We usually think of Cinderella as a fresh-faced ingenue, but who says she can’t be a grad student, returning after missing a prom or two to show everyone she can still dance?

That’s a question we have been facing more frequently as we search for Giant Killers, teams capable of pulling off big NCAA tournament upsets -- which we define as wins over opponents seeded at least five slots higher in the field of 68. Sure, Davids who launch from smaller conferences and rocket through their brackets, like Davidson in 2008 or VCU in 2011, give us all the greatest thrills. But another kind of underdogs also can find March Madness success: teams from multibid conferences that have taken some hits and piled up some losses but are still strong enough to upend Goliaths. We call these squads “Wounded Lions.”

Some have suffered injuries or suspensions, some have needed time to play well together and some have simply been underseeded. But whatever their issues, power-conference teams with Killer seeds can be scary. Think Minnesota in 2013, a team that lost 10 of its last 15 regular-season games, was under .500 in the Big Ten and was considered fortunate to land an 11-seed -- but that also led the nation in offensive rebounding percentage and went on to crush UCLA in the NCAA tournament.

Wounded Lions are sure to be especially important this season, when there’s so much parity among Giants and there are so few teams from smaller conferences on track to win at-large bids. So we fired up our statistical model to look at all power-conference teams likely to end up in the bottom half of the tournament’s brackets in 2016, according to Joe Lunardi’s latest projections. And we found a huge variation in their likely success rates. The basic lesson: Big-name teams that usually play as Gambling Giants, excelling on the perimeter, have the best odds to turn around and play as an effective Killer.

Here’s a rundown of the best and worst potential Wounded Lions, ranked by their Giant Killer Rating, which is our estimate of their chances to beat an average Giant in the NCAA tournament:

Cincinnati Bearcats (GK rating: 63.4): We’ve been writing for years that Cincinnati is a Giant that plays more like a Killer. Well, they might get their chance this March. The Bearcats already have lost twice to Temple and have just two wins over squads ranked in the BPI top 60 (VCU and Connecticut), leaving them as a 10-seed in Joe Lunardi’s latest projections and on the cusp of that coveted 11-6 Giant Killers matchup. Peer closer, though, and Cincinnati is also the type of team that could upset a No. 2 seed in the second round.

The Bearcats sport the second-highest rating (63.4) of the current crop of potential Killers, meaning they might just be waiting before feasting on their prey come March. They’ll attack with the tried-and-true combo of forcing turnovers and grabbing offensive boards. If you’ve followed us over the years, you understand that extra possessions are the allies of an upset. And Cincinnati generates a bundle of them, forcing turnovers on 21.2 percent of opponents’ possessions and grabbing 37.6 percent of their own missed shots. Eight Bearcats average double-digit minutes, with only one, Troy Caupain, playing more than 30 MPG. So there’s a certain interchangeable quality that should help them in a one-and-done setting, where having a backup plan is essential on a day where things don’t work as designed.

Cincinnati also shoots the ball reasonably well by its typical standards. The Bearcats are hitting 35.8 percent of their 3-pointers, which is above the national average of 34.6, and much better than their performance last season (32.9 percent) and in 2013-14 (33.5). Much of that credit goes to leading scorer Farad Cobb, whose 44.5 percent deep shooting should draw the focus of opposing defenses. The fact that they can get hot from deep is critical to their upset hopes; it allows them to play a high-variance game against better foes. On the right day, where they are swiping the ball, knocking down treys and gathering a host of the ones that they miss, Cincy will be a nightmare matchup. For anyone.

Syracuse Orange (GK rating: 54.5): Syracuse? A Killer? It sounds ridiculous. But when you start the season with 10-7 record and losses in each of your first four conference games, that’s what you are. And now that the Orange have responded, winning six of seven to work their way back into the projected tourney field, they’re a scary matchup for a high seed.

Defensively, the Orange are a team of extremes, as usual. Their 2-3 zone will always give up a host of offensive rebounds (bad for GK chances), but they compensate by forcing turnovers on 20.5 percent of opponents’ possessions. Similarly, the cliché is that the zone gives up 3-pointers, but it actually gives up bad 3-pointers. Opponents take 41.2 percent of their shots from deep but hit just 29.9 percent -- the 12th-lowest mark in the country. Taking 3-pointers against the Cuse zone, in other words, is fool’s gold, because they don’t come from the most efficient spots and tend to be generated by side-to-side passes, rather than inside-out ones (which lead to cleaner looks).

Offensively, Syracuse has increased its variance by taking a ton of 3s of its own. Trevor Cooney, Michael Gbinije and Malachi Richardson all launch at least six treys per game. (As an aside, for a purported “shooter,” Cooney has had a miserable four-year career, hitting just 33.6 percent of his 3-pointers and 36.5 percent of all field goals.) And even though the Orange don’t box out on D, they pursue their own misses, grabbing 34.7 percent of available offensive boards. (Tyler Roberson is a monster on the offensive glass, with a 15.6 percent offensive rebound rate.) Add it all up and Syracuse has a 54.5 GK rating, giving them an outstanding chance to pull off an upset.

Butler Bulldogs (GK rating: 40.4): Butler doesn’t actually have a statistical profile that resembles successful Killers of the past. But sometimes underdogs are positioned to pull off big upsets simply because they aren’t fully appreciated. In this case, the Bulldogs shoot the ball well from inside and outside, grab 35 percent of their own missed shots and are one of the best teams in the country at protecting the ball; all of this helps them generate 116.4 points per 100 possessions, the 14th-highest rate in the NCAA. Our basic power rankings and BPI both see them as considerably better than a bunch of teams that apparently have tournament bids locked up, including some, like Providence and Utah, projected to land in the top half of brackets. But a string of close losses to good teams in January has left Butler under .500 (4-6) in Big East play, and Lunardi now lists the Bulldogs as one of the one of the first four teams to be left out of March Madness. If they get in, they are likely to be five points stronger than any of the teams around them.

Clemson Tigers (GK rating: 26.0): Clemson might be the last of nine ACC teams to make the NCAA tournament this season. The Tigers rank about the same in their conference when it comes to national publicity. And Brad Brownell’s slow-motion motion offense is like Bobby Knight’s playbook run at the speed of the geologic time scale. So it’s been easy even for their own fans to remain ho hum while the Tigers have quietly been putting together their best season since the last time they made it to the Big Dance five years ago. But their numbers are impressive. Of all the teams projected by Lunardi to earn an 11-seed or lower, just three are above average in rebounding at both ends of the floor and above average at both generating turnovers and protecting the ball (after adjusting for opponents). And of those squads, Clemson is by far the strongest. (The other two are Chattanooga and Stephen F. Austin, which we will revisit when we look at potential Killers from smaller conferences.) Throw in a propensity to take 3s (39.1 percent of all attempts, ranking 83rd in the nation), and you get a program that has already upset Louisville, Duke and Miami this season. And one whose Giant-Killing talents outrank other stragglers from power conferences, such as South Carolina (GK Rating: 18.0), Seton Hall (14.6) and Connecticut (14.6).

At the other end of the danger spectrum lie three teams from the Pac-12: the UCLA Bruins (GK rating: 10.8), Washington Huskies (10.2) and California Golden Bears (6.4). What do these teams have in common besides geography? They play like Giants, specifically Power Giants, whose signature trait is dominant offensive rebounding, but as Killers, they aren’t strong enough anywhere else to seriously threaten better teams. None of the three are particularly good at protecting the ball, and all of them rank below 200th in the NCAA in attempting long-range shots. Cal and UCLA, both among the tallest teams in the country, rank 305th and 343rd, respectively, in generating turnovers. The Huskies, who are breaking in two freshmen as starting guards, have more speed and force more steals, but they are a disastrous 344th in defensive rebounding. Even strong defense against 2-point shooting, something else these teams share, doesn’t help Killers much; a strong inside game is more useful for destroying Cal State-Northridge or Washington State than trying to upend Arizona or Oregon. Which is why the trio has won a combined two games all season against the top three teams in their conference.

Honorable Mention Must to Avoid: The Vanderbilt Commodores (GK rating: 13.0) are even stronger than Butler, according to analytics systems such as BPI and kenpom.com. They are probably the best team on the outside of projected brackets. (Lunardi has them among his “first four out.”) In one sense, that’s unfair: Even after the Commodores eked out a one-point win over Florida last week, analysts seem to be discounting Vanderbilt too steeply because of a string of agonizing close losses to SEC opponents early last month. But if the bracket makers do come around and offer Vandy a ticket to the Big Dance, Kevin Stallings & Co. really shouldn’t bother to pack their toothbrushes.

“Season after season,” we wrote back in 2012, “Stallings puts together big, sharpshooting teams designed to play well enough in the SEC that Vandy makes the NCAA tournament. Season after season, the strategy works; but our model notices the Commodores' problems with turnovers and rebounding and predicts early-round trouble. And season after season, Vanderbilt obliges with crushing losses.” The patterns are still holding in 2016: Vanderbilt ranks 275th in offensive rebounding percentage and 318th in forcing turnovers, and it routinely allows opponents a dozen more shots than they attempt. And this time around, if they get in, the Commodores will face a Giant, not Siena or Murray State. All told, our model projects the Commodores’ statistical profile to cost them 14.2 points per 100 possessions in an NCAA tournament matchup, the worst penalty for any potential Killer in the country. That’s some sour sauce.

Thanks to Liz Bouzarth, John Harris and Kevin Hutson of Furman University for research assistance.