Four years ago, George Mason delivered one of the most remarkable NCAA Tournament performances in history when the Patriots reached the Final Four, knocking off heavyweights like Michigan State, North Carolina and Connecticut in the process. The storm clouds of major upsets appear to be gathering once again, and this year’s bracket busters might hail from the Beehive State, better known as Utah.
Besides George Mason’s unlikely run, 2006 also saw LSU reach the Final Four as a No. 4 seed, and all four No. 1 seeds failed to make it past the Elite Eight. No. 3-seed Florida emerged as a worthy champion by dominating George Mason, whose clock had struck midnight, and No. 2-seed UCLA. Of millions of part-time bracket experts, how many picked even three out of the eventual Final Four? Was the success of Florida and George Mason totally unpredictable?
In retrospect, the 2006 madness was not totally surprising. That field had some of the worst top seeds of any NCAA Tournament since 2004, based on Ken Pomeroy’s efficiency ratings. In the past 10 years, 80 percent of all Final Four participants have been No. 1, 2 or 3 seeds. With 20 percent of the Final Four participants seeded No. 4 or worse, it shouldn’t seem all that surprising when one reaches the Final Four. But upon closer inspection, those teams tend to crash the Final Four in tandem every few years. Seven of the eight teams seeded No. 4 or worse reached the Final Four in three tournaments: 2000, 2005 and 2006.
In 2006, the 12 No. 1, 2 and 3 seeds formed one of the worst sets of top teams of the 72 teams that had those seeds since 2004. Of those 72 teams, none of the 2006 top seeds had an offensive efficiency ranked in the top 23. Four of the teams counted among the six worst offenses, based on efficiency. And Memphis had the second-worst offensive efficiency of any No. 1 seed since 2004.
And those top seeds weren’t especially proficient on defense either. Only one top seed ranked among the top 14 in defensive efficiency. That team, Iowa, was the most unbalanced top-seeded team since 2004, and No. 14-seed Northwestern State capitalized on the Hawkeyes’ disproportionate attack by producing one of the biggest first-round upsets of the decade. Although Iowa was great on defense, No. 3-seed Gonzaga and No. 2-seed Tennessee were borderline miserable. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Volunteers lost to No. 7-seed Wichita State in the second round. Adam Morrison’s Bulldogs made it to the Sweet 16 with the most efficient offense of 2006 before running into the stifling defense of UCLA.
As conference tournaments come to a close this season, only two teams — Kansas and Duke —have the offensive and defensive efficiency ratings that should scare opponents. Their efficiency ratings most closely resemble the profiles of seven other teams seeded No. 1, 2 or 3 since 2004. Of those seven teams, five made the Final Four, and two won the national championship.That’s not to say that the Jayhawks and Blue Devils are a shoo-in, but they look like good bets to reach the Final Four.
However, outside Duke and Kansas, most of the rest of the top teams have weaknesses. None of the other top teams would rank among the top 32 teams seeded No. 1, 2 or 3 since 2004 in offensive efficiency. If Kentucky earns a No. 1 seed, the Wildcats would have the third-worst offensive efficiency of any No. 1 seed since 2004. Purdue and Pittsburgh are even less efficient on offense and would rank among the worst of the top seeds.
This year’s field also looks suspect on defense. Three of the four teams likely to be No. 3 seeds — New Mexico, Villanova and Pittsburgh — have defenses that would rank among the bottom 20 percent of top seeds since 2004. No defense would crack the top 20.
With a large gap in efficiency between Kansas and Duke and the rest of the top teams, the 2010 NCAA Tournament could produce another wild ride in which a No. 4 seed or lower reaches the Final Four. And if you’re looking to spot the LSU/George Mason duo of 2010, look no further than Utah, home of Utah State and BYU.
The Aggies and Cougars have the efficiency profiles of teams that are just waiting to take advantage of a favorable draw in the tournament. Both teams rank among the top 15 in offensive efficiency. BYU also is in the top 15 for defensive efficiency. In addition to having great teams, one of them could easily have the luxury of playing regional games in Salt Lake City. Although the selection committee will protect better seeds from an unfavorable location in the first and second rounds, the committee doesn’t make the same considerations for Sweet 16 and Elite Eight games.
Utah State has a particularly dangerous profile for a team likely to be seeded No. 9 or worse. The Aggies are excellent shooters, both from three-point territory and inside the arc. Although they hit 42.2 percent of their three-point attempts, they don’t rely on the long ball for scoring, getting 28.0 percent of their scoring from behind the arc, which is in the middle of the pack among Division I teams. Utah State plays a slow-paced game and doesn’t turn the b all over. They also don’t allow opponents to grab offensive rebounds. For underdogs, each possession matters, and Utah State is accustomed to playing that way already.
BYU has a remarkably similar profile for a team that plays at nearly the exact opposite tempo. Projected to be about a No. 5 or 6 seed, the Cougars like to get up the court and rank in the top 20 for tempo this season. They shoot 41.6 percent from three-point range and 51.7 percent from inside the arc. Like the Aggies, the Cougars are one of the best teams in the nation at avoiding turnovers and collecting defensive rebounds. BYU also is good at forcing turnovers, ranking in the top 10 percent at forcing opponents to make mistakes. With the team’s excellent shooting and pressure defense, the Cougars have the firepower necessary to rally if necessary or extend a lead if a better-seeded opponent starts to panic.
It has been four years since a team seeded worse than No. 3 has reached the Final Four. Cinderella seemed content to head home early and watch the best teams compete for the national championship with the rest of us. Will this year mark Cinderella’s return to college basketball’s biggest stage? LIke many other optimistic tourney teams, Utah State and BYU hope they can pull off a fairy tale run that culminates with a trip to Indianapolis and the Final Four.
