Thoughts on the bracket

Well, the NCAA Tournament is almost upon us. The brackets have been released and the play-in games start Tuesday (I don't care what people say, they are play-in games). Now, for my review of the bracket.

I don't think there's too much to gripe about regarding the four #1 seeds. And really, as Kansas' Bill Self, Michigan State's Tom Izzo and Missouri's Frank Haith were saying, it's not really a big deal whether you are a 1 or 2 (although I guess it's kind of cool to say you are a #1 seed, that in itself doesn't win you a trip to the Final Four or a National Championship). As Charles Barkley also said today, getting a top seed really only gets you a better deal for the first game. After that, pretty much any team can beat any other on a given day if the circumstances break right.

The most compelling discussion at this point is breaking down who should have gotten in and who should have been left out. I don't have an issue with BYU getting in, although I was surprised at a #14 seed -- I cannot remember an at-large team ever receiving such a low seed.

I was shocked that Colorado received a #11 seed, much higher than what I anticipated. If we are to actually believe that they wouldn't have been in if they hadn't beaten Arizona in the Pac-12 Tournament Championship yesterday (which I firmly believe), they should have been more like a #13 seed, a #12 seed at best (which still would have been a bit generous in my book).

Anyway, my point is that if Colorado, the sixth-place team in the Pac-12, is deserving of a #11 seed, then surely, the conference regular season champion, Washington, is deserving of at least a #11 seed (and inclusion in the Tournament). California absolutely deserved a better seed than Colorado as well, because after all they were the second-place team in the Pac-12.

Look, I'm not saying Washington necessarily deserved to get in, but logic states that if Colorado's an 11, Washington should be in. Colorado belonged more as a #13 seed. I could see that with Cal as an 11 or 12 (not in the play-in game, mind you) and Washington getting left out. That would be logical. But what happened is simply not logical.

Also, I'm surprised Iona got in. I would have taken Drexel over them every single day of the week. Drexel had a long winning streak in a good league and a good record. I don't think the CAA gets enough respect. Iona's profile just doesn't measure up to Drexel's. But, that's cool for them that they got in, I guess.

Fact is, teams like Washington had chances to get in and didn't capitalize. I don't feel as bad for them. I do feel bad for Drexel, as they didn't have as many chances at "quality" wins. But, I guess they should have beaten VCU to make sure they got in. Still, it's a downer they didn't get in. They looked like a good team watching them against VCU last Monday.

Albert Pujols with a historic night

Pictured: Albert Pujols connects for one of his three home runs in Game 3 Saturday night in Texas.

Well, my Utah Utes (3-4, 0-4 Pac-12) lost 34-10 to Cal (4-3, 1-3 Pac-12) tonight and looked pretty listless. So, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on that.

The story of the night was Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals hitting 3 home runs in Game 3 of the World Series. Pujols is the 3rd player in the history of Major League Baseball to do this in a World Series game, joining Babe Ruth (who did it twice) and Reggie Jackson. It's just the type of thing you don't exactly expect to see when you tune it to watch because it's such a rarity. I don't know if I have words to describe what an achievement it is. When Pujols hit that 3rd home run in the 9th, I let out a little yelp because I realized I had just seen something improbable and incredible.

The Cardinals now lead the World Series 2 games to 1. This means Game 4 tomorrow night is a must-win for the Rangers, especially with Cards ace Chris Carpenter slated to pitch Game 5. The Cardinals have shown that their offense is real and to be reckoned with. Game 4 will show a lot about the character of the Rangers.