Here is the average national rank (lower is better) in each of the four factors. All data provided by Ken Pomeroy

As expected, the higher seeds have dominant offenses and are much better at shooting the ball and grabbing any shots they miss. On the defensive end, they allow a lower percentage of made buckets and send their opponents to the free-throw line far less. These numbers are unadjusted for strength of schedule, so the higher seeds will be even stronger than they appear — this only adds to the intimidation when a small school-coach takes a look at what he is up against. A look at those three, shiny bolded numbers do reflect a chink in the armor though. The lower-seeded teams tended to be strong at defending the 3-ball and were a little better at taking care of the ball, but the number that sticks out like a sore thumb is how many turnovers they force. Not only are the underdogs strong at forcing turnovers, the favorites are actually below average at making their opponents waste possessions.


So, now that we know the profile of the teams before the game, here is how the four factors looked post-mortem.

Once again, the higher seeds pounded the boards and got to the charity stripe a few more times, as expected. Of course, the underdogs did shoot better than expected, but in a 40-minute sample size, these lower-seeded teams will need to hit some threes to stay with the big boys. What was very interesting though is that in eight of the nine cases, the lower seeded team had significantly fewer turnovers. The one team that didn’t was Siena, who drew Vanderbilt to a standstill in turnovers but shot more than 20 percent better in routing the Commodores. Simply put, even good teams are going to find it difficult to compete when they are giving up 10-20 percent more shots a game. Of course, offensive rebounding does the same thing by extending a possession, but what drives basketball coaches mad is sloppy, careless turnovers. One final, important note is that the games featured fewer possessions than both teams normally average, which shortens the game and increases the likelihood of an upset.


OK. So now we know the profile of what goes in to a major bracket-buster. Which higher seeds are masking some weaknesses, and are they matched up with a little team that knows how to take advantage? Here are a few for thought, with national ranks in turnovers committed/turnovers forces in parentheses.


Critical Alert


No. 13 Cleveland State (97/13) vs. No. 4 Wake Forest (200/137): The Deacons combine very poor ball-handling skills with mediocre pressure on the defensive end, relying on their superior height and athleticism to provide their strong defense. Unfortunately for them, they are going up against a dangerous Cleveland State team that will straight-up hound you on the defensive end. Combined with above-average carefulness on the offensive end and a very slow pace that Wake isn’t used to playing, and I think you could see the Vikings really give it a go. Cleveland State already beat Syracuse on the road earlier this year by causing double the turnovers than it gave up (oh, and of course a miraculous buzzer-beater).


No. 13 Portland State (134/98) vs. No. 4 Xavier (253/264): Yes, Xavier had a great run in the tournament last year, but please note: skilled point Drew Lavender and sure-handed big Josh Duncan are no longer on this year’s team. The 2008-09 Musketeers are horrible on both ends of the court in this aspect, and it’s threatening to derail their season. Portland State already has a big road win over Gonzaga this year and seems to be just strong enough to make Xavier really have to prove it deserves to advance.


No. 14 North Dakota State (14/279) vs. No. 3 Kansas (240/239): Plus — Kansas are the defending national champs. Minus — the Jayhawks are the only team to appear on this list of upsets twice. Plus — Bill Self got the monkey off his back in terms of taking the next step last season. Minus — the 2007-08 version of the Jayhawks was actually a pretty good ball=handling team, but the 2008-09 version smells awfully similar (and actually worse if you can believe it) than the 2004-05 and 2005-06 versions who clocked in at (141/232) and (220/42) respectively. The Bison are within driving distance of the Minneapolis location, and they shoot lights out — do you think it’s a good idea to give them extra possessions?


Probably Safe But You Never Know


No. 14 Stephen F. Austin (38/105) vs. No. 3 Syracuse (176/256): While the turnover discrepancy here is quite large, SFA is a notch below ND State and Cleveland State, while Syracuse is a notch above Xavier. Still, with the record six-OT game still fresh in their minds — or sore on their legs — who can be sure if Syracuse’s players aren’t set for a near-repeat of 2005’s Big East Tourney victory followed by NCAA Tournament letdown.


No. 15 Morgan State (120/50) vs. No. 2 Oklahoma (114/304): A huge upset win would likely require a combination of many extra shots and hitting a large percentage of threes, because there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Morgan State is going to score in the paint against the Sooners.


No. 15 Robert Morris (280/25) vs. No. 2 Michigan State (207/166): A huge longshot, but Robert Morris should be able to force a good amount of turnovers and the Spartans’ non-pressure style may be just what the Colonials need to limit theirs.


So there you have it, a complete breakdown of the most at-risk high seeds in this year’s tournament. Now I’m fully prepared for the chalk to rack up the victories and to have egg on my face this weekend, but, if there are a few earth-shattering upsets, you know where you heard it first.

The point scoring capabilities out of the top half are impressive enough on their own, but also take into consideration that five of the top six offenses in the South also play at an above-average to breakneck pace. Poor Illinois is caught in a “Which one of these things doesn’t look like the other?” game.


The Dark Horse: Arizona State and a Mr. James Harden have been written about extensively by Baseline Stats this year and for good reason. Still, even given their obvious flaws (lack of height, offensive rebounding, inability to force turnovers, lack of depth) the committee’s decision to award them a No. 6 seed makes them the dark horse pick to make the final four.


Herb Sendek’s intricate offense and zone defense that keeps its opponents on the perimeter are two big reasons to like the Sun Devils, but the biggest reason is James Harden. Harden reminds me a lot of a left-handed Paul Pierce. He’s got enough range to extend the defense but feels most comfortable driving inside and drawing contact. He can finish at the rim and knock down free throws. Like Pierce, he’s a good but not eye-opening athlete, but he uses his body in intelligent ways on offense and defense to get to the spots on the floor where we wants he or his opponent to go.


Incidentally, if ASU had been given the No. 5 seed in this region and had to potentially face Gonzaga then UNC, I would have been much less bullish on them. Syracuse and Oklahoma are nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but all the same I’d much rather face them than the former pair.


The Bracket Buster: It’s not that I think Michigan is a great team. I don’t have the highest opinion of a 9-9 Big Ten team with weak defense and poor rebounding. Michigan, though, does have one terrific quality — the Wolverines are playing in a tournament under John Beilein. All Beilein has done in the NCAA tournament in the previous 10 years is stun No. 3 seeded Carolina coaching No. 14 seeded Richmond and take WVU to the Elite 8 and Sweet 16 as a No. 7 and No. 6 seed respectively. Throw in his 11-3 record in the NIT as well as his penchant for coming up with big non-conference wins (see Duke, UCLA for the 2009 Wolverines), and you start getting downright giddy about his chances at making a run in the tournament. While this Michigan team does not have the offensive firepower as those Mountaineer teams of a few years ago (Pittsnogle!), they do share some of the most important characteristics for NCAA upset success. They are very good at not turning the ball over, they hardly ever foul, and they play a very slow pace, which helps prevent better teams from pushing their advantage. While I have serious doubts that they could contain Blake Griffin inside should they get that far, the Wolverines would virtually never turn the ball over, and they would limit Griffin’s advantage of drawing the most fouls in the nation.


The Most Intriguing Matchup: I apologize for picking Arizona State once again, but to me the best potential Second Round matchup in the entire tournament would pit the Sun Devils against the Syracuse Orange. Some of the similarities are uncanny — they both have elite offenses with above average but not great zone defenses that fail to force the opponent into turnovers; they both shoot an incredibly high rate on their 2-point shots, less so on their threes, while their defense is the exact opposite. The differences begin with pace. Will speed demon Jonny Flynn run rampant over the court, or will ASU (and the seven overtimes Syracuse played in the Big East tournament) slow the Orange down? ASU is a poor offensive rebounding team and strong defensive rebounding team, while Syracuse is strong at offensive rebounding and poor at defensive rebounding. Who wins the battle of the boards in such a situation? All these questions and more will be answered if only Stephen F. Austin and Temple would kindly step aside.


The pick to win it: In the end, I think North Carolina is just too strong to be overcome if Ty Lawson’s foot is healthy. I don’t think they’ll need him much in the first two rounds, and hopefully he’ll be resting up for a very tough potential matchup against Gonzaga in the Sweet 16. While the Tar Heels don’t possess an elite defense, they have both a ridiculously efficient offense and play at a high enough pace to punish that advantage down their opponents throats. That should be enough to get UNC out of this tricky region.