ESPN commentator's Jake Crawford and Dana Jacobson opened this mornings First Take by congratulating in a somewhat ESPN-snide-like fashion this years men's "Final Four" teams, and the two entrants who got the bracket right. Someone also insinuated that the two correct entries must have been from fans...(verbatim)..."they are probably V.C.U. fans". Maybe the two entries were made by V.C.U. fans...maybe so - maybe no, but I think it is great that just two entrants got it ("final four") right. Even if it was from respective fans or a fluke or pure luck.
As for the tourney itself, I have no problem with the field of teams representing the final four tourney. However, I do have a problem with those other two ESPiN desk commentators who have a problem with the four teams, they are one Rob Parker and Skip ('Mr. Cynical') Bayless. Both insinuated that some of the teams in the final four (e.g. V.C.U.) did not even deserve a bid into the tourney of 68 teams. Adding that the final four this year is boring since no dominant teams are being represented, boring since no power-house teams made the final four...they rated this final four tourney low because no number 1 ranked team will be in Houston. Dana was actually the only one who went to bat for the tourney. She is excited about the teams going to Houston for the 'big dance"...excited about the odds that these very four teams have a shot at the National Championship. I totally agree with Dana.
As for the tourney itself, I have no problem with the field of teams representing the final four tourney. However, I do have a problem with those other two ESPiN desk commentators who have a problem with the four teams, they are one Rob Parker and Skip ('Mr. Cynical') Bayless. Both insinuated that some of the teams in the final four (e.g. V.C.U.) did not even deserve a bid into the tourney of 68 teams. Adding that the final four this year is boring since no dominant teams are being represented, boring since no power-house teams made the final four...they rated this final four tourney low because no number 1 ranked team will be in Houston. Dana was actually the only one who went to bat for the tourney. She is excited about the teams going to Houston for the 'big dance"...excited about the odds that these very four teams have a shot at the National Championship. I totally agree with Dana.
I am tired of sport's pundits/commentators bitching and complaining about how boring tournaments are when the usual power-house teams are no where to be seen in the finals. Oh, yeah, just like the stupid (BCS) computers always get it right and pick the right teams for a shot at the NCAA BCS National Championship Game. For the past few years, the BCS has gotten it wrong more often that right. The difference between the NCAA football championship and basketball championship for yours truly is this: the former allows a machine to pick the teams it deems deserving - the latter allows all 68 teams to vie for a shot at the championship - a true tournament - a true play-off system.
If Skip has an issue with the likes of V.C.U. and their "mediocrity" and keeps saying that the Rams do not belong in the tourney, I admit that is his right to say it. "Stupid is as stupid says!". But the fact is that V.C.U did receive a bid; they won the games they had to win - in their own conference tourney and in this one. One-game-at-a time the Rams proved they did in fact deserve to be part of "the big dance". Their (V.C.U.) performance during the regular season may have been lacking but the beauty of this "March Madness" tournament is that all teams get to clear their slate when it begins - the Rams are no exception. The big difference between this year's Final Four teams is that V.C.U. is the only team that had to play one extra game during round one (beating USC 59-46), the rest of the teams in this years Final Four officially began their tourney during round two. V.C.U. made their way into the "big dance" this year in part to the change in the tournament rules of recently added teams (added in 2010 thus extending the field to 68), so fair or unfair, exciting or not exciting, the Rams earned their bid and made everyone take notice that they were here to stay. Maybe just maybe teams like V.C.U. deserve "to dance" more so than the usual power-houses like Kansas who made their way into the tourney in a slothfulness, entitled fashion and clearly choked. No one says the Rams are overall better than the Jayhawks, but for one game they were. The one game that actually counted, V.C.U. was indeed better than Kansas!
If Skip has an issue with the likes of V.C.U. and their "mediocrity" and keeps saying that the Rams do not belong in the tourney, I admit that is his right to say it. "Stupid is as stupid says!". But the fact is that V.C.U did receive a bid; they won the games they had to win - in their own conference tourney and in this one. One-game-at-a time the Rams proved they did in fact deserve to be part of "the big dance". Their (V.C.U.) performance during the regular season may have been lacking but the beauty of this "March Madness" tournament is that all teams get to clear their slate when it begins - the Rams are no exception. The big difference between this year's Final Four teams is that V.C.U. is the only team that had to play one extra game during round one (beating USC 59-46), the rest of the teams in this years Final Four officially began their tourney during round two. V.C.U. made their way into the "big dance" this year in part to the change in the tournament rules of recently added teams (added in 2010 thus extending the field to 68), so fair or unfair, exciting or not exciting, the Rams earned their bid and made everyone take notice that they were here to stay. Maybe just maybe teams like V.C.U. deserve "to dance" more so than the usual power-houses like Kansas who made their way into the tourney in a slothfulness, entitled fashion and clearly choked. No one says the Rams are overall better than the Jayhawks, but for one game they were. The one game that actually counted, V.C.U. was indeed better than Kansas!
