To the sweet 16 and beyond!

A glance at your March Madness bracket pool will give you a quick verdict on the character of those involved – the higher you are, the more conservative and chalktastic your picks were. As Brendon previously wrote, the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament was filled with ‘almost’, but not quite. On towards the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 we go though, and despite the absence of any true Cinderellas, there is still much to talk about and compelling games to watch.
The Big Engine That Could
Arizona is the only team left with a seed higher than five, sitting all by their lonesome as a No. 12. Arizona was also the only truly controversial inclusion into the field of 65. While I highly doubt there was a massive conspiracy to by the Seeding Committee to help their least defensible decision put on a good showing, the end product was indeed that. While only one of the three of the most dangerous matchups pitting low seeded mid-majors with high ranking BCS schools that I identified ended in an upset, the one that did was the one I was most confident in – Cleveland State over Wake Forest. Had they even advanced, there was still no telling which Wake team we would be seeing – The one that beat Duke and UNC, or the one that lost to Georgia Tech and NC State.
Read More »


Danger! High Voltage – 2009 Upset Specials

In my East and South regional previews, I noted that I considered Wisconsin the bracket-buster in that section of the bracket. I did this a bit tongue-in-cheek as bracket-busters tend to be teams from small conferences and combine very low national exposure with double-digit seeds. I went back and researched all the non-power-conference teams seeded No. 12 or worse that won in the last five years to see if I could glean any insight into what characteristics, if any, these bracket-busters or the teams they defeeated had in common.
The nine major upsets were as follows:
2008 – No. 13 Siena over No. 4 Vanderbilt
2008 – No. 13 San Diego over No. 4 UConn
2006 – No. 14 Northwestern State over No. 3 Iowa (not the Northwestern Wildcats as was the call)
2006 – No. 13 Bradley over No. 4 Kansas
2005 – No. 14 Bucknell over No. 3 Kansas
2005 – No. 13 Vermont over No. 4 Syracuse
2005 – No. 12 UW Milwaukee over No. 5 Alabama
2004 – No. 12 Manhattan over No. 5 Florida
2004 – No. 12 Pacific over No. 5 Providence Read More »


East: Panthers, Devils or a four-peat?

While the East bracket does not quite have the offensive firepower and sharp contrasts that the South bracket that I also previewed does, there are still plenty of compelling talking points.
The burden of expectations: Pittsburgh has accumulated a lot of success in the last seven years under first Ben Howland and now Jamie Dixon, who have combined to make the NCAA tournament each of the last eight years. Most of the seeds the Panthers have been given have been high (2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 9) and they’ve managed to go 10-7 over this time period. Their expected win total given those seeds is 10.77, so they haven’t underperformed too badly, it’s just that they haven’t had the big breakthrough into the Elite Eight and beyond that everyone in the Steel City has been hoping for.
With their highest seed yet, though, the expectation and pressure to make the jump to the next level will be enormous. No longer will a nice little run suffice. This Panthers team starts three seniors and a likely underclassmen declaring for the NBA draft, so the time is now. As a No. 1 seed, Pitt was given a pretty good draw in its half of the region. Xavier and Florida State aren’t the toughest No. 4 and No. 5 seeds in the Tournament, and, while both Oklahoma State and Tennessee are a bit more dangerous than their No. 8 and No. 9 seeds would project, Pitt shouldn’t have a major problem advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. It’s what happens that second weekend that will define whether this Panthers’ season is considered a breakthrough or a bittersweet memory. Read More »