Sweet 16 Breakdown: West and East

A lot of people lament the lack of upsets in an NCAA Tournament, and I agree that upsets are a big part of what makes it March Madness. But like last year, the first year in which all four No. 1 seeds reached the Final Four, the chalkiness of this year's Big Dance means we're in store for some great basketball over the next few weeks. The barrier broken this year is that it's the first tournament in which the top three seeds in each of the four regions survived the first weekend. There's really only one somewhat surprising team in the Sweet Sixteen (though yours truly's bracket correctly had them advancing), and Arizona, being more or less a basketball power over the last couple of decades, is hardly the dictionary definition of Cinderella.

WEST
#1 Connecticut vs. #5 Purdue. I had Washington here in Purdue's spot and am a little surprised at how well the Boilers played at times during the tourney's first weekend. They were a highly ranked team early in the year, however, before injuries hit Robbie Hummel, so perhaps this is just them living up to expectations.

Either way, I don't think they have enough to beat Connecticut. I don't think the Huskies are unbeatable, but I think that the team to beat them needs to have a very strong post player. Hasheem Thabeet dominates most opponents defensively, but is a bit of a shrinking violet when faced with an opposing post player of above-average caliber. (Witness his pedestrian performances against Pittsburgh and Georgetown this year.) Purdue doesn't have that trait.

#2 Memphis vs. #3 Missouri. I haven't seen much of Mizzou this year -- to the point where, late in the season, I looked at the rankings and exclaimed, incredulously, "Missouri is ranked tenth?!?!?" I know that they like to play up-and-down, they are deep, and they can score points in bunches. Memphis is like that, too, however, and in addition to being more talented and deep than Mizzou, they are also better defensively. That gives them the edge in what will be a frantic affair.

EAST
#1 Pittsburgh v. #4 Xavier. I picked North Carolina to win it all this year, mainly because I picked them at the beginning of the year and I see flaws with all the other contenders. Carolina has its flaws, too, including my pet flaw, the one that had me ranting all last year, which is that they don't play enough defense to win a championship. In large part due to my regret for selling myself out like that, then, I was remorseful for my selection and began convincing myself that Pittsburgh was the team to beat this year. Then they go out and barely squeak by East Tennessee State and a better-than-you-thought Oklahoma State team in the tournament's first weekend.

Ironically, I think Pitt's defense isn't quite good enough to make me confident that they'll win. It's ironic for two reasons: one, because that's why I'm not confident in my Carolina pick; and two, because defense was Pitt's calling card when they rose to national prominence under Ben Howland (now the head man at UCLA -- which had defensive problems of its own in getting pasted by Villanova in the second round). Because of that reputation, and because head coach Jamie Dixon was a Howland assistant, I think recent vintages of Panthers have gotten underserved reputations as good defensive teams. In fact, I think -- with no statistical backup -- that each successive edition of Pitt under Dixon has been a little bit worse defensively than the previous one.

It follows, then, that I don't think all that highly of this Pitt team defensively, and that is going to be a problem against any solid team, which means it's going to be a problem against any team left in this tournament. I don't know enough about Xavier to say if the Muskies are the team that will take the Panthers out, but I do know that I won't be terribly surprised if it happens.

#2 Duke v. #3 Villanova. This is the matchup I'm most looking forward to, a couple of guard-oriented teams with a star forward who can score inside (Kyle Singler for Duke, Dante Cunningham for Villanova). Both teams rely heavily on the three-point shot, and both have capable but limited role players up front (I give the advantage to Nova here). Duke is perhaps one player deeper in the backcourt and on the wing.

A lot of people would give the coaching advantage to Duke's legendary Coach K, but that does an injustice to Nova head man Jay Wright. Wright has had the same kind of team he has this year in previous years, and he has had great success in the past -- coming within a missed traveling call of upsetting eventual champion North Carolina in 2005, running into a juggernaut on a roll -- a juggernaut on a roll that was a particularly bad matchup for Nova's guard-oriented team -- in Florida the following year. Wright is every bit the coach Coach K is.

This game is really a tossup. If one team shoots well and the other doesn't, it'll prevail. (Duh.) If both teams shoot well, it could easily be "last possession wins." If neither team shoots well, it's a tossup. Both teams have guys who can get to the bucket and finish (Gerald Henderson and Nolan Smith for Duke; Corey Fisher and Scottie Reynolds for Villanova), which is imperative when the jumper isn't falling. It may come down to something like free throws, in which case I guess I like Duke by a thin margin, as I think Singler is better at drawing fouls than Cunningham and the officials always seem to send Duke to the line more than their opponents.

Kentucky 90, Tennessee 72

Suffering from some law school grade-related blues, I needed something, late Tuesday night, to make myself feel better. So at just a few minutes before 3 a.m. on Wednesday, after finishing the next day's reading, I decided to re-watch Jodie Meeks' record-setting 54-point effort (highlights here; sorry for the advertisement at the beginning, but that's ESPN for you) in a win at Tennessee.

Some people drink away their troubles. I've done my fair share of that over the years, but alcohol has never made me feel as good as a transcendant performance on the hardwood.

Meeks hasn't really been on my radar, since he was hurt or inconsistent during his first two years in Lexington. Even in this, his breakout season (he was leading the SEC in scoring at 24.2 points per game heading into the matchup with Tennessee, and had already registered four 30-point efforts, including a 46-point outing against Appalachian State on December 20) I hadn't noticed him, since I hadn't seen the Wildcats play.

Now that he's set the single-game scoring record in UK's storied history, consider me officially on notice.

The Volunteers are hardly a defensive juggernaut, and the frenetic pace they favor gives opponents a relatively high number of possessions on which to score. According to the ESPN broadcast, Meeks is the sixth opposing player to set a career-high in scoring this year against the Vols. Still, according to ESPN's Pat Forde, Meeks' 54 were the most points by a BCS-conference player since 2000, when Arizona State's Eddie House hung 61 on California in a game that went to overtime.

Maybe it's because Forde invoked his name, but I couldn't help but notice the similarities in the offensive games of House and Meeks. I've often noticed the unique way House moves around and especially the way he gets into his shot; I think the best word to describe it is "bouncy," or, maybe, "springy." House doesn't step into his lethal jumper so much as he hops into it, coming to what is essentially a jump stop before going up. This allows him to square his body to the bucket relatively quickly and effectively, as he is taking off for his shot from a very stable base. Compare it to shooting off the dribble without a jump stop, where the shooter's feet are often unnaturally far apart for a jump shot. House does this even when he's moving without the ball; his last step when coming off a screen is a jump stop. This has the effect of making an already quick release even quicker, and defenders are often caught off-guard, making the shot hard to contest. Meeks shoots the same way.

Of course, there are differences between the two, and they all point in Meeks' favor. The first is size. Meeks is listed at 6'4", while House -- the NBA journeyman who is now a backup guard with the Boston Celtics -- is listed at 6'1". Yet Meeks is bigger without giving up quickness; in fact, off hand, I cannot think of any 6'4" players quicker or even as quick as Meeks, and he's quicker than many smaller men, both with the ball and without it (ESPN analyst Jimmy Dykes kept marveling at how hard he cuts). Meeks also has a more diverse offensive game than House, the three-point sniper who rarely does any damage inside the foul line. While Meeks has a very good jumper -- the school-record ten threes he hit Tuesday night attest to that -- he can also put it on the floor and get to the hoop. Finally, House is something of a liability defensively (though not for want of effort). Meeks, by contrast, is a good defender (his aforementioned size and quickness certainly play part here).

I still have a couple of Kevin Durant's Texas games on my Tivo, but neither those nor the 30-point half I watched Purdue's Glenn Robinson put up on Kansas many years ago compare to Meeks' dominance Tuesday night. Mr. Meeks, if you're reading this: Thanks for an enjoyable end to a rough day.

[Antonio Anderson keeping Memphis' Conference USA winning streak alive -- it's now at 45 games -- at the buzzer in Tulsa (link to highlights has introductory advertisement and sound) was a pretty tasty appetizer.]

I Can't Believe We're Still Not Fouling

Virginia Tech down three to Wisconsin at home Monday night, 11 seconds to go. They have the ball, they've just hit a couple three-pointers in the final minute to cut the Badger lead to one, and they have A.D. Vassallo, one of the nation's deadliest three-point shooters. ESPN color analyst Bill Raftery announces that if he was coaching Wisconsin, he'd order his players to foul in this situation. Bo Ryan, Wisconsin's actual head coach, chooses not to.

How are teams STILL not fouling in these situations?

The counter-argument to fouling goes something like this. If you play it straight up and don't foul, the worst you can do is overtime. If you foul, you're risking a loss.

How? Well, the argument goes, if you foul, your opponent could go to the line, make the first, miss the second, tap the rebound out to the three-point line, and sink a three to win.

Seriously?

Honestly, when was the last time you saw that happen? I've never seen it. What I have often seen, is what happened tonight: Vassallo drained a three to tie it up. (Wisconsin got a late bucket from Trevon Hughes to win 74-72.) Not fouling may well have cost Memphis the national championship last year (though Tigers coach John Calipari said his team had orders to foul, but couldn't give it before Mario Chalmers was already in the act of shooting his game-tying three).

It's a tired issue, because every time the situation arises in a game, the color guy makes a point to say that the leading team should foul. In fact, I don't know a single person who isn't a college basketball coach who thinks playing solid D is the correct strategy in this spot. And while it's generally correct to give the benefit of the doubt to give the presumptive experts (the coaches), not fouling simply can't be right.

If you choose not to foul, you're saying that the probability of the other team 1)making the first free throw, 2)missing the second free throw, 3)getting the offensive rebound, and 4)hitting a three-pointer is greater than the probability of the other team 1)hitting a three-pointer and 2)winning in overtime. (That's a bit oversimplified, but it will do for now). There's no way that's true.

As a fan, I actually don't mind it, because shots like the one Chalmers hit in April and Vassallo hit tonight are exciting, and free throws aren't. But it's the great mystery of the game that college coaches are still so skittish about this.

Quick notes from the opening of the Big Ten/ACC Challenge

-I don't remember when I first saw Vassallo, but he certainly wasn't the player then that he is now? When did he get such a complete game?

-I was really impressed with Wisconsin's Marcus Landry, especially early. I always thought of him as a glue guy, an undersized banger. But he had ten points early tonight, on a pair of three-pointers and a couple of nice turnaround jumpers on the baseline where he recognized the double team and turned away from it. I'm actually surprised he hasn't used up his eligibility yet, but he's a guy who has improved every year.

-Great crowd in Blacksburg tonight. Virginia Tech should be a tough place to win for ACC opponents not named North Carolina.