The madness has begun

By M. Edward Guest Sports Central Columnist

It is one of the simplest things to do; virtually anyone can fill out a bracket pool. The system is fairly easy to comprehend; one merely projects three weeks worth of basketball games, many of which will never take place. Because, inevitably, a rash of upsets or non-upsets will leave a once-glowing bracket in tatters, as yet another fruitless exercise in attempting the impossible.

That is not to say that projecting a perfect bracket is impossible; indeed, there are a finite number of possibilities, even fewer when Liberty and Alabama State are removed from Sweet Sixteen (let alone Final Four) contention. But can it be done?

In truth, everyone's bracket starts exactly the same; all four No. 1 seeds are selected to make the second-round -- for you see, no No. 16 has ever beaten a No. 1, though Georgetown (1989) and Purdue (1996) barely made it out alive.

Someday, it will occur, no doubt, but is there anything to suggest that this is the year? After all, aren't No. 16 seeds usually No. 16 seeds for a reason, i.e. losing records or barely over .500? So project Kentucky, St. Joseph's, Duke, and Stanford to march on, though as we'll get to later, not all of them can make the Final Four -- but one must.

That is our second point: no tourney has ever seen four number No. 1 seeds cut down the nets in their respective regional finals, irrespective of the fact that in both 2001 and 2003, all four played in regional finals. Personally, I don't see this as the year where all four make it, though, again, the mold has to be broken sometime -- just not this year.

Pure chalk, as it were, has no place in March Madness. My bracket says two No. 1 seeds will make it to the Final Four (this happened in 2002 and 2001), but I'm not going to say which two teams.

Looking over my bracket, I see that I have all four No. 2 projected to advance; this is a tough call, because we remember Iowa State, South Carolina, and Syracuse all floundering in that role -- but save for Villanova '85 shooting, it is not going to happen. I do have a No. 3 seed falling flat, in the spirit of Weber State's '99 victory over No. 3 North Carolina and Arizona's unraveling (pick a year -- that's a joke). All right, I don't want to spend the entirety of this column on the first-round, so here is the breakdown:

All No. 1s and No. 2s will win their first game. Three No. 3s and three No. 4s will do likewise. As for the magical, much-hyped No. 5-No. 12 showdown -- gamble, and take all the fives this year (even if three No. 12s win, including one which did last year, as I recall). Everything else is a crapshoot, though if Richmond and Air Force won (No. 11s v. No. 6s), I would call it an upset; nothing further down the line qualifies.

Now, we've made it to the second-round, and we need to answer another question; will a No. 8 or No. 9 defeat a No. 1? In a word, yes. In 2000, both Pac-10 recipients were flummoxed by mediocre big-conference schools, on a wild weekend that nearly saw a third No. 1 seed (Duke) collapse.

As a general rule (ha), take three or four No. 1s to march on to the regionals -- I'm saying three. In a bit of a surprise, I'll assert that all No. 2s will prevail in at least two games. Why is that risky? In 2003, both Wake Forest and Florida fell to the winner of the No. 7/No. 10 contest; twos are often on shaky ground from the second-round onward.

So of the 16 chalk teams, how many will make it to St. Louis, East Rutherford, Atlanta, and Phoenix? Twelve, but look for one region to provide much of the excitement and/or sadness -- and yes, that region is by legitimate implication(?), the most consistent, from 1-14.

It is also almost a requirement that your bracket have at least one "Cinderella," a term best expressed when describing a double-digit seed that reached the regionals -- think Valparaiso '98, SW Missouri State '99, or even the '86 LSU Tigers that made it all the way to Dallas (Final Four). I'll roll the dice and select two double-digit seeds to make the Sweet 16.

Neither of them will make the Elite Eight, or regional final, though.

We've arrived at my favorite portion; the four regional finals that take place on Saturday and Sunday. I could reveal my bracket's Elite Eight, but I'll stick to platitudes, for reasons forthcoming.

How many titanic No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchups? One, there almost always has to be one, last year Arizona/Kansas kept the streak alive. Project a few more if you wish, but I don't see it happening. Two No. 1s will play for the right to go to San Antonio, and both will triumph, because, obviously, they're deserving No. 1 seeds. I have one regional final sleeper, but I don't see them as a Final Four team -- hint, they're a No. 8 seed.

Thus my Final Four: No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4. Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Texas, and N.C. State are not going to qualify for the penultimate round. These are all No. 3 seeds, and I don't expect a replication of the seed's strength last year (13-3 aggregate). Both No. 1s will be strenuously tested in their semifinals, and one will fall; setting up a No. 1 vs. No. 2 in the championship game for the first time since 2001 (Duke/Arizona).

By the way, picking a No. 1 seed to win the championship is always a good way to go (read: 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, and 1992) so long as one selects the proper No. 1 seed and not the fraudulent enabled one soon to be exposed. Correctly identifying the No. 1 seed(s) to miss the Final Four (or worse) is the key to a relatively clean bracket.

I figured for this year, why not give my suspect prognostications a real chance to succeed? After all, there's certainly a greater chance in speculating that one of these teams (Washington, Texas Tech, Seton Hall, and Alabama) will enjoy a magical run to the Elite Eight -- and that either Kentucky, St. Joseph's, Duke, or Stanford will be cutting down the nets on April 5 -- then narrowing it down to one team each.

For as we all know, that's just too difficult.

Article courtesy of Sports Central.