Bring on the NCAAs
Had some time to ponder the NCAA field on the 6-hour drive back from D.C. yesterday _ should be 5 hours, but that's another story _ and here are a few of the things that stand out:
There are surprisingly few teams left out that have a gripe. Indiana? Only Big Ten shills even tried to make a case for the Hoosiers; there are a surprisingly high number of those folks out there. I would have put DePaul in ahead of Iowa, which, let's face it, benefited hugely from AD Bob Bowlsby being the selection committee chair, even if he wasn't in the room when Hawkeyes talk was going on.
Washington as a No.1. That stunned a lot of people. The majority opinion in the MCI Center press room seemed to favor Wake as a No.1, giving the ACC 3 No.1 seeds. After Arizona's loss to U-Dub, I thought Oklahoma State should've gotten the 4th No.1 -- the Cowboys lost late in the year to Nebraska but beat Kansas twice and then won the Big XII tourney. Frankly, I'd never given the Huskies much thought. Obvious East coast bias. They are #3 in the RPI and 26-5. Worthy I suppose, but ...
They're going down before getting anywhere close to St. Louis. Wake Forest ought not gripe too much about being a No.2 seed. Yes, Gonzaga or Texas Tech will be tough in the Sweet 16, but they're basically the top team in that bracket, as far as I can tell.
Louisville is in the same regional. Yes, the Cards deserve better than a 4-seed. No, they shouldn't be a 1-seed. Perish the thought. I've seen them as overrated all year. I'm thinking a legit 3-seed, though. What they've done is win, much like Kentucky has. After seeing the Wildcats early in the year, I've been surprised they've won as much as they have. Credit Tubby. (And make him a nice offer, Craig Littlepage.) Or question the strength of the SEC.
Georgia Tech has to be upset about its draw. Nearly won the ACC tourney to get a 5-seed. That's nice. But the Jackets will have to be Louisville in the 2nd round after a brutal 1st-round matchup with a solid GW team. Either GT or L'ville knocks off Washington. (That advice is not for office-pool purposes, of course.)
Regional in Syracuse. Ugh. Can't we please put these regionals in warmer, less desolate towns? At the least, can we at least not put North Carolina, the team I cover, in this regional? I was hoping for Austin.
Syracuse as a popular pick to beat Duke in the Austin regional. If they meet, I might agree. Just not sure they'll get that far. Gerry McNamara hasn't been completely healthy and is not shooting as well as past years. My friend Russ is a diehard Syracuse fan who studies them a little too closely, and he uses expletives to describe the Orange's season. That's good enough for me, forget their Big East title. I might even pick Vermont to knock them off in the first round. That could be my Tom Brennan bias coming through though. Or maybe I'm wondering why a team with an RPI of 26th is a 13-seed.
Back to the Syracuse regional. Trouble for the Tar Heels? Yes. Villanova in the Sweet 16 would be a tough perimeter matchup. Roy Williams dreads the possibility of seeing Kansas, with a bunch of guys he recruited, in the Elite 8. More likely, the Heels will see UConn, which will be much tougher the second time, especially with Rashad Anderson back.
Illinois is the best team in the field, no doubt, but Oklahoma State in the regional final will be big trouble. Good thing it's in the Chicago suburbs. The Illini will win it all, even if Dee Brown was on a recent SI cover.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Good gosh Chef: who could Ga. Tech legitimately leap over to do better than a #5? First, they have the worst record of the #5s. Second, the #4 seeds AVERAGE almost 27 wins each. Indeed, as argued here, some of those #4s deserved to be #3 seeds.
I have a bit more faith in SU after it banged its way to the Big East tourney and didn't get shoved around by UConn. I think that the "Austin" (South) regional should come down to the Duke-SU game (if seeds hold). If SU were the #3, I'd feel better because Duke would only get a 36-hour turnaround before facing the Orange zone; but 5 days for Krzyzewski to prep, and he's the game's best coach, and Redick can hit from 30' . . .
Posted on March 15, 2005 5:51 PM
Great. I've pulled Russ out of his lawyerly cave in Dallas with my SU comments. My point with Ga Tech is not that it deserved better than a 5 seed. It's that the Jackets got a brutal draw because a) GW is probably better than a 12 and b) Louisville is better than a 4. GT might've been better off with a 6 seed in that bracket, which is to say, Gonzaga doesn't dazzle me.
Russ did point out to me that OKla State only beat Kansas once. And he's right about that -- I knew the Cowboys had only lost once to Kansas but didn't recall they'd only played the Rock-Chalkers once in the regular season. Hate those imbalanced schedules.
Posted on March 15, 2005 5:57 PM
The Texas and Oklahoma schools, which play each other twice in the Big 12, would agree with you. They'd all love to snack twice on KState, Mizzou, ISU, Colorado and Nebraska like Kansas does.
Posted on March 15, 2005 6:52 PM