Tossing Batting Practice while wondering why you would ever cheer when the cameras come on you, and you’re announced as a 16 seed…

I’ve spent way too much time in my life, finding ways to cheat the system, and succeed in the NCAA “Brackets” (remember its not a pool, gambling is very very bad, shame on you!)
Perhaps I should devote more time to what DR. Emmett L. Brown once said was “the other great mystery in life, women.” But I digress.

The most productive, yet not completely scientific formula of that was spent on Gatehouse Media’s dime, and uses a little of the Bill Jamesian corollary.
Basketball is a largely difficult sport to quantify using just statistics however it can be done. I try to do it every year, as one of my basic tenets in filling out a bracket is finding teams that do a number of things well (novel concept I know) and in those tough games I compare the numbers against two teams.
What I discovered is that if you can successfully pick as many sweet 16 teams as possible, you’ll be in the running for your bracket championship. First round upsets are nice, but they’re only worth one or two points, and won’t leave much of a lasting impression.
As such I aim to get the sweet 16 right, and hope things take care of themselves from there.
What I look for is a team that ranks in the top 30 nationally in at least four categories and pinpoint them as a potential sweet 16 team. Sometimes the smaller conference teams rate highly in a bunch because they play poor competition, but sometimes they don’t and its up to you to determine what’s an important category and what isn’t.
I look are three point offense and defense, rebounding, turnovers, and free throws as most important but it’s subjective.

For perspective George Mason thrived in 5 statistical categories in 2006, there are other examples, and while it seems rather obvious, sometimes when you go back and look at teams that were allegedly “upset” they only did one thing well, like Duke last year upset in the second round, only did three things well.
This season the NCAA has added a couple new Categories, so I’m going to increase the number to five categories in the top 30 make a sweet 16 team. It’s not scientific, but if you know what teams do well and what they don’t you can help determine who’s going to win those games you usually flip a coin on.

One wrinkle I added last year was the adjusted rankings, because sometimes offensive and defensive scoring numbers are skewed because teams play fast or slow, thus efficiency on offense and defense are far more important.

Traditionally I have found between 8-13 teams per season, depending on the parity of the NCAA will excel in at least four (this year I’m trying 5 to experiment, but 4 might still be the working model) categories, as I look at the numbers sometimes a team may not excel, (i.e. top 30) but might do a lot above average (between 31-65) those are usually the teams that throw the wrinkle off.

I wrote 46 teams breakdowns out on who has a shot at the sweet 16, they were don before the brackets came out, I mean I’m not going to do all your work for you, and make the picks.
Below you will find the teams, the first 25 are the latest top 25 poll, after that they’re in no particular order. I shied away from a lot of 8 and 9 seeds because they almost never make the sweet 16 and it was kind of a waste of an hour of my life to research them. Some of them are done because I had them higher or lower earlier in the week.
The way it works is the team, and then how many categories they excel in, followed by their adjusted for pace rankings, and some notes.

I don’t expect anyone to read them all, but feel free to look for the teams you aren’t sure about and hopefully they help, unless you’re in the pool I am in. Then screw off.


Team – (Number of categories in top 30) Adj off/def…notes

North Carolina (9) 1/23...Is the best offensive team in the country, high FG%, doesn’t turn it over, defensive numbers are skewed by the fast pace they play. Real active on defense, forces a lot of turnovers, probably unbeatable in a track meet. Their rebounding margin, and A/TO ratio are incredible and debunk some of the myths about their lack of toughness.

Louisville (5) – 46/2…Slightly above average offense and defense numbers, tremendous FG% defense, shoots and defends the three well; unselfish (doesn’t rely on one scorer) Free throws are a problem.

Pittsburgh (6) 3/38…Offensively they’re a little stronger than Pitt teams of the past, defensively they’re weaker. Near the top in rebounding margin, so they can overpower weaker teams, but probably don’t shoot from outside well enough to beat a tougher team.
If Blair gets in foul trouble all bets are off. They don’t turn the ball over, and get a lot of easy buckets, but could struggle against a tough defensive team that can shoot from outside.

UConn (6) 22/3…Very strong and can over power teams, but struggle to make shots from outside, and not great from the line. If they end up at the Garden there’s no way they lose in the regionals. Defensively they wear you out, and can probably only be beaten by a Big East team, or UNC unless Thabeet gets in foul trouble early. However a superhuman effort from a guard could get them.

Memphis (7) 43/1…Numbers are skewed slightly because they play awful competition, but they defend like crazy inside and on the perimeter, they rebound and don’t turn the ball over too much. Offensively they struggle from the field, and at the line and suck from beyond the arc. A sound halfcourt team that executes on offense will give them the most trouble, provided they can defend a little bit.

Oklahoma (4) 7/47… Not as statistically sound as one would like. The things they excel in (FG% and rebound margin) are essentially because Griffin is the POY, he hasn’t been the same since the concussion and neither has OU. They are an average shooting team and average defensively; they turn it over too much and don’t force enough. It all hinges on Griffin and who they matchup with.

Wake Forest (6) 34/14…They score pretty easily, but are terrible beyond the arc; are actually sound defensively forcing steals and turnovers. They are the youngest team in the top 10 and it shows at times turning the ball over too much; a bad matchup against a team like Louisville or Memphis

Duke (3) 6/13…This is one of those anomalies sometimes because it doesn’t doing anything exceptionally well, but doesn’t do anything badly either. Their adjusted numbers make up for not hitting the magic number of 4. Only an average shooting team, so a tough perimeter defending team could be a problem. Probably a Sweet 16 team but no more, could be upset in the 2nd round against an athletically superior small conference opponent.

Michigan St. (2) 27/10…We’ll know after the first weekend if the big 10 was better than we thought or it sucked. They struggle at the foul line, and don’t force a lot of turnovers, but make scoring difficult, and rebound like crazy. If a more skilled team matches their toughness they’re done.

Villanova (1) 19/26…They are a guard oriented team that doesn’t shoot the three well, and turns it over more than it should the toughness of the Big East should help them. A team with some size that gets after it defensively would be a tough matchup.

Kansas (4) 20/16…I haven’t liked them all season, but the things they excel at are important, the shoot well, and defend on the perimeter well, rebounding they are solid, but much of that is Aldrich, who is foul prone. They turn it over a little too much, and don’t force many mistakes. A good shooting team that doesn’t turn it over will send them home. As could an athletically superior team.

Gonzaga – (8) 5/12…Their numbers are skewed as well because of poor competition, and they crapped the bed against Memphis at home, They can play fast or slow, and defend well inside. However a team that shoots the 3 well, or a big strong team inside like a Big 10 or Big East team will eventually send them home.

Washington (2) 33/11…They can score, but mainly because they play at a fast pace; they don’t force many turnovers, and give it away too much, and don’t shoot the three well What they do, do well is rebound, and score on offensive rebounds. A team that can match their rebounding, and shoot well eliminates them.

Missouri (6) 16/15…They play a frenetic pace, so they score a ton, and defend pretty well, they don’t turn it over much either; but they struggle to rebound, and make free throws, foul trouble is a problem too, so a good FT shooting team that gets into the bonus early could send them home.
But a legit sleeper pick, especially if they don’t win the Big 12 tourney.

UCLA (5) 2/45…One of the most efficient offensive teams in the country, but doesn’t defend well, compared to UCLA teams of the past, they do still force a lot of turnovers, but allow a lot of easy baskets, a team that shoots well and defends the interior will send them home, but could be a tough out for a lot of pretenders or teams without experience.

Butler (2) 59/46…The don’t allow easy baskets, and will likely win a first round game if they get another mid-major, but that’s as far as they’ll go. They don’t do anything else really well, and you can’t beat good teams that way.
Clemson (4) 9/51…They can score and shoot the ball well, but defensively they suck, and they don’t rebound very well either, they could be first round fodder for a good statistically sound mid-major.

Syracuse (6) 12/37…The orange have good scoring numbers, and defend the three well; they don’t shoot free throws well, and turn the ball over a little too much, but if they aren’t gassed from the Big East Tourney they could be a tough out.
They don’t foul much (UConn only shot 22 free throws in that 6ot epic) so they make teams earn their points, which could be a tough thing for an offensively challenged team to do to beat them.

Xavier (4) 40/24…They defend well and shoot the 3 at a high percentage, and they can rebound. What scares me is the turn the ball over a lot, struggle at the foul line, and don’t create a lot of turnovers either. A good shooting team that defends on the perimeter can send them packing.

LSU (3) 47/56…The SEC sucked this year, and these numbers prove it, I the Tigers don’t really do anything well except rebound , block shots, and shoot free throws. All nice things, and their athleticism might help over a mid-major, but they’ll fall to a more skilled team that can match the athleticism.

Marquette (4) 8/55…The things they do well, are all guard oriented but they only have half that tandem now with the injury to Domenic James. They are poor defensively in all facets, and will bow out to a superior offensive team that exploits those defensive deficiencies.

Florida State (2) 113/9…Defensively they’re strong in a conference not known for much defense, but are poor offensively. Couple that with no tournament experience, and you can pencil them out early. They turn the ball over a lot, and don’t shoot very well.

Arizona St. (7) 11/28… They’re in the top 30 in 7 categories, and top 35 in 10. So they are statistically strong almost everywhere. They are suspect rebounding, and while they’re efficient on offense, getting into a track meet probably doesn’t suit them. They are a strong sleeper, with two big time scorers, a solid defense, and good coaching in the tournament (remember those multiple sweet 16 trips Herb Sendek made at NC St.)

Arizona (2) 7/132…They shoot the ball well, but don’t defend very well from the field, or in forcing turnovers. If they get a bad defensive team they could last a game or two but anyone who can score and defend even a little sends them home.

USC (1) 62/19…They defend very well, and rebound and could steal a game with that combination, an efficient offensive team that forces turnovers is their bad matchup.

BC (1) 27/131…They are here on the strength of two wins, perhaps my BC bias is taking over but I just don’t believe in them at all to do much of anything.

Minnesota (2) 88/20….They defend pretty well, but struggle to score and shoot, they also turn it over too much.

Wisconsin (3) 24/60 Typical Wisconsin team, defends, doesn’t foul or turn it over, they’re pretty efficient on offense though, could make for a surprise.

Michigan (5) 41/67…Like his WVU teams of the past John Belien leads in a lot of seemingly random categories that add up to March success, three point shooting, few turnovers, very few fouls, the contrast is their efficiency numbers aren’t as high as I’d like. They struggle to rebound, and don’t shoot a high percentage, could be a first round winner, unlikely beyond that unless they are matched up with a team that hasn’t seen the 1-3-1 on defense before it’s tough to prepare for on short notice.

Texas (1) 46/27…They don’t do a lot very well, they don’t do a lot poorly either other than shooting threes, however if Abrams gets hot he could be a difference maker. They defend pretty well and rebound.

Dayton (1) 144/41…Don’t do much well, they defend pretty good, but they struggle to score, or shoot from anywhere, and they turn it over a little too much.




BYU (6) 24/17….Another intriguing option, they shoot the ball well, and defend very well. Obviously against inferior competition, but provided they don’t draw an ultra athletic team early they could stick around through the first weekend.

Purdue (5) 67/5…The only other Big 10 team I like besides Mich. St. Purdue’s offensive numbers aren’t good because their best player has been hurt all year. They don’t shoot that well, but if Hummel is healthy that’s an upgrade. Rebounding is an issue for them, which is odd given how well they defend/

Cleveland St. (3) 121/30…An intriguing team defensively, they get after you, force turnovers, and steals, and preotect the ball offensively, they don’t rebound well and aren’t a good shooting team, but getting into a track meet with them and they could upset you.

California (5) 10/87…They are the best 3 point shooting team in the country, but they only make about 6 a game, they shoot very well, and don’t turn it over, defensively they aren’t very good, so a team that struggles to score, or doesn’t defend well could kepp them alive, but teams that do defend will make it tough for them.

Akron (3) 153/50 Doesn’t shoot very well or rebound well, is pretty good defensively, but unless they get a big 10 team that struggles to score they’ll be going home early.

Illinois (6) 96/4…They are so efficient on defense and make it difficult to score, but some of that is a product of the big 10, some of it isn’t. On offense it’s the same story, The loss of their PG who may or may not be back will be an issue as well because they don’t turn it over and move the ball with him, but without him not so much.

Western Kentucky (0) 68/168 They shoot the three ok, and are decent on the glass, but I don’t see a duplicate of last year’s first round magic.

West Virginia (5) 16/7They defend the three, rebound, and don’t turn it over, however unlike WVU teams of the past they are a bad shooting team. They are efficient on offense and exceptionally so on defense, all in all a tough out for anyone.

Utah (4) 51/21…They are very tough defensively but they don’t force many turnovers, so matched up with a good shooting team and they’re going home. Offensively they can shoot the three at a high percentage and a terrific free throw shooting team.

Utah St. (7) 13/169…They are poor defensively especially against the three. They have a lot of good numbers because of an easy schedule, but they are very efficient offensively, they shoot very well, inside and from 3, they rebound well, don’t turn it over and stay out of foul trouble. They can win a slow down game, but not a track meet.

Texas A&M (0) 37/79….They will rebound the basketball, and that’s about it, pack lightly Aggie fans. They are an average team across the board, don’t do anything well, but nothing critically poor. Except maybe defending the three. Matched up against anyone who does anything well and they’ll be done, against another average team it’s a toss up.

Tennessee (3) 15/75 Typical UT team, they try to go up and down and play at a fast pace, they don’t shoot the three well though which is a problem because they like to chuck them up. If they can’t create turnovers on defense and score easy buckets they’re in trouble.

Siena (4) (49/89)…Everybody’s trendy pick which usually results in an early trip home. They play at a fast pace, so their defensive numbers are pretty low, but they aren’t as efficient as I would like; They don’t shoot threes well, and are poor at the line. They rely on getting easy baskets, either off the dribble, or in transition creating turnovers, which they do fairly well, almost 9 steals a game. Rebounding could be their eventual demise.


Miss. St. (2) 69/66 They shoot a ton of threes, at a decent percentage, but that’s about it. They block a ton of shots, but that’s because of Varnado. I don’t see them doing anything well enough to win in the tournament, unless they get a slow mid-major that gets into a track meet with them.

VCU (1) 75/49…Great FG% defense but doesn’t do anything else spectacular, played in a pretty tough mid-major conference; they shoot the 3 well, and are active forcing turnovers, they struggle to rebound, and foul often, so a strong rebounding and FT shooting team is their Achilles.

ND State (5) 32/139…A potential sleeper with the right matchup. Offensively they are very efficient, and shoot the ball very well, especially from three point land.
They are a pretty good rebounding team and don’t turnover it over much. Defensively they are porous, a plodding big 10 team is their ideal matchup, especially one that doesn’t shoot very well.

Maryland (2) 74/48 They shoot free throws well and don’t turn it over; they don’t shoot it that well, don’t rebound and don’t defend the three. An up and down game would be their best chance to succeed.

Northern Iowa (2) 57/127…Typical white kids, they shoot free throws well, and don’t turn it over, they aren’t strong defensively on the perimeter but if forced into a slow down game they could be knock a team off. The MVC probably wasn’t strong enough this year for them to make it to the second weekend.