Just how bad a beating did your bracket take?
Brutal. Both of my pools were effectively over halfway through the Sweet 16. And no, I didn't win either of them. The only two things I can hang my hat on this year are picking Murray State to beat Vanderbilt (Three teams won 30 games this year. The other two were Kentucky and Kansas) and getting the West Region right through the Sweet 16 in my Yahoo pool.
Was the Big East overrated after all?
Yes and no. I don't fully buy into the idea that you can determine the real strength of a conference by how its teams do in postseason play, though it's probably a little easier in basketball than football now that every football team in America runs the spread these days. On the other hand, I'm still a bit baffled at how Notre Dame and Marquette, after widely being considered bubble teams going into the Big East tournament, both ended up pulling No. 6 seeds. Georgetown just didn't show up against Ohio. The Hoyas are wherever Luke Harangody and Scottie Reynolds' shot are.
What happened to Temple?
Cornell couldn't miss. This was a classic case of my "three S's" theory of a few years ago making a comeback. The three S's are shooting, size and seniors, and if you're a lower-level team that has all three, you're never really out of any game. Also, somebody had to eat the 12-5 bullet (and both teams were probably seeded too low anyway.)
Who did the committee leave out of the field this year?
Virginia Tech raised the biggest stink, but the Hokies' 12-1 nonconference record is a bit deceiving. They didn't beat a good team all year. You could make a case for Mississippi State, but not a very strong one. Honestly, the correct answer is "no one." Every team in the field of 65 should have been. Well, except Florida.
Speaking of...
Expansion. For or against?
AGAINST. The only reason this is even being considered is because the "C" in NCAA actually stands for "cash". Why else would you mess with perfection?
The one expansion proposal I would even consider ties in to something that regular readers know I've been complaining about for years: I've always hated the fact that the "first-round" game consists of the lowest two automatic qualifiers, leaving one of them out of the main bracket. An automatic bid should be just that - an automatic bid.
So what I would be in favor of is something like the following: The tournament is seeded as normal except for the last four at-large spots. Then the selection committee takes the last eight at-large teams and matches them up in four play-in games. Play two games at two sites on the Tuesday that the play-in game is now and we settle this bubble business once and for all.
Exactly how large are Ali Farokmanesh's balls?
IMMEASURABLE.
What did we learn that can help our brackets next year?
Well, we can officially add "be wary of high-seeded teams with double-digit losses" to the rulebook. When I say "high seeded," I mean seventh or better. Just... be careful. Especially if their first-round opponent only has single-digit losses.
Also, Kansas is probably back in the "not to be trusted past the first round" camp.
Can Butler actually win this thing?
Sure, why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment