By the Wednesday before the tournament starts (sorry, play-in games), chances are you've made a bracket. As the games begin and people begin discussing their brackets with fervor, you'll do yourself a favor if you have some background knowledge. As a woman who likes sports, I have more than enough experience, sadly, with having to work harder to prove that I belong in the conversation. When people start talking about their brackets, you want to make sure that you have a seat at the table. With these 10 tips, you'll do better than that -- you'll be the office expert.
1. Know a Player
There's nothing more satisfying than to be challenged to "name one player" on a team and successfully answering. Especially this year, in which there are teams outside of the traditional chalk and a lack of big-name freshmen, you'd do yourself a favor to familiarize yourself with teams you have advancing far in your bracket. Two prime examples are West Virginia and Texas A&M, both #3 seeds and both smart picks to contend. Nearly everyone has at least one of those teams going to the Sweet Sixteen, if not the Elite Eight, and yet, I doubt that most could name a player on either one. For WVU, the name to know is Jaysean Paige. Despite not starting in most contests, Paige was the Mountaineers' leading scorer, and won second-team Big 12 honors. An aggressive guard fully committed to the full-court press that Bob Huggins employs, Paige is the best shooter on the team, which is important because shooting is not their biggest asset. For Texas A&M, they're all about their bigs: Danuel House and Jalen Jones, the starting forwards. The pair score over 30 points a game, combined, and can post up on the blocks or step back and shoot the 3. They are both dangerous, and name-dropping them will certain make you look good. Also, pronunciation is key. Want to talk about Utah's 7'0'' Austrian center, Jacob Poetl? You'll sound really smart if you say it right: Ya-kob Pur-dull.
2. Pick a First Four Team to Win in the Round of 64
In the 5 years that the tournament has included the play-in games, at least one team has won in the round of 64. Some years, they even go farther. in 2013 and 2014, La Salle and Tennesee reached the Sweet Sixteen in their respective years. In 2011, play-in team VCU went all the way to the Final Four. Picking one of the play-in teams that aren't 16 seeds has proved to work well. Coincidentally, all of the teams that won played in the Wednesday game, which bodes well for those picking the winner of the Michigan-Tulsa game, if you're so inclined. Personally? I like the Wichita State Shockers against Arizona. The Shockers match up well against Arizona, with Arizona's strength being its front court and, conversely, its backcourt being a bit of a liability. Wichita State, on the other hand, prides itself on its guards, the seasoned Fred VanVleet and Ron Baker (7-3 in the tournament in 4 years). Arizona's defense tries to be as efficient as possible, forcing their opponents to take bad shots. However, with tournament vets like VanVleet and Baker, who both have very high basketball IQs, Wichita State should handle the Arizona defense, and the entire Arizona team, who have not been a typical Sean Miller standout squad.
3. Pick At Least One (and Preferably Two) Double-Digit Seeds to Advance to the Sweet Sixteen
In a muddled year on the AP poll, many experts are advising to go chalk with this year's brackets, that is, to pick traditional tournament winners from power conferences to go far, like UNC, Michigan State, Kentucky or Kansas. I don't disagree, but I would advise choosing at least two double-digit seeds to make it to the Sweet Sixteen. This is March -- the only predictable thing about the tournament is that it will be unpredictable. Upsets always occur, and since the tournament expanded to include 64 teams, at least one double-digit seed has made it to the second weekend 29 times out of 31. Furthermore, there were three double-digit seeds to make the Sweet Sixteen five years in a row, from 2010-2014. For me, there are a few teams that have this potential -- certainly Gonzaga, which is much more talented than the typical 11-seed, plays a pro-style game, and has tournament experience has the potential to bust some brackets. I think Pitt can do the same, simply because their path isn't too difficult -- neither Wisconsin in the first round, nor Xavier, most likely, in the second round are particularly imposing for a Pitt team that is dominant on the boards and plays aggressively. As I stated earlier, I believe in Wichita State. Some teams that might be a little more far-fetched, but still have the capability considering their strengths and their path, are Arkansas-Little Rock, Iona, Hawaii, or Northern Iowa.
4. If You're Going to Complain About the Selection Committee, Know What You're Talking About
It's hard to find someone who will totally agree with your bracket, but one subject that is getting a lot of discussion, and a lot of agreement, is this year's selection committee's faults. If you're going to engage in this conversation, you should understand the frustrations and have some important points to make. There were two main problems that sports fans had with the field this year: the seed lines and the exclusion of teams such as St. Bonaventure, St. Mary's, and mainly, Monmouth. Firstly, people's main gripe with the seed lines was putting Michigan State as a #2 seed, particularly behind UVA and/or Oregon/. Michigan State won their conference championship this year whereas Virginia did not, which is enough to put MSU ahead of UVA on the seed lines for many. In addition, MSU was #2 in the AP poll at the end of the year, and is considered by fans and experts alike to be better than both UVA and Oregon. If you're reading this, you probably already knew that. However, give your point a little more depth in conversation by pointing to the larger problem with seeding this year: the seeding of the Big Ten as a whole. The bracket is riddled with underseeded Big Ten teams. Most obvious are Michigan State, as mentioned, and Indiana, who were placed as a #5 seed in the East region despite winning the Big Ten outright during the regular season. The regular season champions of the other power conferences (Big 12, ACC, Big East, Pac-12, and maybe SEC) were #1, #1, #2, #1 and #3, respectively. To put Indiana at a #5 seed is fairly ludicrous. Many feel that Maryland, a #4, was under seeded as well, though that's arguable. Pointing out the disrespect of the Big Ten as whole will win you major basketball knowledge points. Additionally, many have heard about how unfair it was to leave Monmouth out of the field, but the deeper point is that the committee sent the message that they'll mediocre power conference teams over great mid-majors. Monmouth did everything you could ask of a mid-major school -- they scheduled tough opponents, had big road wins against those opponents, beating Notre Dame, Dayton, and USC on neutral courts. They won their league during the regular season as well. Despite all of that, the committee still took teams like Michigan, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, and Tulsa that underachieved and did poorly in their conference tournaments. In summary, the "little guy" lost this year.
With the information in your arsenal, you should be good to go for heated debates over brackets and water cooler conversation about the tournament. Good luck and Happy March!
No comments:
Post a Comment