Giving Away Money: NCAA Tournament Sweet 16: Alabama — UNC point spread pick and analysis
Alabama has now advanced to another Sweet 16 under the helm of Coach Nate Oats. Up next, the Tide will be looking to accomplish something only seen once in the 110-year history of the program: Move beyond there. Just once has Alabama made the Elite 8, and it has never advanced further. (Who else still has their SI from 2004 with the Tide on the cover?)
To get there, however, ‘Bama is going to have to overcome a very talented UNC program who was in the Top 10 all season, and who has played outstanding ‘ball in its first two rounds. The Big, Bad No. 1 Seed UNC Tarheels.
Carolina is favored, because obviously they would be. But it’s not by as much as you would guess. Our job is to sort out whether that’s legit, and if not, can the Tide cover or even spring an upset.
Our thanks to special sponsorship from the bros at DraftKings, a longtime partner of Roll ‘Bama Roll (skål!) For more degenerate gambling, fantasy, and sportsbook posts, you can check all of those out at the SBNation DraftKings Supergroup hub. There’s still a whole lot of basketball left.
After seeing several weeks of gimmicky teams or one-dimensional squads, the Tide faces the most ur-vanilla one you’ll ever see. If you miss basketball from 1996, does UNC ever scratch that itch.
They play a conventional high-low offense, run a metric assload of high-screen and rolls, get RJ moving to the basket off the dribble, let Bacot and Withers feast one-on-one in the post, while Alabama nemesis Cormac Ryan spots up from the baseline (IIRC, Ryan lit that soft-ass 2022 team up when Notre Dame bounced ‘Bama in the first round). They are not going to wow you in terms of innovation. They just execute with superior talent. It looks exactly like the kind of team Hubie Davis would have played for, in other words — and not appreciably different than any other iteration of the Tar Heels we’ve seen in the last three decades.
They are a middling perimeter team (and would positively foul without Ryan), and don’t shoot particularly well.
But it is the defensive end where the Tarheels have turned around their fortunes and really made a living. They play a sagging sort of 1-4 called the “drop defense,” where defenders pressure the ball at the top of the key and play an aggressive man defense with backside help inside the key.
That is a type of defense that was custom-built to shut down the conventional (and often limited) offenses of the ACC. But against elite offensive teams, it has one glaring bugaboo that was exploited by the likes of Kentucky, Villanova, Tennessee etc.: They are really susceptible to ball movement that clears out perimeter shooters. Against that troika, the ‘Heels went 1-2, and only shooting 40 FTs at home bailed them out against a Vols team that was burning up the nets (Knecht especially).
But inside the circle? Forget about it. This is one of the best floor defenses in the country) and one of the best defensive rebounding squads (6th). What they lack in lack of shooting, they amply make up by winning the mid-range and post game. Alabama simply has no answers for Withers especially (though Bacot gets the press). The Tide’s defensive rebounding is already suspect, but that kind of athletic load that can also put the ball on the floor is a mismatch against ‘Bama’s centers. He’s going to feast.
The secret will be for the Tide to get their own rebounds. UA has been a very good offensive rebounding team. Against UNC, they’re going to miss contested shots. So inside of eight feet is a strength-vs-strength matchup on the glass. And inside the arc, neither team has been particularly great at getting to the line. the difference is that UNC has prevented opponents from doing so though with their DREB efforts.
UNC comes into this one riding a ridiculous 11-1 record since Valentine’s Day. But you can really question the schedule too.
UNC’s SOS is 58th — aside from SDSU (60th), they have played the weakest competition to-date of any of the Sweet 16 teams. They also had the third-weakest OOC strength of schedule of the Sweet 16 teams. Then there’s the simple fact that the ACC was really very meh. Much as Alabama’s front-end SEC schedule was generous, so too was the Tarheels’ last six weeks. They played four games against teams that made the NCAA tournament, since February, just five total games. They went 2-3 against that slate, and one of those wins was Virginia — which everyone damn well knows was a sham.
Could this possibly be a game that catches the ‘heels off-guard. It’s an entirely new style of play after conventional ACC basketball with big bangers down low, dribble-drives, mid-tempo, and tasteful 12-foot pullup jumps. Alabama does literally none of that. Ball movement, knocking down open looks (and they will get them), and getting after the offensive glass will determine the Tide’s fortunes.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen what happens in these games against elite defensive teams. The Tide has managed to go just 1-6 on the road against the spread…and four of them were losses by 15+ points. They don’t just lose, they get mollywalloped.
And, on the other end of the floor, its defensive efforts have made even average offenses looks good and efficient ones look elite.
Both teams have underperformed vs. the spread against quality opponents. But UNC is undoubtedly healthy, while the ace in ‘Bama’s hand — Wrightsell — is still in the protocol and may not play. That’s a bad combination for an Alabama team whose entire fortunes will rely on getting good looks and putting them in the net.
The numbers game simply doesn’t like that sort of matchup. Carolina can be scored on. And Alabama has saved some of its better performances for Creighton, Purdue, shelling Aggie and Carolina etc. So they an score on good defenses.
But with the perimeter uncertainties, Carolina being very stingy with giving opponents second-chances, their low turnover rate, and Withers — who will probably be the best player on the floor Friday — that’s all just a little too much for an Alabama team already playing with House Money.
Leave a Reply