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.

Carlon Brown returns to Utah

Utah (5-20, 2-11 Pac-12) hosts Colorado (17-8, 9-4 Pac-12) today at 3 p.m. MT on FSN and Root Sports affiliates. The big story in this one is that Colorado senior Carlon Brown will be returning to the Huntsman Center after spending his first three seasons of eligibility at Utah. Brown transferred after his junior season after a number of run-ins with then Utah coach Jim Boylen.

It's hard to know exactly what the circumstances were regarding Brown's departure, but I will say that it was apparent that he and Boylen were clearly not on the same page during Brown's junior year of 2009-2010. I remember when reading quotes after numerous games, that Brown and Boylen would say almost exactly the opposite things from each other. That's never a good sign.

Brown has said this week a number of the cliche things like he doesn't want to talk about it, it's just another game, etc. However, he has in my opinion slipped in a few things about Utah in a few of his comments. In remarks to the Deseret News, Brown said he felt he could be used better somewhere else than he was being used at Utah.

When asked about his rationale for transferring, Brown, following saying he didn't want to get into it, said that you would have to have been there to understand and used the word endure to describe film sessions. That makes me think that Boylen wasn't exactly being soft on his players. Particularly, it makes me think that Brown (and others, Marshall Henderson comes to mind) weren't very receptive to ways in which they could improve their games. It was clear watching that team that there was some disconnect and that the players didn't always buy in.

I also found it interesting that in comments to the Denver Post, Brown said he wouldn't have come to Colorado if former coach Jeff Bzdelik was still coaching the Buffaloes, saying he likes current coach Tad Boyle's system. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it sounds like Brown has a bit of his own agenda.

Granted, Brown is having a nice year, averaging almost exactly the same amount of points per game this year as he did in his junior year at Utah. He also doesn't seem like he wants to cause too much controversy in advance of today's game in Salt Lake City. However, I think his comments are telling about him as a player and also underlie some resentment toward his time at Utah.

I'm excited about the game today and it really would make this year a lot less painful for me if the Runnin' Utes could somehow pull out this game given Brown's return to the Huntsman Center. I'm hopeful the Utes can build on their encouraging performance at Arizona last Saturday.