana when its shooters went cold…very cold…so will George Mason stay hot or will they go cold?

Florida – Two things stood out in the win over Villanova: Florida defends the three better than anyone in the tournament and Joakim Noah is the next coming of Rasheed Wallace…first the defence…the Gators defensive game plan on the perimeter has them switching constantly on his screens and closing out on three point shooters…and Gators bigs are plenty quick enough to close out on mid range shooters off the shot fake or the drive and recover to the baseline on the bounce pass…plus, the Gators use their perimeter defence to get steals and run…as for Noah he is an preposterously agile player at 6-foot-11 with terrific, fast hands and very agile footwork…against Villanova he played 36 minutes, going for 21 points, 15 rebounds and 5 blocked shots…t he Gators are much, much bigger than George Mason…now so was UConn, but Hilton Armstrong, Josh Boone and Rudy Gay played like they thought talent could eclipse effort, whereas Noah is pure effort all the time…




In the end, George Mason finally goes cold…call it Florida 83, GMU 76.

AP All-America Teams were announced today:

FIRST TEAM -Adam Morrison Gonzaga Jr., J.J. Redick Duke Sr., Randy Foye Villanova Sr., Shelden Williams Duke Sr., Brandon Roy Washington Sr.

SECOND TEAM - Dee Brown Illinois Sr., Rodney Carney Memphis Sr., Rudy Gay Connecticut So., P.J. Tucker Texas Jr., Leon Powe California So.

THIRD TEAM - Craig Smith Boston College Sr., Glen Davis LSU So., Tyler Hansbrough North Carolina Fr., Nick Fazekas Nevada Jr., Allan Ray Villanova Sr.

HONORABLE MENTION: Arron Afflalo, UCLA; Maurice Ager, Michigan State; LaMarcus Aldridge, Texas; Jose Juan Barea, Northeastern; J.P. Batista, Gonzaga; Jahsha Bluntt, Delaware State; Ronnie Brewer, Arkansas; Keydren Clark, Saint Peter's; Mardy Collins, Temple; Paul Davis, Michigan State.; Terrance Dials, Ohio State; Quincy Douby, Rutgers; Jordan Farmar, UCLA; Mike Gansey, West Virginia; Daniel Gibson, Texas; Caleb Green, Oral Roberts; DeAndre Haynes, Kent State; Brandon Heath, San Diego State; Jeff Horner, Iowa; Ibrahim Jaaber, Pennsylvanial; Jarrious Jackson, Texas Tech; Marco Killingsworth, Indiana; Carl Krauser, Pittsburgh; Jack Leasure, Coastal Carolina; Charles Lee, Bucknell; Chris Lofton, Tennessee; Christian Maraker, Pacific; Gerry McNamara, Syracuse; J. Robert Merritt, Samford; Paul Miller, Wichita State; Paul Millsap, Louisiana Tech; Elton Nesbitt, Georgia Southern; Joakim Noah, Florida; Kevin Pittsnogle, West Virginia; Chris Quinn, Notre Dame; Brion Rush, Grambling State; Blake Schilb, Loyola of Chicago; Steven Smith, La Salle; Tim Smith, East Tennessee State; Ronald Steele, Alabama; Rodney Stuckey, Eastern Washington; Chad Timberlake, Fairleigh Dickinson; Darius Washington, Memphis; Marcus Williams, Connecticut; Jamar Wilson, Albany, N.Y.; Anthony Winchester, Western Kentucky; Ricky Woods, Southeastern Louisiana.

1) From the AP, the Reign/Rain Man cometh…again:

Slimmed-down Kemp eyes comeback

Former Seattle SuperSonic and Orlando Magic player Shawn Kemp says he's ready to get back in the game after three years of retirement from the NBA. Kemp, 36, retired voluntarily from the Magic in 2003, citing weight issues. During his last NBA season he weighed as much as 320 pounds, but he has slimmed down to 270 pounds through an intensive exercise regime, he said. "I've sat out this whole season to get in tip-top shape to make a comeback," Kemp said in an interview with Houston television station KRIV. The athlete's Houston-based agent, Tony Dutt, said he felt the weight loss would definitely rekindle Kemp's career. "I was basically relaying the information the GMs [general managers] were giving me: 'Until he loses the weight, we don't care if he can score 30 points a game. When he loses the weight, give us a call,"' Dutt said. "So there are going to be some phones ringing." The former All-Star faced troubles other than weight loss during his career, which began when he was drafted by Seattle in 1989. He took a leave of absence during the 2000-01 season to enter a substance abuse program and violated the league's anti-drug policy three times. Most recently, a Seattle judge sentenced him in May 2005 to five days of electronic home monitoring, a year's probation and a $440 fine after he pleaded guilty to attempted possession of more than 40 grams of marijuana. Kemp said those problems were behind him and he was ready to recharge his NBA career with an enthusiastic comeback. "My love for the game is very, very high," Kemp said. "I've made a living off of this game. I'm not coming back to play basketball for any financial reasons." "I'm not playing just to make someone's roster. I'm not just playing to make a comeback. My hopes and dreams are to be in the Hall of Fame one day."

2) Stewart Mandel of SI.com has drunk the kool aid:

Don't bet against 'em - George Mason has the tools to win the whole thing

I tried to warn you. Right here on this very Web site, a little more than two weeks ago, I did my best to foreshadow the improbable Final Four field that bore itself out this weekend. I even gave you two of the teams, LSU and UCLA. But you didn't listen, did you? When you filled out your bracket, you slotted one of the two supposed heavyweights, Duke or UConn, into that national-title line. It's understandable. Tournament history tells us it's almost always a good bet to go with the grain. After all, six of the past seven national champions (1999 UConn, 2000 Michigan State, 2001 Duke, 2002 Maryland, 2004 UConn and 2005 North Carolina) were teams that, like the Blue Devils and Huskies this year, spent the entire regular season at or near the top of the polls. As I wrote on Selection Sunday, however: "There is no team [this year] that, like North Carolina last year, scares the living bejesus out of people. There is no team that, like Illinois last year, seems to have that magical aura of destiny. But there are about 27 teams that, like Michigan State last year, are sitting there non-threateningly in the middle of the bracket right now just waiting to spring up and terrorize your office pool." Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you UCLA, Florida, LSU and George Mason? OK, so I can't take full credit. I did have another now-eliminated No. 1 seed, Villanova, winning it all. And George Mason was hardly in the "middle" of the bracket. But the same logic that applied to those selections back then -- the lack of truly dominant teams in college basketball this season -- is the same reason any of the four remaining teams could down the net next Monday. And that absolutely, positively includes George Mason. The reason the four No. 1 seeds are no longer with us is that, unlike in some years past, each had discernible weaknesses that an opponent was eventually able to exploit. Duke wasn't athletic enough. Connecticut lacked ball-handlers (though that seemed to hurt the Huskies more in their Sweet 16 win over Washington than in their Elite Eight loss to George Mason). Villanova lacked size. Memphis lacked experience. The same can be said, however, of the Bruins, Gators and Tigers. Though they've been fortunate enough to survive longer than numerous higher-seeded teams, each has negatives to go with its positives. UCLA plays phenomenal defense but, with only two real scorers in Arron Afflalo and Jordan Farmar, is prone to stretches where it can't buy a bucket. LSU is freakishly athletic, particularly with big men Glen Davis and Tyrus Thomas, but often throws up bad shots and plays out of control. Florida has its own frontcourt studs in Joakim Noah, Corey Brewer and Al Horford, but you can never be sure what you're going to get out of guards Taurean Green and Lee Humphrey. Then there's George Mason. The following is not meant as hyperbole. Nor should it be taken as gospel. However, I've covered the Patriots' last three games, and I've yet to identify their weakness. I've watched them win both with their big men (Jai Lewis and Will Thomas) and their guards (Tony Skinn, Lamar Butler and Folarin Campbell). I've watched them shut down North Carolina star Tyler Hansbrough and outrebound Connecticut's Josh Boone, Rudy Gay and Hilton Armstrong. I've watched them suffocate Wichita State's three-point bombers. I've watched Lewis and Thomas take over down low, Butler and Campbell light it up from outside and Skinn slash the lane like the speed demon he is. Surely Mason has areas that can be exploited -- every other Final Four team should be on the phone with Hofstra's coaching staff this week -- but their four tourney opponents have yet to find it. At this point, the only reasons anyone has to keep picking against George Mason are its name and its seed. So far, the Patriots have defied both. Sure, it's possible to see Florida's Noah or LSU's Tyrus Thomas and Davis overwhelming Lewis and Will Thomas. Then again, they more than held their own against Hansbrough, Armstrong and Michigan State's Paul Davis. Sure, UCLA's suffocating defense is a step up from what they've seen in the tournament to date. But in case you haven't noticed, Mason plays some pretty mean D (its four tourney opponents have shot 39.4 percent). Though seedings, history, NBA draft projections and our own better instincts might suggest otherwise, the reality is, George Mason has as much of a chance of winning the whole thing as it does of going out in the next round. So, too, do LSU, UCLA and Florida.

3) From Desmond Connor of the Hartford Courant, Denham Brown’s postscript at UConn:

Brown Gave It His Best Shot

Denham Brown held his head high as he sat bare-chested and ergonomically correct in his locker stall moments after his 20-foot three-point attempt to beat George Mason in overtime went off the far side of the rim. Brown has made that kind of fading three countless times in his career, but this one was different. This one, had it gone, would have sent UConn to the Final Four. This one, had it gone, would have been a dream come true for the senior. "I've been waiting for a shot like that all season," Brown said. "If I make it, we're going to the Final Four. If I missed it, I could live with it. I missed it. I'm not down on myself because of what happened. It's an incomplete season now. I'm disappointed in that. But I feel like I was supposed to hit that shot. I've been preparing myself all season to hit a shot like that and it fell short. I can live with me taking that shot. I obviously had a good look. I didn't force it over anybody. So, I shot it. It didn't go in." And so No. 11 seed George Mason is going to the Final Four in Indianapolis after a never-say-die 86-84 win over the top-seeded Huskies in the Washington Regional final at the Verizon Center Sunday. Brown said he was two steps ahead of Marcus Williams when he rebounded the miss and took the best shot he could. "The only other good shot you're going to take is, you're going to go all the way to the basket or you're going to take a jump shot," Brown said. "I looked at the clock; I had like a little over one second, 1.8 seconds or something like that. I bounced a guy off me and pulled up all in rhythm." Brown doesn't feel like the goat today. He's not. It wasn't his shot at the end that lost the game. It wasn't his decision to keep the rock rather than give it up after he got the rebound - following two missed free throws by Jai Lewis with 6.1 seconds left - and got in position to take the shot. It was a good look and a good shot. He just missed it. Sure, UConn fans would have liked Rashad Anderson to have had the ball. But where was he? Brown couldn't even see Anderson because he had two Patriots on him, a smart move, given his end-of-regulation heroics Friday night against Washington. Brown, who dropped in a right-handed hook over Adam Morrison with 1.1 seconds to lift UConn over Gonzaga in the Maui Invitational in November, did the right thing. Hey, if it weren't for his swooping reverse layup at the end of regulation, the Huskies wouldn't have been in position to win it in OT. No, there are a few reasons why their season ended at 30-4 and without a national title. Three of them you should be familiar with because they've been haunting this team for a while: No breakdown guard to help Williams; poor defense the past three weeks or so; and uneven post play. On Sunday, the post play was a big surprise. Lewis and Will Thomas combined for 39 points and 19 rebounds. Josh Boone and Hilton Armstrong totaled 14 and nine. If it weren't for Jeff Adrien, who had 17 points and seven rebounds, it could have been ugly. "That's what happens when you don't play the type of basketball you're capable of playing," Boone said. UConn utilized its famed big-to-big double team on the 6-foot-7, 271-pound Lewis and he still had 20 and seven. Thomas wheeled inside for 19 points and 12 boards. The 6-7 Thomas had 18 and 14 against Paul Davis and Michigan State in the first round. But it should have been GMU trying to figure out a way to stop UConn's big men, considered among the best in the country. "Last night when I went to bed or this morning when I woke up, I would never have thought that would have happened; maybe a wash, certainly not that," UConn coach Jim Calhoun said. "We did a great job in the first half of stopping the three but the second half, they lit us up. We haven't played good defense the past three weeks anyways and that was highlighted there. Yet if we just could have done a better job on post play we could have got ourselves a win." Lewis and Thomas had eight of 12 George Mason's points in the overtime. The Huskies didn't give up any threes in the OT but they allowed the Patriots to shoot 9 of 18 from the arc. "A couple times I was saying, `How did George Mason beat us?"' Brown said. "And it looks like they wanted it. I can't say they wanted it more than us but they wanted enough to get themselves in position to win the game." UConn was in position, holding a 43-31 lead with 8.6 seconds left in the first half. But perhaps in a sign of things to come Folarin Campbell drove the lane for layup and was fouled with less than a second to go. He hit the free throw. UConn led by nine at the break. When the second-half horn sounded, the Patriots pushed to victory only to be halted, temporarily, by Brown's reverse layup that seemed to dance on the rim for a minute before it fell through. "When Denham made that shot, I definitely did think we were going to pull it out," Boone said. "The way things had been going, it seemed like it was just supposed to happen that way. He was supposed to make that shot and we were supposed to end up winning in overtime. Unfortunately it didn't happen that way." It wasn't Brown's fault that it didn't happen that way. Anderson said he would trust Brown with that shot anytime, any day, anywhere; Williams and Boone agreed. But what the Huskies have been able to mask for the past month or so came back to bite them.

4) Chad Ford of ESPN.com with his draft watch:

Draft watch: Noah hot, Redick not

It has been a dramatic March for NBA draft prospects. Most of the top prospects in the draft were still playing this weekend and several of them dramatically helped (or hurt) their stock over the course of the last four days. The reverberations were felt all the way at the top of the draft. NBA scouts and executives still are debating who the No. 1 pick in the draft should be. At this point it's doubtful there will be a consensus anytime soon -- with as many as seven prospects still hopeful of being No. 1 overall. Here's our second look at who's hot and who's not in the NCAA Tournament:

Who's Hot?

Tyrus Thomas, PF, LSU: He was on no one's top-100 prospect board at the start of the season. A few of the NBA scouts who live in the area didn't even mention him when I put together my preseason top 100 in September. But after two dominating performances this weekend against Duke and Texas, a growing number of scouts are saying that Thomas is the best prospect in the draft. His combination of size, athleticism, aggressiveness and skills (he showed some ball handling and a sweet 12-foot baseline jumper this weekend) are unmatched in the draft. Yes, he's still raw offensively. But watching him this weekend, it's getting difficult to come up with reasons why he shouldn't be considered the No. 1 pick in the draft. Eight teams passed on Amare Stoudemire in 2002 because they believed he was too raw to make an impact in the league. There won't be more than two, maybe three teams at most, who'll pass on Thomas this year. In fact, if Thomas has two more great performances left in him this weekend, he could be the consensus No. 1 pick by draft night.
Joakim Noah, PF/C, Florida: Noah wasn't on anyone's top-100 list either at the start of the season. But a stellar March has him in the top five as well. Like Thomas, Noah also has a great motor, excellent athleticism and more skills than you think. He too has been the best player in his region. And unlike Thomas, he's a legit 7-footer. If Noah was 25 pounds heavier, he'd be the No. 1 pick, hands down. As it stands now, he's No. 4 on our big board with an outside shot at the No. 1 pick for teams such as the Hawks and Raptors, who are in desperate need of size.

Josh McRoberts, PF, Duke: McRoberts didn't dominate the tournament like Thomas or Noah have. But he's shown enough potential and grit (a la Marvin Williams last year) to have firmly planted himself in the top 10 should he decide to declare for the draft. McRoberts has great size, an all-around game and excellent athleticism for his position -- giving him as much upside as just about anyone in the draft. If he declares this year, he's probably guaranteed a top-10 pick with strong workouts. However, here's the dilemma. If he stays another year at Duke and continues to impress, he could be a top-three pick in the draft next year. Does he stay in Durham and work on his game? Or does he take the guaranteed money and run? My heart says he'll stay one more year and spend more time preparing himself for the NBA. My mind says he's shopping for Escalades as I write this.

LaMarcus Aldridge, PF, Texas: A 26-point, 13-rebound performance against West Virginia on Thursday had scouts buzzing that Aldridge had solidified his place as a potential No. 1 pick in the draft. A 2-for-14 performance against LSU on Saturday had scouts backtracking -- but only a little bit. Aldridge's game against LSU wasn't as bad as it looked in the box score. He did have 10 rebounds and five blocks. Most of his shots were on line, they just didn't go in. While it's clear that big, physical players such as Glen Davis of LSU are going to push him further away from the basket, there's no reason to believe that on a better day, Aldridge can hit those shots he took. Besides, how many 310-pound power forwards is he going to have to face in the NBA? Clearly Aldridge needs to get stronger, but scouts believe that the rest of the package is there. He's holding onto our No. 1 spot on the big board by a thread. But truth is, scouts are split in two over whether Aldridge or Thomas is the best power forward in the draft.

Randy Foye, PG/SG, Villanova: It's tough to fault Foye for Villanova's demise in the tournament. He did everything for Villanova the past four games. He scored, he defended, and at times, he ran the team as a point guard. His 3-point shot has tapered off at a fairly alarming rate toward the end of the season, but for the most part NBA scouts believe he's a good enough shooter. He's still trying to convince scouts that he's a point guard at the next level, but there are enough NBA scouts and executives convinced he's a basketball player and it's still pretty likely he'll end up in the top 10 on draft night.

Honorable mention: Al Horford, PF, Florida; Marcus Williams, PG, UConn; Jeff Green, F, Georgetown; Glen Davis, F/C, LSU; Kyle Lowry, PG, Villanova; Brandon Roy, SG, Washington; Ryan Hollins, F/C, UCLA; Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, SF, UCLA; Patrick O'Bryant, C, Bradley

Who's Not?

J.J. Redick, SG, Duke: Redick's worst nightmare happened on Thursday. Not only did Duke suffer an early exit at the hands of LSU, but his fantastic senior season came into serious question with NBA scouts after the athletic LSU backcourt forced Redick into his worst game (3-for-18 from the field) of the year. This wasn't just a case of Redick's shot being a little off. He was horrible, and LSU freshman guard Garrett Temple drove him crazy. His length and athleticism were too much for Redick. He just couldn't get clean looks at the basket. One game shouldn't taint a fantastic senior season -- but what every NBA scout that I talked to noted was that Temple is the type of athlete Redick will have to play against every night in the NBA. With that said, his stock isn't sliding as much as some might think. Scouts also understand that Redick won't be a star in the NBA and coaches won't be devising defenses to stop him the way LSU did. If Redick gets on a good team with a low-post presence, he should be an excellent sniper in the NBA. If asked to do what he did for Duke this year, it's going to get ugly. Look for him to fall in the range we've predicted for him most of the year: somewhere between 13 and 22 come draft night.

Adam Morrison, SF, Gonzaga: Morrison had a better tournament than Redick did, but his stock also suffered a bit after Gonzaga blew it against UCLA. Morrison is a well-known commodity among NBA scouts. They know his strengths and weaknesses. What Gonzaga's loss did was scrape away some of the mystique that was artificially inflating his stock. Had Morrison led Gonzaga to an NCAA title, it would've been tough for GMs to justify not taking him No. 1. Now that's not so hard. Morrison is human too, and for the first time in several months, NBA scouts are acknowledging that again. Morrison is a very good, but not great, NBA prospect. That realization will likely cost him a few spots in the draft unless a team such as the Sonics or Blazers gets the No. 1 pick.

Rudy Gay, SF, Connecticut: By this time of the year, NBA scouts expect to see flashes of greatness from top-five prospects. Thomas, Noah and Aldridge all delivered at times. Gay? Not so much. He did have 20 points against George Mason in a losing effort on Sunday. But for the most part, scouts didn't see anything over the past four games to convince them that Gay is a potential No. 1 pick. He grabbed some boards, hit a few jumpers and made a few plays. But he was rarely the best player on his team, let alone the floor. He has the tools. But he still has a long way to go before he figures out how to use them. That won't stop an NBA team from taking him in the lottery. But for now (until NBA team workouts that is) Gay has slipped out of contention for the No. 1 pick in the draft, according to the scouts Insider spoke with this weekend.

Rodney Carney, SF, Memphis: Carney has been trying to dump the "soft" label for the past three years. He did a great job of exorcising those demons during his senior season, but a so-so tournament has brought his stock back down to Earth. Carney's 2-for-12 performance against UCLA had scouts raising all the same concerns about toughness, focus and ability to perform in the clutch. Some team will fall in love with his combination of athleticism and shooting ability in individual workouts, but the tale of the tape is going to overcome.

Allan Ray, SG, Villanova: After Ray's great 25-point performance against Arizona last weekend, a few scouts were talking about him as a potential late first-round pick. But after two awful performances against Boston College (3-for-15) and Florida (5-for-19) that talk has cooled considerably. Ray has had an excellent season, but his NBA upside is questionable. He's a good, but not great perimeter shooter who's undersized for his position and doesn't have the versatility to be anything more than a bench gunner. This isn't the way he wanted to end his career at Villanova. It will take a stellar performance at the Orlando pre-draft camp to get Ray's stock back on track.

5) Pat Forde of ESPN.com tries to make sense of the madness:

Everything we believed about college hoops is wrong

Now that everyone's bracket has been folded, spindled and Masonically mutilated, it's time for a moment of reckoning. After two of the most stunning, suspenseful and spellbinding weeks in the history of the sport, this is what we have learned: Everything we believed to be true about this college basketball season has been rendered false. Up is down. Down is up. The earth is flat. The sun rises in the west. The smartest Patriots coach is not Bill Belichick, it's Jim Larranaga. And America's team is George Mason. Tell me you expected that before this sublime samba began.
Here's how wrong we've been: All season, we believed the Big East to be the best conference in the land, deserving of its record eight bids and two No. 1 seeds. Update: The Big East is out of the tournament. We believed the Big Ten to be the second-best conference in the land, deserving of its six bids and three top-four seeds. Update: The Big Ten might as well have been the MAC, failing to advance a single team to the Sweet 16. We believed the Southeastern Conference to be significantly damaged by all of the players who left early for the 2005 NBA draft, dooming the league to a sixth straight season without a Final Four representative and continued SEC-ond-tier status. Update: The SEC has two teams in the Final Four, with the possibility of having the title game to itself. We believed the Pacific-10 to be a hideously bad league this year.
Update: UCLA is in the Final Four. Washington and Arizona acquitted themselves well. We believed college basketball to be a guard's game now more than ever, with the evacuation of most top big men to the NBA before they put down roots on campus. Update: Sell that notion to Joakim Noah, Al Horford, Jai Lewis, Will Thomas, Glen "Big Baby" Davis, Tyrus Thomas and Ryan Hollins. They were your heroes from the regionals, and none of them plays in the backcourt. (ESPN.com hereby invites 310-pound Big Baby and 275-pound-at-least Lewis to St. Elmo Steak House in downtown Indy for an eat-off. We'll pick up the tab, unless it runs into five figures.) We believed last there was a significant drop-off from the top four or five teams to the rest of the pack this year -- and as of last Wednesday, believed there was a chance all four No. 1 seeds could make the Final Four for the first time ever. Update: None of them made it for the first time since 1980 -- but a No. 11 seed did, tying the record for worst seed to get there. We believed that the only problem with the Era of Parity argument was the 26-year stretch without a true Cinderella's reaching the Final Four. (Pennsylvania in 1979, if you're scoring at home.) Sweet 16s are nice, but can you truly label it parity if the mid-major types have no realistic shot at winning the national title? Update: Make way for Mason, which shattered the Cinderella ceiling by dispatching three of the top-10 programs in America: Michigan State, North Carolina and Connecticut. When a No. 11 seed from the Colonial Athletic Association makes the Final Four, the tournament really is an egalitarian triumph. All things really are possible. (Unless you don't get in. Think how they feel at Hofstra right now. The Pride beat George Mason twice late in the season and narrowly missed getting a bid.) We believed we'd never see a regional round as breathtaking as last year, when four Elite Eight games rife with tension took four overtimes to resolve. Update: Five of this year's eight Sweet 16 games went down to the final seconds, and three of the four regional finals either went into OT or sustained their drama into the final minute. We believed it might be a long time before we saw another overtime-forcing shot in a regional final as dramatic as Patrick Sparks' rim-dancing 3 to tie Michigan State last year. Update: Denham Brown's reverse layup against George Mason bounced on the rim only one less time than Sparks' 3 before falling through at the buzzer. We believed in November that LSU, Florida and UCLA were probably a year away from serious contender status. That's why the preseason AP poll had the Bruins 19th, the Tigers 32nd and the Gators 41st. George Mason? Please. The Patriots got one fewer preseason poll vote than Hawaii, Houston and Notre Dame -- which is to say, none. Update: One of those four walks off with the nets of the RCA Dome a week from tonight. That's the chaos we leave behind. Here is what we have to look forward to: We know that UCLA has nearly double the NCAA Tournament victories (89) of the other three schools combined (48). And the Bruins lead the Traditionless Trio 11-0 in titles. We know that one coach will win his first title, and that only Florida's Billy Donovan has been to the Final Four before. We worry that UCLA-LSU could be the ugliest defensive brawl at the Final Four since Michigan State beat Wisconsin 53-41 in 2000, setting the sport back several decades. We predict that George Mason gear will be sold at an insane rate in the Northeast, and that every Big East fan base will wear its Patriots clothing when UConn visits in 2007. We predict that fans in Indianapolis will embrace George Mason as the collegiate-level, latter-day Milan High School. The home state of the greatest underdog hoops story of them all is going to love the most gorgeous March Madness story since Villanova '85 or N.C. State '83, take your pick. College basketball needed this run -- needed it to make everyone believe again in miracles.
We wonder how different this tournament would look if Gonzaga could hold a lead against UCLA. If Corey Brewer hadn't thrown in a prayer while being pulled to the floor against Georgetown. If Denham Brown's final 3 hits net against Mason. If Darrel Mitchell's final 3 draws iron against Texas A&M. "When you get into the NCAA Tournament, if you restarted the program over again, you would have four different teams [in the Final Four]," Florida coach Billy Donovan said Sunday night. "That's what happens when you play a one-shot deal." That's the impact of chance and circumstance upon the Big Dance. It produces heroes you couldn't imagine, stories you'd never dare dream up. And sometimes, it challenges everything you believe to be true.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006


Love this picture from the Pitt-Bradley game...

Sweet 16 redux:

Duke vs. LSU – Shelden Williams is playing out of his head…the 6’9” 260 lb. Williams matches up well with the 6’8” 310 lb. LSU’s Glen “Big Baby” Davis…Williams is an excellent shot blocker with great timing and long arms, and he’s also an underrated post scorer, however in this matchup Davis is the better athlete with tremendous hands and great footwork…Davis problem is a common one for oversized big men in that he sometimes forgets to use his advantage and tries to face up and get too cute with dribble drives…Davis needs to be “diesel” and use his size and terrific spin moves to work the post hard and get Williams in fouls trouble…JJ. Redick is really a shooting guard, but Duke starts Sean Dockery in that spot for defensive purposes…the matchup of the 6’7” Tasmin Mitchell on the 6’4” Redick will be a good one to watch…Mitchell is quick and long and plenty strong enough to get around on screens…and don’t forget that Redick gets Alligator Arms in the Sweet 16, proven by the loss against Michigan State last year where Redick was just 4-for-14 from the floor after being harrased all game by the taller, longer, more athletic Maurice Ager….Tyrus Thomas should dominate Josh McRoberts…Darrel Mitchell is the senior PG for LSU and will have his hands full being guarded by Dockery…overall LSU is a much better rebounding team, while Duke is a better shooting team…LSU has the deeper bench, but only because I just don’t trust DeMarcus Nelson to make a shot and Lee Melchioni, who can make a shot, will be severely outclassed athletically by everybody but the ballboys for LSU…OK…LSU wins 81-78…

West Virginia vs. Texas West - Look at the discrepancy in total rebounds per game Texas 40.3 to West Virginia’s 28…the Mountaineers need to shoot a high percentage to keep the lack of ability on the glass from killing them…WV SG Mike Gansey might be the most underrated player in the NCAA averaging 16.8 PPG on 55.2% from the field and 42.9% from three, 5.8 RPG (leading the team at only 6’4”!!!)…the matchup between him and Daniel Gibson of Texas will decide the game…I’m lukewarm on WV C Kevin Pittsnoggle…LaMarcus Aldridge of Texas is a better player in every facet of the game except for three point shooting, although Aldrigde does not want to go out and chase Pittsnoggle shooting 3’s…the 1-3-1 defence of WV is so tough, but Texas has seen it before and have the size and quicks to beat it on the baseline…Kenton Paulino is the X factor for Texas, his ability to penetrate will be huge…Call it Texas over WVU 84-74 as the Mountaineers tire in the 2nd half and the threes stop falling…however, this mone makes me very nervous…

Memphis vs. Bradley – Memphis is too athletic, too fast, too talented…Bradley is just happy to be there…Braves SF Marcellus Sommerville will find the cutting and dribbling lanes a lot tougher against Memphis’ much better athletes…Patrick O’Bryant has been great, Memphis needs to get him in foul trouble in order to make it an easier game…Memphis does not shoot well from the floor as a team, while Bradley shoots a very high percentage, mostly because of the size of O’Bryant…the Braves have no answer for Memphis freshman sensation Shawne Williams…Call it Memphis 87, Bradley 61…in a walk.

Gonzaga vs. UCLA - I don’t trust UCLA anymore…not after they missed 7 of 9 free-throw attempts down the stretch, but escaped 10th-seeded Alabama 62-59 in the 2nd round…Gonzaga was always touch and go, but they showed something beating a tough Indiana team by 10 in a game where Adam “Porn Stash” Morrison goes 5-17 from the floor…UCLA’s guards Farmar and Afflalo play very well together, but don’t use their athleticism to enforce tempo on offence…instead UCLA is a slow down defensive team, which is weird considering the athletes they have…Gonzaga is the polar opposite, a run and gun team with average athletes that plays no defence…Zags PF JP Batista is a very complete player who’s averaging 19.3 PPG and 9.4 RPG and shooting 59.4% from the field…he dominated Indiana’s Marco Killingsworth (who was only the best post player in the Big Ten)…I’m going to go with Gonzaga who sucks the young Bruins into their uptempo style and then beats them because teams that play out of character always lose…Call it Gonzaga 92, UCLA 80.

UConn vs. Washington - On paper this should be a blowout, UConn is the better team in every relevant category…Washington guard Brandon Roy is such a complete player averaging 20.2 PPG on 51.7% from the field, 81.4% from the line and 40.0% from three, 5.7 RPG, 4.1 APG and at around 6’5” and 200 lbs. he will be a terrific player in the NBA…UConn SG Denham Brown will draw the assignment of guarding Roy, whom he only has to contain, because if Roy gets his average, UConn still wins by 20…Washington SF Bobby Jones is a terrific defender but will have his hands full with UConn’s Rudy Gay who is simply the best overall athlete in the NCAA…Washington’s front line cannot compete with the 6’11’ Hilton Armstrong and the 6’10” Josh Boone of UConn and for all of Roy’s brilliance, UConn has Rashad Anderson coming off the bench to stroke the three and averaging 13…Call it UConn 91, Washington 70.

George Mason vs. Wichita State - Oh boy…this will be the best game of the Sweet 16…George Mason is tough…the epitome of tough…and they beat Wichita St. 70-67 on Tony Skinn's 3-pointer with 10.8 seconds left on Feb. 18…Patriots forward Jai Lewis, at 6’7” and 270 lbs. is one of those Lonny Baxter or Marcus Fizer type players who excel in college although he was a non-factor in the win over North Carolina…Lamar Butler and Folarin Campbell had great games against UNC dominating their slow little guards Wes Miller and Bobby Frasor, however, Wichita St. guards Sean Ogirri and P.J. Couisnard who went 4-for-17 in the Feb 18th matchup (their worst combined game of the season) will be motivated and confident…especially Couisnard (who my dad calls Cuisinart) who had a marvellous game against Tennessee going 6-7 from the floor including 4-4 from three for 20 points…and Shockers C Paul Miller went 1-9 against Tennesse and they still won the game, expect him to bounce back as well…it will be a squeaker, but I call it Wichita State 86, George Mason 85 in overtime…

Villanova vs. Boston College – Let me start by saying I’m on the Villanova bandwagon… BC just doesn't have the ball-handling to get by Villanova’s press…it’s Villanova’s guards vs. BC’s forwards basically and the thing that tips it in Villanova’s favour is that even though the starting 5 is undersized with the 4 guard lineup, the teams are even in rebounding average…Foy and Ray are really tremendous ball handlers and penetrators, while keeping you honest from three…but the real advantage is that with 4 guards on the floor when you include Lowry and Nardi the defensive pressure and quickness to the ball and in the passing lanes is incredibly disruptive to the other team’s offence and for a slower post up team like BC that’s going to be trouble…Call it Villanova 74, BC 61…

Florida vs. Georgetown – Terrific matchup of Georgetown’s size and the “Princeton” offence and Florida’s speed, athleticism and quickness…Gators C Joakim Noah has been awesome averaging 16.5 points on 58% from the floor and 79% from the line, 7.5 rebounds, 6.5 assists, 2.5 steals and 4.5 blocks a game in the tournament…the Gators are not getting much from Taurean Green though and they need him and Corey Brewer to be able to hit threes to open up the middle a bit against the Hoyas huge interior defence…Georgetown’s has very balanced scoring and runs the Princeton offence very well, with quick backcuts and crisp ball movement…Hoyas 7’2” 283 lb. C Roy Hibbert has come along way this year and has really developed into a force inside…I think the game will be low scoring and very close, but that the speed of Florida will win out…Call it Florida 70, Georgetown 68.

Roy Williams, who led North Carolina to a 23-8 record despite losing all five starters from the 2005 national championship team, was named coach of the year Tuesday by the United States Basketball Writers Association.

I saw a great NIT game the other night with Michigan beating Notre Dame 87-84 in double overtime on a ridiculous catch and shoot three pointer by Dion Harris…terrific game in which Notre Dame PG Chris Quinn scored the tying basket in regulation and the 1st overtime but missed the back end of a 1 and 1 that would have give Notre Dame the lead…

And speaking of the NIT, you MUST see Isaih Swann’s dunk from the Florida State-South Carolina game…dude is only 6’1” and on the break he does a two foot, one-handed leaning statue of liberty right over the defender from outside the key…it’s ridiculous…

You want to know why low-seeded teams can pull early-round upsets but have a hard time getting to the Final Four? Right now, Duke, UConn, Villanova, Florida, Gonzaga, Memphis and Texas all feel like their tournament is just beginning. George Mason, Wichita State and Bradley feel like they've already won.

Rudy Gay of Connecticut, Adam Morrison of Gonzaga, J.J. Redick of Duke and Allan Ray of Villanova were chosen Tuesday as finalists for the Naismith Trophy as the top college basketball player in the country.

Memphis has the easiest draw to the Final Frour…they opened the tourney with No. 16 seed Oral Roberts, next was No. 9 Bucknell, next up is No. 13 Bradley, and if Memphis wins that and draws No. 3 Gonzaga could get to the Final Four having only played opponents from mid-major conferences…

Will Billy Packer eat crow after he mocked the Missouri Valley Conference's four bids to the NCAA now that Bradley and Wichita State, not to mention George Mason from the Patriot League are in the Sweet 16 and the Big 10 is 0 for life in this year’s tourney? Two years ago, Packer had trouble with giving a No. 1 seed to a one-loss St. Joseph's team. That same St. Joe's team came within one shot of making the Final Four.

1) From Chad Ford of ESPN.com, the latest draft report:

Draft watch: Who's hot, who's not

In the span of four days, the NCAA Tournament has moved from 64 teams down to 16. A number of the top prospects in the draft have led their teams to victory and, in a few cases, dramatically increased their draft stock in just a few games. Insider spoke with a number of NBA scouts and executives throughout the weekend to get a feel for which prospects helped or hurt themselves during the tournament's first two rounds. NBA scouts tend to keep their projections fairly steady (without dramatic shifts in either direction). But executives, especially GMs, tend to be more swayed by events like the tournament. Here's a look at who helped or hurt himself in the last four days:

Who's Hot?

Joakim Noah, F/C, Florida: Noah's stellar performance for Florida on Saturday against UW-Milwaukee had scouts and executives buzzing. Everyone knows that Noah is a great athlete with a great motor. On Saturday, Noah showed a number of skills -- passing, perimeter shot, ballhandling -- that haven't been in abundant display all season. Coach Billy Donovan put Noah at small forward during one series of plays, and he broke his man down off the dribble, delivered a no-look pass on the break and swished an outside jumper. While Noah is still a work in progress, both physically and as a basketball player, we've moved him up to No. 6 on the Big Board and the Top 100. We've actually had him going as high as No. 4 to Atlanta in our Lottery + Mock Draft for the past two weeks. It's no longer out of the question that Noah could be a dark-horse candidate for the No. 1 pick in the draft. If Florida continues to dominate (the Gators have looked as impressive as any team in the tournament in the the first two rounds), and if Noah helps lead them to the Final Four, he'll get consideration from teams, such as the Hawks, that are in the market for the combination of size, athleticism and skills that he can deliver.

Brandon Roy, SG, Washington: After a slow start, Roy's been on fire the last two months of the season. He continued his hot streak in the tournament with two outstanding games in which he did just about everything you could ask from a player: He controlled the tempo of the game, scored both inside and outside, and played great defense. Roy is not the most exciting player in the draft. He lacks the jaw-dropping athleticism and the flair for the dramatic that some of the other top prospects possess. But is there a more complete guard in the draft? Villanova's Randy Foye is the only other player who really could be in the conversation. Based on the feedback we've gotten from NBA teams over the past few weeks, we've moved Roy past Arkansas' Ronnie Brewer on our boards and currently have him ranked as the seventh-best prospect in the draft.
Considering that Roy began the season as a second-rounder, that's amazing. If he can help Washington pull an upset over Connecticut this weekend, we might have to move him up another spot or two.

Patrick O'Bryant, C, Bradley: O'Bryant was suspended for the first eight games of the season for getting paid for work he allegedly didn't do in the previous summer. He came back with a bang in his first three games, averaging 16.6 ppg, 13 rpg and 3.5 bpg, and scouts began declaring him the best center prospect in the draft. However, after those three games, he was up and down most of the season and looked like he was at least one year away from the draft. He's had another coming-out party in the tournament, holding his own against a very talented and athletic Kansas front line and then outplaying Pittsburgh's Aaron Gray, a player many people projected as a potential first-round pick. O'Bryant's 10 rebounds against Kansas and 28 points and seven rebounds against Pittsburgh have put him back on the first-round radar screen. Scouts were especially impressed at how O'Bryant handled the more physical Gray on Sunday. While O'Bryant is still very much a project, his length, athleticism and big-game production in the tournament could land him in the late lottery if he can produce another big game against top-seeded Memphis on Thursday.

Josh McRoberts, PF, Duke: McRoberts was widely hailed as the top freshman in the country at the start of the season. Given the play of North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough, it's hard to argue McRoberts deserves that distinction now. But McRoberts has more NBA upside than Hansbrough, and after an up-and-down freshman season, McRoberts has come alive the last month of the season. His streak of solid play has extended into the tournament with an impressive 14-point, 13-rebound performance against George Washington (true, GW's Pops Mensah-Bonsu wasn't 100 percent). That type of play in the tournament was exactly what ignited Marvin Williams' rise last season. If McRoberts can continue to contribute to a Duke run deep into the tournament, he'll get consideration as a top-10 pick. To move into the top five, he would need another year at Duke, according to scouts, so he could be the lead man (without J.J. Redick and Shelden Williams).

Marcus Williams, PG, UConn: If you were a casual basketball watcher, knew nothing of the hype Rudy Gay has gotten from scouts and the Internet, and sat down and watched a UConn game, who would you say was the best player on the team? It's been pretty clear the last two games that Williams is. He is averaging 20 points and eight assists, with a 5-of-8 mark from 3-point range and just four turnovers in the tournament. Gay is bigger and more athletic and has all the upside in the world, but when the game is on the line, the ball is in Williams' hands -- and he's delivered. Williams is the best pure point guard in the nation, and he's proven that he also can put the ball in the basket when the offense stalls. And he repeatedly showed on Sunday that he has the quickness to get by Rajon Rondo. Considering that Rondo is considered more athletic and quicker -- in fact, one of the best perimeter defenders in college basketball -- that says something about Williams. A couple of scouts compared him favorably to Deron Williams and Andre Miller. Based on how he outplayed Rondo on Sunday (though Rondo played pretty well), we've now ranked Williams as the top point guard in the draft.

Honorable Mention: Randy Foye, PG/SG, Villanova; Shelden Williams, PF, Duke; Ronald Steele, PG, Alabama; Corey Brewer, SG/SF, Florida; Maurice Ager, SG, Michigan State; J.J. Redick, SG, Duke; Adam Morrison, SF, Gonzaga; Tyler Hansbrough, PF, North Carolina; Al Horford, PF, Florida; Marcelus Kemp, SG, Nevada; Robert Vaden, SG/SF, Indiana; Mustafa Shakur, PG, Arizona; Christian Maraker, C, Pacific

Who's Not?

Gerry McNamara, PG/SG, Syracuse: He was pretty amazing in the Big East tournament, leading a couple of NBA scouts to question whether they had him ranked too low. But any second thoughts about McNamara's status as a second-rounder at best in this year's draft disappeared after his terrible first-round performance against Texas A&M. McNamara didn't make a shot from the field and had as many turnovers as he did assists. Syracuse wouldn't have made it to the Big Dance without McNamara, but the Orange also got tripped up in the first round because of him.

Brandon Rush, SF, Kansas: The Big 12 freshman of the year has been strong this season, but his first-round play against Bradley was ugly (as was his team's). Rush, who has been a steady force for the Jayhawks, went 4-of-14 from the field and never got to the line in KU's loss. Rush has proven this season that he's a legit NBA prospect. But he needs to spend at least one more year in Lawrence before thinking about the NBA draft. This goes for the entire KU squad.

Dee Brown, PG, Illinois: We all love what Dee Brown is made of. He's tough, he's a leader and he plays with great heart. But his shooting stroke and shot selection have been so awful this year that scouts have soured. His shooting woes extended to the tournament, where he went 6-of-25 from the field in two games. If he still wants to be a first-round pick, he'd better hit every shot he takes in NBA workouts.

Shannon Brown, SG, Michigan State: Brown has been steadily moving up our board all season and looked poised to crack the first round if he continued his strong play into the tournament. He didn't. Brown was awful for the Spartans in the first round, shooting just 2-of-11 (for a total of 10-of-41 in his last three games). For a guy who was a borderline first-round pick anyway, it wasn't the impression he wanted to make on NBA scouts. As for MSU's Paul Davis, his lackluster play in the first round didn't help his stock, either.

Joseph Jones, PF, Texas A&M: Jones was considering declaring for the draft after a strong sophomore season for the Aggies. But his 6-of-21 performance in the tournament along with his struggles against the more athletic LSU big men hurt him tremendously. He needs to go back to Texas A&M in great shape next season and develop some consistency.

2) Elliott Kalb of FOXSports.com with a great list

These NCAA records will never be broken

The NCAA men's basketball tournament has provided some of the greatest moments in sports since its inception in 1939. Along the way, there have been players and teams that have set records that will never be broken.

1. UCLA's 38-game winning streak. John Wooden's UCLA Bruins won seven consecutive national championships, finally losing to North Carolina State in double overtime in the 1974 Final Four. How amazing is this streak? Consider this. In the past four years, there have been four different national champions. Eight different schools made the national championship game. And 15 different schools have made the Final Four. Only Kansas (2002 and 2003) made two Final Four appearances in the last four years. No one even gets halfway to UCLA's 38-game winning streak, because that would require more than three national championships in a row. Yes, the Bruins had advantages. In their run of seven championships, they played eight NCAA tournament games in Los Angeles. And Wooden's NCAA tournament record of 47-10 is aided by superstars Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (12-0) and Bill Walton (11-1). But the Wizard of Westwood won a lot of games in the NCAAs without either.

2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar was named Most Outstanding Player at the Final Four three consecutive years. Actually, he was known as Lew Alcindor at the time, but the point is this: What sophomore who wins the national championship and is selected the Most Outstanding Player going to stick in school for two more seasons these days? No one leaves that much money on the table.

3. No NCAA Tournament game will match the 24.1 television rating of the 1979 championship game between Indiana State and Michigan State.
Last year, the North Carolina-Illinois matchup was fairly compelling. The Tar Heels were a familiar team with national appeal. And the game did a 15.0 rating. Contrast that with North Carolina's national championship game in 1992, when it was watched by 22.2% of the country. It's impossible to get those numbers anymore for a college basketball game. Hey, earlier this year college football fans had a chance to see the Texas Longhorns defeat the defending champion USC Trojans 41-38. That game did a 21.7. And basketball will never match football ratings in the United States. In today's universe of vast choices, I don't see how the record rating set by Larry Bird and Magic Johnson can be topped.

4. The University of North Carolina, by spreading out their record 16 Final Four appearances, has had a record 135 players appear in the Final Four. You're not guaranteed a trip to the Final Four when you're recruited to play basketball by the Tar Heels — but it's not a bad bet. You could have played for Carolina in the 1950s and made the Final Four (like Lennie Rosenbluth). You could have played for Carolina in the 1960s and made it (like Charlie Scott). Phil Ford is one who made it in the 1970s. Michael Jordan and James Worthy made it in the 80s. George Lynch and Eric Montross in the 90s. Scott May and company in the 2000s.


5. 24 NCAA games. They don't play consolation games anymore. The most tournament games anyone can play — if they max out and get to the NCAA Championship game all four years — is 24. Laettner was a freshman with Duke in 1989, when he averaged 8.9 points and 4.7 rebounds. He became a force in the NCAA tournament, averaging 14.6 points in the 1989 NCAA Tournament. Duke advanced to the Final Four, where they lost to Seton Hall. Duke advanced to the Finals in 1990 (losing to UNLV). In Laettner's junior and senior seasons, the Blue Devils won consecutive national championships.

6. Duke's Mike Krzyzewski has an NCAA Tournament record of 66-18. That's more victories than John Wooden (whose teams didn't compete in 64-team fields) and more than Dean Smith and more than all but a handful of schools. Coach K is establishing a record that will take 25-30 years to break, if it's ever broken.

7. Austin Carr of Notre Dame holds a record that can never be broken. Most college basketball fans will assume it's a scoring record. Carr does hold the NCAA Tournament record for the highest scoring average in one year's NCAA tournament (52.7 points in three games in 1970) and for the highest scoring average in a career (41.3 points in seven NCAA tournament games). But I'm going to leave open the possibility that someone will come along and be an unstoppable scorer. But no one will approach Carr's five defeats in NCAA tournament play. That's correct, he was 2-5 in his NCAA tournament career with the Fighting Irish. Here's how. In 1968, Carr was a freshman and ineligible. In 1969, his team lost a first-round game to Miami of Ohio 63-60 in the Mideast Regional. In 1970, the 21-8 Notre Dame team won a first-round game against Ohio University (led by Carr's 61 points). They then lost a Mideast regional game to Kentucky by a score of 109-99. In that game, Austin Carr scored 52 points in a losing effort, mainly because Kentucky's Dan Issel scored 44 in the same game. Two days later, Notre Dame lost a Mideast Regional Consolation game to Iowa. In 1971, the Irish returned to the tournament. They defeated TCU in the first round. They lost to Drake in a Midwest Regional game, and to Houston in the Midwest Regional Consolation game. There were only a few years that consolation games were played (they haven't been played in more than 25 years). Very few players today lose four tournament games. Carr isn't the only player to lose five tournament games, but the most high profile (North Carolina lost a consolation game after reaching the Final Four in 1967, lost the Championship game in 1968, and lost a consolation game after reaching the Final Four in 1969; and so a Tar Heel from '66-'69 named Rusty Clark lost five tournament games as well).

8. The University of Kentucky blocked a record 48 shots in the 1998 NCAA Tournament, including 14 versus UCLA in a South Regional semifinal.
This is what happens when a college team comprised of the likes of Nazr Mohammed and Jamaal Magliore and Scott Padgett — all of whom became serviceable NBA players — swat away everything in sight.

9. Shaquille O'Neal blocked 11 shots in one tournament game. In a 1992 game against Brigham Young, Shaq blocked 11 shots. And no, Shawn Bradley was not on the BYU team that year. The year before, Bradley blocked 10 shots in a tournament game.

10. Elvin Hayes had 98 rebounds in the 1968 NCAA tournament (five games). Players just don't get 20 rebounds in college basketball games anymore. Wake Forest great Tim Duncan had 22 in two different tournament games. No one has had more than that in one game in nearly 30 years. No one — not even Duncan — has averaged as many as 15 boards in a tournament since Phil Hubbard in 1977.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Observations from the first weekend…

How much does the Big Ten suck? Well, the Big Ten is out of the NCAA Tournament after one weekend…Ohio State (No. 2 seed), Iowa (No. 3), Illinois (No. 4) and Michigan State (No. 6), and Wisconsin (No. 9) lost in round one…while Indiana (No. 6) lost to Gonzaga in the second round.
I think I’m most bothered by Michigan State…the pre-season top 5 team and potential tournament dark horse turned out to be soft as tissue paper…Ohio State was a paper number 2 seed at best…Big Ten Tourney champs Iowa does just what their coach has always done…remember Steve Alford still has just one NCAA Tournament win as coach of the Hawkeyes…Illinois relied too much on Dee Brown (who is good) and James Augustine (who is not)…Wisconsin, a system team if there ever was one, ran their own system sloppily and got whacked…Indiana needed a yin to Marco Killingsworth’s yang…in the end, it looks like the Missouri Valley Conference was the “power” conference in the mid-west…

Wow…Florida's 6-foot-11 energizer-bunny/pogo stick Joakim Noah averaged 16.5 points, 7.5 rebounds and 4.5 blocks in tournament victories over South Alabama and Wisconsin-Milwaukee…

Best and beefiest head-to-head matchup in the sweet 16: Duke's 6’9 260 lb. Shelden Williams vs. LSU's 6’8” 315 lb. Glen Davis…

I guess it’s not always about the team…with Duke's J.J. Redick and Shelden Williams, Gonzaga's Adam Morrison, Villanova's Randy Foye and Washington's Brandon Roy the top 5 players in the nation are all still alive in the Sweet 16

Best team matchup: the speed of Florida vs. the size of Georgetown…by the way the Hoyas front-line goes 6-9 Brandon Bowman, 6-9 Jeff Green and 7-2 Roy Hibbert…and Hibbert, the Hoyas' center, had 20 points, 14 rebounds and 3 blocks on Sunday absolutely dominating Ohio State’s Terrence Dials the Big Ten player of the Year…and one of those blocks went back 11 rows…

Best shooter: PJ Couisnard's of Wichita St. who’s 20 pts included a perfect 4 for 4 from 3-point range to go along with 9 rebounds and 5 assists as the Shockers beat Tennessee…

Worst shooter: Tennessee’s Chris Lofton who goes 0 for life, well actually 7-21 from the field including 6-18 from three I the loss to Wichita St….

Shot of the weekend: Northwestern State's Jermaine Wallace hits a ridiculous fadeaway 3-pointer from the corner with 0.5 seconds left with Iowa’s Jeff Horner draped all over him to give NW State (14) the upset over Iowa (3) 64-63….

Worst broadcaster: Billy Packer sucks…after he rips the selection committee a new one for having so many mid majors in the dance and now three of them — Wichita State and Bradley from the Missouri Valley and George Mason from the Colonial — earn trips to the Sweet 16…

Best Coach: Jim Larranaga of George Mason who best two of 2005's Final Four teams in Michigan State and North Carolina…plus the 56 year old coach rallied his players in the locker room by playing the Purple Ribbon All-Stars' rap track Kryptonite…he then told his players, with a straight face, that they were UNC's kryptonite…

Great performances:

Patrick Sparks for Kentucky goes for 28 pts on 10-16 from the field in an 87-83 loss to UConn…amazing to watch, dude has nothing…no hops, no quicks...nothing...and yet he can shoot, pass, sees the floor well, plays within himself and really thinks the game…

Marcus Williams for UConn goes for 20 pts and 8 assists in a 87-83 win over Kentucky…and right into the 1st round of the upcoming draft…

Folarin Campbell of George Mason goes for 15 pts, 7 rebs and 4 assts in a 65-60 win over UNC…Carolina tried every guard on the roster and nobody could hang with him…

Allan Ray of Villanova goes for 25 pts and 4 assts in an 82-78 win over Arizona…’Zona point guard Mustafa Shakur is going to be having nightmares about Ray…

Marcus Williams of Arizona goes for 24 pts, 8 rebs, and 4 assts in an 82-78 loss to Villanova…he’s a freshman and ‘Zona only loses SG and serial drunk driver Hassan Adams so the ‘Cats will be good next year…

Quick note on the women’s tournament…OK…so Candace Parker of Tennessee dunked twice in a 104-52 drubbing of Army…yes it’s impressive, but really, have you seen the film? Two very pedestrian fingertip dunks…boring, at least when Michelle Snow did it for Tennessee a few years ago she banged it with 2 hands…West Virginia's Georgeann Wells was the first woman to dunk in a college game, on Dec. 21, 1984, against the University of Charleston (W.Va.). A technical foul was called as her teammates ran onto the floor. Wells, a 6-foot-7 center, dunked again three games later against Xavier…

Best names in the tournament from Luke Winn of SI.com:

All-Religion Team

David Godbold (G, Oklahoma) - This Sooner deity shoots 33% from trinity range.
Joakim Noah (F/C, Florida) - Floods the court with intensity and can hit from behind the ark.
Moses Ehambe (G/F, Oral Roberts) - Trying to lead the Golden Eagles to the promised land.
Christian Moody (F, Kansas) - Focus of recruiting Armageddon between KU and Moody Bible Institute.
Mohamed Tangara (F, Arizona) - This one went to the Mt. Zion Christian Academy.
Kevin Massiah (F, Wisconsin-Milwaukee) - Often vanishes (plays 12 min. per game), but the Massiah will come again.

All-Tunes Team

Jazz Williams (G, Southern) - Hasn't been played since November.
Tony Bennett (G, Bradley) - Left his shot in San Francisco: 4-for-13 vs. Southern Illinois in MVC tourney.
Mustafa Shakur (G, Arizona) - Rap is that he'll be too amped opening the tourney in hometown Philly.
Ashanti Cook (G, Georgetown) - This 43% trey shooter is "Always On Time."
Ramon Sessions (G, Nevada) - Recording only 4.6 points and 5 assists per game, he won't break records.

All-Noise Team
Squeaky Johnson (G, UAB) - Greases the Blazers with 6.2 assists per game.
Boo Davis (G, Wisconsin-Milwaukee) - Will hear it if he doesn't come up big against Oklahoma.
Boomer Herndon (C, Belmont) - Junior sounds like a natural for a Sonics uniform.

The All-Automotive Team
Boubacar Coly (F, Xavier) - Last seen stalled on the sideline after a minute of action on Jan. 9.
Engin Atsur (G, NC State) - This Engin couldn't against Wake Forest on March 10 (3 points in 38 minutes).
Hans Gasser (F, Washington) - Gasser can fill it up, but he only gets off the pine for 10 minutes.

All-All-Name Team
Longar Longar (C, Oklahoma) - At only 7.3 minutes per game, he spends a longar time on the bench.
Trajinski Grigsby (F, South Alabama) - Grigsby scoring only 1.3 points per game.
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (F, UCLA) - Bruins' top rebounder hails from same Cameroon town as teammate Alfred Aboya. Yow.
Pierre Marie Altidor-Cespedes (G, Gonzaga) - Lacks height (he's only 6'), but not vowels.
Mamery Diallo (F/C, Gonzaga) - The fading Mamery played in only eight games this season.
Atila Santos (C, Northern Iowa) - No Hun is feared when he plays only five minutes per game.
Tack Minor (G, LSU) - His skills aren't sharp. Minor's been buried since Dec. 23.
Mani Messy (F, Seton Hall) - Had ample time to litter bench area this season (played in just two games).

Great article from Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.com about the passing of one of NCAA hoops greatest coaches Ray Meyer:

Meyer's life was one of giving, and forgiving

A lot of grown men will set a record for tear-duct usage come Tuesday at Chicago's St. Vincent DePaul Church. That's when the arc of Ray Meyer's life, all 92 years of it, will be celebrated and mourned in a 10 a.m. service on the same campus where he coached basketball in five successive decades. That's when you'll witness the trickle-down effect of someone who knew the eloquent power of a warm smile and the lasting meaning of an act of kindness. Meyer died Friday of congestive heart failure. It figures it would have taken this long for his pump to give out. After all, Meyer's heart was his strongest feature. He was known by everyone, including his own family, as "Coach.'' I didn't know him well, but you didn't have to. He wasn't a nuanced man, which was part of his charm. With Meyer, there was right and wrong, friend or foe, loyal or disloyal. There was no in-between. And there also was no black or white. You earned Meyer's trust based on character, not color. Meyer won basketball games, to be sure. You don't need to run your forefinger down the list of all-time NCAA victories very long until you see Meyer's record at DePaul: 724-354. He won the 1945 NIT, when the NIT was a bottle of Dom Perignon and the NCAA tournament was a can of Blatz. And he was nimble enough to lead DePaul, the only head coaching job of his career, to the NCAA Final Four when he was 29 and again when he was 65. That might have been the genius of Meyer. He understood how to build a bridge from one generation to the next, and used something as basic as family and, well, love to do it. Basketball historians will point excitedly to his use of 6-foot-10 George Mikan -- the game's first true skilled star -- as some sort of revolutionary milestone. And they have a point; Meyer instantly recognized the impact Mikan could and would have on the sport. But no way does Mikan share the lede of Meyer's obit. To fully appreciate Meyer you have to remember he came from humble beginnings. His father died when he was 13. His first contract at DePaul was for $2,500, which might not pay for the make-up crew for a Mike Krzyzewski Chevy commercial. Better yet, Meyer retained his humility even when DePaul, Marquette with the eclectic Al McGuire, and Notre Dame with Digger Phelps, were an integral, quirky part of the national hoops landscape in the 1970s and early '80s. DePaul was part of the elite, and Meyer was its gap-toothed leader. On Friday, when news of Meyer's death became public, Phelps would refer to his longtime friend as "a gentle man," which was mostly right. Meyer was gentle. And exacting. And dictatorial if he had to be. And capable of holding a grudge. Just ask DePaul, which Meyer froze out for two years in protest of the way the school handled the forced resignation of his successor and son, Joey. But Meyer was forgiving, which is why he eventually ended the cold war with the school he loved. He was compassionate, a softy. He loved his summer basketball camp in the woods of Wisconsin, and loved even more the phone calls or notes he'd get years later from former campers. Until recently, I never knew Meyer earned a sociology degree at Notre Dame and later worked for the Chicago Relief Association, an organization dedicated to assisting the city's poor. Maybe that explains why Meyer was big on giving second chances. I remember doing a story on a former DePaul player who had had his share of post-college difficulties. There were run-ins with the law and talk of mental instability. Meyer's voice grew soft as he defended the essential goodness of his former player. He said the player was the victim of an assault where the attackers took a tire iron to his head -- and that the kid was never the same after it. Meyer did what he could to help. On occasion -- and Meyer said he witnessed it -- the former player would sit down at a piano and begin playing as if he had been classically trained. This is when Meyer's voice almost broke. He cared for his stars. He cared for the fallen. It only makes sense that Meyer died in March, when basketball matters most. He loved attending Final Fours. You'd see him in the stands with Joey. You'd see him at Sunday Mass in the church closest to the Final Four dome. Sometimes you'd see him Tuesday morning at the airport. That's when I saw him last. At the Atlanta airport in 2002, the morning after Maryland won the national championship. Chicago Tribune columnist Rick Morrissey and I said hello, and Meyer instantly began chatting up Rick. The next day I called Joey and kiddingly asked why his old man was giving me the DePaul freeze-out. An hour or so later my phone rang. It was Coach. He apologized. For what, I don't know; I'd rather talk to Morrissey than me, too. But this was so Ray Meyer. Just another act of kindness. I'll try to return the favor Tuesday at St. Vincent's. I just hope I can find an empty seat.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006


Love this picture of the Wizard Of Westwood...still ridiculous that he won 10 titles...

Here’s how I think everything will play out:

Atlanta Region

1st Round

1. Duke over 16. Southern…duh.

8. George Washington over 9. UNC-Wilmington…GW PF Pops Mesah-Bonsu is healthy.

12. Texas A&M over 5. Syracuse…Gerry McNamara is actually guarded in this game.

4. LSU over 13. Iona…LSU is too big and too strong, although Rucker Park Legend Steve
Burtt Jr. still goes for 40 points in the loss.

11. S. Illinois over 6. West Virginia…best game of the bracket, but Sulakis can defend and the Mountaineers can’t.

3. Iowa over 14. Northwestern St…Iowa is just plain more talented, but this one still makes me nervous…Iowa has a reputation for sucking in the tournament and Steve Alford has not been much of a tournament coach.

7. Cal over 10. NC State…Cal PF Leon “Show” Powe is too tough, but the hybrid Princeton offence for NC State will make this game close.

2. Texas over 15. Penn…hey Quakers, you’re not in the Ivy League anymore.

2nd Round

1. Duke over 8. George Washington…duh…although closer than the last duh.

4. LSU over 12. Texas A & M…too big, too strong, too athletic.

11.Southern Illinois over 3. Iowa…Salukis can D it up and Iowa is soft as tissue paper.

2. Texas over 7. Cal…Texas PG Daniel Gibson and SF PJ Tucker are too much for the Bears.

3rd Round – Sweet 16

1. Duke over 4. LSU…I will regret this, I know…but I just think Coach K will figure out a way to combat LSU’s superior size and athleticism…even though LSU is the better team on paper.

2. Texas over 11. Southern Illinois…Bloom is off the rose for the Salukis who can’t handle Texas’ size, especially PF Brad Buckman and C (and probable 1st overall pick in the NBA draft) LaMarcus Aldrige…

4th Round – Elite 8

2. Texas over 1. Duke…Yes it’s a feeling…Duke C Shelden Williams can’t guard both Buckman and Aldridge which means Texas has an advantage inside…also, UT PG Gibson is a superior player to Duke PG’s Greg Paulus and Sean Dockery…Tucker has to contain SG JJ Redick, but at the other end Redick simply can’t handle Tucker going to the basket…Texas will have learned from the blowout loss to Duke earlier in the year…plus I hate Duke so there.

Oakland Region

1st Round

1. Memphis over 16. Oral Roberts…this will be close than you think with all world scorer Caleb Green going for 40 in a too close for comfort loss…

8. Arkansas over 9. Bucknell…OK so Bucknell beat Kansas…that was last year. Big upset, blah blah blah…Get over it.

5. Pitt over 12. Kent St…Panthers are too big and too tough…although Pitt PG Karl Krauser lays the occasional egg…

4. Kansas over 13 Bradley…in a drilling…Kansas is the hottest team in the tourney, and 7 foot C Patrick O’Bryant is very overrated…

11. San Diego State over 6. Indiana…Aztecs’ SG Brandon Heath is a terrific scorer, PF Marcus slaughter is the real deal and SDS is coached by Steve Fisher (20-7 all time in the tourney!!!) who led Michigan to the 1989 NCAA title…besides, Indiana’s coach Mike Davis has already resigned effective and the end of the season and half his team doesn’t even like him…

3. Gonzaga over 14. Xavier…close but Zags are too talented.

10. Alabama over 7. Marquette…oh boy…this is a very, very, very close call…Alabama is one of those battle-tested teams that is ready for anything, while Marquette was supposed to be a year away and might not be ready…although Marquette PF Steve Nowak is the best free throw shooter in the world right now having made 72-74 this year. In the end I just trust Bama PG Ronald Steel and C Jermario Davidson to step up…but admittedly this matchup makes me reach for the Maalox.

2. UCLA over 15. Belmont…not close…not even a little…

2nd Round

1. Memphis over 8. Arkansas…too many athletes for Memphis, who will overwhelm Arkansas in the 2nd half with their depth.

4. Kansas over 5. Pitt…the Brandon Rush show as the Jayhawks’ SG continues to see his draft stock rise…Pitt is big and tough, but Kansas is just too quick and to hot right now.

3. Gonzaga over 11. San Diego State…by 1 in overtime…game of the tourney.

2. UCLA over 10. Alabama…Alabama has no answer for Bruins’ SG Aaron Affalo.

3rd Round – Sweet 16

4. Kansas over 1. Memphis…Kansas is my hot team and Memphis built its record on tomato cans anyway…

2. UCLA over 3. Gonzaga…Gonzaga can score but cannot defend and finds themselves unable to contain the multiple weapons of UCLA.

4th Round – Elite 8

2. UCLA over 4. Kansas…oh boy…very entertaining game, but the young fellas from Kansas get tight when they wake up and realize that they’re a game away from the final four. The matchups are intriguing with Rush vs. Affalo at the SG and Robinson vs. Farmar at the PG…in the end UCLA is a little more relaxed, a little closer to home, and a little more mature…call it a 3 point win.

Washington Region

1st Round

1. UConn over 16. Albany…by 50 points.

9. UAB over 8. Kentucky…Tubby is too distracted about coaching the NBA’s Charlotte Bobcats next year…plus UAB PG Squeaky Johnson will give UK PG Patrick Sparks fits…UAB plays the old Arkansas “40 minutes of Hell” defence pressing on every possession and rotating athletes in and out…

5. Washington over 12. Utah St…in a walk because Huskies PG Brandon Roy is exponentially better than anyone on the Aggies roster AND Utah St. is 1-11 in the tourney all time…which, well…sucks.

4. Illinois over 13. Air Force…very close game in the 50’s due to Air Force running the ball-control Princeton offence…this is a trendy upset pick, but Illini are just too talented and Air Force haven’t beaten anyone in the top 50 this year.

6. Michigan State over 11. George Mason…this will be a dunk-fest with Spartans guards Shannon Brown and Maurice Ager providing numerous highlights.

3. North Carolina over 14. Murray State…Yawn…

7. Wichita State over 10. Seton Hall…too bad because I think Seton Hall coach Louis Orr, who is getting screwed by the university’s administration contractually, is a fantastic coach…however, the Shockers are for real with balanced scoring (4 players in double figures) and a potent big man in 6’10” C Paul Miller, while the Pirates can’t shoot, making only 41.8% from the floor as a team.

2. Tennessee over 15. Winthrop…look, if there is going to be a 15 seed beat a 2 it will be here, because Tennessee is tired, rebounds poorly and have lost three of the last four…but Winthrop will have to be perfect and 2’s have so rarely beaten 15’sthat predicting it is folly…

2nd Round

1. UConn over 9. UAB…close until about 5 minutes left when superior talent overwhelms UAB…

5. Washington over 4. Illinois…Dee Brown goes cold and Brandon Roy gets hot…a close game but the Huskies prevail.

6. Michigan State over 3. North Carolina…game of the bracket here…UNC young player’s tighten up a game away from the sweet 16…again Spartans guards Brown and Ager are too much got UNC on the wing and Spartans senior C Paul Davis gets the better of UNC freshman PF Tyler Hansborough…if Hansborough stays UNC will be very dangerous next year.

2. Tennesee over 7. Wichita State…because Vols coach Bruce Pearl sweats through his suit (ew…gross) and SG Chris Lofton shoots the lights out…close 1 point win in OT.

3rd Round – Sweet 16

1. UConn over 5. Washington…Connecticut bigs Josh Boone and Hilton Armstrong are too much for Washington to handle in this all-Huskies matchup.

6. Michigan State over 2. Tennessee…Vols are tired and cannot matchup with the Spartans athletes…this will be a blowout.

4th Round – Elite 8

1. UConn over 6. Michigan State…Maybe the game of the year…fantastic matchups with Huskies SF Rudy Gay against Spartans SF Shannon Brown and Huskies SG Denham Brown against Spartans SG Maurice Ager, and Huskies C Hilton Armstrong against Spartans C Paul Davis…in the end, the difference will be that UConn PG Marcus Williams is just plain better than Spartans PG Drew Nietzel, UConn PF Josh Boone should be able to score on Spartans PF (and football player) Matt Trannon, and most tellingly UConn’s depth with Rashad Anderson scoring 13.5 PPG off the bench will be too much for Michigan State to handle.

Minneapolis Region

1st Round

1. Villanova over 16. Monmouth…a shellacking as it were.

8. Arizona over 9. Wisconsin…Badger’s SG Alando Tucker will score, but Arizona is too deep…although could go the other way if Hassan Adams is drunk.

5. Nevada over 12 Montana…Repeat after me: Nick Fazekas…Nick Fazekas…Nick Fazekas.

4. Boston College over 13. Pacific…very nervous pick as I think Boston College’s toughness is overstated in that they can’t defend anyone and Pacific can score.

11. Wisconsin-Milwaukee over 6. Oklahoma…ummm…Sooners are the best offensive rebounding club in the NCAA, but the Panthers are top 10 in defensive rebounding…Sooners struggle to score sometimes, while the Panthers have a terrific three player scoring combo in SG Boo Davis (16.1 PPG) and forwards Joah Tucker (16.5 PPG) and Adrian Tigert (12.9 PPG)…this is a gutsy call, but as a 1 game matchup, the Sooners are slower, score less and less easily, and rely too much on getting their own misses.

3. Florida over 14. South Alabama…not even close…

7. Georgetown over 10. Northern Iowa…I know NI is the trendy pick, but they’ve lost 5 of their last 7 in a weak conference, while the Hoyas have beaten Duke, Pitt and Marquette this year…plus the Hoyas run the Princeton offence to perfection and I’ve already dealt out losses to the other two Princeton offence teams (NC State and Air Force).

2. Ohio State over 15. Davidson…this will be close and nerve-racking at the half and then boom goes the dynamite in the 2nd half…

2nd Round

1. Villanova over 8. Arizona…Villanova will run circles around Arizona…

5. Nevada over 4. Boston College…BC’s toughness vs. Nevada’s skill…close game, but the Wolfpack will win with its superior shooting touch and better defence.

3. Florida over 11. Wisconsin-Milwaukee…Florida C Joakim Noah too much for the Panthers inside…

7. Georgetown over 2. Ohio State…I’m sorry, but I cannot explain why I like this pick…I just don’t believe in Ohio State…

3rd Round – Sweet 16

1. Villanova over 5. Nevada…the Wildcats guards rebound well swarm on defence and will have to in order to contain Nevada’s size…this will be a squeaker…

3. Florida over 7. Georgetown…Florida will run just enough to offset the tempo that the Hoyas will try to establish.

4th Round – Elite 8

1. Villanova over 3. Florida…although Noah could be the X factor again, I expect the Wildcat guards to be too much for Florida to handle…plus Villanova will not turn the ball over very much which will keep Florida from running and getting out on the break…

Final Four

2. Texas over 2. UCLA…in the end the only thing that matters will be that Longhorn’s PF LaMarcus Aldrige has no equal on the UCLA roster…UT PG Gibson and UCLA PG Farmar are a wash, as are UT SF Tucker and UCLA SG Afflalo…these two teams play similar styles in that they both run opportunistically and work well in their halfcourt sets…UCLA is the better defensive team and slightly more athletic…I think the difference is that UT is the nations 2nd best rebounding team and will simply get more possessions as a result.

1. UConn over 1. Villanova…Villanova finally falls prey to a team that is their equal moving the ball and is too big, too strong and too deep…Wildcats will tire in this game as UConn pounds them inside and shuttles in reserves to defend the guards…Villanova will have no answer for the overwhelming size of UConn inside and will start missing those crucial three pointers in the second half as they begin to tire…

NCAA Championship Final

1. UConn over 2. Texas…Fantastic matchup of two very similar teams…big, athletic, good rebounders, decent defensively…the individual matchups are very close…at PG UConn’s Marcus Williams is a better player than UT’s Kenton Paulino…at SG UT’s Daniel Gibson is a better scorer while UConn’s Denham Brown is a better defender and rebounder and is the hotter player coming into the tournament…at SF UConn’s Rudy Gay is bigger, more athletic and abetter defender and rebounder, but not as tough and relentless as UT’s PJ Tucker…at the PF spot UConn’s Josh Boone is superior in every way but toughness to UT’s Brad Buckman…at the C spot UConn’s Hilton Armstrong is the better defender but not nearly the scorer, rebounder and athlete that UT C LaMarcus Aldrige is…in other words these teams are pretty even…except in 2 areas: coaching and bench. Rick Barnes is a terrific coach, but Jim Calhoun is a 2 time NCAA champion whose in the Hall of Fame: advantage UConn…plus the UConn bench features Rashad Anderson in the Vinnie Johnson Microwave role and forward Jeff Adrien and PG Craig Autrie who’d be starters on a lot of Division 1 teams, while Texas does not have similar depth…in the end, UConn becomes the reigning basketball dynasty with their 3rd title since 1999…

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Here's the holy grail of NCAA tournament info..the Pete Tiernan Insider report...He exhaustively breaks down matchups ovewr the history of the tournament...

Seed-by-seed matchups in NCAA

A top seed has never lost to a No. 16 seed in the history of the men's NCAA Tournament. But what about the other seed matchups?

Round 1

1 vs. 16 84-0, 1.000 There's only one slam dunk in the men's tournament: Top seeds have never lost to 16-seeds in the opening round. An upset's bound to happen one of these years, but it never will be worth predicting. Near misses: Purdue 73, Western Carolina 71 (1996). Michigan State 75, Murray State 71 OT (1990). Oklahoma 72, East Tennessee State 71 (1989). Georgetown 50, Princeton 49 (1989). (Tiger partisans still insist Alonzo Mourning's last-second block was a foul.)

2 vs. 15 80-4, 0.952 Once every five years or so, a 15-seed manages to knock off a 2-seed. The last victim was Iowa State … five tourneys ago. The time might be right for another upset, but don't pencil it into your bracket. Upset watch: All the 15-seed Cinderellas came into the tourney winning nine of their last 10 games and at least three in a row. They all have regular-season records no higher than .800, indicating that they've played their share of tough teams. And they all got balanced scoring from the back- and frontcourt, averaging between 37 percent and 58 percent of their scoring from guards. No. 15 seeds satisfying these three attributes are 4-8 against their No. 2 seed opponents. The rest of the No. 15 seeds are 0-72. Recent upsets: Hampton over Iowa State, 2001. Coppin State over South Carolina in 1997. Santa Clara over Arizona, 1993. Richmond over Syracuse, 1991.

3 vs. 14 70-14, 0.833 Two out of every three tourneys are bad news for 3-seeds. Kansas can vouch for that. No. 3 seeds are three-and-a-half times more prone to first-round upsets than 2-seeds. Heck, they're less likely to win one game in the tourney than the top seeds are to win two. With all due respect to Bucknell, however, it still doesn't make any sense to pick 3-seeds to lose. Too many have won championships to eliminate them early.
Upset watch: No. 14 seeds most likely to spring upsets are high-scoring squads, averaging more than 77 points a game. They're 11-22 (.333) while their lower scoring counterparts are just 3-48 (.058). The telltale sign of a 3-seed victim is a tight margin of victory. No. 3 seeds that beat opponents by an average of less than 12 points are five times more prone to upsets (12 losses in 45 tries for a 26.7 percent upset rate) than 3-seeds that win by a comfortable margin (only 2 losses in 39 tries for a 5.1% upset rate).
Recent upsets: Bucknell over Kansas, 2005. Weber State over North Carolina, 1999. Richmond over South Carolina, 1998.

4 vs. 13 67-17, 0.798 No. 4 seeds perform almost as solidly as No. 3 seeds -- and far better than 5-seeds. With nearly 80 percent of 4s advancing to round two and less than one per tourney getting upset, it's too risky to pick a 13-seed in round one. Upset watch: The biggest indicator of a 13-seed Cinderella is frontcourt scoring. No. 13 seeds that get between 53 and 63 percent of their points from forwards and centers -- like Vermont last year -- are 10-13 (.434). That's almost four times better than more guard-oriented squads (7-54, .115). Ironically, 4-seeds are more apt to be victimized when they can't neutralize 13-seed frontcourts with solid backcourt scoring punch; 4s that get less than half their scoring from guards are upset 28 percent of the time (14 of 50 games); those with better backcourt scoring have only been upset three times in 34 matchups. Recent upsets: Vermont over Syracuse, 2005. Tulsa over Dayton, 2003. UNC Wilmington over USC, 2002.

5 vs. 12 57-27, 0.679 The 5 vs. 12 matchup marks the point in round one when it no longer pays to give higher seeds a free pass in your bracket. Over the last five years, 5-seeds are just 11-9 against their lower-seeded opponent. And when you consider that 12-seeds are over .500 in round two, it isn't wise to dismiss them without first considering the factors that contribute to their opening round success. Upset watch: The two factors that matter most in identifying 12-seed spoilers are team experience and frontcourt scoring. Twelfth-seeded teams that have been to the tourney the previous year are 13-11 (.542) against 5-seeds; all others are 14-46 (.200). More significantly, 12-seeds that get 55 to 75 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers are 18-12 (.667); the rest are 8-44 (.154) -- more than four times worse. Recent upsets: UW-Milwaukee over Alabama, 2005. Manhattan over Florida, 2004. Pacific over Providence, 2004.

6 vs. 11 59-25, 0.702 The odds are better that a 6-seed will advance to round two than a 5-seed, but that doesn't mean you automatically should ink them into your bracket. Sure, 6-seeds are 14-6 in the last five tourneys, and they're notorious 3-seed killers in round two. Still, tourney pool success usually comes from accurately identifying the 11- and 12-seed surprises. Upset watch: Offensive punch and victory margin are the two keys to success for 11-seeds. Teams that score more than 75 points a game and beat their opponents by at least six points on average are 16-15 (.516). All other 11-seeds are three times worse at 9-44 (.170). Sixth-seeded upset victims tend to be high scoring and riding false momentum; 6-seeds that average more than 75 points a game and have won at least seven of their last 10 games are just 12-14 (.462) in round one; the rest are 47-11 (.810).
Recent upsets: Alabama-Birmingham over LSU, 2005. Central Michigan over Creighton, 2003. Southern Illinois over Texas Tech, 2002. Wyoming over Gonzaga, 2002.

7 vs. 10 51-33, 0.607 As close as these seeds are, it's surprising that 7-seeds have been so dominant in the matchup. While No. 7 seeds win more than 60 percent of the time, 10-seeds still win one or two games per tourney. The trick is to figure out the right ones to advance, as picking wrong one can make this a very damaging matchup. Anyone who picked Creighton over West Virginia last year can attest to that. Upset watch: Surprisingly, inexperience tends to level the playing field in the 7 vs. 10 matchup. Tenth-seeded teams that have gone to the Dance less than three years in a row with coaches who've made fewer than five tourney trips are 21-20 (.512); all other 10-seeds are 12-31 (.279). The most victimized 7-seeds lack offensive punch and backcourt scoring. Squads that score fewer than 76 points a game and get less than half their points from guards are just 7-16 (.304); the rest of the seven seeds are 44-17 (.721). Recent upsets: North Carolina State over Charlotte, 2005. Nevada over Michigan State, 2004. Auburn over St. Joseph's, 2003. Arizona State over Memphis, 2003.

8 vs. 9 38-46, 0.452 The 8 vs. 9 matchup is the closest thing to a "pick-'em" contest in the opening round. In fact, it's the only matchup in which the lower-seeded team prevails more often. At first blush, it would seem that favoring nine seeds is the way to go, but their abysmal 3-43 record against top seeds in round two is a pretty significant deterrent. Of course, nobody's going to predict either of these seeds to knock off a top seed … so the value of correctly predicting this matchup is usually restricted to four points in the first round. Toss-up tips: The key performance indicator for this matchup is team experience and victory margin. 8-seeds that have been to the tourney the previous year are 26-21 (.553); those that haven't are 12-25 (.324). On the other hand, 9-seeds with fewer than three straight tourney trips that beat their opponents by an average of less than seven points are 10-16 (.385); the rest are 36-22 (.621).

Round 2

NCAA Tournament: 1 vs. 8, 9 vs. 16 bracket
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
1 72 12 0.857
8 9 29 0.237
9 3 43 0.070

Round two is made up of four gateway matchups to the Sweet 16. The 1 vs. 8 and 9 vs. 16 bracket is easily the most predictable. Top seeds advance an astounding 86 percent of the time. No. 8 and 9 seeds pull off upsets a little more often than every other tourney, but not so often that it's worth picking them in your bracket. If you want to test this theory, you're much better off picking an eight rather than a 9-seed upset.

1 vs. 8 29-9, 0.763 Unlike 9-seeds, 8-seeds do offer up a measure of resistance against top seeds in round two. In eight of the last 21 tourneys, at least one 8-seed has made it to the Sweet 16 (two made it in 2000 -- North Carolina and Wisconsin). What are the characteristics of these eighth-seeded giant killers? They're experienced, having gone to the tourney the previous year, and they're battle-tested, with an average victory margin less than six points. No. 8 seeds satisfying these conditions are 7-8 (.467); all the rest are 2-21 (.087). The most likely 1-seed victims are inexperienced and offensively challenged. Top seeds that didn't go to the Dance the year before and that score fewer than 78 points a game are just 12-7 (.632), while their counterparts are 18-2 (.900). Recent upsets: Alabama over Stanford, 2004. UCLA over Cincinnati, 2002. North Carolina over Stanford, 2000. Wisconsin over Arizona, 2000.

1 vs. 9 43-3, 0.935 Can you say "lambs to slaughter"? When you consider that there are fewer 9-seeds advancing to the Sweet 16 than 15-seeds upsetting 2-seeds in round one, you're talking about an extreme pushover performance. It would be beyond foolish to advance a 9-seed in your bracket, but if you happen to get in a debate over which 9-seed is most likely to knock off a top seed, pick a high-scoring inexperienced team that beats its opponents by a comfortable margin. No. 9 seeds that didn't go to the tourney the year before, score more than 73 points and win by more than seven points a game are 3-10; the rest are a big, fat 0-33. Recent upsets: Alabama-Birmingham over Kentucky, 2004. Boston College over North Carolina, 1994. UTEP over Kansas, 1992.

NCAA Tournament: 4 vs. 5, 12 vs. 13 bracket
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
4 37 30 0.552
5 30 27 0.526
12 14 13 0.519
13 3 14 0.176

If you look no further than round two, this is the most difficult of the Sweet 16 gateway brackets to predict. But the pressure is relieved by the fact that anyone coming out of this bracket plays the top seed in round three, and consistently takes it on the chin (losing 80% of the time). Still, getting this bracket right helps you gain early-round points that might make the difference in a tight office pool. The problem is, no other bracket has 3-seeds so evenly matched. The No. 4, 5 and 12 seeds all have records above .500 (and below .600) in round two.

4 vs. 5 25-20, 0.556 While 4-seeds have held the advantage in this matchup since 1985, 5-seeds have actually won five of the last six games. Bench play and scoring offense are the two keys to determine who will prevail. 4-seeds that get at least 18 percent of their scoring from the bench are 20-9 (.690); those that rely more on starters are 5-11 (.312). No. 4 seeds that score more than 77 points a game are 17-9 (.654), while less prolific squads are 8-11 (.421). The same rule is a key indicator of 5-seed success. Those teams that average more than 77 points per game are 12-8 (.600); the rest are 8-17 (.320).
Recent matchups: Louisville (4) over Georgia Tech (5), 2005. Villanova (5) over Florida (4), 2005. Syracuse (5) over Maryland (4), 2004. Illinois (5) over Cincinnati (4), 2004.

4 vs. 12 12-10, 0.545 This matchup is closer than the disparity in seed positions indicates. The most reliable 4-seeds come from the Big Six conferences and have coaches with at least four years of tourney experience. They're 10-4 (.714), while other 4-seeds are 2-8 (.200). The most surprising 12-seeds also come from the Big Six or are mid-majors with less than nine wins in their last ten games. They're 9-4 (.692); other 12-seeds are 1-8 (.111). Recent upsets: UW-Milwaukee over Boston College, 2005. Butler over Louisville, 2003.

5 vs. 13 10-2, 0.833 Unlike 4-seeds, five seeds have little trouble in their Cinderella mismatch against 13-seeds. There's little reason to pick against them, particularly if their backcourt shoulders more than 38 percent of the scoring load. Guard-dominant 5-seeds have never lost in this matchup (9-0), while more frontcourt-oriented 5-seeds have struggled (1-2, .333). Upsets: Oklahoma over Charlotte, 1999. Richmond over Georgia Tech, 1988.

12 vs. 13 4-1, 0.800 The longshot seeds in this bracket have squared off against each other more often than any other longshot pairing (9 vs. 16, 10 vs. 15, 11 vs. 14) in the second round. Surprisingly, 12-seeds treat 13-seeds like pushovers, prevailing 80 percent of the time. What did the one 13-seed victor have that the victims didn't? Team experience. Valparaiso had been to the tourney three straight years when it knocked off Florida State in 1998. The four 13-seed losers had not been to the previous year's tourney.
Matchup history: Gonzaga (12) beat Indiana State (13), 2001. Valparaiso (13) beat Florida State (12), 1998. George Washington (12) over Southern University (13), 1993. New Mexico State (12) over Southwest Louisiana (13), 1992. Eastern Michigan (12) over Penn State (13), 1991.

NCAA Tournament: 3 vs. 6, 11 vs. 14 bracket
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
3 39 31 0.557
6 33 26 0.559
11 10 15 0.400
14 2 12 0.143

The 3 vs. 6, 11 vs. 14 bracket is perhaps the most difficult pairing to figure out in the second round. That's mainly because sixth-seeded teams are such surprising performers. While fewer 6-seeds make it to round two than 3s (59 to 70), they have a slightly better win percentage than their higher-seeded foes in the second round. For that matter, they also win with greater regularity than four and 5-seeds. Eleventh-seeded teams aren't slouches either. In fact, odds are that the four teams advancing from this bracket pairing will be composed of more No. 6, 11 or 14 seeds than 3-seeds.

3 vs. 6 24-24, 0.500 This is the most hotly contested matchup of the second round. It's also probably the one bracket pool players ponder the longest, considering that one and 2-seeds usually get automatic passes to the Sweet 16, and the 4 vs. 5 game doesn't warrant much scrutiny since winners are served up to top seeds in round three anyway. Coaching inexperience actually helps 6-seeds in this matchup. Sixth-seeded teams with coaches who've been to the Dance fewer than six times are 15-7 (.682). That compares well to a 9-17 (.346) record for sixes with more veteran coaches. Meanwhile, less experienced 3-seeds hold serve better than tourney-grizzled squads. Third-seeded teams who've been to the Dance fewer than five times in a row are 19-13 (.594); the rest are 5-11 (.312). Recent upsets: Texas Tech over Gonzaga, 2005. Utah over Oklahoma, 2005. Vanderbilt over North Carolina State, 2004.

3 vs. 11 15-7, 0.682 It isn't exactly a "gimme" when 3-seeds square off against 11-seeds in round two. And the credit, or blame in this case, lies mostly with the 3-seeds. There is no clear performance indicator to explain why 11-seeds beat 3s. But there are two tell-tale signs of faltering 3-seeds: Bench play and team experience. No. 3 seeds with thin benches (no more than 20 percent of their scoring from nonstarters) are 7-7; deeper 3s are undefeated at 8-0. No. 3 seeds that either didn't go to the tourney the previous year or are tourney fixtures (more than six straight appearances) are 8-0; all others are 7-7. Recent upsets: Southern Illinois over Georgia, 2002. Temple over Florida, 2001. Loyola- Marymount over Michigan, 1990.

6 vs. 14 9-2, 0.818 If you advanced a 14-seed into the second round, you'd be smart to eliminate them in round two. But then again, logic would've dictated that you never advance a 14-seed in the first place. So if you're still feeling reckless with this matchup, take the 14-seeds that beat their opponents by more than 12 points per game. They're 2-0 against 6-seeds; the rest of the 14-seeds are 0-9. Recent upsets: Tennessee-Chattanooga over Illinois, 1997. Cleveland State over St. Joseph's, 1986.

11 vs. 14 3-0, 1.000 Anyone who's contemplating an 11 vs. 14 matchup in their bracket probably isn't reading this article to begin with and doesn't care that 11-seeds have never lost to 14-seeds in the second round. Washington beat Richmond in 1998, Connecticut handled Xavier in 1991 and Minnesota stopped Siena in 1989.

NCAA Tournament: 2 vs. 7, 10 vs. 15 bracket
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
2 53 27 0.662
7 14 37 0.275
10 17 16 0.515
15 0 4 0.000

By all rights, the 2 vs. 7 and 10 vs. 15 bracket should be a no-brainer, and most bracket pool players pick it that way, giving 2-seeds an automatic pass to the Sweet 16. But 2-seeds aren't nearly as reliable as top seeds in advancing beyond the second round. On average, one or two 7- or 10-seeds per tourney will take the place of 2-seeds. You can go the safe route, cross your fingers and advance all the 2-seeds. Or you can observe the telltale signs of 7- and 10-seed Cinderellas and go out on limb.

2 vs. 7 37-13, 0.680 Despite being the closer competitor by seed position, 7-seeds are surprisingly more prone to getting beat by two seeds than 10-seeds are. The 7-seeds that offer the stiffest resistance are tourney-tested, having been to the previous year's Dance and have beaten their opponents by more than six points a game. These 7-seeds are a respectable 9-10 (.474); others are 4-27 (.129). Recent upsets: West Virginia over Wake Forest, 2005. Xavier over Mississippi State, 2004. Michigan State over Florida, 2003.

2 vs. 10 16-14, 0.533 Amazingly, 10-seeds nearly break even with two seeds in the second round. Of course, the odds of a 10-seed winning its first two games are still just 19 percent, so it's not worth getting too excited about their propensity to topple two seeds. That said, the 10-seeds with the best odds of reaching the Sweet 16 come from the Big Six conferences (the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 or SEC). They're 8-4 (.667), while mid-major 10-seeds are half as reliable at 6-12 (.333). Recent upsets: North Carolina State over Connecticut, 2005. Nevada over Gonzaga, 2004. Auburn over Wake Forest, 2003.

7 vs. 15 1-0, 1.000 A 7-seed has only played a 15-seed once in round two. In 1993, No. 7 Temple beat 15-seed Santa Clara.

10 vs. 15 3-0. 1.000 No. 10 seeds have pushed their round two record over .500 by beating 15-seeds in all three of their matchups. Georgetown beat Hampton in 2001, Texas beat Coppin State in 1997 and Temple handled Richmond.

Sweet 16 NCAA Tournament: Top seed bracket
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
1 58 14 0.806
4 13 24 0.351
5 5 25 0.167
8 6 3 0.667
9 1 2 0.333
12 1 13 0.071
13 0 3 0.000

You wouldn't go too far wrong by automatically advancing 1-seeds to the Elite Eight. More top seeds advance to the Elite Eight than 2-seeds get to the Sweet 16 or 5-seeds win in round one! Heck, more 1-seeds get to the Elite Eight than 2- or 3-seeds … combined. Nearly 70 percent of top seeds -- almost three per tourney -- win their first three games. The only other seeds worth considering in this bracket are No. 4, 5 and 8 seeds. They've graduated 24 teams -- more than one per tourney -- to the fourth round. The three lower seeds (9, 12 and 13) have only advanced to the Elite Eight twice.

1 vs. 4 21-9, 0.700 On the top seed side of the Sweet 16 bracket, the most frequent matchup pits the two highest seeds against each other. No. 1 and 4 seeds are involved in 36 percent of the games, with top seeds winning 70 percent of the time. That might sound like a lock, but it's the worst performance by a 1-seed in any of its matchups over the first three rounds. Top seeds are more reliable when they boast a preseason All-American on a squad that went to the tourney the previous year. These teams are 17-4 (.810); inexperienced and "starless" top seeds are just 4-5 (.444). No. 4 seeds thrive when they beat their foes by more than 10 points per game. They're an even .500 at 6-6; less dominant 4-seeds are 3-15 (.167). Recent matchups: Louisville (4) over Washington (1), 2005. St. Joseph's (1) over Wake Forest (4), 2004. Kansas (1) over Illinois (4), 2002. Maryland (1) over Kentucky (4), 2002.

1 vs. 5 22-5, 0.815 Given their seed proximity, you'd think that 5-seeds would do nearly as well against top seeds as 4-seeds. Instead, they tend to be an easy mark for the big boys, pulling upsets less often than 8-seeds do against 1-seeds in the second round. What distinguishes the five top seeds that get upset? Interestingly, it's the tourney fixtures that tend to fare worse in this matchup, maybe because they're complacent. No. 1 seeds that have been to the tourney at least five times are just 12-4 (.750); the less experienced top seeds are 10-1 (.909). On the other hand, 5-seed Cinderellas get more than 20 percent of their scoring from the bench and are from the Big Six conferences. These teams are 4-9 (.308); their counterparts are 1-13 (.071). Recent matchups: Michigan State (5) over Duke (1), 2005. North Carolina (1) over Villanova (5), 2005. Duke (1) over Illinois (5), 2004.

1 vs. 12 13-0, 1.000 Given how dominant 1-seeds are in the first three rounds of the tourney, it's not surprising that they're a perfect 13-0 against 12-seeds. It is a little eye-opening, however, that they handle their underdog opponents so easily. No. 1 seeds have beaten 12-seeds by an average of 13.1 points, with only four of the 13 games getting settled by single digits. Ball State came the closest to springing an upset in 1990 when the Cardinals lost to UNLV 69-67, which went on to massacre Duke in the finals 103-73.
Recent matchups: Illinois over UW-Milwaukee, 2005. Oklahoma over Butler, 2003. Michigan State over Gonzaga, 2001.

1 vs. 13 2-0, 1.000 In the two Sweet 16 matchups between these seeds, the top seed has held serve against its long-shot opponent. Temple dispatched Dick Tarrant's pesky Richmond Spiders in 1988, and Michigan State took care of Oklahoma in 1999.

4 vs. 8 2-3, 0.400 Once every five years or so, a No. 4 and 8 seed go head-to-head in the Sweet 16. The Cinderella 8-seeds are tough teams that keep the score low and close, averaging less than 80 points a game and winning by no more than eight points. Teams with these qualities are 3-0. The other two 8-seeds have fallen to their fourth-seeded foes.
Recent matchups: North Carolina (8) over Tennessee (4), 2000. Wisconsin (8) over LSU (4), 2000. Syracuse (4) over Georgia (8), 1996.

4 vs. 9 2-0, 0.000 The only two times these seeds have met in the Sweet 16, the favored 4-seeds have prevailed. Bill Self's Kansas Jayhawks beat Mike Anderson's UAB Blazers in 2004, while Cincinnati defeated the UTEP Miners in 1992.

5 vs. 8 0-2, 0.000 No. 8 seeds have upset 5-seeds both times that they've squared off against each other. Mark Gottfried and his Alabama Crimson Tide were the most recent school to do the trick, toppling Jim Boeheim's defending champion Orange in 2004. And the first upset came in the very first year of the modern 64-team era, when Rollie Massimino masterminded an upset of Lefty Driesell's Maryland Terps on his was to the 1985 championship.

5 vs. 9 0-1, 0.000 The 1994 Boston College squad, coached by Jim O'Brien, has the distinction of being the only 9-seed to reach the Elite Eight. It achieved the feat by knocking off Bobby Knight's fifth-seeded Hoosiers.

8 vs. 12 0-1, 0.000 In 2002, Quin Snyder's Missouri Tigers upset Steve Lavin's UCLA Bruins in the only 8 vs. 12 matchup of the modern tourney era.

8 vs. 13 1-0, 1.000 The only matchup pitting these seeds against each other occurred in 1998 when Jim Harrick's Rhode Island Rams beat Cinderella Valparaiso, led by coach Homer Drew and his son, guard Bryce Drew.

NCAA Tournament: Two seed bracket
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
2 38 15 0.717
3 19 20 0.487
6 12 21 0.364
7 6 8 0.429
10 6 11 0.353
11 3 7 0.300
14 0 2 0.000

On the 2-seed side of the Sweet 16 bracket, the competition is much more balanced than its counterpart, where top seeds advance nearly 70 percent of the time. While 2-seeds are the most common winners, claiming 45 percent of the Elite Eight positions, the likelihood is that some other seed will advance. No. 3 and 6 seeds prevail in 37 percent of the matchups. In the other bracket, the four and five seeds only get to the quarterfinals 21 percent of the time. Even the No. 7, 10 and 11 seeds get into the act, advancing 15 teams, nearly twice as many as the No. 8, 9 and 12 seeds in the other bracket. On the other hand, 2-seeds are the only seed on this side of the Sweet 16 bracket with a winning record. Go figure. All this makes for one big bout of bracket-picking anguish.

2 vs. 3 15-9, 0.625 Of all the matchups with a single seed position difference in the first three rounds (8 vs. 9, 4 vs. 5, 6 vs. 7 and 12 vs. 13), this one is the second-most lopsided, behind only 12 vs. 13 (4-1). It gets more lopsided if you concentrate only on 2-seeds that get imbalanced scoring, more than 60 percent of their points from either the backcourt or frontcourt. These squads are 11-2 (.846); the more balanced-scoring two seeds are just 4-7 (.364). If your heart is set on picking a 3-seed, go with one that has a coach who isn't a rookie to the tourney but has fewer than 10 trips to the Dance. These 3-seeds are 7-4 (.636), while their counterparts are 2-11 (.154). Recent matchups: Arizona (3) over Oklahoma State (2), 2005. Oklahoma State (2) over Pittsburgh (3), 2004. Marquette (3) over Pittsburgh (2), 2003. Kansas (2) over Duke (3), 2003..

2 vs. 6 16-5, 0.762 This matchup happens almost as frequently as the 2 vs. 3 matchup, a testament to the resilience of 6-seeds in the first two rounds. Unfortunately, that resiliency doesn't seem to help them against 2-seeds. The 6-seeds that tend to escape defeat are inexperienced schools (less then three straight tourney trips) with solid frontcourts (more than 45 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers). Teams with these two qualities are 5-6 (.455); the rest of the six seeds are 0-10. Recent matchups: (2) Kentucky over (6) Utah, 2005. (2) Connecticut over (6) Vanderbilt, 2004. (2) Oregon over (6) Texas, 2002.

2 vs. 11 7-1, 0.875 This matchup comes around about once every three years and is nearly always won by the 2-seed. The only 11-seed triumph came way back in 1986, the second year of the modern tourney era, when Dale Brown's LSU Tigers knocked off Georgia Tech. What did LSU have that the other 11-seeds didn't? Tourney experience. They're the only 11-seed to square off with a 2-seed that had been to the tourney more than two years in a row. Want a weird little factoid to impress your buddies (and who doesn't)? UConn has been in the last three 2 vs. 11 matchups, twice as a 2-seed and once as the 11-seed. Recent matchups: Connecticut (2) over Southern Illinois (11), 2002. Connecticut (2) over Washington (11), 1998. Duke (2) over Connecticut (11).

3 vs. 7 3-2, 0.600 Four of the five 3 vs. 7 matchups happened in the first decade of the tourney. In the only recent game, seventh-seeded Xavier knocked off 3-seed Texas. All the winning 3-seeds had strong frontcourts that scored more than 60 percent of their team's points. The two 7-seed winners were tourney-tested, having been to the Dance at least three straight years. Recent matchups: (7) Xavier over (3) Texas, 2004. (7) Temple over (3) Vanderbilt, 1993. (3) Florida State over (7) Western Kentucky, 1993.

3 vs. 10 7-3, 0.700 Nearly every other tourney pits a 3-seed against an underdog 10-seed. The best guidance to the outcome of this matchup hinges on the team experience of the Cinderella. The three 10-seeds that are making a return trip to the Dance are undefeated; the seven that didn't go to the previous tourney are winless. Recent matchups: (3) Georgia Tech over (10) Nevada, 2004. Syracuse (3) over Auburn (10), 2003. Kent State (10) over Pittsburgh (3), 2002.

6 vs. 7 3-3, 0.500 This matchup has been a tale of two eras. No. 6 seeds won the first three games, and 7-seeds have won the next three. One dynamic has remained fairly consistent through all six head-to-head battles: The team that allows on average the fewest points per game has a solid 5-1 edge. Recent matchups: (7) West Virginia over (6) Texas Tech, 2005. (7) Michigan State over (6) Maryland, 2003. (7) Tulsa over (6) Miami-Fla, 2000.

6 vs. 10 4-2, 0.667 Since 2000, 6-seeds have asserted their dominance in what was once an even matchup. The telltale sign of a 6-seed winner is team experience. Schools that have been to the tourney more than five straight years are 4-0; the other two schools are 0-2. The mark of a 10-seed victor is scoring punch. Both 10-seeds that scored more than 78 points a game are 2-0, while their more offensively challenged counterparts are winless. Recent matchups: (6) Wisconsin over (10) North Carolina State, 2005. (6) Purdue over (10) Gonzaga, 2000. (6) Temple over (10) Purdue, 1999. (10) Gonzaga over (6) Florida, 1999.

7 vs. 11 0-2, 0.000 No. 7 seeds have had a rough time with 11-seeds in the Sweet 16. They've lost both times the two seeds have gone head to head, once in 1990 when offensive juggernaut Loyola-Marymount upset Alabama and again in 2001 when Temple beat Penn State.

7 vs. 14 1-0, 1.000 The only 7 vs. 14 matchup of the modern tourney era came just one year after the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985. A Navy squad led by David Robinson held off Cleveland State.

10 vs. 14 1-0, 1.000 In the only game pitting these two low seeds against each other, Pete Gillen's 10th-seeded Providence Friars avoided an upset at the hands of Tennessee-Chattanooga in 1997.

Elite Eight

Seed Wins Losses Percentage
1 36 22 0.621
2 18 20 0.474
3 11 8 0.579
4 8 5 0.615
5 4 1 0.800
6 3 9 0.250
7 0 6 0.000
8 3 3 0.500
9 0 1 0.000
10 0 6 0.000
11 1 2 0.333
12 0 1 0.000

A funny thing happens on the way to the Elite Eight. The matchup the brackets were designed to yield -- the 1 vs. 2 battle -- happens only one-third of the time. The second most likely matchup, a 1 vs. 3 game, happens in only one of seven brackets. No. 1 seeds do their part, appearing in nearly 70 percent of the quarterfinal games. It's the other side of the bracket that's splintered. As for which seed will advance in this round, 1-seeds get to the Final Four almost as many times (36) as the No. 2, 3 and 4 seeds combined (37). And those top four seeds account for 87 percent of the Final Four combatants. So when you're slotting teams into your semifinal brackets, it wouldn't be farfetched for you to pick two 1-seeds and two of the next three seeds. Of course, the big question is which of those top-seeded teams should you choose. These matchup breakdowns should help.

1 vs. 2 15-13, 0.536 More one seeds have their tourney run ended by two seeds in the Elite Eight than by any other opponent in any other round. Considering that only 12 one seeds lose in round two and 14 in the Sweet 16, this matchup is somewhat of a waterloo for top-seeded teams. Still, they manage to eke out a winning record against two seeds, mainly at the expense of inexperienced squads with coaches that lack tourney seasoning. Two seeds with fewer than four straight tourney trips and coaches who've been to the Dance less than four times are 0-12; the more tourney-tested two seeds are 13-3.
Recent matchups: (2) Oklahoma State over (1) St. Joseph's, 2004. (2) Kansas over (1) Arizona, 2003. (1) Kansas over (2) Oregon, 2002. (1) Maryland over (2) Connecticut, 2002.

1 vs. 3 6-6, 0.500 As impressive as the performances of two seeds are against top seeds in the Elite Eight, three seeds do even better. This is the only matchup in the first four rounds of the tourney in which one seeds don't post a winning record. The one seeds that lose in this matchup tend to be sputtering heading into the tourney. Top seeds that have won less than nine of their last 10 pre-Tournament games are 1-4; those that have notched nine or 10 wins are 5-2. The telltale sign of a triumphant three seed is victory margin. Third-seeded teams that win by an average of less than 10 points are 0-4; the rest are 6-2. Recent matchups: (1) Illinois over (3) Arizona, 2005. (3) Marquette over (1) Kentucky, 2003. (3) Syracuse over (1) Oklahoma, 2003.

1 vs. 6 6-2, 0.750 When they're not struggling with two and three seeds, top seeds are 15-3 against the rest of the field, 9-1 if you back out their performance against six seeds. In this matchup, the difference between a top-seeded winner and loser is frontcourt scoring. The six top-seeded victors got at least 50 percent of their points from forwards and centers; the two losers leaned on their backcourt for more than 60% of their scoring. Both the sixth-seed squads that won (Michigan in 1992 and Providence in 1987) were high-scoring teams, averaging at least 78 points a game. The six-seed victims all scored fewer than 78 points per game. Upsets: (6) Michigan over (1) Ohio State, 1992. (6) Providence over (1) Georgetown, 1987.

1 vs. 7 4-0, 1.000 Top seeds have no trouble with seven seeds, but this matchup might be a curse for the favorites. None of the one seeds in this showdown have gone on to win the tourney. The seven seed that came closest to springing an upset was Xavier, which lost by just three points to Duke in 2004. Matchups: Duke over Xavier, 2004. Texas over Michigan State, 2003. Michigan over Temple, 1993. Duke over Navy, 1986.

1 vs. 10 3-0, 1.000 Top seeds have ended the Cinderella stories of three 10 seeds in the Elite Eight. The games have served as a good tune-up for the one seeds; two of the three victors -- Indiana in 1987 and UConn in 1999 -- have gone on to win the tourney. Matchups: Connecticut over Gonzaga, 1999. North Carolina over Temple, 1991. Indiana over Louisiana State, 1987.

1 vs. 11 2-1, 0.667 In what has to qualify as one of the greatest upsets of the modern tourney era, LSU upended top-seeded Kentucky 59-57 to become the only 11 seed to reach the Final Four. What did LSU have that the other two 11 seeds didn't (not that you'd ever pick an 11 seed to advance this far)? They were the only one of the three from a Big Six conference. Matchups: (1) Michigan State over (11) Temple, 2001. (1) UNLV over (11) Loyola-Marymount, 1990. (11) LSU over (1) Kentucky, 1986.

2 vs. 4 2-2, 0.500 About once every five years, a two seed plays a four seed in the Elite Eight. Considering that it hasn't happened since 1996, we're due for this matchup. The outcome of the game usually hinges on coaching experience. The coach with more Elite Eight appearances has won three of the four matchups. The only win by a coach with fewer quarterfinal trips occurred in 1996 when Boeheim's Orange upended Roy Williams' Jayhawks. Even then, Williams only had one more Elite Eight appearance than Boeheim, and he'd made 10 fewer trips to the tourney. Matchups: (4) Syracuse over (2) Kansas, 1996. (4) Oklahoma State over (2) Massachusetts, 1995. (2) Arkansas over (4) Virginia, 1995. (2) Duke over (4) St. John's, 1991.

2 vs. 5 0-2, 0.000 As close as these seeds are, you'd think there would be more than two games over the last 21 years. You'd also think that two seeds would do better. Five seeds have won both matchups, most recently last year when Michigan State upset Kentucky and in 1996 when Mississippi State beat Cincinnati.

2 vs. 8 2-1, 0.667 Over the last 19 years, a two seed has squared off against an eight seed only once, when Connecticut held off Alabama in 2004. The other two 2 vs. 8 matchups happened in the first two years of the modern tourney era. Villanova is the only eight seed to come out on top against a two seed. The Wildcats knocked off North Carolina on their improbable run to the 1985 championship. What set Villanova apart from the other two eight seeds was that their coach, Rollie Massimino, had been to the Elite Eight before. Matchups: (2) Connecticut over (8) Alabama, 2004. (2) Louisville over (8) Auburn, 1986. (8) Villanova over (2) North Carolina, 1985.

2 vs. 12 1-0, 1.000 In 2002, No. 2 Oklahoma put an end to the longest tourney run by a 12 seed when the Sooners beat Big 12 rival Missouri.

3 vs. 4 2-1, 0.667 On those rare occasions when a three seed goes up against a four seed in the Elite Eight, the older team in terms of class composition has won each time. All three winners -- Georgia Tech, Ohio State and Seton Hall -- had more juniors and seniors in their starting lineup than their opponents. Matchups: (3) Georgia Tech over (4) Kansas, 2004. (4) Ohio State over (3) St. John's, 1999. (3) Seton Hall over (4) UNLV, 1989.

3 vs. 5 1-1, 0.500 Three and five seeds have split their two games against each other in the quarterfinals. In 1989, No. 3 Michigan beat No. 5 Virginia on its way to the championship. In 2000, No. 5 Florida beat No. 3 Oklahoma State, advanced to the finals, then lost to Michigan State.

3 vs. 8 1-0, 1.000 Three and eight seeds have met just once in the Elite Eight. In 1998, three-seed Stanford ended Rhode Island's longshot run.

3 vs. 9 1-0, 1.000 The only Elite Eight matchup involving a nine seed occurred more than a decade ago, in 1994, when third-seeded Florida beat Boston College.

4 vs. 6 2-1, 0.667 Once they slip by top seeds in the Sweet 16, four seeds are a pretty resilient bunch. In addition to going 3-4 against two and three seeds, they're a solid 5-1 against lower-seeded opponents. The only lower seed to win was Kansas in 1988 when the sixth-seeded Jayhawks and Danny Manning beat their rival No. 4 Kansas State and Mitch Richmond. In the other two matchups, No. 4 Georgia Tech vs. No. 6 Minnesota in 1990 and No. 4 Cincinnati versus No. 6 Memphis State in 1992, the higher seed held ground. In all three 4 vs. 6 matchups, the team that allowed the fewest points per game on average prevailed.

4 vs. 7 1-0, 1.000 Last year saw the only 4 vs. 7 quarterfinal matchup in the 21 years of the 64-team era when four seed Louisville (actually a one or two seed in disguise) burst seven seed West Virginia's bubble.

4 vs. 10 2-0, 1.000 It's been eight years since a four and 10 seed have squared off in the quarterfinals. In 1997, No. 4 Arizona knocked off Gillen's 10th-seeded Providence Friars. Then the Wildcats went on to win their only championship of the modern era. In the other 4 vs.10 matchup seven years earlier, No. 4 Arkansas beat No. 10 Texas.

5 vs. 10 1-0, 1.000 A five seed has played a 10 seed only once in the Elite Eight. In 2002, No. 5 Indiana ended No. 10 Kent State's Cinderella run before losing to Maryland in the championship game.

6 vs. 8 0-1, 0.000 Here's another matchup that's only happened once: In 2000, eight-seed Wisconsin upended Big Ten rival Purdue.

7 vs. 8 0-1, 0.000 In the only Elite Eight matchup between these two middle seeds, eighth-seeded North Carolina beat seventh-seed Tulsa in 2000 -- the same year that eighth-seed Wisconsin beat Purdue in the only 6 vs. 8 matchup. Eerie.

Final Four
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
1 19 17 0.528
2 9 9 0.500
3 7 4 0.636
4 2 6 0.250
5 2 2 0.500
6 2 1 0.667
8 1 2 0.333
11 0 1 0.000

The semifinals mark the point in the tourney where seeding offers virtually no guidance to the outcomes of matchups. For one thing, 10 of the 42 Final Four games in the modern era have involved like-seeded opponents. Secondly, of the 32 remaining games, the higher seed is just 18-14. In matchups where the gulf between opponents is one or two seeds, the higher seed is just 9-10. In games where the difference in seed position between opponents is more than two, the higher seed holds a solid 9-4 record. The keys to predicting the like-seeded matchups with 90 percent proficiency are conference affiliation, playing location and winning record. In general, Big Six conference teams with lesser records playing closer to their campuses prevail. For toss-up games, where the seed difference between teams is one or two positions, frontcourt scoring accurately predicts the outcome in 14 of the 19 matchups.

1 vs. 1 9-9, 0.500 Of the 42 semifinal games played in the modern tourney, only nine have pitted one seeds against each other, further confirmation that you should think twice before filling your Final Four bracket with too many top seeds. In the two games in which a Big Six conference one seed has played a mid-major one seed, the Big Six has prevailed both times. In the remaining seven games, the team playing significantly closer to their campus (an area within 150 miles) is 3-1. Of the three games in which the two teams were a similar distance from home, the one seed with the lower winning percentage is 3-0. Follow these three rules and you would've been 8-1 in predicting the outcome of 1 vs. 1 semifinal matchups. Recent matchups: Maryland over Kansas, 2002. Duke over Michigan State, 1999. Kentucky over Minnesota, 1997.

1 vs. 2 3-3, 0.500 Just like the 1 vs. 2 matchup in the Elite Eight, the Final Four showdown is hotly contested. The key performance indicator in the six games has been frontcourt scoring. The team that gets a higher percentage of its points from forwards and centers is 5-1. The only exception occurred in 1991, when two seed Duke ruined UNLV's perfect season en route to the championship. Recent matchups: (2) Connecticut over (1) Duke, 2004. (2) Arizona over (1) Michigan State, 2001. (1) Arkansas over (2) Arizona, 1994.

1 vs. 3 1-4, 0.200 The toughest matchup for one seeds in the entire Tournament is in the semifinals when they face three seeds. They've only won once in five tries, when Duke broke the curse in 2001 by upending third-seeded Maryland. The key to this matchup, as with the 1 vs. 2 Final Four showdown, is frontcourt scoring. The team that relies on forwards and centers for the higher percentage of its scoring load is a perfect 5-0. Recent matchups: (3) Syracuse over (1) Texas, 2003. (1) Duke over (3) Maryland, 2001. (3) Utah over (1) North Carolina, 1998.

1 vs. 4 4-1, 0.800 What a difference one seed makes. Whereas top seeds struggle against three seeds, they have little trouble with fours, winning all but one of the five matchups. The only fourth-seeded squad to rain on the one seed's parade was Arizona in 1997, which parlayed a Final Four upset over North Carolina into a national championship. What did the Wildcats have that the other four seeds lacked? An explosive offense. Arizona was the only four seed in this matchup that actually averaged seven points per game more than its opponent. Recent matchups: (1) Illinois over (4) Louisville, 2005. (1) Connecticut over (4) Ohio State, 1999. (4) Arizona over (1) North Carolina, 1997.

1 vs. 5 1-0, 1.000 Last year's North Carolina/Michigan State Final Four game marked the first time that a five seed played a top seed for the right to advance to the championship.

1 vs. 8 1-0, 1.000 Michigan State was also involved in the only 1 vs. 8 semifinal game. The top-seeded Spartans beat Big Ten rival Wisconsin on their way to the 2000 championship.

2 vs. 2 1-1, 0.500 Amazingly, two seeds have squared off against each other in the Final Four only once in the 21 years of the modern tourney era. It happened in 1995, when Arkansas beat North Carolina. Just like with the 1 vs. 1 matchup, proximity and winning record were reliable guides in predicting the outcome of this like-seeded game. Arkansas was playing closer to home than North Carolina and had a lower winning percentage.

2 vs. 3 3-2, 0.600 Surprisingly, the 2 vs. 3 matchup occurs almost as often in the Final Four as a 1 vs. 2 game. Two seeds prevail in the best-of-five series, but by the slimmest of margins. If you took the two seed in every situation except when the three seed was from the ACC or Big East, you'd be a perfect 5-0 in predicting outcomes. Recent matchups: (3) Georgia Tech over (2) Oklahoma State, 2004. (2) Kansas over (3) Marquette, 2003. (2) Kentucky over (3) Stanford, 1998.

2 vs. 5 0-1, 0.000 In 2002, Indiana sprung a mild upset when the fifth-seeded Hoosiers upended Oklahoma in the only 2 vs. 5 matchup of the 64-team era.

2 vs. 6 1-1, 0.500 These seeds haven't played each other in the Final Four since 1988 when Kansas and Danny Manning upset Duke on its way to Larry Brown's only NCAA championship. The year before that, two-seed Syracuse staved off Providence.

2 vs. 8 0-1, 0.000 The first four years of the modern tourney era saw some of the Final Four's funkiest matchups. Here's another one: In 1985, eight-seed Villanova beat two-seed Memphis State before its date with destiny against Georgetown.

2 vs. 11 1-0, 1.000 One year after the improbable Memphis State/Villanova matchup, 11-seed LSU lost to two-seed Louisville, which went on to beat Duke in the 1986 final.

3 vs. 4 1-0, 1.000 In 1990, just six years into the 64-team era, the only 3 vs. 4 semifinal matchup saw three-seed Duke holding off Arkansas. Duke's reward for the victory was the privilege of getting steamrolled by UNLV, 103-73, in the finals.

4 vs. 5 1-0, 1.000 In 1996, four-seed Syracuse beat Mississippi State in the modern tourney's only 4 vs. 5 semifinal matchup. The Orange lost to Kentucky in the finals.

4 vs. 6 0-1, 0.000 In 1992, Michigan' Fab Five, a six seed that could have been a two seed, beat four-seed Cincinnati. The Wolverines got trounced by Duke, 71-51, in the finals.

5 vs. 8 1-0, 1.000 2000 marked the only year of the modern tourney era that had two eight seeds in the Final Four. In addition to the 1 vs. 8 matchup between Michigan State and Wisconsin, five-seed Florida squared off against eight-seed North Carolina. The Gators lost to MSU in the finals.

Championship
Seed Wins Losses Percentage
1 12 7 0.6321
2 4 5 0.444
3 2 5 0.286
4 1 1 0.500
5 0 2 0.000
6 1 1 0.500
8 1 0 1.000

As little an impact as seeding had on Final Four outcomes, you'd think it wouldn't make a difference in the finals. Not so. Of the 17 championship games involving teams with different seeds, the higher seed has won 12 of them. Since 1990, higher seeds are 11-2 against their lower-seeded opponents. Another surprising fact about the finals is that the matchup the brackets were intended to yield -- a 1 vs. 1 showdown -- has happened only three times in 21 years, the last such game occurring in 2005 when North Carolina beat Illinois. The only other like-seeded matchup involved three seeds Michigan and Seton Hall in 1989. The Wolverines' frontcourt scoring was a key to their victory, as it was in two of the other three like-seeded showdowns. The bottom line: If you went with the higher seed in championship games and the team with the better front line in like-seeded battles, your prediction rate would be 71 percent (15-6).

1 vs. 1 3-3, 0.500 One in seven tournaments features two heavyweight top seeds going toe to toe. Since it happened last year when North Carolina bumped off Illinois, the law of averages says it won't happen this season. Interestingly, the top seed with the most imbalanced scoring between its front- and backcourt has won each of these showdowns. In 1993, North Carolina used its strong frontcourt (which accounted for 66 percent of its points during the regular season) to knock off Michigan. In 1999, UConn had a scoring mismatch with its backcourt (63 percent of its scoring) and took care of Duke. Last year, it was North Carolina's dominant frontcourt (71 percent of its scoring) that outmanned an Illini squad.

1 vs. 2 4-1, 0.800 It's strange that seeding should have this kind of impact between two close seeds in the finals. Top seeds treat two seeds like one of those lowly seeds they face in the early rounds, beating them 80 percent of the time. The only two seed to buck the trend is Louisville, which beat Duke in the 1986 championship game. Actually, a more reliable performance indicator in this matchup is backcourt scoring. The squad that gets a higher percentage of its points from guards is 5-0. Recent matchups: (1) Duke over (2) Arizona, 2001. (1) UCLA over (2) Arkansas, 1995. (1) Arkansas over (2) Duke, 1994.

1 vs. 3 1-0, 1.000 You'd think a 1 vs. 3 championship game would have happened more than once. For Duke fans, once might be enough, considering how soundly UNLV throttled them, 103-73, in the 1990 finals. The Blue Devils would get their revenge the following year when they ruined UNLV's perfect season in the 1991 semifinals.

1 vs. 4 1-1, 0.500 The two 1 vs. 4 championship games happened in successive years, and they both involved a top-seeded Kentucky squad. In 1996, Kentucky took care of Syracuse, but the following year, the Wildcats were upset in overtime by fourth-seeded Arizona.

1 vs. 5 2-0, 1.000 The two 1 vs. 5 finals matchups came two years apart. Michigan State beat Florida in 2000, and Maryland handled Indiana in 2002.

1 vs. 6 1-1, 0.500 If it weren't for Villanova's upset of Georgetown in 1985, Kansas could lay claim to springing the biggest championship upset of the modern tourney era. The Jayhawks beat top-seeded Oklahoma in 1988. Four years later, Michigan's Fab Five tried to duplicate the feat but were thumped by Duke.

1 vs. 8 0-1, 0.000 In the first year of the modern tourney era, the championship game saw its most unlikely matchup -- and most surprising outcome. Eighth-seeded upstart Villanova toppled overwhelming favorite Georgetown 66-64, playing a nearly flawless game that included 90 percent shooting in the second half.

2 vs. 3 3-1, 0.750 The only 3-seed to beat a 2-seed in the finals is Syracuse, which knocked off Kansas in 2003. (Syracuse also holds the distinction of being the only champion that hadn't gone to the previous year's tournament.) The key to this matchup is scoring balance. The squad with the smallest percentage gap between its frontcourt and backcourt scoring has won all four games. Recent matchups: (2) Connecticut over (3) Georgia Tech, 2004. (3) Syracuse over (2) Kansas, 2003. (2) Kentucky over (3) Utah, 1998.

3 vs. 3 1-1, 0.500 The only other like-seeded finals matchup of the 64-team era besides the three 1 vs. 1 tilts saw Michigan squeak by Seton Hall in overtime in 1989.