Back at my college paper, in the days between Selection Sunday and the first NCAA tournament game, we used to produce regional previews. It was largely a vanity exercise -- a chance to write about something other than track or lacrosse -- but we were expected to predict how the bracket would play out.
In 1997, I got assigned the Southeast region. And the one thing I knew was that Georgia, the No. 3 seed, wasn’t any good. So I looked up the small amount of info I could find about the Bulldogs’ opponent, the mighty Mocs of Chattanooga. They had a forward named Johnny Taylor who apparently was a future NBA player and seemed like a small-college version of Scottie Pippen. So, I talked myself into the idea that Taylor could overwhelm Georgia. And because I didn't like No. 6 seed Illinois, either, I penciled in Taylor and his anonymous teammates for an additional round. Sure enough, by the time the following weekend ended, Chattanooga was in the Sweet 16.
That was a happy accident. But these days, with the help of the Giant Killers project, we've come up with a (much) better way of pinpointing vulnerable top seeds using statistical similarities to past upset victims. So, with Selection Sunday just two days away, here are the Giants you can consider on upset alert -- the 10 weakest of Joe Lunardi’s projected top-six seeds across all four regions as of Friday morning.
10. Wichita State Shockers | 74.9
Our model continues to have an adverse reaction to Wichita State’s schedule. It is far and away the biggest reason why the Shockers have a negative “Secret Sauce,” although their average ability to force turnovers (18.5 percent of opponents’ possessions) doesn’t help. They’re also susceptible to a team of gunners -- Wichita State allows 35.3 percent of its opponents’ attempts to come from downtown. That could be a harbinger of a payback, as the Shockers used a stunning surge from 3-point range late in their round-of-32 game to topple No. 1 seed Gonzaga last season. Could the Shockers be on the receiving end of that kind of barrage this year? Possibly.
9. Michigan State Spartans | 73.3
As we touched on last week, Michigan State’s Giant rating doesn’t change much even when you account for injuries to Keith Appling, Branden Dawson and Adreian Payne. And that means the Spartans are vulnerable early in the tourney. The reasons are similar to Wichita State’s: They don’t force a lot of turnovers and they allow too many 3-pointers. It’s also worth noting that this is an atypical Tom Izzo team, as Michigan State grabs 32.7 percent of its own misses, which is still above average but far from its typical level of offensive rebounding.
8. Connecticut Huskies | 72.6
The Huskies have some serious issues inside, and those show up in precisely the categories you’d expect. They struggle to rebound at both ends, but particularly on D, where their foes collect 32.9 percent of their own misses (250th in the country). Now picture them against a GK like Southern Mississippi, whose best offensive play is often a missed shot, and suddenly there’s a huge mismatch.
7. Virginia Cavaliers | 72.4
Skepticism about the Cavs’ true strength persists, and our model has joined that party. The reasons aren’t especially obvious on the surface, especially because Virginia is sixth in the nation in defensive rebounding and grabs 34.7 percent of available offensive rebounds, too. But while the Pack-Line defense is part of what makes the Cavaliers so formidable, it is not particularly conducive to fending off a GK, because they let opponents take a lot of 3-pointers -- 34.9 percent of their shots, to be precise.
6. Creighton Bluejays | 68.8
The Bluejays are a team of extremes. They’re the best offensive team in the country. They’re also the 105th-ranked defense (an adjusted 101.4 points allowed per 100 possessions). And the disparities are even more stark when you dig into the categories that matter to safe Giants. While Creighton owns the defensive boards (14th in the nation), it gets plowed on the offensive glass (285th). And a big reason why the Bluejays own the defensive glass is because they don’t gamble at all: They force turnovers on only 15.5 percent of possessions, ranked 324th in the country. That gives opponents extra possessions in a different way, and too often they are able to maximize those chances by shooting 3-pointers, which make up 35.2 percent of attempts against the Creighton D.
5. Oklahoma Sooners | 66.3
Has there been a more anonymous Giant this season than Oklahoma? Even the Sooners’ stats are boring -- they’re not especially great at any single thing, nor are they dreadful in a particular category. Unfortunately, their worst quality is a doozy for Giants -- they force turnovers on only 17.7 percent of possessions. They don’t do a particularly good job of guarding the arc, either. But most of all, our model sees the Sooners as simply overrated, ranking them just 29th in the power ratings section of its formula. Lunardi pegs them as a No. 5 seed, and if the committee follows suit, that will be too high.
4. Saint Louis Billikens | 65.1
The Billikens were dicey even before a late-season swoon. But three straight losses between Feb. 27 and March 5 -- including one against Duquesne at home -- should have woken everyone to some serious flaws, starting with an offense that ranks just 175th in the nation. For a team with a rep of playing safe, fundamental basketball, St. Louis turns the ball over far too often (18.5 percent). Even more concerning, as a Giant, is the Billikens’ 29 percent offensive rebounding rate. Sure, the country’s sixth-best defense should keep the Billikens in any game, but their offense will prevent them from gaining separation. And when you let a Killer hang around, bad things happen.
3. Texas Longhorns | 63.5
We don’t want to pick on Rick Barnes. The Longhorns' coach orchestrated a pretty remarkable turnaround, but it seems to have been done largely with smoke and mirrors. That could be a reason why the Longhorns lost five of their final nine regular-season games -- sample size finally caught up to them. And as a result, it’s growing harder and harder to make any kind of a compelling case for them as a safe Giant. Their perimeter defense is brutal from a GK perspective, as they neither force turnovers (16.6 percent) nor defend the arc (35.9 percent of opponents’ shots come from deep). And on offense, they just can’t shoot: Texas’ 47.3 eFG% plays a big factor in the model, rating them as only the nation’s 46th-best team. Yikes.
2. Iowa State Cyclones | 61.1
Texas is surprisingly vulnerable, but seeing the Cyclones here is downright shocking, given their lofty rankings for much of the season. With Iowa State’s talent, it just doesn’t seem like a mid-major should be equipped to deal with DeAndre Kane, Georges Niang and Melvin Ejim -- an upset doesn’t make much sense. But our model sees things differently. It zeroes in on a deadly trio of sins. Iowa State doesn’t force turnovers (16.3 percent of possessions, 300th in the nation). It doesn’t grab offensive rebounds (28 percent, 279th). And it doesn’t guard the arc (33.9 percent of opponents’ shots, 232nd). That becomes a massive possession battle that the Cyclones must overcome on a game-by-game basis, one even Kane, Niang and Ejim might not be able to overcome in the tourney.
1. UCLA Bruins | 60.1
Last year, the biggest upset on our board was Minnesota against UCLA. In fact, it was the greatest upset percentage in the history of our model. This year, there isn’t a GK that rates as well as the Gophers did, but UCLA remains in plenty of danger. The interesting thing is that the Bruins are a good team. Our model ranks them 21st, which makes them completely deserving of Lunardi’s projected No. 6 seed. But they make for a lousy Giant. Most of that is due to a defense that doesn’t seem to believe in traveling too far from home. UCLA pretty much stops guarding teams beyond the arc: 41.8 of their opponents’ shots come from 3-point range, which is the fourth-highest mark in the country. That’s like giving a GK a whole extra bag of rocks for its slingshot.
You’d hope the Bruins could make up for it on the other end, but they don’t shoot many 3-pointers of their own, and don’t grab offensive rebounds, either (30.4 percent of misses). That’s a really scary résumé to take into the tourney, especially when it hasn’t been tested by any nonconference foes that remotely resemble a GK-quality squad. UCLA’s opponent should be different this year, but the result could easily end up the same.