Sweet 16 NCAA Tournament In-Games Thread

[Walter]

Thursday:

Pitt-Xavier
Villanova-Duke
Memphis-Missouri
Connecticut-Purdue

Friday:

UNC-Gonzaga
Oklahoma-Syracuse
Kansas-Michigan State
Louisville-Arizona

[Vbsiena]

Yawn. No cinderella's left. Too many favorites winning. Snooze-fest.

[Dusty]

Yawn. No cinderella's left. Too many favorites winning. Snooze-fest.

Arizona? They might pull it off.

[studbucket]

I'm excited, some good games on the slate.

My computer algorithm-generated bracket is still doing well. I predicted the national championship game last year with it, hopefully I can do it again: http://acm1.acm.uiowa.edu/ncaa/images_2009/john_kimbell.png

[IrishX (aka bornbear)]

Gonna be tough for the 'Cuse to take on the "best" player in the country but I think they have a good chance this year.

[PuppyPuncher]

I won't be watching because I have to go for an interview at a college. Wish me luck. Go Xavier, Louisville, Gonzaga and some other team.

[Walter]

Yawn. No cinderella's left. Too many favorites winning. Snooze-fest.

That's what the dumb NCAA gets for not putting Saint Mary's and Creighton in the tournament.

[ryanwest]

no love for sdsu? they beat ur beloved st. mary's last night.

i think sdsu, stmarys, davidson would have been fun.

[Matt McGuire]

That's what the dumb NCAA gets for not putting Saint Mary's and Creighton in the tournament.

The tournament isn't about Cinderella's. It is about finding out who the best team in the country is...so unless you think SM or Creighton has a chance to win it...

[studbucket]

The tournament isn't about Cinderella's. It is about finding out who the best team in the country is...so unless you think SM or Creighton has a chance to win it...

I agree, I don't get this prevailing feeling about how it's all about upsets. They definitely add flavor, but the tourney is about the best teams and some good basketball. I'm excited to see some more Thabeet and Griffin.

[Walter]

The tournament isn't about Cinderella's. It is about finding out who the best team in the country is...so unless you think SM or Creighton has a chance to win it...

No. The tournament is about making money (i.e. drawing fans in). A Saint Mary's or SDSU or Creighton would draw more viewers in than an expected Louisville-Arizona blowout.

[Matt McGuire]

Wow dude you are so hypocritical.

You blast the BCS because it is about money.

Then you say the opposite about the NCAA tournament and support making money.

[ryanwest]

Lets just combine all 330 teams into 11 conferences...then Ill go along with your idea Matt.

If you take the 64 best teams, you are not giving any other schools a chance in hell. They should just combine conferences, and let the other schools stand a chance recruiting wise.

BC your way...no small school should even have a program. Would Siena, Davidson, and George Mason stand a chance against a school with 10x the students....no chance.

Walter is right...its a moneymaking process.

[ryanwest]

I think there are better ways to make money...including your playoff system of the BCS....I dont think they make the money they could.

[Matt McGuire]

It is a moneymaking process in the BCS too but you guys hate it.

Siena would have been a top 64 team because weren't they a 9 seed, which puts them in the top 36?

I think the tournament is too big...that is my opinion and I am in the minority, but I don't care. A 9+ seed will never win the tournament and it is unfair imo to have the tournament top seeds who actually have a chance of winning the tournament play an extra game.

[Matt McGuire]

I think there are better ways to make money...including your playoff system of the BCS....I dont think they make the money they could.

If they could make more money then they would do it, obviously.

[ryanwest]

It is a moneymaking process in the BCS too but you guys hate it.

Siena would have been a top 64 team because weren't they a 9 seed, which puts them in the top 36?

I think the tournament is too big...that is my opinion and I am in the minority, but I don't care. A 9+ seed will never win the tournament and it is unfair imo to have the tournament top seeds who actually have a chance of winning the tournament play an extra game.

There is no greater 3 week period in sports.. If the BCS went to a playoff...it would challenge it for supremacy.

Im just saying that college basketball has many more teams than football and is less team oriented (making it easier to win), I dont think itd be worth more than the top 150 schools to have a program in DI.

Siena was a 9 bc of the S curve. The committee has to make each region as balanced as possible. But this year they tried to keep teams close to home due to george bush's greatly thought economic policies(sarcasm).

[Matt McGuire]

Siena's RPI was 18th. What are you talking about they had a very good team.

Take the top 32 teams in the country. Play it out, tournament is shorter which is more fair in my opinion.

Look, I love the 64 team tournament, not gonna lie...but it isn't about what I love it is what is best to determine the champion.

[ryanwest]

Siena's RPI was 18th. What are you talking about they had a very good team.

Take the top 32 teams in the country. Play it out, tournament is shorter which is more fair in my opinion.

Look, I love the 64 team tournament, not gonna lie...but it isn't about what I love it is what is best to determine the champion.

Yes, but your theory of seeds 9 and higher hasnt proved you wrong yet...so why change it? Best teams are still winning, winning when they need to. Leave it alone.

It doesnt matter if u take it down to 32...people are going to complain who should have gotten in...who was 31, 32, and 33. Shrinking it only would make debates longer.

Its not like football where 1 team went undefeated and didnt win the championship.

[Matt McGuire]

I know people will always complain about who didn't get in...that's not my point.

I feel like those 1-8 seeds work harder than they have to in the tournament playing worthless first round games against teams who have a 0% chance of winning the tournament.

[tbod10]

I mean, really, only the top 4 seeds in each region generally have a realistic shot of winning it in most years. This year, you could argue that no team with a worse seed than a #3 had a chance.

To me, the reason I love the field of 64 is this: It really does help the best and deepest TEAM win the game most of the time. By shortening the tournament you allow a greater possibility of a 1 or 2 man team winning it. The deepest and best team should win.

The 1st 2 round to me are also all about the upsets. I love the upsets in the 1st 2 rounds. Once you get to the Sweet 16, that's when the really really good teams take over. It's the reason that Cinderellas rarely make it past the Sweet 16. That's why I love the tournament so much cause it gives you the best of both worlds. You have schools whose seasons were made by making a run to the Sweet 16, and then you get the elite teams generally playing for the championship.

[Matt McGuire]

A 32 team tournament is pretty big...I mean come on.

[studbucket]

A 32 team tournament is pretty big...I mean come on.

Sure, it's big for some leagues, but it's only 10% of College BB and doesn't even cover all of the conferences.

I personally think the current NCAA tourney is perfect, and I wouldn't change a thing.

[Matt McGuire]

^^^
An 8 team CFB playoff would be what, 7% of CFB? So?

So you think the remaining 90% of college BB actually has a chance of winning the tournament? seriously?

[studbucket]

^^^
An 8 team CFB playoff would be what, 7% of CFB? So?

Yes, but those other teams still have a postseason in the form of bowl games, so winning your conference or finishing well still 'means something'.



So you think the remaining 90% of college BB actually has a chance of winning the tournament? seriously?

No, I never said that. Is putting words in my mouth your favorite way to debate?

I think that the current structure achieves 2 things that a 32-team (or 128-team for the other extreme) tournament can't achieve. It manages to both:

1) Determine a legitimate national champ
2) Provide a high amount of entertainment

The 32-team tourney can do #1, but it can't even sniff the 64-team field in terms of entertainment. Those first 4 days of basketball surpass anything else the sports world has to offer. By dropping to 32 teams, you don't just drop 32 teams, you drop 16 games. That's going from 64 total games (counting the play-in) to only 48. That's a substantial drop.

Determining a national champ is priority #1. The 64-team tourney does that just fine. So why decrease the entertainment value by dropping it to 32?

[Matt McGuire]

I am sorry but a 32 team tournament is still VERY entertaining.

The goal of a tournament isn't entertainment value.
The goal of a tournament is to determine the best and most fair way to determine a champion. Since the 9-16 seeds have no chance of winning the tournament, they shouldn't be included in my opinion.

Plus I think in both football and basketball I dislike conference championships.

[studbucket]

I am sorry but a 32 team tournament is still VERY entertaining.

The goal of a tournament isn't entertainment value.
The goal of a tournament is to determine the best and most fair way to determine a champion. Since the 9-16 seeds have no chance of winning the tournament, they shouldn't be included in my opinion.

Plus I think in both football and basketball I dislike conference championships.

If a 32-team tourney is 'VERY' entertaining, then a 64 team tourney must be 'EXTRAORDINARILY' entertaining.

You are correct about the goals of a tournament. However, we aren't talking about a tournament. This isn't my AAU baseball tourney or the Nevada Boys State BB Tourney. This is the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. CBS pays huge money for the rights to the tourney every year, and that's just the start of it.

Colleges like Valparaiso and Pepperdine get a chance to shine in these tourneys, as they provide great publicity for colleges you have never heard of. The also greatly increase the revenue brought in by colleges from licensed apparel. It's a huge money-maker for college sports, and thus, entertainment is of utmost importance.

Regardless of whether or not you like having conference champions, it happens at every level of competition, and these teams would not be in their conferences if they couldn't be crowned champion and have it mean something.

[Matt McGuire]

I don't think it matters how entertaining it is...is this the best way to determine a champion?

I don't think so.

You guys are so hypocritical...you hate the BCS because they are money hungry, but you love the NCAA because they are money hungry.

This is not consistent logic. If you are going to hate the BCS for being money hungry, do the same for the NCAA BB.

[Walter]

Wow dude you are so hypocritical.

You blast the BCS because it is about money.

Then you say the opposite about the NCAA tournament and support making money.

Hypocritical? More like realistic. Both are about making money, but at least college basketball has a legit champion. College football does not, and that's why I bash them.

Every single sports league is about making money.


I am sorry but a 32 team tournament is still VERY entertaining.

The goal of a tournament isn't entertainment value.
The goal of a tournament is to determine the best and most fair way to determine a champion. Since the 9-16 seeds have no chance of winning the tournament, they shouldn't be included in my opinion.


Wrong. Everyone loves that first Thursday/Friday where the bottom seeds have a shot at knocking off the top seeds. Americans love to root for underdogs.

The goal of the tournament is to make money, which simply coincides with finding a champion. There is no way the NCAA will make as much money with 32 teams.

Now, if the NCAA figured out a way to make even more money by having college basketball teams play bowl games, they would do it. Fortunately, the fans aren't dumb enough to watch meaningless games in college basketball.

However, that's not the case in college football, where the presidents are weary of relinquishing power.

While everything is about greediness, college football actually screws over the fans, while college basketball serves the fans' interests.

[Matt McGuire]

Walter, then why draw the line at 64? Why not do 128? Wouldn't that make even more money and provide for more upsets?

Better yet, lets just do a 5,000 team tournament with high schools included? Hell why stop there? Let's have a 20,000 mega tournament with all NBA, NCAA, High School, AAU, and middle school basketball teams?

That way the fans get what they want!

[studbucket]

I don't think it matters how entertaining it is...is this the best way to determine a champion?

I don't think so.

You guys are so hypocritical...you hate the BCS because they are money hungry, but you love the NCAA because they are money hungry.

This is not consistent logic. If you are going to hate the BCS for being money hungry, do the same for the NCAA BB.

You really need to start reading our arguments instead of just assuming what we mean is the opposite of what you think. Don't speak of logic if you don't take the time to use it yourself.

Yes, it's the best way to determine a champion. It's a tournament. Realistically, only 5-10 teams have a shot at winning the tournament. Adding any more teams to the tourney does not affect that, because the final 4 will almost invariably be comprised of those best 5-10. By adding more teams, you are just adding more games and making it more fun.

I never said I liked the tourney because they are money hungry, I simply said that it makes sense for the colleges. Also, we don't have the BCS because it is money hungry, we hate it because it doesn't work. If they use a playoff system AND they are money hungry, I'm happy, because we have a real champion.

[studbucket]

Walter, then why draw the line at 64? Why not do 128? Wouldn't that make even more money and provide for more upsets?

Diminishing returns. A field of 64 is the optimal # to keep people interested while still providing a large # of teams. The quality (theoretically) drops too much between 65-128 to keep everyone interested.

It's like micro-economics, draw the curve, live on the margin, and find the most efficient/optimal # of teams. I think most would agree that 64 is a pretty good number.

EDIT:Update, you just added this:


Better yet, lets just do a 5,000 team tournament with high schools included? Hell why stop there? Let's have a 20,000 mega tournament with all NBA, NCAA, High School, AAU, and middle school basketball teams?

That way the fans get what they want!

You're going crazy and using hyperbole.

[Matt McGuire]

I just don't think it is fair to the teams that actually have a chance of winning the tournament that they play worthless first round games or get bounced by those 14 or 13 seeds that have NO CHANCE of winning the dance.

[studbucket]

I just don't think it is fair to the teams that actually have a chance of winning the tournament that they play worthless first round games or get bounced by those 14 or 13 seeds that have NO CHANCE of winning the dance.

Fair?

To quote Herm: "You play to win the game."

If it's not fair that on a neutral court a high-seeded giant can't beat a mid-major, then maybe they didn't have the mental toughness or talent to win it all anyway.

[Walter]

Walter, then why draw the line at 64? Why not do 128? Wouldn't that make even more money and provide for more upsets?

Better yet, lets just do a 5,000 team tournament with high schools included? Hell why stop there? Let's have a 20,000 mega tournament with all NBA, NCAA, High School, AAU, and middle school basketball teams?

That way the fans get what they want!

But that's not what the fans want. 128 teams would mean way too many brackets for Joe Six-Pack and Co-Worker Jane to fill out. Less brackets filled out means less TV ratings.

[Matt McGuire]

Sometimes what the fans want isn't always the best. Sometimes it is.

I don't think these 9-16 seeds should be participating in a tournament they have no chance of winning.

[studbucket]

Sometimes what the fans want isn't always the best. Sometimes it is.

I agree with that.

But if the fans want it, the coaches want it, the schools want it, the networks want it, and the conferences want it?

Does that make it OK? There seems to be a pretty big majority in CBB about what the right thing to do is.

[Matt McGuire]

I know I am really going against the grain here, but I do it because I personally believe it is the right thing to do.

I know it will never change, just want you guys to see my side of the equation.

[studbucket]

I know I am really going against the grain here, but I do it because I personally believe it is the right thing to do.

I know it will never change, just want you guys to see my side of the equation.

I understand and respect that, I just completely disagree.

I have against-the-grain opinions as well.


I think MLB should contract 2-4 teams and drop the # of games from 162 to 120.
I think the NHL should completely dump all of the rosters, get rid of 10-14 teams, and ensure that all of those hockey teams are in a snowy climate. Make the conferences US and Canada instead of East and West.
NBA should cut the number of games down to 60 and only allow 6 teams per conference in the playoffs.


I know people who hate my contraction idea, I still believe it's correct.

[Walter]

Sometimes what the fans want isn't always the best. Sometimes it is.

I don't think these 9-16 seeds should be participating in a tournament they have no chance of winning.

Yeah but sports, like any business, is all about making money and maximizing profit. While what the fans want may not be the best thing in terms of the purity or validity of the game, it's ultimately what keeps this whole thing going.

[Walter]

I understand and respect that, I just completely disagree.

I have against-the-grain opinions as well.

I think MLB should contract 2-4 teams and drop the # of games from 162 to 120.
I think the NHL should completely dump all of the rosters, get rid of 10-14 teams, and ensure that all of those hockey teams are in a snowy climate. Make the conferences US and Canada instead of East and West.
NBA should cut the number of games down to 60 and only allow 6 teams per conference in the playoffs.
I know people who hate my contraction idea, I still believe it's correct.

I would love those, especially the NHL one. There is no reason there should be a hockey team in Atlanta, Miami, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Nashville, etc. Put teams back in Quebec, Winnipeg, Hartford, Milwaukee, etc.

[Matt McGuire]

I understand and respect that, I just completely disagree.

I have against-the-grain opinions as well.


I think MLB should contract 2-4 teams and drop the # of games from 162 to 120.
I think the NHL should completely dump all of the rosters, get rid of 10-14 teams, and ensure that all of those hockey teams are in a snowy climate. Make the conferences US and Canada instead of East and West.
NBA should cut the number of games down to 60 and only allow 6 teams per conference in the playoffs.


I know people who hate my contraction idea, I still believe it's correct.

I completely agree with you with all of these ideas. Sports getting too big is a bad thing...which is my unpopular stance with the NCAA tournament.

Would I like a 32 team tournament more? No.
Is it a more fair way to determine a champion? I think so.

[tbod10]

Fair?

To quote Herm: "You play to win the game."

If it's not fair that on a neutral court a high-seeded giant can't beat a mid-major, then maybe they didn't have the mental toughness or talent to win it all anyway.

Completely agree. If you can't beat a lower seed in the 1st round, then you just prove that you had no chance to win the tourney.

The other thing about the tournament that it does for these smaller schools that aren't annual powerhouses is that 1 good tournament run can put them on the map. I know it didn't do a ton for George Mason a few years back, but teams like Siena and Western Kentucky are starting to build programs that if they keep up their trend can turn them into legit teams down the road. If you were to shrink it down to 32 teams, that eliminates the TV exposure that the smaller schools would get and you would have the same teams competing year after year. The recruiting advantage that the tournament gives the lesser known teams is tremendous.

[PuppyPuncher]

I would love those, especially the NHL one. There is no reason there should be a hockey team in Atlanta, Miami, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Nashville, etc. Put teams back in Quebec, Winnipeg, Hartford, Milwaukee, etc.

The prairies get disrespected once again. Atlanta and Nashville are pretty good (I think), so it would suck to be like, "Nice season. Now get the **** out of here."

[bulldog0123]

For the NCAA tournament I am creating a formula to predict the winners

[Matt McGuire]

Completely agree. If you can't beat a lower seed in the 1st round, then you just prove that you had no chance to win the tourney.

The other thing about the tournament that it does for these smaller schools that aren't annual powerhouses is that 1 good tournament run can put them on the map. I know it didn't do a ton for George Mason a few years back, but teams like Siena and Western Kentucky are starting to build programs that if they keep up their trend can turn them into legit teams down the road. If you were to shrink it down to 32 teams, that eliminates the TV exposure that the smaller schools would get and you would have the same teams competing year after year. The recruiting advantage that the tournament gives the lesser known teams is tremendous.

I disagree. Top 32 in the tourney. Next 32 with all automatic bids (if they don't make it into the Big Dance) into the NIT.

Don't put up a front....Mason, Siena, WKU, none of these teams have a chance of winning the tournament.

[tbod10]

I disagree. Top 32 in the tourney. Next 32 with all automatic bids (if they don't make it into the Big Dance) into the NIT.

Don't put up a front....Mason, Siena, WKU, none of these teams have a chance of winning the tournament.

I'm not fronting and saying that any of those teams have a chance of winning the tourney this year. I'm saying that down the road this type of exposure could lead to them becoming a legit program.

Gonzaga is probably 3-5 years away from becoming a legit title contender if they continue on the path they're on right now. All of that was possible because of a few deep runs in the tourney as cinderella teams. Now some of these teams are much further down the road, but teams like Siena and WKU if they keep qualifying for the tournament and going to the Sweet 16 or contending to every year, that will help them in recruiting.

Teams like UConn, Louisville, Memphis all used to be nobody's. They've been built into title contenders. Why can't other teams be like that?

[Matt McGuire]

Louisville has been a prestigious program for a pretty long time...you don't remember the Denny Crum teams in the 80's.

[tbod10]

Wow, that's awful on my part. I pulled a McShay. I was born in the 80's, and that's a terrible job of not doing my research before spouting something off.

My original point stands though, haha.

[titan_qb_3]

I'm not fronting and saying that any of those teams have a chance of winning the tourney this year. I'm saying that down the road this type of exposure could lead to them becoming a legit program.

Gonzaga is probably 3-5 years away from becoming a legit title contender if they continue on the path they're on right now. All of that was possible because of a few deep runs in the tourney as cinderella teams. Now some of these teams are much further down the road, but teams like Siena and WKU if they keep qualifying for the tournament and going to the Sweet 16 or contending to every year, that will help them in recruiting.

Teams like UConn, Louisville, Memphis all used to be nobody's. They've been built into title contenders. Why can't other teams be like that?

I get your point though. They haven't been powers forever like Kentucky and KU. Their runs in the tourney helped transform them into what they are now. Although Louisville and Memphis were great during the 80's

[PuppyPuncher]

I like this thread because it's like:

Walter: But we want to have fun
Matt: I'm sorry but fun is outlawed.

[Walter]

Let's go X-Men!!! Looking good up 6, still early though

[Matt McGuire]

Derrick Brown is a beast plus he wears the best # (5)

[Walter]

LeVance Fields might be the fattest PG of all time

[Matt McGuire]

Not fatter than Khalid El-Amin

[Walter]

Great half by Xavier. X-Men up 8

[schmidty]

The big man has arrived...lets go NOVA!!!

[schmidty]

X-MEN looking real TOUGH!!...They're giving it to them!

[Matt McGuire]

Jay Bilas is awesome.

[PuppyPuncher]

Is Matt still dominating our bracket? I was disgusted with my performance in the last round and didn't want to check.

[bulldog0123]

matt: how many of your sweet 16 are in?

[EL Guapo]

For the NCAA tournament I am creating a formula to predict the winners


I can't be the only one looking forward to this

[EL Guapo]

COME ON PIT. ****ing Pennsylvania

[Walter]

Ah man, Xavier almost went up by 10

[Walter]

Ugh all the bounces going Pitt's way

[EL Guapo]

Pit is still getting the bounces

[Walter]

Yeah it's like, can Xavier's shots go in after hitting every spot on the rim?

[EL Guapo]

I have Pit winning the whole thing so I'll take it

[Walter]

This is ****ing ridiculous... so many shots in and out

[PuppyPuncher]

Xavier needs to do the Helen Keller.

[Walter]

Xavier gets a call. Should have been a shot clock violation

[EL Guapo]

Spaz

[Walter]

Going down to the wire. Hopefully Xavier can box out and make some close shots for a change

[studbucket]

Xavier needs to do the Helen Keller.

And talk with their hips?

[Walter]

Noooooooooooooo

[EL Guapo]

What a shot

[Walter]

Are you ****ing kidding me?

[schmidty]

This game is amazing!!!

[EL Guapo]

That was close. I was almost done

[schmidty]

wow, Pitt's 1st trip to the elite...who the hell would have imagined?

[Walter]

Ugh, this Pitt team sucks so bad

[Walter]

Villanova killed Pitt in the regular season, so hopefully the Wildcats beat Duke

[EL Guapo]

Yeah Pit sucks

[EL Guapo]

Lets go Nova

[schmidty]

True, True, but the Wildcats have a very tough matchup in a few minutes. Duke is certainly not going to be easy to get past, even though they are younger.

[schmidty]

Guys, I wouldnt say Pitt sucks even though they got manhandled by Nova in the reg season. Pitt is in the Elite 8, so they now get their respect for a little.

Give it to them for now.

[HtownTexan80]

Lets go Duke 2-2 so far in elite eight picks

[EL Guapo]

I don't really know anything about them. I hardly watch during the regular season. I just hope they keep winning

[schmidty]

Duke's going down Texas boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HtownTexan80]

Ya feeling lucky, punk?

[schmidty]

Punk?? Somebody tell this chump who I am.

Your dreams get crushed tonight even if you got the heart of a champion!

[PuppyPuncher]

Man would it suck if Mizzou were the national champions?

[Vbsiena]

Ugh its gonna be another all top seed final four isn't it?

[schmidty]

Ugh its gonna be another all top seed final four isn't it?

Nova's going to the final 4 babbbby (Dick Vitale)

Trust me on this!

[schmidty]

Sallie with some crazy hustel!

[studbucket]

Ugh its gonna be another all top seed final four isn't it?

Kansas is my dark horse.

[schmidty]

Lets go Nova, get in the ****in game!!

[schmidty]

Thats what I'm talking abt!!!

[schmidty]

Scottie's feeling it....Actually looks like the whole Nova team is feeling it...they need to hot those 15 footers and the game will be theirs for the taking.

[Walter]

What is up with Memphis?

[studbucket]

What is up with Memphis?

Mizzou is just outhustling and outsmarting them. The fast-paced game is what they are good at.

I'm lovin' it because I have this in my bracket.

[Matt McGuire]

WOW what a shot!

[Dusty]

Fmylife. Gay Gay Gay gay gay gay gay gay gay. How the F did he make that shot I mean wtf... Well Mizzu wins, my bracket is shot.

[Walter]

Amazing Villanova defense

[schmidty]

**** memphis, nova's making a case to win this game!

[Walter]

How the hell was that an offensive foul?

[schmidty]

true this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[studbucket]

Mizzou is rollin'

[EL Guapo]

Whoopin their ass

[Walter]

Duke hasn't had an open shot in a long time

[Coherent]

How is everyone's brackets looking?

So far the only mishap in mine was Wake losing to Cleveland State, but that was everyone's. I got Mizzou in the finals so hopefully they can beat Uconn next round.

[studbucket]

I had Duke in the Elite 8, but other than that it's doing just fine. I need Kansas and UNC to win tonight, since I have both in the final four.

[ryanwest]

Tonight's slate of games I need: UNC, Louisville, Syracuse, and Mich State.

I looked at most of the brackets...it seems like that OU/Syracuse and MichSt/KU game is going to decide a lot of people's outcome.

The first weekend is the most fun to watch, but the second decides if you have a chance to win or not.

[MockDraftXpert]

Gus Johnson!!!

[IrishX (aka bornbear)]

Syracuse!!!

[Walter]

According to Clark Kellogg, 250 pounds of muscle is heavier than 250 pounds of... non-muscle.

[Walter]

Flynn is grimacing in pain. Not good for Cuse.

[Walter]

Wow, Oklahoma up by 20

[Dusty]

I had Memphis winning so I might as well not even try any more.

[Walter]

This is sad to watch Flynn limping around like this

[Vbsiena]

Wow way to show up Arizona. Fail.

I hope Louisville dismantles everyone on the way to the Championship.

[IrishX (aka bornbear)]

Well Syracuse got their butts kicked. They really shot themselves in the foot. Flynn getting hurt sure didn't help things. Next year I guess.

[tbod10]

CBS ran a tidbit on the TV during the Louisville game about Rick Pitino that read something like this....

Rick Pitino in Regional Semifinal game (Sweet 16): 8-0
Avg. margin of victory: 21 points


REALLY wish I had known this before the game started, haha. Pretty much if Pitino makes it to a Sweet 16 game, bet the house on him.



As for today, let's go Missouri and Nova!