Bleacher Report - Articles by Brett Lissenden

Filling out Your Bracket: The Elite Eight

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:00:05 -0400

This article is one of a series that uses historical trends in the Men’s NCAA Basketball Tournament to provide advice for predicting future results. Recent trends will be the most heavily considered, namely from 2000 to the present. Other articles can be viewed from the links in the archives section at the bottom of the page.

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, 26 out of 36 (72 percent) No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight. Fifteen out of those 26 (58 percent), or 42 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Final Four.

No. 1 seeds have played No. 2 seeds 11 times in the Elite Eight, and they have won only five (45 percent) of those games. No. 1 seeds have played No. 3 seeds eight times, winning only four (50 percent). They have played five games combined in the Elite Eight against No. 6, No. 7, and No. 10 seeds, and have won all of them. They have also played against a No. 11 seed twice, winning once and losing once.

Overall in Elite Eight games, No. 1 seeds have an average margin of victory of 1.77 PPG. Against No. 2 and No. 3 seeds, their average margin of victory drops slightly to 0.58 points per game.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight 15 times out of a possible 36 (42 percent) since 2000. They have gone on to advance to the Final Four eight (53 percent) of those times. This equates to 22 percent of the original 36 making the Final Four since 2000.

No. 2 seeds have played No. 1 seeds 11 times, and also a No. 4 seed, No. 5 seed, No. 8 seed, and a No. 12 seed once each. Interestingly, the No. 2 seeds have fared just as well in Elite Eight games against No. 1 seeds (winning 55 percent of the time) as they have against the lower seeds combined (winning 50 percent of the time).

Overall, No. 2 seeds have an average margin of victory of 2.4 PPG in Elite Eight games.

Overall

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Sweet 16 games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

ACC: 8-1 (89 percent)

Big Ten: 7-4 (64 percent)

SEC: 4-3 (57 percent)

Big East: 5-5 (50 percent)

Big 12: 6-8 (43 percent)

Pac-10: 4-6 (40 percent)

Other: 2-9 (18 percent)

The other conferences (besides power conferences) that have played in the Elite Eight since 2000 are the Atlantic 10, Conference USA, MAC, CAA, and Southern Conference.

Summary

No. 1 seeds have no advantage over No. 2 or No. 3 seeds in Elite Eight games, but it is much more difficult for a No. 2 or No. 3 seed to reach the Elite Eight than for a No. 1 seed.

No. 2 seeds have won about half of their Elite Eight games, and have actually done better when they play a No. 1 seed than when they play a lower seed.

The ACC has won eight of nine Elite Eight games since 2000.

The Big 12 and Pac-10 have relatively poor records in the Elite Eight.

Non-power conferences have had very little success in Elite Eight games since 2000.

Archives

Filling Out Your Bracket: The Sweet 16

Brett Lissenden — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:38:26 -0400

Other articles can be viewed from the links in the archives section at the bottom of the page.

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, 31 out of 36 (86 percent) No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Sweet 16. Twenty-six out of those 31 (84 percent), or 72 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Elite Eight.

No. 1 seeds have played No. 4 seeds 11 times, No. 5 seeds 14 times, No. 12 seeds 5 times, and played a No. 13 seed once in the Sweet 16. They have won nine (82 percent) times against No. 4 seeds, 11 (79 percent) times against No. 5 seeds, and have won all six times in which they faced a No. 12 or No. 13 seed.

Overall, in Sweet 16 games, No. 1 seeds have an average margin of victory of 7.16 points per game in their favor. Against only No. 4 and No. 5 seeds, this average margin is still in their advantage at 5.64 points per game.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have advanced to the Sweet 16 19 times out of a possible 36 (53 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Elite Eight 15 (79 percent) of those times. This equates to 42 percent of the original 36 No. 2 seeds since 2000 making the Elite Eight.

No. 2 seeds have played No. 3 seeds 11 times, No. 6 seeds seven times, and a No. 11 seed one in the Sweet 16. They have won eight (73 percent) times against No. 3 seeds, six (86 percent) times against No. 6 seeds, and won their only game against a No. 11 seed.

Overall, No. 2 seeds have had an average margin of victory of 6.53 points per game in their favor in Sweet 16 games. Against No. 3 seeds they win by 5.09 points per game on average, and against No. 6 seeds they win by 8.00 points per game.

No. 3 and No. 6 Seeds

There has been 15 times since 2000 that a No. 3 or No. 6 seed has been the lower seed in a Sweet 16 game, meaning that the No. 2 seed was upset in the first or second round in their side of the bracket.

The No. 3 or No. 6 seed has won nine of these 15 (60 percent) games. No. 3 seeds have won seven of ten (70 percent) games against a higher seed in the Sweet Sixteen, while No. 6 seeds have only won two of their five (40 percent).

In addition, a No. 3 or No. 6 seed has been the higher seed in a Sweet Sixteen game 18 times since 2000. Since they were the higher seed, this means they had to be playing a No. 2 seed.

The No. 3 or No. 6 seed has won four of these 18 (22 percent) games. No. 3 seeds have won three of 11 (27 percent) games against No. 2 seeds in the Sweet 16, while No. 6 seeds have won only one of their seven (14 percent).

No. 4 and No. 5 Seeds

There has been four times since 2000 that a No. 4 or No. 5 seed has been the lower seed in a Sweet 16 game, meaning that the No. 1 seed was upset in the second round in their side of the bracket.

The No. 4 or No. 5 seed actually lost three of these four games. The only win came against a No. 9 seed, whereas all of the three losses came against No. 8 seeds.

In addition, a No. 4 or No. 5 seed has been the higher seed (played a No. 1 seed) in a Sweet Sixteen game 25 times since 2000. The No. 4 or No. 5 seed has won only five (20 percent) of these. No. 4 seeds have won two of 11 (18 percent) games against No. 1 seeds in the Sweet 16, while No. 5 seeds have won three of their 14 (21 percent).

Overall

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Sweet Sixteen games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

Big 12: 13-5 (72 percent)

Big Ten: 12-7 (63 percent)

Pac-10: 10-9 (53 percent)

ACC: 9-10 (47 percent)

SEC: 7-10 (41 percent)

Big East: 10-16 (38 percent)

Mid-Majors: 10-14 (42 percent)

Small Conf.: 1-1 (50 percent)

Here the Mid-Major conferences include the Atlantic Ten, Missouri Valley, WCC, CAA, Conference USA, Horizon League, MAC, WAC, and Mountain West. Small conferences include the Sun Belt and Southern Conference.

Note that there were a few Mid-Major conferences with very good Sweet Sixteen records (Atlantic Ten, Conference USA), and also a few with very bad records (Missouri Valley, Horizon, Mountain West).

Summary

On average, three of the four No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight each year
If a No. 7, 8, 9, or 10 seed is able to advance to the Sweet Sixteen, then they also have a very good chance of advancing to the Elite Eight
No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 seeds have reached the Elite Eight at a surprisingly low rate
The Big 12 and Big Ten have fared very well in Sweet Sixteen games, while the SEC and Big East have fared poorly

Archives

Use Conference Tendencies for the Final Four

Filling Out Your Bracket: Other Second Round Games

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:14:35 -0500

Other articles can be viewed from the links in the archives section at the bottom of the page.

In another article I have considered second round match-ups featuring No. 1 and No. 2 seeds. In this article I consider all other second round NCAA Tournament games. If all goes well for the top seeds in the first round, this would be the No. 3 vs. No. 6 and No. 4 vs No. 5 matchups.

However, upsets in this part of the bracket are very prevalent.

No. 3 Seeds

Since 2000, 34 out of 36 (94 percent) No. 3 seeds have advanced to the second round. 21 out of those 34 (62 percent), or 58 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Sweet 16. Out of the 34 second round games, 22 have come against No. 6 seeds.

No. 3 seeds have won only 12/22 (55 percent) of these games, suggesting that No. 3 and No. 6 seeds are fairly even. The other 12 second round games have come against No. 11 seeds, where No. 3 seeds won nine (75 percent) times.

Overall in second round games, No. 3 seeds have an average margin of victory of 3.59 points per game in their favor. Against No. 6 seeds, this average margin is a mere 0.41 points per game in their favor, and is in their advantage by 9.42 points per game against No. 11 seeds.

No. 4 Seeds

No. 4 seeds have advanced to the second round 28 times out of a possible 36 (78 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 14 of those 28 (50 percent) times.

This equates to 39 percent of the original 36 No. 4 seeds since 2000. Of their 28 second round games, 18 have come against No. 5 seeds. No. 4 seeds have won only seven (39 percent) of these games.

The percentage is most likely so far below half because of a relatively low sample size, but nonetheless the No. 4 seeds appear to have no distinct advantage against No. 5 seeds. The other 10 second round games were against No. 12 seeds, where No. 4 seeds won seven (70 percent) of those games.

Overall, No. 4 seeds have had an average margin of victory of just 0.64 points per game in their favor in second round games. Against No. 5 seeds they lose by 0.28 points per game on average, and against No. 12 seeds they win by 2.3 points per game.

No. 5 Seeds

No. 5 seeds have made the second round of the NCAA Tournament 23 times out of a possible 36 (64 percent) since 2000. They were able to advance to the Sweet Sixteen 15 of those 23 times (65 percent), meaning 42 percent of the original No. 5 seeds were able to reach the Sweet 16.

Notice that this is higher than the 39 percent of No. 4 seeds that were able to make it that far. Of the 23 second round games, 18 came against No. 4 seeds, where the No. 5 seeds won 11 (61 percent) games.

The other five games were all against No. 13 seeds, where No. 5 seeds won four (80 percent) games.

No. 5 Seeds have an average margin of victory in their second round games of 1.87 points per game in their favor. On average against No. 4 seeds they win by 0.28 points per game on average, and against No. 13 seeds they win by 7.6 points per game.

No. 6 Seeds

Since 2000, No. 6 seeds have reached the second round 24 of a possible 36 (67 percent) times. Of those 24 tries, No. 6 seeds were able to advance further to the Sweet Sixteen 12 (58 percent) times.

This means that 33 percent of all No. 6 seeds since 2000 have reached the Sweet 16. Of the 24 second round games featuring No. 6 seeds, 22 of them came against No. 3 seeds.

No. 6 seeds won 10 (45 percent) of those games, and also won both of their games against No. 14 seeds in the second round.

No. 6 seeds have an average margin of victory of winning by 0.54 points per game in second round games. In games against No. 3 seeds, they have lost by 0.41 points per game, and they have won by 11 points per game against No. 14 seeds.

Overall

In other articles I have considered conference records by low seed and high seed. However, since the match-ups seem to be much more even in this group, I will consider cumulative conference records.

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in these second round games (wins, losses, winning percentage):

Pac-10: 10-3 (77 percent)

SEC: 10-5 (67 percent)

Big East: 15-10 (60 percent)

Big Ten: 9-8 (53 percent)

Big 12: 8-9 (47 percent)

ACC: 7-12 (37 percent)

Mid-Majors: 12-16 (43 percent)

Small Conf.: 1-9 (10 percent)

Here the Mid-Major conferences include the Atlantic Ten, Missouri Valley, WCC, CAA, Conference USA, Horizon League, MAC, and Mountain West. Small conferences include the Sun Belt, America East, Big Sky, Big West, MAAC, Patriot, Southland, and Big South.

Note that the lone victory in these games for a small conference team was last year when Western Kentucky defeated San Diego. Western Kentucky was actually the favored team in this instance as a No. 12 seed playing a No. 13 seed.

Summary

No. 4 and No. 5 seeds have essentially equal chances at reaching the Sweet 16.
No. 3 and No. 6 seeds are fairly evenly matched, but No. 3 seeds have a much higher chance of winning their first round game, giving them a better chance of reaching the Sweet 16.
The Pac-10 conference has fared exceptionally well in these second round games, while the ACC has done surprisingly poorly.
Small Conference teams have done extremely poorly in these matchups.

Archives

Thursday in College Basketball: Notre Dame Comes Full Circle To End Skid

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:28:38 -0500

On Jan. 12, 2009, Notre Dame was outscored by 14 points in overtime, and lost to an upstart Louisville team. Coming into Thursday night's rematch, Notre Dame had not won a game since, putting them on a seven-game losing streak.

A team once ranked in the top 10 in the country, Notre Dame is now an afterthought to make the Tournament.

But the Irish came out with a vengeance on their home floor and made a statement. Luke Harangody had 32 points and 17 rebounds to lead Notre Dame to an easy 90-57 win over No. 7 ranked Louisville.

After the first few minutes of the game, Notre Dame established a positive scoring margin, and continued to build that for the rest of the game. Notre Dame had four players score more than 14 points in the game, while Louisville failed to have any one player top 11 points.

Notre Dame still only stands at an unimpressive 13-10 overall and 4-7 in the Big East Conference, but could be poised to make a run for the remainder of the season. The Irish have very winnable games in the Big East the rest of the way, with the one exception being at No. 1 Connecticut.

Playing for the Pac-10

No. 18 ranked Arizona State kept in the race for the Pac-10 title with a 74-67 upset win over No. 6 ranked UCLA at home. Coupled with an earlier overtime win over UCLA on the road, the Sun Devils have swept the season series with the Bruins. Arizona State has given UCLA two of their three Pac-10 losses this season.

Arizona State used an incredibly balanced scoring attack to get the job done, with five players scoring in double figures. Guards Derek Glasser and James Harden led the way with fifteen points each, while forwards Jeff Pendergraph and Rihards Kuksiks added 14 apiece, and guard Ty Abbot also contributed 12 points.

Zags Remain Perfect in WCC

Just two weeks ago Gonzaga made a statement in the West Coast Conference with a huge second half to defeat then-ranked and then-undefeated-in-WCC-play Saint Mary's.

On Thursday night, the two teams met again, and again No. 21-ranked Gonzaga got the best of the Gaels. Gonzaga won 72-70, but had to withstand an impressive last-minute comeback.

Gonzaga rebounded from the beat-down Memphis gave them over the weekend to keep their perfect conference record in-tact. Saint Mary's, on the other hand, has now dropped four conference games, and looks to no longer be a challenger for the WCC regular season crown.

Other Action

In a game Northwestern badly needed for their NCAA Tournament hopes, No. 20 ranked Illinois' Demetri McCamey banked in a jumper with 2.9 seconds left to give the Illini a 60-59 win over the Wildcats. Despite trailing for nearly all of the second half, Illinois garnered their 20th win of the season, and improved to 8-4 in Big Ten play.

No. 17 ranked Utah State kept their incredible season going on Thursday night with a 62-53 victory over Idaho in the WAC. The Aggies are 24-1 on the season, 12-0 in the WAC, and nearly a shoo-in for the NCAA Tournament.

Arizona earned a big victory by defeating USC at home in a matchup of mediocre Pac-10 teams. The Wildcats have won six in a row to improve their record to 17-8 overall and 7-5 in the Pac 10. They are looking like a team that could make a run at the NCAA Tournament, where they currently have the longest active consecutive tournaments-made streak.

No. 24 ranked Washington played like a team that belonged in the Top 25 with an impressive 79-60 victory over a much-improved Oregon State team. The Huskies outscored the Beavers by 18 points in the second half, and now find themselves in first place in the Pac-10 after the loss by UCLA.

Thursday in College Basketball: Pat Summitt Earns 1,000th Win

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:47:28 -0500

Until Thursday night, no Division I college basketball (men's or women's) coach had ever reached 1,000 wins. Tennessee coaching legend Pat Summitt changed that on the court named after her with a 30-point Tennessee win over Georgia.

Tennessee's No. 17 ranking seems surprisingly low compared to Summitt's usual standards, but the Volunteers left no doubt about this game.

Summitt now has a career record of 1,000-186 at Tennessee, which translates to an .843 winning percentage. The 56-year-old coach has also led the Lady Vols to eight national championships in her 35 seasons.

To see how amazing Summitt's achievement is, consider Bobby Knight. Knight has the most career coaching wins in men's Division I college basketball. However, Knight had nearly 100 fewer wins in seven more years of coaching.

Big Wins in the Big Ten

On the men's side, the Big Ten Conference featured two similar games Thursday night. Michigan, a team struggling to maintain afloat in the conference standings, hosted Penn State, a team surprisingly in the logjam for second place in the conference.

The other game featured another surprising team tied for second place in the conference—Illinois—playing a road game against a team struggling after a strong start to the season—Wisconsin.

Both games also had similar results of rather emphatic wins by the home teams that desperately needed them.

Michigan trailed Penn State at halftime before clamping down on defense in the second half to win comfortably, 71-51. Michigan allowed just 20 points to the Nittany Lions after the break. The Wolverines held the conference's leading scorer, Talor Battle, to nine points on 3-for-16 shooting. The conference's second-leading scorer had a much better day, as Manny Harris led Michigan with 28 points.

Wisconsin used a strong first half to cruise to a victory over No. 21-ranked Illinois. Jason Bohannon led the Badgers with 20 points on 6-for-7 shooting from three-point range. The 63-50 win snapped a six-game losing streak for Wisconsin.

Impressive Mid-Majors

Many of the top mid-major teams were in action across the country on Thursday night, and all were able to showcase their talents well.

No. 9-ranked Xavier shot 11-for-19 from three-point range en route to an 83-74 victory over Temple on national television. The win was the 20th on the season for the Musketeers, who improved to 8-0 in Atlantic 10 play.

No. 11-ranked Butler held on for a conference road victory against Detroit by a score of 66-61. The Bulldogs will most likely experience a drop in the polls next week, however, after losing their first conference game of the season at Wisconsin-Green Bay on Monday night. Regardless, Butler is now 20-2 on the season and 11-1 in the Horizon League.

No. 18-ranked Gonzaga used a big second half to earn a road win against another top team in the West Coast Conference, Portland, by a score of 73-58. The Zags are 8-0 in WCC play.

No. 22-ranked Utah State used a strong second half to score a 78-59 victory over New Mexico State. Utah State is 22-1 on the season and 10-0 in the WAC Conference.

Gonzaga's conference rival, Saint Mary's, cruised to a 21-point victory over San Francisco for their 19th win of the season.

Stephen Curry had 29 points to lead Davidson to a 75-54 win over UNC-Greensboro and remain undefeated in the Southern Conference.

Pac-10 Roundup

Newly ranked at No. 25, Washington most likely will be a one-week wonder in the polls after losing to California by a score of 86-71 on Thursday night. California's guards, Theo Robertson and Jerome Randle, each had 21 points in the effort.

The Arizona Wildcats had an important 66-63 road victory over Oregon State to move to .500 in conference play. Arizona has qualified for 24 straight NCAA tournament bids, the longest current streak in the nation and second-longest all-time.

Filling Out Your Bracket: No. 1 and No. 2 Seeds in the Second Round

Brett Lissenden — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:46:25 -0500

No. 1 and No. 2 seeds nearly always advance to the second round of the NCAA Tournament. In fact, they have done so a combined 71 out of 72 times since the 2000 season. While No. 1 seeds and No. 2 seeds are always very strong teams, sometimes there can be a large difference in ability between the two. Thus in this article they will be considered separately. However, the two seeds have very similar opponents in the second round. No. 1 seeds face either a No. 8 or No. 9 seed, while No. 2 seeds draw either a No. 7 or No. 10 seed. I will work off of the assumption that the teams earning the seed in this range have virtually interchangeable ability, thus I will also analyze these two matchups as combined together.

No. 1 Seeds

No. 1 seeds have lost their second round game five times out of 36 (14 perfect) since 2000. Four of the five teams to have defeated No. 1 seeds in the second round were No. 8 seeds and only one was a No. 9 seed (UAB over Kentucky in 2004). The average margin of victory in these second round games is for the No. 1 seed to win by 10.47 points per game.

Three of the five No. 1 seeds to have been upset in the second round were from the Pac-10 Conference. Three of the five teams to get the upset victory had won their first round game by more than 10 points. This is significant when compared to the average margin of victory in 8/9 match-ups of 1.11 points per game (in favor of No. 8 seeds). Three of the five upset teams also went on to win at least one more game in the tournament. Wisconsin and North Carolina both reached the Final Four as No. 8 seeds in 2000, and Alabama reached the Elite Eight as a No. 8 seed in 2004.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have lost second round games 16 out of 35 (46 perfect) times since 2000. This rate for upsets is astonishingly high and much more prevalent than for No. 1 seeds in the second round. Nearly two of the four No. 2 seeds lose in the second round every tournament. The average margin of victory in these second round games is for the No. 2 seed to win by 2.57 points per game.

Eight of the 15 teams to upset a No. 2 seed in the second round this decade have been No. 7 seeds and seven have been No. 10 seeds. Six of the 15 teams went on to win their next game to advance to the Elite Eight, but none were able to make the Final Four. No. 7 or No. 10 seeds that were successful in upsetting No. 2 seeds also tended to have won their first round games by significant margins, averaging a 9.31 point per game victory margin.

No. 1 and No. 2 Seeds Combined

The following shows how each power conference has fared as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed since 2000:

Big 12: 12-0 (100 percent)

Pac-10: 8-3 (73 percent)

ACC: 10-4 (71 percent)

Big Ten: 5-2 (71 percent)

Big East: 6-5 (55 percent)

SEC: 5-5 (50 percent)

Other: 4-2 (66 percent)

Even though the Big 12 Conference has had the second most games this decade as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the second round, they have not lost in 12 opportunities. The Pac-10, ACC, and Big Ten all have had very good success as No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round as well, while the Big East and SEC have each been upset fairly often in these games. Non-power conference have faired reasonably well as No. 1 and No. 2 seeds as well.

Now to show how the conferences have fared in upsetting No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round since 2000:

Big East: 4-4 (50 percent)

Big Ten: 3-7 (30 percent)

ACC: 2-5 (29 percent)

SEC: 2-7 (22 percent)

Pac-10: 1-4 (20 percent)

Big 12: 0-5 (0 percent)

Other: 9-18 (33 percent)

The only conference (the Big 12) not to have been upset in these games is also the only conference not to have scored any upsets in these games. The power conferences appear to be fairly even in upsetting No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the second round, with the exception of the Big 12 and the Big East, which has found the most success in this upset role. Non-power conferences have been mores successful than most of the power conferences in getting upset wins.

Summary

No. 2 seeds get upset a lot in the second and much more often than No. 1 seeds
Teams that are able to beat No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round often had big wins in the first round
The Big 12 Conference has never had a team upset in the second round as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed and has also never had a team beat a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the second round as a higher seed
Non-power conference teams appear just as likely to advance as lower seeds and more likely to get upsets as higher seeds in these second round games
The Big East has had the most success upsetting No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the second round, while the SEC and Big East have been upset the most frequently in the second round as No. 1 and No. 2 seeds

Archives

Thursday in College Basketball: Clemson Shows Off Defense in Big ACC Win

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:23:33 -0500

After Wake Forest's defeat of Duke on Wednesday night, Virginia Tech and Clemson stood that much closer to leading the ACC. Coming off of wins at Wake Forest and at Miami, Virginia Tech was presented another golden opportunity to announce their presence to the rest of the country.

The Hokies looked well on their way to a 5-1 start in the ACC with a 15-point second half lead over the Tigers, but Clemson used an 18-0 run to spoil Malcolm Delaney's 37-point performance and win a key ACC road game in Blacksburg. Virginia Tech failed to score any points for nearly six minutes of game time. After scoring 53 points in the first half, the Hokies managed only 29 in the second period.

The win was crucial for the Tigers, who looked to be on their way to another late-season collapse after a blowout loss to North Carolina a little over a week ago. Clemson is still well within striking distance of the conference's big three powers: Duke, North Carolina, and Wake Forest.

So are the Hokies, as they both have the same conference record. But the home loss while blowing a large lead hurts Virginia Tech's chances significantly at trying to stake claim to an ACC championship.

Defense Helps Gophers Too

The Big Ten conference featured a matchup of two ranked teams on Thursday night as No. 20-ranked Illinois traveled to No. 24-ranked Minnesota in a game of two of the more surprisingly successful teams in the conference.

The two teams appeared to be heading in opposite directions entering the game. In its last three games, Minnesota lost at Northwestern, lost at home against Purdue, and barely pulled out a victory on the road against conference doormat Indiana.

On the other hand, Illinois had won four of its last five Big Ten games. The lone blemish came at Michigan State, the conference's top dog, in a game where the Illini led most of the way.

On Thursday night, however, it was the Gophers who took charge. Minnesota allowed a meager 36 points on 29.4 percent shooting from Illinois, on their way to posting a 23-point victory.

The win moves Minnesota into third place in the Big Ten standings, behind Michigan State and Purdue. The loss drops Illinois into a tie with Penn State for fourth in the conference.

Regaining Supremacy

For the first time in a long time, Gonzaga was considered by most to not be the best team in the West Coast Conference. This was no more visible than in the top 25 rankings, where Saint Mary's stood at No. 18 and Gonzaga at No. 25.

The two teams entered the night 5-0 in conference play, and it was Saint Mary's that looked well on their way to their first statement win of the season. Leading 39-33 at halftime, the Gaels appeared to be in the process of dethroning the Zags from their conference pedestal.

But on their home floor, the Zags also relied on the theme of the night in the second half: defense. Saint Mary's only managed 23 points in the second half as Gonzaga was able to coast to a 69-62 victory and establish themselves alone in the top spot in the conference rankings.

The Bulldogs had four players scoring in double figures, easily enough to counter the 18 points from Saint Mary's standout Patrick Mills.

Upset of the Day

Considered by many to be the Pac-10 Conference favorite, No. 14-ranked Arizona State viewed Thursday night's home meeting with Washington State as an opportunity to create separation from the pack in the conference standing.

The Sun Devils faltered in the second half, as the Cougars stepped up their defensive effort to outscore Arizona State 38-25 in the second half en route to a 65-55 victory.

Aron Baynes (22) and Klay Thompson (28) each scored over 20 points for Washington State, who moved to 4-4 in conference play.

The loss drops Arizona State to 5-3 in Pac 10 games. This is now good for a tie for second place, after No. 16-ranked UCLA defeated California by a score of 81-66 also on Thursday. UCLA moved to 6-2 in the conference, while California fell to 5-3.

Other Action

No. 9-ranked Michigan State earned their seventh win in Big Ten play by easily defeating Iowa on the road by a score of 71-56. The win was the fifth straight on the road in conference games for the Spartans.

Arkansas, after posting impressive non-conference victories of Oklahoma and Texas, finally earned their first SEC victory of the season on Thursday night. They defeated Alabama, in their first game without Mark Gottfried, by a score of 89-80 in Fayetteville.

Utah State earned their 20th win of the season by defeating their main competition in the WAC conference, Nevada, by a score of 72-61. The Aggies are 8-0 in conference play and 20-1 overall.

Penn State Basketball: Five Critical Questions

Brett Lissenden — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:29:55 -0500

Penn State basketball has their sights on the NCAA Tournament.

Usually that's only a phrase heard well before the season starts in central Pennsylvania, but this year it is a reality 21 games into the season. The Lions are 16-5 overall and 5-3 in the Big Ten, which is good enough to put them in a tie for fourth place in the conference.

As Penn State takes this week off and prepares for the second half of their Big Ten schedule, there are five critical questions that will determine the success of this team for the remainder of the season.

1. Can Penn State play on a consistent level?

Penn State has looked brilliant in wins over Michigan, Purdue, and Georgia Tech, but have looked awful in losses to Minnesota and Temple. Penn State was completely outmatched in the first half against Michigan State, but then came back and dominated the Spartans in the second half.

Penn State has shown they are capable of playing with the big boys. But it could very well be the ability of Penn State to win the games they are expected to that determines if they will make the NCAA Tournament.

2. Will their inability to make free throws hurt them?

Penn State is horrendous from the charity stripe. Their two leading scores, Talor Battle and Jamelle Cornley, are particularly bad. Both have worked hard to improve their foul shooting, but both continually struggle, especially when the game is on the line.

The Nittany Lions have no real great foul shooter to rely on down the stretch of a game. Even shooting guard Stanley Pringle has missed several key free throws in big situations.

Penn State has survived disastrous free throw performances down the stretch in games against Georgia Tech, Indiana, and Purdue, but will they be so lucky the next time?

3. Can someone besides Cornley or Battle step up when this team is in trouble?

Besides having the most skill on the team, Cornley and Battle also have far and away the most heart and determination of any of the Nittany Lions. Both, however, are streaky shooters that rely a lot on their jump shot.

Battle does have a great ability to drive the lane and Cornley does have solid moves on the block, but if both of these players are struggling then Penn State is in big trouble.

Pringle has put up some big numbers this year, most of which has come on the road. Pringle is the best driver on the team, but misses layups and pull-up jump shots too frequently to present a threat on his own. His touch from the three-point line has been a tremendous asset to the Lions this season, but he doesn't seem to have the same ability that Cornley and Battle do to take over a game.

Sophomore big man Drew Jones has shown some potential, particularly at rebounding. Jones has a serious problem with foul trouble however.

Luckily for PSU, Jones now has a very competent back-up in Villanova transfer Andrew Ott. Ott has posted some impressive numbers in minimal playing time this season and shows tremendous intelligence around the basket.

Graduate student and team leader Danny Morrissey also has the ability to play big when needed. Morissey is one of the best three-point shooters to ever come through Penn State, but has mysteriously struggled with his shooting touch this season. If Morrissey can get it together, he should be able to find a lot of looks with all of the other offensive threats on the floor.

4. Can Penn State get any meaningul minutes out of the power forward position?

With Battle and Pringle at guard, and Cornley and Jones or Ott down low, Penn State has a fairly formidable lineup offensively and defensively. What they lack is any sort of production from the "4" position on the court.

The starter has been sophomore Jeff Brooks. Brooks is tall, lanky, and athletic. On rare occasions he has displayed some good shooting touch and he is very good at penetrating a defense when he chooses to. Brooks however seems to have a very poor knack to the game, and is usually a non-factor in most aspects of the game.

Sophomore David Jackson was expected to have this role entering the season. Last season Jackson was one of Penn State's best shooters and a tremendous role player, particularly on the defensive end. Jackson has continued to play very good defense this season, but has usually been a significant liability on the offensive end.

For a few games in a row, Jackson literally turned the ball over every time he touched it. He has also inexplicably lost all ability to make a shot. In the past few games, Jackson has shown some signs of his former self, which would be great news for the Nittany Lions.

Freshman Chris Babb is really more of a guard, but has the height to play the forward position. Babb appears extremely athletic and a gifted basketball player, but has limited his role in games to a three point shooter. He is a terrific shooter, but seems to have the ability to do much more for the team.

Sources say he is slow to learn the system. If Babb can become more comfortable at this level, he could have an immediate impact.

5. Can Penn State defend the three-point shot?

Ever since the Ed Dechellis era, Penn State has been lit up behind the three-point arc. Team's sharpshooters almost always put up enormous numbers against the Nittany Lions.

This season Penn State has improved slightly, but games against Minnesota and Iowa in particular have exposed their weakness. Minnesota was 9-9 from three-point range in their 20-point victory over PSU.

Penn State plays both zone and man defensively in games. Their zone is often too compact towards the basket because of their lack of size on the interior. They play neither with their hands up, and have poor communication on screens.

If Penn State can find away to clamp down on opposing team's shooters, while remaining the rest of their defensive intensity, they could cause teams a lot of frustration in the half-court game.

Thursday in College Basketball: West Virginia Dominates Georgetown

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:33:27 -0500

After playing five of their six games against Top 20 opponents, No. 14-ranked Georgetown was looking for a break Thursday night at home against unranked West Virginia. They got no such break.

The Mountaineers stuck it to the Hoyas, winning by a score of 75-58. West Virginia did everything they needed to do to win the game. They played great defense (forced 19 turnovers), got a lot of offensive rebounds (12), had an offensive explosion in the second half (44 points), and had a huge game from Da'Sean Butler.

Butler had 27 points in the victory, just one point short of his career high, while also contributing eight rebounds.

While Butler didn't quite reach a double-double, one of his teammates did. Alex Ruoff had a poor shooting night but was still able to notch 10 points and 11 assists in the game.

Train Back on Track

After a nightmarish 0-2 start in the Big Ten from a home loss to Illinois and a road loss to Penn State, No. 18-ranked Purdue has already climbed back to the top of the conference standings. Their latest move was a 70-62 road victory on Thursday night against No. 20-ranked Minnesota.

Purdue has now one four straight Big Ten games, and is just one game back of conference-leader Michigan State in the loss column. Minnesota has now lost two straight games after their road loss to Northwestern last weekend.

The Boilermakers used their renowned defense to win this one, as they held Minnesota to 27.6 percent shooting from the field.

Purdue also had good offensive efforts from Jajuan Johnson, E'Twaun Moore, and Lewis Jackson, who all scored in double figures.

West Coast Statement

Four teams entered Thursday night's action undefeated in West Coast Conference play. Not surprisingly, these were the three teams who made the NCAA Tournament a season ago: Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and San Diego.

In a nationally televised game, No. 22-ranked St. Mary's traveled to San Diego on Thursday night.

The Gaels did their best to show the country that their now 18-1 mark on the season is no fluke. They destroyed San Diego on San Diego's home floor by a score of 65-42. St. Mary's defense allowed just 14 points by San Diego in the first half.

Following the loss of Wake Forest on Wednesday night, St. Mary's now possesses the nation's longest winning streak, currently at 15 games.

Gonzaga looked impressive in their game as well, defeating Pepperdine 83-69. But in comparison, St. Mary's defeated Pepperdine by 50 in their last game.

St. Mary's and Gonzaga will meet next Thursday night in Spokane, WA.

Other Action

No. 11-ranked UCLA had a hard-earned victory in a hostile environment to recover from their first conference loss last weekend. The Bruins won at Washington State by a slim margin of 61-59.

No. 17-ranked Butler needed a strong second half to keep their perfect Horizon League record, advancing by Wisconsin-Milwaukee by a score of 68-59. The Bulldogs are now 17-1 for the season.

Oregon State scored their second PAC 10 win of the season with a big upset of California. The Beavers used an 11-point advantage in the second half to win by a score of 69-65. California falls to 15-4 overall and 4-2 in the PAC 10.

Penn State Basketball: NCAA Tournament Bound?

Brett Lissenden — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:32:16 -0500

After a enthusiastic 73-58 pounding of Michigan on Tuesday, the Penn State basketball team finds itself in unfamiliar territory. The team is 15-5 on the season and 4-3 in the Big Ten Conference.

Both of those win totals are comparable to many of the Nittany Lions' last few full seasons. In what has become the best season for the Big Ten in a number of years, the Lions are right there with the conference's best.

Penn State has not made the NCAA Tournament since 2001. They have only even made the NIT Tournament once since 2001, when they barely qualified in 2006.

With 15 wins already, the NIT seems to be a lock for PSU at this point in the season. But with the success they have had, the Lions and their fans are greedy for the more illustrious tournament at season's end.

Here's how I see it:

Penn State will most likely need 11 wins in Big Ten play to have a legitimate claim at the NCAA Tournament. This would put them at 22-11 to finish the regular season with an 11-7 mark in the Big Ten.

This record would also most likely give the Nittany Lions a bye in the Big Ten tournament and in the No. 4 vs. No. 5 match-up on the second day. A win in that game would seal the Lions' NCAA berth. A loss might leave them to sweat it out on the bubble.

Anything above 11 conference wins and I believe that PSU will have to be considered a lock for the Big Dance.

So can Penn State actually get to 11 conference wins? Here is their remaining schedule, with some notational marks:

Jan. 24: vs Iowa, W

Feb. 1: at Michigan State, U

Feb. 5: at Michigan, M

Feb. 8: vs Wisconsin, M

Feb. 11: at Purdue, U

Feb. 14: Minnesota, M

Feb. 18: at Illinois, U

Feb. 24: at Ohio State, M

Feb. 28: Indiana, W

Mar. 3/4: Illinois, M

Mar. 7: at Iowa, W

The games marked with W's are the games that Penn State should win. The games marked with M's are games that Penn State has a very legitimate chance at winning. The U is used for games which Penn State will find it very difficult to win.

If the Nittany Lions can win all the "W" games, that will put them up to seven conference wins.

That leaves five "M" games and three "U" games. Even if they don't win any of the "U" games, PSU only needs to win four of the "M" games to reach 11 Big Ten wins.

Three of the "M" games come at home, where the Nittany Lions have been especially tough this season. If PSU can win all of those, then they will be up to 10 conference wins.

Then they just need one more win between two "M" games and three "U" games. While there is certainly a long way to go, I have to say I like their chances. At the beginning of the season, I think everyone involved with the PSU program would take their results up to this point in a heartbeat.

The last time Penn State made the March Madness tournament, they reached the Sweet 16 by upsetting No. 2-seeded North Carolina in the second round. If this team can continue their good play and reach the tournament, they could be dangerous to advance a few rounds as well.

Thursday in College Basketball: Purdue Overcomes Northwestern

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:24:42 -0500

With a 1-2 Big Ten record entering Thursday night, the Purdue Boilermakers needed a win at Northwestern to keep afloat in the race for the Big Ten title.

Purdue had already endured a home loss to Illinois and a road defeat to Penn State. A road game against Northwestern, a traditional Big Ten doormat currently winless in the league, was a must win.

Purdue struggled out of the gate and trailed by 13 points at halftime. The Boilermakers proceeded to whittle away at the lead in the second half, and finally gained the advantage with just over a minute remaining in the game.

Purdue's Keaton Grant hit a clutch three-pointer to put the Boilermakers ahead 61-59, and then JaJuan Johnson ultimately made two free throws with two seconds remaining to seal the win.

Purdue was the team favored by many to win the Big Ten title this season. Without this furious comeback, the Boilermakers would have been stuck in the cellar of the Big Ten standings.

With the win, the Boilermakers retain the ability to work their way back to the top of the league and claim the title they feel they deserve.

Purdue star Robbie Hummel led the way with 15 points, a good sign for the struggling Big Ten preseason player of the year.

Other Top 25 Action

No. 4-ranked Connecticut used a strong second half to surge past St. John's by a score of 67-55. The Huskies still just have one blemish on the season.

The No. 6-ranked North Carolina Tar Heels finally recorded their first ACC win of the season after impressively going undefeated against all non-conference opponents.

The Tar Heels defeated a struggling but improving Virginia team on the road by a score of 83-61. Player of the Year candidate Tyler Hansbrough led the way for UNC, recording 28 points and 12 rebounds.

No. 7-ranked UCLA won their 15th straight game at home by cruising to an 83-60 victory over Arizona. The Bruins improved to 14-2 overall and 4-0 in Pac 10 games.

No. 15-ranked Arizona State lost in the biggest upset of Thursday night to USC by a score of 61-49. The Trojans outscored the Sun Devils by a count of 42-23 in the second half to earn the win.

No. 16-ranked Butler held off a feisty Rhode Island squad to improve to 3-0 in Atlantic Ten play by a score of 67-65.

No. 17-ranked Minnesota scored a huge comeback victory at Wisconsin to stay in second place in the Big Ten standings.

The Gophers trailed nearly the entire game, and by nine points with less than three-and-a-half minutes remaining. They used a game-tying three-pointer with two seconds remaining and a strong overtime period to overcome the Badgers.

Lawrence Westbrook was responsible for 29 points in the win, including the three-pointer to force overtime and then nine points in the extra session.

No. 18-ranked Butler scored a decisive victory in Horizon League play over Loyola (IL) and improved to 6-0 in league play.

No. 25-ranked Saint Mary's improved to 16-1 on the season and 3-0 in the WCC with an easy 78-53 victory over Loyola Marymount, who has just one win on the season. The Gaels' competition in the WCC, Gonzaga, also notched a blowout victory to remain undefeated in conference play.

Sun Belt Showdown

The two top teams in the Sun Belt Conference played on Thursday and did not disappoint. Western Kentucky managed to gain an eight-point advantage over Middle Tennessee State at halftime, but saw the game tighten over the second half of play.

With the two teams tied, Western Kentucky's Steffphon Pettigrew hit a two-point field goal with four seconds left to give the Hilltoppers the win. This came just after MTSU had tied the game with 17 seconds remaining.

Both teams now have identical records at 5-1 in conference play and 11-6 overall.

MAAC Comeback

A Siena team heavily favored to win the MAAC Conference and potentially win a game in the NCAA Tournament (just as they did last year) was in serious danger of their first conference loss on Thursday night.

The Saints trailed by as many as 13 points to Marist with less than nine minutes to play, but mounted a comeback strong enough to send the game to overtime. Siena outscored their opponents 15-9 in the extra session to notch a 91-85 victory.

Siena is now 13-5 overall and 7-0 in MAAC play.

Filling Out Your Bracket: Tough First Round Picks

Brett Lissenden — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:23:19 -0500

The hardest single games to pick correctly in the NCAA Tournament are, not surprisingly, the games pitting teams of closest numerical seed against each other. For first round games, this means the match-ups of No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, No. 7, and No. 10 seeds, and No. 6 and No. 11 seeds.

While these games are often the toughest to pick correctly, the bright side is that they often do not matter as much. Because the winner of these games usually must play a No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 seed in the second round, most of the teams that are able to advance past the first round do not make it much further.

Of course there are plenty of exceptions. One of the most notable occurred very recently in 2006, when George Mason advanced all the way to the Final Four as a No. 11 seed, the highest number seed out of the six in consideration.

Clearly, as is the case with picking all tournament games, a wrong pick can be deadly.

No. 6 seeds vs No. 11 seeds

Since the 2000 NCAA Tournament, at least one No. 11 seed has advanced to the second round every year except one (2004). No. 11 seeds have defeated No. 6 seeds 12 times out of 36 (percent). The average margin in these games is for the No. 6 seed to win by 3.67 points.

No. 7 seeds vs. No. 10 seeds

Like the previous match-up, there has been at least one No. 10 seed to advance to the six round in every NCAA Tournament this decade except in 2006. No. 10 seeds have defeated No. 7 seeds 12 out of 36 times (33 percent), again exactly the same as the previous match-up.

Notice that six of the 12 (50 percent) No. 10 seeds that made it out of the first round also won their second round games. In fact, two of the 12 (16.7 percent) went to the Elite Eight. In comparison, only eight out of the 24 (percent) No. 7 seeds that won their first round game also won their second. Four of those 24 (16.7 percent) went to the Elite Eight.

The average margin in this first round match-up is for the No. 7 seed to win by 4.56 points. Notice that this is a larger margin of victory than in the match-up of a No. 6 seed and No. 11 seed.

Combined Match-ups: 6/11 and 7/10 games

Since the statistics from the two previous match-ups are so eerily similar, it makes sense to combine them for comparison. The easiest way to perform comparisons is to separate teams by conferences. For the purposes of this article, note that the power conferences are the ACC, Big East, Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10. The mid-major conferences are the Atlantic 10, CAA, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, WAC, MAC, Mountain West, Horizon, and West Coast. All other conferences are considered to be small conferences.

It should be no surprise that most teams in the position of a No. 6 or No. 7 seed are from power conferences. Here is a breakdown of how each power conference has fared in these two types of first round match-ups since 2000 (conference, record, win percentage):

ACC: 8-2 (80 percent)

Big East: 9-3 (75 percent)

Big 10: 10-4 (71 percent)

SEC: 3-2 (60 percent)

Big 12: 5-4 (56 percent)

Pac 10: 3-3 (50 percent)

As a whole, power conference teams have won 68 percent (38/56) of their games as No. 6 and No. 7 seeds in the first round since 2000, while mid-major teams have won at a 62.5% (10/16) clip. There have been no small conference teams that have received No. 6 or No. 7 seeds since 2000.

Teams that are seeded No. 10 or No. 11 are a much more diverse group. The majority actually comes from the most successful mid-major conferences. Here is an analysis of conference types in pulling upsets in these match-ups (category, record, win percent):

Power Conferences: 8-18 (31 percent)

Mid-Major Conferences: 14-27 (34 percent)

Small Conferences: 2-3 (40 percent)

The chances of an upset appear fairly even no matter what level of conference a team is from. However, further analysis reveals a little more. Four of the nine mid-major conferences have appeared exceptionally often as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds in this time frame.

These are the Atlantic 10, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, and West Coast Conferences. It is accurate to say these are considered the elite mid-major conferences. If the mid-major conferences are broken down like this, the elite mid-major conferences win these match-ups only 18.5 percent (5/27) of the time, while non-elite mid-major conference win at an astonishing 64 percent (9/14) clip.

It is also worth noting that ignoring the Ivy League, which seems to be far over-rated in the seeding process this decade, small conference teams are 2-1 this decade as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds.

No. 8 seeds vs No. 9 seeds

Seed-wise, these are the most even match-ups of the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Accordingly, they have also been historically the most even (and therefore most difficult to predict).

No. 9 seeds have won 17/36 (47.2 percent) of games against No. 8 seeds since 2000. The average margin in these games is very slim; for the No. 8 seed to win by 1.11 points.

No matter who wins, neither of these seeds fair very well in the second round. Only one out of 17 (6 percent) of No. 9 seeds that won their first game also won their second. Only four out of 19 (21 percent) of No. 8 seeds were able to do the same. However, three of these No. 8 seeds went to the Elite Eight and two made it all the way to the Final Four.

Since No. 8 seeds and No. 9 seeds are so even in this match-up, the conference record breakdown does not distinguish between high and low seed. Here are the records for conferences in these games that have had at least five appearances since 2000 (conference, record, win percent):

Big 12: 5-2 (71 percent)

Big 10: 5-3 (62.5 percent)

Mountain West: 3-2 (60 percent)

Atlantic 10: 4-3 (57 percent)

SEC: 6-5 (54.5 percent)

Pac 10: 4-7 (36 percent)

Big East: 2-6 (25 percent)

Overall, power conference teams have won 48 percent (23/48) of their games in this match-up since 2000, while mid-major conference teams have won 52 percent (11/21) and small conference teams have won 67 percent (2/3).

Summary

No. 10 and No. 11 seeds each advance to the second round 1/3 of the time
Power conference teams are more likely to win as No. 6 or No. 7 seeds
Teams from low level mid-major conferences or small conferences are more likely to win as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds
No. 8 seeds and No. 9 seeds have essentially equal chances of winning in the first round
The Big 12 and Big 10 have been very successful in 8/9 match-ups, while the Pac 10 and Big East have been particularly bad
Teams from gradually lesser conferences seem to have better odds in 8/9 match-ups

Archives

Filling Out Your Bracket: Make or Break First Round Picks

Brett Lissenden — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:03:16 -0500

The most tricky and often most crucial games to pick in the first round of the NCAA Tournament are No. 4 seed vs. No. 13 seed and the No. 5 seed vs. No. 12 seed matchups. No. 4 and No. 5 seeds have shown the ability to reach the Final Four, while No. 12 and No. 13 seeds have also been able to make the Sweet 16.

In the past nine NCAA tournaments, five teams have made the Sweet 16 as a No. 12 or No. 13 seed, and one has even reached the Elite Eight. In the same time period, three teams have reached the Final Four as a No. 4 or No. 5 seed, and two of those teams reached the Championship Game.

One of the best examples of how crucial these matchups can be came in 2000. No. 5-seeded Florida was lucky to survive No. 12-seeded Butler in the first round by a score of 69-68, and then the Gators proceeded to advance all the way to the Championship Game.

In the 72 games played in these first round pairings since 2000, the higher-seeded team has won 21 times (29 percent of the time). Since there are eight of these games in each NCAA Tournament’s first round, on average there are over two upsets per year in these games.

Further, many of these games are very close regardless of who wins. The average margin in both of these first round matchups is 6.94 points in favor of the lower-seeded team.

It is also true that No. 12 seeds do have significantly better success against No. 5 seeds than No. 13 seeds do against No. 4 seeds. No. 12 seeds have won 13 of 36 (36 percent) games against No. 5 seeds, while No. 13 seeds have won eight of 36 (22 percent) of games against No. 4 seeds.

The average margin in the 5/12 matchup is 5.22 points in favor of the No. 5 seed, and the average margin in the 4/13 matchup is 8.67 points in favor of the No. 4 seed.

There are several factors that can help in trying to pick the right underdogs in these games.

One of the most important is experience. Ten of the 21 high-seeded teams to win were in at least their second consecutive NCAA Tournament appearance, and many had even more tournament experience than that. Also, many of the low-seeded teams to get upset in the first round had relatively little tournament experience.

Another thing to look for is conference tendencies. Most No. 4 seeds and No. 5 seeds are power conference teams, but not always. There have been five teams from non-power conference seeded No. 4 or No. 5 in this decade, and they are a mere 2-3 in these first round matchups. All of these games have been against other non-power conference opponents.

Conversely, No. 12 and No. 13 seeds are usually non-power conference teams, but not always. Five power conference teams have been seeded No. 12 or No. 13 in this decade, and they an impressive 3-2 in these first round games, all coming against power conference opponents.

Further, some power conference teams have held up better than others in playing as the favored team in these games. The Big Ten and Pac-10 have been very successful as No. 4 or No. 5 seeds, while the SEC has been upset more than their fair share.

Here are the records for each of the power conferences as No. 4 and No. 5 seeds in the first round since 2000 (conference, record, winning percentage):

Big Ten: 10-2 (83 percent)

Pac-10: 5-1 (83 percent)

Big East: 14-5 (74 percent)

ACC: 8-3 (73 percent)

Big 12: 4-2 (67 percent)

SEC: 8-5 (62 percent)

Similarly, some non-power conferences have had much more success in pulling off upsets in these first round games than others. The Mountain West conference has had surprisingly very little success, while the Missouri Valley, West Coast, and Metro Atlantic Athletic Conferences have had good records as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round.

Here are the records for each non-power conference in first round games as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds since 2000 (conference, record, winning percentage):

Missouri Valley: 3-1 (75 percent)

WCC: 2-1 (67 percent)

MAAC: 2-1 (67 percent)

America East: 1-1 (50 percent)

Big Sky: 1-1 (50 percent)

WAC: 2-3 (40 percent)

Horizon: 2-4 (33 percent)

MAC: 1-2 (33 percent)

Sun Belt: 1-3 (25 percent)

Big West: 1-3 (25 percent)

CAA: 1-5 (17 percent)

Mountain West: 1-9 (10 percent)

Big South: 0-1 (0 percent)

Patriot: 0-1 (0 percent)

Summit: 0-1 (0 percent)

Ivy: 0-2 (0 percent)

Southern: 0-3 (0 percent)

Atlantic Ten: 0-3 (0 percent)

Ohio Valley: 0-4 (0 percent)

Teams from conferences typically considered Mid-Major Conference fare slightly better than teams from conferences typically considered small conferences.

Mid-Major Conferences (Atlantic Ten, CAA, Horizon, MAC, Mountain West, Missouri Valley, WAC, WCC) are 12-28 (30 percent) as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round. Small Conferences (America East, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Ivy, MAAC, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Southern, Summit, Sun Belt) are 6-21 (22 percent) as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round.

Summary

Aim for two No. 12 and No. 13 seeds to advance to the second round, but be cautious of picking against No. 4 and No. 5 seeds that could go deep in the tournament.
Favored teams from non-power conferences are more likely to be upset, and Underdog teams from power conferences are more likely to post an upset victory.
Underdog teams with NCAA Tournament experience are especially dangerous, while favored teams without much tournament experience are especially vulnerable.
Low seeded teams from the Big Ten and Pac-10 are rarely upset in these matchups, while low seeded teams from the SEC may be the most vulnerable of the power conference teams.
High seeded teams from the Mountain West, Atlantic Ten, and Ohio Valley Conferences have been highly unsuccessful in these games, while teams from the Missouri Valley, MAAC, and West Coast Conferences have been highly successful.

Archives