Previewing UVA basketball’s NCAA Tournament first round opponent: Wright State

Virginia is unfortunately all too familiar with double-digit seed Cinderellas. The ghosts of UMBC, Ohio, and Furman still haunt the minds of the Cavalier faithful to this day. So, it is fair to approach UVA’s first-round opponent with caution and take a real look at what Wright State brings into this matchup.

The No. 14 seed Raiders won the Horizon League tournament by erasing a 12-point deficit to beat Detroit Mercy 66-63 in the title game. That came after they put up 105 points in the semifinals. Wright State enters Friday at 23-11 overall and 15-5 in league play, having won eight of its last 10 and 18 of its last 22.

The Raiders can score. Wright State averages 80.5 points per game and shoots 48.9 percent from the field. Michael Cooper leads them at 13.3 points per game. TJ Burch adds 11.8 points and 3.5 assists. Solomon Callaghan shoots 39.8 percent from three, and Dominic Pangonis is at 38.2 percent from deep. If the game gets loose, Wright State has enough backcourt scoring and shooting to make Virginia uncomfortable.

But Wright State is not the typical upset-minded mid-major that lives almost entirely on the three-point line. The Raiders shoot 36.1% (49th) from deep and 54.5% (74th) from two, yet only about a third of their attempts come from beyond the arc. This is not a team trying to bomb its way into a miracle. Wright State plays a more physical brand of basketball.

Wright State can certainly score the basketball, but looking into how they are built tells a more complete story. Their main interior pieces are 6-foot-7 senior Michael Imariagbe and 6-foot-9 freshman Kellen Pickett. Imariagbe averages 11.9 points and 6.9 rebounds while shooting 58.4 percent from the floor. Pickett adds 8.3 points, 5.4 rebounds, and 1.3 blocks per game.

That is what makes this a different kind of Cinderella candidate. As a team, Wright State has a 7.5 percent block rate, 39th nationally, and averages 4.4 blocks per game, 44th in the country.

In other words, Wright State has often out-muscled Horizon League teams. The Raiders drive the ball, finish through contact, and protect the paint on the other end. In their league, they have often been the enforcer.

That is the part of the matchup I keep coming back to, because Virginia is not built like the average first-round opponent. UVA enters the tournament as the best shot-blocking team in the country. Johann Grünloh is 7-foot and averages 2.2 blocks per game. Ugonna Onyenso is also 7-foot and leads the ACC at 3.0 blocks per game. As a team, Virginia leads the NCAA with 6.5 blocks per game and is second in the ACC in rebounding at 40.2.

So, if the question is whether Wright State can keep doing what it usually does around the rim, the answer is probably not. Wright State’s identity has been built in part on superior size and physicality at the mid-major level. However, Virginia is probably the best equipped team in the country to combat this style of game plan.

We have seen some evidence of that against better competition. Wright State lost 94-69 at Butler, 77-67 at California, and 83-76 at home to Miami (OH). Those results do not mean the Raiders are fraudulent. They do suggest that when the level of size and athleticism rises, the margin for error gets thinner.

And that is the real story of this game. Wright State is not a classic Cinderella that survives on weirdness. It survives on fundamentals and force. The problem is that Virginia has the exact kind of front line that can take those advantages away. When Imariagbe rolls, posts, or attacks the glass, he is running into two legitimate 7-foot shot blockers. When Pickett tries to erase things at the rim, he is now contesting ACC size instead of Horizon size.

That is why this matchup looks better for Virginia than the seed line alone might suggest. Wright State’s strengths happen to line up with areas where UVA is already strong. The Cavaliers are first in the ACC in blocks, second in rebounding, second in field-goal percentage defense at 39.5 percent, third in scoring defense at 68.4 points allowed, and third in three-point defense at 30.9 percent. This is a defense built to close out on shooters and funnel drivers toward the twin towers of Grünloh and Onyenso.

That does not mean Virginia can relax. Wright State still has enough shot-making to make the game uncomfortable. Burch averages 2.6 steals per game and can speed up a possession or spark a run. Cooper can get hot. Callaghan and Pangonis both shoot well enough that over-helping becomes dangerous. If Virginia gets sloppy with the ball or lets Wright State settle in from three, this can turn into one of those miserable NCAA Tournament afternoons Cavalier fans know all too well.

Still, this feels like a game that should be decided by where the floor shrinks. Wright State wants to play through contact, finish at the rim, and use its size to set the tone. Virginia is uniquely positioned to take that away. And, unlike some UVA teams of the past, this one is not asking its defense to carry an anemic offense. The Cavaliers average 80.9 points per game, rank fourth in the ACC in assists, and have multiple ways to score. Thijs De Ridder leads the team at 15.5 points per game, Dallin Hall runs the offense at 4.3 assists per game, and Virginia is shooting 35.9 percent from three as a team.

So, yes, Wright State is good enough to be taken seriously. A team that scores 80 a game, shoots better than 36 percent from three, and arrives with confidence should never be dismissed in March. But this matchup is tricky for the Raiders in a very specific way. What has made them look big and forceful in the Horizon League may not look nearly as imposing when the back line is Grünloh and Onyenso.