HIBBERT!!!!

Yeah, my new bracket plan didn't quite work, but I was on the right track. I decided to base my picks on whom I did NOT like, and I was on the right track. Unfortunately, I decided Georgetown was the least-hateable team in their bracket, but I still hated them, and I really should have seen the Davidson upset coming (the fact that they're darlings scared me off). I should have trusted my gut... of hate.

Two things to emphasize:

1. If you don't like a high seeded team, don't put too much stock in them. Georgetown lost, Duke lost (I had that), Tennessee nearly lost (I knew Butler could take them, and they really should have), and Stanford had to pull everything out to squeak by. I also didn't like UConn or Drake that much, so I should've seen a busted bracket there. Which leads me to my second point....

2. Mid majors who have an excellent season and get a decent seed tend to flame out early. My theory is that they are much better off a s low seeded giant killers, and actually getting a decent seed creates pressure. Remember, a few years ago, Gonzaga made a couple nice runs as a low seed, but then when they finally got some recognition from the committee, they lost early. The only team that did anything with a decent seed was the '06 team with Morrison and Turiaf, which was really too talented to be a cinderella (much like Memphis is). And they only made it to the sweet 16. Nope, mid-majors just can't have a decent seed (6 or above) and live up to it. They need to surprise.

That's why I was feeling very doubtful about Drake, and lo and behold, they lost to Western Kentucky, which had that darling 12 seed. Sometimes, I think I'd rather be a 12 seed than a 5. Honestly.

So I got 9 out of 16. It's something. And, I still have 3 out of 4 for the last 4, but I'm wondering if maybe Kansas has gotten over their choke problems and will make it now. Wisconsin, Davidson, and Villanova? They have to be the best there.... but I can see Nova making it tough.... hmm....

We will see.



------0

Some random NBA notes while I'm here:

The Sixers' streak didn't end with my jinxing. In fact, they've been one of the best teams in the league for the past few weeks. WTF????? I'm thoroughly enjoying this now. Considering how the other teams plodding for the 8th spot are doing, they are now not only in, but an easy pick to make it. Unbelievable. Get Mo an extension; I think he could sneak away with a few COY votes.

Without much time left, I'm finding it near impossible to make any serious predictions. I'm leaning towards Boston over Phoenix, but that changes everyday. I still like the Pistons, especially the way the pro brackets are going. I have no answer for the West yet - I thought there would be some seperation, but clearly, this is going to come down to the last day of the regular season.

The Lakers beating Dallas, Utah (in SL), and Golden State last week while the Cavs floundered may have pushed Kobe head of LeBron in many eyes, including mine. But then what about Chris Paul? I think Kobe wins because voters know they'll have plenty of chances to vote for Paul and LBJ over the next few years, and he's got extra fire this year. But for me, it's almost a three way tie right now.

That is all.

bracketology '08

Yes, it's bracket time. I know I haven't wrote much (er, anything) on college hoops this season, but I have been slowly paying more attention lately... mostly for prospects (i.e. freshman) but also getting a decent picture.

Then again, a decent picture is sometimes too much. People over-analyze and then the office pool goes to the secretary... or does it? The old cliche is true sometimes, but I've done okay in a few years. I've had some good calls (George Mason vs. Wichita State in the most improbable sweet sixteen in 2006; Florida over Duke in 2000; LSU over Duke in 2006) and a lot of misses. I think I can pick a decent bracket now based on one thing:

I know whom NOT to pick.

See, everyone wants to find the hot upstarts and cinderellas. That's hard. That requires a ton of luck. It's not always predictable to know who will get hot. BUT, I do think it is easy to spot high ranking teams with problems. Remember, it's very rare that more than two of the # 1 seeds make it to the final four. Usually, one does, but then you have a few from different spots. The 2 seeds can be good and bad. The rest of them all appear in random order.

I think the three best teams in this field are UNC, UCLA, and Kansas, and by a significant lead over others. I like them. But it's just mathematically unlikely that they all make it to San Antonio - and damn near impossible that Memphis does too. You say, they're all # 1 seeds for a reason! Yes, they are. They're the best. But I swear they aren't all gonna make it.

How did I pick some broken brackets that I managed to get right? By eliminating high seeds I didn't trust. In 2006, I think the high seeds in the East bracket were UNC, Tennessee and Michigan State, whom I both frowned upon. I saw George Mason and Wichita fully capable of pulling the upset, because I didn't like the look of those teams. I didn't put George Mason in the final four, but who did? This strategy has led me to call some good early round action, but it has left me on the dry for the late rounds. It's not full-proof.

I think now I will look at the tournament as who I hate the least. Maybe my pessimism will pay off this year. Unlike college football, this is a tournament - someone has to win. The process of elimination seems just as good as anything.

So here are my picks, and I'll explain my reasons for each segment:

EAST

Round 1 - UNC, Indiana, Notre Dame, Wash St, Oklhoma, Louisville, Butler, Tennessee

Round 2 (sweet sixteen) - UNC, Wash St, Oklahoma, Butler

Round 3 (regional finals) - UNC, Butler

UNC advances

I don't trust Tennessee because they're small and rely on shooting too much. If they go cold, they're done. I liked Washington State as a sleeper all year, but they have the same problem. UNC, when it has the top seed, has always been pretty good in the region. Last year, they lost in overtime in the regional final, but I think the last time before that when they didn't make it with a top seed was in 1994. They're one of the safe bets.

I don't really like anyone in the bottom half of that bracket. Louisville and UT look shaky as high seeds. Oklahoma could do some damage, but do they have guards? I like Butler. Mid-majors do better when they're seeded low.

MIDWEST

Round 1 - Knasas, UNLV, Villanova, Siena, USC, Wisconsin, Davidson, Gtown

Round 2 - Kansas, Nova, USC, Georgetown

Round 3 - Kansas, Georgetown

Georgetown advances

I really hate this bracket. Kansas is the best team by far, but they have a bad history of choking. I'm scared to pick them, but I don't love anyone else. I actually really like USC, but I could also see them losing in the first round. Wisconsin is okay. I can see Villanova in the sweet sixteen - one of the teams who barely got in always makes noise, espeically in the 5-12 game. Vanderbilt sucks if they're not at home. Georgetown is tough because they're not as good as last year, but I hate them the least out of all these people. Kansas State might be dangerous, but they have to face USC. Everyone is in love with Davidson as a sleeper, so I'm backing off them.

SOUTH

Round 1 - Memphis, Miss St, Mich St, Pitt, Kentucky, Stanford, Miami, Texas

Round 2 - Memphis, Pitt, Kentucky, Texas

Round 3 - Memphis, Texas

Texas advances

Memphis is another high seed with not enough size. I like how they play, but they've had good teams the past few years and haven't made the final four. I don't like Michigan State, and Pitt usually falls apart in the big tourney. I really don't like Stanford that much. I do like Kentucky; they've been playing well lately. Texas is my pick because they seem to be doing strangely better without Kevin Durant, and D.J. Augustin is playing well.

WEST

Round 1 - UCLA, Tex A&M, Drake, UConn, Baylor, Xavier, WVU, Duke

Round 2 - UCLA, Drake, Xavier, WVU

Round 3 - UCLA, Xavier

UCLA advances

UCLA is the one sure thing here, because no one else here looks that good. Xavier has a shot and I like them in the elite eight, but that's about it. I would like Drake, but as I said, mid-majors usually struggle when they get a decent seed. They're better off coming in low. But UConn doesn't really impress me either. Duke I could not hate more, and not just because they're Duke. They have NO inside game. You need one decent big man to make it in the tourney, no matter how good your guards are. WVU at least has a good history of upsets. Purdue? No dice. Sorry, Big Ten.

FINAL FOUR

UNC over G'town

UCLA over Texas

FINAL: UNC 70, UCLA 64

Yeah, I know, not an imaginative final. These are the two best teams, and I can't really find a good reason for UNC to lose. UCLA has some injury problems and I worry what they will do if any of their perimeter guys are out. Otherwise, they are great. I still don't like Georgetown here, but I can't think of who else to put.


------

AWARDS FOR COLLEGE

ALL AMERICA FIRST

Michael Beasley, KSU
Tyler Hansbrough, UNC (Player of the Year)
Kevin Love, UCLA
D. J. Augustin, Texas
Chris Lofton, Tennessee

SECOND

Brook Lopez, Stanford
Shan Foster, Vandy
Roy Hibbert, Georgetown
Chris Douglas-Roberts, Memphis
Stephen Curry, Davidson

THIRD

Sam Young, Pitt
Luke Harangody, Notre Dame
Darrell Arthur, Kansas
DeMarcus Nelson, Duke
O.J. Mayo, USC

HM

Eric Gordon, Ind
D. J. White, Ind
Derrick Rose, Memphis
Jarryd Bayless, Arizona
Brandon Rush, Kansas
Derrick Low, Wash. St.
Sean Singletary, Virginia
Jaycee Carroll, Utah St.
Dionte Christmas, Temple

ALL FROSH

Beasley
Love
Mayo
D. Rose
E. Gordon
Bayless

COY: Keno Davis, Drake

tanks, but no tanks... or maybe?

It's that time of year again.

While the college game is heating up (whoops, I guess I need to start paying attention to that for bracket busters), teams in the pro circuit face the stretch run. Aside from the wild playoff run in the west, which changes seemingly everyday (the Rockets are 3rd now???) there are a few teams in the east that are facing a slightly different challenge:

to tank or not to tank?

People have debated for years (notably Simmons) the merits and risks of mailing it in for the season. I write this now on the heels of two key events: the Sixers improbably making a playoff run and the Heat shutting down Dwyane Wade for the rest of the season (thanks, to you and Jermaine O'Neal, you were only the cornerstones of my fantasy team, it's okay, I still have John Salmons... jerks...). Two teams facing the challenge and taking opposite actions for it. How will this play out?

Actually, I don't think you can fault the Heat for this. They tried this year. They really did. They just failed miserably. They even made a late trade to give them veteran help (though, you could argue that anyone who trades for Ricky Davis is going for a disaster... maybe it was a conspiracy by Pat Riley all along?). Wade hasn't been playing great and they tried to win with him. They don't want him to get hurt for the long term, and they can't possibly make the playoffs. It's not pretty, but I think this is one of the more forgivable tank jobs. They do need to look at some young guys.

As for Pat Riley taking games off to scout.... umm.... shouldn't he resign as coach if he just wants to be the G.M.? It would be nice if he had a successor in place - oh wait, he did... three years ago, and then he pushed him off a cliff. Maybe we shouldn't forgive them.

Now, as for the hometown team, I openly campaigned for them to lose this year. And last year. I like Thaddeous Young, and he's been great.... but I'd still rather have Horford or Durant. This year, I thought they should dump Andre Miller for picks and young guys. But now? I'm getting on board. They're playing well, and they don't seem to have much competition for the last two spots. In fact, if they just go .500 from now on, they could make it easily. It's nice for a franchise that everyone thought was dead about a year ago.

But is it the best option? They look like they're having fun and raising the positive vibes in the city, which is always a good thing. There's even a distinct chance that they will make the playoffs and the Nuggets (with Iverson) won't, which might be seen as poetic justice if it didn't underscore just how unbalanced the conferences are. I can't blame them. They need some good news.

The rest of the teams in the East? Perhaps not. They all seem to be treading water. Atlanta is the only team that feels any pressure, because they don't have their pick, and they traded a lot for Bibby to win now. Chicago is in a weird state, Indiana has too many injuries, Charlotte has injuries and needs more people, and Jersey has to be thinking about the future without Kidd. Milwaukee needs an enforcer to be serious, and they need to maybe move some people (and hire Simmons to light a fire under this depressing franchise). Atlanta and Philly have the most to gain from making the playoffs, so I'd encourage the other teams to step aside.

[The sad thing about the east this year is that it's bad even when teams tried to be good. All those teams I just mentioned were not in rebuilding mode at the start of the season; they all wanted to make the playoffs. The Knicks and the Heat did, too. All of them would feel a little better with a playoff appearance, but none of them can seem to put anything together. Compare that to the west, where the bad teams at least knew they'd be bad and have young teams with plans for the future. This imbalance might be around for a while....]

So why tank this year? Because the west is so good, the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs could be worth three spots in the draft. We know that a very good team is getting shur out of the playoffs, like Denver or Golden State. It also appears that Sacramento and Portland are going to finish around .500. So, the last team out in the east will still get the 11th pick, most likely. In that cluster of teams, you might not think it matters who finishes where, but it could.

Right now, the 11 worst teams in order are the Heat, Wolves, Grizzlies, Sonics, Knicks, Clippers, Bucks, Pacers, Bobcats, Bulls, and Nets. After the Clippers, those last 5 teams are all within 3 games of each other. Why is this important? It's been a trend for years in the lottery that the worst team does not get the first pick - in fact, that rarely happens. Often, it's a team from the middle of the pack, like the 5th, 6th, or 7th worst team. Last year, none of the teams with the three worst records made it to the top three picks - Portland and Seattle lucked in with middle-lottery finishes.

Thus, my advice to those eastern teams who think they could sneak in and get killed by the Celtics: stop. Being the 7th worst team in the league is a nice position this year. I'd rather be there than be the 8th seed in the playoffs, quite honestly. There are only 7 or 8 guys that are really getting buzz in this draft; after that, it's a toss up. Plus, you might have a good shot at getting a high pick. Yes, I'm telling all of you not named Philly or Atlanta to think about the ol' tanker. Trust me, it's not such a bad idea this year.