Tournament conspiracies

By Brad Oremland Sports Central Columnist

I usually write about the NFL, but sacred law demands that all sportswriters cover March Madness.

It seems that way, at least. There's even a model we're supposed to follow. The writer begins by telling the audience how s/he always screws up the bracket and gets last place in the pool. This is probably true -- part of the fun is that even "experts" have trouble making accurate predictions -- but it's still a formula, and I'm tired of it.

I'm a pretty casual fan of college basketball. I generally know who's good and who isn't -- especially in the men's game, since it receives so much more coverage -- but forget about detailed insights or savvy upset picks I didn't hear somewhere else first. That said, the first time I ever entered a March Madness pool, in high school, I almost won. I pretty much picked ACC teams to run the field, and I got fourth out of about 50 people. I'm not even in a pool this year. So yeah, I'm qualified to write about the tournaments.

The first things I noticed about the men's bracket were (1) Kentucky and Arizona were on the same side of it, and (2) Indiana and Alabama were in the tourney. No. 1 is just stupid, but No. 2 has got to be a conspiracy. I've never understood why, when a major-conference team like Alabama -- or North Carolina two years ago --- sneaks into the tournament, it gets a high seed.

Debbie Ryan, the Virginia women's coach, apparently agrees, "How do you go from the bubble to an eight-seed," she asked.

Is there a law against giving the major conferences 16-seeds?

It boggles the mind that Indiana -- with 12 losses and a .500 conference record -- got seeded in the top-half of the field. The Hoosiers lost eight of the last 12 games they played before their conference tournament, finishing 20-12 to earn their seven-seed. Holy Cross went 26-4 and got a 14. Okay, so the Patriot League isn't exactly the Big 10, but the Crusaders did play Kansas, Boston College, and UNC-Asheville on the way to the tournament. They also won 12 games in a row before their four-point loss to third-seeded Marquette, which is 12 more than Indiana or Alabama.

Alabama. How on earth did they get a 10-seed? The Crimson Tide finished 17-11 and went 7-9 in-conference. 'Bama has won consecutive games only twice in 2003. And now either Indiana or Alabama will definitely advance to the second round, because they play each other. What, is Myles Brand calling the shots in the NCAA now? (Actually, yes.)

This is the first time I've ever been more intrigued by the women's tournament than the men's. When women's basketball first started to get big in the late-'90s, I tuned in a few times and didn't really find anything interesting. The game -- even at the professional level -- was sloppy and boring compared to the men's. If you've watched recently, you know that has changed. Watching the UConn women is every bit as entertaining as watching their male counterparts, assuming the opponent is up to the challenge.

As an aside, that's the one remaining problem in almost every women's sport that has significant exposure. There are fabulous stars but few real contenders. Analysts say there are 20 teams in the men's bracket with a decent chance to win the NCAA Tournament. If anyone other than UConn, Duke, or Tennessee wins the women's side, it will be a surprise. If you take out LSU and the two-seeds, as well, it would be shocking.

The same problem afflicts women's tennis. Even if you assume the Williams sisters can be beaten more than a couple times a year, no one outside the Top 10 has even a decent shot at winning a major tournament. Similarly, there are few golfers who can even compete with Annika Sorenstam's "C" game, and many who can't touch the "B" game of Karrie Webb, Se Ri Pak, Juli Inkster, or Mi Hyun Kim.

But back to March Madness... I don't mean to claim that the Huskies women could defeat their male counterparts -- they'd get crushed -- but they're a joy to watch. The women's game has matured to the point that it has more finesse than a men's game which frequently comes down to one-on-one matchups. Isolation games are great for showcasing stars in the Allen Iverson mold, but the team aspect of the whole thing breaks down a bit. You can still find it in women's basketball.

I'm more likely to watch the opening rounds of the men's tournament, but I'm far more interested in the women's Final Four. Part of the appeal -- as with women's tennis -- is that I'll probably be familiar with whoever is still playing at the end. Put another way, we all know who Venus Williams is, but how much do you really know about Rainer Schuettler? He's currently second in the world in earnings and the ATP points race for 2003.

But now, in keeping with my non-conformity promise at the beginning of this article, I will not reveal my Final Four picks, in either bracket. But let me leave you with these thoughts: I think Kentucky is the best team in the country, but bound to lose sometime. I think UConn is still the team to beat in the women's draw. And I think that -- somewhere along the line -- a 12-seed will beat a five-seed. Happy March Madness.

Article courtesy of Sports Central.