Bleacher Report - Articles by Hunter Dunlo

Spoiled with Upsets: We Should Appreciate ALL the Underdogs

Hunter Dunlo — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:14:48 -0400

Upsets are what set the NCAA basketball tournament apart from every other major sporting event.

American sports fans, from the die-hard to the most casual, get sucked in every year by the prospect of seeing previously unheralded teams win games against foes from major conferences.

This “anything can happen” climate garners so much interest in the event that even people who don't know O.J. Mayo from O.J. Simpson fill out a bracket and root for “their” teams. Even the rare few without a bracket can quickly hop aboard the bandwagon and root for any team.

Not too long ago, all the perennial “little guy” hoped for was the chance to hang with a superior team for 40 minutes, and maybe get lucky enough to pull off a shocking win.

In the cases of Old Dominion in 1995, Coppin State in 1997, or Hampton in 2001, each of whom pulled off first-round upsets, no one cared that the teams bowed out in the second round. When it came time for the “One Shining Moment” montage, we relished their time in the spotlight, and reflected positively on their achievements.

If a team could win two games, like Valparaiso in 1998, then it was praised as one of the great sports stories of all time.

But times have changed. We have all become spoiled.

Two years ago, George Mason turned the NCAA tournament on its head with their shocking run to the Final Four. They also radically changed the expectations that fans and commentators have for “Cinderella” teams. Now, an underdog does not have a good story unless they make it out of the first weekend.

Today, an upset can be forgotten as quickly as it happens. CBS’ lightning fast coverage has improved to the point where rarely is a crucial moment from any game missed by viewers, and all games are also accessible via the Internet.

We, the fickle fans, are able to move on quickly from one underdog to the next.

Collectively, we're like a heroin addict looking for the next big fix. We’re all just chasing the dragon instead of appreciating what is happening right before our eyes. When an underdog team wins, we say, “Congratulations!...Now who’s next?”

Siena? Sorry, no one cares anymore. You may have been the lowest-seeded team from your league to win a (non-play-in) tournament game since 1995, but you got knocked out before the prognosticators could find time to talk about your season.

San Diego? Again, we apologize. There was just no time to point out that you beat two tournament teams in a row to win the WCC and earn a tournament berth.

And that first-round overtime win against Connecticut? Worth some highlights, but Western Kentucky did the same thing and then beat you. So, they get all the attention. It doesn't matter that the Hilltoppers beat Drake, which had not been to the Big Dance in eons, while you beat UConn and their legendary coach Jim Calhoun.

If you can’t win two, you’re no good to us anymore.

In today's sports world, full of lightning-fast information, we can't possibly devote five minutes of Monday morning’s SportsCenter to reflect on what happened Friday.

Friday? Are you kidding? There's baseball in Japan, Pacman wants to be a Cowboy, and Patrick Roy's kid is going Chuck Liddell in Junior Hockey.

And of course, the NFL draft is only ONE MONTH away! We must know the weakest positions for every team in the NFL, and we require full coverage of the wind-sprint/ bench press competition in Indianapolis.

Why would we want to hear about the biggest wins in the history of some mid-major basketball teams, when we can see clips of Felix Jones jogging around the RCA dome in mesh shorts?

I understand that “balanced” coverage is the supposed goal of ESPN and other sports media outlets. But, as a former athlete and a current high school coach, I believe that it is not always the wins that define the measure of an athlete.

Let's not take anything away from the compelling stories of Davidson and Western Kentucky. But I'd also like to hear about the state of Siena and San Diego's programs, in the aftermath of their tournament appearances.

How have their fans, coaches, and young players reacted to reaching the pinnacle of their athletic careers and then, merely two days later, suffering a crushing defeat?

In my mind’s eye, I can envision a two to three minute video package on either team.

It begins with video of the team celebrating their win. Then there are two post-game quotes from the winners, one about the win and one about preparation for their next game.

And then the images of defeat flash upon the screen, visceral reactions from the moments directly after the second round loss. Press conference clips from the losing players and coaches are spliced-in with the footage. They talk about the loss, and what went differently than in their first game.

The piece ends with the team's return to campus. After everything has settled in for a day, the players and head coach try to put the tournament experience in perspective. What was the stronger emotion: pride in victory, or the sting of defeat? How does this affect the future of your program? How do you keep the players’ heads up and focused on what they accomplished?

To me this is more compelling television than a report on what Jerry Jones wants to do with his first round pick.

But maybe I’m in the minority.

(Subtext: Thanks to the Internet, we can all see what the respective teams' local media has to say about these two particular schools.

The North County Times has an article about San Diego here: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/26/sports/collegesports/30524bd2ce7fe8958825741800153eac.txt

New York's Daily Gazette caught up with Siena after the loss: http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/mar/24/0324_fisher/

It'd be nice to see more coverage in this vein.)

NCAA Tourney Picks Analysis: East Region

Hunter Dunlo — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:15:38 -0400

I've posted a set of five articles dissecting the whole tournament. If you like this one, make sure to check the others out...

I know it's already Wednesday, but I'm sure many of you reading this are still using pencil on your bracket (or the paper is filled with scribbles and cross outs). I have written up the thought process I used to make my picks in an attempt to provide you with some insight that isn't available in every source.

A lot of my analysis is based on commonly known facts or things that might seem unimportant to a lot of pundits, but I've made no attempt to filter the details or general thought process that I have based my selections on.

Since this is my first article, I should probably give a brief introduction as to why I spend so much time going over these picks, and I'll try to give you a brief glimpse into my personality.

I get as hyped for March Madness as anyone I've ever met. I keep up with the college game all season, but toward the end I take it into overdrive. In recent years, BracketBuster weekend has served as a concrete date for my interest to become zoned in.

In previous years, it was more of an organic thing. This time of year, there's usually one day when start watching a college basketball game with a medium to high interest level, and by the end of the game I'm saying things like "Ohhhh man, it's getting to be that time of year!" in an awkwardly loud voice, making the people around me uncomfortable.

From that point on, way too much of my time is spent checking the conference standings on the Internet and asking questions like, "Who's leading the Sun Belt and who'd they play out of conference?" to no one in particular.

This all started in 1995 when I was 10 years old. My parents had ODU basketball season tickets, and I'd attended the games with them since I knew what a basketball was. When I started playing the sport myself, somewhere around age eight, I began to really watch the players and try to figure out what made them good at the game.

I began to develop a concept of the NCAA, the championship tournament, and the significance of the game being played. In that 1994-95 season, ODU won the CAA tournament.

I knew what it meant—my favorite team was going dancing. In three overtimes, No. 14 ODU pulled off the upset of the tournament against Villanova. I still vividly remember the feeling I had when that final buzzer rang. The whole world got to see my team at their proudest moment on the biggest stage in sports.

When Petey Sessoms hit the free throws to ice the game, I let out unintelligible screams of joy and sprinted directly out of the back door of my house. I ran circles around the yard for a few minutes, pumping my fists and trying to get a grasp on what I had just seen.

The next day I was alive with an excitement that made that entire day awesome. I was late for school because of Sportscenter, just as I had been on the morning when they broadcast all of Michael Jordan's first retirement press conference. I wanted to see as much of my team as I could—they were on ESPN!

In school, all the kids decked out in UNC and Duke gear were glad their team had won (and, of course, a few kids had even jumped on the Arkansas bandwagon—no doubt they were also Cowboys fans), but their excitement didn't compare to mine.

I remember reenacting the final minute of each overtime by myself during P.E. I did the classic "3, 2, 1... He shoots, he scores!" routine over at the corner basket by which the girls jumped rope and the dorks sat against the bleachers reading books.

(Don't get offended by my use of the word "dork." I by no means grew up a popular, talented kid, so I make no claims of superiority over these sorts of people. But if you were reading during P.E. or recess you were a dork. You were 10 years old and, after having to sit still all day, you forfeited your opportunity to run around like an idiot for half an hour? Sorry, you were a dork.)

Eventually my parents dropped their ODU tickets and I ended up going to JMU, so my allegiance to the Monarchs has been mostly severed. But since that year, I have always rooted for the little guy.

Actually, "rooted" may be too weak of a verb.

Every year I spend the week before the games finding reasons to talk myself and everyone who will listen into believing that an underdog or two can beat a big-time program in their first round game. I find every stat possible, ignore the ones that don't prove my point, and badger people with my completely biased opinion until they probably want to cause me some sort of physical pain.

When the games start, I try to will these upsets into happening. I talk to the television even more than I normally do, often standing up to cheer individually for players I have never seen play and hadn't heard of a week ago. At halftime, a commercial, a Greg Gumbel interruption, or any other break in the action, I loudly spout off every positive thing that is happening for the underdog.

I love trying to analyze the games from the statistical, logical standpoint, but it's the picks from the gut that make the tournament fun to watch. I try to dissect the matchups and figure out who is going to win these things, but I know my picks are often influenced by who I want to win the game.

But that is alright with me; I'd rather pick one true upset correctly each year than win a pool.

I felt that this brief intro was relevant to my picks because it can serve as a warning to you. If I talk you into an upset pick, the persuasion has come after I've done everything possible to talk myself into it as well. I am going to analyze the first round matchups in full detail. My picks for the other rounds will be based on this analysis, a gut feeling, or eenie meenie miney moe.

East Region

(1) North Carolina vs. (16) Mount Saint Mary's

Congratulations to Mt. St. Mary's, who, thanks to the play-in game, can now add an NCAA tournament win to their all-time record.

I hate the play-in game. Two of these 16 seeds should get a fair shot to go play against a top-ranked team. The easiest fix to the tournament is to just cut an at-large bid. There's no need to do anything crazy like the 128 team field that I've heard Bob Knight suggest at least 20 times this past week. All I've seen him do at ESPN is spout off ridiculous suggestions, give flippant answers to those fan questions, and make it clear that he rarely agrees with the people who run things in college basketball.

The other night, Rece Davis asked one of those questions posed to no one in particular and the analysts went down the line with their answers: Which team seeded 13-16 had the best chance to win a game?

Bob Knight responded with, "None of them." Everyone awkwardly laughed like you always hear on these studio shows, but then Knight kept talking and he made it clear that he wasn't kidding.

Not only was he serious, he proceeded to lay out his 92 step plan to fix the NCAA tournament. The only points of it I heard were eliminate the automatic bids and expand to 128 teams. Not only does this completely cheapen the tournament, it takes all the "madness" out of March.

There's just no place for this in the tournament coverage. If someone at ESPN feels this is compelling television, couldn't they at least hold it off until AFTER the tournament? I watch these shows to learn about the games and get excited about my favorite sports weekend of the year. I don't need someone raining on my parade.

I always defended Knight and had a lot of respect for him as a coach, but I don't know why anyone thought this was a good idea. Maybe ESPN hired him just for the name recognition. They must have been worried that no one would watch college basketball this March without Bob Knight in the picture.

Oh, and UNC's good this year.

The pick: North Carolina

(8) Indiana vs. (9) Arkansas

Indiana looked like a team that could go as far as the Final Four, and then the Kelvin Sampson situation happened. While that whole thing was running its course, the Hoosiers won some pretty big games. Somehow, they weren't distracted by their coach going through the process of losing his job.

But, once the dust settled, their season started to tank. The team fell pretty flat to end the regular season and then lost their first Big Ten tournament game.

Arkansas plays hard. They went toe-to-toe with Tennessee to get a 92-91 win in the SEC tournament. In their run to the tournament final, they showed the ability to scramble if needed and buckled down defensively when it was necessary. The body of work points toward Indiana, but I expect the Razorbacks to come out and play well in this game.

The pick: Arkansas

(5) Notre Dame vs. (12) George Mason

I love nothing more than an upset—and George Mason made the best Cinderella run ever—but I have no inclination to pick them in this game. I watch a lot of the CAA, even though my alma mater (JMU) has been awful for a few years, and the only team in the league that could have won a tournament game is VCU, but the Rams didn't have the resume to get in this year, and frankly didn't deserve to.

The Patriots should be commended for winning the CAA tournament, but this matchup is terrible for them. The biggest reason: Notre Dame is good. Really good.

It's hard to explain their no-show in the Big East tournament, but I think they can get it back on track. If Luke Harangody played in the ACC, he'd get obsessed over by the media as much as Hansbrough. He is the real deal.

The Irish beat Kansas State, Pitt, West Virginia, Connecticut, and finished 14-4 in the Big East. Barring a fluke, they should handle Mason.

The pick: Notre Dame

(4) Washington State vs. (13) Winthrop

It's easy to fall into what I like to call "The Valparaiso Trap." It involves giving into the urge to pick a team for an upset just because the team won in the NCAA the previous year.

I don't like Winthrop's matchup against Washington State at all. Both teams play a very slow, defensive-minded game. UCLA is the only team to crack 80 points against WSU, and Winthrop is giving up less than 60 per game for the year.

Only 55 points could win this thing, so don't expect Winthrop to get run out of the gym. Washington State let Oral Roberts hang around last year by playing their low-scoring style.

The problem for Winthrop is that games between teams of similar styles are less likely to feature an upset. There's a reason why the Cougars have the better seed: They've been the better team this season. And so, against a team who isn't going to try to break their comfort zone, I expect them to come out with a win.

The pick: Washington State

(6) Oklahoma vs. (11) St. Joseph's

This game seems weirder and weirder every time I look at it. It's really hard to know what to make of either one of these teams. Oklahoma had a three-game run where they beat Arkansas, Gonzaga, and West Virginia, but they lost their last game to Texas by 28 points.

They also lost to tournament teams USC, Kansas State, and Memphis out of conference, and finished 9-7 in a pretty tough Big 12. They played a pretty fierce schedule and came out with some good wins and a relatively high number of losses.

They're good, but there's nothing spectacular or even memorable about this team. They seem to play pretty tough defense, which is typical of a Capel-coached team. They've certainly played in more big games than St. Joe's this year, and that could be a factor.

St. Joe's is a strange team too. They only went 97 in the A-10, but beat Xavier twice and crushed Villanova by 20 points. I watched the A-10 final against Temple, and they were very underwhelming. There's been a lot of talk about their offensive firepower, but I didn't see it in that game. Then again, a lot of those title games get sloppy as teams fight for their postseason lives.

I've debated over this one quite a bit, but I'm just going to break it down to two things: Defense wins games and 9-7 in the Big 12 is better than 9-7 in the A-10.

The pick: Oklahoma

(3) Louisville vs. (14) Boise State

It is incredibly tempting to write in Oklahoma vs. Boise State in the second round, but there won't be a Fiesta Bowl rematch. I saw the WAC title game—Boise tried to give it away five or six different times.

The game went to three OTs, but should have been won in regulation. Each session ended up with the Broncos blowing a lead through a missed free throw, a turnover, poor defense, or some other mistake. That night, I decided to not pick them to win a tournament game under any set of circumstances.

And now they've drawn Louisville.

Don't be fooled by their one-and-done in the Big East tournament; the Cardinals are the real deal. Just like Notre Dame, they're poised to make a run despite their poor showing at the Garden. They finished the regular season as one of the hottest teams in the nation before a three-point loss at Georgetown.

Pitino is not a coach who is prone to be an upset victim. His team has the talent and discipline to beat anybody in America, and it's laughable to picture Boise State winning this game.

The pick: Louisville

(7) Butler vs. (10) South Alabama

Butler got screwed with this No. 7 seed. They went 29-3 with two losses in their league and a loss to Drake on BracketBuster Saturday. They beat every other team they could schedule, including Florida State by 11 and Ohio State by 19.

This is a team that took care of business, was ranked in the polls all year, and won their conference (both regular season and tournament). Short of going undefeated, what else could they have done?

But that doesn't matter at all now. What matters is where they go from here. As far as this game, South Alabama is the highest seeded team that I have never seen play. I guess they deserved to get in, but I don't know anything about them other than what I've seen on paper.

The bottom line is, nothing I can find in research is going to ever convince me to pick them over Butler, so I'm not going to bother to look up anything. I think Butler has the potential to do well in the tournament again this year.

The pick: Butler

(2) Tennessee vs. (15) American University

Let me get this out of the way: Brian Gilmore, AU's sixth man, was a high school friend, a teammate on my swim team, and an avid fan of 2 Skinnee J's (my favorite band). I can admit when I'm biased, and I certainly am in this case.

That being said, I genuinely believe the Eagles have the best chance of any 15 seed—and not just because I want to announce "I know that guy!" to everyone in Buffalo Wild Wings if it happens.

Let's start with the coaching. Bruce Pearl has a good history thus far in the Big Dance. He's taken four teams to the tournament, two at Tennessee and two at Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Pearl has a 3-1 first round record, and has taken each school to the Sweet Sixteen one time. (The one first round loss was decided by that excruciating missed layup when UWM played Notre Dame.)

In the first two rounds, the most crucial factors are a team's mindset and level of preparedness. Pearl's teams seem to reflect his loose, but prepared disposition. He has clearly shown a knack for getting his teams ready for the crazy beginning to the tournament. Basically, Pearl can coach a team up for the first weekend.

Why can the Eagles win? Well, unlike many teams who enter the tournament as a low seed and are dancin' for the first time in a while, American has a coach with just as much success in the tournament as the opponent's coach.

Jeff Jones made five trips to the NCAA tournament, going 3-2 in the first round. He also had two Sweet Sixteen teams and took a team to within a game of the Final Four. He knows what it takes to get a team prepared to be successful in the tournament, which should offset the fact that no one on the team has played in the Big Dance.

Most of these low-seeded teams lose the game within three minutes out of the tunnel, when they see those CBS Sports banners, famous coaches, and All Americans across the court, but Jones should have AU in a good frame of mind to be successful.

While the Eagles may not beat themselves, that's only the initial battle. They still have to beat Tennessee.

Hopefully Jones has the guys studying everything that can about the Volunteers. This is one of the few distinct advantages a lower seeded coach can give his team: better preparation than their opponent. I'm sure Tennessee will see some game film of American, but there's no way they will be mentally preparing themselves as well as AU if Jones has the team doing everything thoroughly. This is their Super Bowl. It would shock me to see a rattled, unprepared American team take the floor.

Also, despite what the Volunteers will tell the media, there is no way that any team with a No. 1 or No. 2 seed isn't looking ahead (at least somewhat). These guys have played on national television against other Top 10 teams, been on Sportscenter all year, and been quoted on ESPN.com after every game.

Maybe a professional athlete can completely isolate themselves, but I don't see how a 19-year-old can avoid getting at least some sense of complacency and self-importance when they're a big time athlete. There has to be a little part of these guys' brains that thinks they are simply entitled to a win against a Patriot League team, even if they try to suppress the notion. If they come out flat, American could build some confidence and not let the game get out of hand.

Xs and Os wise, the Patriots objective is simple: Slow these guys down!

Tennessee is coming off a loss to Arkansas in the SEC tournament where they still scored 91 points. Besides that game, the Vols have three other losses. They fell to Texas, a team with Final Four potential; Vanderbilt, who played their best game of the year in front of a crazy home crowd; and Kentucky, who beat the Vols once and also played them in another close game.

With Kentucky being the lowest ranked team to beat UT, analyzing their approach is most relevant to figuring out what American has to do. UK won 72-66 and only lost 63-60 in Knoxville (where UT didn't lose all year). Kentucky held this Tennessee offense in the 60s twice. In those two games, the Vols shot 38 percent and 40 percent respectively. In contrast, they shot 55 percent in this weekend's Arkansas loss.

The Eagles need to keep UT close to that 40 percent number to hang in this game. How they do it? The answer is simple, and anyone who watches basketball knows it: stop their transition, make them work for every shot, and don't give up offensive rebounds. In other words, a team will miss more shots if the shots are more difficult.

This is easier said than done. That's where preparation and confidence come into play. American played a gutsy, almost turnover-free game in their conference final. Here's hoping the Eagles duplicate that effort and pull off the upset of the tournament!

The pick: American University

NCAA Tourney Picks: Second Round to the Championship

Hunter Dunlo — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:40:37 -0400

As I mentioned in the introduction to this series, the first weekend of the tournament is my favorite weekend in sports. I always spend a lot more time making those picks than the others.

But I think I can use the research I've done on the teams, along with the games I've seen, to make picks all the way through. I'll only add commentary for a game if I find it necessary.

East Region

Sweet 16: UNC, Notre Dame, Louisville, Butler

Elite 8: UNC, Louisville

Final Four: UNC

Midwest Region

Sweet 16: Kansas, Clemson, Wisconsin, Gonzaga

I think the Zags are the real deal, but it's more of a gut pick than anything else.

Elite 8: Kansas, Wisconsin

Final Four: Kansas

South Region

Sweet 16: Memphis, Michigan State, Stanford, Texas

It physically pains me to pick against my Golden Eagles, but I think they'll be emotionally drained after their first round win.

Elite 8: Michigan State, Texas

Recent years have shown that not all four No. 1 seeds are likely to make it this far, and Michigan State is a team that can go toe-to-toe with the Tigers. If Memphis proves me wrong this year, then I might finally have faith in them next March.

Final Four: Texas

West Region

Sweet 16: UCLA, Drake, Baylor, Duke

If you didn't read my other picks (which by the way are much more detailed) you'll find that I don't like the A-10 or Xavier at all.

Elite 8: UCLA, Duke

Final Four: UCLA

Final Four

I've got a Kansas/UCLA title game, with Kansas finally getting over the hump and winning the big one.

Now go, fill out your brackets! Have fun and pick some upsets!

(I've posted a set of five articles dissecting the whole tournament. If you like this one, make sure to check the others out!)

Detailed NCAA Tourney Picks Analysis: Midwest Region

Hunter Dunlo — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:19:33 -0400

I've posted a set of five articles dissecting the whole tournament. If you like this one, make sure to check the others out!

Midwest Region

(1) Kansas vs. (16) Portland State

This matchup is part of the first set of games to tip off, at around 12:30 on Thursday, along with Xavier/Georgia and Michigan State/Temple. I imagine that most markets in the country won't be watching the KU game for long. There's no reason to suspect that the Big XII champs will get much of a test in this one.

The pick: Kansas

(8) UNLV vs. (9) Kent State

Real quick analysis since Kansas is going to handle the winner of this game: Lon Kruger took UNLV on their best run in a while last year, making it to the Sweet 16 out of nowhere. But his kid (see: I'm not even spending enough time on this game to look up his first name—I make no claims to be a true journalist) was the best player on that team, and he's gone.

Kent State built their season with one win, when they went out west and won at St. Mary's in the BracketBuster. Before this, no one had noticed them nationally. And that was with good reason; their only other win over a tournament team were early season wins over GMU and Coppin State. I'm incredibly underwhelmed by this matchup, and it's at the same time as the Oral Roberts game. My attention won't ever be directed towards the TV that's showing this game, and I have no good reason to pick either team over the other.

The pick: UNLV

(5) Clemson vs. (12) Villanova

Going by the seeds, Villanova was the last at-large team to sneak into this tournament. However, they come into this thing as arguably the best #12 seed. They won what amounted to a play-in game against Syracuse last week, and have had some impressive performances in the Big East. But Clemson has had a great year in the ACC, including their impressive win over Duke in the ACC tournament. This is definitely the best team Oliver Purnell has had at Clemson, despite the fact that they still can't shoot free throws. It's ridiculous that Clemson has been so terrible from the line for like five years in a row.

Both teams have come out of tough leagues to get where they are right now, but Clemson's season has been more impressive. They proved themselves as much in their losses to UNC as in any victories; twice taking them to overtime and losing a really close ACC final. And for the first time in a few years, the Tigers picked up some good non-conference wins, beating Mississippi State and Purdue.

This team has "gotten over the hump" so to speak. For the past few seasons, they have been capable of beating anybody on any given night. This year, they are winning games more consistently.

Nova got the wins they needed to get in order to make the tournament. They beat UConn, Pitt, Louisville, Temple, Mason, and picked up two wins over Syracuse. They made it out of the tough Big East and lived to tell the tale. However, they lost a lot of games and they don't really compare favorably to a Clemson team playing their best, and Clemson has shown the ability to show up for most every game this year.

The pick: Clemson

(4) Vanderbilt vs. (13) Siena

For a minute, I considered investigating Sienna's possibilities here. I watched their dominant MAAC championship game win, remembered them beating Stanford, and knew that I had seen something else about them this year. Then I checked their schedule and had an "Aha!" moment. They were the team that JMU scored 100 against this year. Yep, they lost to the Dukes 88 - 100. But this was very early in the year, and I'd imagine that they've improved.

These teams from the MAAC always draw my interest because they always put up good offensive numbers. But then when they get to the tournament, the buckets aren't easy to come by, and they don't play defense well enough to compete at this level.

Vanderbilt has kind of slipped off the radar; I'm not sure if anyone even remembers that they were 16 - 0 in January, or even that they finished 26-7. They're not getting any hype at all, which I always view as a positive thing. And they play at Vanderbilt, a school who is just now gaining a renewed heavy fan interest.

This isn't Kentucky, where the players have fans/alumni/boosters breathing on their necks and critiquing every little thing about the team. Vandy has great support from their people without that sort of pressure.

The problem is, their good wins came at home in front of these same fans. The Commodores didn't go play in any invitational tournaments, and only played three road games out of conference, beating Toledo, Bradley, and DePaul on the road. I guess a team can afford to schedule like that with the RPI boost that the SEC games will give, but what does it do for their chances in the postseason?

In the SEC tournament, they beat a bad Auburn team by 11 and then lost to Arkansas, who had also beaten them earlier in the year. So they finished 10-6 in the league: 8-0 at home, 2-6 on the road. And out of conference, they only went on the road to barely beat teams who aren't in the postseason.

When this team steps off the bus in Tampa, Florida, how are they going to play with any confidence? I think all that confidence they built up by beating Tennessee will be right back in the arena where they left it.

The pick: Vanderbilt
(I know this contradicts that last paragraph, but they can beat Sienna. In round two though, it's all over for Vandy.)

(6) Southern California vs. (11) Kansas State

These teams are pretty much in the same boat. They both were fortunate enough to land a superstar recruit, and without these two freshmen (O.J. Mayo for USC and Michael Beasley for K-State) neither of the teams would be in the position that they're in.

This game is intriguing, mostly because of this individual matchup. It's hard to avoid at least considering if the committee put these two teams together to make an intriguing TV game, despite the yearly claims that such factors don't affect seeding. Beasley is probably the better player, but USC is playing leaps and bounds better than K-State right now. It looks like Tim Floyd has this team in good shape coming towards the finish line of the season.

They established themselves as being a top-level Pac-10 team, almost culminating with a win over UCLA in the tournament. The Wildcats, on the other hand, are 5-7 since February, with only one road win and no wins against tournament teams. In that span, they missed opportunities to knock off Baylor, Kansas, Texas, and Texas A&M. Despite their 19 year olds heading in the same direction (i.e. towards shaking David Stern's hand,) I see teams heading in the opposite directions.

The pick: Southern Cal

(3) Wisconsin vs. (14) Cal State Fullerton

My first reaction when looking at my copy of the bracket was, "Wisconsin is 29 - 4?" Somehow this team has avoided the limelight all year, despite rolling through the Big Ten (regular season and tournament) and posting a lot of good wins. They beat Texas back in December, and it seems like this game has been long forgotten. But I bet the Badgers didn't forget, and they probably felt at least somewhat disrespected by a number three seed.

If I were coach, I'd make sure they saw that all four-number two seeds didn't win their league tournaments, and that two of didn't even win their regular season titles. And I'm sure the players see Texas, the team they beat, on that number two line. For a team that's had a nearly unblemished season and comes in on a ten-game win streak, it should be beneficial to have this chip on their shoulder.

As for the Titans from CSF, they should feel good about making their first NCAA appearance in a long time. But there hasn't really been anything impressive about the Big West conference this year, and CSF didn't do anything noteworthy out of conference.

The pick: Wisconsin

(7) Gonzaga vs. (10) Davidson

At first glance of the tournament field, this was the game that had me most excited. It's a matchup of two teams from smaller leagues that have established their place as programs that have the ability to compete with teams from the major conferences. But after some thought, I realized that it kind of sucks. With the number of at-large bids for mid-majors decreasing, it is especially aggravating to know that one of these teams will be out after the first round.

The flip side is that one will win and probably get a shot at Georgetown, but I would have liked to have seen each of these teams try to knock off a team from a major conference. Conspiracy theorists are already making claims that the NCAA is playing a numbers game, reducing the number of mids that get out of the first round to try to prevent another George Mason-esque run.

It's impossible to say if there's any validity to this idea, but it is still fun to watch the mid-majors play those historically strong programs. But, this game figures to be a really good contest.

Davidson is lead by Stephen Curry, a lights out shooter who wanted to follow in the footsteps of his father (Dell Curry) and play at Virginia Tech, but wasn't offered a full ride. While Tech probably regrets the decision, things couldn't have worked out much better for Curry. As a freshman last season, he had the opportunity to immediately get a ton of play-making opportunities. He's scoring 25 a game and has brought Davidson back to the tournament for the second year in a row.

This season, they lost to UNC by four, Duke by six, and UCLA by 12. They also lost to Western Michigan, Charlotte, and NC State out of conference. I point these losses out because their OOC record was only 3-6, they just went 23-0 in the Southern Conference. (That seems like a ridiculous schedule in an 11 team league, to have all teams play twice).

So credit is due for thoroughly dominating a conference, but look at the next best teams: Appalachian State and Georgia Southern. If this were 1- AA football that'd be impressive, but we're talking the big dance here. Their only really good win was against Winthrop in the BracketBuster game, which looks good now that Winthrop won their league.

Gonzaga has lurked in the shadows of the limelight this year, not receiving the same sort of media overexposure as they have in other years. The Zags have had a good campaign though, picking up wins over UConn, St. Joe's, Virginia Tech, and Western Kentucky. More impressive is that, in posting their 25-7 record, they lost six games to tournament teams and one to Texas Tech (all the way back when Bob Knight was still their coach.) They lost to Memphis by eight and Tennessee by 10.

Gonzaga has always gone out and played great non-conference schedules, then strolled through their conference schedule waiting for the big dance. This year, with USD and St. Mary's both being strong, the Zags had some real competition.

Coming together with Memphis to schedule a late January game was also great for both of those teams, who typically tower over their conferences. Stephen Curry is the exact kind of player I look for when trying to pick an upset, and in my mind I can just see him hitting a buzzer beater that will become a part of the cheesy "One Shining Moment" montage.

Davidson has hung with some top-notch teams this year, but so has Gonzaga. The difference is Gonzaga has beaten a few of them. Davidson hasn't lost a game in 2008, but I have a bad feeling about picking them. It's too obvious. This is that one game this year where, on Thursday, all the guys at work who haven't talked about basketball once all season will come in saying, "I think that Davidson is a good sleeper pick." They're even a 2 point favorite in Vegas as of Tuesday night. Something just isn't right here.

The pick: Gonzaga

(2) Georgetown vs. (15) UMBC

Even if the Hoyas come out ice cold, they can rely on Hibbert to dominate inside. There's no one on UMBC's team that can matchup with him. They'd have to crash everyone inside, and if that happens, the Hoyas can shoot well enough to handle the game. However they have to do it, Georgetown should control this game.

The pick: Georgetown

Detailed NCAA Tourney Picks Analysis: West Region

Hunter Dunlo — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:12:32 -0400

I've posted a set of five articles dissecting the whole tournament. If you like this one, make sure to check the others out!

West Region

(1) UCLA vs. (16) Mississippi Valley State

I only know two things about the Delta Devils: they have a cool nickname, and Jerry Rice went to school there. What I know about UCLA is that they are probably the best basketball team in the country right now. I wish someone would start giving Berman-style nicknames to athletes in every sport, and start with Kevin Love. There's a ton of possibilities. My vote is for Kevin Love "Is a Battlefield." As for this game, it shouldn't be close for more than five minutes.

The pick: UCLA

(8) BYU vs. (9) Texas A&M

This was the last game I filled in. I'm really not sure what to do with it. But I don't think either team can beat UCLA anyway. I'm not sure about this one, but I've seen A&M play more and they're in a better conference.

The pick: Texas A&M

(5) Drake vs. (12) Western Kentucky

Drake is this year's team that most fans love despite having not seen them play very much. The WKU Hilltoppers (this field is loaded with great team names) earned their bid by winning the Sun Belt tournament, and had a decent season. They have this guy named Courtney Lee who is a legit big-time athlete. Go search YouTube and watch him dunk. He’s an exciting player who is super athletic.

But Drake pretty much dominated the perennially strong Missouri Valley conference in a down year for the league. Their coach, Keno Davis, has to be commended for taking a historically below-average team and having this much success.

They surprised most experts by going to Butler and picking up a win in the most important BracketBuster game of the year, and they probably earned their seed (and lowered Butler's) because of that game. They didn't play a schedule like Butler's, but by winning that game they showed that they compete with a seasoned team. Despite being new to the national scene, it would surprise me to see Drake give in to the pressure of the situation.

The pick: Drake

(4) Connecticut vs. (13) San Diego

USD earned their way into this tournament by winning the WCC title on their home floor. Without that home court advantage, they'd probably be preparing for the NIT. They've got a long trip to Tampa, and should be surrounded by UConn fans, who typically travel well. It looks like they're a team who has already accomplished a goal that has made their season a success, win or lose this game.

Add UConn to the list of good teams that disappointed in the Big East tournament. They don't have the same swagger or air of invincibility of a typical UConn team, which might be a good thing in this game. They should be motivated to improve upon their conference tournament performance, and not brimming with the over-confidence that can leave a team prone to an upset.

The pick: Connecticut

(6) Purdue vs. (11) Baylor

I see Baylor as the Vanderbilt of the Big XII; they've come from being a bottom-feeder to a team that has the potential to win almost any game in their league. Dave Bliss has done an awesome job turning around a program that was in shambles when he arrived. Their big win was the five-OT win at Texas A&M; that really put them on the map.

Purdue had a really good year, finishing second in the Big Ten, but I'm going to go with my gut on this one. I just like Baylor, and their story is too good for me to get away from as I made this pick

The pick: Baylor

(3) Xavier vs. (14) Georgia

Georgia got a gift with this seed. Look at the other number three seeds they could have played: Louisville, Stanford, and Wisconsin. I don't think the Musketeers have nearly the talent or potential for tournament success as those other teams. The Bulldogs really got it together in the SEC tournament, and played their best basketball under an unusual set of circumstances. Not only did they make a four game run as a bottom seed, they won two games in a day! No team in the modern era has ever been put in that situation, and the lowest seeded team possible was the one to step up and step up to the challenge.

I just don't get the hype for Xavier, or the A-10 in general. The RPI is in love with this league, and a big factor in that may be that Dayton had such early season success and ended up taking losses to all of these other A-10 teams. The Musketeers didn't even reach their league final, and they're rewarded with the third seed in this region. Maybe I'm just clueless, but I don't get what makes Xavier better than Butler.

I hate to keep harping on my perceived snub of Butler, but Butler was ranked higher in the polls and won almost every big game that they were given the chance to play. On the other hand, Xavier lost by 22 to Arizona State, lost to Tennessee, and had a bad loss to Miami (OH) University.

They didn't really dominate their league, which I think was overrated, and their out of conference results were moderately impressive but not overwhelming. Xavier did crush Kansas State early in the year, before the Wildcats really hit their stride with freshman Marcus Beasley. But still, I don't think the Musketeers are as good as their seeding.

On the other hand, Georgia had a miserable start to their season, and seemed poised to make the obligatory conference tournament appearance, pack it in, and then try to prepare to improve next year. Instead, they unexpectedly turned things around in a hurry.

Their wins in the SEC tournament matched the number that they picked up in the regular season. Once they got in a groove, they proved that they have the talent to compete with anyone.

This is a rare situation where the No. 14 seed might actually have better athletes than the number three seed. Despite the seeding discrepancy, I'm having trouble seeing who the better team really is in this game. That being said, it has become my thinking that these four game major conference tournament runs lead to a team being poised to bow out early in the big dance.

The pick: Xavier

(7) West Virginia vs. (10) Arizona

The Mountaineers had a very successful trip to New York in the Big East tournament, and should be instilled with some optimism about their potential to succeed in the NCAA tournament. They looked like a team that could win the Big East, until they were physically overmatched by Georgetown. But Arizona doesn't have a Roy Hibbert.

The Wildcats are a well-rounded team who got into this tournament despite having a year that didn't really live up to the standard for success that's been established for their program. A lot of people are pointing to their two losses to Arizona State as proof that they don't belong here, but they've probably had as good of a season as any other team that could fill the spot. That being said, it looks like the Mountaineers have a lot more upside than the Wildcats.

The pick: West Virginia

(2) Duke vs. (15) Belmont

The Great Danes have established themselves as an annual tournament team, but didn't move up from the No. 15 seed that they occupied a year ago. They've most likely gained a lot of composure from their prior tournament trips, and should be comfortable going into the game. But Duke is a good team this year, despite possessing many of the flaws that Coach K's teams have had in recent years, such as the lack of a completely dominant player.

It surprises me that none of the physically superior Tyler Hansbrough type players don't want to play for Duke, and that they can no longer land players who become first round draft picks. They still get a lot of McDonald's All-Americans and other highly-regarded players, but the best players in the country don't end up in Duke uniforms like they did in the 90's.

It would be interesting to dissect why this has happened, and it could even be Krzyzewski’s choice to not bring in kids that are just biding their time and don't plan to stay in college longer than a year.

There aren't any more Grant Hills or Tim Duncans who want to play on the basketball's big stage for four years and walk away with a degree from a great school. So we get to see guys like Greg Paulus suit up for Duke. But Paulus has gotten a lot better than he was two seasons ago.

That's the positive thing about the changed landscape of college basketball: a lot of these annual contenders are building programs around less talented players, because the best guys jump into the draft so quickly. So a lot of these coaches have to do more than throw great talent out on the floor.

And Coach K, despite being deemed everything from "overrated" to "the devil incarnate" by his detractors, has proven that he can mold talent to compete with the best teams in the nation.

Having Johnny Dawkins and Wojo as assistant coaches has to help too; they're probably both more competent basketball minds than half of the D-1 head coaches. The teams that have had routine success in recent years, and not risen and fallen with the arrival and quick departure of top-notch talent, have been the ones with the best coaches.

The pick: Duke

Detailed NCAA Tourney Picks Analysis: South Region

Hunter Dunlo — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:07:04 -0400

I've posted a set of five articles dissecting the whole tournament. If you like this one, make sure to check the others out!

South Region

(1) Memphis vs. (16) Texas - Arlington

Memphis is 33 - 1. Texas - Arlington had a losing record in the Southland Conference.

The pick: Memphis

(8) Mississippi State vs. (9) Oregon

This matchup was a head-scratcher for me simply because I don't see how Oregon got a nine seed. Most experts thought they were a bubble team, but this seed indicates that they're a solid team who had no problem getting into the tournament. There must be some big secret to why they're so highly regarded by the selection committee, but I don't get it.

I never stress over the 8/9 games much anyways, as I find myself rarely picking the winner to advance over the top seed in their next game. Mississippi St. posted a better record in a better league, and they played a better schedule. The Bulldogs seem to clearly be the better team, so the Ducks will probably win. But I'll stick with the logical choice.

The pick: Mississippi State

(5) Michigan State vs. (12) Temple

This is where things start getting fun in the South. Historically, these 5/12 games are barnburners, with the #12 pulling an upset 14 times (35 percent) in the past ten years. In that same time frame, 11 seeds have only beat 6 seeds 32 percent of the time. It's hard to quantify whether this really means anything, but maybe it gives the lower seed team an added feeling that they can win.

Michigan State has had a nice season at 25 - 8, beating Texas early in the year and playing UCLA close in route to compiling a 13 - 1 out of conference record. But, the only other tournament team they played outside of the Big Ten was BYU. They're only 6 - 6 since the beginning of February, which certainly raises the question of whether they've already peaked for the season. The Big Ten is a league where teams have to come out prepared for a slugfest in every game, and one has to wonder if the Spartans are simply worn down.

Temple, on the other hand, is 11 - 2 over that same time span. Obviously, they're not playing Big Ten teams, but the A10 put three teams in the field this year and had the team with the highest RPI of bubble teams (Dayton.) The Owls have won seven in a row, including the A10 tournament. Their season seems to be going in the opposite direction of Michigan State's, so the matchup definitely warrants some analysis.

Temple is a team who relies on their guards for the majority of their offensive production; their three leading scorers and top two rebounders are guards. When a team has guards leading the way in rebounding, that should always raise an eyebrow. MSU should look to slow things down and play that classic physical Big Ten style of game; but if this becomes a shootout, the Owls will be right in it until the end.

Anyone who has watched MSU play should know of forward Raymar Morgan; he's their biggest threat and a legit big-time player. He plays with a lot of hustle and is a natural scorer, but he struggled in the Big Ten tournament, shooting 5 - 19 for a combined 15 points in two games. Still, he will demand attention, and the Owls certainly don't have one guy who can take him out of the game. Morgan didn't dominate the Big Ten, scoring 15 a game, but he is a guy that has the potential to spring for 30 on any given night. If the Owls can't figure out some sort of double team or another way to account for the matchup problem, they'll be in trouble.

To me, this is a toss up and I think it will be a good game. But, in recent years, I've developed a system to picking what I believe to be a toss up. Basically what I do is, I consider the possibility that the game might end up being a blowout (which can always happen), and figure out which team could blow the other one out. I can't see Temple running away from MSU by a huge margin, but it wouldn't shock me to see Michigan State just be too much for a guard-based team to handle.

The pick: Michigan State

(4) Pittsburgh vs. (13) Oral Roberts

Over the past three seasons, I have become a huge fan of the Oral Roberts Golden Eagles, despite lacking a regional or personal connection. I was drawn to their story during the 2005 - 2006 season, when they were coming off a season where they won their league in the regular season but lost in the tournament final. They had two great players in Caleb Green and Ken Tutt (who each ended up scoring 2,000 points in their career.) I started tracking their games, watching whatever I could on ESPNU, and bought myself an "ORU Basketball" shirt online. I arbitrarily decided to become the only Oral Roberts fan I know.

That year, they broke through to the NCAA tournament, and were a 16 seed playing Memphis. They held their own, even leading the game in the second half. Last year, senior year for Green and Tutt, they got in as a 14 seed and were leading Washington St at halftime before falling in the end. Even with the loss of their two superstars, they're back with their third conference title in a row. I smell upset!

Their leading scorer is Robert Jarvis, a Juco transfer who comes off the bench. This guy is a ton of fun to watch; he plays with a lot of energy and is a true shooter, in the sense that he is completely fearless. In the conference title game, he went 6 - 17 but hit a three that broke open a deadlock late in the second half. I don't think he has ever seen a shot that he didn't want to take, and if he can get hot then the Golden Eagles will stand toe to toe.

Big man Shawn King is a certifiable presence inside for the Golden Eagles, and has held his own in their previous tournament appearances. He should be able to defend well enough to not let ORU get man-handled.

Pitt is nowhere near a finesse team; they rely on gritty, overpowering play. They made a great run at the Big East title, and I think they will come into this game worn down. From memory, I can recall Maryland in 2004 and Syracuse in 2006 as the most recent teams to make upset runs to win a major conference tournament as a low seed. Both of those teams looked spent in their NCAA tournament appearances. And Pittsburgh, like Syracuse in '06, had to win the Big East by playing four games in four nights. It seems like the success of the conference tournament run has been the peak of this sort of team's season, at least for the teams who have walked Pitt's path in recent years. ORU, on the other hand, has "been there, done that," with their league title, and they should be very well-rested and prepared. I think they're poised for a big win.

The pick: Oral Roberts

(6) Marquette vs. (11) Kentucky

The Wildcats may not be a good team by Kentucky standards, but they're certainly a solid team. Since beating Tennessee in late January, Kentucky is 11 - 3 with wins over three tournament teams. But out of conference, the Wildcats were really bad. This team lost to UAB, Houston, George Washington, and San Diego. Those early season losses quickly put their team in the spotlight and got them labeled as a disappointment. However, they rebounded to have a good conference season.

On the other hand, Marquette has quietly had a very good year. They've been playing consistent basketball all season; they picked up a lot of quality wins in conference and their only out of conference loss was to Duke by four points. They were able to beat Notre Dame by ten points in the Big East tournament, which looks like a really impressive win. I'm sure this is a game that many will agonize over while filling out the brackets; it's hard to pick against a traditional powerhouse, even during a down year.

The pick: Marquette

(3) Stanford vs. (14) Cornell

The Ivy League automatic qualifier is always such a mysterious team; the only people who have seen them play are those that watch ESPNU even when better games are on five other stations on a Sunday afternoon. This team did go 22 - 5, but they're hard to compare to the field. They didn't play many marquee out of conference games, and their lack of a conference tournament keeps them off the radar for a big chunk of the country. I guess their biggest win was over Siena, champions of the MAAC. The best teams they played were Syracuse (lost by 16) and Duke (lost by 14.) I

t is worth noting that the Duke game was the last one they lost, and that was on January 6. There is something to be said for that long of a win streak, but they haven't played anyone. I used to fall victim to picking the Ivy League teams because they're really fun to pull for; they always look so overmatched that it's really hard to root against them.

I don't haven't seen much of Stanford, maybe because I'm on the east coast, but they have had themselves a very impressive season. All of their losses were to tournament teams except an overtime loss at Arizona State, a solid bubble team. Their run at UCLA in the Pac 10 tournament may have been the most exposure they've gotten this year. They definitely looked like a strong team in that game and it looked like they play more of a Washington State bruiser-type style than the flashy UCLA game. If they can execute, I don't see why they wouldn't make it out of this game.

The pick: Stanford

(7) Miami vs. (10) St. Mary's

I've heard a lot of talk about this game, with many people speculating about the chance of a St. Mary's upset. This probably comes from the fact that St. Mary's has hung around the Top 25 all year, while Miami is a team that didn't solidify their tournament position until later in the season. St. Mary's comes in off a loss against San Diego, who won the WCC tournament. But, the game went to overtime and USD had the luxury of playing that tournament on their home floor. Miami won't have that same advantage in Little Rock.

St. Mary's comes in with a better record, and they have had some legit wins. They split their season series with Gonzaga, beat Oregon, Drake, and Cal St. Fullerton (a tournament team), and went on the road to beat Florida State. Besides a loss to Southern Illinois, all of their blemishes were to tournament teams (Texas, Gonzaga, Kent St., and two to San Diego.) This team has played some good teams, and has not built up their record with an easy out of conference schedule. They sort of limped into the tournament, going 2 - 3 in their last give games; but there were no really bad losses in there. Two of those defeats were close games to Kent St. and Gonzaga, teams that are on about the same level as Miami.

These teams beat St. Mary's by winning the battle inside, and this is what Miami is going to try to do. St. Mary's plays an up-tempo style, and Miami is limiting teams to less than 70 points a game for the year. But in the early season, Miami didn't challenge themselves out of conference. Their best win was over VCU, and they lost to Winthrop at home. Then they started 1 - 3 in the ACC, but turned things around to play their way into the dance. But they really got owned by VT in the ACC tourney, and the way they rebound from that loss will say a lot about the team.

It's an interesting matchup, and like so many of these first round games, this one will be decided by whichever team is able to establish their style of play. Whichever team can adjust to their opponent, while asserting their gameplan, should advance to the second round. With all of Miami's big games coming in the ACC, St. Mary's has actually played a more diverse schedule against good teams with a variety of styles.

The pick: St. Mary's

(2) Texas vs. (15) Austin Peay

The Governors, despite that awesome nickname, do not have much of a shot against D.J. Augustin and company. I think Austin Peay will come out and hang for a few minutes. This could actually be one of those games where CBS switches to that live look in, and Gumbel pipes up with "Look what's transpiring in Little Rock..." because Texas is only up by like five points with a few minutes left to go in the first half. Even if this happens, Governors should fall off somewhere around halftime.

I see Texas winning by 20. The only snowball's chance lies in the fact that Austin Peay shoots a ton of threes, and so I guess they could pull a shocker if the stars align and they shoot like 80 perecnt from long distance.

The pick: Texas