NCAA Tournament: Best bets for the first round (and the precedent for a Virginia championship)
The Hotline picked Virginia to cover a big spread in the first round (below) and to reach the Final Four (here).
I did so while pondering both the Cavaliers’ first-round flameout in 2018 and the myriad examples of teams executing year-over-year turnarounds comparable to what Virginia hopes to produce:
Following a March flop with a March feast.
Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there are nine examples of teams not qualifying or suffering an embarrassing loss, then reaching the Final Four (at least) the next season.
Yes, Virginia’s loss was unlike any before, but a redemptive foundation exists in bracket history.
LSU
1985: first-round loss to No. 13 seed (Navy/David Robinson)
1986: reached Final Four
Indiana
1986: first-round loss to No. 14 seed (Cleveland State)
1987: national champs
Arizona
1993: first-round loss to No. 15 seed (Santa Clara/Steve Nash)
1994: reached Final Four
UCLA
1994: first-round loss to No. 12 seed (Tulsa)
1995: national champs
Syracuse
2002: NIT
2003: national champs
Connecticut
2010: NIT
2011: national champs
(Note: I’m not including UConn ’14 because the Huskies were ineligible for postseason play in ’13 due to APR penalties.)
Kentucky
2013: NIT (lost in first round/Robert Morris)
2014: reached Final Four
Duke
2014: first-round loss to No. 14 seed (Mercer)
2015: national champs
Villanova
2015: second-round loss to No. 8 seed
2016: national champs
Virginia
2018: first-round loss to No. 16 (UMBC)
2019: ????
Before we get to the picks, here’s my eight-year tally against the spread. (If only I had been listening to myself) …
2011: 15-5
2012: 12-8
2013: 12-7
2014: 10-9-1
2015: 10-9
2016: 7-12
2017: 10-5-2
2018: 8-10-1
Total: 84-65-4
All picks against the spread.
Lines taken from vegasinsider.com – entertainment purposes only
No. 16 Gardner-Webb (plus-24) vs No. 1 Virginia (South/Friday): Not only won’t history repeat, history will be run off the court by a Cavaliers team significantly better than the ’18 edition. They won’t score every possession against Gardner-Webb’s porous defense, but it will seem that way. Pick: Virginia
No. 10 Florida (plus-2) vs No. 7 Nevada (West/Thursday): Something is amiss with the Wolf Pack, which finished ’18 so well, started ’19 so well … and dropped three down the stretch in a conference it was supposed to dominate. And now here’s Nevada as the higher seed — and slight favorite — against an SEC team with loads of experience. Feels like trouble. Pick: Florida
No. 9 Baylor (plus-2) vs No. 8 Syracuse (West/Thursday): The Syracuse zone is difficult for all first-time opponents, much less first-time opponents with mediocre coaches who underachieve in the NCAAs … much less first-time opponents with mediocre coaches who underachieve in the NCAAs and enter the postseason on a four-game losing streak. The Bears haven’t won since Feb. 27, and the skid won’t end here. Pick: Syracuse.
No. 12 Oregon (plus-1) vs No. 5 Wisconsin (South/Friday): Should be a grinder. The Badgers are Oregon’s equal defensively, if not better, which means a few well-timed baskets down the stretch could make all the difference. Wisconsin has the single best option on the court in center Ethan Happ, but the Ducks have more good options — and their athleticism should cause problems for Happ. Pick: Oregon.
Why we need your support: Like so many other providers of local journalism across the country, the Hotline’s parent website, mercurynews.com, recently moved to a subscription model. A few Hotline stories will remain free each month (as will the newsletter), but for access to all content, you’ll need to subscribe. The good news for Hotline faithful: I’ve secured a discount: 12 cents per day for 12 months. Click here to subscribe. And thanks for your loyalty.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.