March Madness

[tcrudisi]

It's mad out there already! Who do you have in the final 4 and winning it all?

[Dallas-Dakota]

What are you talking about?:smallconfused:

[tcrudisi]

What are you talking about?:smallconfused:

<gasp> It can't be true!

Okay, okay. I suppose not everyone is from the United States.

March Madness is the college basketball tournament. 63 or 64 games are played and it's single-elimination. People fill out brackets to pick who will win. Much illegal gambling ensues. Even the FBI, the police, all the law enforcement do it. It's exciting because it's single elimination and many of the "bad" teams beat the "good" teams. And one loss can screw up your bracket royally.

So. Much. Fun.

It's better than the SuperBowl, I tell ya.

[MethosH]

Why united states have their own sports? I can't think anywhere else in the world where people are fanatic for American football (the light version of rugby), basketball and baseball (well... maybe the Japanese.)

[SensFan]

Why united states have their own sports? I can't think anywhere else in the world where people are fanatic for American football (the light version of rugby), basketball and baseball (well... maybe the Japanese.)
Then you're mistaken.

North American Football is played in North America, yes. (Edit: And if you truly compare it to Rugby, you don't know it very well. It's probably the most strategical sport there is.)
Basketball is an Olympic sport.
Baseball is an Olympic sport, and the US aren't even dominant at it.

---

On-topic, my Final 4 is Kansas/Pitt/West Virginia/Duke, with Duke over Kansas for the title. For reference, my entire bracket is here (http://games.espn.go.com/tcmen/en/entry?entryID=481629)

[MethosH]

I'm just comparing the amount of physical contact that almost make those sports into the "martial arts" category. The difference is just the amount of armor...

And I know they are Olympic sports, that doesn't mean many countries are fanatic about it... Just that its played in enough countries to get by the Olympic committee.

It's just like what this guy says about some sports at the winter olympics. (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1930111)(at :41 and :42)

[SensFan]

I'm just comparing the amount of physical contact that almost make those sports into the "martial arts" category. The difference is just the amount of armor...
I don't see where you can get that any of the sports have any resemblence whatsoever to martial arts if you at all understand the sports.

[Thufir]

(Edit: And if you truly compare it to Rugby, you don't know it very well. It's probably the most strategical sport there is.)

Nope. Chess.

[snoopy13a]

Baseball is actually being phased out as an Olympic sport and will not be part of the London Games in 2012. One major reason is that Major League Baseball refuses to allow their players to participate.

On the other hand, Basketball is very popular worldwide. It isn't the most popular sport in any country (that would be soccer in most countries, baseball in a few such as Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Japan, hockey in Canada, and American football in the US) but there are professional leagues throughout the world. Basketball may be the second most popular team sport worldwide (behind soccer of course).

Still, March Madness is really a US thing. Basketball fans in Europe don't know much about it just as American basketball fans don't know much about the Spanish or Italian basketball leagues.

[Blaine.Bush]

I have Kansas winning it all.

[Dannan-Kun]

Baseball is actually being phased out as an Olympic sport and will not be part of the London Games in 2012. One major reason is that Major League Baseball refuses to allow their players to participate.

On the other hand, Basketball is very popular worldwide. It isn't the most popular sport in any country (that would be soccer in most countries, baseball in a few such as Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Japan, hockey in Canada, and American football in the US) but there are professional leagues throughout the world. Basketball may be the second most popular team sport worldwide (behind soccer of course).

Still, March Madness is really a US thing. Basketball fans in Europe don't know much about it just as American basketball fans don't know much about the Spanish or Italian basketball leagues.

We are all going to be dead in 2012 so it doesn't matter lol

[Krade]

Baseball is actually being phased out as an Olympic sport and will not be part of the London Games in 2012. One major reason is that Major League Baseball refuses to allow their players to participate.

That's probably because the MLB doesn't really enforce the "no steroids" rule. They want to spare the US the embarassment of being publicly outed as allowing juicers into their pro sports. The way I understand the MLB's drug policy works, it's a 3-strikes you're out kinda deal where players get tested randomly. However, after they get caught twice, their name doesn't come up a third time.

The MLB knows the Olympics will test each and every one of their players (along with everyone else), so they avoid the whole thing by killing Olympic Baseball entirely.

/mostly baseless conjecture


We are all going to be dead in 2012 so it doesn't matter lol
Well, the Olympics are in August. We all die in December.

[MethosH]

I don't see where you can get that any of the sports have any resemblence whatsoever to martial arts if you at all understand the sports.

:smallannoyed: now you are just trying to be annoying.

Ok... Let me put it this way... Both have great amount physical contact where you can easily get hurt without training or proper equipment. And when I say easily I mean "more than average odds".


Nope. Chess.

Oh snap! :smallbiggrin:

Also... Saying that "It's probably the most strategical sport there is" is just saying "come on... I just like this sport more than others". Many sports demands good strategy so just don't come saying "this is better than that". :smalltongue:

[skywalker]

It's mad out there already! Who do you have in the final 4 and winning it all?

I skip the bracket. It avoids a simple problem: If I pick my team to win it all, I'm an idiot. If I don't pick my team to win it all, I'm a turncoat. So I don't fill out a bracket unless they're not in the tournament, or they have a legitimate chance to win. Haven't filled out a bracket for... 5 years? Maybe more?


Why united states have their own sports? I can't think anywhere else in the world where people are fanatic for American football (the light version of rugby), basketball and baseball (well... maybe the Japanese.)

Most nations have their own sports, they're just not a cultural hegemon, so they don't get as much exposure. Ever heard of Shinty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinty)?

I don't really understand what you're trying to do with this post. What exactly are you trying to communicate?


North American Football is played in North America, yes. (Edit: And if you truly compare it to Rugby, you don't know it very well. It's probably the most strategical sport there is.)

Dude. American Football was developed as a "better" form of rugby. Look it up. Watch an American Football game from before about... 1965. You might be surprised by how much it looks like rugby.



On-topic, my Final 4 is Kansas/Pitt/West Virginia/Duke, with Duke over Kansas for the title. For reference, my entire bracket is here (http://games.espn.go.com/tcmen/en/entry?entryID=481629)

Decent bracket, although listening to Bilas about Tennessee was a bad choice. In general, I think a lot of people got screwed with that one. Somehow Bilas convinced everyone that UT was the susceptible 6 seed, when in fact they were the least likely to lose.


That's probably because the MLB doesn't really enforce the "no steroids" rule. They want to spare the US the embarassment of being publicly outed as allowing juicers into their pro sports. The way I understand the MLB's drug policy works, it's a 3-strikes you're out kinda deal where players get tested randomly. However, after they get caught twice, their name doesn't come up a third time.

The MLB knows the Olympics will test each and every one of their players (along with everyone else), so they avoid the whole thing by killing Olympic Baseball entirely.

Nah, the Olympics occur in the summer, and the baseball season is in the summer. Similarly to how the NHL is considering not allowing its players in the Olympics, because the season has to be interrupted, they're not paying these guys to play those games but there's still risk of injury to a big investment, etc. Also, the Olympics are not necessarily the pinnacle of international baseball competition anyway (check the World Baseball Classic), similarly to how the World Cup is a bigger deal in soccer.

[SensFan]

Decent bracket, although listening to Bilas about Tennessee was a bad choice. In general, I think a lot of people got screwed with that one. Somehow Bilas convinced everyone that UT was the susceptible 6 seed, when in fact they were the least likely to lose.
Don't know who Bilas is.

[Temotei]

<gasp> It can't be true!

Okay, okay. I suppose not everyone is from the United States.

March Madness is the college basketball tournament. 63 or 64 games are played and it's single-elimination. People fill out brackets to pick who will win. Much illegal gambling ensues. Even the FBI, the police, all the law enforcement do it. It's exciting because it's single elimination and many of the "bad" teams beat the "good" teams. And one loss can screw up your bracket royally.

So. Much. Fun.

It's better than the SuperBowl, I tell ya.

I live in Minnesota, and I hate watching sports. Hate it.

Basketball games? I go for pep band and to hang out with friends. I rarely watch any of the game when I go. :smallamused:

That said, I've heard of March Madness only because of my cousin, who plays basketball. She's good, too.

[Joran]

Why united states have their own sports? I can't think anywhere else in the world where people are fanatic for American football (the light version of rugby), basketball and baseball (well... maybe the Japanese.)

Baseball and Basketball are among the most popular sports in the world, usually second in most countries after soccer (football, futbol, whatever).

Baseball is very popular in Latin America and South Korea/Japan. Heck, in Japan, it's a cultural phenomenon. Basketball is popular in Western Europe and China. Players who can't make it in the NBA often go to Europe to play.

American football is probably the only sport on your list where there isn't widespread popularity outside of the United States. Baseball, basketball, and American football were all invented in the United States, hence the popularity. It's like asking why the Australians like Australian Rules Football.

P.S. Back on track, my final four is Baylor, Syracuse, Ohio State, and West Virginia with Syracuse winning. I'm a Maryland alum, so go Terps! Fear the TURTLE.

[MethosH]

Most nations have their own sports, they're just not a cultural hegemon, so they don't get as much exposure. Ever heard of Shinty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinty)?

I don't really understand what you're trying to do with this post. What exactly are you trying to communicate?


Never heard... But that sounds like a lot of fun! I guess I just don't relate since all mainstream sports here are actually worldwide popular sports. We don't have a "local" sport. :smalltongue:

[skywalker]

Don't know who Bilas is.

Jay Bilas, the ESPN commentator who picked UT to lose about 30 seconds (no, seriously) after the bracket came out. He went completely chalk (as in, picked no upsets) in our region, with the exception of UT. Everyone pretty much followed him on the UT pick.

[tcrudisi]

P.S. Back on track, my final four is Baylor, Syracuse, Ohio State, and West Virginia with Syracuse winning. I'm a Maryland alum, so go Terps! Fear the TURTLE.

Mine is Kansas, Kansas St., New Mexico and Duke. I always pick them one game at a time, otherwise I would not have New Mexico on there. Also, I'm a UNC fan so I really wanted Duke to lose before the Final 4. Unfortunately, they have such an amazingly easy bracket where their 2 seed is a team that lost 5 out of 7 to finish the season. WTF, selection committee? Ultimately, I have Kansas beating New Mexico to win it all.

This wasn't a good year for me, though. I'm studying in the Netherlands, so I didn't get to watch many games or keep up with it as much as I liked. I'm also a UNC fan, and we struggled hardcore this year (with a new PG and SG coming in next year -- thank god). Also, once I realized how bad UNC was, I quit caring about everyone else.

And Skywalker: I always pick UNC to win it all. Then again, UNC is usually a threat to do it. Regardless, I stick by my team. If I had filled out a paper bracket this year, they would have seen UNC vs. Kansas in the final with UNC winning. hahaha.

[Yarram]

Never heard... But that sounds like a lot of fun! I guess I just don't relate since all mainstream sports here are actually worldwide popular sports. We don't have a "local" sport. :smalltongue:

Yeah! "Fun!" Tackle hockey, just like full-contact sparring is "fun," and boxing without gloves.:smallfrown:

[Mathis]

Baseball, basketball, and American football were all invented in the United States, hence the popularity. It's like asking why the Australians like Australian Rules Football.

Actually baseball as you know it was only developed in North America, not invented. It's an old sport you can trace the origins of back to 14th century clergymen in France if I remember correctly. So just to clarify: Not an american invention. Feel free to check this, I'd list my books but I don't have my history book at hand at the moment.

Mostly the same thing with American Football, it's not like you invented an entirely new game as much as developed it from english rugby, added a few new rules and called it something else entirely. Basketball however, now there's an american invention! Though, first introduced by a Canadian so I'm not sure how comfortable you are calling it american.

I think americans are also credited with Synchronized swimming if Im not mistaken. A nice manly addition to the list of other manly sports americans enjoy.

[Castaras]

"I just think it's rather odd that a nation that prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just in order to play rugby."

:smalltongue:

[KuReshtin]

"I just think it's rather odd that a nation that prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just in order to play rugby."

:smalltongue:

It's not 40 pounds of gear. It's more like 20, all included.

[SensFan]

"I just think it's rather odd that a nation that prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just in order to play rugby."

:smalltongue:
I realize the comment was in jest, but I should note that without the gear, people would die just about every game. Even with the equipment, there are studies that show signs of brain damage from NFL Linemen.

[Boo]

Actually baseball as you know it was only developed in North America, not invented. It's an old sport you can trace the origins of back to 14th century clergymen in France if I remember correctly. So just to clarify: Not an american invention. Feel free to check this, I'd list my books but I don't have my history book at hand at the moment.

Mostly the same thing with American Football, it's not like you invented an entirely new game as much as developed it from english rugby, added a few new rules and called it something else entirely. Basketball however, now there's an american invention! Though, first introduced by a Canadian so I'm not sure how comfortable you are calling it american.

I think americans are also credited with Synchronized swimming if Im not mistaken. A nice manly addition to the list of other manly sports americans enjoy.

Yeah, I was gonna tell'm, but you covered more than me.

And I consider basketball a Canadian invention with American development. If only to be technical.

Question: If, in a spelling bee, you spell a word right, but it's right only in another country, would you be wrong? (I'm specifically talking about American vs Queens English in a spelling bee.)

[Mercenary Pen]

Question: If, in a spelling bee, you spell a word right, but it's right only in another country, would you be wrong? (I'm specifically talking about American vs Queens English in a spelling bee.)

I suspect it would have to be right according to the dictionary they were using for the event (that usually being on site as a final arbiter).

[Telonius]

My final four: Georgetown, Syracuse, Kentucky, Duke; with Georgetown beating Kentucky in the final.

Yeah, picking your college to win, just because it was your college, isn't a great move. Seriously, guys. Ohio? You're breaking my heart, Hoyas.

Good news is that everybody else's brackets in the office pool are just about as screwed up as mine are at the moment. And I could make up some ground in the East and South. I'm 4 for 4 in the South so far, and 3 for 4 in the East. (Picked Marquette to win, but had NM beating them in the second round anyway, so not much violence done there).

EDIT: Regarding sports that Americans invented: add Snowboarding and Volleyball to the list.

[SensFan]

My final four: Georgetown, Syracuse, Kentucky, Duke; with Georgetown beating Kentucky in the final.

Yeah, picking your college to win, just because it was your college, isn't a great move. Seriously, guys. Ohio? You're breaking my heart, Hoyas.
I agree. There's so much Duke hatred out there that the pool I'm in has only me and 1 other person with them making even the Elite8.

[skywalker]

Actually baseball as you know it was only developed in North America, not invented. It's an old sport you can trace the origins of back to 14th century clergymen in France if I remember correctly. So just to clarify: Not an american invention. Feel free to check this, I'd list my books but I don't have my history book at hand at the moment.

Could be. Really most sports across the world are similar, or have diverged in the last 100-150 years: baseball, cricket, rounders, etc; football, soccer, rugby, etc.

Basketball and hockey are two sports that haven't been very much specialized and manipulated, but they're also rather young.


Mostly the same thing with American Football, it's not like you invented an entirely new game as much as developed it from english rugby, added a few new rules and called it something else entirely.

We didn't really call it something else entirely, rugby was called "rugby football" when the old Ivy League met to codify the rules back in the late 1800s.


Basketball however, now there's an american invention! Though, first introduced by a Canadian so I'm not sure how comfortable you are calling it american.

Invented in America, so an American invention. Plus, he died in America. If you want to know what country someone really identified with, look at where they died, not where they were born. :smalltongue: All early development and popularization occurred in America.


I realize the comment was in jest, but I should note that without the gear, people would die just about every game. Even with the equipment, there are studies that show signs of brain damage from NFL Linemen.

Yeah it's pretty clear a lot of the older guys have brain damage, but then again, have you ever talked to an old rugby player? They sound about the same. They think most of the brain damage has been traced to behavior that, if it wasn't illegal before, has been made illegal now, cracking down on already illegal behavior (like punching), and the more delicate treatment of concussions and other injuries. Equipment is much better now than it was even 10 years ago, as well. Brain damage may not be as big a problem among veterans in 30 years as it is today. When you try to protect someone's head by wrapping it in a hard, padded shell, tho, all you've really done is give them a weapon, so you have to increase padding everywhere else to compensate.

Rugby players simply cannot generate the kind of force football players do because they never stop. Whereas football players get a break when the ball is downed. Even one easy breath (or the fact that football constantly cycles players) allows you to go so much harder on the next play, that you can continue to generate speeds and forces that are in some cases ridiculous.


Good news is that everybody else's brackets in the office pool are just about as screwed up as mine are at the moment. And I could make up some ground in the East and South. I'm 4 for 4 in the South so far, and 3 for 4 in the East. (Picked Marquette to win, but had NM beating them in the second round anyway, so not much violence done there).

Word on the street is, whereas in past years, ESPN has had up to 200 people survive the first day with their bracket still perfect, this year they had only 20. 7 upsets (and an 8th game that went the opposite of predicted) will do that to people.

[Joran]

I realize the comment was in jest, but I should note that without the gear, people would die just about every game. Even with the equipment, there are studies that show signs of brain damage from NFL Linemen.

Unlike rugby, NFL football stops after each tackle and the teams line up in formation again. This means that players are going to collide at high speed every single play. Try running at a full sprint at your friend who's running at you at a full sprint and hit him. The pads and helmets are very necessary; in the early 20th century football was a lethal sport. In fact, the forward pass was invented just so less deaths could occur.


And I consider basketball a Canadian invention with American development. If only to be technical.


To be technical, James Naismith was a naturalized U.S. Citizen and he married an American. He also invented basketball in Massachusetts. However, props to you; I didn't know he was Canadian.

I stand corrected on baseball, but the first modern rules were published in the United States by an American. It was descended from other bat and ball sports, most likely from Europe.

[MethosH]

"I just think it's rather odd that a nation that prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just in order to play rugby."

:smalltongue:

I lol'ed :smallbiggrin:

[Nomrom]

My final four are Kansas, Kansas St., Kentucky, and Texas A&M (That last one is me being overly prideful of my school. Plus, I think Duke is overrated.). I've got Kansas beating Kentucky to win it all.

As things are going so far, I'm not doing so well. All of my upsets have been wrong, and most of the upsets that happened , I missed. Hoping my second round picks are drastically better.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

American Football? :smallconfused: That's just not cricket.

[deuxhero]

<gasp> It can't be true!

Okay, okay. I suppose not everyone is from the United States.


I'm from the US and have only the most vague idea about it. Then again I don't care about sports at all (I can't be the only one, being that I am on a webcomic/tabletop rpg forum)

[SensFan]

Well, about half the brackets in the country just fell apart. Kansas fails to make the Sweet Sixteen.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Well, about half the brackets in the country just fell apart. Kansas fails to make the Sweet Sixteen.

I'd say half would be being generous. 40% on espn.com had them winning it all, and I'm sure at least 60-70% had them in the Final Four. I however did not, as I have my Buckeyes coming out of that region. But I'm also up a creek because of 'Nova. I had a tough time picking them over Baylor, and that was actually a pick I went back and switched, which now in hindsight was a really bad idea. Well, in fact I think it's being proven that the Big East is rather over-rated as a conference, as I really don't buy the beat themselves up in the regular season argument. Many of the top teams there faded down the stretch, and that really should have been a red flag for picking them. My other two team in the Final Four are Kansas St. and UK. Personally, I think Kansas was rather over-rated as well, especially Cole Aldrich. Yes he wins all the awards, but I saw him play last year in the second round in Minneapolis, and he was woefully unimpressive. Not to mention they really struggle defending in the paint when he's out of the game. With them out of the picture, Ohio State now has a great chance to get to the Final Four, and an Elite Eight matchup with Michigan State would be awsome.

[Joran]

Well, about half the brackets in the country just fell apart. Kansas fails to make the Sweet Sixteen.

Not mine. Final four still intact. I'm in the middle of the standings at work, but have the highest possible scores yet to go. Half of the brackets have either Kansas or Villanova winning it all, so my chances look good.

[jlvm4]

Go Big Red! Whoo Hoo!

I know Cornell likely won't win it all, but we can hope.

[Nomrom]

Today made me cry. And my bracket is shot to hell.

[tcrudisi]

Go Big Red! Whoo Hoo!

I know Cornell likely won't win it all, but we can hope.

No, but I can certainly hope they beat Kentucky. I really, really just want to see Kentucky and Duke lose.

[Joran]

Today made me cry. And my bracket is shot to hell.

My bracket is still okay; still highest possible points with all four Final Four still in play.

I'm still in pain over my team's loss though. That was an absolutely brutal way to go out. (I'm a Maryland fan).

[SensFan]

I really, really just want to see [...] Duke lose.
You'll have to wait until next year for that one. They're pretty far above the rest of the field at this point.

[Nomrom]

Being above the rest of the field no longer means anything in this tournament.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

You'll have to wait until next year for that one. They're pretty far above the rest of the field at this point.

You don't think Dook (and yes I did mean to misspell that in purpose) is beatable, because I certainly do. Despite getting the third #1 seed instead of at least the 4th #1 seed (which they clearly don't deserve seeing as the ACC was completely and utterly awful this year), if Purdue plays a great game (not just good, but great in the absence of Hummel), they have a chance of losing, not to mention likely having to play a good Baylor team, the Blue Devils by no means whatsoever have a clear shot to the Final Four. In fact, Neither does Kentucky. With such a young team (most of their playmakers are freshman after all), a Cornell team that is able to stay hot (I mean they did just destroy the two teams with the lowest points allowed average in the country), or a good showing by WVU (although I think the Big East was clearly exposed over the past weekend but the Mountaineers should be able to handle the Huskies) would also be prime for an upset of UK. Not to mention that Syracuse without their best player has a very difficult road against Butler, and if they win that, likely against K State, that there still is a decent enough chance that no #1 seeds could make it to Indianapolis. Although if there is at least one, my money would probably be on Kentucky at the moment. The team with the easiest road to the Final Four may now be Ohio State. Next they have to play a very beatable Tennessee team who is very hot/cold, and then the winner of UNI/Mich St. You would think Sparty would advance, but with Lucas out, that could change in a hurry. Oh, and yes, I do think Kansas was one of the most over-rated teams in the country, so someone beating them didn't shock me (although that it was UNI was a bit surprising).

[Zen Monkey]

I honestly don't understand what compels people to post some of these answers. The original post asks for winning basketball picks and gets "I don't watch sports" and "football sucks" which seem like rather poor answers to the original post. Do you go into every topic and tell people that you don't know anything about their subjects either? It seems like you'd have to post it everywhere to be consistent.

Translated for the gaming forums:
Topic: Favorite Star Trek Characters, what's yours?
post 1: I don't watch star trek
post 2: I read books instead of watching tv, I'm superior
post 3: Darth Vader sucks
post 4: I think Captain Kirk is my favorite
post 5: Yoda could beat Vader

Or maybe I'm wrong, and just took Racial Enemy: Troll by accident.

[zeratul]

No, but I can certainly hope they beat Kentucky. I really, really just want to see Kentucky and Duke lose.

Yeah, Cornell beating Kentucky would be very satisfying. Being from Syracuse it's pretty awesome that we're doing really well this year, I think we can win it all if we get Arinze Onuaku back, strengthening our defense. Even without him though, If Routins and Johnson are having good games then we can beat basically anyone.


Not to mention that Syracuse without their best player

The only dude were missing is Arinze Onuaku, and while he's sort of important to our defense and shooting in the paint, he's definitely not our best player. That would once again go to Johnson or Routins, they're the backbone of the team. Plus after the last game, it looks like even without Onuaku our defense was solid.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

The only dude were missing is Arinze Onuaku, and while he's sort of important to our defense and shooting in the paint, he's definitely not our best player. That would once again go to Johnson or Routins, they're the backbone of the team. Plus after the last game, it looks like even without Onuaku our defense was solid.

And yet, no Big East team has proven they're capable of actually winning a game that matters against a tough opponent. Out of 8 teams in the tournament from the conference, only two were able to reach the Sweet 16. That doesn't exactly exude confidence in the two teams left. None of the Big East teams were able to keep it together down the stretch, and neither 'Cuse or WVU have been challenged in the tournament as of yet. The Orange have two tough games ahead of them in Butler and Xavier/K State, wo we'll learn a lot about them this weekend. WVU, should have a relatively cupcake game against Washington, although the Huskies has surprised me by win one game, let alone get to the Sweet 16. WVU against Kentucky would be an interesting matchup, provided they get past the Big Red. Cornell seems to be able to put the pressure on anyone the way they've been playing too.

[snoopy13a]

My bracket is still okay; still highest possible points with all four Final Four still in play.

I'm still in pain over my team's loss though. That was an absolutely brutal way to go out. (I'm a Maryland fan).

That's fairly impressive. I had 'Nova and Kansas in the Final Four.

What's tough about Maryland is that MSU lost their best player so they'll probably lose to Northern Iowa.

Anyway, I grew up a SU fan and I'm a Cornell alum so I'm pretty happy with how the tournament is going so far :smallbiggrin:

[Joran]

That's fairly impressive. I had 'Nova and Kansas in the Final Four.

What's tough about Maryland is that MSU lost their best player so they'll probably lose to Northern Iowa.

Anyway, I grew up a SU fan and I'm a Cornell alum so I'm pretty happy with how the tournament is going so far :smallbiggrin:

It's not impressive because I had Kansas losing in my bracket solely because Maryland was on that side. I had Maryland going to the Elite Eight just because of alumni pride.

The tough part was that Michigan State was so undermanned that I thought we should have played better. The entire game was driving me crazy until that last 2 minute flurry in which we came back from a 9 point deficit to leading by 1 with 6 seconds left to go. Most of the game, I was waiting for that flurry. Maryland couldn't keep shooting so poorly, Michigan State couldn't keep shooting lights out, they lost their two primary ball handlers and our press was starting to get turnovers. Maryland finally got the lead after Vasquez took over... and then DAGGER. On the plus side, we lost to a great school, great coach, and on a last second three. It feels apt that the Greivis Vasquez era ends the way it always felt along the way: exciting, maddening, but ultimately frustrating.

Thanks to the craziness, I think I'm going to win my office pool as long as Kentucky chokes before the Final Four.

P.S. I'd wager that everyone who doesn't have a rooting interest (like brackets or alumni) is rooting for Cornell; I certainly am. Let's see if an Ivy League school can pull a George Mason. I certainly hope so especially because I have Kentucky losing early...

[Lupy]

My only hope is that Duke loses to Purdue.

Unfortunately, dopplegangers kidnapped the UNC team this year, so I have no one to root for. :smallfrown:

[skywalker]

You don't think Dook (and yes I did mean to misspell that in purpose) is beatable, because I certainly do. Despite getting the third #1 seed instead of at least the 4th #1 seed (which they clearly don't deserve seeing as the ACC was completely and utterly awful this year), if Purdue plays a great game (not just good, but great in the absence of Hummel), they have a chance of losing, not to mention likely having to play a good Baylor team, the Blue Devils by no means whatsoever have a clear shot to the Final Four. In fact, Neither does Kentucky. With such a young team (most of their playmakers are freshman after all), a Cornell team that is able to stay hot (I mean they did just destroy the two teams with the lowest points allowed average in the country), or a good showing by WVU (although I think the Big East was clearly exposed over the past weekend but the Mountaineers should be able to handle the Huskies) would also be prime for an upset of UK. Not to mention that Syracuse without their best player has a very difficult road against Butler, and if they win that, likely against K State, that there still is a decent enough chance that no #1 seeds could make it to Indianapolis. Although if there is at least one, my money would probably be on Kentucky at the moment. The team with the easiest road to the Final Four may now be Ohio State. Next they have to play a very beatable Tennessee team who is very hot/cold, and then the winner of UNI/Mich St. You would think Sparty would advance, but with Lucas out, that could change in a hurry. Oh, and yes, I do think Kansas was one of the most over-rated teams in the country, so someone beating them didn't shock me (although that it was UNI was a bit surprising).

Tennessee has business with Ohio State. Tennessee is very beatable, but they have 3 seniors who can take over a game and if those guys take over, they are one of the hardest teams in the world to beat. Please see Kansas and Kentucky games. The good thing for Tennessee is that this "6-game tournament" is really three 2-game tournaments. You only have to win two games a weekend, which gives us plenty of times to duct-tape our best players back together afterward.

I see no reason for UNI to falter against MSU, as long as Ali Farokhmanesh shows up for the game. I've never been a big fan of Big 10 basketball, tho, so I'm a mite biased.

There is no way that Kentucky is more likely to make the Final Four than Duke. Duke is the best-coached team in the nation, indisputably. Purdue is another Big 10 school. Baylor looked good against Sam Houston State and ODU, but let's get real. There's no way Purdue, St. Mary's, or Baylor gets past the Blue Devils.

Kentucky was my pick to be the first #1 out, and I have them as least likely to make the Final Four. Cornell and West Virginia are much meaner opponents for a much less experienced and terribly coached team. Altho Baylor will be playing close to home, maybe something to keep in mind. Carrier Dome is going to have no love for the Cats, tho.

[Nomrom]

I wouldn't count Baylor out too quickly. As much as it pains me to say it, they are a very talented team,and they have basically home court advantage playing in Houston. Tons of my high school friends who went to Baylor are going down to Houston to see them play. They definitely have a chance of pulling of the upset.

The team I want to win now is Kansas St., cuz it would be funny. Also it would help my BigXII pride.

[Rutskarn]

I swear to god that I am being entirely serious when I say that I initially thought this thread was referring to The Escapist's tired video game developer competition (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/global/tournaments/standings/2-2010-March-Mayhem-Developers-Showdown). Indeed, when I saw the OP, I was initially baffled.

Then I figured it out, and remembered that I made the exact same mistake last year.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Tennessee has business with Ohio State. Tennessee is very beatable, but they have 3 seniors who can take over a game and if those guys take over, they are one of the hardest teams in the world to beat. Please see Kansas and Kentucky games. The good thing for Tennessee is that this "6-game tournament" is really three 2-game tournaments. You only have to win two games a weekend, which gives us plenty of times to duct-tape our best players back together afterward.

You seem to be forgetting that Ohio State has quite possibly the best college basketball player in the country in Evan Turner. He can single handedly take over a game as well, and often does. And if for some reason he's having an off day, Lauderdale, Buford, and Lighty step it up and make up for it. Not to mention that Diebler can sit back behind the arc and rain down 3's. Not to mention that Thad has the great ability to really be able to adjust the game when it's not working extremely well.


I see no reason for UNI to falter against MSU, as long as Ali Farokhmanesh shows up for the game. I've never been a big fan of Big 10 basketball, tho, so I'm a mite biased.

You're looking over the fact that Sparty will be without their best player since Lucas is done for the next 6 months with a blown achilles. That being said, Tom Izzo is one of the most talented coaches in the country, and knows how to win games. Yes, Big Ten basketball can be rather ugly (I'm looking at you Bucky), but they're also one of the best basketball conferences year in year out, and with a down ACC this year, you could make an argument for them being the best. I mean they do have three teams in the Sweet 16. That's more than any other conference, so they must be able to do something right.


There is no way that Kentucky is more likely to make the Final Four than Duke. Duke is the best-coached team in the nation, indisputably. Purdue is another Big 10 school. Baylor looked good against Sam Houston State and ODU, but let's get real. There's no way Purdue, St. Mary's, or Baylor gets past the Blue Devils.

I think you're giving Duke way too much credit here. They're not quite as young as Kentucky, but pretty close. ANd Duke being the best coached-team in the country? I don't think any team that hasn't been to a Final Four in 6 years should get that distinction. They may have been at one time (like the mid 90's), but now is not that time. Not to mention that, not only should they have gotten the overall number 3 seed ('Cuse should have been the 3rd #1 and Duke the 4th #1 as they are a better team), but they gave them quite possibly the easiest road to get to the final four. And I would clearly say there's no way anyone will fail to beat Duke. I think if UNI can prove they can beat Kansas, no team is safe from being beaten.


Kentucky was my pick to be the first #1 out, and I have them as least likely to make the Final Four. Cornell and West Virginia are much meaner opponents for a much less experienced and terribly coached team. Altho Baylor will be playing close to home, maybe something to keep in mind. Carrier Dome is going to have no love for the Cats, tho.

Out of St. Mary's, UNI, and Cornell, I think Cornell is not getting enough credit. Not only did they beat them, but they crushed the two teams in the country that have the fewest points allowed per game average in the country this past weekend. And that inexperienced Cornell team you mentioned has 9 seniors on the team. I hardly call that much less experienced. If they can slow the ball down against UK, they have a good chance at winning. (although they could easily get to the final four, and are the only #1 seed that I picked to get there). Purdue has surprised me by even winning a game, but are a talented team, and while I don't think they can beat Duke without Hummel, they could again surprise me. And both Baylor and St. Mary's are playing well enough that they could very well beat Duke as well. I think 'Cuse will probably get beat by Butler too.

[skywalker]

You seem to be forgetting that Ohio State has quite possibly the best college basketball player in the country in Evan Turner. He can single handedly take over a game as well, and often does. And if for some reason he's having an off day, Lauderdale, Buford, and Lighty step it up and make up for it. Not to mention that Diebler can sit back behind the arc and rain down 3's. Not to mention that Thad has the great ability to really be able to adjust the game when it's not working extremely well.

No, I'm engaging in rather blatant homerism. :smalltongue:

Plus, everyone is talking about how no team is safe. They mention Cornell against UK, etc. But still nobody mentions a team that knocked off two #1 seeds during the regular season. :smalltongue: They did the first with only 6 scholarship players. They're no Duke (not even close), but you'd think some people would start giving them credit by now. When a team consistently exceeds what you say they're going to do, you need to start saying they're going to do a bit more. Nobody picks the 6 in a 6-2 matchup over Ohio State, while some people are picking much higher seeds over powerhouse 1-seeds. It doesn't totally add up.


You're looking over the fact that Sparty will be without their best player since Lucas is done for the next 6 months with a blown achilles. That being said, Tom Izzo is one of the most talented coaches in the country, and knows how to win games. Yes, Big Ten basketball can be rather ugly (I'm looking at you Bucky), but they're also one of the best basketball conferences year in year out, and with a down ACC this year, you could make an argument for them being the best. I mean they do have three teams in the Sweet 16. That's more than any other conference, so they must be able to do something right.

Surely they're doing something right, no question. But Kansas is a better team than MSU, and UNI does not seem like a "flash in the pan" type of team. Tom Izzo is a great coach, mad props. So is Bill Self tho. And he got Farokhmaneshed.


I think you're giving Duke way too much credit here. They're not quite as young as Kentucky, but pretty close. ANd Duke being the best coached-team in the country? I don't think any team that hasn't been to a Final Four in 6 years should get that distinction. They may have been at one time (like the mid 90's), but now is not that time. Not to mention that, not only should they have gotten the overall number 3 seed ('Cuse should have been the 3rd #1 and Duke the 4th #1 as they are a better team), but they gave them quite possibly the easiest road to get to the final four. And I would clearly say there's no way anyone will fail to beat Duke. I think if UNI can prove they can beat Kansas, no team is safe from being beaten.

15 straight Tournament appearances. 3 National Titles, and a Gold Medal coaching pro players. I'd like to see Tom Izzo get LeBron and Kobe to pass.

The difference between Duke and Kentucky (and what frequently separates the men from the boys on the second weekend) is guard play. Duke may be young inside, but they have experienced guard play. And their 5 highest minute getters all season? Upperclassmen.


Out of St. Mary's, UNI, and Cornell, I think Cornell is not getting enough credit. Not only did they beat them, but they crushed the two teams in the country that have the fewest points allowed per game average in the country this past weekend. And that inexperienced Cornell team you mentioned has 9 seniors on the team. I hardly call that much less experienced. If they can slow the ball down against UK, they have a good chance at winning. (although they could easily get to the final four, and are the only #1 seed that I picked to get there). Purdue has surprised me by even winning a game, but are a talented team, and while I don't think they can beat Duke without Hummel, they could again surprise me. And both Baylor and St. Mary's are playing well enough that they could very well beat Duke as well. I think 'Cuse will probably get beat by Butler too.

You misunderstood, I called Kentucky inexperienced, and poorly coached. I think they're ripe for Cornell, but really, I think a team is going to need big talent and big heart to beat Kentucky at this point. Despite the fact that they would underestimate even Duke or Syracuse at this point, I don't think it's possible for them to underestimate Cornell enough. I could be wrong, tho.

I also find it hilarious that there's actually a team whose greatest enemy is its own sense of entitlement, not another team. :smalltongue:

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

15 straight Tournament appearances. 3 National Titles, and a Gold Medal coaching pro players. I'd like to see Tom Izzo get LeBron and Kobe to pass.

Izzo's resume at Mich. St is almost as good. He's been to the tournament 13 straight year, one national title, and has actually been to more Final Fours than Duke since either of those streaks started. If Sparty makes it there again this year, they will have been to 6 Final Fours in 12 years. That's pretty damn impressive. Especially this year when the ACC was completely and utterly a horrible mess, Duke is one of the most over-rated teams this year. Then again, I thought Kansas was as well, and UNI proved that for me. The only reason Duke has a shot at the Final Four is because the Dookies is the selection committees' little darling, and they gave them a cupcake (or as easy as they could try and make it for them) region since the poor poor Blue Devil fans haven't seen their team in the Final Four in 6 years. Kansas being the number one overall seed should have gotten the easiest road to the Final Four (seeing as brackets should be set up that way), but they got stuck in the region of doom so to speak.

[jlvm4]

Anyway, I grew up a SU fan and I'm a Cornell alum so I'm pretty happy with how the tournament is going so far :smallbiggrin:

Yea! Let's hear it for Cornell alums :smallsmile:

I'm actually excited for this game and I don't normally watch basketball.

[Nomrom]

Well speaking of March Madness, how's that for some craziness. Kentucky is now out too, and WVU and Butler are in the final four so far. Before this tournament started, they were saying these were the best 1 seeds in a long time and that the lower seeded teams didn't really have a shot. Guess they were wrong.

[SensFan]

Before this tournament started, they were saying these were the best 1 seeds in a long time and that the lower seeded teams didn't really have a shot.
Not sure where you heard that, the number one seeds weren't particularily strong this year. Certainly nowhere near as strong as the group from 2008, I think it was.

[tcrudisi]

Well speaking of March Madness, how's that for some craziness. Kentucky is now out too, and WVU and Butler are in the final four so far. Before this tournament started, they were saying these were the best 1 seeds in a long time and that the lower seeded teams didn't really have a shot. Guess they were wrong.

I was not hearing that. I was actually hearing that everyone was vulnerable this year and that there would be a lot of upsets. They were right.

I don't think it has ever happened that no #1 seeds have made the Final 4 (I could be wrong: if it has happened, it's probably only happened once). That's got a very good shot of happening this year. The only one left is the weakest #1 seed -- Duke. Of course, I hate Duke with a passion (I'm a UNC fan), so I'm cheering against them every step of the way. I'm also really glad that UK lost. It's funny -- when Billy Gillepsie was their coach, I kind of liked them. I at least wanted to see them succeed. What a difference a year makes. I strongly dislike John Calipari as I feel that he's one of the biggest cheaters in the game. I hated seeing him go to UK -- while I do not cheer for UK, I do like seeing UK near the top. I just think the game is better when Kansas, Kentucky, Duke and UNC are all in the top 10.

Man I was happy to see them lose.

Duke, I hope you are next!

[SensFan]

At this point, it's pretty clear that unless you're determined to hate them, you can't honestly say that Duke was the worst #1 seed. They outlasted 2 of the other top seeds, and still have a chance to outlast the third.

If you just hate Duke, that's one thing. But don't pretend they aren't one of the top teams in the tournament this year.

[tcrudisi]

At this point, it's pretty clear that unless you're determined to hate them, you can't honestly say that Duke was the worst #1 seed. They outlasted 2 of the other top seeds, and still have a chance to outlast the third.

If you just hate Duke, that's one thing. But don't pretend they aren't one of the top teams in the tournament this year.

I do hate Duke. They definitely are one of the top teams in the tournament this year. I'd rank them #4, actually. I feel they outlasted the other top seeds only because they had a joke of a bracket. Their number 4 seed was only a 4 seed because they lost their top player... but because of that, they weren't as good as the other 4 seeds. Their 2 seed had lost 5 of 7 before the tournament. Seriously? 5 of 7? Yikes. Their 3 seed is pretty darn good, but I'd argue they should be a 4 seed.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

@ Sens

I completely agree with tcrudisi on this. Duke was in the cupcake bracket. he way the region shaped up was clearly in their favor. Unlike, say Kansas, who being the number one overall seed deserved to have the easiest road to the Final Four (as that's how brackets should be set up), instead of the region of doom. Not to mention all the ticky tack fouls that Baylor got down the stretch. There were some real questionable calls on some reach in fouls. Then again, it doesn't surprise me, and I'm sure I'm probably not the only one who felt that Duke might have had the refs in their back pocket as the game neared end. Then again, I'm also of the mind to let them play, unless it's really something major. Let the athletes decide the game themselves down the stretch, especially in a game this important.

[Krade]

Times like now I'm incredibly grateful that I don't live or work downtown. Especially with Butler in the Final Four.

[SensFan]

@ Sens

I completely agree with tcrudisi on this. Duke was in the cupcake bracket. he way the region shaped up was clearly in their favor. Unlike, say Kansas, who being the number one overall seed deserved to have the easiest road to the Final Four (as that's how brackets should be set up), instead of the region of doom. Not to mention all the ticky tack fouls that Baylor got down the stretch. There were some real questionable calls on some reach in fouls. Then again, it doesn't surprise me, and I'm sure I'm probably not the only one who felt that Duke might have had the refs in their back pocket as the game neared end. Then again, I'm also of the mind to let them play, unless it's really something major. Let the athletes decide the game themselves down the stretch, especially in a game this important.
I don't think the Duke bracket was as easy, nor the Kansas bracket as hard, as people seem to be making it out to be. I honestly can't comment on the reffing, since I had to leave for a meeting with 7ish minutes left.

[Nomrom]

The thing about refs, is that both team's fans will complain about the refs in the same game. I'll admit I do it in every game I watch, but over all, I'd say refs do a pretty good job. Except for when my team loses, of course.

[skywalker]

don't think it has ever happened that no #1 seeds have made the Final 4 (I could be wrong: if it has happened, it's probably only happened once). That's got a very good shot of happening this year. The only one left is the weakest #1 seed -- Duke. Of course, I hate Duke with a passion (I'm a UNC fan), so I'm cheering against them every step of the way. I'm also really glad that UK lost. It's funny -- when Billy Gillepsie was their coach, I kind of liked them. I at least wanted to see them succeed. What a difference a year makes. I strongly dislike John Calipari as I feel that he's one of the biggest cheaters in the game. I hated seeing him go to UK -- while I do not cheer for UK, I do like seeing UK near the top. I just think the game is better when Kansas, Kentucky, Duke and UNC are all in the top 10.

As a Tennessee fan, I loved seeing Cal go to UK. Because, somewhat like you, I really just felt sorry for them when Gillespie was the coach.

But now, I get the perfect combination of my most hated rival coach and my most hated rival team all wrapped up.

And I get to look forward to him slinking out of there in disgrace amid multiple recruiting violations in the next few years.


I completely agree with tcrudisi on this. Duke was in the cupcake bracket. he way the region shaped up was clearly in their favor. Unlike, say Kansas, who being the number one overall seed deserved to have the easiest road to the Final Four (as that's how brackets should be set up), instead of the region of doom.

You could consider blaming BYU (who can't play on Sundays), not the selection committee. The committee tries to give the easiest bracket to the #1 seed. That means giving them the least of the 2 seeds, and other assorted stuff. But it doesn't mean putting every terrible team in their bracket. The idea is to make all the brackets fairly equal. So while it's intended for the #1 overall to have the easiest bracket, it's not intended to be easiest by much.

Also, calm down and look at it rationally for a minute. Can you really tell me that on Selection Sunday you would've called Duke's bracket the easiest? They're looking at a second round date with the winner of Cal and Louisville. Does that really sound easier to you than the winner of UNI/UNLV? Duke didn't get a "cupcake bracket." It might have turned out that way, but that's not how it was planned. The "group of death" mainly referred to the bottom half of that bracket. Tennessee, San Diego State, Georgetown, Oklahoma State, and Ohio State are all studly teams. But the top half? Maryland is the weakest 4 by far. They deserved more like a 7 or 8 seed. UNLV/UNI? Not the least bit impressive. The only team you would think could make it "interesting" for Kansas would be Michigan State, and that's only because Tom Izzo is an evil genius. They weren't terribly impressive this year, certainly not compared to Kansas. Looking at that bracket, everybody said "well, Michigan State might give them some trouble, but Kansas tops Georgetown/Ohio State to make the Final Four." It wasn't that they had the hardest bracket. They just blew it.

The reason Duke's trip has been easy is a series of upsets: ODU upsets Notre Dame, and then becomes a perfect lamb for Baylor. St. Mary's upsets Villanova, and then becomes, again, the perfect lamb for Baylor. Baylor, having played all these fairly weak teams, now becomes the perfect lamb for Duke. It winds up with Duke not being tested very much, but you can't blame the bracket. You can't claim the selection committee should have predicted an upset by ODU and two upsets by St. Mary's.


Then again, it doesn't surprise me, and I'm sure I'm probably not the only one who felt that Duke might have had the refs in their back pocket as the game neared end.

You aren't, but at this point you're really letting your problem with Duke get in the way of rational judgment.

[tcrudisi]

Not to mention all the ticky tack fouls that Baylor got down the stretch. There were some real questionable calls on some reach in fouls. Then again, it doesn't surprise me, and I'm sure I'm probably not the only one who felt that Duke might have had the refs in their back pocket as the game neared end. Then again, I'm also of the mind to let them play, unless it's really something major. Let the athletes decide the game themselves down the stretch, especially in a game this important.

I actually didn't think the officiating was that bad at the end of the game. Baylor just took their great chance and decided to quit rebounding. "Hey, know what would be fun? Let's beat Duke by getting 0 rebounds! It'll be awesome!"

@skywalker:
Well, the day after selection Sunday (I'm currently not in the US) I took a look at the bracket. That's when I noticed Duke had an incredibly easy route. Don't get me wrong: I knew whoever got Purdue was going to be happy. But I never, ever expected to see Villanova as a 2 seed.

The brackets work on a S-curve (I'm sure you know this, I'm not insulting your intelligence). Assuming that Kansas was overall #1, Kentucky #2, and Duke #3... that would give Duke the 6th best team in their bracket for the 2 seed. Or, Duke could have been the #4 and gotten the #5. So... Villanova was the 6th best team? They had lost 5 of their last 7! Holy crap! Why would you consider a team that had lost 5 of it's last 7 the 6th best team in the nation? I wouldn't!

I think Louisville was seated fine. They were what I expect from an 8/9 seed: pretty darn good (about 30th in the nation) and capable of winning the games they are supposed to win. They did beat Syracuse twice, but for some reason they just had Syracuses number. It happens. They also beat UConn when UConn was ranked. They then lost to every other ranked team they played.

I was also very unimpressed by Cal. What did they do? They lost 5 times in a horrible Pac-10. Yes, they won the Pac-10, and that's something (just... not much). I think they were seeded pretty well.

UNI/UNLV: UNI admittedly had a higher RPI (17) than both Cal (20) and Lousville (37). However, I was probably thinking like the selection committee: who did they beat? Oh, no one. Well, they are untested. Hmm... I've been overseas a while now, so I never got a chance to watch them play. UNLV, on the other hand, was RPI 48, and was 3rd in an okay conference. They beat some good teams, they lost to some good ones. I think they were seeded fine as well.


As a Tennessee fan, I loved seeing Cal go to UK. Because, somewhat like you, I really just felt sorry for them when Gillespie was the coach.

I think I didn't speak clearly enough. I was very happy when Gillespie was announced as their coach. I thought he could turn around their program to be a perennially powerful program again. Instead, he gets run out after 2 (?) years. Come on! That's not enough time. And then they get that cheater of a coach? Okay, Kentucky is a team that I want to see be really good so I can watch them lose. But, for my money, it's UNC / Duke / UK as the royalty of college hoops. I want to see the best coaches at each school and each one threatening for a championship every year. (I just don't want to see Duke and UK actually win it... having great talent and flaming out in the sweet 16 is fine by me!)

I'm still in disbelief. UK: you sold your soul for this. I really hope the infractions board makes a strong example out of you when the violations are revealed.

[skywalker]

@skywalker:
Well, the day after selection Sunday (I'm currently not in the US) I took a look at the bracket. That's when I noticed Duke had an incredibly easy route. Don't get me wrong: I knew whoever got Purdue was going to be happy. But I never, ever expected to see Villanova as a 2 seed.

The brackets work on a S-curve (I'm sure you know this, I'm not insulting your intelligence). Assuming that Kansas was overall #1, Kentucky #2, and Duke #3... that would give Duke the 6th best team in their bracket for the 2 seed. Or, Duke could have been the #4 and gotten the #5. So... Villanova was the 6th best team? They had lost 5 of their last 7! Holy crap! Why would you consider a team that had lost 5 of it's last 7 the 6th best team in the nation? I wouldn't!

Up until rather recently (think February) Nova was a potential 1 seed. Some people were picking K-State to get a 1. Nobody ever picked WVU or OSU to be a one. If you think Nova was seeded correctly as a 2 (which you might not, but I do, there was no one on the 3-4 level I would call better than them) then they were the second best of the 2s, after K-State. There was a lot of stupidity in this bracket, but it was not with the 1 and 2 seeds. I thought they were fine.


I think Louisville was seated fine. They were what I expect from an 8/9 seed: pretty darn good (about 30th in the nation) and capable of winning the games they are supposed to win. They did beat Syracuse twice, but for some reason they just had Syracuses number. It happens. They also beat UConn when UConn was ranked. They then lost to every other ranked team they played.

I was also very unimpressed by Cal. What did they do? They lost 5 times in a horrible Pac-10. Yes, they won the Pac-10, and that's something (just... not much). I think they were seeded pretty well.

UNI/UNLV: UNI admittedly had a higher RPI (17) than both Cal (20) and Lousville (37). However, I was probably thinking like the selection committee: who did they beat? Oh, no one. Well, they are untested. Hmm... I've been overseas a while now, so I never got a chance to watch them play. UNLV, on the other hand, was RPI 48, and was 3rd in an okay conference. They beat some good teams, they lost to some good ones. I think they were seeded fine as well.

I agree completely with all of this. They were seeded fine, all of them. But, if you're trying to pick who got the easier road out of Kansas or Duke, you have to say Kansas. Even tho they're all 8/9 seeds, Cal/Louisville produces a much more dangerous opponent than UNI/UNLV, at least in theory. Actually, I think it did. The difference is Kansas blew it, and Duke didn't. Kansas was actually pretty unimpressive to me. UT beat them, for Pete's sake. And let me tell you, we ain't that good. Yes, they deserved the #1 seed overall, but there were tell-tale signs that there was trouble in paradise. Duke, while not having the regular season resume, would've been my pick to reach the Final Four, if you had told me there would only be one 1 seed in the bunch.


I think I didn't speak clearly enough. I was very happy when Gillespie was announced as their coach. I thought he could turn around their program to be a perennially powerful program again. Instead, he gets run out after 2 (?) years. Come on! That's not enough time. And then they get that cheater of a coach? Okay, Kentucky is a team that I want to see be really good so I can watch them lose. But, for my money, it's UNC / Duke / UK as the royalty of college hoops. I want to see the best coaches at each school and each one threatening for a championship every year. (I just don't want to see Duke and UK actually win it... having great talent and flaming out in the sweet 16 is fine by me!)

I'm still in disbelief. UK: you sold your soul for this. I really hope the infractions board makes a strong example out of you when the violations are revealed.

You spoke clearly enough. I said I was somewhat like you, in that I found myself (inexplicably) rooting for a team I normally despised. Gillispie... Was not the answer at UK. Not a big enough name, not really proven, and he had a bit of a drinking problem.

You want to talk turnaround, what turnaround was needed from Tubby Smith? Tubby is an incredible coach, just, again, not right for UK. Tubby fits in a lot better in the slower, more strategic Big 10.

UK have always been evil, so it's good they got an evil coach. The soul-selling occurred long ago.

[Nomrom]

I was pretty pissed when Gillespie went to UK since it was my school he was abandoning, but I'd have to say I'm quite happy with how things ended up working out.

[SensFan]

DUUUUUUKKKEEEE!

This tournament's done. Baylor couldn't do it, and WV didn't even make it a game. Butler has no chance.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

DUUUUUUKKKEEEE!

This tournament's done. Baylor couldn't do it, and WV didn't even make it a game. Butler has no chance.

I certainly wouldn't say that. Butler hasn't lost a game at all since mid December. On top of that, they've beaten far better teams to get where they are than Duke has. To say Butler has no chance at all, is absolutely asinine.

[SensFan]

I certainly wouldn't say that. Butler hasn't lost a game at all since mid December. On top of that, they've beaten far better teams to get where they are than Duke has. To say Butler has no chance at all, is absolutely asinine.
No chance whatsoever. Duke absolutely destroyed WV last night. I've heard (though I didn't see any of the game) that Butler really struggled with MSU, too.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

No chance whatsoever. Duke absolutely destroyed WV last night. I've heard (though I didn't see any of the game) that Butler really struggled with MSU, too.

I certainly wouldn't say they struggled with the Spartans. In my mind, Mich St. is a better team than WVU. Not to mention WVU and Michigan St. both had key players out with injury as well. You also have to keep in mind, that Sparty and Butler both play a far better defensive game than WVU, and on top of that, I think that the Big East was really exposed when all their top teams started fading down the stretch. On top of that, I really hate people who think the game is over before it's even played. Butler hasn't gotten to where it is this year by just beating chumps. They've proven they can hang with, and beat teams that are better than Duke, and I expect a decent game. I may be proven wrong, and I'm will aware of that, but I seriously don't think you're giving near enough credit to Butler. A team that hasn't lost in 3 1/2 months is doing something right, and knows how to win games.

[SensFan]

They've proven they can hang with, and beat teams that are better than Duke
Other than the possible exception of Kansas, I don't think there is/was anyone better than Duke. That's part of my point here. Duke was a much better team than most people gave them credit for on selection sunday.

[tcrudisi]

50 seconds left and man this is an incredible game. I know it's a good one when I'm shaking because I'm nervous. Woo! Let's go Butler!

[SensFan]

50 seconds left and man this is an incredible game. I know it's a good one when I'm shaking because I'm nervous. Woo! Let's go Butler!
It's been a fantastic game. Let's go Blue Devils!

[skywalker]

Congrats to Duke.

Just watched "One Shining Moment." Always leaves tears in my eyes.

See you in October, boys...