tourney update: and then there were 16

Should have entered some betting pools this year. After two rounds I'm in a four-way tie for first out of 16 entries in the only pool I'm in. Trouble is, two of us have the exact same bracket except the other guy has Memphis still gaining points for him and he has Texas (Texas? Ha!) losing to UConn in the final, so for me to win UConn has to beat UCLA--and nobody else--in the championship game. So if either of those teams lose before they face each other then my race for the championship is over. And, of course, if several of my teams lose than I'm probably sliding down the list a few spots.

But for now, my bracket is really sitting pretty. I'm almost perfect in the Midwest and South regions (I hate that horrible idea of using city names for regions so I'm continuing my quixotic crusade against it), my East bracket is suffering, and my West bracket is on life support and fading fast. But all four of my Final Four teams are still fighting. I'm not sure I've ever had that going for me after the first weekend.

On to some trends. So, Valley haters, how 'bout that MVC? Huh, four teams was too many? Tell that to Kansas, Pittsburgh, and Tennessee. The third was an upset in waiting, but those first two were highly touted before the tourney and yours truly had Pitt in the Elite Eight. And Bradley slays 'em both back to back, as if they think they belong here. Judging from the Valley's tourney performance, they do. Oh, and so does Mo State.

Hey, here's an idea: let's look at some numbers. The Big Ten was talked up toward the end of the year, so let's compare that power conference to the lowly MVC:

VALLEY: Four teams in (seeded 7, 10, 11, 13), 2-2 first round, 2-0 second round, 4-2 overall, 2 teams in Sweet 16.
BIG TEN: Six teams in (seeded 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 9), 3-3 first round, 0-3 second round, 3-6 overall, 0 teams in Sweet 16.

Hmmn...now I'm not a smart man, but them numbers seem to indicate that the Valley should have had the six. Throw in the fact that the Mo Valley teams were seeded much lower across the board and thus had to play better competition and it looks even more obvious. Speaking of which, the Valley has three upsets so far to its credit and hasn't been dropped in one yet, while the Big Ten has been upset four times while pulling off zero against other conferences. Heck, half of the MVC teams are still playing and one will be favored this coming week. This isn't even close...the only reasonable conclusion is that the MVC is almost as underrated as the Big Ten is overrated, and that's saying a lot given the latter's awesomely underwhelming performance this March.

And CBS' two basketball guru wanna-be's, in their vast hardcourt wisdom, were whining and displaying their best childish tantrums for us in response to the selection committee's atrocity of letting in too many mid-major teams, especially from the Valley. How dare the selection committee risk hurting CBS's precious ratings by passing over bandwagon favorites like Maryland and Cincinnati for respectable teams that casual fans haven't heard of? Well, Jim Nantz and Big-Ten-lovin' Billy Packer can suck on those stats. To call either of those brainless fools anything resembling a respectable analyst would be to align oneself with the idiots of the idiots of the world.

One more thing. Allow me to quote myself from a previous post:

...the weakest top seed [is] having all the upset luck it could ask for...it's plenty possible the Tigers could emerge by virtue of being barely good enough to beat a few low-seeded teams.

And wouldn't ya freakin' know it...Memphis gets by Oral Roberts and then gets the rich brats and 13-seed Bradley. Geez, some real titans there. And to top it all off, watch Gonzaga--how the heck have they not lost yet?--barely last long enough to get by UCLA and thus pave the way to Indianapolis for the Tigers. That wouldn't suck at all.

Overall, still flying high but my work is cut out for me.