NCAA TOURNAMENT 16 SEED PLAY-IN

16 BRYANT VS 16 WRIGHT STATE

Bryant Identity: Swagger. Moxie. Panache. Whatever you want to call it, Bryant plays with it, for better or worse. Sometimes that aggression and exaggerated chip on their shoulder (which starts with HC Grasso and works its way through the roster) is a good thing (see how they pounced on Wagner in the NEC final) and sometimes it works against them (multiple NEC run-ins and technicals). Two elite individual scorers in Peter Kiss (nation’s leading scorer) and Charles Pride really embody Bryant’s entire makeup, attacking the rim with efficient finishing rates in a quick strike offense (7th fastest tempo). Both Kiss and Pride saw some jump shot regression this year, but they’ve both started to hit them with greater frequency, hence Bryant’s dominating run through league play the last month. Denying rim access off the dribble is a must against Bryant, as they have the 54th highest rim rate per ShotQuality with a top 25 finishing efficiency.

Defensively, Grasso deploys an extended matchup zone that morphs between 2-3 and 1-3-1 (often within the same possession) at a top 10 rate nationally per Synergy, and a top 25 press rate- this team wants to force jump shots and turnovers and RUN. Bryant’s zone is anchored by an elite shot blocker in Elisias that allows Kiss and Pride to jump all over lanes without fear of being toasted on the gamble. If you watched that debacle of an NEC final, Elisias changed the entire game, eating the souls of every long Wagner slasher en route to 8 blocks. Despite missing significant time with an injury, Elisias still led Bryant to the league’s best rim and post defensive efficiency numbers. The nature of the matchup zone makes it virtually impossible to run PNR or work through the post, but they’re susceptible to elite size and face up bigs (see LIU).

Wright State Identity: A mix of veterans and key newcomers who rectified some Horizon League tournament failures in a big way with a massive comeback in this year’s title game. The Raiders were generally seen as a preseason co-favorite in the HL, but a humiliating run in a Florida MTE had everyone jumping ship almost immediately. Despite having great positional size, WSU was getting gashed off the dribble and worked in ball screens (they still are for the most part, just not as wickedly with more league familiarity and well versed scouts), so we have a fairly sizeable gap between their offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency (top third nationally on offense, 262nd on defense per KenPom). Offensively, WSU is elite at the rim and in the post at a national level, finishing at the rim at 1.27 PPP (4th best efficiency per SQ) and posting at the 18th highest rate with the 18th best efficiency to boot. This interior reliance left them vulnerable in the country’s most zone heavy league, and to wit, only Wake Forest faced more zone than the Raiders in the entire country this year. WSU did not acquit themselves well in zone offense, grading out in just the 18th percentile nationally per Synergy, but the past month has seen an improvement there, scoring at over 1 PPP in their last 250 zone possessions, as teams like NKU, Oakland, and Cleveland State have tried to press that nerve repeatedly.

The Matchup: The knock on Wright State has been their meager zone offense, but it certainly feels as though they’ve exorcised some zone demons with their run through the Horizon tourney (helps that Calvin was on fire), where all 3 opponents were almost strictly in zone. Bryant’s zone is something they haven’t seen before, but it’s actually quite similar to NKU’s in its shifting nature, and WSU can eat on the O glass. Basile might not get established on the block, but his face up game can give Elisias some issues. Holden profiles similarly to Wagner’s Morales, who was absolutely clowned by Elisias at the rim in the NEC title game. Generally, WSU is going to be taken out of a lot of their primary offensive actions here. Offensively, Bryant doesn’t really ball screen (although they’re extremely efficient when they do), but they will attack WSU on the bounce, and push in transition relentlessly, where the more lumbering Raiders have struggled to defend (22% percentile nationally per Synergy).

The Pick: A true toss up in the probably the best ever 16 seed PIG, but WSU’s zone offense is still giving me pause, and Kiss and Pride can win off the dribble consistently. Of course WSU has a significant homecourt advantage, as Dayton Arena is a 15 minute drive from campus. Kiss and Pride have the big game swagger and a captive audience, but WSU has more polish. Lean Bryant at +2 and over 152.

*Note: For those interested, anything I officially play I will state, and some leans noted in these writeups could change accordingly based on line movement, more information, etc.

16 TEXAS A&M CORPUS CHRISTI VS 16 TEXAS SOUTHERN

TAMUCC Identity: Steve Lutz took over a program that won 2 D1 games last year and flipped them into the NCAA Tournament with a roster full of JUCOs- probably the single best coaching performance in the entire country. It’s all about the defense for CC, which makes sense given Lutz’s most recent stop as Matt Painter’s defensive coordinator. The Islanders play an intense halfcourt pressure, wing denial D that produced a top 20 TO rate that buoys a top 20 rim rate offense and top 5 transition rate. Offensively, they run Purdue inspired stagger screens at one of the highest rates in the country around dual PGs Murdix and Jackson.

Texas Southern Identity: A melange of long, rangy, interchangeable transfers litter Johnny Jones’ roster once again, and TSU is a tough prep because they legitimately go 10 deep (highest bench minute rate in the country per KenPom), and Jones will make wholesale lineup changes frequently. Offensively, everyone cuts to the rim with a purpose, and TSU owns a top 50 rim rate and transition rate, and all 5 hit the O glass (we saw them murder Florida on national TV there), with Jones bringing Houston trained glass eater Gresham to lead the way in that regard, which helps offset a near total lack of perimeter shooting. Defensively, TSU is elite at the rim thanks to Gresham and rangy athletes like Walker and Nicholas. Per SQ, they’re a top 20 defense in terms of efficiency in finishing at the rim, and 35th in post defense efficiency. That versatile length makes them switchable in PNR and they contest with a purpose on the perimeter.

The Matchup: Outside of TAMUCC’s ability to generate turnovers against the extremely fumble prone Tigers (although Etienne has shored up the PG situation a bit of late), this doesn’t set up particularly well for the Islanders. TSU is bigger and more athletic, and shuts down the rim completely, making offense hard to come by for the rim reliant Islanders (TSU somewhat surprisingly has defended off the ball well too, allowing the 10th lowest PPP on off ball screens, per SQ). Conversely, TAMUCC’s rim defense is lacking vs the Tigers’ own interior onslaught.

The Pick: Many of these Tigers played in this game last year, and I like their talent level, experience, and length comparatively. Played TSU -3, lean over 135.5