Monday, March 17, 2008

Analyze This....

...Or should we say Analysis Paralysis.

Right now, in offices all across the land, men and women are studying their 2008 NCAA Men's Basketball bracket from every possible angle, looking at it as a riddle in scale to anything that Dan Brown could conjure up in the DaVinci Code.

They are feverishly reading everything they can on ESPN.com and CNNSI.com looking for that one tidbit, one nugget of knowledge that will put their picks over the top. All for an entry fee (for most pools) of between $10-$25.

By the way, who the hell are the Drake Bulldogs and how did they get to be 5 seed in the West Regional?

An interesting note to this year's tournament. Both finals participants from last year (Florida, Ohio State), did not make the this year's tournament. That's the first time that has happened since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

Thoughts such as these are going on in the minds of many as they fill out their brackets:

Do I have too many top seeds advancing?

My first pass at filling out the bracket has all the number 1 seeds going to the Final Four that never happens. I need to redo my bracket.

Which game is the 4-13 upset going to happen this year?

Gonzaga is usually good for an upset in the tournament - can they beat Georgetown in the second round?

Who will this year's Cinderella be?

The answers to the questions above are:

No

No, it's not wrong to have all the 1 seeds going to the Final Four, they were a combined 125-9 in the regular season.

All the 4 seeds will win in the first round this year, though Notre Dame-George Mason and Clemson-Villanova are intriguing potential 5-12 upsets.

Gonzaga will not beat Georgetown in the second round.

As for this year's Cinderella, if we knew how they were going to be before hand, then they wouldn't be a Cinderella.

Also, Happy St. Patrick's Day to all the Irish folks out there. As for their beloved Notre Dame Fighting Irish, they will survive the first two rounds but then lose in the Sweet 16 to North Carolina.

No comments: