Could Kansas get the monkey off its back?
The rules I've outlined previously for picking the Final Four and champion yielded mostly predictable results, with all of the No. 1 and 2 seeds in contention for a Final Four berth. However, one wild-card No. 6 seed did emerge as a semifinal contender (the Marquette Golden Eagles). Will the numbers send them to the Final Four? Read on. And if you're not happy with this model, hang tight -- this is the "high-risk strategy." I'll lay out three other strategies before the tournament tips off Thursday: one low-risk, one medium and a final "dangerously crazy strategy."
Kansas would love to raise up another trophy come April in San Antonio.
If you haven't read "Rules for picking your Final Four and champion," you might want to give it a quick skim, since I won't go into a lot of detail on why certain teams made the cut (or not). After identifying the Final Four and champion, I'll double back and fill out the rest of the bracket based on the upset and toss-up game rules spelled out in those two articles. But first things first: Here are your Final Four candidates based on the statistical model:
No. 1 seed candidates: For the first time in the three years that I've used these rules, all four top seeds meet the statistical criteria to reach the Final Four.
No. 2 seed candidates: Now this is truly amazing -- all the second seeds also have the numbers to be semifinal contenders. Last year, none of them did.
No. 3 seed candidates: And to continue the craziness, not one of the third-seeded squads had the requisite offensive firepower to be considered a Final Four candidate.
No. 4 seed candidates: Fourth-seeded squads also get shut out of the semifinal pool, since none of them met the criteria of winning eight or nine of their last 10 games.
No. 5-6 seed candidates: So the No. 3 and 4 seeds failed to meet the criteria for a Final Four contender ... there's no chance that a 5 or 6 will make it, right? Wrong. Marquette, believe it or not, met all 10 conditions to be considered in the semifinalist conversation.
Altogether, nine teams made the Final Four cut, presenting three head-to-head matchups: North Carolina versus Tennessee in the East, Kansas versus Georgetown in the Midwest, and UCLA versus Duke in the West. Boring, huh? Well, then there's the South, where three teams -- Memphis, Texas and Marquette -- are battling for the semifinal berth. In the three head-to-head matchups, all the top seeds prevail, primarily because they have higher-scoring starting units. In the one multi-candidate battle, amazingly, Marquette nosed out Memphis because the Golden Eagles' starters contributed to a higher percentage of the team's points.
Picking your champion
Your Final Four is set -- three No. 1 seeds in North Carolina, Kansas and UCLA, and one wild-card No. 6 seed in Marquette. (Hey! What kind of model is this?) Now the question is: Which one of them cuts down the nets? Based on the "champion" rules, Marquette drops out immediately since it isn't seeded No. 1 through 4. UCLA also falls by the wayside since the Bruins don't score more than 76 points per game, as the champ has for 19 straight tourneys. That leaves North Carolina and Kansas -- and the Tar Heels drop out because they're on a "bound for a fall" winning streak of 10 or more games. So, based on the Final Four/champ rules, the Kansas Jayhawks are the 2008 stats champions.
Filling out the rest of the bracket
If you slot your Final Four into the bracket, tab Kansas as the winner and advance all other Final Four candidates as far as possible, you'll take care of 31 out of the 63 games to select. Now, automatically advance all Nos. 3 and 4 seeds one round. That will take care of another eight games. With 39 games out of the way, you have only 24 more to pick. How do you do it? Refer to the toss-up and upset rules laid out in the corresponding articles.
In the first round, that means picking the 5 vs. 12, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9 games. Let's take the upset matchups first. In the much-ballyhooed 5 vs. 12 matchups, for the second straight year, not a single one of the No. 12 seeds has the historical makeup to spring an upset. (We predicted this last year, and it came to pass ... no guarantees on 2008.) Mainly, the No. 12 seeds don't have solid enough winning percentages. The only one that does -- Western Kentucky -- doesn't have a coach with tourney experience.
In the 6 vs. 11 matchups, both Kansas State and Baylor have what it takes to spring upsets. That means USC and Purdue could be making early exits.
So now it's on to the toss-up matchups. In the 7 vs. 10 games, both St. Mary's and Davidson have the offensive firepower and frontcourt strength to prevail. South Alabama falls just short because it relies too much on guards for scoring. Arizona's offense isn't prolific enough.
In the 8 vs. 9 squeaker games, No. 8 seeds Indiana and BYU have the experience and battle scars to take out their ninth-seeded foes. No. 9 seeds Kent State and Oregon stave off UNLV and Mississippi State.
With these first-round matchups and the Final Four and champion rules out of the way, you have only seven games left to pick in the second round. They are:
Washington State (4) versus Notre Dame (5)
Louisville (3) versus Oklahoma (6)
Vanderbilt (4) versus Clemson (5)
Wisconsin (3) versus Kansas State (11)
Pittsburgh (4) versus Michigan State (5)
Connecticut (4) versus Drake (5)
Xavier (3) versus Baylor (11)
In the two 3 vs. 11 upset games, Kansas State has the credentials to spring a surprise, but Baylor doesn't. So Wisconsin is out of the tourney and Xavier moves on. In the four 4 vs. 5 toss-up games, three fifth-seeded teams -- Notre Dame, Clemson and Michigan State -- all have what it takes to fend off their higher seeded opponent. Connecticut is the only No. 4 seed to advance. And in the one 3 vs. 6 game, Oklahoma pulls off a mild surprise over the Cardinals because of Jeff Capel's status as an up-and-coming coach.
You're almost done. All the Sweet 16 games were resolved through the Final Four/champ advancement rule, as were the Elite Eight games. And since we know that Kansas is predicted to prevail over North Carolina and then win the whole ball of wax, all that is left is to figure out whether UCLA or Marquette reach the title game. Since the Bruins have the longer winning streak, they earn the right to face the Jayhawks for the championship.
So there you have it: Kansas and UCLA reach the finals, with the Jayhawks cutting down the nets. This is the point in every article describing the statistical results in which I forewarn that: (a) past performance doesn't guarantee future results; and (b) even I don't pick strictly by the numbers (though I will submit an ESPN Tournament Challenge bracket with these picks so I can report on their success).
I'm a little suspicious of advancing three top seeds to the Final Four, given the parity of this year's tourney and the trend toward grind-it-out basketball, which might discount the value of high-scoring teams. Also, the Marquette pick seems a little wacky, but there's no doubt that the South region is the toughest one, with any of the top six seeds capable of making Final Four runs. As to whether Kansas can get the underachieving monkey off its back, beat a streaking North Carolina squad, then overcome the Bruins' tough defense, I leave that for you to decide.
