March Madness 2025
 

Shouldn't we have a thread for this? And shouldn't it be about both the men's and women's tournaments?

I'll assume "Yes" to both questions. Also, opening this thread and subsequently posting in it will enhance my involvement in these events which is something I have been meaning to do for years.

I will be referencing the CBS live brackets:

Men's: https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...ament/bracket/

Women's: https://www.cbssports.com/womens-col...ament/bracket/

But no, I am not into "bracketology"; I am happy just to follow along as matters unfold. ;)

And so, the men's First Four began yesterday. "First Four," heh, clever. Has a "First Four" ever gone to "Final Four"?

UNC beat down San Diego State. The Tarheels may have been motivated by "questions about the validity of their tournament bid."

But Alabama State won with a last-second Hail Mary inbound pass against Saint Francis. Watch the video in this article if you get a chance.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/621...irst-four-unc/

With apologies to CONN CHRIS (in case "CONN" is short for Connecticut) and any other Huskies fans, at the beginning I find myself with one negative rooting impulse: A quick ending for UCONN teams, particularly the women.

Yes, the lady Huskies. They, of the "record 11 NCAA Division I National Championships and a women's record four in a row, from 2013 through 2016." They, who "have taken part in every NCAA tournament since 1989" and who "from 2008 to 2022, they appeared in a record 14 consecutive Final Fours."

Then there is this:
I like dogs but enough is enough! :mad:

Hey ...













Go Huskies!

My household is full of rabid Huskies including a son going to school there now but I do indeed understand why the rest of the country may be sick of us.

I can't stand Danny Hurley. Great coach. But goes about his biz like he has a middle finger permanently stuck up his hind parts.

UNC, particularly RJ Davis, couldn't miss last night. SDSt didn't appear to be all that good though.

Everyone kept repeating UNC's 1-12 Quad 1 record. One, why is the Heels record on everyone's mouth but no one points out Xavier's 1-9 record? Two, "Quad 1" doesn't tell the whole story. Playing dook @ home is a Quad 1 game. So is a trip to Yale. Do we really think those 2 opponents are an apples to apples comparison? UNC played dook 3x's, 2 other number one seeds (Auburn & Florida), 2 #2 seeds (Mich St & Bama) & @ Kansas, @ Clemson & @ Louisville. dook was the only ACC Quad 1 game they got in Chapel Hill.

I will not argue UNC should have been in. But if these analysts & experts are going to keep repeating that "1-12", I want them to tell me which team omitted would have had a better record vs that schedule.

So . . . "CONN" does stand for Connecticut, probably specifically the place where someone's son is attending to his studies . . . D'oh! :(:rolleyes:

I tell you one thing; I would hate to be in charge of picking, say, the final 28 teams for this type of thing. It's a no-win situation.

CONN was also the old state postal abbreviation before the two-letter conformity (CT) took hold (yes, I am that old) which was the original reason for the 'CONN' in CONN CHRIS.

Yes, twice. Virginia Commonwealth in 2011, and UCLA in 2021.

No miracle stories on the Women's side, please and thank you. Just more domination from Lady 'cock Nation, if the fates be kind.

There will always be people & teams who will claim they got snubbed out of their "rightful" spot. The reality is the 1st 60-64 participants are easy. It is the last 5 or 6 that you could do eeny-meeny-miney-mo on and get a bunch of arguments & debate. I actually used to do bracket predictions myself for fun, 30+ years ago, before Lunardi ever became a household name in college basketball (wish I'd known then there was a career in it). But the last picks & seeding is where the "expertise" comes in.

The flaw is everyone wants a concrete qualification process & it just will never happen as long as you have at large teams. 2025 is not like 2024. Is not like a decade ago. Or 25 years ago. The selection committee rotates so you are going to have differing opinions, biases, preferences etc that will influence the choices from season to season. Maybe this year the "tiebreaker" was OOC schedule, next season tougher conference, last year computer metrics. Who's hot? Who's popular (no matter how much they deny it)? There is no one true data point that is going to win out each time. Every criteria is at play & rightfully so.

It is still an opinion based process and @ no time will people have the same opinion or be stagnant in that opinion.

I wonder if there is any graft and corruption involved. 25 years ago, as you say, it was different. Now, with the huge amounts of money flowing into college sports, one must wonder.

As an olive branch to CONN CHRIS, whose forbearance was evidenced this morning when I found that I was not banned from this forum, I offer the 24 most intriguing women’s March Madness players to watch among which is UCONN guard Paige Bueckers.

Indeed, Bueckers is the top pick in The Athletic's Pre-March Madness WNBA mock draft.

Heh, going back to what Cobra Mgr was talking about, here is the very first thing you see in the VCU Rams video that you linked to:

Please excuse the number of my posts in this thread, but this is MARCH MADNESS, you know! It will all be over in just a couple of weeks, and this thread will be like last week's leftover toast.

10 minutes until brackets lock! Hurry up!

I clearly have some learning to do about this process. I was prompted by a headline that reads "Mount St. Mary's advances to face Duke" to complain about how the poor First Four teams, after struggling to get into the tournament, must immediately face the #1 teams in each conference.

But then I took a closer look and found that two of the First Four teams do not in fact suffer that fate. As a matter of fact, an even closer look reveals that those two teams are not ranked #16 as I would have expected, but each at #11, thereby matching them with less elite opponents in the first round.

So, if they were ranked at #11, why were they playing in the First Four games in the first place? I would think the #15 teams, Bryant and Robert Morris, would be playing the two #16 teams. :confused:

Attachment 1054257


Attachment 1054258

So the way the tournament works is their are automatic bids for conference tournament winners (31), and then their are teams who did not win their tournaments but their "resume" get them in (37), making a field of 68. The weakest of the weak automatic bids get placed in play in games. Then, the last 4 "at large", the ones who didn't win conference tournaments but their resume got them in, are placed in play in games as well. They aren't always seeded as 11 seeds necessarily, but moreso the last few years. Presumptively, even though they are in play in games, they're power ranked higher than, say, a 14 seed, for example.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Wonder? Since when have people in suits met behind closed doors using some sort of vaguely-defined, non-disclosed process to make far reaching decisions and corruption NOT been involved?

The First Four, IMO, is really a farce to get more Power conf teams in. To me, the auto qualifiers earned their way into the tourney & shouldn't have to feel like they still need to "play" their way into the 64 field. It's the @large teams who should be made to earn their way in.

I still say go full F.A. Cup and let everybody in Division 1 play. It's only 2 more rounds to get to 256 and a qualifying round for the very least. Let the teams that go 1-25 (such as Jacksonville St. did that one year) have their fair shot; it's worth it just to never hear whining about "how did [team] get in, and not [other team]?" on Selection Sunday. JMO.

I don't like it for 2 reasons. Making the tourney should be an accomplishment, not a birthright. And two, what is the impetus to play tough OOC games if not to strengthen your resume for the tourney? It virtually turns the pre tourney portion into an exhibition season.

I just realized who I should be rooting for in a positive fashion: St. John's! The only team in March Madness, men or women, from my neck of the woods.

Hofstra has appeared in the NCAA Division 1 tournament four times, but not since 2001. They would have played in the 2020 tournament but that was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2016, Stony Brook as America East champion made its only NCAA appearance to date, ranked #53 overall in the tournament, and went one-and-done against Kentucky.

That's all folks. Well, then, go Red Storm!

Actually, I am closer to Yale than to St. John's, as the crow flies. But that big body of water in between has a psychologically distancing effect. Besides, Yale is already out, having lost to Texas A&M. Apparently, though, that game was closer than expected.

They are saying #12 McNeese State over #5 Clemson was a big upset. McNeese had Clemson down 31-13 at halftime; Clemson woke up in the second half but McNeese held them off 69-67. First NCAA Tournament win for McNeese.

Edit: Heh, watch coach Will Wade get "very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, excited." :)

Attachment 1054309

https://x.com/CBSSportsCBB/status/1902840080479158707

Clemson was indeed an upset. The final score wasn't indicative of how the game went. As you mentioned, the Tigers only had 13 in the 1st half. They scored 14 in the final minute. The 14-4 finish @ the end made it look closer that it really was. Clemson just couldn't hit jack. Meanwhile, McNeese St's coach Will Wade is headed to NCState to take over here in Raleigh.

In other bad ACC news, Louisville was eliminated by Creighton. The Jays ballooned a 1 pt lead into 20 in the 1st half & were never threatened again. What makes this particularly embarrassing is that the Cardinals were playing in Lexington, KY & had a clear home crowd advantage. (Which never should have happened in the 1st place. How fair would it have been for Auburn to be the overall #1 seed & having to play a tough underdog in that dog's home state? Terrible seeding by the selection committee.)

Added to the ACC's disgrace is many experts called Clemson's & ville's seeding an insult to the teams & the league. Turns out they were being flattered. So one of the worst basketball seasons on record for the ACC is turning into the worst. The league needs a better than expected showing from UNC just to save some face.

Ahhh, Baylor vs. Mississippi St., number 9 versus number 8 in the East. This should be a decent game. I might switch over to the women's tourney later, though. Duke vs. Mount St. Mary's might put me to sleep.

I suppose I shouldn't ask why teams from Texas and Mississippi are playing in the EAST regional instead of SOUTH. Probably an overflow of teams selected from the latter region.

Merely guides on how/where to seed teams, instead of a factual statement of where they play. Otherwise Florida would not be the #1 seed in the WEST region :confused::laugh:

Weird. But it is MARCH MADNESS! ;)

I wanted to report "Bulldogs barely beat Bears. Bye-bye Baylor!" but such was not the case. Baylor led the whole game, by as much as 11, and demonstrated that they were just marginally better than Mississippi State, 75-72.

I just switched to this game and caught this play. The "assist" was an inbound pass about three-quarters of the court to a sprinting teammate. It looked like quarterback and wide receiver. I hope they have a highlight video of it later.

Here, Jordan, I will answer my own question for a change, thank you! ;)

Quarters vs halves: Why women's, men's NCAA tournament games use different formats

I hope I've been helpful!

IMO, quarters are the superior form of basketball and would help eliminate/lessen what I feel is the penalty one receives of being refereed by college officials.

Yes you have, thanks. This is my first deep dive and this thread is helping me learn the ins and outs of this madness.

I recently read an article about ornate college basketball court designs. It wasn't this one, but you get the idea.

Wife and I are watching the FDU/TCU women's game, which is on the Horned Frogs home court. She commented on the floor pattern, asking whether it's distracting to the players.

Attachment 1054374

I opined that it's not; the design is more apparent from a high camera angle than from the players' level; the ball is bright orange, and the lines and paint stand out well.

The Horned Frogs seem to be thriving upon it, at least.

EDIT: Actually, maybe it was distracting at some point. That image above is apparently old; comparing it to what I am seeing on my screen now, it seems they replaced the blue motif with the same pattern but in light reddish grey on a beige background.

The women have been ahead of the men in format for a long time. WCBB was using a 30 second shot clock in the 1970s, when the men were content to watch Dean Smith's Four Corners offense for hours at a time.

Arkansas 75, St. John's 66

Je suis désolé. :(

It is my curse. Whomever I root for will lose. I could perfect your brackets, if your office pool is still open. For a nominal fee, I will root for one team in each pairing; you merely bet on the other team and reap the rewards!

Hmmm. I noticed something. If you go to the CBS brackets in my OP, every finished men's game has a "RECAP" link, meaning press coverage. In contrast, every finished women's game so far merely has "BOX SCORE" for a link. Sad.

I knew I would have to mention this at least once in this thread. Here are some of the lopsided scores from the first rounds.

MENS:
Iowa State 82, Lipscomb 55
Michigan State 87, Bryant 62
Florida 95, Norfolk 69
Maryland 81, Grand Canyon 49
St. Johns 83, Omaha 53
Duke 93, Mount St. Mary's 49
Oregon 81, Liberty 52
Arizona 93, Akron 65
Houston 78, SIU Edwardsville 40

WOMENS:
UCLA 84, Southern and A&M 46
Florida State 94, George Mason 59
LSU 103, San Diego State 48!
South Carolina 108, Tennessee Tech 48!!
Duke 86, Lehigh 25!!!
Texas 105, William and Mary 61
Tennessee 101, Southern Florida 66
Notre Dame 106, Stephen F. Austin 54
Baylor 73, Grand Canyon 60*

I had to look up a few schools that I had never heard of before. On the one hand, it seems a bit ludicrous for some of them to be competing against the powerhouses. Maybe even unfair. I can't help thinking about the selection process; maybe the inclusion of some conferences should not be automatic.

But I must keep in mind that for these obscure colleges, just being in the tournament is the high point and the reason for celebration no matter how bad their first round defeat is. I mentioned Stony Brook earlier, how they qualified for their only NCAA tournament appearance in 2016. I remember it remained a locally big deal for them even after getting blown out by Kentucky.

*No, this game was not a blowout like the men's game but I included it to highlight the fact that Grand Canyon Antelopes qualified in both tournaments!

With St. John's out, I am back to this:
The UCONN basketball machine got off to a quick start in both tournaments with easy victories (I purposely left out the women's crushing of Arkansas State, 103-34, in my post above).

But, as I type, the UCONN men's team has their hands full against #1 Florida.

Umm,
Yes! Go Huskies! :rolleyes:

There. You see? It worked! (Barely.) ;)

One Uconn team down but we have another rooting interest left!

Dan Hurley's postgame tears come across as crocodile-esque. Nothing he does deflects attention. People can contain multitudes, but screw that guy

You are referring to this, I believe. The emotion seems genuine, even if he lacks sportsmanship.

Speaking of sportsmanship, this ticked me off a bit:

Texas fires Rodney Terry, opening up a top-10 job in college basketball: Longhorns aim to land proven winner

Attachment 1054625

Let's see if I can itemize why.

- Texas gave him a five-year contract after he took over on an interim basis in 2023, taking the team to the Elite Eight.
- Thereafter, he was only two full years on the job and made the NCAA tournament twice.
- But of course, that was not enough; he was fired for losing a First Four game to Xavier.
- And yet, Texas has so much cash that needing to pay him another $6 million over the next three years is no big deal.

So freakin' desperate for bragging rights that very good is not good enough and they don't give the guy a decent chance to prove himself (if he still needed to do so). Instead, we waste millions of education dollars looking for the next "proven winner." I guess they feel they may have overlooked that criterion when they hired Terry in the first place?

Tell me that I shouldn't focus on this kind of thing, because it ruins my enjoyment of sports.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot something. Just couldn't wait to can him, could they? Like, until after the tournament is over and the public eye is elsewhere, to save him some embarrassment? I have never, never been envious of sports management, from top to bottom. I wouldn't last a week in that environment.

They nailed their last two hires in Shaka Smart and Chris Beard, what could go wrong? /sarcasm

UConn was one of the four teams I had in our $640 random team bracket. I wasn't really aware of what an a-hole Hurley is. Kinda regret rooting for them.

As a long-suffering Detroit Tigers fan, used to no one caring about anything the team does, says or is; it warms my heart to see such vitriol hurled at UCONN. We used to hear it about Calhoun all the time too. :laugh:

It is the price of sustained excellence. :)

It is indeed!