RETRO: before the ncaa, some thoughts

I wish that the original Dickie V, Mr. Vitale, would be doing these games and not the loathsome Billy Packer. CBS sucks. If Disney/ABC/ESPN had the tourney, they could show the first game on ABC just like CBS does, but then have the others available on ESPN and ESPN2, and maybe the last one on ABC Family. They could switch them around as ABC changed their main coverage just like CBS does, but then people could see more with cable. Why haven't they bought this yet? CBS's coverage is always annoying, especially the damn theme song.

I didn't get to see a lot of the games this weekend, but you know what? Most of them shouldn't have mattered. Unless teams that were never supposed to get in suddenly won conference tournaments in conferences that had multiple entries, including some on the bubble, the title games should not mean everything. What a team does over the course of a season SHOULD be more important. It's nice to win tourney games, and it can bump you up a seed or two, but it isn't the entire thing to think about.

But, of course, the committee doesn't think that way. In fact, they often don't seem to think in any logical fashion at all. I know it's impossible to please everybody and there are a million pundits and coaches and players and fans bitching about snubs and seedings and everything else. Everyone has a problem, unless they're Duke and people s their d.

But really… WTF?

Syracuse was a bubble team [not a sure thing, for you rookies] before the Big East tourney. By beating UConn, they were in. They might have had a 10 seed at that point. Meanwhile, Pitt was ranked last week and was, at worst, a 5 or 6 seed. Maybe a 4, based on their ranking. They might have gotten a 3 if they won the tourney, even a 2 if the cards fell right. So, these two teams both advanced to the title game, beating tough opponents (each took down one of the eventual top seeds) and Syracuse won in a tough battle. They were both given 5 seeds.

Again…. WTF?

By making it to the title game and beating Nova, Pitt should have gotten a 3 or 4. Syracuse, once thought not to be in, might have gotten a 6 or 7 with a good week. But no, the committee saw them as equals. Why?

Meanwhile, in the SEC, Tennessee and Florida were both ranked similarly before last week. Florida was, in fact, a few spots ahead. Tennessee lost early on in the tourney, while Florida won the whole thing. But they gave Tennessee a 2 seed and Florida a 3. HONESTLY! WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE? THE INCONSISTENCY IS MADDENING!!!!!!!

Also, George Washington… yeah, I know, the Atlantic 10 had a down year. But they were undefeated during the regular season, did good against a decent schedule, and were ranked in the top ten. Yet they get an 8 seed. Meanwhile, Gonzaga plays in a weak conference, had a better schedule but still wasn't a major, and gets a 3. I think Gonzaga is fine with that 3, but GW needs more love. They had a great, great season in a mid-major, not the best this year, but better than a lot of smaller ones. If GW won their tourney, I would've given them a 3 at least. For losing one game? An 8????? No way. No effing way. St. Joseph's pulled off a 1 seed just a few years ago from a similar situation. The conference was tougher then, but… this is inexcusable.

I know they have all kinds of criteria and a system called the RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) which factors in a lot of things. They like strength of schedule, how teams are doing at the end of the season, and their chances of doing well in the tourney (teams can be put down if the committee knows a key player is hurt). But it really comes down to human decision, and if it was just one person, that's easy, mistakes could be easily made. The question is how several people who know basketball very well can continue to make brackets that baffle everybody.

I need a couple days to make my picks. My only hope is that the online contests don't require them by Tuesday when the play-in game starts. I really don't like this addition. Please, it's a nice idea, but it will not have an effect on the overall tourney. I'd like to see a 16 seed pull off the upset but it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it ever will. And even so, would they last two rounds? And would it matter whether it's Jacksonville State or Northwestern Montana in that last seed? They seem to be dissing the SWAC by always making them play in that game. This is the conference that holds all the old all-black schools in the South like Grambling. They have a lot of tradition. Don't keep them down. Even though they get to be on ESPN for one night, possibly getting more exposure than they would as a 16 seed whose game might not be seen by many people, they're not really in the tournament. It was a real cop-out to come up with this idea. I say something needs to happen to consolidate a few conferences. Shouldn't the big expansion by the Big East and the ACC create enough of a domino effect to make someone merge? The Mountain West conference is the one that pushed us into this era by breaking off from the WAC. Well, they just added TCU, and if the Big Ten and Pac Ten add some teams, maybe they'll get more. I made a plan to get college basketball and lower budget sports (i.e. not football) under one less conference by moving a few teams around. It can be done.

Anyway, I will post my official picks Wednesday night and I can only hope that any good bracket-maker will wait until Thursday morning to require them. I need time to make sense of this mess. But here are a few of my instant thoughts, aside from the questionable seeds:

If you look at my old blog, you will see that, before the season, I picked UConn to go all the way. I also had Duke and Texas as final four picks, in my top three, and my last pick was the proverbial sleeper team, George Washington. Well, Duke, Texas, and GW are all in the same region, so I can't stay with that. Stupid tourney makers. They could switch GW and Syracuse around and it would make more sense. Honestly. I'd love GW as a sleeper even more now because they are seeded lower, and that alleviates pressure and increases revenge feelings. Look at how Gonzaga has struggled since they got the high seeds. But they'll get Duke in the second round, and Duke almost never loses early when seeded high. Not since that weird Austin Croshere-led Providence team has a Duke team of 3 seed or higher lost early. But they're in what was called the South region, not the East region, and that makes a big difference. They can be beat in the South. They usually make it in the East. Don't know why, but that's how it's been. I'm going to think this region over.

UConn didn't get the top overall seed, but they seem to have the easiest bracket. As I said, Tennessee should not be a 2, and the other teams don't impress me. Michigan State was supposed to be a contender, and has talent, but they haven't shown anything recently. They made it last year by surviving the worst bracket. UNC has been much better than anyone thought, but they are still young and I can't see them making it far. Any low seed in that half has a good chance. Don't laugh if you see George Mason or Wichita State in the Elite 8. Their conferences were strong this year. They have a chance. Washington and Illinois are solid but are not doing it this year after losing too many key people. I don't think I'll have to ponder this bracket much. But you never know. Watch Kentucky make a run after they underachieved and blew a lot of high seeds the past few years.

I kinda like to see Villanova do well, even though they are an archrival, because I like to represent Philly and I always rooted for Temple before we became enemies. Still, their one guard is hurt and unbalanced teams don't do as well. I wish it was easier to say that guard play or big man play matters more in the tourney, but it changes. I mean, guard play is always always important, but big men have carried weak backcourts before and vice versa (see UMass '96 and Kansas '88 for bigs, Georgia Tech '04 and Ohio State '99 for guards). So, does Nova have a problem? They've handled big guys all season, but if they rely on outside shooting and can't rebound, what happens if they have an off shooting night? They seem too vulnerable for me, though I love how they play. They do play tough D and they get to the ball very well for their size. If he does not indeed come back, I can't pick them. But maybe… hmmm. I see their half of the bracket contains some good teams with quality post players. Arizona can match their quickness and Boston College is very experienced and doing pretty well, having taken down UNC and almost Duke last week. Nevada has a great big man. It'll be tough for them. The other half includes Ohio State and Florida, two teams that could be favored ahead of Villanova in the rankings next week. They have some tough low seeds, too. Florida and OSU are both playing great, yet they've done good with young people, so who knows. They both have great big men. Nova is in serious trouble. I'll have a tough time in this region. Watch Oklahoma ruin everything, as things usually go.

Memphis was questionable because their conference sucks now, but it's not terrible, and they did play a couple top teams very well. This is a weird bracket because UCLA might not be quite worthy of a 2 and Gonzaga might, or they might be a 4 or 5, if you don't like their conference competition. I'm skeptical of UCLA despite what the media out here says. This is not worthy of those O'Bannon Brother teams in the mid-90's or even the Gadzuric-Baron Davis ones. I would love to pick Gonzaga here and watch Morrison carry them, but as I said, they've struggled with being a high seed. Teams are out to get them now. Xavier got on a roll last week and will be tough right away. But why does Indiana get a 6 seed? Weren't they on the bubble? They struggled, but they could put it together to spite everyone for their lame-duck coach. Weird things happen here. Also, Pitt got dissed, and they get the dreaded 5-12 game, with Kent State, who took them down a couple years ago in the Sweet Sixteen, on board and a very hot Kansas team looming. A lot of people will take Kansas over Memphis, maybe for the final four. I don't know yet. But I will say that Marquette has a shot to get past UCLA in the second round. They beat some good people this year. Man, I don't like this bracket either. I want the Zags so we can get more shots of Morrison's great pedestache, but they'll be challenged.

As far as final predictions? I think I'll stay with UConn, who has the depth necessary to last six games and the overall package. Plus, they have the easiest road to the Final Four, and that helps. They also won't have to play Duke or Texas or whoever else until the final. They made a rematch with Villanova possible in the semis, but I don't know if Nova can make it that far. Well, I said another UConn over Duke final, I think, so I guess I will keep it that way for now. But that might change in the next few days. I really like LSU and I still am intrigued by Texas. You've been warned, Dukies.

Interesting how the committee gave all the love to UConn and not Duke this year. They gave Duke a hard bracket and the unlikable South (vs. East) region, even though they were the overall top seed. I think, for rating's sakes, they want Duke, UConn, Nova, and Gonzaga, but I doubt that will happen. Then you get a Big East grudge match semi, and on the other side, a match of the two best players, the white shadow gunners. That would be a great story. But it rarely works out like that.