There’s still a little more than a month to Selection Sunday, but it’s never too early to identify the 12-over-5 NCAA Tournament upset. So that’s where this week’s mailbag begins …
(Note: Submitted questions have been edited for clarity and length.)
We haven’t seen a 12 or 13 seed make it out of the first weekend since Oregon State in 2021. If we want to deep dive even further, a mid-major 12/13 seed hasn’t made it out of the first weekend since 2013 (shout out La Salle). Which mid-major 12/13 seed can you see making it out of the first weekend? (This question eliminates teams like Saint Louis and potentially Miami (Ohio), who will obviously be seeded better than a 12) — Drew B.
First of all, that is a shocking stat. I couldn’t fully believe it myself, so I also went back through and confirmed its veracity. It is true! We have seen low-seeded mid-majors like Saint Peter’s, Princeton and Oral Roberts make the Sweet 16, but they were all on the No. 15 line.
As for who can change that this year, my best guess is Stephen F. Austin, which has unseated McNeese as the top squad in the Southland. Under new coach Matt Braeuer, the Lumberjacks have built an excellent defense led by shot-swatting menace Jerald Colonel. Offensively, they have multiple potent perimeter shooters, and burly point guard Keon Thompson can be the best player on the court on any given night. Like Miami (Ohio), though, they have not played a single power-conference opponent.
Belmont is another candidate, if the Bruins can escape the gantlet that will be Arch Madness. Casey Alexander’s team is lethal offensively and has enough size and depth in the frontcourt to compete in the paint. Once again, no one would play the Bruins in the nonconference, so they are incredibly untested against Power 5 athletes.
Tulsa and South Florida, the two top contenders from the American, have no shortage of athletes and also have the upside to make it happen. Any of several possible Big West champions could do it (Hawaii, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara). I am not a huge believer in Yale, Liberty, or High Point, though. — Jim Root
I think it’s a good thing that Charles Bediako has been declared ineligible, but there’s something that doesn’t make sense to me: Why is the “red line” for a player to be ineligible by the NCAA when he declares for the NBA Draft? In a case where a player is in the draft but isn’t chosen, why shouldn’t he be eligible to go back to college? For what it’s worth, I completely agree that it’s absurd to play for years in the G League (or any pro league) and return. — Kirk M.
So the red line that the NCAA and president Charlie Baker have established regarding eligibility is players signing an NBA contract, not simply declaring for the NBA Draft. The Bediako saga is notable because he was the first of this new batch of “pro” players who actually played and then returned to college basketball after declaring for the draft and forgoing his remaining eligibility. But that’s not why the NCAA initially deemed him ineligible, which is what led to Bediako taking the association to court.
Baker said in December that the NCAA had not and would not grant eligibility to any player who signed an NBA contract, which includes two-way contracts, like the one Bediako signed with the San Antonio Spurs after he went undrafted. (Even though Bediako never played in an NBA game.) Previously, the NCAA granted eligibility to some former international and G League players, including James Nnaji at Baylor, who was selected in the second round of the 2023 draft. Nnaji never played college basketball initially, but the NCAA determined he was eligible because he never signed any type of professional NBA contract, and his G League and international contracts didn’t cross the threshold for collegiate eligibility.
There’s certainly an argument to be made about the rationale of that distinction. It’s part of what Bediako and his lawyers argued in court. The differences in age, background, contracts, playing time and money earned at various levels of pro basketball have created shades of gray across the spectrum of these eligibility cases, but the NCAA has decided that an NBA contract is the line that can’t be crossed.
This means that we could potentially see an instance of a former college player, similar to Bediako, who declared for the NBA Draft and maybe even got selected, be allowed to return to college hoops (without suing the NCAA), so long as he never inked an NBA deal (as determined by the NCAA). The reason for that justification seems to be that the NCAA does not want players who have appeared in NBA games, like Amari Bailey, playing in college basketball. It’s a slippery slope the NCAA does not want to go down, even if some believe it to be an arbitrary distinction.
In the case of Bediako, the NCAA held its ground and ultimately won in court. We’ll see if others try to test that limit — and if any break through. — Justin Williams
Tommy Lloyd’s Arizona team was the last power-conference unbeaten until it lost to Kansas on Monday. (Chris Coduto / Getty Images)
Arizona just lost. What is the formula for a team to finish the regular season undefeated in a power conference? My guess is a good team that returns a ton and then adds an absolute stud freshman, and it would help if that team was in the Big East, where there is a distinct bottom of the conference and half the teams play in NBA or NHL arenas, which diminishes a home-court advantage. — Dan K.
I also doubt it ever happens, Dan, but for a different reason: dispersion of talent.
The No. 1 recruit in the 2025 class plays at BYU. Nebraska, which has never won an NCAA Tournament game, is in the top 10 because of a roster built through shrewd transfer portal acquisitions. The days of teams stockpiling five-stars on their bench — a la Kentucky in 2015, the last high-major team to go undefeated in the regular season — are over, in no small part because of the transfer portal and money available across the college hoops landscape. The fact that Arizona survived as long as it did — 23 games — is incredible, and a testament to the team Tommy Lloyd built … but did anyone really think the Wildcats would get through Kansas, Texas Tech, BYU, Houston and Iowa State unscathed? There’s just too much talent in the sport, and too many resources widely available, for teams to hoard the type of elite depth required to do what Kentucky did in 2015. — Brendan Marks
Barring Houston winning out and winning the Big 12, it seems likely that whoever gets the fourth 1-seed will end up in the South Region in Houston. In that scenario, what happens if Houston ends up as the top 2-seed? Does the committee move them to a different region so as not to disadvantage the 1-seed by giving them a potential true road game in the Elite Eight, or does the S-curve take priority and the 1-seed just has to deal with it? — Greg S.
You nailed it with your final sentence, Greg. The S-Curve takes priority, and the committee does not “assume wins,” for lack of a better term. Houston is actually a perfect example of this: Last year, the No. 1 seed Cougars had to play a quasi-road game against No. 4 seed Purdue in Indianapolis in the Sweet 16. Surely, the Cougars would not mind the script getting flipped and having the opportunity to play in front of a partisan crowd this year.
The NCAA’s bracketing principles dictate that teams on the top four seed lines are protected from playing “at a potential home-crowd disadvantage” in the first round only. Perhaps Houston will win enough to earn that final No. 1 seed, but if not, the Cougars could end up with a theoretical home-court edge in the Elite Eight.
One more note: there was another question in the mailbag about Saint Louis University possibly getting slotted in the St. Louis pod for the opening round. That would also be allowed, as the Billikens are not the official host at the Enterprise Center (it is actually the Missouri Valley Conference). Also, the Billikens did not play three or more games in that specific venue this season — another bracketing quirk that would rule out the possibility of them playing there. — Root
What do you guys think of Arkansas’ Darius Acuff Jr., who is averaging similar scoring stats (and better passing stats) to UNC’s Caleb Wilson and isn’t that far behind the likes of Dybantsa, Cameron Boozer, and Darryn Peterson? Why aren’t his draft projections top 10 or higher like theirs are, and where is his hype/flowers? — Asher A.
Acuff has undoubtedly had an awesome freshman season, leading the Razorbacks in scoring (20.5 points per game) and assists (6.3) while keeping Arkansas firmly in the SEC regular-season race. He’s been John Calipari’s latest stud guard, and he’s going to be a first-round pick this summer.
But when you’re projecting for the NBA, counting stats aren’t all that matter. Production is important, of course, and Acuff checks that box, but you also have to dig a little deeper. Is this player’s role the same as it will be at the next level? How does this player compare physically to future NBA counterparts? And how well-rounded is he, if his best attributes only translate to a certain degree?
This is where the four names you mentioned separate themselves. How many 6-foot-2, ball-dominant point guards do you see dominating the NBA these days? Not many, especially in an era where height and length are at a premium. Acuff is a gifted passer, ranking ninth among high-major players in assists, but his calling card in college has been scoring. But against the best opponents Arkansas has faced, Acuff’s point totals have come at the cost of his efficiency. Check out the difference:
- Acuff season-long splits: 49 percent on field goals, 41.2 percent from 3-point range, and a 3.15 assist-to-turnover ratio.
- Acuff in 12 games vs. “Tier A” KenPom opponents: 44.4 percent on field goals, 31.1 percent from 3, and a 2.47 assist-to-turnover ratio.
Arkansas is just 6-6 in those games, with Acuff attempting a staggering 16.3 shots per contest.
While Acuff is an extremely talented natural scorer, it would go against the grain for an NBA team to empower him — especially at that level of inefficiency — to be so ball-dominant, especially at his size. Beyond that, Acuff’s defense has been fine, but nothing to write home about. (He has a positive wing span, closer to 6-6, but doesn’t always use it to be disruptive.) And lastly, this freshman class is an all-timer. Studs abound everywhere. There are 12 freshmen averaging at least 17 points per game, so while Acuff’s numbers get him in the mix, they don’t naturally anoint him above any of the other awesome guards — like Peterson, Kingston Flemings or Mikel Brown Jr. — in this class. — Marks