Top 4 seeds in NCAA have (a few) weaknesses that could be their downfall | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World Sports

Top 4 seeds in NCAA have (a few) weaknesses that could be their downfall

899836_web1_899836-9c3bef50ef324b0badaa889f8ed7f835
AP
Duke’s RJ Barrett, left, and North Carolina’s Kenny Williams, right, chase a loose ball during the second half of their ACC semifinal game.

RALEIGH, N.C. — This year’s NCAA Tournament features a top tier of teams that are heavy Final Four favorites, starting with No. 1 overall seed Duke and star freshman Zion Williamson.

Figuring out how to stop them won’t be easy, though some clues might be in weaknesses that showed when they lost.

Duke

It starts with 3-point shooting and free-throw shooting, though the Blue Devils typically overcome both behind the brilliance of Williamson, fellow freshman RJ Barrett and a tough defense led by Tre Jones.

Top Sports Videos

Duke shoots 30.2 percent on 3s, the worst mark of any tournament team and worst in program history. The struggles stood out in a loss to Syracuse (9 of 43 against the zone) and in losses to UNC (8 of 39 in the first, 8 of 32 in the second).

At the free throw line, 69 percent could be a problem for the Blue Devils in a close game.

Virginia

Virginia again has a tough defense and methodical tempo offense, a combination that tests the discipline and patience of its opponent. Behind Kyle Guy, Ty Jerome and De’Andre Hunter, the Cavaliers own their most efficient attack since coach Tony Bennett’s breakout season there in 2014.

If they struggle for stops and get behind, it can be difficult to reverse momentum with fewer possessions to work with thanks to their pace — illustrated in Friday’s loss to Florida State in the ACC Tournament semifinals.

FSU played with an aggressive edge and shot 57 percent, increasing the pressure on Virginia’s offense to offset those troubles. But the Cavaliers shot 42 percent and made 5 of 24 3-pointers as they fell behind, and they aren’t built to score in bunches in a comeback bid.

That showed last year in the unprecedented loss to 16-seed UMBC, a game in which the Cavaliers fell further behind as history unfolded.

North Carolina

The Tar Heels have three scorers capable of big games with Cameron Johnson, Coby White and Luke Maye. And they’re at their best when loose in transition or attacking the glass.

Things get tougher when the pace slows.

Despite its rebounding prowess, UNC lacks a true post scorer — a staple of Roy Williams’ best teams — and can struggle matching up with bigger teams. And its perimeter strength makes the team more dependent on the 3.

In the Virginia loss, the Tar Heels couldn’t push tempo, had season lows of 61 points and 76 possessions, and shot 9 of 30 from behind the arc. The trouble from 3 resurfaced in the ACC Tournament loss to Duke.

Gonzaga

The Zags have KenPom’s most efficient offense (125.1 points per 100 possessions) and a solid frontcourt with Rui Hachimura, Brandon Clarke and the return of Killian Tillie. Gonzaga is the only team to beat a fully-healthy Duke squad this season.

But the Zags struggled on the perimeter in the West Coast Conference Tournament title game against Saint Mary’s. Their guards couldn’t increase the tempo, so Gonzaga had to grind out halfcourt possessions and made just 2 of 17 3-pointers in the 60-47 loss.

The Zags also had trouble on the boards in their three losses.

Categories: Sports | US-World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.