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?