Tournament Thoughts . . .

So, like what I assume is most people, I thought the first round of the tournament was great. We had some huge upsets (Cleveland State, two 12's beating 5 seeds, Billy Gillespie not showing up a the Dayton sight with a gun and pin stripe suit, threatening to kill everyone if Acie Law, IV wasn't re-instated and allowed immediate transfer to Kentucky so that UK could finally get an NCAA bid), some thrilling finishes like Siena beating Ohio State in 2 OT and Marquette losing to Mizzou by a toe over the line. Yet, all I see in the media (particularly ESPN), is how boring the tournament is so far because all the 1-4 seeds except Washington are still in the tournament. Pat Forde hates it almost as much as he hates Bobby Petrino, Wilbon went off about it on PTI yesterday as did most of the douchers on Around the Horn (no way is that worth my effort to link to it).

Are you kidding me? How on earth can you complain about the fact that on the second weekend of the tournament, the field is so deep that almost all the games are going to end up being single-digit spreads? Why are games between storied powerhouses that come down the last possession suddenly boring? Just because their coaches wear Armani and the schools involved don't have a directional prefix and end with a "State?" I mean, personally, if I have the choice between watching the Christian Laetner Duke-Kentucky game or the George Mason UConn game on ESPN classic, is the Duke-Kentucky game not the one you watch? Don't you want the game filled with drama and intrigue, or the one that ends in a comfortable upset?

This is also why I hate the idea of a football playoff. People say that they hate the current system because "the best teams don't make it" teams "don't settle it on the field." Well, apparently basketball doesn't either. First of all, the conference tournaments don't matter and don't prove anything-- all seeding is based on the regular season. Just like--egads!-- the BCS! Also, people don't want to see the best teams end up in the Final Four, they just want to see upsets. That doesn't appeal to me. Watching George Mason get humiliated in the Final Four doesn't make the tournament legit to me, it makes it a spectacle. It just shows that people don't crown a "2009 National Champion," they just want a "2009 Tournament Champion." They are not the same thing.