As For the Dance Itself...

Oh yeah, the tournament goes on even though Stanford is eliminated. Well, like everyone else I've heard, my bracket is in a shambles. I'm not mathematically eliminated in my pool yet, but I didn't do myself any favors by picking Gonzaga to beat North Carolina in the national title game. Let's just say I'll be picking a new bracketology strategy next March.

I think the most interesting team in the Sweet 16 is UAB. After watching their wildly entertaining first round game with Washington, I wasn't all that shocked to see them beat Kentucky. That's because their style of play is so unusual- nobody plays 40 Minutes of Hell anymore, so I could see how a stiff team like Kentucky could be flustered by it. Kansas coach Bill Self certainly has his work cut out for him.

I definitely don't want to miss a single game of the East Rutherford regional. It's the only region with the top four seeds still alive and on paper it produces the two best match-ups of the 3rd round. Oklahoma St is one of the teams I'm rooting for to go all they way, but I like Pitt's versatility. I still haven't seen a St. Joe's game all season, and I look forward to seeing what Wake's Chris Paul can do against Jameer Nelson. And I'm also wondering whether Delonte West is actually better than his Naismith Award-winning teammate. By the way, don't you love the fact that college basketball's player of the year award is announced without all the hoopla and fanfare of the Heisman?

Here's hoping that some quality games this weekend will allow me to enjoy the NCAA tournament as a neutral observer, rather than a devastated Stanford fan.

 
Pleeeeease Come Back Next Year, Josh?

I've been putting it off for a few days now, but I guess it's time to comment on Stanford's loss last Saturday. I was more dumbfounded than anything. It was not necessarily that we lost, but the way we lost that made it so hard to swallow. I have never ever seen us blow a double-digit lead late in the game like that. It was the type of meltdown that our smart players are usually immune to.

Immediately after the game, I thought "man, this is gonna overshadow the entire year." But in the past few days I've been thinking about what I told my friend while on the Maples Pavillion court in the moments after we beat Arizona: "No matter what happens in the tournament, nothing can erase this." And that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter: you just have to separate what happens in the tournament from everything else. The regular season is a controlled, sane, structured process where games are played against familiar opponents in front of raucous student sections. The tournament is an entirely different animal, with its single-elimination format, neutral courts and unknown opponents. Teams that earn a high seed in the tournament and lose early deserve more respect. You just can't judge a season based on what happens in the NCAAs. It would be like a college football team basing its season on whether or not it wins its bowl game. But in reality, its much more prestigious to earn a trip to the Rose Bowl and lose than it is to win the GMAC Bowl. I wish the public at large viewed college basketball regular seasons with the reverence it gives college football regular seasons.

 
Beware the Odds of March

Now that I have my bracket set, I can freely offer up my opinions on the tournament. Before I get to my Final Four picks, I'll offer up a special bracketology edition of Random Thoughts:

* I cannot wait for tomorrow. I can feel the anticipation running through my veins. The next two days are my favorite days of the year.

* I stuck to my guns and implemented the "Comprehensive Breakdown" strategy for making my picks. However, I must say that for certain match-ups, I applied elements of all of the other five. You just can't help it sometimes.

* There are several potential games that I was agonizing over when filling out my bracket:

1. Pitt vs. Wisconsin in Round 2. I love both of these teams. The Badgers have the advantage of playing in Milwaukee, they have a player capable of taking over a game in Devin Harris, and their slow-it-down style means they can dictate the style of a game. However, Pitt has strong players both inside and outside and they were champions of a very tough Big East conference. I think Pitt will use last year's tournament disappointment as motivation and advance in a tough game.

2. Xavier vs. Louisville, Round 1. The Cardinals are just like UNC and Arizona- talented enough for the Final Four but wild enough for an early exit. Talent usually prevails in the NCAAs and I think Xavier will be too worn out from their 4 wins-in-4 days run through the A-10 tournament to win again.

3. Michigan St. vs. Gonzaga, Round 1. I'm very tempted to pick the battle-tested Spartans to finally capitalize on making it through a brutal non-conference schedule. However, when I checked the stats I noticed that Gonzaga has a huge rebounding edge. If the Zags can get through this one, they will take it all the way to San Antonio.

* How great would it be if Roy Williams' nightmare came true? What if his North Carolina team had to face Duke in the regional final, then play play Syracuse (the team that beat him last year) only to lose to Kansas in the national title game?

* It's swell that all of the tournament's games will be available to households without cable TV, but isn't it about time for us to be able to simultaneously watch two different games on different channels? Imagine if ABC held the broadcast rights and not CBS- you would have your area's "A" game on ABC, then two other games simultaneously on ESPN and ESPN2. When one of the "B" or "C" games gets interesting, you'd just simulcast it on ABC. It wouldn't detract from the main broadcast at all. It's too bad that Viacom isn't turning to it's cable channels as a supplement- how fun would it be to see tourney games on VH1?

* Every year I always have a favorite pick- a prediction in my bracket that I feel really good about even though it's pretty risky.

Favorite pick: Arizona over Duke in Round 2. Check out the statistics for this region. Arizona leads Duke in every category- points, rebounding, 3 pt percentage, points per game... the Wildcats clearly have the ability to beat Duke. The only question in my mind is whether they have the mental toughness. But instead of getting into a chess match, Lute Olson will turn this match-up will be a game of streetball- flying up and down the court, shots every 15 seconds, steals, pressure defense- and Arizona's athletes will prevail. I'm really surprised that I haven't heard anyone make this pick- this game is the obvious roadblock for a very flawed Duke team.

Runner-up: East Tennessee St. over Cincy in Round 1. I made this pick as soon as the match-up was unveiled on Selection Sunday. You just can't trust the Bearcats in the first round.

Pick I Wish I had the Guts to make: NC State over UConn in Round 3. This could just be wishful thinking from a Stanford fan who doesn't want to face the Huskies. But the Wolfpack have a stud in Julius Hodge and that Princeton offense is baffling for an unfamiliar, undisciplined team like UConn.

* No top seed has ever been disrespected as badly as St. Joe's, which is why I feel like I'm picking an upset when I have them making the Elite Eight.

* Every year, there's always one upset that everybody jumps on, only to see the favorite win comfortably. This year, it's Manhattan over Florida- the Jaspers are the It Team of the tourney. I'm not buying it.

The picks
In the Midwest, I like Georgia Tech, but they just won't be able to handle Gonzaga. I was tempted to pick Washington over Kentucky, but I decided I couldn't pick a second Pac-10 win over a #1 seed, having already picked Arizona to beat Duke. Kentucky, which lacks a go-to guy, won't be able to get by the Zags in the regional final.

In the East, I think St. Joe's, Wake Forest, Pitt and Okie St. will make a very tough foursome. I'm really rooting for superfrosh Chris Paul and the upstart Demon Deacons will advance, but my head tells me to go with the more rugged, versatile Pitt.

In the South, Arizona and UNC will wear Cinderella's slippers all the way to a regional final match-up. This often happens- powerhouse schools have an underacheiving regular season only to get hot in the tournament. Carolina will prevail, thanks to stellar play from the underrated Sean May and outstanding point play of Raymond Felton.

As for the West, my heart tells me Stanford will win, and my head also tells me Stanford will win. On paper, in person, whatever: we just have the best overall team- no glaring weaknesses, a terrific point guard, a star scorer, tenacious defense, the whole nine yards. But I'm not picking Stanford in my bracket. It's a superstitious thing, and kind of a way to hedge my bets. So with that caveat, and with great reluctance, I'm picking UConn to advance.

In the Final Four, I like Roy Williams's experience to lead his team to the title game for the second year in a row. But once there, he will face a Gonzaga juggernaut that will be salivating. I must say, I'm less confident of this national champion pick than I have been in years, but Seth Davis of SI has me convinced that I've made the right choice.

God, I can't wait to see how this all actually unfolds.

 
Cramming for Next Week's Bracketology Final

With Selection Sunday mere hours away I still haven't settled on a strategy for making my NCAA tournament picks. This is a big deal folks, because the method to your March Madness is more important than the teams you actually pick to win the games. Let's break down the various bracket strategies I'm mulling over:

1. Crown and Retrace. Using this method, before you even look at the brackets you decide which team will win the title. Then you work your way backwards, from the Final Four on out. This strategy is good if you think there's one team that's clearly elite, but it also disregards all of the cinderellas and upsets of the early rounds. Those using the Crown and Retrace also know that the easiest way to earn points in a tourney pool is to correctly pick the champ- I correctly picked Michigan St in 2000, and came in 2nd in my dorm pool.

2. Comprehensive Breakdown. This is where you go through every single matchup and predict a winner, and repeat the process as you go round-by-round through your bracket. This method is for stat geeks armchair analysts who enjoy the task of comparing 3-point percentages, neutral court victories, and styles of play of every team in the tourney. This method is really fun for said stat geeks (like myself) but it's also agonizing, as you wind up flipping back and forth on a single game for days on end.

3. Go With the Gut. In this strategy, instead of evaluating teams "on paper" you size them up based on intangibles like late-season momentum, senior leadership, toughness, and the always-precarious "team of destiny quotient." I think all fans utilize this method at least partially, as it's hard to resist picking teams that you've watched and been impressed with during the season.

4. Live by the Seed, Die by the Seed. This is where you go ultra-conservative and pick almost entirely based on seeding. I used this strategy last year, and while I did very well in the opening rounds, I fell apart towards the end. Statistically, this method probably gives you the best odds of correctly picking the most games. But there are two flaws here: First of all, the strategy offers no guidance once you reach the Final Four. Sure you can pick all four #1 seeds (which, incidentally, has never happened), but you have to decide for yourself which of those four will win it all. Secondly, this strategy is the least fun of all. What self-respecting hoops fan is just gonna throw his knowledge of the game out the window and just pick based on seed numbers?

5. Swim Against the Current. This is where you attempt to win the pool by default: Picking a few teams that no one else in your pool is taking. Going back to that wacky 2000 Final Four, two 8 seeds, a 5 seed and a 1 seed made it, meaning that everyone in the country had their brackets in the shredder after the second weekend. But if you were by chance savvy enough to pick Wisconsin and Florida to make that Final Four, that alone would easily have won your pool. I tried this strategy in 2001, when everyone was picking Duke and Arizona but I went with unheralded #1 seed Illinois to win the title. The Illini did make the Elite Eight, but that year, conventional wisdom had it right.

6. Go for Glory. This is where you make your picks not to win the pool, but for bragging rights. Try to predict a rash of upsets (like picking every single 12 and 14 seed to win in the first round) just so you can run around boasting "Ha! I had East Tennesse St! I knew Kansas would choke!" Without question you'll have the most fun filling out your bracket this way, given that you have no regard for common sense.

So which plan to choose? Because this year is so uncertain, I think a lot of different teams have a chance to both get to the Final Four and to win it all once they get there (which eliminates strategies 1 and 4). Most other fans feel this way too, meaning that there will be many different picks in any given pool (scratch #5). I will attempt to win my pool (forget #6) so I'm left with two diametrically opposed philosophies in #2 and #3. I really think that this year's tournament will be all about scheduling- which teams are matched up in which region; teams this year are only good or bad when you compare them with their opponents. For that reason, I think I'll go with #2 when I fill out the first four rounds and then #3 for deciding which of my Final Four will win.

Finally, when making my picks I will be sure to keep in mind Stewart Mandel's ways not to make your picks. This is a true cautionary tale for all aspiring bracketologists.

 
Golden Gate Grief

Yesterday, when Jeff Garcia signed with the Cleveland Browns, it really sunk in for me: the San Francisco 49ers are a pathetic shell of their proud legacy. The fact that he went to the team run by Carmen Policy, the 49ers former honcho is a smear of salt in a gaping wound inflicted upon Niners fans this offseason. First of all, there was the loss of Terrell Owens, which though expected, was made painful by the way the 49ers handled it from a personnel stanpoint. It was clear throughout last season that Owens wouldn't return after the dismal season, yet GM Terry Donahue and the front office made no effort to make a trade that would at least salvage some value for him. And I don't buy the notion that "the NFL isn't a trade league": the Oct. 23 trade deadline is there for a reason- to make any trades you feel would benefit your team after having played 7 or 8 games.

The Garcia waive last week was even more foolhardy. The guy triumphantly leads the team out of it's post-Steve Young doldrums, plays with more heart and toughness than any QB in the league, and makes three Pro Bowls in the process. His reward? "Sorry Jeff, you're an ancient 34 years old, and Tim Rattay played decently in 3 or 4 games, and we don't feel like paying you a fair salary, so... sayonara!" I hate it when people like SI's Peter King assume that Rattay is ready to be a starter just because he beat the Rams at Candlestick last season when Garcia was injured. Doesn't anyone remember Cody Carlson, Scott Mitchell, Rob Johnson, or any of the other unproven backups who failed miserably once teams made them starters?

Lest we forget, Donahue also said goodbye to the still-productive Garrison Hearst. Yes, Kevan Barlow is now the superior running back, but every team needs two solid ball-carriers these days. And now with Owens and Tai Streets departing in the span of four days, the 49ers have lost their starting wideout corps. Swell. Niner fans can now look at the Eagles receivers with envy.

Fourteen months we were division champs featuring the league's guttiest quarterback and the best wideout on the planet. Now, this offense would have a hard time scoring on Louisiana State. Unless there's some sort of miraculous trade for a top 3 draft pick, it looks like Dennis Erickson's squad will be hard to watch this fall. O, where have you gone Brent Jones and Roger Craig?

 
The Oscar Rundown

Here are some random thoughts I had while watching last night's Academy Awards:

* I know Charlize Theron was trying to look as glamorous as possible last night (so as to create sharp contrast with her hideous Monster character), but she clearly spent about three hours too long at the tanning salon.

* I was struck by the fact that during the acceptance speeches, during which people thanked everyone from their lawyer to the key grip, none of the award winners thanked the fans. This is the total opposite of award cermonies in the music industry, where the fans are praised effusively by nearly rapper and pop star. The entire movie industry, with its focus on box-office returns and unrelenting publicity, is completely driven by popularity with the moviegoing public (which is pretty much everyone in America). Why are the masses ignored on Oscar night?

* So how exactly did Chris Cooper go from a thin, gray head of hair last year to the thick brown mane he sported last night?

* Sean Penn had nice intentions when he decided to forgo a canned speech in favor of ad-libbing at the podium, but after his rambling, stunted acceptance, I came to appreciate the benefits of a well-thought out oration.

* I usually hate the Best Song performances, but that Allison Krause/Elvis Costllo duet "Scarlet Tide" is a terrific song.

* The producers of the Oscar pre-show clearly were trying to go for the edgy in-your-face style that the kids like these days. How else to explain the intrusive, obnoxious Billy Bush, who had the audacity to go in between the theater seats to interview actors as they sat down mere minutes before the ceremony?

* I love how the only person unafraid to make a fool of themselves last night was the 81 year-old director accepting an honorary award. Blake Edwards' wheelchair hijinks were the most refreshing part of the show.

* When the hard-nippled Angelina Jolie went to the podium present and the cameras hastily zoomed into her face (the same thing that happened to J-Lo two years ago), all it did was call further attention to her offending assets. Don't censors realize that scandalizing something just makes it all the more enticing?

* I understand that the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a tremendous achievement that people want to reward, but it really bothers me that I haven't heard anyone actually say that they thought that Return of the King was a better movie than both Mystic River and Lost in Translation.

* Well now that we've gotten this pesky 2004 ceremony out of the way, it's time to look ahead to next year's Oscars. I predict that the Howard Hughes biopic The Aviator will win Best Picture, as the Academy simply won't allow itself to overlook Martin Scorsese yet again.