Why UCLA will win it all: How the Bruins look against other top seeds

It's March Madness. Here is what I think

Why UCLA will win it all, and who they will take out to do it. 
By: Joe Smeltzer

Photo creds to UCLA.edu

The strengths of the UCLA Bruins are evident. They are the best offensive team in college basketball, possibly in the past decade, and feature some of the best players in the land, those being Lonzo Ball, T.J. Leaf, and Bryce Alford. That is the main reason why I love them. That is the main reason why I think they will win it all. However, there is a reason that they, in spite of being the most offensivley gifted team in the country, are a #3 seed and not a #1 seed, and that is their defense.

Defensively, the Bruins are pedestrian at best, horrendous at worst. They allow 75.3 points per contest, which is good for 256th in the country, and 9th in the PAC 12. There have been occasions this season in which the Bruins allowed 89, 92 and 96 points, and two of those games resulted in defeat. So, UCLA's defensive concerns are legitimate, and they could well cost them a national title. However, let's look at some of UCLA's likely tournament opponents, assuming they get past the first two rounds,  as they may have some similar issues that the Bruins can exploit.

Kentucky

Malik Monk (20.4 PPG) is trouble for any defense he comes across (photo creds to NCAA.COM

If all goes according to plan, Steve Alford's men will take on the Kentucky Wildcats in the Sweet 16. A simple way to say that UCLA can beat Kentucky is that they've done it before, as they pulled out a 97-92 thriller (at Rupp Arena, mind you) on December 3. Another reason involves Kentucky, like UCLA, struggling on the defensive end.

Like the Bruins, the Wildcats know how to put the ball in the basket, as only four teams in the country score more than Kentucky, UCLA, of course, being one of those teams. On defense, however, the Bruins allow 71.8 points per game, good for just 8th in the SEC and 162nd in America. UCLA has proven that they can carve up Kentucky's defense, and it's not like the Bruins have forgotten how to score over the past three months.

As a fan, I would love to see this matchup take place, as it would be a Final Four quality contest in the Sweet 16. This game would be almost guaranteed to be a shootout, and as proven on December 3, UCLA can win those things.

UNC

#2 Joel Berry is a stud. But are his temmates well-rounded enough to get to the Final Four? (Photo creds to The Daily Tar Heel)

I'll be blunt for a minute; North Carolina is the most overrated team in this tournament. They are poorly disciplined. They are reckless at times. They are inconsistent, and oh yeah, they can't play defense! (8th in the ACC in opponent PPG)

Having said all of that, UNC is still among the nation's most talented offensive teams, and yes, they would be likely to score a lot against UCLA. However, I cannot trust this North Carolina team to be smart enough. If UNC makes dumb mistakes, and UCLA takes advantage of those careless mistakes, a Final Four could well be in their future for the boys of Westwood.

Kansas

Landen Lucas (#33) is the only big man that could play a big factor for KU.

In some ways, Kansas is similar to both Kentucky and UCLA. High scoring, poor defending. However, although Kansas is a #1 seed and Kentucky a #2, I think the Jayhawks would, in fact, be a better matchup for UCLA than the Wildcats would be.

The reason for this is that while both UK and KU struggle defensively, Kentucky has an advantage in size, as six of their players are 6'10 and above. Kansas, on the other hand, does not have a legitimate inside presence aside from the 6'10 Landen Lucas. Although UCLA is not known for pounding the ball in the paint, if and when these two teams meet, don't be surprised if big Thomas Welsh has a field day.

Kansas will score their fair share of deuces and treys, just as everybody else does against this Bruins team. However, like Kentucky, the Jayhawks are vulnerable on the other side, so much so, that I would not be surprised if UCLA were to win this game by 10-15 points. Ralk Chalk, no championship.

The Dukies/Wildcats
In my eyes, UCLA will either play
A. The Duke Blue Devils
B. The Arizona Wildcats
Both of these teams are excellent, and therefore, this match-up would be a tricky one for the Bruins. However, it is one that they could win. First, I'll talk about Arizona.

The Wildcats have a decent shot to get to the Final Four, as either they or mighty Gonzaga will come out of that West region. Arizona is a familiar foe for these Bruins, as the two teams have had three meetings with each other, with Zona having a 2-1 edge. On the surface, it seems like a tough chore to pick UCLA in this game, as Arizona defeated the Bruins just five days ago and looked pretty good doing it. However, there are a few reasons why I do not expect that to happen again.

The first is that, in my heart of hearts, I do not expect Arizona to get to the Final Four, as Gonzaga has their most balanced attack ever. The second is that I don't see the Duke Blue Devils beating UCLA either. I will not argue that Duke is the most talented team in the East region, and I will admit that the Dukies might well be the hottest team in the country. However, one thing separates UCLA from Duke, and that is consistency.

This is a Duke team that is on fire. But this is also a Duke team that has lost eight games. This is also a Duke team that, albeit partly due to injury, has lost games to Syracuse, NC State and Virgina Tech this season. This is also a Duke team that was 11-7 in the ACC. So, who's to say that inconsistency wouldn't appear if these men faced off with the Bruins? UCLA is not perfect. But they are pretty damn good on most nights, and I would expect this young Dukie team to fall off the rainbow if they were to face Lonzo Ball, TJ Leaf, and Bryce Alford.

Now, let's say UCLA is to face Arizona. It would be so easy to pick the Wildcats, especially considering that they, unlike Duke, Kansas or Kentucky, can play defense. However, I believe life has a way of evening itself out, meaning that this UCLA team is too good to lose three times to a single opponent.

So, because of their offense, and because many of their big matchups can't play defense, I like the ultra-talented Bruins to score and score in bunches, so much so, that they will win their 12th National Title. Somewhere, John Wooden will be smiling.

Brad-ketology 2/8/17

By: Bradley Stewart 

Bracketology is not the art of picking the teams who win the NCAA Tournament, but rather the art of picking the teams that will make the NCAA Tournament and what seed they will get.  The Bracket Project a.k.a the Bracket Matrix is a website that puts together a compilation of people's Bracketology's and ranks them based on how they do at the end of the season.  I have been competing on the Bracket Matrix since 2013 and am currently ranked 21st out of 88 Bracketologists.  I am one spot above ESPN's Joe Lunardi.  My best finish every in the Matrix was 6th in 2013.  This is my first Bracketology of the season. It is atypical because I am posting this on the sixth, but the bracket is my prediction as of February 4.  Check back later for future updates.

Stallings might not be a solution, but Pitt players are a problem

By: Joe Smeltzer 

How most of Pittsburgh sees Kevin Stallings at the moment. (Photo creds to Sporting News)

Pitt has quit

That's the only logical explanation for Tuesday night's 106-51 debacle (at home, mind you) at the hands of a good but not great Louisville team. I cannot fathom the thought of this Pitt team, which is just three weeks removed from upsetting an excellent Virginia team, and two weeks removed from an 85-80 loss to this same Louisville club on the road, getting embarrassed this badly while giving any effort.

Now, I wouldn't call myself a fan of Pitt's head coach, Kevin Stallings. I felt that his teams underachieved while he was at Vanderbilt, and was highly critical when Pitt's former AD Scott Barnes decided to hire the Kevin Malone look alike to replace Jaime Dixon. Plenty of the criticisms for Stallings are valid, as his team is too talented to be 1-6 in the ACC.

However, the idea that Stallings is the first person to blame for Tuesday night, or, better yet; solely to blame, is ridiculous. Wednesday morning, I read a column written by a very prominent Pittsburgh journalist. Whether it intended to or not, the piece painted a picture of innocent, talented basketball players being sabotaged by an evil clowns. In fact, the writer seemed to be more bothered by his Stallings getting himself ejected from the game than his players removing themselves before tip-off. If Pitt lost by 15, 20, or even thirty points to Louisville, then it could be a case of a coach not getting the most of what he has, and for much of this season, Stallings has fit into that category. But as far as Tuesday night goes, Pitt's players deserve no sympathy.

A lot has been made over Stallings comments the day before Bloody Tuesday. In an interview with 93.7 The Fan, Stallings questioned the leadership of his upperclassmen, among other things. You can read the whole critique here.
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/Pitt/2017/01/23/pitt-panthers-kevin-stallings-frustrated-jamel-artis-michael-young-sheldon-jeter-chris-jones/stories/201701230149

If Stallings comments on Monday helped lead to the events on Tuesday, then his players look even worse. Was it smart for Stallings to go after his team's effort in public? Maybe not. But when you break things down did he say anything that wasn't true?

Pitt had been stinking before the Louisville game. They were 1-5 in the ACC, on a four game losing streak, and three of those four games included a drubbing at the hands of lowly Syracuse, a 72-46 squaker against Miami, and a pathetic defensive showing at NC State. So, who could blame Stallings for being frustrated? Who are we to say that he was wrong about his players, and, perhaps more importantly, why didn't the players respond?

If anything, Stallings comments should have pissed his players off enough so that they would have played harder. Take the Knight family, for example. Watch this Bob Knight clip from 1987. Keep in mind, this took place soon after a WIN at Northwestern.

And how did Knight's Indiana team respond? By winning the national championship less than two months after Knight proclaimed them to be "not a very good basketball team."

Bob's son, Pat, was not nearly as good of a basketball coach as his father.  But he had a flash of brilliance in February of 2012, when, after a loss, the Lamar coach ripped into his seniors way worse than Kevin Stallings ever has. How did Knight's players respond? By qualifying for the school's first NCAA tournament just a few weeks later.

Stallings criticisms of his players were far tamer than that of the Knights, and apparently, his players responded by giving up. I understand that not every coach is popular with the players. But Stallings lasted seventeen years at Vanderbilt. Sure, his teams underachieved. But did they ever disgrace their program the way this Pitt team did last night? No. If Stallings' criticisms issued out on Monday had anything to do with the effort on Tuesday, then all Pitt's players did was prove their coach right.

As of right now, it looks like Pitt screwed up by hiring Kevin Stallings as their basketball coach. But there is plenty of blame to go around, and nobody deserves it more than the players who quit. By the way, I hear Ralph Willard is available.