March Madness Bracketology

March -- a time when a young man's fancy turns towards the thoughts of creating the perfect bracket for March Madness. No other sporting event has such a massive appeal to non-sports fans and no other event wastes so much time. Why fill out your bracket at home on Sunday night, when you can pretend to be working on Monday? Besides, if you have been following college basketball all season, it really shouldn't take you that long to fill it out anyway.
If you're not a hoops maven, there are several fallbacks you can rely on to win your office pool. You've got the classic coin flip, favored by many Americans for its sheer simplicity. For those people who want to do a little more research, there's the mascot and color comparisons method. Next, we've got the higher seed technique, which is almost as good as not even filling out a bracket. If none of these options sounds appealing, random guessing is always a fallback strategy for the lazy American.
Or, you could listen to the sports analysts. Over on Yahoo! Sports, there's twelve "experts" predictions. Included in this group are three NASCAR writers, three fantasy sports experts, and Cris Carter. Needless to say, it would probably be better to follow the advice of someone who doesn't have Kentucky making it to the Final Four. ESPN.com's Andy Katz has Wake Forest winning the championship, while the National Bracket (a compilation of picks from everyone who entered ESPN.com's bracket contest) has Illinois winning in the majority of the entries.
The best option, however, would be to listen to my "expert" advice. I have watched over five complete games this season, and I also finished third (or fourth or fifth, I can't remember) in last year's Daily Sun pool. Here's a breakdown of the four regionals, along with my bold predictions.
Chicago Regional
The No. 1 overall seed Illinois was not surprisingly placed in this regional, which means we only have three more weeks of CBS and ESPN showing the same stupid map of how far the Illini have to travel for each round. Out of all the repetitive nonsense that frequently plagues sports analysis, this travel point about Illinois is really stupid. Thank you, Digger Phelps, Dick Vitale, Jay Bilas, Greg Gumbel, etc. -- we got the point when you first mentioned it a month ago.
A less annoying story out of this regional is whether Penn can become the first Ivy team to win a first-round game since 1998 by knocking off Boston College, who exited the Big East tourney in the quarterfinals. You've also got three of last year's Cinderella teams -- Alabama, Nevada, and UAB -- in this regional, which could cause some shakeups. However, Illinois will be the team coming out of this region, thanks to its veritable "home court advantage." (The Illini only have to drive 120 miles to its first and second rounds games, and then only 133 miles to Chicago for the Sweet 16! Wow! Let's see that visualization on a map again!)
Albuquerque Regional
Washington snuck its way to a No. 1 seed after a Chris Paul-less Wake Forest squad lost in the ACC tourney quarterfinals. However, the Huskies have not impressed anyone other than the selection committee, as ESPN.com's National Bracket has Louisville knocking them off in the Sweet 16. How the Cardinals ended up with a No. 4 seed even though they are currently ranked No. 4 in the AP Poll is a little puzzling.
ACC runner-up Georgia Tech (which was robbed on Sunday, but more on this later) will most likely be in the unenviable position of facing Louisville in the second round. However, Mike Wilbon of ESPN's Pardon the Interruption seems to think highly of the Yellow Jackets, as he has penciled them in for a spot in the Final Four. Yeah, somehow I don't think so. As long as Chris Paul decides not to go medieval on another player's crotch again, the Demon Deacons should advance to St. Louis.
Syracuse Regional
Unlike in the NCAA hockey tournament, the host city's team does not get to play in the regional, so the Orange were sent to Austin. Arguably the toughest regional with UNC, UConn, Kansas, and Florida as the No. 1-4 seeds, it's probably a bad move to jump on the Northern Iowa bandwagon. UNC will have a pretty tough game against Oakland (we're talking about a team that only lost to Illinois by 31 points and also have a losing record), but the Tar Heels should survive to face UConn in the Elite Eight. The defending national champions would have stood a better chance had they not lost the No. 2 and 3 picks in the 2004 NBA Draft, so UNC will be headed back to the Final Four for the first time in five years. For those Cornellians who will be Ithaca over break and want to check out the games at the Carrier Dome, you can buy two seats on eBay for the low price of $560.
Austin Regional
Everyone's favorite team, Duke, stole a No. 1 seed after Wake, UNC, and Kentucky faltered in their conference tournaments. The Blue Devils also stole the ACC championship, as the refs decided to call a foul against Georgia Tech in the closing seconds, when my favorite player, J.J. Redick, actually committed the foul. Instead of the Yellow Jackets getting a chance to take the lead, the best free throw shooter in the history of college basketball got to go to the line. But, I'm not bitter.
Back to the bracket, Duke will lose in the Sweet Sixteen as will Kentucky. (Do not, under any circumstances, pencil in the Wildcats to go far into the tourney. While you may like it when the camera pans to Ashley Judd in the crowd, this is a team that has destroyed my bracket the last two seasons, and probably cost me the Daily Sun crown last year. Plus, they just got destroyed by Florida in the SEC tournament final). Look for Syracuse to knock off Oklahoma in the Elite Eight.
So there you have it: Illinois, Wake Forest, UNC, and Syracuse in the Final Four. As for who wins it all, I'm going to say Illinois over UNC, just like all the other analysts in the country (They're only 180 miles from home! Zounds!). Happy bracketing.

Bonds Makes More Problems

You've got to hand it to Barry Bonds. After refusing to comment on the results of his recent grand jury testimony, Bonds came out firing on all cylinders at his press conference last week when he arrived at San Francisco's spring training. In only a few minutes, Bonds graciously provided the media with a year's worth of sound bites, sounding off on such topics as Sanford and Son, steroids, lying reporters, and Babe Ruth.

It's not easy being Barry. This is a man who's been stuck with many labels over the years, almost none of them positive. You can start out with "greatest hitter of all time," "seven-time MVP," and "record breaker." Of course, there's also "cheater," "steroid user," bad teammate," "hothead," "liar," and "team cancer." Those are pretty harsh words, and it's easy to see why Bonds would not be too friendly with the media -- if this is the way he is being labeled.

Bonds has never been a media darling, and he really didn't endear himself further last Tuesday when he accused the media of lying.

"All you guys lie, all of y'all, in a story or whatever, have lied. Should you have an asterisk behind your name? All of you have lied. All of you have said something wrong, all of you have dirt. All of you. When your closet's clean, then come clean somebody else's. But clean yours first, okay."

Bonds' reaction here is both puzzling and irrational. What is he talking about? What are reporters lying about? Of course, people have secrets. However, members of the media aren't public figures like Bonds is. No one cares about the personal life of a reporter, but people care if one of the best professional athletes in the world is cheating by taking an illegal substance.

Not satisfied with his rant so far, Bonds continued into shakier logical territory.

"The sports world is bad as it is because this is the only business that allows you guys in our office to begin with. You can't just go to Bank of America, walk in the office, and start interviewing employees."

This analogy is, in a word, awful. There's a huge difference between a professional baseball player and a bank employee. A bank employee does not get paid millions of dollars, have his work broadcast on national television, or have millions of people rooting for him to finish a loan application. His salary is not contingent on people buying tickets to see him do his job.

Bonds fails to see the simple connection between the media and his salary. If it weren't for the media coverage, the television broadcasts, or the sports networks, people would not be able to follow sports at all. No fans equals no money for Mr. Bonds. It's not that complicated, and that's what's so irritating about his comments. He seems to think that the fans are lucky to watch him play.

He also thinks he's worth more than the other players, as evidenced by his refusal to sign the MLBPA group licensing agreement in November 2003. The agreement allows the union to negotiate licensing deals on behalf of all the players, with each player getting a share of the profits. By not signing the agreement, Bonds can negotiate separate licensing arrangements for more money. Because he rejected the group agreement, Bonds did not appear in several baseball card sets and video games last year. This is a big blow to the union, and could open the door for other players to opt out as well (Michael Jordan and LaVarr Arrington are the other two notable athletes who have not signed their union's group licensing agreements in the past).

All of these things are not conducive to a positive media image. Most of the time, a player can act like a jerk to the media and it won't make that much of a difference. Unfortunately for Bonds, he happens to be caught up in one of the biggest sports scandals in recent memory. With his grand jury testimony uncovered, maybe the recent press conference would have been a good time for Bonds to answer some questions about steroids. Jason Giambi apologized last month (although not directly for taking steroids); would Bonds have it in him to do the same?

Reporter: Jason Giambi felt the need to make an apology. Is there anything that you need to apologize for?

Bonds: What did I do?

When asked if he thought steroids were considered cheating, Bonds summoned his inner politician.

"I don't -- I don't know what cheating is. I don't know cheating, if steroid is going to help you in baseball. I just don't believe it. I don't believe steroids can help you, eye/hand coordination, technically hit a baseball, I just don't believe it and that's just my opinion."

Deny. Deny. Deny. It's a great way to argue. So all that's required to hit a home run is hand-eye coordination? Really? So muscle strength has nothing to do with hitting a ball far? I suppose steroids won't help you get your bat on the ball, but I'll bet they can make you hit the ball a lot farther.

With the baseball season starting in a month, the Barry Bonds talk is not going to die down in the slightest. Bonds had a chance to gain some sympathy in his press conference, but he instead further alienated himself from the media and the fans. Until the BALCO case is resolved, reporters will continue to ask Bonds about steroids and Bonds will continue to dodge key questions. Hopefully, one day, he'll give the fans a straight answer.