Why the upsets

[SoonerinNC]

As I watched the top seeded teams topple something seemed to be a consistent theme.

The favorite comes in with superior athletes. But they try to overpower the less athletic teams, resulting in a lot of one on one play, forced shots and too many trey and alley-oop attempts.

The underdog without the superior athlete simply plays a more fundamental game. They cover well on defense, move the ball on offense well and do a good job of moving without the ball and setting screens. They usually have a few good outside shooters, but work hard to get them open. They also block out better on the boards. Similar to the way foriegn teams beat US pro all-stars.

You may say that the favorite is overrated and the underdog is underrated. While that may be true in some cases most of the favorites would probably win at least 4 of 5 games against the underdog.

OU must avoid trying to out-athlete their NCAA foes. If they play as if they were playing another top seeded team they will come out ok. But if they rely on the trey too much and force the action they will probably lose to a team they should beat.

 

[NickZepp]

ISU lost to better athletes.

Ga State executed at the end of the game, and Baylor did what a Scott Drew coached team does.



everybody got to deviate from the norm

 

[MercedeSooner]

These games are being officiated really loosely allowing teams who fall behind to come back by playing really aggressive D and also negating teams athleticism by mucking up games. Ton of choke jobs also but there is way too much contact being allowed for my tastes and the final scores In a lot of these games reflect this.

 

[JBaker]

ISU lost to better athletes.

This is not in the ballpark of being accurate.

 

[Laxtothemax12]

This is not in the ballpark of being accurate.

52 rebounds and 19 offensive rebounds will do it.

 

[NickZepp]

This is not in the ballpark of being accurate.

They sure looked better. More physical, kept ISU out of the paint. Kept them off the boards. They looked better athletically. They shot poorly and still led a large part of the game.

 

[coolm]

I know what you're talking about Nick but it wasn't greater athleticism. They were just trying harder than ISU. They had WAYYY more energy and motivation than the Clones. They were hustling to every 50/50 ball and busting their behind to get to every rebound.

They just played like they wanted it more.

 

[CoachTalk]

Niang played awful. That helps the other team.

 

[sdcloud9]

Niang played awful. That helps the other team.

In the NCAA Tournament, the stars have to perform or you're out.

 

[chuckb]

For the 12-14 seeds, this game is their national championship but the 3-5 seeds all have their eyes on the Sweet 16 or more. This game is just one game out of 3+ they expect to play.

For UAB, Georgia St., whatever...this game is the game they play their season for. They play the game with that sort of energy and the UAB/Iowa St game is a perfect example. UAB killed them on the boards and got every loose ball. That's why they won. We cannot allow Albany to do the same to us. We have to match their energy.

The other thing is that staying in the game, keeping a lead or staying close, gives the underdog more energy.

 

[pnkranger]

It comes down to focus and execution. You give a team full of smart players with a smart coach a week to prepare for another team ... And the games are going to be closer because that minimizes he athletic differences between players. Throw in that those underdogs often execute better and play harder, and you've got a recipe for an upset. That's exactly what happened to us last year.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Niang played awful. That helps the other team.

he also was clearly fouled on that last play ... not that it bothers me that they lost ..

 

[Zimwillett]

Georgia State is a lot better than people think. They were RPI #53, KenPom #60. That is quite a bit better than your typical #14 seed (closer to a 12 seed profile...far better than Wyoming, comparable to Wofford). It's still no excuse for Baylor pissing down their legs, but I don't think this is as big of an upset as the seeding would indicate.

There's no excuse for ISU losing to UAB. Being from a better overall conference, UAB may have a a slightly better class of athlete than a traditional 14, but that's a team ISU should beat. Instead, they got caught sleep walking. This is where OU can learn it's lesson. Disrespect the opponent and sleep walk, and you're done.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Georgia State is a lot better than people think. They were RPI #53, KenPom #60. That is quite a bit better than your typical #14 seed (closer to a 12 seed profile...far better than Wyoming, comparable to Wofford). It's still no excuse for Baylor pissing down their legs, but I don't think this is as big of an upset as the seeding would indicate.

There's no excuse for ISU losing to UAB. Being from a better overall conference, UAB may have a a slightly better class of athlete than a traditional 14, but that's a team ISU should beat. Instead, they got caught sleep walking. This is where OU can learn it's lesson. Disrespect the opponent and sleep walk, and you're done.

they were also missing their second leading scorer and starting PG .. Harrow a transfer from Kentucky

 

[SilliSooner]

First off, Baylor should have never been a 3 seed. A 5 seed was appropriate. Georgia State should have never been a 14 seed. The 11 seed was more appropriate. So when a 5 seed loses to an 11, nobody breathes too heavy.

Baylor was a 3 because they beat Iowa State twice. They happened to match up well with the Cyclones, had bigs who overpowered IS's skinny guys and had an effective zone which ran the Cyclones off the line.

Iowa State in the tourney went up against an experienced tournament coach (as a player and as an assistant under Roy Williams) with a desperate team that saw their football program get the axe. I'm sure, as a former Kansas player, Jerad Haase had some things to advise his players how to deal with an Iowa State.