The College Basketball Blog: 2010 NCAA Tournament Predictions

2010 NCAA Tournament Predictions

The tournament is upon us. Sports freaks, your yearly reward for caring about the games more than the garbage everybody else cares about (reality TV, politics, religion) is coming up in less than 24 hours. Before I give you my picks, I’ve got one or two things to say. Not as much as last year because I no longer claim “full time student/welder’s assistant” and I have to get up tomorrow morning.

Like most of you I struggle to remember life before I knew March Madness. I’ve been filling brackets out and entering pools for more than 20 years. Over this time I’ve developed my own strategy and it’s this topic that I will expound upon here. The following are just some basic guidelines that I try to keep in mind when filling out my bracket.

Bracket Theory

1. You don’t have to be an expert and you shouldn’t try to be one if you’re not already. Look folks, unless your job involves covering college basketball or you’re an idiot savant it’s very difficult to be truly familiar with every NCAA basketball team. There are just too many teams. Only a small number of teams are ever on television and even if every team was on TV there wouldn’t be enough time to watch it all. Not to mention the fact that rosters are constantly changing because of players leaving for the NBA, graduation, and the increasing number of players transferring to and from different teams each year. The point is that almost nobody is going to know all about each team in the tournament the way that your average die hard pro football fan knows about every NFL team. And to be honest, I don’t think the so-called “experts” have any advantage over the rest of us. Obviously the brackets can be fluky. We’ve all seen or heard about somebody’s mom basing her picks on team colors and ending up winning the pool. But I also think that the guys who actually do know the makeup and background of each and every team outthink themselves at tourney time. A lot of the guys who follow the game for a living are notoriously bad at picking the bracket. I always read the preseason magazines and I watch games during the season but most of my knowledge comes from betting. This has always been enough for me to do as well or better than most of the experts. I think it’s a mistake to go on a 3 or 4 day cram session to try and become well acquainted with the roster and style of each and every team prior to making your picks. Again, unless you have a photographic memory and a ridiculously high attention span you’re just going to end up getting confused. It’s even worse to go seeking the advice of the experts and basing some or all of your picks on their opinions. Again, they don’t know who’s going to win; nobody knows. So make up your own mind and don’t be swayed by “insiders.”

2. It’s all about matchups…but nobody knows which matchups matter until after the game. You’ll hear a lot of dogmatic analysts clamoring on and on to all of us who “didn’t play the game” about how the NCAA Tournament is all about matchups. Of course in every sport it’s true that some teams are going to “match up better” against certain teams than they do against others. I guess the point is that it’s not always about the “best” team and that a certain amount of luck is involved based on which teams you have to play. I get all of that and I believe it is a factor. But it isn’t some secret formula that will reveal which team is going to win every game. If that were the case then the experts on TV wouldn’t consistently pick the same number of games correctly as your dog.

How many times have you heard about how some team is a “bad matchup” for so-and-so? You can go ahead and ignore those claims most of the time. Why? Well first of all many of those claims are based on perception and not necessarily reality. When the analysis is actually accurate then matchups are important in many settings. However, I think the “bad matchup” theory is particularly useless in the NCAA tournament. It’s a single elimination tournament played on a neutral court by a bunch of teenagers and the games only last 40 minutes. Depending on how things play out, the issues that led people to see a “bad matchup” may be rendered irrelevant. I’ll give you a couple of examples:

Example 1: Team A has a giant big man who is strong offensively and an imposing defender. Team B has no one big enough to guard him. Also, Team B likes to drive to the basket but the big man will be able to change shots and keep guys from getting into the paint. Clearly, this is a bad matchup for Team B, right? Okay, but then the refs call 2 touch fouls on the big man in the first 5 minutes and he sits out the rest of the 1st half. He gets a 3rd foul early in the 2nd half and plays cautiously on defense the rest of the night. So that whole situation never materialized.

Here’s another example: Team A is an up and down, fast paced team that likes to run and score lots of points. They struggle at times when forced to play a half court game and when they aren’t scoring they get frustrated and don’t play good defense. Team B likes to drain the shot clock and use all the time on each possession and slow the tempo way down, minimizing the number of possessions for the other team. It sounds like Team A is staring down the barrel of a “bad matchup.” But Team B comes out nervous and turns it over a few times early and gets off to a bad start shooting. Team A is full of energy early and gets in a few dunks and runs out to a 15 point lead. Now Team B is going to have to make a big comeback, something they aren’t built for, and suddenly it is Team B who doesn’t match up well.

Long story short, don’t worry so much about how the rosters and styles of the different teams matchup against each other because this isn’t a 7 game series and chances are these teams haven’t faced each other very often (if at all) and they don’t have much time to work on scouting reports and strategies. In the end, many of these supposed mismatches will actually be non-factors.

3. Be Ye Careful of Stereotyping. I love to argue about which conferences are the best and which ones are down or overrated or whatever. If you have a theory about teams from a certain conference you could use that when picking your bracket and it might be helpful. But I would advise against picking all the teams from one conference to fare one way or the other. It rarely plays out that way. Yes, there have certainly been years when one conference dominates or when one conference embarrasses itself but normally there’s at least one “outlier.” I can think of a number of instances in which the top teams from a conference went out early and a team with double digit losses from that conference who barely got into the tournament made an inexplicable run to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. If you’ve felt one way about a conference all year then stick with that theory but don’t overdo it.

4. Location, Location, Location…isn’t that important. The pod systems have certainly had an effect on the tournament. The higher seeded teams are less likely to be upset because they play close to home and don’t find themselves playing in front of hostile crowds who are always quick to root for the underdog. But other than making it less likely for the top seeds to go out early I don’t think location is as big of an issue as people make it. Look, there’s no question that home court advantage is an enormous factor in college basketball, but in the tourney nobody is playing a true home game. All the games are played at large arenas and the crowds are not filled with drunk students. The tickets are doled out to all the different schools as well as to corporate douches that don’t have a dog in the fight. There have been a number of instances since the origin of the pod system in which people have hyped up the supposed “home court advantage” of one team or another. More often than not it turns out to be a non-factor. I’ve definitely fallen into the trap of basing a pick on location but it shouldn’t be more than a tie-breaker. Don’t go against a team you think would win just because the game is being played in the other team’s home state. Yes, at times the crowd is overwhelmingly in favor of one team but it’s still closer to a neutral court than it is to a road game. And don’t forget that these teams are in the tournament because they’re pretty good and almost every team has had at least some success on the road.

5. Use Vegas. For the constant gambler using the first round spreads and the individual team odds as a tool when filling out the bracket is something that comes naturally. But many people who rarely bet don’t think to look at what Vegas is saying before filling out their bracket. Obviously you don’t base everything on the Vegas odds but it can be a useful tool. Back in the day I used to have trouble distinguishing between underdogs that could pull off an upset and major long shots that had almost no chance. If you have an itch to pick a #13 over a #4 and you find that the spread is 12.5 it might not be worth it. If you see that a #11 seed is only a 2.5 point underdog against a #6 seed then that’s probably a better place to look for an upset. You can also look at the odds of each #1 seed to reach the Final Four. If one team’s odds are closer to the #2 and #3 seeds than they are to the other #1 seeds than maybe that’s the #1 seed you can pick to miss the Final Four. Obviously the odds don’t mean everything but they can be helpful, particularly in the first round when you’re dealing with mid-majors and low-majors that all have great records against questionable competition.

6a. Remember that you can’t win the tournament on the first day but you can lose it. The first and second round games are often the ones that we spend the most time thinking about. In my opinion, the first weekend of the tournament is the highlight of March Madness. That being said, in most bracket pool formats the later rounds are worth more than the early rounds. You don’t want to be overly vanilla in the first round because you can always count on there being at least a couple of upsets. However, it’s more important that you stay away from going berserk and overdoing it with upsets in the early rounds. There’s no real reason to take major risks because it’s only the first round (if you’re in a pool that values upsets more than other wins then obviously this isn’t necessarily the case; still it’s better to pick a few upsets than to pick a slew). If you take too many double digit seeds to win you can destroy your bracket because you won’t be getting points later on when everyone else who picked the high seeds will be.

6b. It’s the later rounds that count, so stick with the best teams. In most cases look for chalk with a twist. In the late rounds you mostly want to go with the very top seeds and then look for a few 3’s, 4’s or 5’s who might advance past their seeding. Points 6a and 6b represent the heart of my overall strategy. If you follow these two basic rules you will normally be in the hunt to win your pool. True, you might win if you have a more “unique” bracket but more often than not you would just be out of it early or end up well back of the pack. Using my strategy you’re going to be in it more often than not deep into the tourney and that’s really the point because that’s what makes the tourney fun. And if you pick the right “twist” (for example: the #3 seed that makes the Final Four; the #5 seed that makes the elite 8) you have a good chance to finish 1st.

7. Don’t pick upsets just to pick upsets. You know that there are always a few upsets but you shouldn’t worry that you’re not picking enough upsets if you look at it and it just seems like it’s going to be a chalk tournament. You could end up being right and more than likely you won’t be out of it even if there are a lot of early upsets because you’ll still likely have most of your Elite Eight and Final Four teams in.

8. Don’t even think about #1, #2 or #3 seeds in the first round. The first thing you do when you get your bracket is pencil in the top 3 seeds from each region for the second round. Since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985 #1 seeds are 100-0 in the 1st round and #2 seeds are 96-4 in the 1st round. #3 seeds have lost 15 times in 100 first round games but that’s still nearly a 90% winning percentage. Plus, since #3 seeds are almost as likely as #2 seeds to advance in the later rounds it’s not worth picking them to lose this early. And again, it’s only the 1st round so while it would be impressive if you happened to call the #14 over #3 upset it wouldn’t do all that much for your chances of winning the pool. On the other hand, if you make the call for the #14 seed to win and they don’t it could end up putting you out of the running.

9. Go ahead and advance the #1 and #2 seeds to the Sweet Sixteen. Some might argue with this because #7 seeds and #10 seeds occasionally make runs but I don’t think it’s worth picking the top seeds to lose before the Sweet 16 because it happens so infrequently. Not only that, if you think a #1 or #2 seed is vulnerable you can still play it somewhat safe and pick them to lose to a #4 or #3 seed in the Sweet 16 and if they happen to lose in the 2nd round it would still be very good for you because your pick in the next round would now look solid.

10. When possible, pair first round upsets with strong bets to make the Sweet 16. If there is a #4 seed that you think will almost certainly make the Sweet 16 and the #12 seed in that region is dangerous, always pick that #12 seed to win in the first round. If the #12 seed wins then you get the upset. If they lose, you’ll still hopefully be okay because you’re not expecting that #5 seed to go any farther.

11. Pick no more than 1 or 2 double digit seeds to make the Sweet 16. We all know that at least 1 double digit seed often makes it to the 2nd week. However, there’s no reason to take more than 1 or 2 at the most because there are almost never more than that.

12. Don’t put any double digit seeds in the Elite Eight. It rarely happens and if it does happen the chances are that no one else will have picked it right either. And anyone who did pick it right is probably screwed everywhere else.

13. When you’re trying to find that double digit seed that’s going to make some noise look for low seeded majors. While it’s true that a few double digit seeds normally have success in the first 2 rounds, it’s actually often a team from a major conference who ends up being “Cinderella.” This has certainly been the case in recent years. To a lesser extent I believe the reverse strategy works as well. If you’re looking for a higher seed that could get knocked out early you might want to look for mid majors who might not be as good as their seed suggests.

14. Almost invariably at least 1 “hot” team will lose early and at least 1 “slumping” team will make a run. This one is hard to follow because your gut tells you that a team on a roll will continue to roll and a team slumping is ripe for an early exit. However, it’s worth trying to find one of the teams who might experience a reversal of fortune because it’s something that most people will not have correct.

15. When it comes down to it, go with what you think will happen, don’t worry about what everyone else thinks, and don’t worry if your bracket predicts the unusual. In each of the last 5 seasons one of the tried and true March Madness rules of thumb has been broken. The point is, even if your bracket doesn’t seem to make sense, if it’s what your gut tells you, go with it.


Now, on to this year’s tournament. Over the last few years I’ve written a lot about how March has been much less mad in recent years. Going into this season I thought that perhaps this year the tournament might have a few more surprises than it has the last 3 years. Even throughout the regular season there were moments where I thought, “You know, I may have been wrong. Maybe the Madness will return in full force this spring.” I was prepared to pick a lot of upsets this year but when I actually got a look at the bracket I still didn’t see it. True, there are less great teams this year, but there are also less really good teams, and less good teams. It’s not just the top level that is down a notch, it’s the entire field. I just don’t see this year being that much different from the last 3 chalky tournaments. I could be wrong but that’s how I see it. Anyway, here are my picks.


Midwest

First Round

#1 Kansas over #16 Lehigh
#2 Ohio State over #15 UC-Santa Barbara
#3 Georgetown over #14 Ohio
#4 Maryland over #13 Houston
#5 Michigan State over #12 New Mexico State
#11 San Diego State over #6 Tennessee
#7 Oklahoma State over #10 Georgia Tech
#9 Northern Iowa over #8 UNLV

Second Round

#1 Kansas over #9 Northern Iowa
#2 Ohio State over #7 Oklahoma State
#3 Georgetown over #11 San Diego State
#4 Maryland over #5 Michigan State

Regional Semifinals

#1 Kansas over #4 Maryland
#2 Ohio State over #3 Georgetown

Regional Final

#1 Kansas over #2 Ohio State


West

First Round

#1 Syracuse over #16 Vermont
#2 Kansas State over #15 North Texas
#3 Pittsburgh over #14 Oakland
#4 Vanderbilt over #13 Murray State
#12 UTEP over #5 Butler
#6 Xavier over #11 Minnesota
#7 BYU over #10 Florida
#8 Gonzaga over #9 Florida State

Second Round

#1 Syracuse over #8 Gonzaga
#2 Kansas State over #7 BYU
#3 Pittsburgh over #6 Xavier
#12 UTEP over #4 Vanderbilt

Regional Semifinals

#1 Syracuse over #12 UTEP
#2 Kansas State over #3 Pittsburgh

Regional Finals

#1 Syracuse over #2 Kansas State





East

First Round

#1 Kentucky over #16 East Tennessee State
#2 West Virginia over #15 Morgan State
#3 New Mexico over #14 Montana
#4 Wisconsin over #13 Wofford
#5 Temple over #12 Cornell
#6 Marquette over #11 Washington
#10 Missouri over #7 Clemson
#8 Texas over #9 Wake Forrest

Second Round

#1 Kentucky over #8 Texas
#2 West Virginia over #10 Missouri
#3 New Mexico over #6 Marquette
#5 Temple over #4 Wisconsin

Regional Semifinals

#1 Kentucky over #5 Temple
#2 West Virginia over #3 New Mexico

Regional Final

#1 Kentucky over #2 West Virginia




South

First Round

#1 Duke over # 16 Arkansas-Pine Bluff
#2 Villanova over #15 Robert Morris
#3 Baylor over #14 Sam Houston State
#13 Siena over #4 Purdue
#12 Utah State over #5 Texas A&M
#11 Old Dominion over #6 Notre Dame
#7 Richmond over #10 St. Mary’s
#8 California over #9 Louisville

Second Round

#1 Duke over #8 California
#2 Villanova over #7 Richmond
#3 Baylor over #11 Old Dominion
#12 Utah State over #13 Sienna

Regional Semifinals

#1 Duke over #12 Utah State
#3 Baylor over #2 Villanova

Regional Finals

#3 Baylor over #1 Duke





National Semifinals

#1 Kansas over #1 Syracuse
#1 Kentucky over #3 Baylor

National Championship

#1 Kansas over #1 Kentucky