Which Likely NCAA Opponent Should Mizzou Be Hoping to Play?

With the NCAA Tournament draw right around the corner, it seems to be virtually unanimous that Mizzou is going to end up in either the 8-9 game or, barring interesting seeding, 7-10 game.  (Or, if the NCAA committee reads the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, either the 5-12 game or the first round of the NIT.)  So in advance of the Selection Sunday proceedings, let's take a look at who Mizzou should be hoping to face at some point on Thursday or Friday.

The following are the 16 teams listed as a 7-10 seed in either Lunardi's latest, Jerry Palm's latest, or my Friday morning bracket, who haven't already played Mizzou this year: Butler, Florida State, George Mason, Gonzaga, Marquette, Michigan, Michigan State, Temple, Tennessee, UCLA, UNLV, Utah State, Villanova, Washington, West Virginia and Xavier.  By looking into this, I'm all but clinching that Missouri won't play one of these teams, but let's use Ken Pomeroy's stats to gauge the potential matchups regardless.

(Remember as you are looking at these tables: the factors are listed in order, from most important to least.  That's how Mizzou can face major disadvantages in Off. Reb. % and FTA/FGA and still match up rather well in overall efficiency.)

Butler (KenPom Ranking: No. 54)

Butler Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	BU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	38	53	Push
Effective FG%	82	168	BU
Turnover %	21	9	Push
Off. Reb. %	186	313	BU Big
FTA/FGA	145	239	BU
MU Offense vs Butler Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	BU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	76	MU
Effective FG%	58	151	MU
Turnover %	20	243	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	11	BU Big
FTA/FGA	259	215	BU

Adj. Tempo: 278th, Off. 3PT%: 79th.

Butler plays slow and in control.  They're solid from beyond the arc, and they hold the same big rebounding advantages that most teams on this list do.  They do not turn the ball over a lot, and when combined with the slow tempo, that's not a combination I'm looking for.  Plus, there's that whole "They went to the NCAA Finals last year" thing.

Verdict: DO NOT WANT.

Florida State (No. 40)

FSU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	FSU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	151	53	MU
Effective FG%	172	168	Push
Turnover %	315	9	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	43	313	FSU Big
FTA/FGA	162	239	FSU
MU Offense vs FSU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	FSU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	2	FSU
Effective FG%	58	2	FSU
Turnover %	20	63	MU
Off. Reb. %	170	108	FSU
FTA/FGA	259	139	FSU Big

Adj. Tempo: 59th, Off. 3PT%: 230th.

They play fast, turn the ball over a ton, and don't shoot the 3-pointer very well.  This is EXACTLY the combination I'm looking for.  FSU plays great defense and would hold the overall fouls advantage, but ... none of these teams is going to be a perfect overall combination -- they are NCAA Tournament quality teams, after all.  FSU contains the exact features I'm looking for.

Verdict: WANT.

George Mason (No. 25)

GMU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	GMU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	29	53	GMU
Effective FG%	21	168	GMU Big
Turnover %	15	9	Push
Off. Reb. %	156	313	GMU Big
FTA/FGA	132	239	GMU Big
MU Offense vs GMU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	GMU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	44	MU
Effective FG%	58	41	GMU
Turnover %	20	128	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	98	GMU
FTA/FGA	259	58	GMU Big

Adj. Tempo: 218th, Off. 3PT%: 13th.

Like Butler, GMU plays slow and under control, and they shoot 3's MUCH better than the Bulldgos.  They have a thin bench (245th in Bench Minutes), which could come in handy, but they don't turn the ball over a lot and could be well-equipped to avoid vulnerability to the Fastest 40 Minutes.  They went 1-1 against common opponent Old Dominion.

Verdict: DO NOT WANT.

Gonzaga (No. 27)

GU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	GU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	49	53	Push
Effective FG%	37	168	GU Big
Turnover %	151	9	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	47	313	GU Big
FTA/FGA	77	239	GU Big
MU Offense vs GU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	GU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	26	Push
Effective FG%	58	60	Push
Turnover %	20	99	MU
Off. Reb. %	170	54	GU Big
FTA/FGA	259	123	GU Big

Adj. Tempo: 115th, Off. 3PT%: 102nd.

Gonzaga holds large rebound and foul advantages, and they've got a reasonably deep bench, but I'll take my chances.  They turn the ball over a lot, are not amazing from long range, and they could get sucked into playing fast.  In terms of common opponents, they blew out Oklahoma State but lost to Illinois and got blown out by Kansas State.

Verdict: WANT.

Marquette (No. 33)

Marquette Offense vs Mizzou Defense Ranks
	Marq. O	Mizzou D	Advantage
Efficiency	19	53	Marquette
Effective FG%	71	168	Marquette
Turnover %	42	9	Mizzou
Off. Reb. %	56	313	Marq. Big
FTA/FGA	36	239	Marq. Big
MU Offense vs x Defense Ranks
	Mizzou O	Marq. D	Advantage
Efficiency	28	71	Mizzou
Effective FG%	58	217	Mizz. Big
Turnover %	20	137	Mizz. Big
Off. Reb. %	170	181	Push
FTA/FGA	259	27	Marq. Big

Adj. Tempo: 116th, Off. 3PT%: 125th.

The opportunity to hate on Buzz Williams some more?  YES, PLEASE.

Verdict: WANT.

Michigan (No. 41)

UM Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	UM Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	45	53	Push
Effective FG%	46	168	UM Big
Turnover %	16	9	Push
Off. Reb. %	327	313	Push
FTA/FGA	336	239	MU??
MU Offense vs UM Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	UM Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	50	MU
Effective FG%	58	156	MU
Turnover %	20	252	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	66	UM
FTA/FGA	259	28	UM Big

Adj. Tempo: 323rd, Off. 3PT%: 106th.

They play sloooooow and shoot a ton of 3's, which could be a problem.  But they don't necessarily make a ton of 3's all the time, and they actually wouldn't hold extreme overall rebounding and foul advantages.  Their upside is relatively high, but I'd prefer them over others on this list.  Unfortunately, I'm seeing them as a 10-seed, max, so Mizzou probably won't face them unless they get a very favorable seed.

Verdict: WANT.

Michigan State (No. 37)

MSU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	MSU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	58	53	Push
Effective FG%	180	168	Push
Turnover %	177	9	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	63	313	MSU Big
FTA/FGA	193	239	MSU
MU Offense vs MSU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	MSU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	34	Push
Effective FG%	58	109	MU
Turnover %	20	282	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	40	MSU Big
FTA/FGA	259	163	MSU

Adj. Tempo: 211th, Off. 3PT%: 158th.

They turn the ball over a ton and don't shoot 3's very well.  But they're Michigan State, they rebound pretty well, and facing them in the NCAA Tournament over the last decade+ doesn't typically end well for you.

Verdict: Not sure.

Temple (No. 38)

TU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	TU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	46	53	Push
Effective FG%	107	168	TU
Turnover %	13	9	Push
Off. Reb. %	147	313	TU Big
FTA/FGA	254	239	Push
MU Offense vs TU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	TU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	37	Push
Effective FG%	58	47	Push
Turnover %	20	158	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	27	TU Big
FTA/FGA	259	10	TU Big

Adj. Tempo: 239th, Off. 3PT%: 97th.

Temple features that same "slow game plus few turnovers" game that I want Mizzou to avoid overall.  In terms of common opponents, they beat Georgetown at home, lost a tight one to A&M, and beat La Salle three times.  They're not particularly deep, and they're not amazing from long range ... outlook hazy on this one.

Verdict: Not sure.

Tennessee (No. 55)

UT Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	UT Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	72	53	Push
Effective FG%	227	168	MU
Turnover %	132	9	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	12	313	UT Big
FTA/FGA	119	239	UT Big
MU Offense vs UT Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	UT Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	49	MU
Effective FG%	58	100	MU
Turnover %	20	117	MU
Off. Reb. %	170	125	UT
FTA/FGA	259	191	UT

Adj. Tempo: 152nd, Off. 3PT%: 315th.

They can be sucked into a high-tempo game, and they are terrible at 3-pointers.  The offensive rebounds are a concern, and with all the distractions they went through this year, they're clearly a rather mentally tough team.  But I'll take my chances.

Verdict: WANT.

UCLA

UCLA Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	UCLA Off.	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	88	53	MU
Effective FG%	106	168	UCLA
Turnover %	283	9	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	59	313	UCLA Big
FTA/FGA	55	239	UCLA Big
MU Offense vs UCLA Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	UCLA Def.	Advantage
Efficiency	28	35	Push
Effective FG%	58	45	Push
Turnover %	20	289	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	122	UCLA
FTA/FGA	259	74	UCLA Big

Adj. Tempo: 199th, Off. 3PT%: 248th.

The Bruins are capable of taking advantage of most of Mizzou's primary weaknesses -- they rebound well, shoot pretty well, draw fouls, slow the game down, etc.  BUT ... they're terrible at the 3-ball, and they turn the ball over as much as anybody on this list.  Facing Ben Howland in the NCAAs typically doesn't work out well for you either, but for some reason...

Verdict: WANT.

UNLV (No. 22)

UNLV Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	UNLV Off.	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	54	53	Push
Effective FG%	78	168	UNLV
Turnover %	87	9	MU
Off. Reb. %	115	313	UNLV Big
FTA/FGA	133	239	UNLV Big
MU Offense vs UNLV Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	UNLV Def.	Advantage
Efficiency	28	14	Push
Effective FG%	58	26	UNLV
Turnover %	20	17	Push
Off. Reb. %	170	143	UNLV
FTA/FGA	259	226	UNLV

Adj. Tempo: 103rd, Off. 3PT%: 223rd.

One of the most highly-ranked teams on this list, the Rebs force a ton of turnovers, force bad shots and grade out at least relatively well in terms of rebounds and fouls.  But their pace suggests they can be sucked into playing fast, and they shoot 3's poorly.  I'm not tremendously scared of this matchup, but it's certainly worth noting that Mizzou only actually holds one advantage (and a minor one) in the table above.

Verdict: Not sure.

Utah State (No. 16)

USU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	USU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	57	53	Push
Effective FG%	47	168	USU Big
Turnover %	58	9	MU
Off. Reb. %	114	313	USU Big
FTA/FGA	50	239	USU Big
MU Offense vs USU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	USU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	8	USU
Effective FG%	58	6	USU
Turnover %	20	255	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	2	USU
FTA/FGA	259	92	USU

Adj. Tempo: 312th, Off. 3PT%: 100th.

Hmm.  Super slow tempo (Nebraska), great defense (Nebraska), outstanding defensive rebounding (Nebraska) and a gigantic fouls advantage (Nebraska).  They (Nebraska) remind me (Nebraska) of some other team (Nebraska), but I can't (Nebraska) quite put my (Nebraska) finger on it (Nebraska).

Verdict: DO NOT WANT TIMES 1000.

Villanova (No. 29)

VU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	VU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	23	53	VU
Effective FG%	138	168	VU
Turnover %	48	9	MU
Off. Reb. %	70	313	VU Big
FTA/FGA	64	239	VU Big
MU Offense vs VU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	VU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	57	MU
Effective FG%	58	55	Push
Turnover %	20	274	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	76	VU
FTA/FGA	259	136	VU Big

Adj. Tempo: 195th, Off. 3PT%: 149th.

Considering how most of the season played out, it feels a little odd that Mizzou is going to likely end up in the 8-9 game.  And it feels VERY weird that Villanova might do the same.  The Wildcats have beaten nine KenPom Top 100 teams since December 30 ... but of course, they've lost five in a row and seven of nine.  Mizzou holds a strong ball control advantage, and 'Nova isn't filled with great 3-point shooters.  But really, your view of 'Nova depends on your view of momentum as it relates to the NCAAs.  I think 'Nova will play pretty well this coming week, so...

Verdict: DO NOT WANT.

Washington (No. 15)

UW Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	UW Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	9	53	UW
Effective FG%	16	168	UW Big
Turnover %	19	9	Push
Off. Reb. %	16	313	UW Big
FTA/FGA	294	239	MU
MU Offense vs UW Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	UW Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	42	Push
Effective FG%	58	46	Push
Turnover %	20	112	MU
Off. Reb. %	170	152	Push
FTA/FGA	259	284	MU

Adj. Tempo: 13th, Off. 3PT%: 51st.

Washington is a Ken Pomeroy favorite, and it doesn't typically work out well to bet against Pomeroy, but ... the potential fireworks in this game is too much to root against.  For entertainment purposes above all else, I want this one badly.

Verdict: WANT, WANT, WANT.

West Virginia (No. 21)

WVU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	WVU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	31	53	WVU
Effective FG%	204	168	MU
Turnover %	101	9	MU
Off. Reb. %	6	313	WVU Big
FTA/FGA	100	239	WVU Big
MU Offense vs WVU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	WVU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	28	Push
Effective FG%	58	31	WVU
Turnover %	20	253	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	274	MU Big
FTA/FGA	259	116	WVU Big

Adj. Tempo: 308th, Off. 3PT%: 205th.

Few teams in the country hit the offensive glass better than WVU, which alone makes them a tough matchup for Mizzou.  BUT ... they don't shoot well, they turn the ball over quite a bit, and for one reason or another, they allow an absolute TON of offensive rebounds of their own.  This isn't my favorite matchup here, but ... it's not nearly as unfavorable as I would have expected.

Verdict: WANT, surprisingly enough.

Xavier (No. 39)

XU Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	XU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	30	53	XU
Effective FG%	68	168	XU Big
Turnover %	61	9	MU
Off. Reb. %	149	313	XU Big
FTA/FGA	32	239	XU Big
MU Offense vs XU Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	XU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	28	59	MU
Effective FG%	58	50	Push
Turnover %	20	248	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	170	23	XU Big
FTA/FGA	259	104	XU Big

Adj. Tempo: 206th, Off. 3PT%: 210th.

They don't force turnovers, and they don't shoot 3-pointers well.  They're solid on the glass, and they're one of the longest teams in the country.  This is not as experienced or good a Xavier team as the one that beat Mizzou two years ago ... but this isn't as good a Mizzou team either.

Verdict: Want, if reluctantly.

 

---

So to summarize...

WANT: Florida State, Gonzaga, Marquette, Michigan, Tennessee, UCLA, Washington, West Virginia, Xavier.  (Want the most: Florida State, Washington.)

CAN'T DECIDE: Michigan State, Temple, UNLV

DO NOT WANT: Butler, George Mason, Utah State, Villanova

 

Which means the chances of a Mizzou-Utah State first round matchup just rose to about 98%.