[Nameplate] Light Rain and Windy ~ 46°F  
Wind Advisory
Monday, Nov. 24, 2014

Process of elimination

Posted Thursday, March 27, 2008, at 6:05 PM

DISCLAIMER: I am not an expert, I just like to pretend I'm one in writing. You can't take any of this to the bank because I'm an idiot. With that said, I think this idiot can do about as well at picking a champion as any of the better-paid idiots on ESPN.

After a weekend of the NCAA Tournament, one might assume the NCAA tournament picture would become clearer. Three-quarters of the field is back home catching up on class work.

Unfortunately, it still isn't clear. As we look up and down this field, we can see glaring problems with each of the remaining 16 teams. I can't imagine being completely satisfied with any one of these as champions. Apparently, one of them has to win, though. (Sounds like the presidential race, huh?)

My problem with filling out brackets is doing it the traditional way. I always get to the end and think, "Pittsburgh versus Clemson? That's a horrible championship game."

For the record, I picked UCLA over Georgetown before the tournament this year, so I could be half right.

But that doesn't mean I won't change my picks now.

Instead of figuring it out, game-by-game, I decided to look at the teams and set some criteria to eliminate the ones I deemed unworthy. It's not overly scientific and I don't even claim it's fair. There are some traditional powers I just want to make fun of. (Look out Jayhawks and Tar Heels.)

Non-major conference

I'm sorry, Cinderellas, but the ball ends sometime. George Mason showed us a couple of years ago that midnight can come a little later than we thought. But it still always comes.

The last school to win the whole thing that wasn't from one of the "Big Six," was UNLV in 1990, but they were cheating, so we can disregard that, too.

That means so long to Davidson, Western Kentucky, Xavier and, yes, you too, Memphis. You've all been good contestants, but we'll have to ask you to play again next year.

(John Calipari should be happy, I found a reason to eliminate his team that had nothing to do with free throw shooting.)

Too many losses

Only three times in the history of the NCAA Tournament has a team with 10 or more losses won the whole thing. Oddly, all three of those came in a six-year span that included North Carolina State (26-10) in '83, Villanova (25-10) in '85 and Kansas (27-11) in '88.

My explanation for this? It was the 1980s, a.k.a. the era of the underdog. Remember the Miracle on Ice? What about the Goonies? I'm sorry, but nobody's finding One-Eyed Willie's gold this year.

Goodbye, Villanova (22-12) and West Virginia (26-10).

With the easy ones out of the way, I now turn my attention to conferences that aren't' necessarily deserving.

Big XII

Although the Big XII has been existence for just 13 seasons, its teams (eight of which made of the Big 8 and four of which were in the Southwest Conference) don't exactly have a glowing track record of NCAA greatness. In the last 55 years, these 12 schools have combined to win a whopping one national championship (the aforementioned '88 Jayhawks team). With that in mind, Texas is immediately out of the question.

It's a little trickier with Kansas, though. They are the one who won that championship. However, Bill Self is an underachiever in the tournament and certainly no Larry Brown. None of his players are worthy of Danny Manning. Kansas is out for me as well.

Pac 10 (Besides UCLA)

The Bruins' 11 championships notwithstanding, the other nine teams in the conference have won only one championship since 1960. That's nearly as sad as the Big XII. Washington State and Stanford, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Big Ten

I'm a lifelong Big Ten fan, so I'm not going to poke quite the same fun at it as our friends to the west. But, I also don't think I've ever correctly picked a Big Ten team to win it all. I've either fallen in love with a team who wasn't worthy (Indiana in multiple years) or chosen to ignore a team that was an obvious favorite because I just didn't like it (Michigan State in 2000).

Neither this year's Spartans nor Wisconsin seems to be that much of a lock, so I'll eliminate them as well.

That leaves us with North Carolina, Louisville, Tennessee and UCLA. Obviously this can't be a Final Four, as the first three are all in the East Region.

I can take out Tennessee and UCLA immediately. Every eventual champion should have at least one brush with elimination, but the Vols and Bruins have lived too dangerously. Over the first two rounds they have looked completely unworthy of their high seeds. That will catch up with them before it's all said and done.

This leaves us with UNC and Louisville (who could meet Saturday night). Carolina seems to be everyone's favorite, but not mine. They have a tradition of underachieving. So many people talk about the storied history of the program, but they have made 16 Final Fours in their history and won only four. That's only good enough for fourth all time behind UCLA, Kentucky and Indiana. For a team that's supposed one of the best ever, that's not so good. I think this year, they'll disappoint everyone before they even get to the Final Four.

And besides that, I think bad Karma will catch up with the heels. They've spent two round running up the score on hapless opponents. I think the Universe will find a way to take care of them.

So that leaves us with the Louisville Cardinals. I can't tell you why so much as I can tell you why not on the other 15 contenders. Pitino will do it again.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Louisville..not deep enough, they will lose to eventual Champion North Carolina...and I am not a Tar Heel fan but I think they won 3 years ago, did't they?!

-- Posted by HelloMcFly on Thu, Mar 27, 2008, at 8:32 PM
Jared Jernagan's response:
I tip my hat to you, McFly. You were correct.

However, I will still not yield to the Heels or the ACC. I return to my original selection of the Bruins. I've been picking them for three years now. They're bound to do it sometime.

Yeah, but how many times have the Heels choked through the years?

Let's compare -- UCLA has been to 17 final fours and won 11 titles. The Tar Heels have been to 16 and won inly four. Not so great for a program that's supposed to be one of college basketball's elites.

Because they won three years ago, they are due to get back to their old, choking ways.

The ACC is overrated in general and I wish the likes of Billy Packer and Dick Vitale would figure that out.

-- Posted by wally_at_large on Fri, Mar 28, 2008, at 11:53 PM

When is the last time UCLA won? 3 straight final fours, no titles. Sounds like choking to me. How many have they won since John Wooden left? Again, not a Tar Heel fan, just stating a fact. As for Jerad, kudo's to you for tipping your hat, you should have stuck with your gut and went with UCLA all the way.

-- Posted by HelloMcFly on Mon, Mar 31, 2008, at 1:26 PM

Well Jared, it looks like both of us were wrong. UCLA & UNC both got wipped. Go Crean & Crimson next season.

-- Posted by HelloMcFly on Tue, Apr 8, 2008, at 8:27 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


...and the beat goes on...
Jared Jernagan
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Send email to Jared Jernagan
Login
Jared Jernagan is a 2003 graduate of Wabash College and has been in journalism since 2005.
Hot topics
Who's the Boss?
(2 ~ 7:08 PM, Nov 23)

Ho-tel. Mo-tel. Watcha gon' do today?
(0 ~ 7:09 PM, Nov 13)

A Dose of B-3: 'Gimme Some Lovin''
(0 ~ 11:57 AM, Nov 4)

Don't want a penalty? Don't toe that line
(0 ~ 2:07 PM, Oct 20)

High on ... okra?
(1 ~ 6:24 AM, Oct 9)