Tuesday, March 15, 2011

2011 NCAA Tournament: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)

Once again, I will be writing a series of posts analyzing the NCAA tournament based on Ken Pomeroy's Efficiency Ratings. I am going to be updating the historical posts with the 2010 NCAA Tournament data and also analyzing the 2011 NCAA Tournament.

Here's the schedule for the analysis I will be doing and links as I post each Part:

Part I: Historical Analysis of Final 4 Teams (Offensive & Defensive Efficiency Ratings)
Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)
Part III: Historical Analysis of Upsets (5 vs 12 & 6 vs 11)
Part IV: 2010 NCAA Tournament Game by Game Analysis & Possible Upsets

In this post, I am going to do a Historical Analysis of the tops seeds by year and what the Overall Efficiency Ranking is of the teams they lose to. Overall Efficiency rankings are in parenthesis after the team name. I will be adding my analysis once the top seeds are announced for this year's tournament.

Part II: Historical Analysis of Top Seeds (1 through 4)


1 Seeds: Duke(1) won championship, Kansas(2) lost to Northern Iowa(32), Kentucky(6) lost to West Virginia(8), and Syracuse(5) lost to Butler(26)

Analysis: 2010 was a bad year for the # 1 seeds. Duke did win it all, but they were the only # 1 seed to make the Final 4 and Kentucky was the only other # 1 to make the Elite 8.

Syracuse bowed out to national runner-up Butler in the Sweet 16 and you can cut them some slack since they were without Arinze Onuaku and may not have been a true # 1 seed without him. There is no excuse really though for Kansas losing to Northern Iowa. Not that Northern Iowa was a bad team, but Kansas was pretty clearly one of the top 2 teams in the country last season and should have found a way to win the game. I personally blame their coach.

It also should be noted that Northern Iowa (343), Butler (292), and West Virginia (314) were three of the slowest paced teams in the country last year. They were able to slow down the pace against three teams that all were in the top 100 in tempo. Less possessions means less chances for the better team to pull away and prove they really are better. A slow tempo opponent is definitely something to consider when looking for potential upsets of higher seeds.

2 Seeds: Ohio State(4) lost to Tennessee(35), West Virginia(8) lost to Duke(1), Kansas State(9) lost to Butler(26) and Villanova(15) lost to St. Mary's(43)

Analysis: The success of # 2 seeds in 2010 was 50/50. WVU obviously was successful gaining a Final 4 berth.

Ohio State had a golden opportunity to make the Final 4 with Kansas being upset, but were upset themselves by Tennessee in the Sweet 16. Tennessee was a solid team, but Ohio State was a better all around team and should have beaten them.

Kansas State was a fast paced team (42nd overall), who fell victim to slow-paced Butler, but still managed to make the Elite 8, which is a solid showing.

Finally, Villanova lost to St. Mary's in the second round and became the latest 2-seed to be victimized by the winner of the 7-10 game. I had mentioned last year that Villanova could be in trouble in their second round match-up because they were slightly overseeded and probably should have been a #4 seed.

3 Seeds: Georgetown(11) lost to Ohio(100), Baylor(12) lost to Duke(1), Pitt(30) lost to Xavier(22), and New Mexico(47) lost to Washington(29)

Analysis: In 2010, the # 3 seeds were pretty horrible, except for Baylor, who made it all the way to the Elite 8 before losing to eventual National Champ Duke.

Georgetown was probably the most disappointing #3 seed; as they gave up 97 points in their loss to Ohio. Georgetown's D was actually in the lower half of the Big East, so maybe it's something we should have seen coming.

Pitt and New Mexico were badly over-seeded. They profiled as an 8 and a 12 seed respectfully and both got knocked out in the second round by teams that had higher efficiency ratings than them. It's really no surprise that they lost, since over-seeded teams are always prone to be upset at some point. Last year I said I would be shocked if either Pitt or New Mexico made it to the Sweet 16. Looks like I was correct on that one.

4 Seeds: Wisconsin(3) lost to Cornell(66), Maryland(10) lost to Michigan State(24), Purdue(13) lost to Duke(1), and Vanderbilt(36) lost to Murray State(57)

Analysis: Again we don't see the best results from the top seeds in the 2010 NCAA Tournament. Purdue was the only #4 seed to make it to the Sweet 16 where they lost to Duke. They were able to advance that far despite not having Robbie Hummel, so this was definitely a solid showing from them.

Maryland was a sleeper for me going into the tournament, but was knocked out in the 2nd Round by eventual Final 4 representative Michigan State. Really no shame in that for Maryland as they only lost by 2 points.

Wisconsin always seem to have a favorable overall efficiency rating, but never seems to advance as far as you think they would. They were under-seeded based on their overall efficiency, which may have hurt them because they ran into a great offensive team in Cornell. Cornell had won 26 of their last 28 games before beating Wisconsin and ranked 16th in offensive efficiency, including 3rd in effective FG% & 1st in three point shooting. Definitely a team you don't want to run into in the tournament.

Vanderbilt, on the other hand, was over-seeded and profiled as more of a 9 seed. They lost to another team that had be on a roll before the tournament in Murray State, who entered with a 30-4 record and had 21 of their last 22 games. They also were one of the best teams in the nation in offensive effective FG% (9th), offensive rebounding (11th), defensive effective FG% (10th), & forcing turnovers (16th). I actually predicted they would upset Vanderbilt.


1 Seeds: North Carolina(2) won championship, UConn(3) lost to Michigan State(13), Louisville(4) lost to Michigan State(13), and Pitt(6) lost to Villanova(19)

Analysis: In 2009, only 2 of the 4 number 1 seeds made the Final 4. However, all of them made the Elite 8 and didn't lose to bad teams once they got there. Losing to Villanova and Michigan State is nothing to be ashamed of. This is the second year in a row that the # 1 seeds performed admirably in the tournament.

2 Seeds: Memphis(1) lost to Missouri(10), Duke(7) lost to Villanova(19), Michigan State(13) lost to UNC(2) and Oklahoma(17) lost to UNC(2)

Analysis: Again nothing to be ashamed of here for the 2 seeds. Michigan State and Oklahoma lost to the eventual National Champs and Duke & Memphis lost to a pair of #3 seeds who were both ranked in the Top 20. Plus, all of them avoided getting knocked off in the second round vs. the 7/10 winner.

3 Seeds: Missouri(10) lost to UConn(3), Kansas(11) lost to Michigan State(13), Syracuse(15) lost to Oklahoma(19), and Villanova(19) lost to UNC(2)

Analysis: All 4 of the 3 seeds made the Sweet 16 with 2 of them making the Elite 8 and one even advancing to the Final 4. That's a solid showing for them, since usually at least one #3 seed gets knocked off by a #6 seed in the second round. It's also pretty rare to see a #3 seed in the Final 4.

4 Seeds: Gonzaga(5) lost to UNC(2), Washington(16) lost to Purdue(14), Wake Forest(21) lost to Cleveland State(68), and Xavier(24) lost to Pitt(6)

Analysis: Finally an upset from the top 4 seeds in the 2009 NCAA Tournament. Wake Forest(21) lost to a Cleveland State(68) team that probably should have been an #11 or #12 seed instead of a #13. They were coming off a Horizon League Tourney Championship and had won 12 of their last 14 games. Wake Forest on the other-hand had serious turnover(214th overall) and 3-Point shooting(264th overall) issues. The other 4 seeds did well with 2 of them making the Sweet 16(Gonzaga & Xavier) and Washington losing to a higher rated Purdue team.


1 Seeds: Kansas(1) won championship, Memphis(2) lost to Kansas(1), UCLA(3) lost to Memphis(2), and UNC(4) lost to Kansas(1)

Analysis: In 2008, the best four teams in efficiency were also the 4 number 1 seeds, which meant the committee did a good job in seeding them. Not only did these 4 teams all make the Final 4, but once they got there, the higher rated team in efficiency won each time. You won't see the top 4 teams in efficiency all making it this year, because over the past 5 seasons, these 4 teams had some of the best efficiency ratings and in other years they probably all could have won the title. Chances are the top 4 teams this year will not be as strong as these teams were.

2 Seeds: Georgetown(7) lost to Davidson(20), Duke(8) lost to West Virginia(19), Texas(9) lost to Memphis(2) and Tennessee(14) lost to Louisville(6)

Analysis:For 2 seeds, Texas losing to Memphis and Tennessee losing to Louisville were not upsets. In the case of Georgetown and Duke, they had the unfortunate luck of playing two teams that were underseeded. Davidson and West Virginia were both in the Top 20 teams overall in efficiency, but were a 10 and 7 seed respectfully. Teams that are underseeded are the most likely to pull off "upsets" in the tournament. In the case of Davidson, they entered the tourney with a 21 game winning streak, which is also another key indicator of teams pulling off upsets and having that Stephen Curry guy didn't hurt either. Also, the Hoyas weakness was turnovers on both side of the ball and Davidson was able to exploit that since they were rated highly in both areas. Meanwhile, West Virginia was able to destroy Duke on the offensive boards, which exploited Duke's 131st ranking in defensive rebounding.

3 Seeds: Wisconsin(5) lost to Davidson(20), Louisville(6) lost to UNC(4), Stanford(12) lost to Texas(9), and Xavier(18) lost to UCLA(3)

Analysis: Only one "upset" here with Davidson knocking out Wisconsin. The Badgers were an extremely slow placed team ranking 318th in the country and they also had problems forcing turnovers, which leads me to believe they weren't the most athletic group. That made the playing field more level for Davidson who was the far better offensive time ranking 27th in Eff. FG% vs. Wisconsin's ranking of 140th.

4 Seeds: Washington State(10) lost to UNC(4), Pitt(21) lost to Michigan State(15), UConn(22) lost to San Diego(113), and Vanderbilt(53) lost to Siena(99)

Analysis: Vanderbilt was a fraud as a 4 seed and was lucky to even be in the tournament with an overall efficiency ranking of 53, which would project as a 13 seed. The only decent team they beat all season was Tennessee, which is how they racked up 25 wins. Their main weakness was defense(in any category you could name) and it showed against a highpowered Siena team. It wasn't that Siena was all that great, since they later lost to 12th seeded Villanova, but Vanderbilt was just really awful on defense, so when you combine that with an overseed, they were just ripe for the picking. There's no reason to go into the UConn upset loss to San Diego, since they probably would have won if A.J. Price didn't get hurt after playing just 9 minutes. Price was their PG and best 3-Point shooter, so that was obviously a big loss.


1 Seeds: Florida(2) won championship, UNC(1)lost to Georgetown(7), Ohio St(4) lost to Florida(2), and Kansas(3) lost to UCLA(6)

2 Seeds: Georgetown(7) lost to Ohio St(4), Memphis(9) lost to Ohio St(4), Wisconsin(8) lost to UNLV(42) and UCLA(6) lost to Florida(2)

3 Seeds: Oregon(18) lost to Florida(2), Pitt(13) lost to UCLA(6), Wash St(29) lost to Vanderbilt(35), and Texas A&M(7) lost to Memphis(9)

4 Seeds: Maryland(10) lost to Butler(25), S. Illinois(28) lost to Kansas(3), Texas(21) lost to USC(27), and Virginia(45) lost to Tennessee(31)

Analysis: In 2007, there were really no major upsets among the top seeds, except for UNLV over Wisconsin. UNLV was ranked 35 in Offensive Efficiency and 42 in Defensive Efficiency so I'm not sure how they were only 42 overall. Also, Wisconsin is a slow paced team just like UNLV, so Wisconsin's main edge was probably nullified there.


1 Seeds: Duke(5) lost to LSU(10), Memphis(9) lost to UCLA(3), UConn(4) lost to George Mason(23), Villanova(7) lost to Florida(1)

2 Seeds: Texas(2) lost to LSU(10), UCLA(3) lost Florida(1), Tennessee(22) lost to Wichita St(32), Ohio St(18) lost to Georgetown(14)

3 Seeds: Iowa(19) lost to Northwestern St.(105), Gonzaga(41) lost to UCLA(3), UNC(8) lost to George Mason(23), Florida(1) won championship

4 Seeds: LSU(10) lost to UCLA(3), Kansas(6) lost to Bradley(26), Illinois(11) lost to Washington(13), Boston College(24) lost to Villanova(7)

Analysis: The main thing that jumps out here is how poorly seeded the # 1 seeds were. Texas, Florida, and UCLA all probably should have been # 1's along with UConn. This is probably why there were some many "upsets" in this tournament. Tennessee as a # 2 was way overseeded since they were ranked 22 overall, so it's no surprise they got bumped early by # 32 Wichita St.

The biggest upset here is Iowa losing to Northwestern St who was a #14 seed. Iowa probably should have been a # 5 seed, and while they were 1st in Defensive Efficiency they also were ranked 129 in Offensive Efficiency, so they probably were even worse than 19 overall.

George Mason's string of upsets doesn't look as flukey when you look at their Overall Efficiency ranking of 23, they probably should have been a 5 seed. The other big upset here is Kansas losing to Bradley. Bradley was ranked 11 in Defensive Efficiency that year and actually was a faster paced team than Kansas.


1 Seeds: UNC(1) won championship, Illinois(2) lost to UNC(1), Duke(3) lost to Michigan St(7), and Washington(15) lost to Louisville(4)

2 Seeds: Oklahoma St(8) lost to Arizona(12), Wake Forest(9) lost to West Virginia(28), UConn(14) lost to North Carolina St(20), and Kentucky(10) lost to Michigan St(7)

3 Seeds: Gonzaga(32) lost to Texas Tech(30), Kansas(13) lost to Bucknell(91), Oklahoma(11) lost to Utah(22), and Arizona(12) lost to Illinois(2)

4 Seeds: Boston College(25) lost to Wisc.Milw.(42), Louisville(4) lost to Illinois(2), Florida(6) lost to Villanova(5), and Syracuse(18) lost to Vermont(62)

Analysis: Two big upsets here, Kansas losing to Bucknell and Syracuse losing to Vermont. Kansas lost to a Bucknell team ranked 33 in Defensive Efficiency. I also noticed that Kansas was in the middle of the pack as far as the pace they played at, so maybe they weren't as athletic of a team in 2005 as normal. Vermont had a decent rank of 55 in Offensive Efficiency, but this upset is hard to explain.


1 Seeds: St Joe's(6) lost to Oklahoma St(3), Kentucky(9) lost to UAB(42), Duke(1) lost to UConn(2), and Stanford(14) lost Alabama(29)

2 Seeds: UConn(2) won championship, Oklahoma St(3) lost to Georgia Tech(7), Gonzaga(17) lost to Nevada (22), and Mississippi St(18) lost to Xavier(16)

3 Seeds: Pitt(4) lost to Oklahoma St(3), Georgia Tech(7) lost to UConn(2), Texas(15) lost to Xavier(16), and NC State(8) lost to Vanderbilt(24)

4 Seeds: Wake Forest(20) lost to St Joe's(6), Kansas(13) lost to Georgia Tech(7), Cincinnati(12) lost to Illinois(11), and Maryland(19) lost to Syracuse(25)

Analysis: Only one big upset here, Kentucky losing to UAB. UAB was ranked 27th in Defensive Efficiency and was one of the fastest paced teams out there. Their pressing fast paced style was a good matchup for them against a slower paced Kentucky team and this is what led to the upset here.


1 Seeds: Kentucky(2) lost to Marquette(16), Arizona(4) lost to Kansas(1), Oklahoma(8) lost to Syracuse(7), and Texas(10) lost Syracuse(7)

2 Seeds: Kansas(1) lost to Syracuse(7), Pitt(3) lost to Marquette(16), Florida(14) lost to Michigan State(15), and Wake Forest(22) lost to Auburn(44)

3 Seeds: Syracuse(3) won championship, Duke(9) lost to Kansas(1), Marquette(16) lost to Kansas(1), and Xavier(19) lost to Maryland(6)

4 Seeds: Illinois(5) lost to Notre Dame(32), Louisville(13) lost to Butler(45), Stanford(35) lost to UConn(21), and Dayton(48) lost to Tulsa(43)

Analysis: The thing that really sticks out to me in 2003 is how horrible some of the seeding was and that created a ton of upsets that really shouldn't have been. Overseeded Oklahoma(8), Texas(10), Florida(14), Wake Forest(22), Xavier(19), Stanford(35), & Dayton(48) all were beaten by teams who were seeded lower than them. Underseeded Syracuse(7), Michigan State(15), & Maryland(6) all knocked off top seeds who were overseeded.

Overall Analysis:
Through 2008, you rarely saw a # 1 seed ranked in the top 10 overall efficiency lose to another team who isn't in the top 10 overall. However in 2009, both Louisville(4) & Pitt(6) lost to teams outside the top in overall efficiency: Michigan State(13) & Villanova(19). These weren't terrible losses, but they did go against the trend. Kansas & Syracuse did them one better in 2010 losing to Northern Iowa(32) & Butler(26). Again these losses aren't terrible, but they # 1 seeds seem to be more and more vulnerable as the years go by. I don't think we'll see any # 1 seeds lose to teams ranked worse than #40 overall, but we definitely know it's possible for them to get knocked off by teams in #20-#35 range. Also, if there is a # 1 team who is outside the Top 10 in overall efficiency this season, you can be pretty sure they will lose within the first 3 rounds.

In general, when a high seed loses a game, it is due to either them being seeded too high for their efficiency rating or if a change of pace is forced upon them from another good defensive minded team. This seems to be the case more so for the # 1 and # 2 seeds, then the # 3 and # 4 seeds, who seem like they could lose to any style of team at this point.

If looking for upsets, it might be best to see which teams are seeded too high and which are seeded too low based on overall efficiency. For instance, in 2006 #7 seed Georgetown had an overall efficiency rank of 14 and the knocked off # 2 seed Ohio St, which had an overall efficiency rank of 18.

2011 NCAA Tournament Analysis of Top Seeds:

1 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: Ohio State(1), Duke (2), Kansas(3), Pitt(5)

Offensive Efficiency: Ohio State(1), Duke (5), Kansas(4), Pitt(6)

Defensive Efficiency: Ohio State(10), Duke (3), Kansas(12), Pitt(21)

Off. Effective FG%: Ohio State(4), Duke (22), Kansas(1), Pitt(32)

Def. Effective FG%: Ohio State(132), Duke (7), Kansas(16), Pitt(20)

Off. Turnover Rate: Ohio State(7), Duke (31), Kansas(111), Pitt(78)

Def. Turnover Rate: Ohio State(27), Duke (106), Kansas(145), Pitt(296)

Off. Rebounding Rate: Ohio State(71), Duke (79), Kansas(32), Pitt(2)

Def. Rebounding Rate: Ohio State(22), Duke (202), Kansas(17), Pitt(50)

Off. Free Throw Rate: Ohio State(170), Duke (185), Kansas(101), Pitt(49)

Def. Free Throw Rate: Ohio State(1), Duke (38), Kansas(69), Pitt(65)

Analysis: Based on efficiency rankings, I have no beef with these teams being the # 1 seeds. Texas (4) was rated higher than Pitt (5), but I still think Pitt is a more deserving # 1 seed.

Ohio State(1) is the # 1 seed overall, but certainly did not get the easiest bracket as one might think they would. There bracket includes some tough competition with Kentucky(7), Syracuse(11), North Carolina(14), Washington(15), West Virginia (21), George Mason(26), & Villanova(28) all looking to possibly take down the Buckeyes at some point. I like Ohio State and think they are the best overall team, but I'm not sure they are good enough to get through this bracket unscathed. There is a great mix in this bracket of teams that are solid in both offense and defense. I would love to see an Ohio State-Kentucky match-up in the Sweet 16, which would be the battle of no benches. If Ohio State manages to get through this region then their should be no doubts they are worthy of cutting down the nets.

Duke(2) doesn't have nearly as many obstacles in my opinion as Ohio State does. They do, however, have a potential nightmare match-up in my eyes, which would be with Texas(4). Texas rates out as a possible 1 seed and they somehow only got a 4. I think they should have been a 2 seed personally. Duke's 4 losses have all been against strong defensive teams and Texas is 1st in defensive efficiency. It's probably the worst possible match-up for Duke in the Sweet 16. However, there's no guarantee Texas will even be there to face off with Duke. If Texas doesn't take down the Blue Devils, San Diego State(6), UConn(17), Cincinnati(23), & Arizona(25) are the only threats. I'd give UConn the best shot of defeating Duke, but I don't see a bad matchup here for them other than Texas.

Kansas(3) is faced with some tough competition in their region. Purdue(8), Notre Dame(10), Louisville(12), Illinois(20), & UNLV(22) could all possibly knock off the Jayhawks. Kansas is a well balanced team and their only weakness is they turn the ball over a little too much. Most of this is due to the careless ball-handling of Tyshawn Taylor & Josh Selby. Brady Morningstar & Tyrel Reed both turn the ball over less and force more turnovers on the defensive end, so coach Bill Self might want to look to them in crunch time a little more in my opinion. Kansas is talented enough and deep enough that if they don't turn the ball over they should have no problem getting through this bracket. However, Louisville will definitely take advantage of their turnover issues if they meet in the Sweet 16. I also think Purdue would be a tougher matchup for Kansas than Notre Dame would.

Pitt(5) is this year's winner of easiest bracket aka The Duke Bracket. Wisconsin(9) is the only team ranked in the top 10 in overall efficiency in their region (thanks to Florida being a 2 seed over Texas & Kentucky.) However, Pitt is not as good as Duke was last year, so they still might have problems surviving this bracket. Wisconsin(9), BYU(13), Utah State(16), Belmont(18), Florida(19), Gonzaga(27), & Kansas State(29) stand in Pitt's way. Honestly this region has Cinderella Final 4 run written all over it. Lot's of mid-major teams, a one seed who never lives up to it's potential in the tournament, and a 2 seed that probably should have been a 4 seed. Plus, the winner of the Old Dominion/Butler game profiles as the slow-tempo mid-major team that always gives high-seeds problems in the 2nd Round.

2 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: San Diego State(6), Notre Dame(10), North Carolina(14), Florida(19)

Offensive Efficiency: San Diego State(24), Notre Dame(3), North Carolina(37), Florida(16)

Defensive Efficiency: San Diego State(4), Notre Dame(62), North Carolina(7), Florida(40)

Off. Effective FG%: San Diego State(89), Notre Dame(15), North Carolina(169), Florida(59)

Def. Effective FG%: San Diego State(9), Notre Dame(66), North Carolina(48), Florida(102)

Off. Turnover Rate: San Diego State(32), Notre Dame(13), North Carolina(81), Florida(116)

Def. Turnover Rate: San Diego State(194), Notre Dame(337), North Carolina(196), Florida(221)

Off. Rebounding Rate: San Diego State(18), Notre Dame(132), North Carolina(30), Florida(9)

Def. Rebounding Rate: San Diego State(69), Notre Dame(51), North Carolina(63), Florida(70)

Off. Free Throw Rate: San Diego State(296), Notre Dame(28), North Carolina(167), Florida(225)

Def. Free Throw Rate: San Diego State(24), Notre Dame(4), North Carolina(2), Florida(8)

Analysis: San Diego State(6) & Notre Dame(10) are solid choices as 2 seeds, but Florida(19) should have been a 4 seed and UNC(15) probably should be a 3 seed. In their place, I would have had Texas(4) & Kentucky(7). Texas was the second best team in a tougher conference than UNC and also made their conference final and Kentucky beat Florida 2 out of 3 times including for the SEC championship. I could see a scenario where all four of the 2 seeds fail to make the Elite 8.

San Diego State(6) is a solid team, but I do not like their potential match-up with UConn(17) in the Sweet 16. I feel like San Diego State is a big, athletic team who plays great defense, but has also been feasting on smaller non-athletic teams all season. The best team they played from a power conference all season was Cal, who quite frankly isn't very good. I think UConn would be a very tough test for San Diego State just based on the fact that they can match and probably in some cases exceed the athleticism that San Diego State possesses. I wouldn't be completely shocked if they got knocked off by either Temple(38) or Penn State(39) in 2nd round either. I think Duke(2) or Texas(4) would definitely be too much for San Diego State to handle.

Notre Dame(10) and their prolific offense should cruise into the Sweet 16, where they most likely will find either Purdue(8) or a healthy Georgetown(31) team waiting for them. Purdue(8) certainly has the defense to slow down Notre Dame and should be able to score on them with no problem as well. Purdue is the highest rated 3 seed in Overall Efficiency and would give any 2 seed problems in the Sweet 16. If Notre Dame does get past Purdue, they probably match-up better with Louisville(12) than Kansas(3).

North Carolina(14) along with Florida(19) is one of the 2 seeds that could potentially get bumped in the 2nd Round. Washington(15) is basically their equal and a horrible draw for a 2 seed in the 2nd Round. If they do make it past the 2nd Round, they may have to deal with Syracuse(11) also a worthy opponent. I think UNC might be one outside shooter short of being able to advance far through the tournament.

Florida(19) is the other 2 seed that profiles as an early upset victim. BYU(13) could certainly take them down in the Sweet 16. I would guess that Michigan State(41) has the potential to knock them out in the 2nd Round as well. They might have lucked out in the draw that they got. If they can get past the Sweet 16 then they would have a great shot at the Final 4. The fact that they are in a weak bracket may help them avoid an early knockout.

3 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: Purdue(8), Syracuse(11), BYU(13), UConn(17)

Offensive Efficiency: Purdue(18), Syracuse(17), BYU(8), UConn(21)

Defensive Efficiency: Purdue(8), Syracuse(16), BYU(37), UConn(31)

Off. Effective FG%: Purdue(90), Syracuse(38), BYU(56), UConn(211)

Def. Effective FG%: Purdue(37), Syracuse(27), BYU(61), UConn(24)

Off. Turnover Rate: Purdue(6), Syracuse(63), BYU(3), UConn(36)

Def. Turnover Rate: Purdue(72), Syracuse(101), BYU(155), UConn(291)

Off. Rebounding Rate: Purdue(179), Syracuse(26), BYU(202), UConn(7)

Def. Rebounding Rate: Purdue(76), Syracuse(209), BYU(47), UConn(253)

Off. Free Throw Rate: Purdue(249), Syracuse(239), BYU(135), UConn(263)

Def. Free Throw Rate: Purdue(50), Syracuse(32), BYU(79), UConn(15)

Analysis: Purdue(8) & Syracuse(11) are solid 3 seeds, who could both make deep runs into the tournament. I would favor both of them in the Sweet 16. BYU(13) is a tough team to peg without Brandon Davies. I still think they have enough talent to get to the Final 4 and they seem to be in a favorable bracket to reach the Elite 8, since Florida(19) the 2 seed and their potential Sweet 16 opponent is overseeded. They probably have the best path to the Final 4 of any 3 seed. UConn(17) is slighty overseeded and strikes me as a team that could beat or lose to any opponent. I really like how Jeremy Lamb stepped up in the Big East tournament though, so his play could be the X-factor for them.

4 seeds:

Overall Efficiency: Texas(4), Kentucky(7), Wisconsin(9), Louisville(12)

Offensive Efficiency: Texas(19), Kentucky(7), Wisconsin(2), Louisville(36)

Defensive Efficiency: Texas(1), Kentucky(22), Wisconsin(63), Louisville(5)

Off. Effective FG%: Texas(108), Kentucky(39), Wisconsin(47), Louisville(35)

Def. Effective FG%: Texas(1), Kentucky(10), Wisconsin(129), Louisville(13)

Off. Turnover Rate: Texas(26), Kentucky(9), Wisconsin(1), Louisville(84)

Def. Turnover Rate: Texas(248), Kentucky(287), Wisconsin(322), Louisville(32)

Off. Rebounding Rate: Texas(23), Kentucky(97), Wisconsin(95), Louisville(93)

Def. Rebounding Rate: Texas(64), Kentucky(65), Wisconsin(12), Louisville(240)

Off. Free Throw Rate: Texas(50), Kentucky(195), Wisconsin(336), Louisville(325)

Def. Free Throw Rate: Texas(46), Kentucky(40), Wisconsin(49), Louisville(229)

Analysis: 4 seeds generally have a tough time making it to the Elite 8 since they have to beat # 1 seeds to get there. However, this year's 4 seeds are stronger than usual. All 4 of them are underseeded based on the overall efficiency ratings and the one seeds all will be in for tough Sweet 16 match-ups if it shakes out that way. If a 4 seed is going to make then Final 4 then this will definitely be the year it will happen. I'm still not sure why Texas & Kentucky weren't seeded higher.

More: March Madness

No comments:

Post a Comment