Ah, I love March Madness. We always have something to cheer about and something to complain about after Selection Sunday. I applaude the selection of Washington for the #1 seed. I feel like Arizona would have been just as deserving if they won the Pac-10 tournament. Both fall into that underrated west coast teams category. I do have a question about everyone's expectations of Washington though. Howcome the Selection Committee felt like Washington was a top four team, yet almost no one predicts them to win it all, make the finals, or even make the final four? I also applaude the selection of Pittsburgh as a #9 seed. That's just where they should be, no matter how much Digger Phelps and company disagree. If you look at their non-conference schedule, you'll see that they didn't play one ranked team and finished that schedule with a loss to Bucknell. They also lost to St. John's and Georgetown during the regular season. The thing that really turned me off of them is their play of late though. These analysts are hypocrites. First they say that how a team finishes and how they play in January-March is very important, and then they say that a team like Pittsburgh who finished 2-4 in their last six games should have gotten a higher seed. The main picks that pissed me off were Connecticut as a #2, Louisville as a #4, Pacific as a #8, and Mississippi State as a #9 over #10 seeded Iowa. Connecticut's best non-conference win was against Indiana, a team that failed to even make the tournament. They also finished that cupcake schedule with a loss to UMass. They finished with a nice record in conference play, but all they really did was beat Syracuse twice, Villanova once, and West Virginia once. I might have understood this #2 seed had they won the Big East tournament, but they even failed to do that. The Louisville snub has pretty much already been complained about by other posters. They were their outright conference's champs, the #6 ranked team in the nation, and finished 18-2 in their last 20 games. Pacific should have at least gotten a four, five, or six seed. They finished 26-3 with one of those losses coming to Kansas and one of those wins coming against a Nevada team that was in and out of the rankings this year. They may not have a very impressive schedule overall, and they've played a bunch of cupcakes, but the same can be said about #2 seeded Connecticut who finished with two less wins and four more losses. Also, Iowa should have been seeded higher than Mississippi State. They are probably the most underrated teams in America. They probably had one of the best, if not <u>the</u> best, non-conference schedule this season. They knocked off Louisville, Texas, Air Force, Northern Iowa, Iowa State, and Texas Tech by thirty points. In fact, their only loss came to #2 North Carolina. I think that their seed ultimately came down to their conference play, which leads me to believe that way too much emphasis is put on conference play. They had some internal problems, but they sorted those out and finished the season by going 5-1 in their last six games, including a stunner over #15 Michigan State.
The question I worry about with Iowa is, can they still be great without Pierce? Obviously, Pierce isn't their whole team, but he was one of their best players. I feel they can be an easy pick for the Elite 8, but it just seems to iffy in my opinion to pick them. They finished great, but can they keep it up. I would have no problem taking them over the likes of Kentucky and Oklahoma, if I was confident in them. Your opinion on them?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting CUSA Fan:</div><div class="quote_post">The question I worry about with Iowa is, can they still be great without Pierce? Obviously, Pierce isn't their whole team, but he was one of their best players. I feel they can be an easy pick for the Elite 8, but it just seems to iffy in my opinion to pick them. They finished great, but can they keep it up. I would have no problem taking them over the likes of Kentucky and Oklahoma, if I was confident in them. Your opinion on them?</div> You're right, they're definitely a great sleeper pick. However, the deepest I have them going in any of my brackets is the Sweet Sixteen, and in most I have them losing to Kentucky in the second round. Basically, they'd be an Elite Eight caliber team had they been given a more generous bracket, but they'll be thrown into the fire right away, playing Cincinnati, Kentucky, and then Oklahoma/Utah. Had they been a #7 seed like I feel they should have, they might have the much easier road of N.C. State, Connecticut, and Kansas/Wisconsin. Where do you see them going? BTW - Losing Pierce hurt them, but they've learned how to play without him. He may have been the most talented player on their team, but Horner was without a doubt their best player. He was the one who made the most of his talents. As far as contributions, Haluska and Brunner might have even contributed more than he did. They're fine now.
Though, I feel Kentucky may be a bit overrated, seeing as how they have not had much stiff competition this season, a team to give them a test(besides Florida who blew them out), I'm have a REAL tough time deciding on if I should take Iowa over Kentucky. Iowa is capable of upsetting teams(ie Louisvile, and Texas at full strength), but it's too tough to call. To be honest, I'm not sure of any teams that can make some upsets after the first round. My sweet 16 picks all involve the 1,2,3,4 seeds in all of the regions, which may seem pretty bad. Iowa has a shot to be a sleeper team, but I very undecided on what to do with them at the moment.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I do have a question about everyone's expectations of Washington though. Howcome the Selection Committee felt like Washington was a top four team, yet almost no one predicts them to win it all, make the finals, or even make the final four?</div> I'm probably the only person on the planet who picked UW to go all the way...and it really is a shame that everyone is underestimating them. It's just another case of people not catching many of their games since if televised at all on the East their games would be on late at night.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">My sweet 16 picks all involve the 1,2,3,4 seeds in all of the regions, which may seem pretty bad. Iowa has a shot to be a sleeper team, but I very undecided on what to do with them at the moment.</div> I've got your solution. Pick Michigan State over Syracuse. I promise you'll sleep easier; I know I do. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Shard:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm probably the only person on the planet who picked UW to go all the way...and it really is a shame that everyone is underestimating them. It's just another case of people not catching many of their games since if televised at all on the East their games would be on late at night.</div> I can't tell you how many of my moron friends exchanged brackets with me today and had Washington either losing to Montana or whoever they play in the second round (I forget their second round matchup). For me, it comes down to Arizona or Washington for that last Final Four spot.
Well picking Montana over Washington is just plain stupid. Obviously, people are frusterated with Washington being named a #1 seed, but to take their anger out on their bracket by having Washington lose to a #16 seed? Well hey, look on the bright side, thats one more person yoy don't have to worry about when doing a bracket pool. By the way, VC, they will be playing Pacific or Pitt in the 2nd round.
