Tourney Time

I had a huge post all typed up about this year's tourney, but Blogger lost it. It's too late to retype all of it, but here's my bracket and a quick rundown of my thoughts on some of the Thursday games:

--Butler vs. Old Dominion, the 5/12 in the West, is an intriguing matchup and one of the toughest for me to pick. Butler is overseeded; there's no way a team that couldn't win the Horizon league title outright or the conference tournament is a 5. On the other hand, ODU looked awful in the Colonial Tournament, much worse than even what you'd expect looking at their results (a win over Towson in the quarters followed by a 16-point loss to George Mason in the semis). Ultimately, I chose Butler because you can make a pretty decent argument that ODU doesn't even belong in this tournament.

--Several weeks ago, I told a buddy that I thought Duke would lose in the first round of this year's tournament, and that Virginia Commonwealth would make the Sweet 16. That they are meeting in the 6/11 game in the West is something of a "perfect storm" for me.

I stand by my prediction for two reasons:

1)VCU has three good guards in B.A. Walker, Eric Maynor, and Jesse Pellot-Rosa. Greg Paulus can't guard any of them, but he'll have to match up with one of them, and whichever that is will have a field day;

2)While VCU's halfcourt defense is nothing special, they have a decent press that they can use for the whole game, and this hurts Duke in two ways. First of all, the Devils -- Paulus in particular -- have struggled with pressure defense this year. Secondly, their chronically thin bench has left them tired at the end of recent games, and while they will be well-rested with a week off since their last outing, they'll be less than fresh by the end of the game.

That all said, Josh McRoberts can almost singlehandedly win this game for Duke if he shows up, stays out of foul trouble, and plays close to the full 40 minutes. VCU has no answer for him inside, and his passing ability and court vision should allow him to find open shooters against the lax VCU halfcourt D. His ballhandling ability will also help neutralize the Rams' fullcourt pressure.

Both of these teams have a great shot at being Pitt in the second round. The Panthers are a team without an identity.

--Teams that grind it out like Washington State are vulnerable to confident teams with star players, and Oral Roberts and Caleb Green fit the bill. I see a Harold "The Show" Arceneaux (remember Weber State over Carolina in '99) type performance in the offing for Green.

And in the next round, ORU would face either Vanderbilt or George Washington, two of the least imposing "name" schools in this field.

And a few quick notes about my predictions in the later rounds:

--I feel very good about having Texas A&M moving to the championship game in Atlanta as the three seed in the South. For one, they get to play the regional semis and finals in their home state, a huge boost against a likely opponent like the young Ohio State Buckeyes. Joseph Jones and Antanas Kavilauskas will be able to limit the impact of OSU's young, talented frontcourt duo of Greg Oden and Othella Hunter. And while Acie Law IV vs. Mike Conley Jr. is the kind of point guard matchup the media goes crazy for, the advantage has to lie with the Aggie senior over the Buckeye frosh.

Once (if?) they get to the Final Four, A&M is likely to match up with either North Carolina or Georgetown. Despite those two possible foes playing completely different styles, the Aggies match up well with both. Jones and Kavaliauskas should be able to handle UNC's Tyler Hansbrough or Georgetown's Roy Hibbert, and neither team has anyone to guard Law IV. Florida's balance and experience will be too much to overcome in the final, however.

-I'm not ready to pick it because it could seriously damage my bracket, but it wouldn't completely shock me to see BC beat Georgetown in the second round. I'll have more on why if this matchup comes to fruition.

-Call me starry-eyed, but I'm expecting one transcendant performance from Texas superfrosh Kevin Durant in this tournament, and I'm predicting it'll come against UNC in the East regional semis. I don't think Texas is experienced or consistent enough to make it all the way to Atlanta, but I do think Durant will have one game we'll be talking about for ages, and Carolina -- which has never been accused of playing too hard on defense -- is the perfect opponent against whom to have it.

That's good news for the Hoyas, because I don't think they can beat the Heels. Hansbrough will eat Hibbert alive if those two meet, and if Jeff Green has to concentrate too much on defending Brandan Wright, it'll hurt his offense -- and the Hoyas are nothing if Green isn't involved offensively. Durant would pose the same type of matchup problem, but like I said, I'm banking on Texas being too young to beat two teams like that in a single weekend.

That's all for now. Enjoy the games. I'll try to get at least two posts up tomorrow; one reviewing the day's games and one previewing Fridays. Ideally, I'll have a review entry after the afternoon session as well as one after the evening, PLUS the preview post, but we'll see.

Strange Selections: Arkansas, but no Syracuse?

1. This year's Selection Sunday marked a first for me. Never had I seen a team whom everybody had safely in the tournament be left out when they announced the bracket. Until Sunday, that is, when Syracuse -- who seemed to have tied all their late-season loose ends by winning at Providence and taking a game in the Big East tournament -- was left on the outside looking in.

Almost seven hours after the field of 65 was announced, I still can't come up with a logical explanation for how the Orange were left out.

In the final analysis, once the tournament field is set, we look at "bubble" teams in two ways: The teams that made it, we look at what they did to get in; the teams that didn't, we look for what they didn't do, or what they could have done.

With all the other outsiders, we know what they didn't do. We know that Drexel -- they of the 13 road wins, including at Villanova, at Syracuse, and at Creighton -- didn't take care of business in their conference (they finished fourth in the Colonial, and went a combined 1-5 against the three teams that finished ahead of them, including 0-4 against the two teams representing that conference in this year's Dance). Ditto Missouri State, a bubble non-invitee in consecutive years now, who beat Wisconsin and went 12-6 to finish third in a tough Missouri Valley, but who were ultimately done in by an 0-5 record against conference foes (and tourney teams) Creighton and Southern Illinois, as well as an 11-point home loss in the BracketBuster to Winthrop.

We know that Kansas State has too many bad losses -- at New Mexico by 24, at Cal by 30, at Colorado State -- to offset its few good wins, and that they were only mediocre down the stretch, going 5-5 in their all-important final ten.

We know that Florida State went 7-9 in the ACC, and lost five in a row before closing the season with wins over relative doormats North Carolina State and Miami.

None of these things apply to the Orange. Traditionally, 20 wins overall and 10 in conference get a BCS school an invitation to the Dance. Jim Boeheim's club had 22 wins and went 10-6 in the Big East. They went 7-3 in their final ten games. The only complaint I could fathom with them as they didn't really beat anyone out of the Big East -- Hofstra might be their best non-conference win -- but the non-conference games they did lose were to solid teams: The Orange had close losses to Wichita State and Oklahoma State when both teams were ranked, as well as against a very strong Drexel squad. Their loss at Saint John's is something of a black spot on their resume, but their big wins -- at Marquette, over Georgetown, both convincingly -- should more than make up for that. They won a game in their conference tournament, and played Notre Dame very tough in the Big East quarterfinals.

I didn't even realize Syracuse had missed the tournament until someone mentioned it on CBS; they were that much of a lock in my mind. Leaving them out of the field is stunning.

2. Syracuse's absence is particularly notable given the inclusion of a team like Arkansas. The Razorbacks did hit the 20-win mark, but they went 7-9 in conference play, a full three fewer wins than Syracuse had in the Big East. And before you pull out the conference RPI -- I actually don't know where the Southeastern falls in relation to the Big East, and I don't particularly care -- I defy you to find anyone who has watched as much of these two conferences as I have this year who will tell you that the SEC is so much better that a team that goes 7-9 in it is better than one that goes 10-6 in the Big East.

If we're defending the committee, then our goal is to find something in the Razorbacks' tournament resume that compensates for three fewer wins in conference play. It's not the strength of conference, as I've already said. It's not the conference wins: Arkansas has but two wins -- both against Vanderbilt -- over an SEC opponent that made the field of 65.

It's not a lack of "bad" losses like Syracuse's at Saint John's. Arkansas has plenty of those, both in-conference (Georgia, Auburn) and out (by 22 at Missouri, by 15 in Fayetteville to Texas Tech).

It's not they finished all that strongly; before their three game run in the SEC Tournament, they had gone 5-5 in their last 10 and won just six of their previous 15.

Nope, all the 'backs have over the 'cuse are those three wins in the SEC tourney and a neutral court overtime win over Southern Illinois. And even that nice run in the postseason isn't as impressive as it sounds. Mississippi State did their dirty work by upsetting Kentucky in the quarterfinals, so the only real "surprise" was the one-point win over Vanderbilt -- a team that many, including myself, feel that the committee overvalued, as evidenced by their six seed (and, to make a circular argument, by the invitation of this same Arkansas team on the strength of two victories over the Commodores).

Those aren't bad credentials, and Arkansas may even be a better team on the hardwood than they are on paper, but there's no way it's enough to close the gap between 7-9 in conference and 10-6.

3. I wasn't thinking quickly enough to take notes and get some specific examples, but I wasn't happy with the way Gary Walters answered questions in the post-bracket interviews. Walters, the Princeton athletics director and chair of the selection committee, gave few solid answers. Recent chairs -- notably, Craig Littlepage -- have been candid and specific about why certain teams were in and why others were out, and have even played along with "why A instead of B?" even though comparisons like that aren't really parallel to how the committee operates.

Instead, Walters made a big deal of qualifying points he made by saying something along the lines of "this isn't categorical," and spoke broadly of different factors that affect the committee's decisions. His evasiveness did a disservice to the committee and left a bad taste in the mouths of the fans (and presumably players and coaches) who -- absent hard and fast rules for inclusion in the field -- would like to see at least some consistency in what is admittedly a very difficult process.

And1 What I find most irritating about all of this is that the inclusion of Arkansas and, to a lesser extent, Stanford -- the two BCS teams least-deserving of at-large bids, in my mind -- is that their respective draws are very favorable, making their bids very likely to become self-serving justifications for the committee. Stanford's size will be very problematic for Louisville's game but physically ailing David Padgett and Juan Palacios, and the talented but impetuous and foul-prone Derrick Caracter. Meanwhile, Arkansas has been matched with USC, one of the weaker five seeds (only Butler is weaker) whose impressive wins (the Trojans swept Oregon and Arizona) are offset somewhat by puzzling losses (by 13 to Kansas State, by 15 at Stanford, by 10 at Arizona State).

I'm not accusing the committee of purposely putting its more controversial at-larges in situations favorable to their success. It will be unfortunate, however, if a win or two by either of these teams is used as justification for their inclusion.

The Elbow, A sigh of relief, the CAA bubble

1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2cqrNQCe6l8

That's the link to Tyler Hansbrough getting his nose broken by Gerald Henderson at the end of Carolina's 86-72 win over Duke on Sunday. Did he do it on purpose? Beats me. Watch the link, if you haven't already, and decide for yourself. But I have a lot of thoughts on the play, and I'm going to present them for you here, bulleted-list style.

-They obviously didn't have the camera on Henderson the whole time, but at no point did we see the Duke freshman show remorse at such a gruesome foul, nor did he act the least bit surprised or upset when he was ejected. Does that prove he did it on purpose? Hardly. But it's something to think about.

-On the other hand, I'm going to give Henderson the benefit of the doubt and say that he's not dumb enough to intentionally cheap shot Hansbrough like that. If I felt the urge to hit one of the Heels with a 'bow across the bridge of the nose, there's no way I -- and presumably anyone else with self-preservation on the brain -- would pick the man they call "Psycho T."

-The officials absolutely did the right thing by ejecting Henderson. Even if the foul wasn't intentional, it was extremely reckless, and it resulted in a somewhat serious injury. That kind of irresponsible behavior mustn't go unpunished.

-A lot of people are wondering today what Hansbrough was still doing on the court with the game decided, and a lot of Carolina people are pointing out that Duke still had its starters in. Tar Heel fans are correct; in the college game, it's standard for the leading team to leave its first string on the floor until the oppositon waves the white flag by emptying it's bench. That said ,if you are going to leave these guys in, you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of ways Hansbrough could have hurt himself in those final few seconds, and many of them have nothing to do with dirty or reckless play from Duke.

To their credit, however, people from the Carolina program aren't doing much squawking about it.

-While I understand having Hansbrough in the game, there's little need for him to crash the glass after missing a free throw, and even less need for him to go back up for a layup after securing the rebound. The smart play is to kick it back to a guard and run the clock.

-I was disappointed -- and surprised -- at Coach K's comments after the game suggesting that Hansbrough shouldn't have been in the game. He backtracked later and admitted that he shouldn't have had his studs in either, but it came off as petty.

-Henderson's absence in Thursday's ACC quarterfinal vs. North Carolina State will be noticeable. He was arguably Duke's best offensive player on Sunday and appeared to be coming into his own. For a team that can't seem to get its offense running on all cylinders, losing anyone who can fill it up is a big blow.

-I very much doubt that the broken nose will affect Hansbrough's performance, even if he has to wear a mask. He's not a finesse player and he doesn't take a lot of jumpers, so any vision impairment he might suffer will have minimal effects.

2. Virginia Commonwealth and Gonzaga made the committee's job easier by winning their respective conference tournaments Monday night. Had George Mason swiped the Colonial Athletic Association's automatic bid, VCU would have been added to the at-large pool, and the decision for which CAA team to take (see below) would have had a complex new element.

As for the Zags, they have one of the most interesting tournament resumes in history: A mid-major program with four wins over BCS conference teams (North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Stanford); a slew of losses against major conference schools (Washington State, Georgia, Duke, Virginia, and Memphis); two losses against other mid-majors ranked in the top 25 (Butler and Nevada); but had three losses in a weakish conference. Oh, and their best player has been suspended for the last month due to his arrest on drug possession charges.

My hunch is that the committee would have put its money where its mouth has always been, and rewarded the Bulldogs for scheduling the way they did. But it was far from a foregone conclusion, and you better believe the committee is happy they don't have to make that decision.

3. VCU's win makes the Committee's job easier, but the bubble is still crowded with two CAA teams, Old Dominion and Drexel. I defy you to pick one over the other.

The argument for Old Dominion: Their RPI (39) is stronger than Drexel's (46); they went 15-3 in conference; they split with VCU; they became the first road team in 24 years to win at Georgetown's McDonough Arena (the Hoyas play the majority of their home games at the Verizon Center); they beat Drexel in both meetings this year.

The argument against Old Dominion: They lost at James Madison; they looked horrible in the CAA tourney (trust me, I was there; the refs bailed them out in a terrible performance against Towson on Saturday, and they were never in their semifinal loss to George Mason).

The argument for Drexel: They have 14 true road wins; they beat Villanova, Syracuse, and Creighton -- all tournament teams -- on the road; some of their conference losses came without Frank Elegar, the team's best post performer.

The argument against Drexel: They are a combined 0-4 against VCU and Old Dominion.

To make things more interesting, Hofstra, the third seed in the conference who played their way out of at-large consideration with a loss to George Mason in the CAA quarters, went 3-1 against VCU, ODU, and Drexel.

Has either team done enough to earn a spot in the field of 64+1? Has either done anything to distinguish it from the other? Can the CAA get a third bid? Can you put one team in over another that it's beaten twice this year?

These are questions that will be answered in the next week or so. I'd like to offer a prediction, but I keep going back and forth. I can think of examples that support both cases. This may help us define for coming years what's more important to the committee: non-conference wins or head-to-head matchups.