NCAA Tournament thread

[Lobot]

Sometimes you just get hot at the right time. I think that's happened with both Clemson and NC State.

[GoBearcats31]

Sometimes you just get hot at the right time. I think that's happened with both Clemson and NC State.

Absolutely, which makes it frustrating how UC can never do this. In 2012, #6 UC upset #3 FSU in the second round. In no other year has UC ever beaten a higher seed, it appears -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincin...season_history

[Lobot]

Absolutely, which makes it frustrating how UC can never do this. In 2012, #6 UC upset #3 FSU in the second round. In no other year has UC ever beaten a higher seed, it appears -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincin...season_history

This Wikipedia entry brings up the question, when did they start seeding the teams in the tournament since no seeds are listed prior to '92 on our chart. I've never delved into this but I wonder how they did the selection process back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Geography? AP Poll?

[GoBearcats31]

This Wikipedia entry brings up the question, when did they start seeding the teams in the tournament since no seeds are listed prior to '92 on our chart. I've never delved into this but I wonder how they did the selection process back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Geography? AP Poll?

Some good history here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_D...nament#History

[sedz]

Iowa St does not have a good offense - they are outside the top 50 on Torvik. Along with the second best defense, they have nearly identical efficiency rankings as our 2018 team. At some point you're going to run into an offense that can score on you and you won't be able to outscore them.

I thought our best tournament team was 2017 when we had our best offense of the last 20 years at #31, along with a defense ranked #12. But we ran into UCLA's 3rd ranked offense in the second round and they hung 1.25 points per possession on us. We scored a league average 1.06 and that was that. When we upset 3 seed Florida St in 2012, we were facing a team even more defense heavy than us. We barely had a top 50 offense, but FSU was outside the top 70. They got a 3 seed because of a top 10 defense. We held them to 0.86 points per possession. Then we ran into OSU's 6th ranked offense and they hung 1.18 on us.

Here's what each team we lost to scored on us per possession:

2019 - Iowa 1.18
2018 - Nevada 1.17
2017 - UCLA 1.25
2016 - St Joes 1.27
2015 - Kentucky 1.02
2014 - Harvard 1.02
2013 - Creighton 1.06
2012 - Ohio St 1.18
2011 - UConn 1.16

We had a defensive identity under Cronin, but our defense is what let us down in the postseason. Our average defensive efficiency every single one of those seasons was 0.95 or under. Most years we got torched for more than 1.15 points per possession in the tourney. We had a few ok perfomances from 2013-2015, but you can't count on being able to keep teams under a point per possession in the NCAA tournament no matter how good your defense is. You have to be able to score.

[GoBearcats31]

This is a tweet about Arizona (though #1 Purdue does face #5 Gonzaga tonight):

@JoshDubowAP
Most losses in NCAA Tournament since 2016 with +4 seed differential or better:
Arizona 6
Tennessee 4
Virginia 4
Purdue 4

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

And then there were none.

[longtimefan]

Houston made it close without Shead. They were up 6 when he got hurt with about 7 minutes left in the first half.

[sedz]

Shead is the only guy on Houston's roster who can create offense. He has an assist rate of 40%. That means almost half of the baskets that Shead doesn't score himself are assisted by him. Roberts is a very distant second at 14% assist rate. Huge loss. They needed every bit of that defensive effort just to stay in the game.

[sedz]

Alabama took only 3 midrange shots in their 1.25 point per possession performance last night. Houston took 31 midrange shots in their 0.91 ppp loss.

[GoBearcats31]

Purdue …

[longtimefan]

Alabama took only 3 midrange shots in their 1.25 point per possession performance last night. Houston took 31 midrange shots in their 0.91 ppp loss.

Because Shead wasn’t there. Duke lucky to be playing today.

[GoBearcats31]

Saturday:
6:09 p.m. - #1 Purdue versus #11 NC State (Purdue favored by 8.5)
8:49 p.m. - #1 UConn versus #4 Alabama (UConn favored by 11.5)

UConn - 8th Final Four appearance, seeking 6th championship (including second consecutive)
Purdue - 4th Final Four appearance; first since 1980
Alabama - 1st Final Four appearance (previous best finish was 2004 Elite Eight)
NC State - 5th Final Four appearance; seeking 3rd championship (1974, 1983)

[sedz]

For Purdue, that 6th man, if you will, is Gillis (6'6" forward). He plays about four minutes more a game than Kaufman-Renn. However, they both score about 6 or 7 points a game. Kaufman-Renn gets more rebounds and blocked shots a game. Gillis is a better assist man. Regardless, Kaufman-Renn is the starter. I am sure that he starts for a reason. DJ Burns is semi-one-dimensional. He is a pretty good scorer, but only does about 4.1 rebounds a game and only has 23 blocks on the season. Now he does account for 2.8 assists a game; largely because he is smart and quick enough to pass out of double-teams. However, NC St. is winning with his semi-one-dimensional play. Also, let's not forget about the other semi-one-dimensional big man that NC St. has, Diarra. He is the unsong hero of their team. He only scores about 6.5 points / game, but he rebounds (7.9 / game) and he has 40 blocked shots on the season. By the way, Diarra is 6'10".

Nelson is not that quick. I have seen him play a few times and I do not remember him taking anyone off the dribble. He takes a lot of jump shots. However, he is a good shooter, a pretty good rebounder, and plays decent defense. Look, it is not by accident that these teams are in the Final Four. Their big men are a VERY important part of what they do to win. I like teams with serviceable big men. All of them have very good size except for Karaban.

Gillis is a wing. His game is similar to Simas. He defends guards and comes off screens like this: https://twitter.com/joejacksonCBB/st...29762129580498

I've acknowledged that NC St plays two traditional bigs. I'm not saying it's impossible to win like that, just that it's hard to do in the modern game. Your bigs have to be really efficient creating offense like Burns, or you have enough offense creation from your guards that the bigs just have to rim run and finish. We don't have either of those. Burns isn't one dimensional - he can create his own shot efficiently and he creates offense for others at a high level. You don't have to be a great defender or rebonder to be multi-dimensional - you just need multiple ways to provide value that the opposition can't shut down with a simple strategy. Burns has a 25% assist rate, higher than anyone on our team. And he has a true shooting percentage of 55% with a 28% usage rate. We don't have anyone like that at any position. But lets not forget that if Isaac McNeely, an 85% free throw shooter, hits a free throw up 3 with 5 seconds left in the ACC semifinals, even Burns wouldn't be enough to carry his two big team to the tournament. Burns is one of my favorite players to watch, but I don't think it's wise to try to copy what NC St is doing.

Here's Grant Wilson against UNC: https://twitter.com/WhiteBballPains/...56386628763687
And here he is at North Dakota St: https://twitter.com/SteveBal25/statu...57824720675249
His game is more like Skillings than Aziz, Reynolds, Vik, or Ody. He plays like a 6'11" wing. He has lateral quickness and can take people off the dribble. Regardless of what we want to call him, that's the skillset I want. You seem to think height is what makes a player a traditional big. Jason Maxiell was 6'7", a prototypical big. Durant & Wilson are four inches taller but completely different players. I consider them both wings. If a player can defend the perimeter and score from outside in any way other than an open set shot, they aren't a traditional big.

"Their big men are a VERY important part of what they do to win."
Because they are skilled! We aren't going anywhere without skilled players. The pool of players who are both big AND quick/skilled is small. I don't think many will be available to us in the portal. Obviously if we can land one we should. The dividing point here is size OR quick/skilled. Most college basketball players have only one or the other. I don't like that we think size is so important that we haven't had skilled bigs for last 5 seasons.

[leeraymond]

Gillis is a wing. His game is similar to Simas. He defends guards and comes off screens like this: https://twitter.com/joejacksonCBB/st...29762129580498

I've acknowledged that NC St plays two traditional bigs. I'm not saying it's impossible to win like that, just that it's hard to do in the modern game. Your bigs have to be really efficient creating offense like Burns, or you have enough offense creation from your guards that the bigs just have to rim run and finish. We don't have either of those. Burns isn't one dimensional - he can create his own shot efficiently and he creates offense for others at a high level. You don't have to be a great defender or rebonder to be multi-dimensional - you just need multiple ways to provide value that the opposition can't shut down with a simple strategy. Burns has a 25% assist rate, higher than anyone on our team. And he has a true shooting percentage of 55% with a 28% usage rate. We don't have anyone like that at any position. But lets not forget that if Isaac McNeely, an 85% free throw shooter, hits a free throw up 3 with 5 seconds left in the ACC semifinals, even Burns wouldn't be enough to carry his two big team to the tournament. Burns is one of my favorite players to watch, but I don't think it's wise to try to copy what NC St is doing.

Here's Grant Wilson against UNC: https://twitter.com/WhiteBballPains/...56386628763687
And here he is at North Dakota St: https://twitter.com/SteveBal25/statu...57824720675249
His game is more like Skillings than Aziz, Reynolds, Vik, or Ody. He plays like a 6'11" wing. He has lateral quickness and can take people off the dribble. Regardless of what we want to call him, that's the skillset I want. You seem to think height is what makes a player a traditional big. Jason Maxiell was 6'7", a prototypical big. Durant & Wilson are four inches taller but completely different players. I consider them both wings. If a player can defend the perimeter and score from outside in any way other than an open set shot, they aren't a traditional big.

"Their big men are a VERY important part of what they do to win."
Because they are skilled! We aren't going anywhere without skilled players. The pool of players who are both big AND quick/skilled is small. I don't think many will be available to us in the portal. Obviously if we can land one we should. The dividing point here is size OR quick/skilled. Most college basketball players have only one or the other. I don't like that we think size is so important that we haven't had skilled bigs for last 5 seasons.

There are a number of points here. The clips that you provide show Grant Nelson against North Carolina and whatever teams that SDSU were playing at the time. North Carolina is not really known for its defense. So, it is not hard to see how Nelson can get to the rim or have a monster game against them. I have seen Nelson play, he is a good player. However, I do not think his defensive game is nothing like Skillings'. Nelson has the size to truly play the 4 and the 5. Sometimes Miller will play Skillings at the four, but that matchup does not favor UC. Remember, it was Skillings who was on Disu (Texas) when he hit the shot that led to the shot that lost UC the game. As for Nelson, let's see what he does against a more defensive minded team, UCONN, this weekend. There should be some really good matchups in that game. Gillis is a small forward / wing. Simas' game is much more aggressive than Gillis'. To me there is a big difference in the way Gillis plays vs Simas. Simas is much more of a volume shooter. The good thing is, we can watch Gillis play this weekend as well.

Do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying that a guy's size makes him good. Even if a player is big, he still needs some skills. Nevertheless, there have been teams that won the national championship with two bigs that did NOT score, but they played defense and rebounded. The UCONN team that won the NCAA Tourney with Kimba Walker had two African big men that could NOT score a lick. However, Jim Calhoun found a way to get wins. Also, the UCONN team that won the national championship, with Shabazz Napier and Boatright (both were guards under 6'1"), had one big that scored a little but he mostly played defense and rebounded. My point is this, a team can win with bigs that are not highly skilled scorers. However, they must be good defenders and rebounders. Also, hitting free throws is always a plus. More importantly, these teams MUST have good coaching and very good guard play. I have been watching basketball a very long time and I can only remember a few smaller teams winning it all. The last NCAA team that was smallish to win it all, that I can remember, was Villanova (their last NCAA Championship). That team had a 6'9" forward that played in the paint and another 6'7" perimeter-oriented forward. As I recall, that team also had one backup big man (6'8" / 6'9" or something like that) that never shot the ball. So that team played 4 out and 1 in. One thing for sure this year, we know a big team is going to win the NCAA.