Bracket Tips

National Champions by the Numbers

Raphielle Johnson — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:57:22 -0400

This time of the year brings out all kinds of strategies in regards to how one will fill out their bracket. Opinions, uniform colors and mascots are just three of the dozens of ideas that people throughout the nation (and in some cases outside of the US) have in regards to turning in that winning bracket. But what about the statistics of recent champions? Those numbers can go a long way in showing which teams have the best shot at cutting down the nets on April 5^th. Below are the numbers (and national rankings in that particular year) for each of the last six national champions. Does your favorite fit the “profile”?

2003-04 (Connecticut)

Points per game: 78.8 ppg (17^th)

Field goal percentage: 48.0 (16^th)

Three-point percentage: 40.2 (5^th)

Efficiency: 112.0 (13^th)

Free throw percentage: 62.3 (312^th)

Field goal percentage defense: 36.9 (1^st)

Rebounding margin: 9.7 (1^st)

Assist/Turnover Ratio: 1.3 (4^th)

2004-05 (North Carolina)

Points per game: 88.0 (1^st)

Field goal percentage: 49.9 (5^th)

Three-point percentage: 40.3 (7^th)

Efficiency: 115.7 (6^th)

Free throw percentage: 72.5 (54^th)

Field goal percentage defense: 40.1 (26^th)

Rebounding margin: 7.5 (8^th)

Assist/Turnover ratio: 1.2 (18^th)

2005-06 (Florida)

Points per game: 78.3 (22^nd)

Field goal percentage: 50.0 (2^nd)

Three-point percentage: 39.2 (15^th)

Efficiency: 113.9 (2^nd)

Free throw percentage: 74.4 (34^th)

Field goal percentage defense: 39.9% (21^st)

Rebounding margin: 3.6 (59^th)

Assist/Turnover ratio: 1.2 (17^th)

2006-07 (Florida)

Points per game: 79.8 (11^th)

Field goal percentage: 52.6 (1^st)

Three-point percentage: 40.9 (9^th)

Efficiency: 118.4 (1^st)

Free throw percentage: 69.0 (168^th)

Field goal percentage defense: 40.7 (38^th)

Rebounding margin: 8.5 (4^th)

Assist/Turnover ratio: 1.1 (42^nd)

2007-08 (Kansas)

Points per game: 80.5 (13^th)

Field goal percentage: 50.8 (2^nd)

Three-point percentage: 39.7 (14^th)

Efficiency: 116.6 (2^nd)

Free throw percentage: 70.3 (131^st)

Field goal percentage defense: 37.3 (3^rd)

Rebounding margin: 7.9 (5^th)

Assist/Turnover ratio: 1.4 (2^nd)

2008-09 (North Carolina)

Points per game: 89.8 (2^nd)

Field goal percentage: 48.0 (15^th)

Three-point percentage: 38.7 (21^st)

Efficiency: 118.3 (1^st)

Free throw percentage: 75.2 (19^th)

Field goal percentage defense: 41.0 (60^th)

Rebounding margin: 6.3 (17^th)

Assist/Turnover ratio: 1.45 (3^rd)

Average Champ

Points per game: 11th

Field goal percentage: 7th

Three-point percentage: 9th

Efficiency: 7th

Free throw percentage: 102nd

Field goal percentage defense: 25th

Rebounding margin: 16th

Assist/Turnover Ratio: 14th

Trends

- Each of the last six national champions ranked in the Top 25 in scoring offense and FG%. Focus on picking teams that have high-octane, fast-tempo offenses.

- Only Florida’s second national title team and North Carolina last season finished outside of the Top 25 in field goal percentage defense. When looking at quality of defense, focus on FG% against as opposed to total points given up.

- The Gators are also the only national champ out of the last six to not rank in the Top 20 in assist/turnover ratio.

- With the exception of Florida’s first title team each of the last six national champs ranked in the Top 20 in rebounding margin.

- North Carolina (2009) was the worst three-point shooting team of the last six champs and they ranked 21^st nationally. This goes hand in hand with why the last four champions are ranked either the 1^st or 2^nd most efficient offensive teams.

- Connecticut (2004) and North Carolina (2009) are the only titlists to rank outside of the Top 10 in field goal percentage.

This year’s field contenders in relation

- Of the eight teams on the top two seed lines, four (West Virginia, Kansas, Ohio State and Syracuse) rank in the Top 25 in assist/turnover ratio. Duke comes in at 29^th and Kentucky 119^th to round out the top seeds while Kansas State is 113^th and Villanova is 130^th to complete the two line.

- Kansas (3^rd) and Kentucky (7^th) both rank in the Top 10 in field goal percentage defense while Syracuse (33^rd) and Duke (48^th) are further down the totem pole. In regards to the two line, none rank in the Top 50 in this category; Villanova is the highest-ranked at 56^th.

- Three of the nation’s Top 10 scoring teams are on either the one or two seed line. Villanova (3^rd), Kansas (5^th) and Syracuse (6^th) lead the way while Kansas State (13^th), Kentucky (17^th) and Duke (21^st) reside within the Top 25.

- Kansas (5^th) is the only team out of these eight ranked in the Top 10 in three-point percentage. Ohio State (21^st), Syracuse (25^th) and Duke (28^th) are all within the Top 30.

- Kentucky (6^th), West Virginia (9^th) and Kansas (13^th) are the best teams in the field in regards to rebounding margin. Duke (19^th) and Kansas State (29^th) aren’t far behind.

- Kansas, Duke and Syracuse all rank in the Top 10 in offensive efficiency while Villanova, Ohio State, West Virginia and Kentucky are all in the Top 20. Kansas State goes into the Tournament ranked 36^th.

Possible Interlopers: Baylor, New Mexico. If the numbers prove to be “honest” the pool of teams with the best shot of winning the national title may not be as deep as originally thought. But the numbers aren’t everything; expect this year’s national champ to have at least one statistical characteristic that doesn’t fall in line with the last six champions.

NCAA Tournament: Best & Worst of Each Seed

Shawn Siegel — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:00:09 -0400

When ever two college basketball teams meet for one game, luck always plays a big part. The best team doesn't necessarily always win. Good players have off days and bad players get hot. Thus picking a perfect bracket, even if you legitimately know which teams are better, is impossible. But you can increase your chances of bracket success by avoiding some obvious pitfalls and nailing the underrated squads.

Best: Kansas

Kansas might not win it all, and it would be no fun if everyone picked them to win.. but if you pick against them, understand that they are simply the clear class of the country. They were 14-2 against Top 60 teams. Impressive.

Worst: Duke

Duke will certainly win their first couple of games, so don't go crazy picking them to lose early. But Duke is unproven against the country's best, with just 1 Top 25 win (and that as at home against Maryland, which isn't terribly exciting.)

Best: West Virginia

Having won the Big East Tournament, and finished with the #4 RPI, WVU arguably deserved a #1 seed. And not just over Duke, but over Syracuse as well.

Worst: Ohio St

Despite having a stud in Evan Turner, this is a flawed team that lacks depth and much on the interior. There best win in non-conference play was against Cal, by just 6 points. Yes, OSU's won 13 of 14 games, but only one of those games can be considered a quality win, at Top 50 Michigan St. The rest of the Big Ten teams they beat aren't terribly good.

Best: Georgetown

The Hoyas have beaten 6 Top 15 teams including Duke, Butler, Pittsburgh, Temple, Syracuse and Villanova

Worst: Pittsburgh

Pitt has a lot of weak results on the road (obviously the Cuse win being an exception), losing to the likes of Seton Hall, Indiana, South Florida and Texas by 16. Unfortunately for Pitt, the tourney isn't played on their home court. More like a 5 or 6 seed.

Best: Wisconsin

The 4s in general are extremely weak to me, but Wiscy is the best of this bunch because they own 5 Top 30 wins. Impressive.

Worst: Purdue

Everyone thinks Purdue is an easy upset target against Siena. I actually like the Boilers to pull the game out, but you can't argue that the loss of Hummel and facing such a good 13 seed is a bad combo.

Best: Texas A&M

The Aggies don't have a bad loss all year and have come close against Top 10-quality teams like KU, UNM, and Baylor.

Worst: Butler

I actually like all the 5 seeds better then the 4's (and all are arguably better then 3 seed Pitt too), so in a sense Butler is quite underrated despite the disrespect here. Still, they lost all 4 of their road games against quality opponents, and were unlucky to draw a Top 25-caliber team in UTEP.

Best: Xavier

Xavier's well-tested, having played an extremely challenging slate of road games. They have one of the country's unsung talents in Jordan Crawford.

Worst: Marquette

Marquette actually beat Xavier so its not like they're dog meat.. this seed group is probably the most even to me and was hardest to choose. If Marquette gets by Washington, they'd have to be feared in round 2.

Best: Oklahoma St

James Anderson is one of the best players out there and the Cowboys have shown they can play with anybody in the country when they're clicking.

Worst: Richmond

I actually like Richmond a lot, but the other 7's are solid.. so here they are in part because they're unlucky facing SMC, one of the best 10 seeds. Some of their early wins which seemed great at the time like Florida, Miss St, and Missouri don't seem as impressive now as those teams have struggled. Still, if they're hot from 3, look out.

Best: Texas

The Horns were 17-0 at one point and ranked #1. Are they that much worse now? A lot of their slide simply has to do with playing so many tough games in a tough league. 6 of their 9 losses are against Top 15 teams and they only have one real questionable loss all season.

Worst: Cal

Who has Cal actually beat this year?

Best: Northern Iowa

Despite a great record, the committee somewhat snubbed the UNI in their seed because they didn't play enough quality non-conference opponents. UNLV is certainly a beatable 8 seed, and UNI's style always causes problems for opponents.

Worst: Wake Forest

Wake certainly has talent, but they're a bit schizo at times and you can't ignore their late slide, losing 5 of 6 games.

Best: Georgia Tech

Georgia Tech still hasn't put it together and this is compounded by the fact their facing the best #7 seed in my opinion, Oklahoma St. Still, they're a class above the other 10's, just a little unlucky in their draw.

Worst: Florida

Florida has a couply name wins, but a ton of losses. They don't deserve to be in the Tournament, let alone a 10 seed. Their saving grace is that their opponent, BYU, is certainly beatable.

Best: Old Dominion

The 11 seeds seem quite even, and I only give ODU the edge because I like their first round matchup against Notre Dame the best.

Worst: Minnesota

The Gophers had a nice run the Big Ten tourney, but they do have some questionable losses that are hard to ignore.

Best: UTEP

Considering they were ranked last week, a 12 seed seems a bit harsh. They lost only 2 games to non-Tournament teams all year, at Texas Tech and at Ole Miss, and even they are in the NIT.

Worst: Utah St

This seems harsh, because I actually like Utah St and think they're under-seeded. The problem is that away from home, Utah St doesnt have the same magic, and I think their 1st round opponent is one of the better 5's.

Best: Siena

I wouldn't quite pencil in Siena over Purdue like many suggest, but there's no doubt this is an extremely dangerous considered their recent tourney success.

Worst: Houston

I think the 13 seeds are particularly solid this year, so Houston can still be dangerous against Maryland. Despite 15 losses, Houston only lost 2 of those games by 10+ and were competitive in almost every game.

Best: Ohio

Ohio lost a lot of really close games all season, so their run through the MAC Tournament was a matter of finally running into some luck. They did get crushed at Pitt in their lone foray into big-time basketball, so don't expect much here.

Worst: Oakland

Oakland's solid 52 RPI is boosted because they played #1 Kansas and #5 Syracuse. But they lost by 30 & 32 in those games, and also were blown out by Memphis & Wisconsin. With that said, I dont think Oakland will get crushed by Pitt like those early results.

Best: North Texas

If you take one extremely awful home loss to FIU, North Texas actually had a fine season. At two Big 12 tournament teams, Ok St and Texas A&M, they lost by only 14 and 10. That's a sign they can hang in with Kansas St for awhile.

Worst: Robert Morris

They should have been a 16 seed to me instead of Vermont. In 3 games against Top 50 teams, they lost by 40, 24, and 14. They can be pesky though.

Best: Vermont

A 117 RPI is unusually high for a 16 seed. They've only had 2 games all season that they weren't at least competitive and have one of the best players in low-major basketball, Marqus Blakely.

Worst: UAPB

They have no chance to beat Duke.

National Champion Recipe: 7 Key Ingredients

John P. Wise — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:42:44 -0400

You've spent all winter in the kitchen, trying to find the perfect combination. A little bit of this, a whole bunch of that and a dash of something else.

There are many variations to the recipe. What works for your mom might not work for your dad. What works for you neighbor might not work for Bill Self.

You could line up 100 ingredients and still not have the right mix or the cohesiveness you need to win six straight games this month.

Or you could throw out most of them and consider keeping it simple. That's what I would do. And I'd need only these seven ingredients to win a national championship:

+ Coaching -- Tubby Smith led Kentucky to the 1998 national championship in no small part because he outcoached Mike Krzyzewski -- not an easy task -- and Duke in the South Region final. In a frantic, up-and-down second half during which UK staged a furious comeback and Duke had no timeouts, both teams were spent but Tubby knew his deeper squad was in better condition. So he let his boys play on without giving Duke a chance to catch its breath. Kentucky advanced with the 86-84 win.

+ Guards Who Control the Game -- It's such a cliche to talk about how important guards are to your NCAA Tournament chances. But just because something is frequently repeated doesn't make it wrong. In a single-elimination tournament, it's critical to control the tempo in games against teams with contrasting styles. If your guards control the pace, you have a great chance to advance.

+ Big-Money Shot Taker -- There's a reason why Bill Raftery's "Onions" call is as recognized as it is: It often follows huge shots that win games. Many players -- but definitely not all -- want the ball in their hands late in a tight game. And only a few can come through in the clutch the way that Stephen Curry did in 2008.

+ Big-Game Experience -- Listen to the experts talk this week and most agree this is a key reason why Kansas has the edge over Kentucky. Each team is immensely talented, but Sherron Collins and company have been tested, whereas UK, as dangerous as it is, is built around freshmen who are playing in their first NCAA Tournament. Even junior forward Patrick Patterson is a newbie.

+ Big Man w/ Presence -- Guards are great and all, and backcourt-heavy teams with little interior presence have advanced, but rarely do they win championships. The NCAA Tournament is all about matchups, and if Ohio State and Georgetown meet in the Sweet 16, you might see what happens to a team thin on the inside when it plays a physical team with great talent and better depth on the blocks.

+ Depth -- It's not as important as many think, but is still key nonetheless. Young kids are in their physical primes, so in many cases these guys can handle playing 40 minutes. But foul trouble and the possibility of injury are more difficult to control ... and overcome.

+ Defense -- Last season, North Carolina was a dominant offensive force that could have won the title by playing defense on their backs. But in most years, champions earn the crown because they play excellent team defense, usually led by one or two individual defensive stars. Even fans know it. Have you ever heard an "OFF - ENSE" cheer?

John P. Wise is the editor of OneGreatSeason.com. Follow him on twitter @onegreatseason.

Bracket Tactics: How to Pick the National Champion

Jon Teitel — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:50:51 -0400

CollegeHoops.net's Bracket Tactics will help you pick this year's national champion & finish at the top of your pool. These tips are based on previous NCAA Tournament results:

TIP #1: No team that lost the first game of its conference tournament has ever won the NCAA title the same year.

STRATEGY: Do not pick a champ who lost the first game of its conference tournament.

MEANING: Take a long, hard, look at Michigan St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Villanova before penciling them is as your 2010 NCAA Champs.

TIP #2: 21 of the past 24 titles have been won by teams who score 77+ PPG and have a scoring margin of 10+ PPG (like UNC last year).

STRATEGY: Focus on teams that have high-octane offenses
MEANING: Baylor, Duke, Kansas, Kansas St, Kentucky, Maryland, Syracuse, and Villanova have a leg up on the rest of the field. Be weary of Ohio St (74ppg), Georgetown (73), West Virginia (73), Purdue (71), Pittsburgh (68), Wisconsin (66)

TIP #3: 7 of the last 11 NCAA champs won their conference tournament before rolling off 6 straight wins in the NCAA Tournament.

STRATEGY: Pick a champ who also won its conference tournament last week.

MEANING: Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio St, and West Virginia should be taken very seriously.

TIP #4: 2 teams in each Final Four since 2003 have been members of the same conference. (UCONN & Villanova last year)

STRATEGY: Pick 2 teams who play in the same conference to make the Final Four.

MEANING: Don't be afraid to go with multiple teams of the same conference in the Final Four (ie, 2 from the Big 12 or Big East this year)

TIP #5: Since 1979, the only national champion without a McDonald's All-American on the roster was Maryland in 2002.

STRATEGY: Focus on teams with big name players in the Final Four.

MEANING: Do not pick Marquette, Maryland, New Mexico, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, or West Virginia to win it all.

IN SUMMARY

The teams that pass all tests and look like the best contenders for the 2010 title are Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky. Syracuse & Villanova certainly have a shot, although Ohio St & West Virginia have multiple strikes against them. Team to avoid at all costs include Michigan St, Pittsburgh, Purdue and Wisconsin.

NCAA Tournament: Historical Success by Seed

Shawn Siegel — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:58:08 -0400

This chart shows how each seed has fared over the six rounds of each tournament since 1985 (the start of the 64 team tournament). For Example the #1 Seeds have won 100 of 100 games in the first round, but 4 times a #2 seed has lost. The #1 Seeds have made it to the finals 24 times and have won 15 of them. The #4 seeds have made it to the finals only twice however.

Note that #6 seeds have performed noticeably better than #5 seeds, because they don't have to go through the 1 seeds so early.

Sign up for CHN's $100 Million Bracket Challenge and get access to other Tournament tidbits.

	Round
Seed	1st	2nd	Sweet Sixteen	Elite Eight	Final Four	Finals
1	100/100	88/100	73/88	44/73	24/44	15/24
2	96/100	64/96	46/64	22/46	11/22	4/11
3	85/100	52/85	25/52	13/25	8/13	3/8
4	79/100	43/79	14/43	9/14	2/9	1/2
5	67/100	36/67	5/36	4/5	2/4	0/2
6	69/100	35/69	12/35	3/12	2/3	1/2
7	63/100	19/63	6/19	0/6	0/0	0/0
8	46/100	9/46	6/9	3/6	1/3	1/1
9	54/100	3/54	1/3	0/1	0/0	0/0
10	37/100	17/37	7/17	0/7	0/0	0/0
11	31/100	11/31	4/11	2/4	0/2	0/0
12	33/100	17/33	1/17	0/1	0/0	0/0
13	21/100	4/21	0/4	0/0	0/0	0/0
14	15/100	2/15	0/2	0/0	0/0	0/0
15	4/100	0/4	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
16	0/96	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
- Check out a similar chart with the %'s of how seeds have fared in each round. - More NCAA Tournament Bracket Tips

+2010 NCAA Tournament

• All Tournament Coverage

• NCAA Tournament Capsules

• NIT Capsules

• Venue Info & Tickets

• Bracketology

3 Myths About Picking the NCAA Tournament

John P. Wise — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:48:58 -0400

It's dinnertime on Monday; by now you've surely filled out two brackets and plan to fill out three more. And you'll reason things the same way you did last year and the year before.

But did you win any money last year or the year before? I thought not.

If you abandon your familiar logic and consider a new approach, you just might look like you know what you're doing come Final Four weekend. Here are the issues you should think about:

+ Depth Is Key -- I've been back and forth about the depth issue for years, but I think I've finally got it figured out: It's overrated.

Syracuse and Ohio State will make nice runs in the tournament and they will do so without great contributions from their benches. Coaches adjust their approaches at least slightly during the tournament, and, especially in OSU's case, Thad Matta is keenly aware of his lack of depth. So he'll manage his games a little more.

Each half will be comprised of five four-minute bursts. Television timeouts are longer and more frequent in the tournament. Foul trouble certainly is a potential issue, but neither of these teams lost any of their games this year because of it. And injuries? Well, you might want to pray a little bit.

+ Freshmen Are Sophomores -- Every time you hear an analyst talk about how grown up some freshmen have become because they've now got 35 college games under their belts, you should send me a dollar. Make it ten dollars, actually.

But if the freshmen have grown up, so, too, have the sophomores, juniors, seniors and even fifth-year players against whom they'll be playing. But where the freshmen are still inexperienced -- perhaps immature (<cough>DeMarcus Cousins</cough>) -- is in the area of a high-pressure, single-elimination tournament. Don't buy the freshmen-are-sophomores line.

+ A 12 Always Beats A 5 -- It's always fashionable to pick one or two 12s over 5s because historically, this is just some inexplicable danger zone for higher-seeded teams. Since the field expanded to 64-ish teams, 12 seeds have won exactly 33 out of 100 first-round games, a markedly better winning percentage than 11 seeds. Two No. 12s won last year. North Carolina won the tournament last year as a 12 seed. Just kidding about that last fact, but you know what I mean.

The bottom line here is that 12 seeds often win. But trying to predict which of the four 12 seeds will win when the position only wins 33 percent of the time means you'll most likely pick an upset where an upset won't happen, and then you'll pick the seeds to play out where the upset actually does happen. And it's also a fact that this year's 12 seeds won't win one game.

So stay away from picking the 12-over-5 upset, but if you don't, if you absolutely must pick a No. 12 to win, please don't tell everyone you knew Cornell was going to beat Temple. At least give credit to Jay Bilas because he's the only reason you will have picked it.

John P. Wise is the editor of OneGreatSeason.com. Follow March Madness 140 characters at a time: @onegreatseason

Top 5 NCAA Tournament Busts

Matthew Ryter — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:39:38 -0400

A bust can be defined as a failure. A failure in the NCAA Tournament is a team that is ranked high, has expectations, and fails to meets those expectations. Some teams are schizophrenic, lack depth, or are entering this tournament ice cold. Let’s take a look at 5 Potential Busts in this year’s tournament…

Georgetown: Do they have anything left in the tank? The Hoyas are not a deep team to say the least. Six players average twenty plus minutes, four of the six average over thirty-three minutes a game. If Greg Monroe gets into foul trouble, who will Coach Thompson turn to? He doesn’t want to use his bench. Georgetown is also coming off a grueling Big East Tournament run. After beating South Florida, Syracuse and Marquette, the eighth seeded Hoyas lost by 2 in the championship game to West Virginia. Although they were quite impressive during their conference tournament, I don’t know how much “legs” this team has left. They are in a similar situation that Syracuse was in during the 2006 season. The Orange won the Big East Tournament as a nine seed, then immediately lost in the opening round of the NCAA’s to Texas A&M. Yes, Georgetown arguably has more talent then the ‘06 Syracuse team, and they face a weaker opponent in the first round. However, they could play Tennessee in round 2, a team that knocked off Kentucky and Kansas earlier this season. Not to mention the Hoyas have lost this year to South Florida and Old Dominion (at home) and at Rutgers…which Hoyas team will show up in Providence?

Purdue: I don’t know if this team can qualify as being a potential bust. The only reason I have them on this list is because of the injury to Robbie Hummel. Earlier in the year the Boilermakers were so red hot that they were in the #1 seed discussion. After Hummel’s ACL tear and scoring 11 points in the first half of a conference tournament loss to Minnesota, Purdue earned a four seed. (11 points in the first half? My cousin’s fourth grade girl’s CYO team had 11 points in the first half last week.) Although they play in the “favorable” South Region, they may not make it past the first round. In any sport, especially in the NCAA tournament, it’s important to enter playing relatively well. That’s not the case for this Purdue team. It was painful to watch the first half of that Minnesota game. They face an experienced Siena team in the opening round. The Saints are riding a five game winning streak that was capped off by a come from behind victory in overtime in the MAAC Finals against Fairfield.

Maryland: If Greivis Vasquez has an off night, can anyone on this team pick up the slack? Vasquez makes this team go. We saw this during their win against Duke at College Park. However, aside from Vasquez no one scares me on this team. I realize they finished second in the ACC, yet finishing in second in the ACC earned them a 4 seed. (read: it was a down year for the ACC) Their three biggest games this season outside of conference play were against Cincinnati, Wisconsin and Villanova. They lost all three. The Terps also have to travel to Spokane, Washington for their first round matchup against Houston; that’s 2,096 miles for those of you scoring at home. Combine that with the fact that they are squaring off against a red-hot Houston team that is coming off a Conference USA Championship. Yikes. Can anyone shut down Aubrey Coleman? If Houston can keep Vasquez in check, Gary Williams and company will be headed back to Maryland quicker then expected.

Duke: In the past five years, Duke has earned a 1 seed twice, earning a Sweet Sixteen appearance both times. They have also earned a 2 seed twice, one time earning a Sweet Sixteen appearance and the other time they managed to lose in the 2nd round. Let’s just say that I have no faith in the Dukies come tournament time. They always seem destined to bow out earlier then expected…or as history has taught us, as expected. Why change their ways now? Yes, they enter into the tourney riding a four game win streak that includes an ACC Tournament Championship. Yes, they have senior leadership and multiple guys that can take over the game. Why am I including them on this list? They lack an inside presence. Brian Zoubek is not an inside presence. Just because he plays in the paint, doesn’t qualify him as a “presence.” I’m not sold on either Plumlee yet either, they are both young and inexperienced. They can potentially face Louisville in the 2nd round. Louisville has a great big man in Samardo Samuels that will give Zoubek a ton of trouble.

Villanova: It’s hard to bet against Scottie Reynolds, however the Wildcats have lost 5 of their last 7. It will be hard to rebound from this streak and their confidence coming in is low. Taylor King played two minutes in their last game against Marquette due to an injury. In the two minutes he played, he committed a reckless foul and was then benched by Jay Wright. They just don’t seem to have it together right now. They also lack an inside presence. They have been effective in the past with a four guard set, however how long can they do this for? Can they rely on their freshman Yarou to give them big minutes down low if Pena is in foul trouble? If I were Villanova, I wouldn’t want to face either Saint Mary’s or Richmond in the 2nd round. If they do face the Gaels, they have to face a dominant center in Omar Samhan (20.9 ppg, 11.0 rbg).

What high seeds do you see bowing out early?

Top 5 NCAA Tournament Sleepers

Matthew Ryter — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:31:58 -0400

When filling out brackets, you have to choose your “sleepers” wisely. Do they matchup well against their potential opponents? Have they been challenged this year? Do they have a guy who can take over a game in the final minutes? If can say Yes to all three of these questions, you may have found yourself a sleeper. Here are 5 potential sleepers to consider:

Cornell: This team has a great inside-outside combo in 7 foot big man Jeff Foote (12.3 ppg, 8.2 rpg) and swingman Ryan Wittman (17.5 ppg, 42% from 3). Usually most Ivy League teams are seen as “untested”, however that is not the case with the Big Red. They had a 3 point lead at the half against Kansas at Phog Allen, before eventually losing by 5. This team has also faced Syracuse, Seton Hall, Alabama and St. John’s. I believe this team was actually under-seeded. They seem to be this year’s “sexy” pick for a first round upset. There’s also a legitimate chance they could square off against Kentucky in the Sweet 16.

Butler: They aren’t a first/second round sleeper. They are my Final Four sleeper, especially if Onuaku’s injury is more severe then we think for Syracuse. The Bulldogs went 18-0 in the Horizon League. I don’t care what conference you play in, if you go undefeated, that’s pretty damn good. They have their own version of a “Big 3” in Shelvin Mack, Gordon Hayward and Matt Howard. Not to mention an up and coming coach in Brad Stevens. This team can play with anyone in the country. I think their first round matchup will be tougher then their second round matchup and if they can survive against UTEP, look for them to give Syracuse some trouble, if not flat out beat them.

Texas: Why not? They were the No. 1 team in the nation at one point this season. They started off 17-0. They have out of conference wins against Michigan State and Pittsburgh. Can they get their swagger back? Most people (smart people) don’t think the Longhorns have a chance in hell to top Kentucky in the second round, especially after their blowout loss against Baylor in the Big 12 tourney. However, I’d like to think they can bounce back. They have a potential NBA lottery pick in Damion James, a good big man in Dexter Pittman and two good young guys in Jordan Hamilton and Avery Bradley. They also have depth. The pieces for this team to do damage are there, they just haven’t put together the puzzle. They have underachieved. I know a lot has changed since their 17-0 start but, can they snap out of it for the Big Dance?

Old Dominion: They scheduled tough opponents at the beginning of the year to help them for conference play. Their confidence from playing tougher opponents then carried over to winning their conference tournament and regular season title. The confidence from that should carry over into the tournament against Notre Dame. Got all that? Their out of conference schedule this year included Missouri, Mississippi State, Richmond, Dayton, Northern Iowa and Georgetown. Although all but one of those games resulted in losses (win at Georgetown) they won’t be scared to face anybody in the tournament. They posted a 15-3 record, including the conference tournament championship, in an underrated CAA Conference. They are a relatively balanced team, with eight guys averaging double digit minutes. Plus, ODU head coach, Blaine Taylor, has an incredible mustache on his side. Fear the ‘stache.

Georgia Tech: They enter the tournament on a bit of a run despite losing to Duke in the ACC Tourney Finale. They, like Texas, underachieved this season. I thought that the Yellow Jackets could finish as high as third in the ACC entering this season. They have a physical guard in Shumpert combined with a great frontcourt in Lawal and Favors. Paul Hewitt has the NCAA experience, leading Georgia Tech to an NCAA Finals appearance in 2004. Again, like Texas, the pieces are there. If they can slow down James Anderson and Evan Turner or catch them on an off night ... Okay, I am throwing out a ton of “what ifs” but you never know. It could happen. The point I’m trying to drive home is that they have the talent to be a good sleeper pick and even reach the Elite Eight.

Who are your sleeper picks?

NCAA Tournament: Odds of a Seed Advancing

Shawn Siegel — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:09:08 -0400

This chart shows how each seed has fared over the six rounds of each tournament since 1985 (the start of the 64 team tournament). For Example the #1 Seeds have won 100% of their first round games, but #2 have lost 4.3% of the time. The #1 Seeds have made it to the finals 14% of the time, but note #4 seeds have only made it 1.1% of the time.

To see the specific amount of times each seed has advanced to each round (ie, 95/100), instead of percentages, check out this chart instead. Sign up for CHN's Bracket Challenge and get access to other Tournament tidbits.


	Round
Seed	1st	2nd	Sweet 16	Elite Eight	Final Four	Finals
1	100 %	88 %	73 %	44 %	24 %	15 %
2	96 %	64 %	46 %	22 %	11 %	4 %
3	85 %	52 %	25 %	13 %	8 %	3 %
4	79 %	43 %	15 %	9 %	2 %	1 %
5	67 %	36 %	5 %	4 %	2 %	0 %
6	69 %	35 %	12 %	3 %	2 %	1 %
7	63 %	19 %	6 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
8	46 %	9 %	6 %	3 %	1 %	1 %
9	54 %	3 %	1%	0 %	0 %	0 %
10	37 %	17 %	7 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
11	31 %	11 %	4 %	2 %	0 %	0 %
12	33 %	17 %	1 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
13	31 %	4 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
14	15 %	2 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
15	4 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
16	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %

More NCAA Tournament Bracket Tips

+2010 NCAA Tournament

• All Tournament Coverage

• NCAA Tournament Capsules

• NIT Capsules

• Venue Info & Tickets

• Bracketology

Writer's Predictions: Champ, Final Four & Surprises

CHN — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:22:47 -0400

Need help picking your Final Four? CHN writers give their National Champion & Final predictions and we try and come up with some semblance of a consensus.

Note how the #1 seeds dominate our predictions. For all the talk about parity, our Final Fours are all dominated by #1 seeds.. the lone exception is Duke, who is only in two of our Final Four's. Oddly, Syracuse is almost a consensus Final Four team.. but no one has them going to the finals. Everyone but Siegel & Hofstad thinks the Midwest is the best region, and UTEP & Siena seem to be the trendy cinderalla teams. See how these picks compare to CHN's Official Prediction.

Writer	Jeff Borzello March Madness Blog	Brendan Bowers MAC	Jason Brubkaer SEC
Champ	Kansas	Ohio St	Kentucky
Finalist	Kentucky	Kentucky	Kansas
Final 4	Baylor	Villanova	Villanova
Final 4	Syracuse	Syracuse	Syracuse

Toughest Region	Midwest	Midwest	Midwest
Elite 8 Surprise	Baylor	Notre Dame	Georgetown
Cinderella	UTEP	UTEP	Minnesota
Best 1st Round Game	OK St / Ga Tech	G'Town/Ohio	OK St/ Ga Tech
Bust-Out	Purdue	Purdue	Vanderbilt

Writer	Blake Hofstad Previews	Raphielle Johnson Asst. Editor	Matthew Ryter Rankings
Champ	Kansas	Kansas	Kansas
Finalist	West Virginia	West Virginia	West Virginia
Final 4	Duke	Baylor	Villanova
Final 4	Syracuse	Syracuse	Syracuse

Toughest Region	East	Midwest	Midwest
Elite 8 Surprise	Temple	Louisville	Louisville
Cinderella	UTEP	Siena	Old Dominion
Best 1st Round Game	OK St/ Ga Tech	Temple/Cornell	Butler/UTEP
Bust-Out	Vanderbilt	Duke	Temple

Writer	Shawn Siegel Editor	Jon Teitel Interviews	John P. Wise One Great Season
Champ	Kansas	Kansas	Kansas
Finalist	Kentucky	West Virginia	Marquette
Final 4	Villanova	Pittsburgh	Baylor
Final 4	Syracuse	Duke	Syracuse

Toughest Region	East	Midwest	Midwest
Elite 8 Surprise	New Mexico	Notre Dame	Marquette
Cinderella	UTEP	Siena	Wofford
Best 1st Round Game	Butler/UTEP	Temple/Cornell	Temple/Cornell
Bust-Out	Pittsburgh	Purdue	Duke

Writer Consensus

Champion: Kansas (7 out of 9)

Runner Up: West Virginia (4 out of 9)

Final Four

East: Kentucky

Midwest: Kansas

West: Syracuse

South: Villanova