12 over 5 is a strong possibility in any bracket (I'm saying G-Dub over Tech but it's a tough call).

Final: UNC over Louisville (Illinois, Duke are other Final Four squads)
Utah State in the sweet 16

Other than that, my bracket is pretty boring after the first round.

Yeah, I agree my Jayhawks were overrated this season. Most every year they are. It's nothing new. Sure, it's a testament KU always has deep squads steeping with talent, but the boys never seem to win the BIG late-season games. They're tough to root for each season, but it's comforting to know they'll always contend for the title.

I think you're dead wrong about Okie State. I don't care for the Cowboys, but these guys are good. Watch out for JamesOn in the tourney.

I never follow Pac-10 basketball. I sincerely hope Washington is the first #1 seed to fall to a #16. Too many better teams deserved the top seed - Louisville, Wake, Kentucky, or at least a team that actually won their conference.

Team getting least respect this year Michigan State. Like 22-6=5 Seed. Big Ten in general being looked down on.

I'm happy that we are in, but Charlotte scares me. And even if we do advance, then we have to play UConn. Hopefully we can get healthy by this coming Friday.

Fudge, you'll be pleased to know State's becoming one of my post-season favs since watching their performance at the ACC tourney. I hope NCSU rack up two or three Ws; they'll take UConn if they play the same ball they did vs. a Paul-less Wake. That was purty.

I think MSU's about right (21 teams had a better winning percentage; 12 of those with stronger schedules), but I will agree that every other Big Ten team in the tourney besides Illinois could have been seeded two slots higher.

You can't spell Terrapin without NIT. Just a little something fro Spizzle.

Nice. That game against Wake was definitely our most complete game of the year, even if it Wake didn't have Paul. It was a clinic, and we looked damn good. If we can play near that level in the tourney, I think we have a shot to make it to the Sweet 16, which would be nice for once.

Being a Baylor alum, I followed OK St. and JL III the past two years rather closely. And while a staple of a Eddie Sutton has always been defense, this particular team guards no one. Lucas and Curry are the only threats... I almost forgot about Graham until this past weekend because he had totally disappeared all season. Maybe the Big XII tourney and the first two rounds in OKC will jump start them... but they've lost at home a few times this year to teams they should've controlled.

Did you like all the "poor Wake" talk yesterday? If Paul wasn't suspended, they would have received a #1. Paul threw the punch... it's not like he lost a straw grabbing competition.

Actually, they lost once at home to UT. Before this, they held the longest home winning streak in the nation. If Babik and Graham stay hot throughout the tourney, these guys are going to be a lock for the finals.

I actually didn't hear much of that type of talk yesterday, but I'm definitely glad that Wake got bumped down for Paul's dirty play. And if we had anything to do with that by beating them in the ACC Tourney, then I love it even more.

For starters, your first sentence weakens your third sentence significantly. If you never saw Washington play, how can you say they didn't deserve a #1 seed? Maybe you were basing it on the statistics?

Let's look at the numbers:

UW: RPI 3 SOS 9 vs.top25 5-2 wonconf no wonconftourney yes
WF: RPI 6 SOS 14 vs.top25 4-2 wonconf no wonconftourney no
UL: RPI 12 SOS 50 vs.top25 3-1 wonconf yes wonconftourney yes
UK: RPI 10 SOS 55 vs.top25 3-3 wonconf yes wonconftourney no


I'd say the numbers are pretty close, with a slight advantage to UW. Granted, they play in different conferences, but the Pac 10 finished second only to the ACC in conference RPI this year. So, it came down to UW and WF, and it could just as appropriately been given to WF. Like someone said above, they probably didn't want 3 ACC teams with #1 seeds. I'd also argue that UW's resume was just a bit better than Wake's.

We'll see. I'd be surprised if UW won this region---hell, maybe they'll lose to Montana; but I think they have as good a chance as any of those teams.

Man, I feel like Spade Kitty defending his Bears.

This might be the year: if any sixteen seed has a chance to become the Harvard* women's squad of (cannot recall year), then it is Montana, if only because UW is a weak one, and the team's star is a dwarf.

I hope it happens. Every other seed has lost in the first round, at some point; in fact, twelves lose every Got-damned year (even when I have, say, FLA reaching the Final Four (this was two years ago, I think)... hmmph, Billy Donovan, what a pud). A one losing in the first will come to pass.... In fact, didn't Princeton almost do it to Georgetown in '89 or something?

*Defeated one-seed Stanford in the '00 (?) Women's NCAA Tournament.

wait, how did i end up as Pitt again? i mean, i know i don't blab about it much, but i'm an SU fan going back to at least the seikaly/pearl/alexis squads. i even have a photo of a typically stoic wendell alexis and a 9-year old KPH from a summer camp exhibition thing the team did at hamilton college. he was very tall. i am still not.

KPH

I can understand your ire, but not your rationale, Marco. Anyone who lends credence to the RPI system ... is obviously a Washington fan. The RPI is rife with flaws; possbily moreso than the College Bowl System. Last night or the night before last, ESPN2 broke down these flaws and highlighted a few examples. UVM's model stuck in my mind, so I'll use that team to illustrate my answer.
Apparently, a lower-seeded team like Vermont that wins its conference outright and then the Conf. championship, can in fact have an RPI similar to that of Utah, a team that evidently has a stronger schedule. Like the BCS, the RPI rates sched. strength, away vs. home Ws, and of course, losses. This year's RPI has away Ws much, much higher than the past, and even moreso than a BIG win at home. So, a home win versus Kansas would not amount to as much as, say, an away win versus a Fairfield. This is the biggest flaw of the RPI this year - there are other many discrepancies involved, but the above example solidified my doubts.

So, to answer your question, I think UW's schedule was much weaker compared to the teams mentioned. In addition, they didn't even win their friggin' conference tourney. Not worthy in my mind.

And I should've clarified my distaste for the Pac-10 in the first sentence. I don't like Pac-10 sports, period. I think the schools are tip-top academically, and I respect that, but as far as football & basketball go, I wish someone would set fire to them.

Go Bearcats, hahaha...hehehehe...heh...cough cough...ugh.

OK, for your argument's sake, let's throw out the RPI then. You didn't address any of the other stats that favor Washington. I'll give you that WF played an equally difficult schedule to UW, but if you honestly can look at Kentucky and Louisville's schedules and tell me they're more difficult than Washington's, I question your college Bball acumen.

I think WF and UW were neck and neck for that last #1, and UW eeked it out. I don't think Kentucky or Louisville should have been considered for that last spot, though. This isn't to say that I think UW is necessarily better than those two teams, though. But the committee has to have some objective way of seeding the teams, and I think they got it right.

And obviously, I'm a UW fan, but you're an admitted Pac 10 hater, so I guess we're even

Oh, and UW did win their conference tourney.

This should be fun.

do people really still like ncaa hoops???

Which other stats are you referring to? I think winning the season conference title is a greater accomplishment than winning the tourney. Winning the tourney is huge, don't get me wrong, but not so much as winning 10-15 games versus league players. This immediately makes tourney wins moot, which leaves us with the reg. season title dispute. Wake & U-Dub were the only teams (of the four) that did not win their respective conference, right? (This I think we can agree on.) The Pac-10 pales in comparison to the ACC - I would gladly play UA two, three times a year versus a UNC, WF, Duke or Maryland. So, I guess I'm basing this argument on history. And we all know what this leads to ... gayness.

DM, how about a little wager? If your Huskies (#1) win more games than my Jayhawks (#3), I owe you the best new mix of your sad-UW-supportin' life. If KU wins more games, same rules apply. What do you say?

Zags beat them in OKC. Not a true home game, but one you shouldn't lose.

OSU is horrifically inconsistent. They can look just awful one game and stunning the next. They're just a really strange team and I dont quite understand considering the average age of the team is like 37 you'd think they'd have their shit together especially coming off the Final 4 last year. I dunno--maybe it's senior complacency or something. They should thank their lucky stars they got it together for the Big 12 tourney and got a #2 seed. They'll need it.

They're may end up having to beat Gozaga to make the final four and we all know how well they play against the Zags.

Zags would have to beat Wake Forest but anything's possible.

So anyway. You analyst bastards. I usually pick crazy stuff on my bracket. And I just finished it. It's a little safer than some years. But not really.

Final Four:
Illinois
Louisville
Charlotte
Syracuse

Yep, Lousiville & Charlotte.

I've been predicting an all orange final for the last 3 years, so:

Illinois vs. Syracuse
Illini winning.

I have all sorts of craziness going on in my bracket though. Villanova beating NC, Niagra getting to the elite 8. UAB beating Arizona, etc etc.

You're on.

How about we add an avatar/sig bet to the mix as well? The loser has to sport the winner's logo as his avatar for 2 weeks, as well as a signature (written by the winner) attached to his posts. Of course, the sig has to be in (relatively) good taste, and the avatar has to be the college's true logo. How 'bout it?