It's that magical time of year again, when fans talk about loving college hoops because any team can go on an NCAA championship run. It doesn't matter
that Cinderellas almost always have their hopes dashed in the end. (The last team to pull a Villanova-over-Georgetown-type shocker and win it all was, well, Villanova, 26 years ago.) The tourney captivates precisely because it allows most, but not all, favorites to triumph. Every upset really is special.
Which is not to say that every upset is unpredictable. For five years now, The Mag has tried to forecast the next potential George Mason or UAB in our annual Giant Killers series. We haven't figured out why some underdogs win while others lose with 100 percent reliability; that would be not only impossible but also a buzzkill. However, we have identified several key trends that you should keep in mind when filling out your brackets.
Most important, successful Giant Killers pursue high-risk/high-reward strategies. Imagine a David that averages 70 ppg set to battle a succession of Goliaths that average 80. There isn't much the little guy can do to conjure another 11 points each night. But what it can do is broaden its results. That is, instead of scoring between 60 and 80 ppg doing what it generally does, it can take a few chances that offer a decent shot at scoring 90 at the risk of notching only 50. That kind of increased variability significantly hikes the chance of pulling off an upset. True, it also raises the odds of its being blown out. But in the tournament, a loss is the end of the road no matter what, so who cares what the final score is?
Some GKs go high-risk/high-reward by trying to generate extra possessions: They press on D, go for steals, aim for blocks or crash offensive boards. Last year, our statistical model liked Murray State because it created bundles of turnovers, blocks and offensive rebounds, and the Racers went on to beat a
No. 4 seed, Vanderbilt. Other GKs try to maximize the value of each possession by relying on 3s. In 2010, Cornell, another favorite of our model, led the nation in shooting from behind the arc during the regular season. During the tournament, they slew two giants.
In general, the more desperate the underdog, the more inconsistent it needs to be, as pioneering statistician Dean Oliver, now with ESPN, noted way back in 1995. This is true in any sport. Say your favorite football team is a 14-point dog. Would you rather it be somewhat inferior in every phase of the game or really bad in everything except that it had the best kickoff returner in the league? You want the latter, because at least then you have a puncher's chance of winning by busting a few big plays. Actually, the phrase "puncher's chance" makes this very same point.
On a different front, our research also finds that strength of schedule is a surprisingly powerful predictor of NCAA upsets. UNC Asheville and McNeese State may emerge from their weak conferences with at-large bids this year. But while Asheville was playing North Carolina, Georgetown and Ohio State, MSU was beating up on the likes of Jarvis Christian College and Southwestern Assemblies of God. History says the first approach preps teams way better for March upsets.
One last revelation: Don't pay too much attention to how many points a team scores or gives up. That's often more an indication of its style and pace (college teams have averaged anywhere from 58 to 77 possessions a game this season) than of quality. Instead, look for the most efficient small-conference teams, as measured by points per possession. They tend to pack the biggest surprise punch in March. See Old Dominion from 2010.
So is there a team primed to be the Gonzaga of 2011? Almost assuredly. But we're still crunching the numbers and waiting for Selection Sunday, so you'll need to read our Giant Killers breakdown online once the brackets are set. (You can get a start by checking out our updated blog, here.) We know this much already: The team (or teams) we highlight will be able to shoot the 3 and crash the boards. It will also be among the leaders in offensive and defensive efficiency and have played a nonconference schedule that is above average. And it will steal the ball relentlessly.
Someone very much like Belmont.
Peter Keating is a senior writer at ESPN The Magazine, where he has covered investigative and financial stories since 1999. He coordinates The Mag's annual "Ultimate Standings" project, which ranks all pro franchises according to how much they give back to fans. He is the lead writer for ESPN Insider's annual Giant Killers project.