NCAA March Madness 2008

March Madness, that curiously American phenomenon where grown men (mostly) and some women become absolutely unglued for three consecutive weekends from mid-March to early-April as they watch 65 Division I men's basketball teams fight it out to see who really is # 1, is upon us. This year there is a presumptive favorite--indeed a heavily-favored favorite-the North Carolina Tar Heels. Sporting an impressive array of quick guards and and all-American Center Tyler Hansbrough, and now with veteran guard Ty Lawson healthy, NC appears to be in the driver's seat. Its reqional bracket is probably the easiest of the four. Tennessee, which has lost two games in as many weeks to lesser caliber teams, is a weak No. 2. A resurgent Louisville is No. 3, but they have seemingly reached their peak about two weeks two early. Finally, the No. 4 seed, Washington State, is really ranked too high. I watched them closely this past week at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, where I attended the PAC-10 Championships, and they were fully unable to manage the presence of big people (the Lopez twins from Stanford easily dominated Aaron Baynes and Robbie Cowgill, as well as the reserves from WSU), even though their guard play is almost as strong as anyone's.

UCLA's Fortunes

If there is any team that appears to be able to threaten NC in this tournament, it is UCLA. Blessed with lots of NCAA final four experience, with lightning-fast guards, with a big man that has the potential to be the most dominating big man in college (if he stays put for a few years) in years, UCLA seems to have it all. Their winning of the PAC-10 conference championship last week after starter Luc Richard Mbah a Moute went down early in the game against USC with an ankle injury, and after Kevin Love suffered from back spasms against Stanford and obviously was in poor form for the first half of that game, means that they have to be taken seriously. Yet UCLA has a curious tendency to self-destruct that will, I am afraid, tend to undermine them in this tournament.

Let me describe this self-destruct tendency, because opposing teams may well be able to anticpate and make the most of it. In the season, and PAC-10 tournament, it went like this. (1) UCLA begins with a big and stunning play--in this case it was a Kevin Love dunk off of a missed shot against USC, that sends the crowd wild and gives the impression that UCLA can do anything it wants; (2) UCLA then brings up the ball painfully slowly, taking up 30 seconds of the play clock just to get in position; (3) the other team (USC or Stanford) begins to make a few good plays, and then UCLA falls apart. They sink into large single or small double-digit deficit by halftime, and you think it is all over. (4) But then, something seems to click. Love begins to sink three-pointers or put in some layups; Josh Shipp hits a a few threes; Darren Collison ramps up his game at guard to a new level. UCLA then catches up, breezes ahead. (5) Then, with about 5 minutes left in the game, UCLA begins to crumble again. It is almost as if they are afraid to get too far ahead of their opponents for fear that their opponents might not "have a chance" against them. They become afraid to lose the game, and the crowd begins to wonder if they can hold out until the end.

A variation on this theme happened in the last week of the regular season, when UCLA pulled out two stunning combacks, against Stanford and Cal, in the last seconds. They didn't have a chance to get to step (5) above; they had to fight just to be able to come back to win.

I think this formula of UCLA's that will possibly lead to an unexpected early loss in the tournament. They will have "spotted" their opponent 20 points and finally will not be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat at the end of the game. They seem to lack the fire and determination to get out ahead and stay ahead of another team. There is perhaps no team that has the talent of a UCLA; at times they play at such a high level that they could put anyone in a 20-point deficit. But, then again, they almost were tied against Oregon State, the most hapless team in Division 1 basketball, at Pauley Pavilion, at halftime. It is conceivable that they could be knocked out in the first round. But, then again, if they are in the "zone," they should breeze through to the round of 8, with only BYU/Texas Tech and Connecticut standing in their way. I have seen Kevin Love play against Curtis Kelly, the Huskies' backup center, when Kelly was a HS senior and Love a junior. Love dominated; I think he could quickly put the CT big men in difficulty.

But if UCLA wins in the Round of 8, they might have to face Duke, if the Blue Devils can recover and win their regional matchups. Contrary to most analysts, I think that UCLA could have real match-up problems with Duke. I saw South Medford high (Kyle Singler) play Lake Oswego high (Kevin Love) on three occasions (state championship 2006, 2007; Les Schwab invitational late 2006), and on each occasion except the 2007 title game (which South Medford won), Singler seemed to know Love's game so well that he could tie him up in unexpected ways. Singler has been cold of late for Duke, but if his form returns in the playoffs, Duke could end up being a Final 4 team.

So, even though I would like nothing better than to see a UCLA v. North Carolina finals on April 7, pitting the two best big men in the college game against each other (Kevin Love and Tyler Hansbrough), I think that UCLA is more likely to fall to someone, maybe as early as an unexpected second round loss. They just don't seem to be able to put together three great games in a row....

As For the Rest--of the PAC 10 Teams

I know the PAC-10 teams best. Their strength of schedule was among the toughest in the country this year, and they qualified six teams for the tournament, five of whom may make it to the sweet 16. Oregon won't. Why? Well Oregon doesn't play well when it crosses the Rocky Mountains. Never has and, in my mind, never will. Something about the rain and gray of the Northwest brings out the best in them. They will probably fall to Mississippi State in Little Rock, in the first round. Stanford, a third seed, has the most dominating pair of 7-foot centers (the Lopez brothers..from their first names alone, Brook and Robin, you wouldn't know what gender they were...) in the college game today, but they aren't supported by a stellar cast at the guard play, nor do they play tenacious defense. If, however, Lawrence Hill or Anthony Goods were to have a "break-out" tournament, they could even put a scare into Texas, whom they would face in the third round. I think Washington State will fall out in the second round, probably to Notre Dame, though their style of play may tie up Notre Dame and work in WSU's favor. USC performs steadily and well. With OJ Mayo as a stellar guard, and, if Davon Jefferson, Taj Gibson and Keith Wilkinson can play well all in the same game, they are a lock to the Sweet 16. They would have to make it through Kansas State and Wisconsin. The Badgers, in my mind, are overrated, and will fall to the Trojans, even though they have more beef inside.

The AZ Wildcats are the mystery team. They fought Stanford to the wire in three games this year--losing all three; they have had a wealth of NCAA experience, they sport a good perimeter and driving game (with Baylis and Budinger). They must get through West Virginia and Duke to hope to make it even to the Sweet 16, but I think it will be hard for them to beat the Blue Devils. Despite the fact that Duke isn't in its best form this year, they probably boast too much overall talent for AZ.

Conclusion

So, my final four are North Carolina, Kansas, Stanford or Texas and either Xavier or Duke. I am probably going to be wrong almost in every instance, but that is how I see it. How about you?

3392