Great. I can always use an excuse to be Mad.

[kellinator]

So technically, March Madness starts today with the play-in game. I have to say, the entire concept of the play-in game offends my sensibilities. It's like after all that bragging about Cinderellas in the tournament and how wonderful it is that East Podunk State gets to go to the ball, even though Duke/North Carolina/Connecticut beats them by 56 in the first round, the selection committee decided automatic bids weren't fair to the bubble teams from the big huge conferences and it was embarrassing to have some no-name school with a losing record win their conference tourney and get in, so they changed the rules so the two worst teams have to have a slugout at the door in order for one of them to get in so Duke can beat them by 56. Seriously. I bet you it's because the big greedy conferences starting whining that they shouldn't have to share with the tiny little conferences for whom just getting to the dance is enough. Stupid wussy big-name bubble schools. You know why you're on the bubble? Because you can't win on the road and you rolled over and let Auburn do you in the butt (no lube) in the first round of the conference tourney. Oh wait, that's Vanderbilt, who let's face it wasn't even a bubble team this year. And without Vandy in it, I can't muster enough interest to give a shit, so instead I'm just going to make fun of the NCAA, because heaven knows they deserve it.

So yeah. Telling two poor unfortunate teams that "you guys suck so much that we're going to change the rules so that only the one of you who survives gladiatorial combat can get in" is just plain adding insult to injury. Just for that, I hope 12-win Oakland wins tonight and then beats the stuffing out of whichever number-one seed they're supposed to get slaughtered by.

Come on. Say it with me. OAKLAND RULES!! OAKLAND RULES!!

Comments

[stevietee.livejournal.com]

The two teams should tie.

Yeah, I know basketball isn't allowed to end in a tie, but they should just get the score to, say, 74 - 74, and then both just go sit on the bench.

Eh, it would never work -- they'd just disqualify both teams.

[raistlinbrown.livejournal.com]

I agree adding the play-in game was dumb. However, I can't have Oakland upsetting North Carolina. Sorry, I'm not with you on this one. :- ) (For that matter, why is the winner of 64-65 playing North Carolina instead of Illinois, the consensus number one? That doesn't make sense to me.)

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Re: Illinois: Me either. I've been wondering about that since Sunday night.

And now that I know it's North Carolina, ariedana is going to gut me...

[raistlinbrown.livejournal.com]

Since they started the 64-65 game, I remember that winner more often than not playing a #1 that wasn't actually number one. In the past, though, those number one seeds were a little more interchangeable. I can't see anyone arguing that Illinois shouldn't be the favorite.

A 16 will beat a 1 in our lifetimes. True or false? I gotta say true. That collective groan accompanying busted brackets across the country that year when it finally happens will be amusing.

[copycatjsh.livejournal.com]

it happened in the NCAA Women's tournament not too long ago, but not in the Men's :)

As for the Men's, I say false.

-jsh

[raistlinbrown.livejournal.com]

That women's 16 seed victory sounds vaguely familiar; I rarely pay attention to that tournament until the Final Four.

When are you planning on dying? My expected remaining lifetime (30 years, give or take a few...120 16 vs. 1 games) is an awful lot of basketball for the upset to never happen. Granted, most of them have been blowouts, but look at these close calls...

1989 Georgetown 50, Princeton 49
1989 Oklahoma 72, East Tennessee State 71
1990 Michigan State 75, Murray State 71 (OT)
1996 Purdue 73, Western Carolina 71

Back in 1991 the "rule" was to never pick against a 1 or 2. Since then (Richmond over Syracuse) the two seeds have gone down several times. Seems inevitable to me that somebody gets shocked.

[copycatjsh.livejournal.com]

When are you planning on dying?

I intend to live forever. So far so good.

I still haven't seen the parity in college basketball to think that a 16 will upset a 1 seed anytime soon. The 15 over 2 is so rare that you can bet the farm and still be ahead all of the time.

Of course, watch Washington lose in the first round now that I've said this.

-jsh

[raistlinbrown.livejournal.com]

And by "several" I mean...four, I think? I don't remember. I know Arizona and South Carolina went down as two seeds, and I think there was at least one other instance.

[blackacre.livejournal.com]

Last year I went to this stupid party with Maxwell Nerds - the most socially inept people on earth. (I.R. students from SU's Maxwell School tend to be a little...uhh...like the typical guy you'd find at a Star Trek convention. Not that I have anything against that, just allowing you to get a mental picture).

This guy Paul comes up as we were watching one of the first round games and says:

"I bet on Liberty, is that good?"

At which point my Ex politely told him that no 16 seed had ever beaten a 1 seed. Ever.

His response?

He screamed like a girl and dropped his beer.

[ariedana.livejournal.com]

Um, no you don't. I'll be in a permanently bad mood if that happens. Or possibly die of alcohol poisoning by Saturday morning.

[copycatjsh.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the Play In Game. Worthless.

And I thought you got used to losing with Vanderbilt? *ducks*

I'm just trying to figure out how Louisville is a #4 seed and GT is a #5 seed in the same bracket.

Oh, and I want the NCAA to do something about officials. The ACC versions suck ass unless your UNC/Duke/WF. I'm just going to laugh my ass off when WF loses early.

-jsh