NCAA Tournament update

Well, the NCAA Tournament is through its opening weekend. The "2nd and 3rd Rounds" were completed. They really just need to stop calling them that, it just confuses everybody. Only eight teams play before the so-called second round. Just call them the Round of 64 and Round of 32 if you don't want to offend the first eight teams (not the "First Four" as there are eight teams, unlike the Final Four, which only has four teams).

All these errors aside, it was an exciting weekend of basketball. I still think Kentucky is the favorite, although I'm hoping that somehow, someway they can be beat. North Carolina would have been my front-runner until Kendall Marshall got injured Sunday against Creighton. So, my thought is that Ohio State and Michigan State probably have the best chance at it of the teams remaining. Florida has also played very impressively so far, but I'm not sure if they can keep it up. We'll see, stayed tuned this weekend as the Sweet Sixteen gets trimmed down to the Final Four.

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.

Body of work should govern NCAA selections

I'm checking out the BracketBusters right now, presently watching #24 Wichita State (23-4, 14-2 Missouri Valley) at Davidson (20-6, 14-2 Southern) on ESPN2. I think this BracketBuster idea has really turned into a good thing, giving teams from non-BCS conferences opportunities to improve their at-large resumes toward the end of the season. A win today for Davidson would give them a very compelling at-large case, as they would add a win against a quality, ranked opponent to their early season victory over Kansas in a de facto road game in Kansas City.

As the NCAA Tournament approaches, a lot of bubble talk is abounding. I haven't read too much about it this year, but there is an issue that seems to come up annually. That issue is when a team loses without one of its top players in the line-up, it is almost given a pass with regard to earning an at-large bid or with regard to seeding.

It will be said something like, "Well, yes, Ohio State lost to Kansas, but it was on the road and they were missing Jared Sullinger." Oh, I'm sorry, but injuries are part of the game. Ohio State lost the game. Period. It should be considered with the rest of their resume. Suppose the Clippers were to finish a game out of the NBA Playoffs this year, but at the end of the season a committee were to get together and say "Well, Blake Griffin missed a number of games and so did Chris Paul, so really the Clippers were a better team than their record, so let's put them in the Playoffs ahead of someone else." How ridiculous would that be?

I get that the NCAA Tournament selection process will always be subjective and I'm fine with that. But, injuries are part of the game and only wins, losses and quality of competition, etc. should be considered. The flip side of the argument is true as well. If a team were to compile a great record with a player, but then said player were to get injured just before the Tournament, the rest of the team shouldn't be punished. The body of work should be rewarded. Injuries happen every year. It's just part of the game.