We’ve been out running around, so I’ve missed all the coverage. Here’s some quick thoughts I had after a first look at a bracket:
- I heard the outrage was considerable on ESPN about CU being left out, so I’ll pass on driving it into the ground. Thing is, if you respect the conference strength at all, then you can’t hate on CU’s 8-8. Their only two home losses were to ranked teams. So really where they lost a bid was in November – and for a team with a first-year coach, that is a VICIOUS way to judge a squad. Losses to San Fran (yay, Rex) and Harvard, both before December – but that was a completely different team by the time conference season rolled around. Weird.
- That said, there are no real complaints for a team being left out. You want in? Then win more conference games than you lose (CU). Don’t get stomped by an awful Georgia Tech team (Va Tech). Heck, St. Mary’s can make as much a case against either of those teams. Either way, it’s… well, who cares if they make egregious mistakes – at least it isn’t football. It’s the 40th-best team sitting in the cold instead of the 3rd-best.
- Will KSU be a first-round dog as a 5th-seed? There’s become only one steady rule in the tournament when trying to evaluate big conference teams vs. small ones: look to see if the team’s are used to winning. Winning, no matter the level, is a learned behavior. Once you start doing it, you get used to it. You start to understand the differences in what it takes to win. I know nothing about this personally, of course. Just an observation. (But feel free to ask me sometime about lack of initiative and mediocrity.) Still – winners win. Utah St. is a team with a bunch of guys used to winning.
- No idea about KU’s “path.” Especially considering the fact their biggest obstacle this season has been between their collective ears. This team’s been growing on me in recent weeks, but it’s nutty. You can’t argue with the record or success, but we’ve also watched the games. And it’s not a squad that always makes a lot of sense. Should be a fun few weeks.
- Finally, I’d like to really thank the NCAA for adding the three extra tournament teams. I never understood the play-in game when they went to 65. It was dumb to just have that game hanging there, with two teams that were kinda in the tournament. But they had to play on this odd night, at this venue by themselves, and if they won, then – well, yeah, then you can have a tournament experience like everyone else.
So luckily, this year brings a logical expansion to the bracket. Cause now you have four games that have been placed where they make perfect sense.
OH WAIT, THEY DON’T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL!!!!
Just step back, so we all agree – it takes six wins to win the championship, right? And we know that if you add an extra game for a certain number of teams, then you make it harder for them to win a championship… right? Winning seven games is harder than winning six games, right? RIGHT?
Okay, so, if you were devising a FAIR tournament (which seems like a noble cause), you would only add a round – an extra game – to the lowest-seeded teams, right? You would be rewarding teams with higher seeds with an easier route in the tournament, correct? (Sometimes called a bye.) Because if not, why would you be seeding teams at all? You’d just randomly throw names up on the bracket. I’m not crazy, am I?
But this tournament, as you know by now, actually adds a game for two 16-seeds (seeding the winner at 16), a 12 seed and an 11 seed.
WHAT?
Now, for 12th-seeded Clemson to get to the Sweet 16, they have to win three games. But 13th-seeded Belmont only has to win two games. 11-seed USC needs five wins to get to a Final Four. But 14-seed Wofford only needs four. How on freakin’ earth does that make sense to anyone?
I know what you’re saying: hey, John, they choose those different match-ups for the “First Four” because of the compelling teams involved (UAB on color television? Count me in!), and it’s not like any teams that low are going to the Final Four anyway.
And, of course, you’re right. I mean, how many years you’d have to go back to find a team as low as a 11-seed make a Final Four – twenty? Forty?
Oh wait – that’d be FIVE!
So, either make a tournament or don’t. I don’t care. (Actually, I do.) But if you’re going add games, effectively giving a number of teams – large or small – a round of byes, then do it fairly. Don’t make a mockery of your seedings by playing willy-nilly on who has to play an extra game. Heck, I’d rather you just remove those numbers entirely and draw from a hat.
You have four additional games – so make those four games play for a 16 seed. Isn’t that the ONLY way that makes sense? You could have given a junior high kid the job of expanding 64 by four and that’s EXACTLY what he/she would have done.
- So, if you followed that and are still with me (and why would you be?), I really hated the way they added a 65th team. And I hate the way they’ve added three more. I hate that they took the beautiful tempo of three extended weekends of tournament and added these weird Tuesday/Wednesday games. I hate that you used to have three full days to play around with your bracket, crossing teams out and writing them back in, all before you commit to the emptying of your bank account by means of an obsessive gambling addiction. While now you have to spastically get a bracket together in 48 hours.
But most of all, I just hate change.
So, if you’re one of the three people who’ve come to this site looking for a bracket contest, I’m sorry. No bracket competition here. If the NCAA hates brackets – and clearly, only a person who HATED the form and fairness of a good bracket would have created this year’s – then I’ll hate along with ‘em.
I will, though, put a different tourney game up Monday. Because, as you know, I bore easily. (And I love all this more than ice cream.)
