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.