By Bob Herman
Matt and I have been highlighting mid-majors and underdogs throughout this entire men's NCAA tournament, and deservedly so. Butler, Northern Iowa, Saint Mary's, Cornell, Murray State, Old Dominion, and Ohio have made their marks with huge victories against good competition.
Naturally, the mainsteam media doesn't pay attention until they have to, but that's the whole appeal of the mid-majors that play the role of spoiler: They're the little guys, the non-flashy, down-to-earth, right-to-basics teams that everyone can relate to, be it as an alumnus/alumna who has lived off that basketball for ages or as a regular basketball fan who appreciates the game outside of the self-promoting dunks and large, big-program egomaniacs.
That's why I was appalled upon reading this article today by Gary Parrish, who normally defends the mid-majors. Gary, are the Big 6 conferences paying you off to say a "BracketBuster Final Four" would be a bore? Because that's complete rubbish.
Not only would a Final Four of Butler, Northern Iowa, Cornell, and Saint Mary's be incredibly entertaining, it's what I'm hoping will happen. Clearly, the odds are stacked against it, as Butler and Cornell both play No. 1 seeds this week, but if it were to happen, this would be the greatest string of upsets in the history of sport. Period. Nothing would really compare because it would hypothetically involve four small schools playing the best basketball of their lives--and beating the "best" competition in the country. It is the ultimate David vs. Goliath scenario.
Yet Gary Parrish is telling us that the greatest string of upsets in the history of sports won't be entertaining because the Cinderella storylines don't match up well against...other Cinderellas. Seriously? The more I think about it, the more idiotic that sounds.
Think about it. There hasn't been an upset winner of the men's tournament since 1985 when Villanova won as an 8-seed. Whenever a smaller team makes a run at the big boys (most recently, George Mason in 2006), it most definitely makes things interesting because no one sees it coming.
I, apparently unlike Gary Parrish, do not need a high-tempo game with 42 turnovers and a couple of "thunder" dunks. Yes, it depends a little on the a person's proximity to a given program, and I'll admit I'm a sucker for a good dunk. But that's one moment. It's fleeting. And I'm a fan of my team and the sport. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'd rather see a well-played basketball game end in a 54-52 nail biter than a sloppy yet TV-friendly display of "athleticism."
I can only hope that by the end of this week, I will see Northern Iowa, Butler, Cornell, and Saint Mary's in the Final Four. It probably won't happen (then again, 98 percent of the 4.8 million people in the ESPN.com bracket had Kansas in the Sweet 16...), but it would be a spectacle to see. To those who are anti-mid-major and are more concerned with your bracket, get a grip and realize how great the sport is right now. It's not every year that this many Cinderellas have such a good chance at taking the prize.
(A semi-unrelated and very homerish closing thought and link: How's this for athleticism?)
Showing posts with label Saint Mary's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saint Mary's. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
