A closer look at this year's Cinderella candidates

By Matt Vachlon

I wrote in this space last week that mid-majors had a chance to put a major stamp on this tournament and lo and behold, 11 of the 32 second round spots are currently occupied by teams from outside the power six conferences.

Now, I could simply use this week’s entry as a means to gloat about my amazing ability to predict the future, but to do so would be neither productive nor honest, as, truth be told, I only had 21 out of the 32 first round games picked correctly. Needless to say my bracket is pretty much garbage and since yours likely is too, I won’t waste anymore time discussing brackets.

Instead, I’ll focus on \ the remaining Cinderella teams and I’ll reevaluate their chances at advancing farther into the tournament. It’s worth noting that in my previous entry, I only acknowledged double-digit seeds as true Cinderella teams. Thus, my analysis will not include New Mexico, Butler, Xavier, BYU or Gonzaga. I will, however, amend my sample to include 9-seed Northern Iowa since the Panthers are technically underdogs for the entire tournament as well, based on seeding projections.

Thus we are left with six potential Cinderellas:

(Note: All offensive and defensive efficiency statistics were taken from kenpom.com):

1. Northern Iowa (9 seed, Midwest Region; First round defeated No. 8 (seed) UNLV 69-66; Next up: vs. No. 1 Kansas)

The Panthers certainly fit my criteria of a team that could make a deep run. They won the Missouri Valley regular season title and bring an impressive 29-4 record into the game against Kansas. The problem is the Jayhawks are the No. 1 overall seed. And Northern Iowa is a nine. Add the fact that Kansas is in the Top 5 in both offensive and defensive efficiency and that should more than offset any defensive advantage that the Panthers might have brought into this game. Although I believe they will slow the Jayhawks down, I simply can’t see any way that Northern Iowa pulls this one out.

2. Saint Mary’s (10 seed, South Region; First round defeated No. 7 Richmond 80-71; Next up: vs. No. 2 Villanova)

The Gaels may not have been a regular season conference champion, but they certainly should present a matchup problem for Villanova. Center Omar Samhan makes Saint Mary’s click and at 6’ 11” he towers over many of the regulars for the Wildcats. Both teams are almost mirror images on the offensive and defensive ends and, as a result, it will likely come down to whether ‘Nova can get Samhan into any type of foul trouble. I think Saint Mary’s certainly has a shot, but ultimately I think Villanova’s previous tournament experience will pay off for them.

3. Old Dominion (11 seed, South Region; First round defeated No. 6 Notre Dame 51-50; Next up: vs. No. 3 Baylor)

Old Dominion presents a special case since they hail from the same league as George Mason and have the same seed that the Patriots had during their historic run to the Final Four in 2006. The Monarchs matchup with Baylor should be interesting as both teams have similar strengths. Old Dominion is outstanding on the offensive glass ranking No. 1 overall according to KenPom, but the Bears are no slouches either as they rank in the Top 30. Both teams are also solid defensively, but the game should be decided by three-point shooting as Baylor generally excels at it, while Old Dominion does not. If the Monarchs do pull it out, they would seem to match up favorably with both Villanova or Saint Mary’s in the next round.

4. Cornell (12 seed, East Region; First round defeated No. 5 Temple 78-65; Next up: vs. No. 4 Wisconsin)

On paper, this would seem to be a tough matchup for Cornell as Wisconsin ranks third in KenPom’s overall rankings. However, the Big Red took Kansas (Pomeroy’s No. 2 team) down to the wire in Lawrence back in January and the Badgers certainly are not a threat to run them out of the building. While Wisconsin is solid defensively, Cornell is outstanding from behind the arc and also takes pretty good care of the basketball. I think Cornell has the best chance of all the mid-major underdogs of getting through this round and I have a gut feeling they’ll get it done.

5. Murray State (13 seed, West Region; First round defeated No. 4 Vanderbilt 66-65; Next up vs. No. 5 Butler)

Given the first-round statement made by Butler this game has flown under the radar a bit. However, Murray State has won 31 games this season and provides an interesting stylistic matchup for the Bulldogs. On paper they are a poor man’s version of Butler (Top 50 vs. Top 15 defensively and Top 70 vs. Top 50 offensively), but the Racers have six players who can score and this could potentially cause matchup problems for Butler. However, Murray State struggles with turnovers more so than UTEP did and I’ll believe that they can speed up the game on Butler when I see it. I expect the Bulldogs to win a closer than expected game.

6. Ohio (14 seed, Midwest Region; First round defeated No. 3 Georgetown 97-83; Next up vs. No. 6 Tennessee)

There was no bigger surprise in the first round than Ohio shocking the Hoyas. After finishing in ninth place in the Mid American Conference, the Bobcats flew under everyone’s radar. While a 14 seed has only advanced to the Sweet 16 twice, it is worth noting that both times it occurred against a 6 seed. And while Tennessee ranks No. 8 defensively, they are less than impressive on the offensive end. Although it goes against almost all the criteria I stated last week, if Armon Bassett can once catch fire for Ohio, a second upset is not out of the realm of possibility.