Wait, I Picked 7 of the Elite 8 in my Bracket?

Back in college my nickname was Robbie Mush, because every bet I made turned to mush. It was a reference to a minor character in A Bronx Tale, Eddie Mush, who at the track was given his bet-tickets already ripped up.

That's why last night I was absolutely stunned to see that I had picked 7 of the 8 teams that made the Elite Eight. The only exception being Wichita State. My brackets started off as red as anyone's but somehow I guessed the teams that would advance to this stage. Here's my bracket:

I used almost no logic to pick these teams. I don't follow NCAA hoops until the start of March, and I know little about the game, its teams, or its players. I used a few basic guidelines to fill this bracket out in less than a minute:

1. Despite early upsets, the Final Four and Elite Eight are dominated by teams seeded 1-4.

2. The 1 seeds are 1 by default, not because they are clearly superior to other teams.

3. I hate Syracuse. Which means they'll probably advance far.

4. Duke doesn't mess around when they have something to play for.

Somehow a combination of these guidelines along with the dumbest of luck has produced a bracket in the 99th percentile on Yahoo.

My Final Four are Duke, Ohio State, Michigan, and Syracuse. I have Duke defeating Michigan 65-55 in the Championship.

And I don't even care. I am much more interested in the NCAA Hockey tournament.

I Hate the Phrase "Punched Their Ticket"

This is the time of year when I become obsessed with basketball. The other 11 months I don't really care about the sport. At least not as much as football, hockey, baseball, soccer, curling, et cetera. But in March I can't get enough of the game. The mid-majors, the upsets, the buzzer beaters. The MVC, the OVC, the WCC, the ACC, the Atlantic 10, the Big Ten, the Big XII, the Big East. It's a relentless barrage of tension and thrills.

However, there is one thing about this time of year that threatens to give me a rage-induced conniption...

The phrase "punched their ticket," and all associated forms.

It's such a tired, worn-out, overused, out-of-date, unoriginal, uninteresting sports cliche. You hear it and read it constantly, in highlight reels and game recaps. "Florida Gulf Coast was the first team to punch their ticket," "Belmont punched their ticket for the third straight year," "Harvard punched their ticket because there's no tournament in the Ivy League," "Liberty punched their ticket despite 20 losses." Every conference tournament is another ticket punched. So many tickets. So many punches. So many times this same phrase is used.

The problem is, there's no other quick and colorful way to say "earned a berth in the NCAA tournament."

We must come up with another phrase. This level of repetition is unacceptable for a writer. Not to mention how out-of-date the phrase is. How often do you have a ticket that's punched these days? Here are some suggested replacements:

"Won a berth" is the most basic substitute. Although there's no flare to that. And in Sportswriting 101, future sports media are instructed to use as many formulaic, hackneyed expressions as possible, in an effort to make their writing appear interesting (see: "three-point land")

"Penetrated the bubble." I'm not sure this makes much sense, as most teams that win conference tourneys aren't bubble teams. But it sounds good. And kind of dirty.

"Date with 68." I like this, even though teams would technically have a date with 67 teams. It rhymes, it's catchy, and you can still use it when the Tournament expands to 128 teams.

"Cashed in." There's lots of money to be made by an NCAA appearance. And for USC's basketball program, this phrase is especially appropriate.

"Stamped their name on the bracket." Kind of long, but it's clear, active, and more up-to-date.

"Earned a slash." This can be used for teams that will be forced to go through one of the play-in games. Liberty, with their 20 losses, definitely earned a slash.

These are the humble suggestions of one sports fan who likes to write, and who hates hearing the same stupid phrases over and over again. I'm sure the truly great sportswriters out there, if there are any, can come up with something better. If only they tried to do so.

Goodbye Syracuse

Not since the 2004 Democratic National Convention have I been happier to see a rabble of out-of-towners depart the City of Boston. I am so happy that Syracuse and their fans have been sent packing, both out of Boston and out of the NCAA Tournament.

I haven't liked Syracuse for nearly a decade now. I went to school in Central NY State, embedded among annoying SU fans that thought their 22-10 basketball team was great, and their 4-8 football team would compete for a BCS bowl. And the same Syracuse fans who cursed Boston College for jumping to the ACC now gloat about joining the ACC, and leaving the likes of Georgetown and UConn to fend for themselves.

What's worse is that these delusional orange-bleeding morons wind up working for ESPN. They used to just overrate The Orange in their coverage of the team. Now they cover up the skeletons in Syracuse's closet.

So yes, I'm thrilled that Boston is rid of the Syracuse program and it's clingers-on. I'm giddy that SU is out of the tournament. Jim Boeheim runs a dirty program that doesn't report drug violations. What a great guy to be a mentor to young men as they prepare to enter the real world. And in his spare time, he insults victims of sexual abuse. Yet he remains uncriticized and untouched by the Cuse grads that run ESPN and the rest of the sports media.

Goodbye, Cuse.

Obama's Final Four

President Barack Obama unveiled his NCAA Final Four picks: Kentucky, Ohio State, Missouri, and North Carolina. He selected UNC to win the Championship.

Obviously Kentucky is a standard pick to go deep. #1 team in the country, #1 overall seed. They do have Duke in their bracket. But the President is politically savvy enough to know that most people hate Duke. Obama did pick the Blue Devils last year. Then again, he didn't have to run for President last year. More voters hate Duke than like Duke.

Obama might have picked Ohio State because of Fab Melo's ineligibility hurting Syracuse. Or because Ohio has 20 electoral votes and is perhaps the most important swing state in the election. No Republican has ever been elected President without winning Ohio. In other words, Obama winning Ohio blocks the Republican road to the White House

The Missouri pick reflects one of the "sexy" picks to win the tournament. Mizzou's won 30 games and have a good shot to beat Michigan State in their region. Obama lost Missouri by 0.14% in November of 2008. 3,903 votes. The Mizzou Arena holds 15,061 fans. If Obama gets some Tiger fans to switch sides, he could win Missouri in 2012.

North Carolina is a good basketball pick. Obama probably wants to avoid Kansas, too, as he's picked the Jayhawks before and they've been disappointing in tournament play. This is also a good political pick. Obama won North Carolina in 2008, by 0.32%. His margin of victory was 14,177 votes in the usually Republican state. North Carolina will probably return to the GOP column in 2012, but with Obama picking the Tar Heels to win it all, perhaps the Republicans won't be able to cover the spread.

THE DOWNSIDE OF VCU'S RUN

Even if they helped ruin your bracket, you have to be pleased to see teams like Butler and VCU make it to the Final Four. But now the proponents of expanding the field have some ammunition. And I'm concerned that we'll see even more expansion in the 2012 tournament.

The problem is, for every VCU, there will be ten UABs. Remember that 70-52 UAB/Clemson play-in game? It was kind of sad to watch. And Clemson's not even that good. Do we want to see more games like this? A mediocre team clobbering a sub-mediocre team?

Do you want to see Colorado State battle St. Mary's? Or how about Harvard vs. McNeese State? Actually, I wouldn't mind these small conference teams getting in, but imagine an NCAA tournament that gave the ACC 8 berths? The opening rounds would just be too filled with bad teams playing bad basketball.

Isn't that what the NIT is for?

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

BOSTON COULD SEND 3 TEAMS TO TOURNAMENT

It's the one month of the year that I actually follow basketball and can't get enough of it. And the city of Boston might send three representatives to the big tournament. BU, Harvard, and BC all have very good chances of earning bids.

BU will host Stony Brook Saturday afternoon at Agganis Arena to determine the America East Championship. The Terriers beat Stony Brook twice this season, boast a 12-4 conference record, have won 10 straight, and haven't lost at home since December. BU haven't made the NCAA tournament since 2002.

Harvard (yes they play in Boston, their court is in Brighton) is in one of the more interesting situations in college basketball. The Ivy League doesn't hold a tournament, and sends its regular season champ to the NCAAs. The Crimson beat 1st place Princeton 79-67 over the weekend. Princeton plays Penn tonight. If Princeton loses, then Harvard wins the Ivy League outright. If Princeton wins, then they and Harvard will meet in a playoff game at a neutral site (Yale). That game would be played on Saturday. Harvard hasn't been in the NCAA tournament since 1946. That tournament featured a field of 8 teams, including NYU and Oklahoma A&M.

By the way, Harvard beat both BU and BC this season.

BC have been popping in and out of the at-large bubble all season. They finished 5th in a lackluster ACC, don't have an overly impressive resume, and if a few upsets occur in the mid-major tournaments, BC might have to do work in the ACC Tournament.

The good news is that BC faces Wake Forest in the opening round of the ACC tourney. They trounced Wake a few days ago, 84-68. But they need to win this game. With losses against Harvard, Yale and URI already marring their schedule, they can't afford to add 8-23 Wake Forest to that list.

After Wake, the Eagles would face Clemson, who they lost to in February. Although it's easier to beat Clemson than it is to beat UNC or Duke. With both teams on the bubble, BC vs. Clemson might essentially be a play-in game into the NCAA tournament. BC last appeared in the NCAAs in 2009.

So come Selection Sunday, there may be three Boston representatives in the 68 team field. Or none.

PS: Can we retire the phrase "punch their ticket?" It's just so antiquated, overused, and stupid.

DOES BC BELONG IN THE TOURNAMENT?

Yes. No. Maybe. Most people have them on the bubble, with their blowout win over Virginia Tech temporarily putting them in. But this post isn't about BC, or whether or not they should be in the tournament. To be honest, I don't follow college basketball closely enough to have an informed opinion on that.

This post is about the NCAA Tournament in general, and why it shouldn't expand. BC will help me demonstrate that point. Because they're not very good.

The Eagles occupy the middle of a very top-heavy and shallow ACC. Only 2 ACC teams are ranked. BC's 8-7 conference record is loaded with wins against Virginia and NC State. They did beat Virginia Tech twice, although they also lost to 9th place Miami. Twice.

Before that, they lost to Harvard and Yale. Thankfully, they didn't have to face Princeton, the top Ivy team. Princeton, by the way, only has one loss against Ivy League opponents, compared to BC's two.

BC might not even be the 2nd best team in New England (UConn being the best). They lost to URI, and they barely beat UMass and Providence. Apart from an early season, neutral site win over Texas A&M, they haven't beaten anyone impressive in or out of their conference.

They've got some good players, but no depth. And those good players all go through lengthy cold streaks. They're not awful. They're not great. If they make the tournament, it's not a joke. It's also not an injustice if they don't make it.

Finally, here's my point. If the tournament were expanded to 96 teams, BC would be a lock. They along with a few dozen other painfully mediocre teams. The field would be overly saturated by 10th place teams with .500 conference records.

There are plenty of good arguments to keep the NCAA field close to 64 teams. To me, though, this is the most alarming and convincing. This year, BC has been the quintessential bubble team. What would the bubble teams be like with 96 slots to fill? Wisconsin-Milwaukee? Long Beach State? Maybe NC State with their 15-14 overall and 5-10 conference records. The Wolfpack are 104th in RPI, and 54th strength of schedule. Why not them in the 96 team field?

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

WHY MESS WITH A PERFECT THING? PLEASE DON'T EXPAND THE NCAA TOURNAMENT

Would you want a plastic surgeon's knife mutilating Angelina Jolie's lips, Scarlett Johansson's chest, or Natalie Portman's eyes? Would you want Tom Brady to change his throwing mechanics, maybe go back in time and tell Ted Williams to try hitting right-handed?

The NCAA Tournament is as close to perfection as any sports contest can be. It's 65 teams, playing all over the country, non-stop, for a few weekends in March. EVERYONE in the country obediently watches. It's thrilling, compelling. You cannot NOT watch it.

Yet, the NCAA wants to ruin its own perfect baby. Why is it that they want to expand the field of the already massive basketball tournament (65 of the 347 teams in Division-I or 18.7% of all teams make the tournament), yet keep the college football championship field to 2 teams (2 of 120, or 1.7%)?

Adding 3 more play-in games wouldn't be a bad idea. The 16th seed teams are really awful, and this could raise the average quality of the field. But let's keep the changes small and gradual. Baby steps.



Who complains about the NCAA tourney? Who is out there screaming "We need more teams!" "96 or bust!" Why is it that millions bitch about the BCS and nothing happens. Then nobody says a bad thing about the basketball tournament, and the NCAA wants to tinker and toy with it.

And isn't the money enough for the NCAA and all the conferences? CBS pays $545 million to broadcast these games. Every year. Is that not enough this day and age?



And who's going to watch these extra games? An expanded field of 96 would dump most of the small conference champions together, eliminating half of them before the REAL tournament started. It would essentially create a boring, pre-tournament, that nobody really watched. Nobody wants to see IUPUI play Weber State. They want to see IUPUI challenge Georgetown. David vs. Goliath was interesting because Goliath was there.

I love the NCAA tournament. 80% of the college basketball that I watch in a season is in March.

Don't fuck with it.