We're down to 16 teams, which means the college basketball universe is now so small that we should have a really good grasp on the remaining field. Why is it that misunderstandings still persist?
I don't have an answer for that question, but I do have corrections for the misunderstandings. Here are some Sweet 16 myths you might have heard, along with a fact-check-approved correction for each claim.
Myth No. 1: Kansas is now the favorite
It's true that the Jayhawks are the highest remaining seed. Bill Self's team appeared right behind overall No. 1 Villanova when the selection committee released its seed list 10 days ago (which, by the way, seems more like 10 years ago). Josh Jackson has been outstanding in each of KU's two tournament games, and Frank Mason III has been his usual self. With those two performing well, Kansas has won its two tournament games by an average of 29 points and has a solid shot to win it all.
But does Kansas' "solid shot" represent the best shot that any remaining team has? Or are we repeating the mistake we made with Duke last week in thinking that a team's past two to four games are especially revelatory? After all, Michigan State looked incredible against Miami and then promptly lost by 20 to KU.
If we look at the entire body of work for the Sweet 16, from top to bottom, we see a 30-4 Kansas team that's 12-3 in games decided by single digits this season. Would you be any less impressed by the Jayhawks if they were "just" 27-7? Would this team have received a No. 1 seed with that record? That would support the line of thinking that this is not the same kind of 30-4, top-seeded KU team that we have grown accustomed to in past seasons.
Then again, for all we know, Jackson really is blowing up before our eyes. Playing in Kansas City is also a nice perk. Call this team a co-favorite along with Gonzaga and the winner of Kentucky-North Carolina (assuming that matchup transpires -- UCLA and Butler will have something to say about that).
Myth No. 2: Przemek Karnowski is Gonzaga's indispensable star player
During crunch time of Gonzaga's game against Northwestern, questions were raised on social media as to why Karnowski was sitting on the bench with just two fouls. That would be a natural question in such a situation involving a star player, but this was not one of those instances. Normally, stars earn that designation because they're scarce. The Bulldogs, however, are blessed with an abundance of great options at the 5 spot.
Karnowski is an iconic figure with a rather prominent beard and, incredibly, a playing career that stretches back to the last time the Bulldogs were a No. 1 seed. (Karnowski logged four minutes in the Zags' closer-than-expected win over Southern in the 2013 Round of 64.) He is also, however, playing on the same team as Zach Collins. As a freshman, Collins has posted better per-play numbers than Karnowski virtually across the board, especially in the area of rim defense. (Pun intended, but it happens to be true.)
Depending on your point of view, Mark Few has either the luxury or the challenge of juggling playing time for these two. That said, don't be misled by announcers' fretting in real time about foul trouble for just one of them.
Myth No. 3: Arizona (good) and UCLA (bad) are worlds apart on defense
The past few seasons, Arizona has deservedly earned a reputation for playing outstanding defense. In Pac-12 play this season, however, the difference between the Wildcats' defense and UCLA's much-maligned unit was not as great as you might think.
In conference play, the Bruins allowed opponents to score 1.03 points per trip, and the Wildcats allowed 1.00. That difference is significant but by no means dramatic, and it was caused primarily by two factors. First, UCLA's opponents shot far better on their 3s than Arizona's opponents did. Second, the Bruins' defense seldom forced turnovers.
Forcing an occasional turnover is part of being a good defense, and again, the Wildcats are the superior unit. Still, the difference is relatively small, and when it comes to forcing misses in the paint, it's the Bruins who take the prize. Only Cal held opposing offenses to a lower rate of success on 2s than UCLA did in Pac-12 play.
Myth No. 4: Michigan is shooting the lights out
Clearly, Michigan is shooting well in the postseason, but its numbers are not what you'd call ridiculous (a la Villanova in the NCAA tournament last year). During this current 6-0 postseason run, which includes four wins in the Big Ten tournament, Michigan has made 39 percent of its 3s. That is very good shooting from beyond the arc, but it can't hold a candle to what, say, Marquette did across three times as many games in Big East play this season.
In addition to shooting well, the Wolverines have been propelled all the way to the Sweet 16 by a huge advantage in turnovers. Look at it this way: Michigan has outscored its opponents by 0.13 points per possession during its six-game postseason run. On each "effective" (turnover-less) possession in that span, however, the Wolverines have been just 0.04 points better than other teams.
This is how John Beilein's team has been able to survive occasional cold shooting from individuals (Derrick Walton Jr. was 3-of-13 against Louisville) or even the whole team (Michigan wasn't as accurate from the field as Purdue was in an overtime win over the Boilermakers in the Big Ten quarterfinals). Yes, this group was labeled the Golden State Warriors by Rick Pitino, but that doesn't mean the Wolverines have to shoot like the Splash Brothers to win.
Myth No. 5: The results so far prove that the ACC was overrated
If before the tournament started you were calling the 2017 ACC the greatest conference in the history of college basketball, then yes, you were overrating the ACC. Otherwise, don't make me give you my standard lecture on small samples. (I'll throw in a bonus homily on what can happen to historically large, multi-bid conferences when they're fed into a buzzsaw of an event that removes 75 percent of the participants by the end of the first weekend. Look it up. The Big East was getting this same grief this week in 2011.)
This is what we know: Just one year ago, the ACC set a record for the most games won by a conference in an NCAA tournament. During the regular season, this year's ACC was statistically similar in strength to what we saw from the league in 2015-16. Then came the NCAA tournament.
I don't doubt that people have rated the ACC a notch higher than it should have been for most of the season, but the year-to-year swing in bracket fortunes speaks volumes about the NCAA tournament. March is a series of knife edges, and falling on the right side of that edge a few times in a row requires not only ability but also something more or less outside a team's control. My hunch is that the ACC wasn't quite as good as people were saying last week, but it is also nowhere near as bad as they're saying this week.