-Overall, I finished 11 of 16 for the round. 1 game shy of my goal.
-Notre Dame not showing up against Washington St. surprised me. Harangody had a decent game with 22 rebounds, but the offense was not there.
-Davidson upsetting Georgetown is another result I never saw coming. I did not see that game, so I'm not sure exactly how it happened.
-North Carolina, Louisville, Kansas, Washington St. all rolled easily into Sweet Sixteen.
-Performance in one round does not always translate to how a team will perform in the next round, but too many teams had trouble with teams the should have handled easily today. I am looking at Tennessee, Memphis, Texas, and UCLA.
-There are 3 double digit seeds left in the tournament. Anyone of them can advance, but more on that in my Sweet Sixteen preview on Wednesday.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Day 2 of the NCAA Tournament
-Was 9 of 16 on Day 2. Barely reached my goal of 24 or 32 for the first round.
-My Four Four lost one when San Diego beat UConn.
-This was the first time that four underdogs at one site won. The site was Tampa. The games were Western Kentucky over Drake, San Diego over UConn, Sienna over Vandy, and Villanova over Clemson. I only saw one of those coming.
-Louisville beat Boise State, which seemed be some people's upset pick. But that's the way it's been the past couple tournaments we've been in. Last year, some were picking Stanford to win. In 2005, it Louisiana-Lafayette. Louisville was not in the tournament in 2006, but they did go to the NIT Final Four, which gave me a second trip to NYC that March (look for a blog on stories from tournament experiences coming soon).
-Half of my losses are in the 8/9 and 7/10 games. 3 more losses came from the Tampa craziness, and I thought St. Joe's would beat Oklahoma.
Things to watch for in the second round.
-The Pitt/Michigan St. game is going to be a giant defensive struggle. Some might even call it ugly. How that game is officiated is going to play a big role in it.
-It will be interesting to see how the freshman at Kansas St. handle the pace and defense that Wisconsin will bring.
-Which Marquette will show up against Stanford?
-Don't be surprised if West Virginia upsets Duke today.
-My Four Four lost one when San Diego beat UConn.
-This was the first time that four underdogs at one site won. The site was Tampa. The games were Western Kentucky over Drake, San Diego over UConn, Sienna over Vandy, and Villanova over Clemson. I only saw one of those coming.
-Louisville beat Boise State, which seemed be some people's upset pick. But that's the way it's been the past couple tournaments we've been in. Last year, some were picking Stanford to win. In 2005, it Louisiana-Lafayette. Louisville was not in the tournament in 2006, but they did go to the NIT Final Four, which gave me a second trip to NYC that March (look for a blog on stories from tournament experiences coming soon).
-Half of my losses are in the 8/9 and 7/10 games. 3 more losses came from the Tampa craziness, and I thought St. Joe's would beat Oklahoma.
Things to watch for in the second round.
-The Pitt/Michigan St. game is going to be a giant defensive struggle. Some might even call it ugly. How that game is officiated is going to play a big role in it.
-It will be interesting to see how the freshman at Kansas St. handle the pace and defense that Wisconsin will bring.
-Which Marquette will show up against Stanford?
-Don't be surprised if West Virginia upsets Duke today.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Day 1 of NCAA Tournament
Here are my thoughts about Day 1 of the NCAA Men's basketball tournament.
-I went 15 of 16 in my picks for the day. The only game I missed was UNLV vs. Kent State. I did manage to call the only upset of the day, Kansas State over USC.
-Kansas State was able to overcome Beasley getting 2 fouls in the first 5 minutes of the game. They actually thrived then.
-Duke got lucky. Belmont forgot how to play basketball in the last minute of the game.
-Wisconsin managed to do what always do, win. No, it isn't flashy, but it doesn't have to be.
-George Mason will not be this year's George Mason. Even with a comical pre-game talk from their coach, George Mason was not able to overcome Notre Dame's talent.
-There was at least one good game continuously going on. Except from 5-7, when they didn't show the Stanford/Cornell game in favor of showing the news. Stupid news.
-Georgia gave me a scare. I was not looking forward to losing a Sweet Sixteen team in the first game of the day, but fortunately Xavier was able to send them back to reality.
-Kentucky/Marquette was a good game. Marquette was just able to have a good night, and counter everything Kentucky threw at them. However, Marquette can be very streaky, so look for a bad game coming up.
-I went 15 of 16 in my picks for the day. The only game I missed was UNLV vs. Kent State. I did manage to call the only upset of the day, Kansas State over USC.
-Kansas State was able to overcome Beasley getting 2 fouls in the first 5 minutes of the game. They actually thrived then.
-Duke got lucky. Belmont forgot how to play basketball in the last minute of the game.
-Wisconsin managed to do what always do, win. No, it isn't flashy, but it doesn't have to be.
-George Mason will not be this year's George Mason. Even with a comical pre-game talk from their coach, George Mason was not able to overcome Notre Dame's talent.
-There was at least one good game continuously going on. Except from 5-7, when they didn't show the Stanford/Cornell game in favor of showing the news. Stupid news.
-Georgia gave me a scare. I was not looking forward to losing a Sweet Sixteen team in the first game of the day, but fortunately Xavier was able to send them back to reality.
-Kentucky/Marquette was a good game. Marquette was just able to have a good night, and counter everything Kentucky threw at them. However, Marquette can be very streaky, so look for a bad game coming up.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Impacts on the Tournament
Here are a couple seemingly minor things that will have an impact on this year's tournament.
Officiating:
There was an article this week on ESPN.com about the decline in the level of officiating this year, citing blown calls late in close games. While officiating in a late game situation always has the potential to influence a game, what I am referring to is how the entire game is officiated. A game that is called tightly will favor a quick finesse team. Whereas, a game that is allowed to be physical will favor bigger, physical teams. Also, see if the game is called differently in the second half than it was in the first half. Teams are not the only ones that make adjustments at halftime. Officials will get together, and discuss things they need to do. A team will have a better chance to succeed if they are able to quickly adjust to the way the game is being called. Going along with officiating, is does a key player get into foul trouble quickly? Is the team able overcome the loss of a key player?
Style of Play:
Every team has a style that they would like to play. If you get two teams with the same style, then it is just a matter of who is better. But often in the tournament, this is not the case. One team is often able to dictate the style or the tempo of the game, forcing the other team to match them. If a team is unable to match, then often they lose. Usually, this is how upsets occur. The underdogs are able to dictate the speed of the game, usually by slowing the game down, and the favorites try to speed up the game, only to make too many mistakes.
Coming 3/20: Reactions to Day 1 of the first round.
Officiating:
There was an article this week on ESPN.com about the decline in the level of officiating this year, citing blown calls late in close games. While officiating in a late game situation always has the potential to influence a game, what I am referring to is how the entire game is officiated. A game that is called tightly will favor a quick finesse team. Whereas, a game that is allowed to be physical will favor bigger, physical teams. Also, see if the game is called differently in the second half than it was in the first half. Teams are not the only ones that make adjustments at halftime. Officials will get together, and discuss things they need to do. A team will have a better chance to succeed if they are able to quickly adjust to the way the game is being called. Going along with officiating, is does a key player get into foul trouble quickly? Is the team able overcome the loss of a key player?
Style of Play:
Every team has a style that they would like to play. If you get two teams with the same style, then it is just a matter of who is better. But often in the tournament, this is not the case. One team is often able to dictate the style or the tempo of the game, forcing the other team to match them. If a team is unable to match, then often they lose. Usually, this is how upsets occur. The underdogs are able to dictate the speed of the game, usually by slowing the game down, and the favorites try to speed up the game, only to make too many mistakes.
Coming 3/20: Reactions to Day 1 of the first round.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Problems with the Play-In Game
For those of you that think the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament begins on Thursday, you are wrong. Right now, Mount St. Mary's is playing Coppin State in Dayton, OH in the "opening round" game of the NCAA Tournament. The winner of this game will be the #16 seed against North Carolina. That is some prize for winning a game that you've had 48 hours to prepare for, including time to travel.
The "opening round" game, or "play-in" game as most people call it, was created several years ago when the number of conferences with automatic bids increased by 1, from 30 to 31. Instead of eliminating an at-large spot, this play-in game was created. The selection committee takes the bottom two rated teams in the tournament, and has them play on Tuesday in Dayton. The winner becomes the final #16 seed. Officials try to deny that this is a play-in game by calling it opening round game, but the fact is that one of these teams with a supposedly automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament will never actually reach the Tournament. This is not right. A team that has won its way into the tournament should not be left out so that a team that nearly lost its way out of the tournament can be included.
Here is how I think it should be changed, along with a proposal for expansion of the tournament. First, get rid of the play-in game that we have now. For example, this year, that would knock out Villanova, since they are the lowest seeded at-large team. Instead, create four play-in games for the final four spots in the tournament. In these games you would have the last four teams that would make it into the tournament play the first four teams left out of the tournament. If this were the scenario this year, it would put Kentucky, Baylor, Kansas State, and St. Joe's against Villanova, and whoever the next 3 would be. The winner would gain a spot in the tournament. This would allow those small conference teams that won their way into the tournament to have a tournament experience, and would also give teams on the bubble one final chance to show that they belong in the tournament.
Of course, all of this is just my humble opinion. Having participated in 4 NCAA tournaments as a member of the University of Louisville Pep Band, there is something special about arriving at a tournament site, and seeing all of the other fans there. I firmly believe that a team that wins their way into the tournament should be allowed to experience this, and not be relegated to what amounts to nothing more than a single game on some neutral court. If you'd like more clarification, just leave a comment, and I will answer your question.
Coming 3/19: What minor things will have an impact on this year's tournament?
The "opening round" game, or "play-in" game as most people call it, was created several years ago when the number of conferences with automatic bids increased by 1, from 30 to 31. Instead of eliminating an at-large spot, this play-in game was created. The selection committee takes the bottom two rated teams in the tournament, and has them play on Tuesday in Dayton. The winner becomes the final #16 seed. Officials try to deny that this is a play-in game by calling it opening round game, but the fact is that one of these teams with a supposedly automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament will never actually reach the Tournament. This is not right. A team that has won its way into the tournament should not be left out so that a team that nearly lost its way out of the tournament can be included.
Here is how I think it should be changed, along with a proposal for expansion of the tournament. First, get rid of the play-in game that we have now. For example, this year, that would knock out Villanova, since they are the lowest seeded at-large team. Instead, create four play-in games for the final four spots in the tournament. In these games you would have the last four teams that would make it into the tournament play the first four teams left out of the tournament. If this were the scenario this year, it would put Kentucky, Baylor, Kansas State, and St. Joe's against Villanova, and whoever the next 3 would be. The winner would gain a spot in the tournament. This would allow those small conference teams that won their way into the tournament to have a tournament experience, and would also give teams on the bubble one final chance to show that they belong in the tournament.
Of course, all of this is just my humble opinion. Having participated in 4 NCAA tournaments as a member of the University of Louisville Pep Band, there is something special about arriving at a tournament site, and seeing all of the other fans there. I firmly believe that a team that wins their way into the tournament should be allowed to experience this, and not be relegated to what amounts to nothing more than a single game on some neutral court. If you'd like more clarification, just leave a comment, and I will answer your question.
Coming 3/19: What minor things will have an impact on this year's tournament?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
NCAA Tournament
As with every year, someone is unhappy because some team got left out while a "less deserving" team got in. This year is no exception. Having watched the Selection Show on CBS, and the Bracketology special on ESPN, I am seeing and hearing the same basic things that I usually hear at this time of year. How did Team A get in over Team B, when Team B beat Team A? How did Team C get left out when they are from the best conference, and that conference did not have the most teams in the tournament? How can we fix this problem in future tournaments?
The first question is a hot topic on ESPN's show, regarding Arizona getting in over Arizona State. And the simple answer to that is that selection into the tournament is not ultimately boiled down to two games. I do not know what Arizona's RPI is, but I do know that Arizona's State RPI is 88, with a non-conference schedule in the 300s. Sure, Arizona State had a one-game lead in conference record over Arizona, but the first half of the season cannot be ignored. If the conference schedule is all that should matter, then what is the point to keeping track of what happens in the non-conference schedule. Too much emphasis is put on the end of the season.
The answer to the second question is that which conference a team is from should not be a determining factor in the selection process. Who the team plays is already factored into RPI and strength of schedule. There is not a need to consider it a third time. And with these larger conferences, an imbalanced schedule is skewing one team's success within a strong conference.
The answer I am hearing for the final question is that the tournament should expand. I think this would be a bad decision. As Jay Bilas said on ESPN, I think it was him anyways, is that the only thing that teams on the edge of being selected have proven is that they all can lose. Everyone has a conference tournament, so everyone has a chance to win their way into the tournament. Ultimately, no one can complain if they do not make it into the tournament.
Coming on Tuesday 3/18: Why the NCAA Tournament "play-in game" needs to be changed.
The first question is a hot topic on ESPN's show, regarding Arizona getting in over Arizona State. And the simple answer to that is that selection into the tournament is not ultimately boiled down to two games. I do not know what Arizona's RPI is, but I do know that Arizona's State RPI is 88, with a non-conference schedule in the 300s. Sure, Arizona State had a one-game lead in conference record over Arizona, but the first half of the season cannot be ignored. If the conference schedule is all that should matter, then what is the point to keeping track of what happens in the non-conference schedule. Too much emphasis is put on the end of the season.
The answer to the second question is that which conference a team is from should not be a determining factor in the selection process. Who the team plays is already factored into RPI and strength of schedule. There is not a need to consider it a third time. And with these larger conferences, an imbalanced schedule is skewing one team's success within a strong conference.
The answer I am hearing for the final question is that the tournament should expand. I think this would be a bad decision. As Jay Bilas said on ESPN, I think it was him anyways, is that the only thing that teams on the edge of being selected have proven is that they all can lose. Everyone has a conference tournament, so everyone has a chance to win their way into the tournament. Ultimately, no one can complain if they do not make it into the tournament.
Coming on Tuesday 3/18: Why the NCAA Tournament "play-in game" needs to be changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)