Is the NCAA tournament selection committee on crack?
- Does Memphis really deserve to be a No. 1 seed? Sure they Conference USA, but even I could have done it. The only meaningful wins they have are against Gonzaga and UCLA. They lost to Duke and Texas.
- Talk about a lack of parity in the No. 3 seeds. In what world would Iowa and Gonzaga be named in the same breathe? As far as I am concerned, Gonzaga (and I strongly dislike like them) got the shaft, and Iowa got lucky. Here's to hoping Xavier can upset Gonzaga. I have liked Xavier for years; they have a cool name.
- How did the Missouri Valley (Wichita St, Bradley, Southern Ill, Northern Iowa) conference get the same number of teams in as the ACC (Duke, Chapel Hill, Boston College, NC State)? Together the Missouri Valley entrants played a total of four ranked teams and beat two of them (Iowa and Bucknell). It was too hard to count the ranked wins out for the ACC.
- Does Syracuse really deserve their No. 5 seed? They had an excellent run in the tournament, but how much of that was luck over substance? I have a strong dislike for the Orangemen (as I am sure I have mentioned repeatedly). Their fans are particularly annoying. The only reason they won a national championship in 2003 was that they were able to play most of their games in Albany and Boston.
Points of note...
- An all Big Ten match up in the first round? Indiana takes on San Diego St. Perhaps Steve Fischer has found the new Fab Five. But I think not.
- Semi-finals in the 2nd round? Michigan State could face a rematch with No. 3 seed Chapel Hill in Dayton, if the seeding goes as planned.
- Michigan State has beat the following teams this season: No. 2 Ohio State, No. 3 Iowa, No. 4 Illinois, No. 4 Boston College, No. 7 Wichita State, No. 8 Arizona, No. 9 Wisconsin
- Isn't it just mean to have a play in game? It seems downright rude, especially since no one watches that game.
No comments:
Post a Comment