NCAAB Tournament - Round of 32
By Dave Essler
Notre Dame: As I said in my earlier write ups - the Irish seem to be built for the long haul. They're 16-4 SU on two days rest or less. However, winning and covering are two different things - and what concerns me most is that their non-conference schedule was horrible - and most of the ACC was way off this year - so aside from a few games, were they REALLY tested? Their bench is not very deep and they don't have the length to compete with certain teams. Starting this before the games' have been played, and honestly Purdue is a much tougher matchup for them than Cincinnati. They seem to handle the athletic/fluid teams but struggled with team like Syracuse, Pitt, and UVA - who will grind like the Bearcats. And Butler.
UAB: The Blazers have been one of our favorite teams to bet all season, but we didn't see the win over ISU coming, at least not outright. What they did to Iowa State was truly remarkable, not just winning, but absolutely dominating the glass on both ends of the floor. They're a super young team that easily could be the Cinderella. They played a tremendous non-conference schedule which really helped them come together the second half of the season. I wouldn't underestimate them Saturday, either, because they are 7-2 on ones days' rest. They're bigger than most people would think, they get to the free throw line a ton, and for a big team defend the perimeter very well. They're in Louisville, which is a whole lot closer to home than UCLA.
Georgia State: We were all over them against Baylor and I must admit that when Harrow was announced out shortly before the game started I didn't see the win ATS even coming. Obviously it'll depend on his status going forward, but they are a very experienced team - now playing with the utmost confidence. It wouldn't surprise me to see people calling them Cinderella, but they're not.They're a very good team with everything but length, which is why Baylor was such a favorable matchup. Teams they did and will struggle against are the ones that run, since they lost to Colorado State and Iowa State early, and Lafayette and App State beat them in Conference play - both play quicker than the Panthers, Lafayette a lot faster. IMO Xavier winning (much to my chagrin) is probably a better matchup for them than Ole Miss would have been.
Arizona: The premium may be worth paying on Arizona. They were 6-0 SU in neutral site games, and 4-2 ATS. Perhaps the most impressive thing they did - KNOWING they were bigger and bigger favorites as the season wore on - was go 16-5 ATS in Conference play. They were also 6-2 ATS on one days' rest - but just like many other huge public teams, they were a huge UNDER team in neutral site games (1-5). With all the talk about Stanley Johnson people forget they are big and have the third ranked defense (efficiency) in the nation. They'll only struggle against huge teams that play defense, and that's certainly not Ohio State - especially the part about defense.
Butler: A lot of sharp people thought Butler would lose to Texas, and honestly I did, too. Perhaps a bit of a lemming following that one, since Butler just never goes away. No Brad Stevens. No Horizon League. No problem. They're 4-1 on short rest, but laying points with a team like the Bulldogs is a problem for me. They just can't score enough (at times) and are not a great FT shooting team, which is an absolute must for me. A team like Northeastern is exactly the type of team that could give them fits. They're usually a great "under" team, but these days that's perhaps a bit public. Maybe a 1H under and a great 2H bet. Physically, I wonder what beating Texas took out of them. If it took anything, they'd fare better against Northeastern than perhaps they will against Notre Dame. However, that's a HUGE rivalry in the State of Indiana.
UCLA: I said all along in various communications that UCLA might not "deserve" to be there but they are a dangerous and tough "out". Teams in that situation play with a chip on their shoulder, and we did think the style they play could give SMU problems. The only problem I had was not betting on them. I'll put them in the same category as Mississippi - very talented with nothing to lose so they'll play loose, which is always a dangerous team to play.They could be a lot like UAB in that yes, they are young, but look at who the played in non-conference play. It's a who's who list that includes Kentucky and Gonzaga. We gave out UCLA but neglected to add them, but they were just a matchup issue for SMU playing on much shorter rest, too. Once again, the team that won the rebound battle won the game. However, UCLA turned it over twice as many times as SMU. If they fix that, they move on. If they don't, they won't. UAB certainly won't be afraid of them, and IMO the total, at least the 1H, will be too high.
Xavier: We actually thought Ole Miss would win that game, knowing that Xavier has had issues with team that fit Ole Miss' profile. Since that's not the case we need to figure out whether it was the Rebels being tired and not belonging, or is Xavier that much better. This team has always been an enigma to me - and since Christmas never won (or lost) more than two games in a row, unless you count the season ending win and the two Conference Tournament wins. They've got length, they rebound, and they shoot free throws well, so I suppose it really shouldn't be a surprise. Their games against Georgia State is one I probably want no part of - especially since they are 1-4 ATS on 0/1 days' rest.
Ohio State: We faded them most of the season, knowing they were soft. For a team that scores inside with the regularity that they do, they just don't go to the FT line nearly as much as you'd think. We've found that to be a huge issue in this Tournament. What I did learn was that although the pulled the game out, the ability to close a team out isn't there, because they had ample opportunity prior to the overtime. And now they play on short rest having expended a ton of energy - and in a game they were outrebounded by a much smaller team.They're 4-11 ATS after and ATS win and I don't see that changing against Arizona, if for no other reason the Wildcats expended exactly zero energy Thursday. Perhaps we'll look at the total in that one - maybe some value there. Either way, the thought that this game with Arizona will end Arizona/over isn't something I entertain. The public rarely gets both sides of a big game, ever. And see my note about Arizona and totals from earlier.
Villanova: The "cover the spread" machine that has been the Wildcats (not the Kentucky ones). Villanova was 23-9 ATS this season. Remarkable. Even I tried to fade them in spots. That didn't work out well. Even in neutral site games they were 6-0 SU and 4-1-1 ATS. I keep waiting for a bigger team to beat them, and Providence was about the closest thing, and in the Big East, they are about the only really big team. With that in mind I'd be inclined to take them over NC State and have faded them against LSU - without looking a whole lot further.
North Carolina: A lot of people's trendy pick to do well - but not mine. They're still too young and IMO that game against Notre Dame showed a couple of flaws. First, they may not be built for the grind of consecutive games and travel, and secondly, they'll beat the teams that play scrappy defense but have trouble scoring (UVA and L'ville, for example). They DO have the "neutral site" experience, and what's very interesting is that they're 7-2 (including the ACC Tournament) in those games SU and 7-2 ATS. When they win, they cover - it's been that simple for the Heels all season. Or it was until they played Harvard. That is another game that either gives them confidence to come back, or emotionally drained a young team.
Utah: The Utes are only 2-3 (ATS and SU) on one days' rest - and a couple of those games came in the last week-plus of the regular season, so perhaps they needed the rest. Austin pushed them hard, and for me it was a loss - simply being foolish and taking +6.5. What was very impressive by the Lumberjacks is they had 11 offensive rebounds to only 3 for Utah, shot 33%, and were in the game. If the Utes don't change that, they won't be around long, and they (Utah) has considerably more turnover. Almost any team will beat that on most days.
Georgetown: As long as they don't play Xavier or a team like Xavier, they'll be fine. The Musketeers beat them three times so we need to look at that very seriously as we've found through the years that those are excellent indicators of they type of team we can't back them against. We hit their "over" on Thursday in spite of the rough start, but "Hoyas" and "over" don't typically belong in the same sentence. They'll probably match up well against a slower team like Utah.
NC State: A gutsy and fortunate win for them and now playing a quick turnaround. They've done that exactly three times this season and failed to win one of them ATS. They held LSU to 40% from the floor and the Tigers did get to the line a ton, as we expected, but failed to make enough. The instinct here would be to think NC State has a great defense, but in my opinion it was more LSU's ineptness than anything, so I will look hard at perhaps an "over" when they play 'Nova - but the sad thing is Villanova's totals are almost always chalked. They (NC State) don't see many teams that can shoot three's as well as Villanova so that could be a tough one. Duke is perhaps the closest thing, or maybe UVA as is a slower version of Villanova.
Cincinnati: I'm still looking for their signature non-conference win, other than beating ANOTHER team that can't score in San Diego State - at home. Clearly the SMU wins got them here - and that's unfortunate for them because they just don't match up with bigger, faster teams that can score. And probably anyone but a young team like Purdue would have beaten them Thursday. The thing in their favor here, if you're into trends, is that they are 6-3 on 0/1 days' rest. Kentucky will clearly challenge that, but after the dreadful performance by Cincinnati, they'll be catching a ton of points. Put it this way, they can't play any worse, so I might be able to make a case for taking the points, if I can stomach that team again.
Arkansas: It's very difficult for me to back a team that's SO quick - whose defense sucks - on short rest. I probably should have seen when they played Kentucky. Wofford gave them way more than I thought they would - seeing Woffford's history against up tempo teams (it was horrible). They let the Terriers, who are minuscule by comparison, out rebound them. That's just unacceptable and I'd like to think that because the Tar Heels are one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the nation, that they simply overwhelm the Hogs. But, we know how the obvious works and the number will clearly reflect that, as will the total. Both may be TOO high and that's one of those games where I might just take the under and the Hogs, because Joe Q doesn't usually win both sides of a public game like that.
Kentucky: Rather than look for reasons to TAKE the Wildcats - let's look for reasons not to. It's easier. Coming into the Tournament they were a perfect 5-0 ATS at neutral sites, and 4-5 ATS on the road. They're 4-2 ATS one days' rest - which given their depth you might expect. What's really interesting and perhaps a better (easier to figure out?) play in their games is the total - they are 2-11 UNDER in games against non-conference teams. -17 is a lot, even against Cincinnati who CAN play defense. Unless Kentucky scores 90 I don't see how this game goes over any total they may post.
By Dave Essler
Notre Dame: As I said in my earlier write ups - the Irish seem to be built for the long haul. They're 16-4 SU on two days rest or less. However, winning and covering are two different things - and what concerns me most is that their non-conference schedule was horrible - and most of the ACC was way off this year - so aside from a few games, were they REALLY tested? Their bench is not very deep and they don't have the length to compete with certain teams. Starting this before the games' have been played, and honestly Purdue is a much tougher matchup for them than Cincinnati. They seem to handle the athletic/fluid teams but struggled with team like Syracuse, Pitt, and UVA - who will grind like the Bearcats. And Butler.
UAB: The Blazers have been one of our favorite teams to bet all season, but we didn't see the win over ISU coming, at least not outright. What they did to Iowa State was truly remarkable, not just winning, but absolutely dominating the glass on both ends of the floor. They're a super young team that easily could be the Cinderella. They played a tremendous non-conference schedule which really helped them come together the second half of the season. I wouldn't underestimate them Saturday, either, because they are 7-2 on ones days' rest. They're bigger than most people would think, they get to the free throw line a ton, and for a big team defend the perimeter very well. They're in Louisville, which is a whole lot closer to home than UCLA.
Georgia State: We were all over them against Baylor and I must admit that when Harrow was announced out shortly before the game started I didn't see the win ATS even coming. Obviously it'll depend on his status going forward, but they are a very experienced team - now playing with the utmost confidence. It wouldn't surprise me to see people calling them Cinderella, but they're not.They're a very good team with everything but length, which is why Baylor was such a favorable matchup. Teams they did and will struggle against are the ones that run, since they lost to Colorado State and Iowa State early, and Lafayette and App State beat them in Conference play - both play quicker than the Panthers, Lafayette a lot faster. IMO Xavier winning (much to my chagrin) is probably a better matchup for them than Ole Miss would have been.
Arizona: The premium may be worth paying on Arizona. They were 6-0 SU in neutral site games, and 4-2 ATS. Perhaps the most impressive thing they did - KNOWING they were bigger and bigger favorites as the season wore on - was go 16-5 ATS in Conference play. They were also 6-2 ATS on one days' rest - but just like many other huge public teams, they were a huge UNDER team in neutral site games (1-5). With all the talk about Stanley Johnson people forget they are big and have the third ranked defense (efficiency) in the nation. They'll only struggle against huge teams that play defense, and that's certainly not Ohio State - especially the part about defense.
Butler: A lot of sharp people thought Butler would lose to Texas, and honestly I did, too. Perhaps a bit of a lemming following that one, since Butler just never goes away. No Brad Stevens. No Horizon League. No problem. They're 4-1 on short rest, but laying points with a team like the Bulldogs is a problem for me. They just can't score enough (at times) and are not a great FT shooting team, which is an absolute must for me. A team like Northeastern is exactly the type of team that could give them fits. They're usually a great "under" team, but these days that's perhaps a bit public. Maybe a 1H under and a great 2H bet. Physically, I wonder what beating Texas took out of them. If it took anything, they'd fare better against Northeastern than perhaps they will against Notre Dame. However, that's a HUGE rivalry in the State of Indiana.
UCLA: I said all along in various communications that UCLA might not "deserve" to be there but they are a dangerous and tough "out". Teams in that situation play with a chip on their shoulder, and we did think the style they play could give SMU problems. The only problem I had was not betting on them. I'll put them in the same category as Mississippi - very talented with nothing to lose so they'll play loose, which is always a dangerous team to play.They could be a lot like UAB in that yes, they are young, but look at who the played in non-conference play. It's a who's who list that includes Kentucky and Gonzaga. We gave out UCLA but neglected to add them, but they were just a matchup issue for SMU playing on much shorter rest, too. Once again, the team that won the rebound battle won the game. However, UCLA turned it over twice as many times as SMU. If they fix that, they move on. If they don't, they won't. UAB certainly won't be afraid of them, and IMO the total, at least the 1H, will be too high.
Xavier: We actually thought Ole Miss would win that game, knowing that Xavier has had issues with team that fit Ole Miss' profile. Since that's not the case we need to figure out whether it was the Rebels being tired and not belonging, or is Xavier that much better. This team has always been an enigma to me - and since Christmas never won (or lost) more than two games in a row, unless you count the season ending win and the two Conference Tournament wins. They've got length, they rebound, and they shoot free throws well, so I suppose it really shouldn't be a surprise. Their games against Georgia State is one I probably want no part of - especially since they are 1-4 ATS on 0/1 days' rest.
Ohio State: We faded them most of the season, knowing they were soft. For a team that scores inside with the regularity that they do, they just don't go to the FT line nearly as much as you'd think. We've found that to be a huge issue in this Tournament. What I did learn was that although the pulled the game out, the ability to close a team out isn't there, because they had ample opportunity prior to the overtime. And now they play on short rest having expended a ton of energy - and in a game they were outrebounded by a much smaller team.They're 4-11 ATS after and ATS win and I don't see that changing against Arizona, if for no other reason the Wildcats expended exactly zero energy Thursday. Perhaps we'll look at the total in that one - maybe some value there. Either way, the thought that this game with Arizona will end Arizona/over isn't something I entertain. The public rarely gets both sides of a big game, ever. And see my note about Arizona and totals from earlier.
Villanova: The "cover the spread" machine that has been the Wildcats (not the Kentucky ones). Villanova was 23-9 ATS this season. Remarkable. Even I tried to fade them in spots. That didn't work out well. Even in neutral site games they were 6-0 SU and 4-1-1 ATS. I keep waiting for a bigger team to beat them, and Providence was about the closest thing, and in the Big East, they are about the only really big team. With that in mind I'd be inclined to take them over NC State and have faded them against LSU - without looking a whole lot further.
North Carolina: A lot of people's trendy pick to do well - but not mine. They're still too young and IMO that game against Notre Dame showed a couple of flaws. First, they may not be built for the grind of consecutive games and travel, and secondly, they'll beat the teams that play scrappy defense but have trouble scoring (UVA and L'ville, for example). They DO have the "neutral site" experience, and what's very interesting is that they're 7-2 (including the ACC Tournament) in those games SU and 7-2 ATS. When they win, they cover - it's been that simple for the Heels all season. Or it was until they played Harvard. That is another game that either gives them confidence to come back, or emotionally drained a young team.
Utah: The Utes are only 2-3 (ATS and SU) on one days' rest - and a couple of those games came in the last week-plus of the regular season, so perhaps they needed the rest. Austin pushed them hard, and for me it was a loss - simply being foolish and taking +6.5. What was very impressive by the Lumberjacks is they had 11 offensive rebounds to only 3 for Utah, shot 33%, and were in the game. If the Utes don't change that, they won't be around long, and they (Utah) has considerably more turnover. Almost any team will beat that on most days.
Georgetown: As long as they don't play Xavier or a team like Xavier, they'll be fine. The Musketeers beat them three times so we need to look at that very seriously as we've found through the years that those are excellent indicators of they type of team we can't back them against. We hit their "over" on Thursday in spite of the rough start, but "Hoyas" and "over" don't typically belong in the same sentence. They'll probably match up well against a slower team like Utah.
NC State: A gutsy and fortunate win for them and now playing a quick turnaround. They've done that exactly three times this season and failed to win one of them ATS. They held LSU to 40% from the floor and the Tigers did get to the line a ton, as we expected, but failed to make enough. The instinct here would be to think NC State has a great defense, but in my opinion it was more LSU's ineptness than anything, so I will look hard at perhaps an "over" when they play 'Nova - but the sad thing is Villanova's totals are almost always chalked. They (NC State) don't see many teams that can shoot three's as well as Villanova so that could be a tough one. Duke is perhaps the closest thing, or maybe UVA as is a slower version of Villanova.
Cincinnati: I'm still looking for their signature non-conference win, other than beating ANOTHER team that can't score in San Diego State - at home. Clearly the SMU wins got them here - and that's unfortunate for them because they just don't match up with bigger, faster teams that can score. And probably anyone but a young team like Purdue would have beaten them Thursday. The thing in their favor here, if you're into trends, is that they are 6-3 on 0/1 days' rest. Kentucky will clearly challenge that, but after the dreadful performance by Cincinnati, they'll be catching a ton of points. Put it this way, they can't play any worse, so I might be able to make a case for taking the points, if I can stomach that team again.
Arkansas: It's very difficult for me to back a team that's SO quick - whose defense sucks - on short rest. I probably should have seen when they played Kentucky. Wofford gave them way more than I thought they would - seeing Woffford's history against up tempo teams (it was horrible). They let the Terriers, who are minuscule by comparison, out rebound them. That's just unacceptable and I'd like to think that because the Tar Heels are one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the nation, that they simply overwhelm the Hogs. But, we know how the obvious works and the number will clearly reflect that, as will the total. Both may be TOO high and that's one of those games where I might just take the under and the Hogs, because Joe Q doesn't usually win both sides of a public game like that.
Kentucky: Rather than look for reasons to TAKE the Wildcats - let's look for reasons not to. It's easier. Coming into the Tournament they were a perfect 5-0 ATS at neutral sites, and 4-5 ATS on the road. They're 4-2 ATS one days' rest - which given their depth you might expect. What's really interesting and perhaps a better (easier to figure out?) play in their games is the total - they are 2-11 UNDER in games against non-conference teams. -17 is a lot, even against Cincinnati who CAN play defense. Unless Kentucky scores 90 I don't see how this game goes over any total they may post.
