Syracuse Region

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
North Carolina		76		55.7	46.6	39.8	69.3	22	25.1	1.17	0.93
vs.Tourney		74.2		51.2	49.5	39.3	69.2	19.6	22	1.15	1.03

North Carolina played 35.5% of their games against tournament teams (Iowa, Kentucky, Vermont, Georgia Tech (2), Wake Forest, NC State (2), Duke (2), UConn). Though those teams managed to shave a couple of possessions off the game, they didn't really slow down North Carolina's offense. As is common, the Tar Heels struggled (relatively) to guard better teams, creating fewer turnovers and sending tournament-bound opponents to the line more often.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
UConn		70.2		50.3	42.7	42.7	69	21.5	17.5	1.11	0.94
vs.Tourney		69.1		47.2	43.2	41.2	64	24	15.5	1.04	1.02

UConn played 34.2% of their games against tournament teams (Boston College, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh (2), W. Virginia, Villanova, Syracuse (3), North Carolina). UConn shot the ball worse and turned it over more often against better opposition. Furthermore, they undermined their fine field goal defense by sending those opponents to the free throw line 25% more frequently than they did non-tournament teams.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Kansas		67		53.7	44.2	35.6	66.6	21.2	20.9	1.11	0.97
vs.Tourney		67.4		52.7	45	34.7	66.7	21.2	19.9	1.07	0.98

Kansas played 52.5% of their games against tournament teams (Nevada, Vermont, Pacific, UL-Lafayette, UW-Milwaukee, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Iowa St (2), Villanova, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St (2)). As befits the only team to play more than half of their games against tournament teams, there's not much difference manifest in the above breakdown. The Jayhawks are what they are: decent offensively and defensively, mediocre rebounders and ball-handlers.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Florida		65.8		55.8	46.1	35.8	71.6	20.5	22.1	1.16	0.94
vs.Tourney		65.1		52.1	45.9	34.8	73.4	19.7	21.2	1.11	0.94

Florida played 33.1% of their games against tournament teams (Louisville, E. Kentucky, Mississippi St (2), Alabama (2), Kentucky (3), LSU). I've made fun of Billy Donovan for a long time but this is a good, dangerous team. They play good defense, they rebound well, and they don't turn it over too much.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Villanova		64.5		50.5	45	41.5	64.1	19.5	25	1.14	0.95
vs.Tourney		66		50.3	51.3	33.9	60.3	18.7	23.8	1.10	1.08

Villanova played 37.8% of their games against tournament teams (Penn, W. Virginia (2), Boston College (2), Kansas, UConn, Syracuse, Bucknell, Pittsburgh (2)). The Wildcats gave up a lot of ground in both their field goal defense and rebounding against tournament-bound teams on average. However, they are not an especially consistent team.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Wisconsin		62.3		49.9	46.7	31.2	74.5	18.2	19	1.07	0.95
vs.Tourney		61.2		48.8	47.3	27.2	74.9	17.4	18	1.03	0.98

The Badgers played 35.5% of their games against tournament teams (Penn, UW-Milwaukee, Alabama, Michigan St (2), Illinois (3), Minnesota, Iowa (2)). Wisconsin grabbed fewer offensive rebounds, shot a hair more threes, and fewer free throws against tournament teams. Their defense remained exemplary. If the committee had seen fit to mix a few of the teams from the Syracuse region that play defense with the teams from the Albuquerque region that play offense, we'd have some intriguing, high-contrast matchups to ponder.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Charlotte		69.1		49.9	49.4	37	66	18.7	22.6	1.11	1.01
vs.Tourney		71.1		50.5	54.2	37.5	64.1	20.5	21.1	1.12	1.12

Charlotte played 22.4% of their games against tournament teams (UL-Lafayette, Alabama, UAB, Cincinnati (2), Louisville). Looking at the Charlotte, UAB, and Cincinnati statistical breakdowns demonstrates why Louisville ended up with a four seed. Conference USA was not very strong at all this year. I'm not sure that Charlotte's any better than lower seeds Pacific, Nevada, Creighton, Northern Iowa, UTEP, or George Washington. The 49ers make up for poor field goal shooting by attempting a ton of free throws. They don't make up for their poor defense.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Minnesota		66.3		50.6	47.6	35.7	67.8	24.2	25.8	1.03	0.94
vs.Tourney		67.1		42.5	50.2	31.3	62.5	21.9	26.4	0.91	1.02

Minnesota played 28.9% of their games against tournament teams (Alabama, Oklahoma, Iowa (2), Michigan St (2), Illinois (2), Wisconsin). They won at home against Wisconsin and Iowa. The Gophers , as you can see above, are in the tournament on the basis of who they played, not how they played. I don't mean to diminsh their unexpectedly decent year, but I see no reason to believe they would have finished in the top four of the Missouri Valley Conference.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
IowaSt		66.2		47.3	47.6	33.1	66.4	19.3	25.5	1.02	0.94
vs.Tourney		67.8		46	50.8	35.9	66.6	21	22	1.01	1.05

Iowa State played 34.9% of the games against tournament teams (Bucknell, Northern Iowa, Iowa, Kansas (2), Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech (2)). Iowa State was mediocre offensively against all comers. Tournament-bound teams found more good shots and threw the ball away less often against the Cyclones' undersized defenders.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
NCState		65.1		53.6	48.6	33.3	63.9	18.9	23.1	1.13	1.02
vs.Tourney		65.5		50.8	54.2	31.8	61.6	20.7	21.9	1.06	1.13

NC State played 37.5% of their games against tournament teams (UL-Lafayette, Washington, W. Virginia, Duke (2), Georgia Tech (2), North Carolina (2), Wake Forest (3)). One could excuse some the Wolfpack's defensive lapses against that collection of opponents were their overall defensive and rebounding numbers not so poor.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Northern Iowa		65		54.7	49.1	28	71.9	18	19.9	1.11	1.01
vs.Tourney		64.8		55.7	49.4	31.3	70.7	19.6	14.9	1.12	1.09

Northern Iowa played 23.2% of their games against tournament teams (Cincinnati, Iowa St, Iowa, S. Illinois (2), Creighton (2). The Missouri Valley Conference is a really good league. Both Creighton and Northern Iowa shot better against tournament opposition than they did on the year as a whole. Though dangerous offensively, Northern Iowa struggles defensively.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
New Mexico		66		57.9	47.8	32.3	68.8	20.7	21.7	1.16	0.97
vs.Tourney		60		46.7	51.7	28.7	61.6	15.8	19.9	1.03	1.10

New Mexico played 12.5% of their games against tournament teams (Wake Forest, Utah (3)). The Lobos beat up on most of their schedule, but their poor rebounding will likely limit their success against better competition even with Danny Granger back in the lineup.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Ohio		64.6		51.7	50.5	33.6	64.9	20	23.5	1.10	1.03

Ohio didn't play any tournament teams this year. They'll struggle to get the line at the their seasonal rate (1 FTA for every 2.1 FGA) against Florida which should impact their offensice efficiency.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Bucknell		62.6		51.5	44.9	31.6	67.2	25.1	25.1	1.01	0.92
vs.Tourney		65.2		49.8	53.8	25.7	56.5	26.1	26.3	0.93	1.09

Bucknell played 16.1% of their games against tournament teams (Iowa St, Penn, Niagara, Pittsburgh, Villanova). Only Villanova blew out Bucknell and their modestly impressive win over Pittsburgh has been well-publicized but those defensive numbers inspire little confidence. Penn, Niagara, and Iowa State all killed the Bison on the glass as well.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
UCF		62		54.8	44.5	40	67.7	24.3	19.2	1.12	1.04
vs.Tourney		55.1		52	42.9	29.6	74.1	21.8	21.7	1.00	0.94

Central Florida beat Utah State earlier this year in their one contest against a tournament team; a result which should give pause to those who think the Aggies will give Arizona fits. UCF will struggle to maintain those rebounding numbers against UConn, but if they keep the pace slow enough, the score might remain respectable.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Oakland		65		50.4	54.2	34.2	65.1	18.5	21.4	1.08	1.11
vs.Tourney		71.1		46.6	62	30.3	61.7	22.5	21.2	0.91	1.25

Oakland played at Illinois and at Michigan State this year with predictable results.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Ala A&M		71.7		45.3	46.1	32	63.4	21.2	27.3	0.96	0.91
vs.Tourney		77.1		41.6	59.2	40.8	59.5	23.3	14.5	0.88	1.32

Alabama A&M got blown out at UAB in their lone matchup with a tournament team. Whomever survives the play-in game, North Carolina's starters should be well rested for Sunday's game.

Albuquerque Region

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Washington		73		53.9	49.9	42.2	64.9	19.8	25	1.17	1.00
vs.Tourney		70.5		52	54	41.2	65	19.4	20.8	1.14	1.13

Washington played 40.3% of their game against tournament teams (Utah, Oklahoma, Alabama, Gonzaga, NC State, Stanford (3), UCLA (2), Arizona (3)). Those teams played the Huskies to a near standstill largely by not turning the ball over. The Huskies are an outstanding offensive team, but they have to be because of their poor interior defense. Tournament-bound opponents didn't just outshoot Washington from the field, they shot 28% more free throws than did the Huskies.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Wake Forest		70.6		55.6	49.8	40.5	68.2	20.4	20.9	1.19	1.03
vs.Tourney		69.4		53.1	53.3	39.4	65.7	18.8	18.6	1.18	1.14

Wake Forest played 45.2% of their games against tournament teams (George Washington, Arizona, Illinois, Texas, New Mexico, North Carolina, Cincinnati, Georgia Tech (2), Duke (2), NC State (3)). Those teams took (37.2% of FGA) and made (40.1 3PT%) a lot of three pointers. Unlike Washington, another good rebounding team, Wake struggled to guard the perimeter players of their tournament-bound opponents. Like Washington, Wake still managed to outscore these opponents. The Deacons made up for their opponents' perimeter shooting by getting to the line an extra 7 times per game.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Gonzaga		67.3		55.2	48.6	38.5	69.8	20.1	18.3	1.18	1.03
vs.Tourney		69.1		53.9	51.4	35.5	67.6	19	18.5	1.16	1.09

Gonzaga played 27.6% of their games against tournament teams (Illinois, Washington, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma St, St. Mary's (3), Montana). Tournament-bound opponents slowed down the game against both Washington and Wake Forest. Gonzaga gets to speed the game up when they play teams of equal ability. Gonzaga eschews the three-pointer (23.7% of FGA) and lives at the free throw line (1 FTA for every 2.1 FGA).

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Louisville		69.4		54.9	43.8	38.3	67.9	21	25	1.17	0.91
vs.Tourney		67.9		54.2	46.9	32.8	65.8	22.4	20.2	1.11	1.03

Louisville played 30.3% of their games against tournament teams (Iowa, Stanford, Florida, Kentucky, E. Kentucky, Cincinnati (2), UAB (2), Charlotte). The Cardinals are easily the best defensive team in the region, though their rebounding and turnovers forced diminshed significantly against better opposition.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Georgia Tech		70.2		50.3	43.8	35.3	66.9	21.6	22.2	1.05	0.94
vs.Tourney		70.6		45.4	48.1	32.4	63.6	21	20.9	0.99	1.08

Georgia Tech played 37.2% of their games against tournament teams (Gonzaga, Kansas, North Carolina (2), NC State (2), Wake Forest (2), Duke (3)). They struggled to score and rebound against these opponents.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Texas Tech		69.7		51.1	49.3	33.3	64.3	18.3	24.6	1.10	0.99
vs.Tourney		68.1		45.2	50.8	31.3	60.5	20.4	24.2	0.98	1.04

Texas Tech played 43.8% of their games against tournament teams (UTEP, Iowa, Oklahoma St (3), Texas (2), Oklahoma (3), Iowa St (2), Kansas). Those opponents kept the Red Raiders off the boards, forced turnovers, and limited their good looks. They could not keep Texas Tech off the free throw line nor could they get there themselves. Texas Tech sent their tournament bound opponents to the line less often than they did overall.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
WVirginia		63.6		52.3	50.4	29.9	65.4	17.8	23.4	1.10	1.03
vs.Tourney		63.3		50.3	51.9	27.7	61.6	18.4	21.8	1.05	1.11

West Virginia played 42.2% of their games against tournament teams (LSU, George Washington, NC State, Villanova (2), Boston College (3), Syracuse (2), UConn, Pittsburgh (2)). The Mountaineers don't defend or rebound very well and they attempt to make up for those deficiencies by not turning the ball over and shooting a ton of threes (48.8% of FGA against tournament teams).

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Pacific		63.1		56.2	46.7	34.6	70.2	21.9	17.5	1.14	0.99
vs.Tourney		62.2		49.8	46.9	26.6	66.7	18.5	15	1.04	1.06

Pacific played 21.4% of their games against tournament teams (Kansas, Nevada, Utah St (3), UTEP). Those teams beat up on the Tigers inside, grabbing more rebounds and getting to the free throw line more often than the average opponent, almost forgoing the three-point shot. Tournament-bound opponents attempted only 26.9% of their field goals from behind the arc against Pacific.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Pittsburgh		63.4		52.8	46.1	44.3	68.1	22.9	20.2	1.13	0.98
vs.Tourney		63.2		49.5	47.8	44.4	67.9	23.4	17.4	1.09	1.07

Pittsburgh played 35.8% of their games against tournament teams (Bucknell, UConn (2), Syracuse (2), W. Virginia (2), Villanova (2), Boston College). The Panthers are built almost entirely around rebounding (and scheduling cupcakes). Against good opponents, Pittsburgh struggles to make shots (and free throws), turns the ball over, and isn't very good defensively.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Creighton		63.5		53.4	49.5	30.5	64.5	18.7	22.9	1.12	1.01
vs.Tourney		64.2		58.5	54.3	30	63	18.1	20.9	1.18	1.11

Creighton played 15% of their games against tournament teams (S. Illinois (2), Chattanooga, Northern Iowa (2)). Not a strong group of opponents but that's still some good shooting. They'll need that in the tournament as they neither defend nor rebound very well.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
UCLA		69.5		50.9	49	35.5	69.4	22.9	25	1.05	1.01
vs.Tourney		74.7		47.1	50.2	33.7	65.3	24.9	21.1	0.95	1.07

UCLA played 28.2% of their games against tournament teams (Boston College, Michigan St, Washington (2), Arizona (2), Stanford (2)). The Bruins played those games at their opponent's pace and paid the price across the board.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
GW		69.5		52.3	48.8	37.8	66.8	21.4	25.2	1.11	0.96
vs.Tourney		76.2		50.8	57.2	39.1	67.7	25.4	25	1.04	1.10

George Washington played 10.3% of their games against tournament teams (Wake Forest, Michigan St, West Virginia). They atempted to run with Wake and Michigan State and suceeded in doing so against the Spartans. The Colonials will likely suffer against stronger opposition from their reliance on the inside game (only 25.6% of overall FGA attempts from three-point land) offensively.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
UL-Lafayette		68.3		50.2	51	39.9	65.9	22.6	25.7	1.06	1.00
vs.Tourney		71.7		47.3	58.5	38.7	64.7	29.6	24.5	0.9	1.13

Louisiana-Lafayette played 16.6% of their games against tournament teams (S. Illinois, NC State, Kansas, Charlotte, LSU). The only thing they did well against those teams was rebound.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Winthrop		63.7		51.1	46.1	34.6	69.7	22	24.4	1.06	0.93

Winthrop didn't play any tournament-bound teams. Those rebounding numbers should suffer against Gonzaga. Winthrop's also unlikely to continue going to the line more frequently than their opponents when Turiaf and Morrison are on the other bench.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Chattanooga		69.9		50.5	48.6	39.4	75.1	24.5	22.55	1.05	0.94
vs.Tourney		66.7		47.4	74.6	33.3	59.3	19.5	15.2	1.02	1.52

Chattanooga got killed at Creighton earlier in the year. The Bluejays aren't a good rebounding team, but they took the air out of Chattanooga's gaudy overall rebounding numbers. The Bluejays are a good shooting team and made 20 of 30 three-point attempts. Wake's good at what Chattanooga's bad at, and better at what they're good at.

TEAM		Poss/40		eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Montana		68.3		51.2	47.6	32.3	70.4	24.9	20.1	1.01	0.99
vs.Tourney		70		50.9	54.4	28.8	67.7	27.1	16.1	0.91	1.19

Things didn't go well when Montana played at Gonzaga and at Stanford this year. Washington should run them off the court.

Chicago Region

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Illinois	64.7	56.4	46.8	34.9	69.4	17.1	23.6	1.19	0.93
vs.Tourney	65	54.9	47.4	34.2	67.1	17.4	23	1.17	0.97

36.2% of the Illini's games were against tournament teams (Delaware St., Gonzaga, Wake Forest, Cincinnati, Iowa (2), Wisconsin (3), Minnesota (2), Michigan St). The level of competition did not effect the best team in the country.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
OklaSt	66.9	56.4	49	37.3	69.3	20.6	23.1	1.17	0.98
vs.Tourney	66.8	53.3	51.3	38.7	67.1	20.7	20	1.13	1.06

Oklahoma State played 43.3% of their games against tournament teams (Syracuse, UAB, Gonzaga, Texas Tech (3), Iowa St, Texas (2), Oklahoma (2), Kansas (2)). Those teams scored fairly easily against the Cowboys. This is a much worse defensive team without Tony Allen. Their tournament-bound opponents got the free throw line slightly more often (1 FTA for every 2.9 FGA) than did the Cowboys (1 FTA for every 3.1 FGA).

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Arizona	70.3	52.6	49.5	39.8	65.5	21	24	1.12	0.98
vs.Tourney	71.7	49	50.7	37.7	60.1	20.9	23.9	1.07	1.05

Arizona played 30.1% of their games against tournament teams (Wake Forest, Mississippi St, Utah, Stanford (2), UCLA (2), Washington (3)). Most of their defensive slippage against tournament teams can be attributed to their two losses to Washington.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
BC	64.2	48.7	46.9	41	65.4	19.9	21.5	1.11	0.98
vs.Tourney	64.6	46.9	46.5	38.8	61.2	22.9	23.5	1.05	1.01

Boston College played 31.7% of their games against tournament teams (UCLA, W. Virginia (3), UConn, Villanova (2), Syracuse, Pittsburgh). Tournament opponents got to the free throw much more frequently (1 FTA for every 2.8 FGA) against the Eagles than did other teams (1 FTA for every 5.1 FGA). The Eagles shoot very few threes overall (21.5% of FGA).

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Alabama	64.2	55.5	46.2	34	69.6	19.4	17.6	1.17	0.98
vs.Tourney	64.5	51.7	49.8	28.8	68.2	19	16.7	1.09	1.08

Alabama played 36.3% of their games against tournament teams (Minnesota, Washington, Charlotte, Wisconsin, LSU (2), Mississippi St (2), Florida (2), Kentucky). That's not the strongest collection of tournament teams, making their struggles against better competition all the more troubling.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
LSU	66	52.4	50.9	34.7	70.6	19.6	18.5	1.12	1.05
vs.Tourney	66.1	49.3	52.9	32.5	71	22	17.5	1.03	1.09

LSU played 34.2% of their games against tournament teams (UL-Lafayette, Utah, Alabama (2), Kentucky (2), Mississippi St (2), Florida, W. Virginia). LSU maintained a little more production against tournament teams than did Alabama, but their overall numbers are worse.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
S.Illinois	63.6	50.7	47.2	34.5	66.7	20.4	26.2	1.06	0.94
vs.Tourney	64.3	50.5	50.5	35.4	66.3	21.2	24.2	1.05	1.02

Southern Illinois played 18.2% of their games against tournament teams (UTEP, Creighton (2), UL-Lafayette, Northern Iowa (2)). Those four teams found the Salukis easier to score against than did the rest of SIU's schedule. For the season, SIU had 1 FTA for every 3.8 FGA. Their opponents shot a free throw for every 2.5 FGA.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Texas	67.7	52.9	45.5	38.9	67	20.9	18.7	1.14	1.00
vs.Tourney	67.2	50.6	48.3	36	60.1	22.5	16.3	1.07	1.12

Texas played 33.5% of their games against tournament teams (Wake Forest, Oklahoma St (2), Oklahoma (2), Texas Tech (2), Kansas, Iowa St, Iowa). More importantly than the above breakdown, they're not the same team without PJ Tucker. His ineligibility has decimated the Longhorns' defensive and rebounding efforts.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Nevada	66.5	48.9	43.2	37.3	70.9	22.1	20.1	1.05	0.91
vs.Tourney	66.3	45.5	50.2	30.2	71.7	18.8	18.4	0.99	1.06

Nevada played 17% of their games against tournament teams (Kansas, Pacific, UTEP (2), Vermont). Tournament opponents forced Nevada to the perimeter. They shot the three more often (22.3% of FGA vs. 17.7%). They got to the foul line less often (1 FTA for every 2.6 FGA vs. 1 FTA for every 2.1 FGA). They limited Nevada's offensive rebounds (30.2% vs. 39%). They got more frequent free throw chances themselves (1 FTA for 3.1 FGA vs. 1 FTA for every 3.8 FGA).

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
St.Mary's	65.4	50.4	46.2	37.4	67.4	23.5	21.3	1.06	0.96
vs.Tourney	66.3	48.7	50.7	30.8	64.2	20.4	20.1	1.03	1.1

St. Mary's played 12% of their games against tournament teams (Gonzaga (3), Mississippi St). In those games, the Gaels got dominated in the paint and on the glass. 44% of their FGA were from three-point range. They normally rely on the three for only 35.8% of their shot attempts.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
UAB	71.3	50.9	50.5	32.4	61.8	18.6	28.6	1.08	1.00
vs.Tourney	75	48.3	51.6	29.2	61.2	15.3	26.8	1.04	1.06

UAB played 19.2% of their games against tournament teams (Oklahoma St, Alabama A&M, Charlotte, Louisville (2), Cincinnati). As Kansas showed in the Sweet 16 last year, superior talent can beat the Blazers at their own game. In general, UAB defends and rebounds poorly. As opponents' turnovers become less frequent, they lose easy shot attempts, shoot worse, and get fewer offensive rebounds.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
UWMil	67.1	51.4	45.3	37.2	65.1	20.4	25.9	1.11	0.93
vs.Tourney	67.3	38.9	47.8	23.8	69.6	22.3	18.4	0.74	1.02

UW-Milwaukee played 6.8% of their games against tournament teams (Wisconsin, Kansas). They really struggled offensively at Wisconsin (29.1 eFG%, 0.57 PPP). It was not quite so grim against Kansas, but the Jayhawks also forced UW-Milwaukee into taking a lot of threes while keeping them off the free throw line.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
Penn	66	49.7	45.4	35.9	70.6	23.5	23.8	1.03	0.91
vs.Tourney	68.9	39.4	50.3	27.5	67.4	23.7	27.9	0.84	1.00

Penn played 10.6% of their games against tournament teams (Wisconsin, Villanova, Bucknell). Things didn't go well offensively for the Quakers in those tilts. Even in their win at Bucknell they only shot 38%. They will get the benefit of facing a mediocre offensive team in the first round.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
UtahSt	61.1	58.7	45.1	35.4	71.1	20.1	20	1.18	0.94
vs.Tourney	55.7	47.4	48.4	32.5	75.5	16.4	20.4	1.08	0.97

Utah State played 16.8% off their games against tournament teams (Central Florida, Utah, Pacific (3)). Their gaudy eFG% took a hit in those games despite a 71.3 eFG% in their rout of Utah, but their defensive performance was largely unaffected.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
SELouisiana	62.1	49.8	46.8	34.3	67.4	22.3	28.6	1.02	0.93

SE Louisiana didn't play a tournament-bound team this year. They'll attempt to slow the game down but will be unlikely to exploit Oklahoma State's defensive deficiencies. Only 23% of the Lions shot attempts are three-pointers.

TEAM	Poss/40	eFG%	opp eFG%	OR%	DR%	TO%	opp TO%	PPP	opp PPP
FDU	69.4	51	50.1	33.7	68.1	20.1	22.4	1.06	1.01

Farleigh Dickinson didn't play any tournament teams either. Those defensive numbers suggest that Illinois should have the game well in control by halftime.