Your Gratuitous BracketBuster Preview

If you can will yourself to ignore all of this Kelvin Sampson excruciating minutiae fun, you may have noticed we've got our first really big, important college hoops weekend coming up. Bubbles are being formed, conference races shaping up, Gus Johnson has begun drinking 12 cups of coffee per day and to kick off the March precursor we get the BracketBusters, beginning tonight. Despite a history of bad decisions by the media and its college basketball coverage, the BracketBusters was a great idea, so it's only fitting that we take advantage of such rare competence and watch the hell out of these games. (Also, there are a ton more teams involved in this that just aren't on TV, here is a full schedule.)

I've talked about "Point of Reference Games" -- where good, under-the-radar teams finally get a nationally televised chance to give casual fans a point of reference when eventually deciding if these obscure squads are first-round losers or Sweet 16 Cinderellas -- and the BracketBusters is founded on that principle. So here is your preview of the ESPN(2) contests and a couple others that might matter in March. All games are Saturday unless listed otherwise.

And Kyle Whelliston of ESPN.com and Mid-Majority has a great preview as well but it does not include jokes about religion, mid-Westerners or one-night stands as this does.

Davidson at Winthrop, Friday 7 ET ESPN2- For a preview of this game check out Friday's Pick.

Virginia Commonwealth at Akron, 11 a.m. ET ESPN2
The Skinny: The Rams (RPI: 60) should be a bit perturbed that they didn't get a better match-up than this. That's not to say Akron (RPI: 91) isn't a good team and a road win wouldn't be impressive, but for a team looking to boost its resume in case of a pitfall in the always tough CAA Tournament, this game is an almost no-win situation. VCU, one of the best defensive teams in the country (fourth in eff. FG% defense, tops in 3-PT defense in country) is going to get what they want, which is a slow, defensive-minded game.
Key Factor: The Zips (real nickname) are a good three-point shooting team with Nick Dials and Cedric Middleton, but probably haven't seen the type of smothering ball pressure on the perimeter (not to mention the length inside that will give Akron leading scorer and recently injured Jeremiah Wood fits) that VCU will provide. Well, actually they have once, they played partial VCU clone Winthrop in December and shot 35.5 percent from the field and 7-27 from three in a 68-58 loss.
To Watch For: The one thing the Zips have going for them is that abysmal 11 a.m. starting time. A star like Eric Maynor usually isn't going to be asleep on a Friday until like 6 the following morning. I've gotta think when you're making the Walk Of Shame to the team bus, it's a bit of a disadvantage.
Final Score: VCU 62, Akron 58

George Mason at Ohio, 1 ET ESPN2
The Skinny: Both teams had an inside track on a decent at-large case until recently. Mason (RPI: 67) has lost two of four and will need some of its patented magical NCAA Tournament pixie dust again to make the dance (and will probably have to go through VCU again to do it.) Ohio (RPI: 62), which owns a win at Maryland, has lost three of its last five and is third in the East division of the MAC.
Key Factor: This game will feature some great battles on the inside with both teams strength lying in the frontcourt. Folarin Campbell and double-double man Will Thomas (16 and 10), two holdovers from the Patriots Final Four run, will match up against Jerome Tillman and double-double man Leon Williams (15 and 10), which should make entry passing, foul trouble and reliable spot up shooting the deciders (not George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief) in this game.
To Watch For: In a very deliberate game like this, you have to favor a team that executes in the half-court and takes care of the ball like George Mason. You also have to favor George Mason because it is clearly a team with divine powers and Jim Larranaga an obvious John From Cincinnati.
/references shitty, abstract TV show
Final Score: George Mason 70, Ohio 63

Creighton at Oral Roberts, 3 ET ESPN2
The Skinny: I've seen Creighton (RPI: 71) play once this year and I thought I was watching an NCAA Tournament team. Perhaps I was hallucinating. Since that game (Jan. 15 at Northern Iowa) the Blue Jays are 5-5 and 0-4 on the road, ending their at-large hopes. Although I am hearing they will still play this game anyway, so let's talk about their opponent. Gone from ORU (RPI: 46) are 12-year players Caleb Green and Ken Tutt, leaving behind a group of likely Christian Fundamentalists who have smited their Summit League opponents to a 15-1, first place conference record. Four of the Golden Eagles losses are at Texas, Texas A & M, Arkansas and Utah State, with the other two a three-point loss and an OT loss, both on the road. A win here would give them a slight chance (perhaps with the help of some divine intervention, huh? maybe?) at giving the committee something to think about.
Key Factor: This is a great Point of Reference game because if either team gets in, it will be capable of winning a game in March. Despite playing the typical mid-major game of deliberate offense, solid D and timely shooting, ORU actually has the personnel of a major conference school. They are 6-8 (Marcus Lewis) and 6-10 (Shawn King) up front which results in a solid interior defense and have decent quickness on the perimeter. Creighton is going to run a bunch of guys out there, many of whom will be part of the Korver family, play a bit quicker than most Valley teams and will try to turn pressure into turnovers.
To Watch For: God.
Final Score: Oral Roberts 73, Creighton 69

Nevada at Southern Illinois, 4:30 ET ESPNU
The Skinny: Wow! Nevada and Southern Illinois! We could see both these teams in the Elite Eight!... waits for right time to break the news...waits for it... sigh... No, retarded hoops fan, these are not the Nevada (RPI: 73) and SIU (RPI: 58) teams you are used to. These former mid-major darlings have fallen on hard times this season (and may be cooperating on a jealousy-fueled murder plot of Butler, which doesn't even return either team's phone calls anymore). Each is in third in its respective conference, but will need an auto bid to cause a Tourney ruckus.
Key Factor: We do, however get to see some really solid players, most notably Nevada's sophomore center JaVale McGee and senior forward Marcellus Kemp and Southern Illinois' Randal Falker. McGee is an NBA prospect, which means he will likely crush the hopes and dreams of Wolf Pack fans by leaving early, but hey, why should we care! Kemp put his name in last year but decided to return and is averaging 20 per game this year. Probably still gonna be a second-rounder anyway. And Randall Falker is one of the great mid-major players you'll ever see. A bruiser, great defender and improving offensive presence, Falker will be matched up on McGee and his ability to stay out of foul trouble and limit the big man will go a long way to deciding this one.
To Watch For: The Salukis' struggles this year have not carried over to their incredible home court advantage, with their only two losses coming to Indiana and Butler. Nevada doesn't have the most reliable ballhandlers so expect the crowd to smell blood and lead their oddly named squad to triumph.
Final Score: Southern Illinois 69, Nevada 60

Drake at Butler, 5 ET ESPN2
The Skinny: Ah, here we go. This is what happens when networks use common sense to pick match-ups. No one ever would have thought Drake-Butler would be a watchable game and lo and behold we have one of the best mid-major match-ups of the season. Both teams are in the NCAAs already so this is about seeding. Butler (RPI: 17) has a legit shot at a No. 3 seed while Drake (RPI: 15) is probably looking at something in the 6-8 range after losing two of the three.
Key Factor: Despite being mildly obsessed with The Drake (mostly due to the Seinfeld reference possibilities) I haven't seen them play this year. No one has. That's why this game should be so great. There is no secret to what the Bulldogs do though, which is lull you to sleep on the offensive end until they get an easy basket and never ever turn the ball over. Butler basically does the same thing, except better. You better make sure there are no gas leaks in your house when this game tips because you will be out cold before the first TV timeout (also you don't want to be poisoned, so there's that).
To Watch For: The big match-up is in the backcourt with Butler's battle-tested duo of AJ Graves and Mike Green clashing with Drake's top two scorers Josh Young and Leonard Houston. But the key to the game could be Butler freshman Matt Howard, who Drake has no answer for but tends to take himself out of games with foul trouble. When he gets going the three barrage begins and Drake doesn't defend the line all that well.
Final Score: Butler 58, Drake 48

Kent State at St. Mary's, Midnight ESPN2
The Skinny: With the Gaels (RPI: 26) already in and focused merely on vanquishing the Zags in a battle for West Coast supremacy (and I believe free Taco Bell), this is a HUGE game for Kent State (RPI: 40). The Flashes have wreaked havoc in March before and currently sit atop the MAC but have just one non-conference win (George Mason) to hang their hat on. If they travel across the country and beat a really good St. Mary's team, they should be on the good side of the Bubble, at least for the time being.
Key Factor: Kent State has a chance in this game if they slow the tempo and make St. Mary's play in the halfcourt. The Gaels are still pretty good in the halfcourt and it will be tough to slow them down in the coffin-like cozy gym they have there. But the Flashes should be happy with "a chance" to pull this one off. I do like their ability to match up with Mills in the backcourt but it's going to be tough for a small Kent team to stop Diamon Simpson and Omar Samhan. If this game was at Kent State it would be a very even match up, though.
To Watch For: Will St. Mary's, and its fans, care enough? The Gaels have third place San Diego coming in Monday and travel to Gonzaga for a vengeance game next week. Frankly they have bigger fish to fry (or tofu or whatever the fuck they eat out there). If they come out flat against a desperate, but solid mid-major this won't be a gimme.
Final Score: St. Mary's 78, Kent State 65

Wright State at Illinois State, Sunday 6:30 ET ESPNU
The Skinny: With the first-place teams in the Horizon and Valley facing off in Drake-Butler, it might overshadow another important game between the second-place teams in those leagues. Whichever team wins this might fool themselves into thinking an at-large isn't a complete pipe dream. Wright State (RPI: 70) beat Butler to earn the auto-bid last year and have beaten the Bulldogs this season, with a chance to sweep next week. Illinois State (RPI: 52) is second in a usual multi-bid Valley but is 4-5 in its last nine, a streak that began with a loss to The Drake.
Key Factor: Both teams do that whole good defense, boring offense, good shooters thing that mid-majors love so much but also both have rising stars leading their respective teams from the backcourt. Sophomores Osiris Eldridge of Illinois State and Vaughn Duggins of Wright State should be a great match-up of likely future POYs in their leagues.
To Watch For: Shifty Mid-Westerners
Final Score: Wright State 54, Illinois State 52

Kevin Love and His Magical, Cancer-Curing Outlet Passes

No, no Kevin. Blocking shots simply will not do

There was a lot of hype surrounding Kevin Love's divine entrance into the college basketball arena. And since I had seen very little of him in high school, I was forced to learn about Love through scouting reports and glowing features. They said he had a great basketball IQ, used his body well, played hard, had great post moves and had tremendous rebounding technique, which is to say, he was white. It was Love's throwback style stuffed into the body of a modern big man that had Bruins fans channeling Bill Walton. And the outlet passes. Oh, the outlet passes. As straight as Orion's arrow or a bolt of lightning from Zeus on high, Love's outlet passes rained down upon opponents with godlike precision, hitting teammates in stride and lifting them involuntarily toward the rim as they never have before. Now Love was Wes Unseld, a guy no one alive has ever seen play and whose outlet passing ability was completely obscured until Young Kevin (as Brent Musberger calls him) came around. Kinda like the recent appreciation of Chuck Norris' badassedness riding a Conan O'Brien-induced resurgence, suddenly Wes Unseld was widely considered the greatest outlet passer ever, simply because we needed someone for which to compare Love (when you Google search "Wes Unseld, outless pass" the second item is about Kevin Love). His outlet passes were like a relic from the past, using all the greatness of the past to dominate in the present.

So when Kevin Love finally took the court as a Bruin, his very unique scouting report formed a specific idea of what he would play like. Even though I knew what he looked like, I automatically assumed he would have a crew cut. He would catch the ball in the high post and mesmerize the defender by moving the ball all over the place and then zip a pass to a cutting teammate, like Walton did. He would have short shorts. He would shoot a set shot. To get a rebound he would stick his ass really far out, catch the ball, pivot and stick his elbows really far out to protect the ball. Then he would fire an outlet pass and that music from the old, grainy NBA Classic films would play (for some reason in my head this music sounds very similar to the Harlem Globetrotters theme). His post moves would be very deft but very fundamental; two dribbles into the lane, pump-fake, jump hook, cash. Unstoppability in its simplest form. He would shoot foul shots underhanded. This might sound ridiculous, but judging by this "throwback" style I had heard so much about and that his best quality was supposedly these Wes Unseld outlet passes, I had no reason to expect any typicality from Love. The legend said he was to be some big white guy, beamed from the past to coexist on the same plane as the highflyers and crossover artists.

Then I watched him play. He had a chinstrap. He shot threes. He movement wasn't labored at all, in fact, the quickness and ease of his passes were comparable to Steve Nash or Chris Paul. His rebounds and post moves were based more on body positioning and quick feet than simply being bigger than others. He seemed to be a modern but skilled big man, a lot like Tyler Hansbrough except more of a true post man or a shorter Tim Duncan (and not as good, obviously), both of whom are certainly fundamentally sound but not exactly anachronistic. Patience, I thought, once those famed outlet passes come, I shall see the light; I will appreciate Love's game on a much more cerebral level. It wasn't how he got things done, it was how he approached the game. And the outlet pass is a perfect example of that approach, one that no one else could even sniff. So I waited.

... And waited, and waited. He threw a couple long passes to Westbrook and Collison and the announcers pants bulged but ultimately the opponent (I'm not referencing a specific game but just the act of watching Love play) recovered well enough to stop the attack. So time passed and I expected the other virtues of Love's game to get some more pub. His incredible tenacity on the offensive boards, his great body positioning when catching the ball in the post, his offensively centric passing from the elbow, his ability to turn low-percentage scoring opportunities into foul shots. You know, practical shit. But nope, announcers, analysts and writers kept harping on outlet passes. If he busted out one or two great ones per game they were the "plays of the game" and were examples of "what made him so special." There were myths of his 94-foot chest passes that could hit the opposite backboard. It sounded cool, but didn't seem to make any sense. Kevin Love is not a great player because of his outlet passes and yet if a casual fan was asked to analyze Kevin Love to another casual fan, he would say, "Oh, the dude's got a chinstrap but he throws these awesome outlet passes."

So ultimately the whole point of why this sucks is that it completely misrepresents Kevin Love's game. Yes, in high school those type of passes can completely change a game, vitalize a fast break and get easy buckets. But in college, players are quicker and in the NBA they are really quicker. Consistent fast breaks come off turnovers and quick point guards, not outlet passes. So when you assess Love's NBA prospects, which many people have been critical of lately, he's suddenly this guy whose best quality is an outlet pass, something that isn't going to get him anywhere in the pros. Thus, common perception is: Love is a poor NBA prospect. Now, it's not all because of outlet passes, but that aspect is representative of a greater conception, that Kevin Love is a white, all-that's-right-with-basketball, player; just some big, pudgy kid that worked his ass off shooting and passing the ball as a kid. It puts him in contrast to his familiar "rival" OJ Mayo, a black kid with natural talent and an completely false public perception of showboating and laziness. Like Bill Simmons wrote last year, it would be some racial, old vs. new rivalry and it has become that but it's been completely perpetuated by the media. And by touting those outlet passes, analysts are just accepting the easiest, most attractive persona to give Kevin Love. The logic is: Most college basketball fans are old and white > old white people hate new flashy black players > outlet passes are an attribute of old, white basketball players > most fans will really like Kevin Love >... profit.

This type of shit is done constantly in the media, especially on ESPN. Come up with easily understandable and identifiable talking points, distribute them to the uninformed masses and watch as they assume those same opinions and gain interest in said storylines. To the average fan, Kevin Love is a big white outlet passer who works really hard and will overcome the black overlords that are trying to take over our game. And while no one will say this outright, they are thinking it. The ironic result is, because no one is expected to like his personality, a guy like OJ Mayo is touted for his natural ability, which is exactly what Kevin Love deserves. "Mayo is an unlikable lazy thug," the perception goes, "but if he actually shows some effort game you'll see something really cool! So watch anyway!"

I suppose this is a nice image for Love to have in terms of marketing, but if he's like most players and wants his all-around game to be appreciated, maybe he should get arrested or at least shove a ref or something.

If A Season Ends And You Aren't Around To See It, Does It Piss You Off?

So an odd thing happened last night. My favorite college basketball team, Syracuse, lost to South Florida, effectively ending its hopes at an NCAA bid. Before I discuss what that means to me, a brief background of my fandom.

It's very intense. I shouldn't really have to mention this because the mere fact that I'm writing a damn sports blog is probably enough proof, but I have a pretty ardent passion for sports. When it comes to my favorite teams, there is no way to just casually watch a game. No matter who they play, when they play or who is playing, I will inevitably yell at the TV, pleading with Arinze Onuaku to box out or Jim Boeheim to switch to man-to-man for once or for someone, anyone, to make a damn foul shot. There are times when I try to detach myself from the outcome, curtailing my expectations and looking at the quality of a particular Syracuse team with as much practicality as possible. "OK, they aren't going to win at Georgetown. They cannot. If they just don't get embarassed I'll be happy." Two hours later, as Jonny Flynn's game-winning heave rattles in-and-out I fall to me knees pull the hood on my sweatshirt over my face and ponder all the fortunes that would've come along with Flynn's shot going in. I go back to all the missed lay-ups, missed foul shots, bail-out fouls and foolish turnovers and now say to myself, "We should've won that game! We outplayed them!" And this happens multiple times per year. It's an emotion ingrained in the hardcore sports fan that is as instinctual as grief or love. It's unavoidable.

That being said, I'm not feeling any different today, with my squad's season essentially over, than I did yesterday. In fact, since I knew the game wasn't on TV and it was against the worst team in the conference, I forgot Syracuse was even playing last night, until I checked ESPN's scoreboard around 8 p.m. and saw the Orange down 15 or so. And when I saw it, I barely reacted. I knew the ramifications of that score holding up and I knew how likely that was, and yet there was nothing. And this concerned me as a fan. If this game had been on TV, I would've locked myself in the bathroom with a box of Girl Scout cookies screaming profanities periodically until it was empty. But when it showed up in text in front of me, I just quietly said, "Fuck" and clicked somewhere else. And today when a friend of mine reminded me what happened I had a similarly understated reaction. It seemed that my intensity wasn't the result of any special connection with my team, but just with wanting to witness a specific outcome and experience the joy/sorrow that accompanies that outcome. My fandom had nothing to do with Syracuse, just with winning. So by this logic, I should be able to turn on any game, convince myself I really care about one of the two teams and experience the same excitement I would with a game featuring my favorite team. Chances are the next time Syracuse is on, even though its season will be ostensibly over, I will still root for it with the same amount of aforementioned ardor.

And I suppose this is why gambling is so popular and I suppose there is some broader thesis on the essence of being a sports fan that would take 10,000 words to delve into and probably wouldn't serve anyone anyway. We are sports fans just because. To explain it in totality wouldn't make that next game any different. But what is kinda interesting about this little quandary, is how it relates to the debate over college basketball's regular season.

The general assumption in collegiate sports is that the college football season matters and the college basketball season does not. The reasoning being that if you lose one game in football, the whole season is over and you can lose several in basketball and still have a shot at a title. By this reasoning, singular college football games are exciting and singular college basketball games, by and large, are not as exciting (rivalries excluded). I'm not going to comment on football, I'm just using it as a counter-argument. I want to focus on the "regular season college basketball games aren't as exciting" argument and say that, after what I experienced with the South Florida loss, that is incorrect.

If the "excitement" part of any witnessed sporting event including your favorite team is based on win and loss -- and that emotional association with the outcome is unavoidable -- then isn't the context of that regular season game irrelevant? For instance, let's say your team, a top 20 team but not a title contender, is playing two games in February. One is against an in-conference team with a similar record and could be vital for conference title purposes, tournament-seeding and all that stuff. The other is against a team outside of the NCAA picture and your team is heavily favored. The former game is not on TV, the second game is. It turns out both games are extremely close and decided in the last minute. You try your best to follow the first one on Gamecast or something, keeping abreast of the score. You watch the second game from start to finish. Your team wins both games. Which experience is more exciting?

It's the TV game, even if it means significantly less in the grand scheme of things (the "grand scheme of things" being something completely undefinable in sports and yet half-heartedly assumed to be "winning"). And that's why I didn't feel that much remorse or grief when Syracuse lost to South Florida. Because it doesn't take anything away from the reason we watch sports in the first place. To be genuinely excited about something that is essentially trivial (and as an "escape" and all that other shit, you get the idea). The playoffs are a different story because the excitement of winning a title is far different than any singular game and generally rates on a separate, far-more-transcendent level of sports enjoyment but for the regular season, every game is exactly the same. If the Orange win Saturday's game against Georgetown on ESPN I will be ecstatic; it will make the rest of my day significantly better. But they still won't be a tournament team and I will know, just like the fans of 340 other Division I basketball teams, this won't be the year I reach that transcendent level of sports excitement. But just because that one moment isn't going to happen, doesn't mean all those other moments become irrelevant. It's an incredibly optimistic way to look at a singular sports season. Just like the robotic drones that play our sport say without fail in every press conference: "Just take it one game at a time."

So thanks Syracuse, for losing to an incredibly shitty South Florida team. I have a new, positive outlook on the season even if you will be achieving absolutely nothing.

The Teams That Shouldn't Quit Playing This Season

I've talked a lot about the parity/mediocrity (depending how you look at it) of this college hoops season and how the majority of the top 25 is wallowing in inconsistency. But there actually are good teams this season, teams that are not only rising above the level of mediocrity across the country, but compare favorably to some of the best teams in recent years. And while there's still a lot of basketball to be played, it's pretty obvious which teams fit that bill.

The excellent Grant Wahl at Sports Illustrated already did his "Magic 8" thing, picking the eight teams he feels can win a title (with a great critique from Rush the Court). He boasts that the national title winner has come out of that group all but once (2003) since 2000, but with eight teams, I'm not all that impressed. Instead, I'm going to lay out a formula that I have long equated with NCAA success and see which teams fit that mold. This is all based on who is best equipped to win six NCAA Tournament games in row. Nothing else.

And it's not really going to get into all the advanced stats stuff, because there are enough places to go for that (what I do use will be from KenPom.com; Ken Pomeroy is absolutely indispensable to the college hoops community, I don't know what I'd do without him).

First, for reference, here are the past seven winners
2007- Florida
2006- Florida
2005- North Carolina
2004- Connecticut
2003- Syracuse
2002- Maryland
2001- Duke

And, based on those champs, here are the ingredients for a title winner:
Capable, Go-to Perimeter Scorer: Corey Brewer, Rashad McCants, Ben Gordon, Carmelo Anthony, Juan Dixon, Jason Williams. Obviously, having one of these guys is very crucial. To win a title, a team needs someone who can take the ball at the end of the shot clock (and game clock), or just in the halfcourt setting in general, and get a basket when needed. This is also a player who can carry a team through an offensive slump use penetration to rack up fouls on opponents (and presumably make foul shots). As you can see, it doesn't necessarily have to be a guard, but a player that can shoot from the outside and use that jump shot to set up the drive.

Capable, Go-to Post Player: Al Horford, Sean May, Emeka Okafor, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Wilcox, Carlos Boozer. This one's pretty important too. If you have a post player that commands double teams, it does so much to open up the rest of the offense. And when your perimeter scorer inevitably hits a cold streak or goes up against a stifling defender, scoring needs to come from other places. One of the best ways to get knocked out of an NCAA tournament is a prolonged scoreless streak. Over the course of a season you can survive such droughts, but not in a single game setting on the second or third weekend of March Madness. So you need a variety of ways to score. This guy can also rack up fouls (and again, make the foul shots), and more importantly, do so against the opponents' rim protector. As important as making foul shots are in the NCAAs, taking them is more important because it means you are the aggressor and that you are getting an opponent out of their regular rotation.

Spot Up Three-Point Shooters: Lee Humphrey, McCants, Rashad Anderson, Gerry McNamara, Drew Nicholas, Mike Dunleavy. Most teams will have more than one three-point specialist but you get the idea. Obviously if you have a post player and perimeter scorer taking most of your shots, they are going to get a lot of attention. And with double teams comes open threes. I'm not going to go all crazy on how the three pointer has changed college basketball, everyone knows that already. But in a tournament setting it's so important to keep opposing defenses honest, especially if they play a zone. Knocking down open shots means more freedom for your go to guys and limits double teams. It's pretty simple stuff but very important. We saw how big Humphrey was in the Final Four last year and how abysmal shooting did in UCLA.

Ability to Change Tempo: The reason your draw is so important in the NCAA Tournament is because every team has a distinct style and thus, opposing styles that give it problems. Obviously you want to avoid those styles, but being able to handle whatever is thrown at you, especially in a setting where you generally face an unfamiliar opponent, is crucial. Florida played up tempo with Oregon and Ohio State last year, and slowed it down against UCLA. They could execute in the halfcourt and push when necessary. Generally this ability is obtained through a solid, facilitating, surehanded point guard. Doesn't have to be someone spectacular but a guy that knows how to run an offense, knows when to slow down or speed up and, most importantly, doesn't turn the ball over. Guys like Taurean Green and Steve Blake were great examples.

Shut Down Defenders: Generally referring to a perimeter guy who can lock down the opponent's best guard (Corey Brewer, Jackie Manuel, Ben Gordon, Josh Pace, Byron Mouton, Shane Battier) and a shot blocker that protects the rim (Noah/Horford, May/J. Williams/M. Williams, Okafor et al., Hakim Warrick, Wilcox, Battier/Boozer). You can survive with a mix and match of interior and perimeter defenders, but it's important to have game-changers on that end. Team defense is important, but the tournament magnifies individual match-ups, because in the NCAA setting, one mismatch can cost a team the game.

* * *

There are other factors that are important but from a personnel standpoint, this is what I've noticed. I'm not reinventing the wheel here or anything but certainly these are patterns worth noting. So, after jump, the teams that can win a national championship this year, based on these findings.
Continue...

Kansas
Why?: Pretty obvious. They are really freaking good. But most important is their ability to play different tempos. We've seen them run a team like Oklahoma off the court and we've seen them grind out a win against Arizona. They are 89th in possessions per game, which is right around the 75 percent mark for the country. The efficiency is what matters and they are 3rd in overall efficiency and in effective FG%. They have the perimeter scorers (Chalmers, Robinson, Rush, Collins), the post players (Arthur, Jackson, even Kaun) and the shooters (all of their guards). Chalmers and Robinson are two of the better on ball defenders in the country and Arthur and Kaun are developing shot blockers. They are third in block percentage and first in steal percentage. In the country. That is nuts.

Why Not?: The first thing I can think of is who takes the shot in a close game? They have a number of capable perimeter scorers but who is the guy who is option No. 1? I personally think Rush will be that guy come March, but as of now it's uncertain. They are in a fortunate position where it'll be probably just be whoever is hot that game and if there happens to be more than one player who fits that description, the other team is screwed. The one stat that sticks out to me is free throw rate. Are the scorers mature enough to not only score often, but get to the line often as well? And can they make them if the get there? The Jayhawks are only shooting 65.5 percent from the line this year and have just one 75 percent shooter (Rush).

Watch Out For: A deliberate team with a good post player that plays a good zone defense. Kansas thrives off turnovers, penetration and contesting shots in the paint. Also, goblins. Gotta watch out for them.

UCLA
Why?: Kevin Love is an almost perfect NCAA Tournament big man with his only flaw being his poor shot-blocking. But his efficient shooting (including the occasional three), his ability to pass out of the double-team, his ability to get to the line and make free throws and, most importantly, his one-man rebounding show (fourth in offensive and defensive rebounding rate) make him ideal for this setting. And unlike Greg Oden and Roy Hibbert last year, Love is rarely in foul trouble (he's never had more than three in a game). Josh Shipp has turned into a very effective wing scorer and we've all seen what Russell Westbrook can do one-on-one. Collison is almost the ideal, careful-with-the-ball, tempo-controlling facilitator at the point and can also lock down defensively, heading a first-rate perimeter defensive unit. As for tempo, they prefer a slow game but we have seen them play fast with Oregon and actually speed it up to disrupt Washington State. The Bruins don't have the pace versatility (made-up term) of Kansas but are better at imposing their own pace on an opponent.

Why Not?: They don't force a lot of turnovers and they don't protect the rim. The team defense is about as good as you'll ever see, but if my theory about needing individual defenders in the tournament holds true, it could cause problems. Right now they don't have very reliable three-point shooters besides Shipp so the emergence of a healthy Michael Roll and increased role for Nikola Dragovic could be a key factor.

Watch Out For: A team that forces jump shots and can defend Love one-on-one. They won't survive long if they rely on their guards to hit contested jumpers. Also a dominant post scorer would mean a constant double team, disrupting the Bruins team defense. We saw what skilled big men can do to UCLA the past two years in the tournament. And bears, as well... they'll get ya.

NOTE: In my mind, these two are head and shoulders above everyone else. I'd give both 5-1 odds or better at this point to win it all. But there are a few others that caught my eye.

North Carolina
Why?: Hansbrough is right up there with Love as an ideal tournament big man because he is efficient, rebounds very well (although not nearly as well as Love) and gets to the line like crazy (and makes them). But the reason he will be more effective this year than the past, is Wayne Ellington. He's emerged as a very good perimeter scorer, one that opponents have to pay extra attention to, rather than the previous philosophy of "Stop Hansbrough and Hope No One Else Gets Frisky." Throw in a big leap this year from Danny Green and the Heels can simply turn to whoever has the hot hand when they need scoring from the wing. Lawson, if he plays consistently, is a great tournament guard because he runs UNC's secondary break perfectly, doesn't need shots to be effective and can be a lockdown defender at times. And in a pinch, he can score even though he sometimes tries to score even when they aren't in a pinch. Offensively they are an absolute machine; high tempo, high efficiency. They shoot threes less than almost every team in the country, but when they are running their offense at its peak, it's impossible for opponents to force jumpers, even if they play a zone. They have also won a couple games at a slightly slower pace than usual, beating Davidson, Ohio State and BYU without scoring 80 points. I've got to think that efficiency can translate over different tempos.

Why Not?: Well, for the same reasons Grant Wahl didn't have him in his Magic 8. Defense. The UNC perimeter defenders are average, except for when Lawson occasionally steps up. Danny Green has shown flashes, but as a whole the team gets beat off the dribble too much and has no one, save an occasionally spry Deon Thompson, to protect the rim. When you rely on offense to win games, you are at the mercy of a cold shooting streak, an unavoidable formality of basketball that is known for derailing tournament runs. There are no cold streaks on defense. And while turnovers can lead to an opponent's offense, not forcing turnovers and missed shots can lead to a stagnant offense, especially one that thrives on speed like UNC. That being said, they are on this list because they have the personnel to be a decent defensive team. Lawson is insanely quick, Ellington and Green are great athletes with long arms, Hansbrough doesn't have the physical gifts but is tough enough to guard bigger players. I'd like to think that if it comes down to it and this team realizes they need to step up defensively to win a title, they will.

Watch Out For: A good rebounding team that can also play a zone to occasionally slow the game down. Not sure if any of these teams exist, however (2006 George Mason and 2007 Georgetown?). Also a team with athletic bigs to slow down Psycho T. From what I remember, and by looking at his gamelog, the best jobs containing him was done by Kentucky (Patrick Patterson), Clemson (Trevor Booker and James Mays) and Maryland (how could we forget James Gist?). If you can cover him one-on-one, you can stay closer to Lawson/Ellington/Green who will kill you if you give them any space. And if I were them I'd be wary of hobos as well. They are always unpredictable.

Louisville
Why?: They are almost a poor man's Kansas. Good depth, quick guards, good defense. Like the Jayhawks, they also have a number of capable ballhandlers and don't turn it over too much. Defensively, they don't have any standout, lockdown defenders (maybe Williams) but they have a ton of quick, athletic players at every position that can get into passing lanes and block shots. Unlike Kansas, they have a number of good three-point shooters; Terrence Williams, Jerry Smith, Edgar Sosa and Andre McGee can all knock down open shots. Speaking of Sosa, as we saw last March against Texas A & M, he is capable of being a go-to scorer that can get into the lane and to the foul line at will. For some reason, we haven't seen any of that this season. But we have to hold out hope.

Why Not?: Again, there is hope that Derrick Caracter will be a legitimate low-post threat, but who knows. That's the problem with this team. Is its inconsistency a product of the injuries or can these guys just not get it together as a unit? Good things happen when Padgett gets the ball in the post, but he's not someone to be double-teamed. And who the hell knows which Earl Clark will show up. At this point, I'm also not sure they can win a fast-paced game. The one game they played against a true up-tempo team, Seton Hall, they looked pretty bad. This is a team worth revisiting at the end of February but they make the list on incredible potential.

Watch Our For: Probably just themselves. That's not to say they are unbeatable when playing their best, but there isn't really one specific thing that could single-handedly beat Louisville. Obviously a fast-paced, efficient offensive team could be a potential nightmare but they could also get beaten by a plodding team that has a hot shooting night. Also lupus. You don't want that.

* * *

And that folks, is it. Yes, just four teams fit my criteria. This will probably freak some people out, so let me briefly mention why some other notables didn't make it.

Memphis- Shooting. I don't see them shooting well enough, especially given the zone defenses that will inevitably be thrown at them, to win six straight games. And the atrocious foul shooting is going to come back and bite them. Also, can they get interior scoring that doesn't come from offensive rebounds? I'd put good money on them making the Final Four, but can they beat an elite team - in a close game - with just defense and penetration?

Duke- In a year where nothing seems to be conventional, I strongly considered putting an unconventional, but extremely good, Blue Devil team on there. They have embraced the Phoenix Suns style about as well as a college team could hope for (and still playing solid defense in the process), but as we saw against Pitt, a team that controls the glass will control Duke. That was the blueprint and while there aren't a lot of teams in the ACC that will be able to duplicate that, there are certainly teams better than Pitt out there that will.

Indiana- Gordon and White are about as perfect for the outside-inside, go-to scorer tandem as you could ever want. Throw in the high free throw rate, the great rebounding and the ability to play at different speeds and I was all set to have the Hoosiers on here too. But the one thing that stuck out was turnovers. They don't force them and they commit too many of them. In fact, they don't really have a true point guard, and that's going to be their tragic flaw in March. Having Gordon and White is nice, but you need someone who can get them the ball in positions to score when the opponent is locking down.

Georgetown- Good post scorer, very good defenders, good outside shooting. But when Roy Hibbert inevitably gets into foul trouble, they don't have Jeff Green to pick up the scoring anymore. And worse, they are going to get killed on the glass, their most glaring weakness.

Arizona- Intriguing pick because of the scoring options of Bayless, Budinger and Hill. All can carry a team for a period of time, all offer different ways of scoring. Throw in a defensive game-changer like Nic Wise and a great defensive coach like Kevin O'Neill and there is definite potential. The problem is, even with Wise, O'Neill, a good shot blocker in Hill and a solid defender in Jawann McClellan, they don't play very good defense. And worse even, they don't have any kind of depth to stop the bleeding when the defense goes bad. Arizona's postseason fate probably can't be determined at this point.

Stanford- I think Brook Lopez has that "takeover an entire tournament" ability, like Horford and Noah did the last two seasons. He can control the rim and the glass on both ends... IF, he stays out of foul trouble. And nothing Brook Lopez has done this year has proven to me that he can do that. While Stanford has better size than most teams in the country, I don't see its guards creating enough on either end to win six in a row. This team seems like a lock to be derailed by some eight-minute drought without a field goal or like a 3-20 game from three.

So that's what I got. The four teams I think can win a title at this point in the season. I will probably revisit this in late February to see where everyone stands and then once the field is set, use the same criteria to pick the potential winners. But for now, this is an experiment in prognostication. In early April we can look back and see if everyone else really should have just quit.

The End Is Near: Duke Might Be Likable

I need to tread lightly with this post, but here goes.

I have hated Duke basically as long as I've been a basketball fan. It used to be for the same reasons as everyone else. They were rich, cocky and white, with usually their coach and a few select stars carrying the torch of douchebaggery for that oh so cultured student section. Sure, there were a ton of Duke players that do not exhibit any of these traits. Grant Hill, Carlos Boozer, Elton Brand... actually, any player that succeeded in the NBA was alright in my book. Those guys had the right to be arrogant if they wanted, they could back it up and weren't just a product of privilege/hype/media coverage. But everyone knows the real icons of Dookiness, the guys who embodied all that hatred, we don't need to name them.

Anyway, so I used to hate them because of all that, plus the excruciating media coverage, the Vitale/Patrick dynamic, the floor-slapping, the favorable officiating and the seemingly familiar face/athletic ability that didn't appear to be any different than the guy's I went up against in high school. This hatred was probably predicated on the fact that Duke was almost always good, and I was not a fan of them. I've found that I've hated them the same reason the Patriots are hated now or the Yankees have been hated for eternity. As I became a more rational sports fan, I realized that anyone who hates a team for those reasons is an idiot. Media coverage and whiteness are not crimes against humanity. But that's not to say I didn't stop hating Duke.

With the help of my new rationality and Will Blythe's book To Hate Like This Is To Be Happy Forever, probably my favorite sports book ever, I had new reasons to hate Duke. They represented everything that is wrong with America. I'm not saying that to be a sensationalist, it's the truth. They represent an elite, entitled America. They think they deserve things for being Duke the same way the majority of Americans think they deserve things for being America.

In Blythe's book he profiles the difference between UNC and Duke. I'm going to save his outstanding cultural analysis of that rivalry for when that game rolls around, but one element of his argument was that Duke was imperialistic. A bunch of rich, elite kids from the North, coached by a Polish guy from Chicago, settling in the heart of North Carolina, an area full of humble, middle-class folks, who were genuinely passionate about few things: religion, family and basketball. Not American Express or taunting or media favoritism or anything in basketball that doesn't happen on the court. Duke, and more specifically Coach K, stormed Durham and turned the town into something the rest of North Carolina couldn't identify with, and thus, resented. Now I'm from the Philly area, but if you have certain political views, it's not hard to empathize with those UNC fans. I hated Duke for the reasons they did, which is far different, and I think far more substantial, than the reasons of the general public. I think you could even say that Duke has stormed the college basketball landscape in general and turned it into something true hoops fans couldn't identify with as well, but that might be painting with too broad a brush.

Anyway, those are the foundations for my hatred of Duke over the last few years and last season was a microcosm of my new rationalism. Sure, the standard annoyances were there, but it was the immediate arrogance and expected success of that team, full of big name recruits like McRoberts, Paulus, Henderson, Thomas that made their eventual demise so much more enjoyable. For most of the season, the media loved them, the Crazies loved them, they loved themselves. "We were All-Americans, we got a scholarship to Duke fucking University, we are going to stomp anyone who comes near us." But as sometimes happens in college hoops, things don't work out as they should. Talent doesn't trump heart and it doesn't denote chemistry. Watching them lose to VCU, a mid-major team with a young upstart coach and an unsung star, Maynor, who in reality, was more talented than anyone Duke had, was ever so sweet.

Now, at the beginning of this year, I knew something was up. They only lost McRoberts, which could be considered addition by subtraction, and they brought in three All-Americans. Given the general exodus of veteran talent amongst the top teams and the media's jock-sniffing of the Devils I thought Duke would be top 7 team for sure. But when they were out of the top 10 and lambasted for their lack of inside presence and point guard play, I was almost disappointed. Was Coach K removed from his pedestal above the colleges hoops world? I saw the doubts, but where were the benefits of the doubts? Hopefully they are even worse than people are saying. Hopefully they are still overrated somehow. Then I watched them play.

Let me tell you something. Not only is Duke better than expected, they are the most fun team to watch in the country and they are the BEST TEAM IN THE COUNTRY. Yes, it's true. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I've got to think Coach K's time with Mike D'Antoni this summer influenced this. They are playing small ball like the Phoenix Suns. They certainly don't have Nash or Stoudemire, but they spread the floor with versatile shooters and ball-handlers, drive and kick flawlessly and create enough defensive chaos to keep teams from exploiting their weaknesses inside. They have speed and ballhandling matched by maybe no one in the country besides, ironically, UNC and can get scoring from about eight different guys. Henderson, King and Singler is the best wing combo in the nation and cause constant mismatches, ala, Shawn Marion for Phoenix. A more detailed analysis of their greatness would be pointless, it's not hard to watch them play and see why. (Or just read this outstanding article by Grant Wahl at SI.com)

You might say, well how does style of play change how they are assholes? Well, besides King, there is a quietude to this team that is unassuming. When you can't pick one player to hate, whereas in the past there was always one figurehead of Duke-ism, from McRoberts to Redick to Battier all the way back to Laettner, you realize this team seems to embrace a team concept in both their style and their attitude. And if Coach K truly did change his style to adapt to what he had, rather than change what he had to embrace his style, isn't that a lack of stubbornness that we could have never expected out of him? And when we see this dynamic, a program that has gotten along forever by practicing their own brand of arrogance on their own island amidst the college basketball landscape trying to get things done like everyone else, should we embrace them? I say yes, and I will watch them with joy every time they are on. (I still hate the Crazies though, they haven't changed at all).

Yes, the end of our Duke-hating paradise might be near, and in what is surely no coincidence, Dick Vitale is nowhere to be found. Certainly I wish Dukie V well, but this might be a year he's better off missing.