New York Post

Don’t Four-get about Tigers & Gamecocks

- By TANNER McGRATH actionnetw­ork.com Joe Girard Tanner McGrath analyzes college basketball for Action Network.

It’s March. Selection Sunday is only a week away, so bracketolo­gy and bubble talk are the hot topics this month.

Some sneaky future value can be found around this time of year.

Here are two underdog teams I think can make a run in the Big Dance, specifical­ly, to the Final Four.

Clemson to make Final Four (25/1, DraftKings)

Seven ACC teams have made the Final Four in the past eight tournament­s. Some higher-seeded national title contenders are part of that list, but some longer-shot ACC squads have made Cinderella runs, such as No. 5 Miami last year and 10th-seeded Syracuse in 2016.

ACC teams play well in The Dance, and I think Clemson can, too.

The Tigers have bounced back following a midseason slump, winning seven of their past nine games, including one over North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

When looking for potential longshot wagers, I like to target high-variance squads. A team with a wide range of outcomes gives us a better chance of cashing an unlikely outcome.

Clemson qualifies as a highvarian­ce team because of its inside-out offense and compact defense.

In the post, the Tigers play through stud center PJ Hall, who drags defenses toward the interior, opening up perimeter jumpers. The Tigers take 24 3-pointers per game and make nine (36 percent), with Joe Girard (43 percent) leading the way.

Conversely, the Tigers allow plenty of jumpers, ranking 283rd nationally in 3-point rate allowed.

So Clemson games turn into shootouts, and the high-variance nature of those games means anything can happen.

If the Tigers get hot from beyond the arc and their opponents get cold, they could shoot their way to four straight wins. They did that during a five-game streak in late November, shooting 43 percent from 3 and holding opponents to 32 percent in wins over Boise State, Alcorn State, Alabama, Pitt and South Carolina.

Clemson games are high-variance, but I feel good about the Tigers’ ability to skew variance. The Tigers rank top-80 nationally in Open 3 Rate and top-50 in Open 3 Rate allowed, so they take better 3s than they allow.

South Carolina to make Final Four (20/1, FanDuel)

The metrics don’t love the Gamecocks — they rank 44th nationally in KenPom’s ratings — and that’s understand­able. They’re not a dominant team, and they don’t have a stellar strength of schedule.

That said, South Carolina is 24-5 (12-4 ACC) for a reason.

The Gamecocks play at a snail’s pace, ranking 354th nationally in tempo and forcing opponents into the last four seconds of the shot clock on 10 percent of possession­s.

Their methodical five-out swing motion offense works the ball slowly inside-out, specifical­ly from center B.J. Mack to point guard Meechie Johnson to wing shooter Ta’Lon Cooper. And their midrange funneling drop, transition-denial defense and rock-solid defensive rebounding make them hard to beat with quickstrik­e offense. Slower-paced, lower-scoring affairs inject a higher level of variance. Limited possession­s mean there are only so many chances to overcome mistakes or bad possession­s, and South Carolina is a relatively mistake-free team that’s maddening to play against. SEC teams haven’t been able to adjust, as no South Carolina conference game has exceeded 66 possession­s.

The Gamecocks have dominated late-game, crunch-time situations by winning their low-possession, high-variance games on the margins, boasting 10 wins by six or fewer points.

The Gamecocks could generate four tight tournament games if they force opponents to play at their pace and style, and there’s a good chance luck and variance swing their way.

SAN JOSE, Calif. — If the Islanders held leads all year the way they have for the past week, they would be battling the Rangers for first place in the Metropolit­an Division instead of fighting for their playoff lives.

But given the urgency of the situation, it’s best not to dwell on what could have been for a team that scored its first two empty-net goals of the season within the last seven days and is now on a four-game winning streak, having led and closed out three straight in the final period.

“I think just sticking with our game plan,” Noah Dobson said after the Islanders skated with a 3-2 lead for the final 19:05 of a 4-2 win over St. Louis on Tuesday. “We didn’t try and change the way we were playing. We were just playing a solid game.”

For much of the year, the Islanders did exactly the opposite, retreating into a defensive shell and hoping to win games by one-goal margins.

It proved a losing strategy as they repeatedly blew leads, allowed goals at five-on-six and dropped like a rock in the standings.

When Patrick Roy took over as coach in mid-January, that was one of the first things he wanted to fix. Now — like the rest of Roy’s vision — it is coming into being.

Despite being in a position to defend on Tuesday, the Islanders looked nonplussed. They kept looking for chances to attack, kept the Blues to the outside when they didn’t have the puck and Mathew Barzal quickly scored into the empty net when Blues netminder Joel Hofer was pulled.

Now, the Islanders will take a four-game winning streak into Thursday’s game against the Sharks, tied for their longest of the year.

“I was surprised to hear that was the first [empty-net] goal we scored against Detroit [last Thursday],” Roy said. “But hey, if you do a good job and if you play well, swarm correctly, good things will happen and it’s exactly what happened on that one. Great job by Bo [Horvat] in the corner and drive it to Barzy for an emptynette­r all by himself, basically.”

“I think we’re just going out there with more confidence,” Dobson said. “There were points earlier in the year when we were fighting it a little bit, but I think when you get the results that gives you confidence. I think the guys, everyone knows their job. Guys are buying in, going out with confidence.”

As a result, the Islanders look like a whole new team. And their playoff chances have a whole new life.

 ?? ??
 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States