I like the Stanford women's team to take it all.

I like the Bonnies in the first round. Michigan is the real deal though and I have a rule that all A-10 teams need to be out by the 2nd round - it's true most of the time.  

My under the radar pick is Alabama. I have them going to the final 4 but am still undecided if they can take the Zags down. 

brod wrote:

My under the radar pick is Alabama. I have them going to the final 4 but am still undecided if they can take the Zags down. 

Can you really call a 2 seed that won the SEC regular season and tourney  an under the radar pick?  Seems like a stretch.

The only 2 seed that could be under the radar is Houston, since no one is giving them a chance.  But that is a really tough team thst defends hard, has good experienced guards, and is going to be a tough out for anyone.

I wanted to pick Oklahoma St to the final 4, but Illinois in the S16 is tough.  If they were in the East, I’d have them in the Final 4 over Alabama, Texas, Florida St, and LSU/Bonnies.

The fashionable upset picks appear to be UCSB, Winthrop and Ohio.  Am taking the first two but am counting on UVA to field a team that can hold off the Bobcats.  Then, UCSB to the Sweet 16.

Love SD State knocking off Syracuse and West Virginia.  Have Oregon losing in the Elite 8 to the Zags.  As much as I enjoy watching Iowa play, McCaffrey will be putting undue pressure on these guys by the first tv timeout.  

The Livers injury is a shame (I thought Michigan might drop to the 2 line because of it) but I have them in the second weekend.  Leonard Hamilton literally handed Michigan a win a few years back by inexplicably failing to foul when the outcome was still very much in question.  I'll take FSU because I can't see him doing this again.

Question:  Do you think that favorites who are identified as "strong upset possibilities" get fueled by this?  Predicted first round upsets are talked about every year but I have never really tracked the results.

This year, Winthrop was being talked about as a dangerous team before the draw but then they drew Nova who is without Gillespie and have lost to Georgetown, Providence and Butler late in the season.  Just about everyone I know is picking Winthrop.  It would be interesting to know how often the favorite (Nova in this example) end up cutting through the noise and coming through.

In addition to Winthrop, UCSB over Creighton is popular.  Have the Blue Jays recovered from McDermott's ill-advised remark and if you think yes, then how can one explain their performance against Georgetown?  Plus, the Gauchos are really good (says every pundit with a microphone).  Ohio over UVA because UVA is not the same UVA team and has a Covid issue which is causing them not to practice.  (Note:  Only 1 UVA player has Covid.  He rarely plays.  By this time of year, teams need to game plan, which can be done over Zoom, more than they need to exhaust themselves at practice.)

Here's the thing, Winthrop, UCSB and Ohio are all really good but they are really good against their level of competition.  Ohio lost by just 2 points to Illinois very early in the year but they also lost 6 other times, mostly to fellow MAC schools.  The Gauchos lost by 19 to UC-Irvine and by 16 to UC-Riverside.  They were 2-4 in Q2 games (they did not play any Q1 games) and 20-0 against everyone else.  UC what I mean?  At least Winthrop blew everyone out in their conference and went 2-0 in their two Q2 games (again, zero Q1 games).  That said, I couldn't pick their best win out of a police lineup.

Agreed with FQ. None of UC Santa Barbara's or Ohio's losses in conference have been to bad teams either. Their eight combined losses in conference play have been to teams that are all top 125 in KenPom, far from the worst teams out there. Winthrop's loss to UNC Asheville is perhaps not as good, but unless you're Gonzaga it's hard to go perfect in conference when teams know how you operate (I also thought UNCA would be a lot better this year with their quartet of guards, but COVID hit them pretty hard this year).

There are things to like about the matchups as well. For Winthrop, Villanova is a bit shakier in the ball handling department sans Gillespie and their interior defense is not particularly good at all. Winthrop has a bunch of rangy wings that can knock the ball away and they also have DJ Burns for stretches who was a down transfer from Tennessee that can bang inside. For UCSB, they are one of the best teams at taking away the three, a big identity of Creighton's offense. They are also arguably the most talented of these three teams with a number of down transfers. For Ohio, it's a mix of the COVID pause for UVA and also the fact that Virginia's defense has not been as elite as in previous years (though at least their offense has improved quite a bit from last year's disaster). Virginia's pack-line defense forces teams to operate more along the perimeter, something Ohio is more than happy to do with their shooters. A question for Ohio does exist on defense though.
 

Oregon State over Tennessee
Ohio over Virginia
Syracuse over San Diego St.
Rutgers over Clemson
https://fantasy.espn.com/tournament-challenge-bracket/2021/en/entry?entryID=37471437

Gwmayhem wrote:

Free Quebec wrote:

The “yeah, but against their level of competition” argument is a crutch argument, but it doesn’t really tell you anything. Otherwise, the small school teams would never beat the big guys, but it happens year after year.

Well, no.  Am not saying that these lower level schools aren't good compared with the bigger programs.  What I am saying is that this year, these schools have gaudy records defeating other midmajor-lowmajor programs exclusively.  This is largely due to the decrease in OOC games and specifically, the reduction in games between bigger and smaller programs.  It's not like UCSB faced off against a Pac12 or Mountain West opponent.  It's best opponent was likely Loyola Marymount, who had a Net of 99 and who they split two games with.  Nevertheless, so many experts will tell you that UCSB is really good again and again.  The fact is that they have been really good against their competition.  I am picking them against Creighton but back to the original point of my post, I wonder if a Creighton gets motivated by all of the UCSB talk this week when they played Kansas out-of-conference along with Nova, UCONN, and the rest of the Big East.

Is Colgate really good?  Their offensive statistics are off the charts and their vastly flawed NET ranking is #9.  They have also faced five schools all season, each out of The Patriot League.  This isn't meant as a slight towards these schools nor is this a crutch argument at all.  It is simply to say that in this unusual season, how can we possibly know if these programs are "really good" when stacked up against the better major programs?

Hard to know about Colgate but they did play Tennessee to the wire two years ago.  Jordan Burns put up 32 that game as a sophomore and he’s still there.   That said, Arkansas is also an uptempo team and probably just a better, more athletic version of Colgate. 

Creighton could be motivated by the UCSB hype, but I think basically every team uses any picks against them as bulletin board material so probably doesn’t really matter.  That said, Creighton is a streaky team.  If they can get it going from deep, they can win no matter what UCSB does.  (I have UCSB winning, though).

Mentzinger wrote:

Oregon State over Tennessee
Ohio over Virginia
Syracuse over San Diego St.
Rutgers over Clemson
https://fantasy.espn.com/tournament-challenge-bracket/2021/en/entry?entryID=37471437

4-0. Declares victory. (Also had UCSB)