Thursday, March 15 – 3:10 pm ET
Rupp Arena – Lexington, KY
Television: CBS (region by region) – Gus Johnson (play-by-play) and Dan Bonner (color)
Internet video: March Madness On Demand (free)
Radio: 88.5 FM WXPN (Philadelphia)
Internet audio: XPN.org
The Tale of the Tape (national ranking)
 Penn |
 Texas A&M |
|||
| 22-8 | W-L | 25-6 | ||
| 89 | RPI rank | 17 | ||
| 110 | Sagarin rank | 9 | ||
| 102 | Pomeroy rank | 5 | ||
| 68.1 (111) | Possessions per 40 minutes | 65.7 (214) | ||
| Offense | ||||
| 74.8 (69) | Points per game | 76.3 (41) | ||
| 1.09 (49) | Efficiency | 1.15 (8) | ||
| 54.3 (28) | Effective FG percentage | 56.1 (5) | ||
| 36.7 (92) | 3-point FG percentage | 42.2 (3) | ||
| 54.0 (14) | 2-point FG percentage | 53.2 (30) | ||
| 30.1 (252) | 3-point frequency | 28.6 (285) | ||
| 64.2 (20) | Assist percentage | 66.7 (6) | ||
| 20.3 (109) | Turnover percentage | 18.5 (41) | ||
| 33.1 (183) | Rebounding percentage | 33.9 (153) | ||
| 25.9 (138) | Free throw frequency | 29.3 (57) | ||
| 67.0 (231) | Free throw percentage | 72.4 (70) | ||
| Defense | ||||
| 67.7 (147) | Points per game | 59.2 (16) | ||
| 0.98 (81) | Efficiency | 0.89 (3) | ||
| 49.5 (143) | Effective FG percentage | 42.5 (2) | ||
| 35.2 (205) | 3-point FG percentage | 29.7 (6) | ||
| 47.9 (131) | 2-point FG percentage | 41.4 (5) | ||
| 32.1 (98) | 3-point frequency | 36.2 (235) | ||
| 53.7 (120) | Assist percentage | 58.2 (245) | ||
| 23.2 (56) | Turnover percentage | 22.2 (106) | ||
| 65.7 (212) | Rebounding percentage | 70.1 (36) | ||
| 34.4 (120) | Free throw frequency | 38.4 (204) |
The breakdown
Style of play
The national media may be mistaking Penn for Princeton as far as pace goes, because the Quakers are much more of an up-tempo team than the Aggies. The difference would be even more dramatic if not for league play, where opponents repeatedly looked to slow the tempo against Penn. Outside the league, the Quakers averaged 71.8 possession per 40 minutes. Texas A&M went over 71 possessions on just seven occasions this season, averaging 65.7 per 40 minutes.
At Penn’s end
When the Quakers have the ball, it will be a battle of strength against strength, with Penn ranking 49th in offensive efficiency and Texas A&M owning the third-best defensive efficiency around. Penn re-made itself as an interior scoring team in Ivy play, largely eschewing the three-point shot. The Quakers can stroke it from the outside, shooting 36.7 percent from beyond the arc, but are even more potent inside, ranking 14th in the nation in two-point shooting at 54.0 percent. However, the Quakers will have their work cut out for them against an Aggie defense that gets out in opponents’ faces and really limits open looks. Texas A&M ranks second in the nation in opponent effective field goal shooting, holding opponents to just 29.7 percent from three and 41.4 percent from two. The defensive intensity isn’t geared so much toward turnover generation as shot prevention, and the Aggies do have a propensity to foul, so the Quakers will need to make sure they’re hitting their free throws when they get the chance. Normally you’d expect Penn to abstain from crashing the offensive glass against a major conference foe, but given Texas A&M’s deliberate tempo, you may see Glen Miller go for second chances.
At Texas A&M’s end
The Quakers struggled defensively against athletic competition this year, particularly in transition. The bad news is that they’ll face one of the most efficient offensive teams in the nation. The good news is that the Aggies’ slower pace may help prevent some of the transition opportunities that have hurt Penn at the defensive end. Texas A&M is one of the top three-point shooting teams in the nation at 42.2 percent, but yet the Aggies rank just 285th in three-point frequency. Texas A&M is shooting 53.2 percent from inside the arc, so it is doing fine on all those shots that aren’t threes. Penn has defended well from two-point range, but it has allowed a mediocre 35.2 percent from three-point rage — though Quaker opponents attempted just 32.1 percent of their shots from long range. Penn’s defense thrives on creating turnovers and turning those into fastbreak opportunities, but Texas A&M ranks 41st in the nation with an excellent 18.5 percent turnover rate. The Quakers have had their problems on the defensive boards at times, and the Aggies’ size inside could be an issue, but they have been an average offensive rebounding team this season. Texas A&M gets to the line very frequently (57th in free throw rate) and knocks down 72.4 percent of its free throws, so Penn will need to limit the fouling, especially by its frontcourt starters.
Stat to watch
Three-point shooting. Both teams start five guys capable of hitting the three, and Penn may have to do a lot of scoring from the outside. Ibby Jaaber has been struggling mightily with his outside shooting, and the Quakers have had nights where they either weren’t interested in shooting from the outside or couldn’t hit the few attempts they did put up from beyond the arc. Meanwhile, much of opponents’ three-point damage has come before Penn has had a chance to set up its defense, so guarding the arc in transition will be a major key for the Quakers. Keeping an eye on Josh Carter will be a Penn defensive priority, as he is one of the top three-point threats in the nation at 51.6 percent, while Texas A&M will need to make sure someone stays with Mark Zoller when he drifts out to the top of the key.
How Penn can win
In order to protect its big men and keep things under control inside, Miller may be tempted to throw a zone defense at Texas A&M. The Aggies have proven themselves to be a potent outside shooting team, so Penn would need to close out on shooters very well in a zone — particularly Carter. For Penn offensively, any interior buckets probably are going to have to come off of cuts, because it’s asking too much of Zoller and Steve Danley to score on post moves against bigger, stronger, and more athletic opponents. Miller’s motion offense can be tough to defend, with all the screens and cuts, so the Aggies will need to communicate well defensively. Depth is a bit of a concern for Texas A&M, so if Penn can find a way to get some key Aggies in foul trouble, this could pay huge dividends. Miller’s attempts to get out and run on major conference opponents met with disastrous results early on this season, but this might be one instance where the Quakers can look to push tempo. The only problem will be forcing turnovers against a team that takes excellent care of the ball.
Our call
It’s another tough draw for Penn, though at least this game isn’t in Dallas like last year’s matchup with Texas. Texas A&M is one of the most balanced teams in the nation, and the Quakers are going to have to work hard for good shots, then knock them down when they get them. There are aspects of the matchup that are somewhat encouraging, but in the end, expect the margin to end up in double digits, possibly somewhere near the 79-61 score projected by the Pomeroy Ratings. Then again, everyone expected the blowout last year, and Penn responded with the best NCAA Tournament performance by an Ivy team since 1998.
