It's All About the Benjamins

One of the big topics of discussion in the coming weeks will be the likely expansion of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Vito Forlenza thinks that if the NCAA wants to be so greedy, then they need to pay the players who are making them all of this money. I think he's a ginormous fucktard, but that may just be me.

NCAA Needs to Show Players the Money

Let's talk about money.

Personally I’d prefer to talk about sex, but since this is your article and you brought it up, we can talk about money.

After all, it's the only thing NCAA officials can think about. Well, they're not exactly putting it that way. They're framing it as expansion of the NCAA tournament.

The NCAA is going to give many reasons for desiring to expand the Men’s tournament to 96 teams. Money is obviously the biggest and I have not really heard anyone shy away from that fact.

But don't be fooled. The NCAA is threatening to add 32 teams to the Big Dance because it thinks it can make more money. That's it and nothing more. Money is not the underlying factor that has the NCAA mulling expansion. It's the only factor.

First of all, fucktard, they are threatening to add 31 teams. Let me try and explain this so your small brain can comprehend this without exploding. If there are currently 65 teams that make the tournament each year and you want to expand to 96 teams, 96 minus 65 equals 31. I have not seen anything anywhere stating the NCAA wants to expand to 97 teams. You’ve pretty much lost all integrity by your little oversight. Plus, shitcan the editor, if there is one, who did not catch this before it was released.

You didn't really think it was about giving more kids the opportunity to experience the thrill of the tournament, did you?

No. I know several coaches that would like to make the tournament every year to give them some additional job security. If a coach does not make the tournament every so many years, they are generally shown the door. Adding 31 teams gives coaches some additional chances every year.

It's all about money. So let's talk about money. And let's finally get serious about giving players their fair share of the mountains of cash the NCAA rakes in.

I would say money is probably 80-90% of the reason. The other 10% I would attribute to the coaches wanting a better chance of making the tournament and the kids having the opportunity as well.

The NCAA can opt out of its current 11-year, $6 billion TV deal with CBS after the Final Four and begin shopping around the tournament broadcast rights this summer. It expects suitors to wage a fierce and expensive battle over this lucrative piece of Americana. The negotiations could potentially lead to unconventional bids and partnerships among network and cable sports broadcasters.

The NCAA has already requested proposals from the networks in regards to the new bidding process should the NCAA opt-out of the current contract. Adding another week, an additional 16 games to the current format, could result in a few billion extra dollars. Whether or not CBS can maintain its stranglehold on the tournament will be hard to tell.

Despite making a ton of money with the current format, the NCAA wants more. And apparently, the yet-to-be-determined sum from a new TV contract is not enough to satisfy its greedy appetite. Before heading to the negotiating table, the NCAA is prepping to sweeten the deal by expanding the field to a whopping 96 teams.

Yep. Is that necessarily wrong? I can’t really say no to that. While I have to say I enjoy the current format and was definitely against it when talk of the expansion began, I can definitely see good and bad points to expansion (hopefully another entry on that topic will be coming soon!).

Disgusting, I know. But not only because it's going to ruin the country's best sporting event.

You know, people said the same things when the NCAA expanded the tournament to include 64 teams in the 80’s. While I do not enjoy the fact that the Selection Committee will no doubt add a tenth Big East team to the tournament over a more deserving second or third mid-major conference team, adding another round of 16 games between teams of more equal caliber could lead to some exciting games. Change is not always bad, Vito.

What frustrates me even more is the NCAA's hypocritical, blatant and reckless exploitation of the players. The current set-up is bad enough. Still, it wants to squeeze even more cash out of the cash-strapped kids.

I hate that fucking analogy. I’m not sure what portion of basketball players are “cash-strapped”, but you will not squeeze more cash from the players. If you are going to gripe about how the NCAA exploits basketball players, then you better be griping about how they exploit the football players as well. I have not seen anything regarding them in here yet.

So go ahead, NCAA. Expand your tournament. Grab your billions of dollars. But pay your players.

They are paid you fucktard. They get an education in exchange for reaping their college some major bucks to fund the rest of the athletics at their school. They get free room and board. If you want to bitch about players needing cash, then bash the NCAA for allowing players to have more ability to work while in school. If you are going to pay basketball players, then how can you not pay the soccer players or hockey players or the underwater basket weavers? Yes, the basketball and football programs bring in the monies to help fund all of the other programs. But how can you can you justify paying only some of the sporting teams?

A radical change to college sports' highest-profile event requires a radical change to the overall structure. Stop the charade and float some cash to the kids.

Do you think Shaq got rich in Orlando? No, he got rich in college!

Because if you expand this tournament and make these kids play half an NBA season, all this talk about getting an education, upholding the integrity of the intercollegiate athletics and playing for the glory of Dear Old State will morph into lip service. And make no mistake, we're poking at that threshold now. One-and-done players, academic scandals and kickbacks to high school coaches already cloud college basketball's culture.

You are adding one game to the current tournament format. ONE FUCKING GAME, DICKHEAD!

One-and-done players are not the NCAA’s fault. I don’t think the NCAA went to the NBA and asked them to install the one year of college rule in order to get more NBA caliber players to go to college instead of straight to the NBA. The NCAA does gain some benefits from these players, but they tend to harm the schools more unless they can make it to the Final Four or win it all.

Academic scandals and kickbacks have been present for decades in all sports so don’t try and blame those on a single sport’s tournament. Douchebag!

Now the NCAA wants to expand the tournament, add another week to the season and pull these kids out of even more classes? Unless it's all a ruse, how can the NCAA approve this proposal and pretend to uphold its core values? How can it believe it's still looking out for the best interests of the kids? And - oh, don't get me started -- how can it extend the basketball season, but claim a football playoff is impossible because the players will miss too much class time?

One, adding a football playoff would require adding more than one week to the football season. Two, you are only modifying the existing basketball tournament versus modifying the current football bowl structure. The BCS conferences, bowls and bowl sponsors do not want that cash cow to go away and no one has come up with a good solution to satisfy everyone…yet. Class time might be their excuse, but this is definitely one where the money going to the BCS conferences is dictating the stance against a football playoff.

The only way the NCAA can even think about expanding the tournament while maintaining a sliver of dignity and curtailing corruption is by paying the players. I'm not suggesting millions of dollars. I'm advocating a flat stipend allocated across the board -- in both men's basketball and football.

OK, now you finally mention football.

Of the money that currently goes to the conferences and teams, I’m sure that there is not enough there to pay players and paying for the other sports at schools. At most schools, those monies do not even cover the cost of the other sports as it is! Now you think they should pay the players too?

Some of the money schools make from men's basketball and football supports the non-revenue sports like soccer, lacrosse, hockey, wrestling, swimming and gymnastics. If the big-revenue sports are able to subsidize their smaller-revenue brethren, that’s a great use of the money. But the actual people responsible for making all that money - players - must benefit from it, too.

See my response above.

To make it happen, an independent body needs to be brought in to study all the different revenue streams from men's basketball and football - from TV rights and gate receipts to sponsorships and jersey sales. Then, it would determine a fair athletic grant that changes on a yearly basis to keep up with the money the NCAA, conferences and schools are taking in.

If there are 344 NCAA Division I teams that are eligible for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament and 12 players per team, that works out to be 4,128 players. How much money are you proposing? $500 per month? At $500 per month for 9 months per year (assumes they do not get paid during the summer months) that would equal $18,576,000 per year. Granted, that is a drop in the bucket of the billions the NCAA receives from CBS. But what about football? Granted, there are only 119 Division I BCS schools, but if the average team has 60 players, that is another $32 million. Over 10 years you are talking over $500 million dollars. I don’t think the NCAA is willing to part with that much to pay players that are already receiving scholarships plus room and board.

Please, please, please don't tell me that college athletes are getting enough from a free education and room and board. That doesn't mean a thing if their parents back home can't pay the rent. That need inevitably leads to cheating, whether in the form of side deals with agents, extra benefits from boosters, stuffed envelopes from well-off alums or some combination of all three. When the kids aren't seeing a penny of the millions they know they're generating, it's hard to fault them for accepting something under the table.

So, do you expect an athlete will take the $500 a month stipend and sent it to his parents so they can make their rent? Get real.

Dude, this is not the 80’s where the stuffed envelopes, free cars and police looked the other way. Universities and coaches have staff that enforce that this does not happen, because when they get caught, it will not only cost them their jobs, it affects the players, the university and the conference. Granted, it still does happen but most of these coaches have probably already left before the shit hits the fan.

These kids are already getting between $5,000 and $100,000 in free tuition per year plus a place to stay and free food. Just to play basketball or football. Something they obvious love to do. Some in the hopes to make it to the pros, others just for the love of the game. For every student athlete that come from a poor family scrapping to get by, how many come from a Carmel or a Cathedral-type school?

If you think the payola is at a high point now, just wait until the NCAA arms all the agents, boosters and alumni with new ammunition of an expanded tournament. It'll be that much easier to convince these kids that everyone in the Ivory Tower is taking advantage of them.

Again…ONE FUCKING ROUND OF GAMES IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT BIG OF A FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO THE PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!! The NCAA will get more revenue and that revenue makes it to the conferences and schools. I’d rather a school have the ability to offer lacrosse or underwater basket weaving than pay student athletes.

The NCAA and its member conferences and schools have gotten away with hoarding all the money for far too long, while the players have been left with empty pockets. It's time to pay up.

Go crawl back into your little hole, Vito. Like it or not, change is going to happen. If not this year, the seed has been planted and we’re all going along for the ride, like it or not.

Butler Fight Song Lyrics Reminder

Congratulations to the our Butler Bulldogs making the NCAA 2010 Final Four, in Indianapolis to boot!

I know those of us here at LomHenn are quite excited about it. So in honor of the Bulldogs and since everyone will no doubt here the Butler fight song during the ensuing games this weekend, we thought we would remind our readers of the lyrics to the song...at least the version that we sing.

Click on the link here to listen to the fight song and feel free to scream the lyrics. I know that Slut and I have during this year's tournament run.

This is the Butler Fight Song, I don't know the words

This is the Butler Fight Song, I still don't know the words

This is the Butler Fight Song, I really don't know the words

This is the Butler Fight Song, what the fuck are the words

What the fuck are the words!

So please help us cheer the 'Dawgs on their way to the championship and sing our version of the lyrics! At least they make more sense than the actual lyrics.

Forget Bob Kravitz

Congratulations to the Butler Bulldogs on making their first Elite Eight appearance! I'm not sure if they can necessarily wear the Cinderella crown like George Mason in 2006 at this point, but the clock has not struck midnight for them yet.

As much as we would like to forget about Bob Kravitz, our standards dictate that we cannot. We are the standard bearers for bad writing on bad writing. It is articles like this one that we banded together to shine a light on the travesties of wretched sports media writing.

Forget 'Hoosiers'; these 'Dogs are for real

Or...Forget Bob Kravitz; another Turd-burger special awaits!

Oh, great. Since we are in Indiana, why does everyone feel the need to incorporate the movie Hoosiers into any type of small school vs. big school basketball (or seemingly any sport) match up?

Here comes America, armed with its tape measures and Hickory High story lines and features about how Brad Stevens is the lineal descendant of Norman Dale. Now that the Butler Bulldogs are one West Regional victory from writing one of the great college basketball stories ever told -- Butler in the Final Four in Indianapolis -- it's fair to assume the land's journalists are prepared to show up and go all Jimmy Chitwood on us.

I know that the Butler bandwagon is growing and will swell if they make the Final Four and are the lowest remaining seed. I think that is great for a small school from a mid-major conference. Add in the fact they would be playing in their hometown is noteworthy. It only becomes one of the great college basketball stories if they make it to the final game or even win it all. That is a story to remember. If they make it to the Final Four, it is noteworthy, but not necessarily great by any means. Noteworthy, Bob, not "great", got it.

(OK, Sparky)
Here's the deal:

Butler, a 63-59 victor over No. 1-seeded and fourth-ranked Syracuse on Thursday night, is no fluke, no Little Team That Could, no come-from-nowhere Hickory High, even if I'm pretty sure that was Shooter lingering near the end of the Butler bench.

For the love of God, please stop the Hoosiers references!

Too bad it was not a shooter trying to put your computer in his sights so we would not have to read this.

The Bulldogs went athlete for athlete, face to face with an imposing Syracuse team, and showed they were not only more composed and poised, but more athletic than a team that was supposed to be the best in the nation's best conference. (Number of teams in the Elite Eight: Big East 1, Horizon League 1).

No doubt that the Big East was the most hyped conference coming into the tournament this year. I am not sure if it was due more to the Big East being that up or the rest of the conferences just being more down. The Pac-10 just plain sucked ass and it was a minor miracle that Washington made it into the Dance. (Just goes to show that any team that makes the Dance can dance more than once.) The Big Ten has some really good teams in Ohio State, Michigan State and Purdue, but the bottom of the conference was atrocious. The Big East sent eight teams to the tournament and yes, it is surprising that only one remains into the Elite Eight.

Who saw that one coming?

Me. But that is more due to the fact that Mrs. Bembledack is a Butler grad and being a Butler homer than pure outright foresight.

Butler, the coaches and players, they saw that one coming.


No, they did not see it coming, Assbag! I'm pretty sure that Brad Stevens did not have a Nostradamus moment and foresee just how far the team would go this year. The Bulldogs have worked their asses off all year and have played their way here. No one knows just how far they can go until they play.

"We don't need to hit a bunch of 3s to win,'' Butler assistant Matthew Graves said an hour before the game. "We've got to stop them in transition, we've got to make sure we hang in there on the boards, and we've got to attack them in the paint and on the baseline. We haven't even talked about 3s.''

No, but it definitely helps their game when they do hit 3s. When Butler can hit their outside shots, the inside can open up for Matt Howard. Thankfully, Butler is athletic enough and plays team defense to be able to win without requiring 3s.

So what did they do?

I bet you're going to tell us, huh?

They shot a miserable 6-for-24 from 3, although they hit two monster 3s in the final minutes -- and won.

While hitting 25% of your 3s is below their season average of 34.2%, I would not really call it miserable.

Bottom line, Butler won with defense, forcing 18 turnovers and reducing Syracuse's vaunted offense to mush. Willie Veasley, charitably listed at 6-3, kept 6-7 Orange star Wesley Johnson under control. Ronald Nored, who said he ran "a marathon'' chasing sharpshooter Andy Rautins, flustered his opponent into bad shots down the stretch. Once Butler overcame the late four-point deficit and went up by a point, Syracuse panicked.

Wow, something Bob is correct on. Syracuse did seem to panic when Butler went on their 11-0 run to take a 61-54 lead, but they collected their wits some and nearly came back at the end.

Syracuse likes to play fast, play in transition, so we wanted to make it an ugly game for them,'' said Nored, who stole the ball at game's end to seal the deal. "We saw on films, when games were tough and ugly, they weren't as good as when they were out in transition, hitting 3s and getting dunks.

"And we could see them getting frustrated. You could see it in the first half, and then the last few minutes of the game. We got to them.''

Another reason why Butler is still playing and Syracuse is heading home early...again.

Afterward, Syracuse's players looked like they'd just taken the collar from some pitcher throwing 82-mph slop. Yet, the Bulldogs shot atrociously from 3-point range and still knocked off the Orange. And they played a good portion of the first half without foul-plagued Gordon Hayward. And they had to survive for a stretch when Matt Howard got his fourth foul with 8:23 remaining.

OK, Turdfucker! Since when does someone with two personal fouls be considered as foul-plagued? What fucking journalism school did you supposedly graduate from? He may have picked up two first half fouls, but he was not called for any in the second half. I do not consider that foul-plagued by any means. Matt Howard is foul-plagued and has been all season.

Seriously, take away the Butler uniforms, and they could have been one of those Big East behemoths, a Pitt or a Villanova or a West Virginia.

Take away their uniforms and they would be playing in their underwear. I REALLY do not want to see that. Now having the cheerleaders in their underwear, that I would watch!

Now America knows what we've known all along: The Bulldogs can not only play with anybody, they can beat anybody, including Syracuse on a night when they had to rely more on athleticism than long-range shooting. Clearly, this isn't your older brother's Butler team.

The Bulldogs have been able to beat anybody for a while. They lost in OT to Tennessee by 2 points in 2006 when Tennessee was an under-seeded #2-seed. They took the NCAA Champion Florida Gators to the wire in the second round of the 2008 tournament. They've been on the cusp of the limelight for a while. This is just the first time they've been able to put it all together.

Forget about destiny. This is about a wonderful basketball team that defends and cherishes each possession. They've gotten this far. Why not a few steps further?

It is nice to have a team that can actually pass the ball around more than once or twice and can actually play defense. And yes, if they can make it there, they can make it anywhere.

Maybe it's the fact that Butler has never been in the Elite Eight before, but it's like nobody can quite get their arms around the notion. After the game, several of Butler's reserves gathered around a locker room TV as CBS' Seth Davis held court.

"S-s-h-h-h, s-s-h-h-h, I want to hear this,'' someone said.

Davis made the point about how Syracuse desperately missed its injured center Arinze Onuaku -- a point Brad Stevens had made earlier.

The Butler players moaned.

"Man,'' they said, disgusted.

It is easier for the sports media to make excuses for why a higher seeded team lost to a lower seed. We are a society of excuse makers. We cannot seem to comprehend that some teams are going to get beat regardless whether you have all of your players or not. All the sports talking heads were quick to point out that Butler's defeat of Ohio State was due to Evan Turner not playing due to an injury. Yes, I'm sure it would have made a difference if he had played, but Butler handled the Buckeyes pretty well, so you cannot discount what Butler did just because someone good did not play.

Why wasn't Onuaku's absence such a big deal in Syracuse's monster victory over Gonzaga?

Because they won you fucktard! It only becomes an excuse when they lose.

Even as they continue this marvelous march back home, Butler is loath to play up the obvious story line. They know the Final Four is in Indy. They are aware that Butler is located in Indy. Smart kids at Butler. They get it. They see the elephant in the room.

They just don't want any part of it, at least not yet.

The elephant is not in the room, it is sitting on your brain evidently. As Brad Stevens has said all during their current 23-game winning streak, they take one game at a time. They only look to the next game. Yes, they know where their next victory will take them, but they know they have to win to get there.

"I'm going home on Saturday night or Sunday morning, whenever the charter gets here, and we're going to Indy,'' Stevens said. "I just hope we still have season left.''

And we'll be excited for you whether or not you won or lost.

They're not the only ones. America is ready for Butler back in Indianapolis, and if Purdue can follow suit, it's going to be a regular Hoosier-palooza, replete with pork tenderloins and Bobby Plump sightings.

While having both Butler and Purdue in the Final Four would be great for basketball in Indiana, it would be horrible for businesses, but that is a different story.

Great stories don't win basketball games like this one. Great teams do.

And what would you know about great stories. It's not like you've ever written one.

Butler is one of the small fish in the ocean, but they have the teeth to take on any of the teams remaining. The Bembledack clan will be rooting for the Bulldogs all the way and will scream the roof off of my house if Butler wins it all. Do I think Butler could beat the likes of a Kentucky? My answer is yes. If Butler's outside game is on, if Matt Howard can keep out of trouble and they play their current stifling defense, then I think they would at least be in the game to win it at the end.

Sad thing is, if Butler does make it to Indy, I may have to kill someone over the mass of Hoosiers movie reference that will spill forth. FUCK!

What Do You Mean There's a Difference?

I don't know about you, but I was shocked to learn that there is a difference between the NCAA Final Four Tournament and the NBA Playoffs. No, really! I had no fucking clue...that is, I had no fucking clue that Mike Lopresti was this moronic.

NBA playoffs are nothing like the NCAA Tournament

So how is your NBA playoffs office pool bracket going so far?

Well, since I am the only person in my office, I am in the lead and the odds on favorite to win.

Now that April-May-June Madness is upon us, we can sit back and wait for the upsets. Who'd the Lakers draw in the first round - East Tennessee State or Siena? And since the Suns didn't get invited, what do you think their chances are in the NIT?

Oh, I get it. You’re trying to be funny comparing the NCAA Final Four Tournament and the NBA Playoffs. Uhh, dude, it’s not working…

Oh, sorry. Forgot to turn the mental switch from college to pro. I was wondering why the Pistons didn't have to win a play-in game.

Hey, honest mistake. Since it seems at least two teams typically from the Eastern Conference have a losing record as of late, you might think that it might make more sense to have one. NOT!

It might still be basketball, but deciding champions for the NCAA and NBA are entirely different processes, and not just because one has Dick Vitale and the other doesn't. To follow both the tournament and the playoffs requires separate rules of etiquette.

Well, considering one is an amateur collegiate association and one is a professional league, I think that is a pretty stark difference right there.

Now that the NBA postseason is fully engaged, here are a few:
In the NCAA, you refer to the best players by their full names. Tyler Hansbrough. Blake Griffin. Just as a professor would, calling attendance in literature class.
In the NBA, you refer to the best players by their first names, as if you have lunch with them twice a week. Kobe. LeBron. Dwight. I don't know why, but all the guys do on television.

Part of that may be due to the fact that most college players only play four years tops and many of the top players are there for only a year or two. The NBA stars referenced above have been in the league for years and that is just the way announcers, writers and society have come to reference them. If you say the name “Michael”, 98% of NBA fans will think of Michael Jordan. A few may think of Michael Olowokandi, and those people will be sent for psyche evaluations.

In the NCAA, an upset victory over a heavy favorite means an interview on ESPN, a celebration on campus, and a new contract for the coach.
In the NBA, an upset victory over a heavy favorite means you won't get swept 4-0.

One of the big draws to the Final Four Tournament is the one-and-done format of the tournament and the upsets that happen in the early rounds…most of the time. The NBA is set up to earn the team owners and networks as much money as possible. That is why every round is a best-of-seven series. Personally, I think that is way too many for the first round and it drags the playoffs until after Father’s Day. I would prefer the best-of-five series in the first round.

I think Mike needs to go check his history records because there have been upsets in the NBA Playoffs. Yes, they do not happen as often, but they do happen. The #8 seed Golden State Warriors upset the #1 seed Dallas Mavericks 4-2 in the first round of the 2007 playoffs. The #8 seed New York Knicks upset the #2 seed Indiana Pacers in the 1999 Eastern Conference Finals 4 games to 2 in addition to defeating the #1 Miami Heat in the first round. The 1995 NBA Finals saw the #6 seed Houston Rockets sweep the #1 seed Orlando Magic. Upsets do happen.

Wait…doesn’t Mike work for Gannett Publishing? The same publisher that publishes the Indianapolis Star, which also employs one our favorite fucktards, Bob Kravitz? Wow, what a coincidence!

In the NCAA, they have trombone players and drummers on the front rows at the end of the court.
In the NBA, they have Oscar winners and platinum recording artists on the front rows at the end of the court.

Only in LA or NY.

In the NCAA, the introduction of the starting lineups reminds you of a pep rally.
In the NBA, the introduction of the starting lineup reminds you of a Las Vegas floor show.

For most NCAA teams, the introductions are vastly similar to the introductions at a high school game. For the NBA, it is a show! The teams now they need to entertain the fans with more than just the basketball on the court. The Bulls and Pacers have had pretty good starting lineup presentations over the past couple of decades. (Don’t get me started on the starting lineups that the old AFL Indiana Firebirds had. That opening sequence just sucked ass.)

In the NCAA, they play in domes and sell cotton candy.
In the NBA, they play in arenas, and sell frozen daiquiris.

NCAA tournament venues are hosting four or eight different teams’ fans and need the 50,000+ capacities of the domes. NBA playoff teams have the majority of the seats filled by the home team’s fans, unless you are in Atlanta.

In the NCAA, they have crazy boosters who show up with painted faces and scream irrationally at the officials.
In the NBA, they have Mark Cuban. Except he hasn't painted his face. Not yet, anyway.

NBA fans are just as crazy as college team fans. Although, that could just be due to the effect of the alcohol.

In the NCAA, the officials wear black and white stripes, and are often accused of being partial to Duke.
In the NBA, the officials wear gray and are often accused of being partial to the Celtics.

Officials are always going to be more partial to certain teams and players. They are human and it is going to happen. I will forever say that back in the 90’s the NBA officials gave more calls to the Knicks and Bulls than to the Pacers. No, it was not some secret NBA directive to have a major city in the Finals, but there were too many calls that went against the Pacers or no calls that leave you scratching your head in wonderment.

In the NCAA, a championship team will journey on the road to the Final Four.
In the NBA, a championship team might journey on the road to Houston, then Portland and then Cleveland.

The NCAA plays the games in predetermined arenas/domes/stadiums. The NBA plays games at each teams home arenas and you don’t know where that will be until a given round is completed.
In the NCAA, they travel and get called for it.
In the NBA, they travel.

Yes, Mike is correct on this one. Since Michael Jordan started taking an extra step and officials decided not to call it back in the 80’s, now everyone gets away with it.

In the NCAA, the teams participate in the Big Dance starting in mid-March.
In the NBA, the Laker girls participate in a big dance at the end of each quarter.

I have nothing…this one short-circuited by brain by it’s sheer stupidity.

In the NCAA, it takes 20 minutes to play the last 90 seconds of the second half.
In the NBA, it takes 20 minutes to play the last 90 seconds of the fourth quarter.

OK, shit-for-brains! Even an amoeba knows that the NCAA plays halves and the NBA plays quarters.

In the NCAA, they would never expect a team from the Ivy League or Mid-American Conference or Ohio Valley to contend for a title.
In the NBA, instead of the Ohio Valley, they have the Clippers.

True, Harvard, Ball State and Murray State are teams you do not expect to win the Final Four and over-achieve if they do make it to the Sweet 16. However, the BCS conferences dominate the tournament and the mid-major and smaller conferences can normally only hope to have an upset or two and wreak havoc on the office brackets.

The last non-BCS team to make the Final Four was George Mason a couple of years ago and the last non-BCS team to make it to the championship game was Larry Bird’s Indiana State team in 1979.

In the NCAA, there are college student-athletes who want to be millionaires.
In the NBA, there are millionaires who never spent a day as a college student-athlete.

Do you think Shaq got rich in Orlando? No, he got rich in college, everybody knows that!

In the NCAA, the coach is the director, the players are the cast.
In the NBA, the marquee players are the stars, then the role players, then the subs. The coaches are the boom operators.

College coaches have the advantage over NBA coaches in that they have near ultimate authority to bench a player at will or expel him off the team for any given reason. NBA players have contracts, salaries and owners that hamstring coaches to a certain degree. NBA players have more weight to throw around than their college counterparts and can push coaches to their limit without much repercussion. Owners do not care to have their star or major players on the bench unless the infraction is pretty grave.

In the NCAA, they play until Easter.
In the NBA, they play until Father's Day.

NCAA teams play roughly 30-32 games prior to the tournament. The NBA plays 82 games. NCAA teams rarely play on back-to-back nights unless it is in a tournament. NBA teams play a dozen or so back-to-back games every season. So it stands to reason that the NBA season is going to run longer, turdbag.

In the NCAA, they throw confetti on the champions.
In the NBA, they pour champagne on the champions.

Yeah, the BATF frowns on those underage college players drinking champagne. So they’re stuck with just confetti and hoping to bag one of the cheerleaders later.

In the NCAA, the championship coach leaves two days later on a recruiting trip.
In the NBA, the championship coach leaves two days later for Tahiti.

Well, NCAA coaches have to RECRUIT players while NBA coaches generally only have some type of input in who their team DRAFTS. As mentioned previously, the NBA season is longer and more grueling and he probably deserves to go on a nice vacation to Tahiti. I know I could definitely use a vacation to Tahiti right now.

In the NCAA, the teams that came close but fell short will hurt all off-season.
In the NBA, the off-season, thus the pain, is only shorter.

Whahuh?!? It is probably more hurtful for the senior players since they will not have another chance to play for a collegiate championship. Yes, the NBA off-season is shorter, but does that mean it hurts less?

So to sum it all up, Mike Lopresti is a moronic, turdbag fucktard who is trying to explain why there is a difference between the NCAA and NBA championships that anyone who has seen, heard of or read about a NCAA game and a NBA game would already know the difference between.

O'Hoolix Sunday Picks

It seems that O'Hoolix is doing so well these days, he's traveling and living large with Lom Henn himself--a privilege the rest of us here at LomHenn.com are never afforded. Going 20-10-1 thus far in this year's NCAA Tournament will get you into high company, indeed.

O'Hoolix phoned in his picks today since he is traveling, and as his humble servant (at least, until the tournament is complete), I'm doing the honors of posting them. The O'Hoolix picks for the two regional final games today:

LOUISVILLE -7: Going with the hot team--the Cardinals look like they can beat anybody right now. Will Sparty keep it close?

L-VILLE/MSU UNDER (138 1/2): I think O'Hoolix is crazy to take the under here, but what the hell do I know--I had Missouri and Gonzaga in the final. And the little fuzzy space alien is on a roll.

NORTH CAROLINA -7: It's the battle of the big stars: Blake Griffin of Oklahoma vs. Tyler Hansbrough of NC. O'Hoolix thinks NC will be up to the challenge.

So there you have it. Will O'Hoolix continue to dominate? Will Alex Logan defend the Frontier from Xur and the Ko-Dan armada?

What do you think?

It's Like Hitting Yourself In the Head Over and Over With a Hammer

...it just feels so good when you stop.

Tuning on the local radio dial to listen to the NCAA Tournament this afternoon, and was dismayed to find that the local Jim Rome Show affiliate kept his show on the air instead of having the tournament games! Of course, I then listened for awhile, which is always a bad idea.

First off, while giving NCAA Tournament scores, Rome started playing a "Bracket Alert" alarm with an annoying klaxon sound (think "Red Alert"). This went on for two minutes. Why? North Dakota State was down by one to Kansas with seven minutes remaining in the first half.

Yes, an upset alert. With the underdog still losing. With seven minutes to play in the first half.

Next, Rome decided to be the latest guy to condemn Morgan State's Ameer Ali after his take down of Oklahoma's All-Everything Blake Griffin in Thursday night's NCAA match up. If you missed it, Ali flipped Griffin over his back after the two got locked up under the basket. Ali was ejected from the game. Rome's take (I'm paraphrasing):

"Griffin should have gotten up and taken a swing at Ali. I'm surprised he didn't, though it showed remarkable restraint to not hit a guy who is trying to hurt you. Ali is a chump and didn't belong on the same floor...what was he (Ali) thinking? He was trying to take out or injure the best player in college basketball."

I'm not defending what Ali did. He was ejected for what he did, and deservedly so. However, it's possible that Ali wasn't trying to hurt Griffin on purpose; perhaps in the heat of the moment during some physical play he did something he shouldn't have. I know that Rome probably has never played a sport, but it's not too hard to imagine that sometimes a player can get caught up in what's happening and overreact. Again, I'm not defending Ali, and he deserved to be ejected. But he's not automatically evil.

After Rome went on and on about Ali for awhile, he then started talking about how Griffin must have had "Yakety Sax" playing in his head. So we then heard "Yakety Sax"--over and over and over.

And then I drove into a ditch.

Rah! Rah! Rah! Cheering From the Broadcast Booth

A disturbing trend in radio sports broadcasts has taken hold the last few years. Specifically, the trend of broadcasters to cheer for the team for which they broadcast. Within the broadcast industry, people who do this are known as "homers."

There are notable homers working today, such as Bob Lamey (Indianapolis Colts radio network), Hawk Harrelson (Chicago White Sox broadcasts), Michael Kay (New York Yankees), and Ron Santo (Chicago Cubs). Lamey, Harrelson, and Kay do play-by-play, while Santo does color commentary (at least, is supposed to do that).

What has happened more and more recently is for the broadcasters--usually the color commentators, but sometimes the play-by-play announcers, too--to become cheerleaders during the broadcast. This includes cheering to the point of not providing meaningful analysis of the game. Of course, we look no further than Ron Santo for one of the best examples (this comes from a Cubs/Brewers game in 1998 when Cubs left fielder Brant Brown dropped a routine fly ball that lost the game for the Cubs).

In this afternoon's radio broadcast of the Butler/LSU opening round NCAA Tournament game on the Butler Radio Network provided another example of bad broadcasting. Butler color analyst Nick Gardner constantly referred to Butler as "we" throughout the game. Evidently, Gardner thinks he still plays for Butler--either that or he had a mouse in his pocket.

In either case, it's very hard to have credibility as a broadcaster when you include yourself as part of the team. It's one thing for fans to do that--who cares, we're not supposed to be objective--but as a broadcaster, there should be some sort of separation between you and the team.

Of course, it didn't help that Gardner's analysis was lacking, too--such gems as "you want to score here" when Butler had the ball did not provide any insight into how the Bulldogs could best accomplish that.

Butler lost today, so there won't be any more opportunities for Gardner to provide non-analysis this season. Perhaps in next season's opener, one of Gardner's keys to the game will be for Butler to score more points than the other team.

Every Time I Think I'm Out...

...he pulls me back in!

Joy mixed with anger at Purdue

Apparently, the Big Ten Tournament result doesn't matter. They might as well have played the Purdue-Ohio State final next Thursday on the moon for all it impacted the NCAA selection committee's decision.

On the moon...with Steve?

Little Bobby Kravitz is probably right, the Big Ten Tournament Final didn't matter as to where Purdue was seeded in the NCAA Tournament--or to where Ohio State went, either. And why should it? It's one game--shouldn't the "overall body of work" (i.e. the whole season) matter more than one game?

Riddle me this: How does Purdue tie for second place during the regular season and then win the Big Ten Tournament title -- win the tournament in a conference ranked second in the nation -- and earn nothing better than a No. 5 seed?

Nice up-to-date "Riddle me this" reference, Bob. How about a KAPOW!! in the article, too?

Now to his question--perhaps it's because the Tournament Selection Committee looks at the whole season, and not just one game? Yes, the Big Ten was the second-rated conference this season. Purdue finished tied for 2nd in the conference and ended the season with an RPI of 20 or 21 depending on who you look at. If the Committee uses RPI as its guide--which it says it does--the Boilermakers are exactly where they should be. You could even make the argument that they could have ended up with a 6-seed.

But I'm using logic and reason in my analysis. Bob is using...well, nothing.
Then, if the Boilers beat Northern Iowa in the first round, they would likely play Washington in semi-nearby Portland, Ore.

It could be worse. You could have to play a 1-seed about an hour away from its campus.

Here's how unimportant conference tournaments are:

Among the four No. 4 seeds (Wake Forest, Washington, Xavier and Gonzaga), only Gonzaga won its conference tournament.

Among the four No. 5s (Purdue, Utah, Florida State and Illinois), Purdue and Utah won conference tournaments. And Purdue wiped out Illinois in the conference semifinal.

Wow--one more 5-seed won its conference tournament than the 4-seeds! Stop the presses!!

Of the 4-seeds, only Gonzaga had an RPI higher than 20 (26). Of the 5-seeds, Purdue: RPI 21, Illinois: 22, Florida State: 14, and Utah: 9. If anyone should be bitching, it's Utah--why aren't the Utes a 3-seed?

I agree with Kravitz in that it seems clear that conference tournaments didn't matter to the committee. Where we disagree is that Kravitz thinks they should matter--I prefer to look at the entire season.

(And yes, I know the committee uses a variety of factors for selection to the tournament, including records over the last 10 games, which means that winning a conference tournament should help you in terms of being a "hot team." But I don't think winning a conference tournament should count more than going 8-2 or 9-1 over the last 10 games).

Look at the very top of the brackets, where Pittsburgh, Connecticut and North Carolina lost in their conference tournaments and still maintained their No. 1 seeds.

Unless you're a bubble team making a miracle run to a conference tournament crown -- or Syracuse -- this week was utterly meaningless.

Yeah--Maryland (RPI-52, 10-seed in tournament) didn't benefit at all from its conference tournament...I'm sure the 2-1 record Maryland had in the ACC tournament meant nothing.
Profitable, good for TV and the host cities and the winners who get to wear cool new hats, but ultimately meaningless.

I agree with Kravitz on this point. In fact, I'd like to see the NCAA give the automatic berth from each conference to the regular season winner, instead of whoever wins the conference tournament. But I know that will never happen.

Purdue should have been at least a No. 4 seed. That's not only based on the fact they had a marvelous weekend here in Indianapolis and won the tournament of one of the nation's deepest conferences, but the fact that when their team has been healthy, they are one of the 10 or 15 best teams in the nation.

So, using that logic, shouldn't St. Mary's have gotten in to the tournament? They lost Patty Mills for 5 weeks, and you could definitely make the argument that the Gaels are one of the best 32 teams "when they are healthy." Same with Davidson--Stephen Curry was hurt for a few games, but when he is healthy, Davidson is a deserving team.

See how stupid an argument that is? I know the committee can do what it wants in its selection process, but seeding teams based on what they "might be" compared to how they actually performed is a ridiculous idea.

And Purdue got a 5-seed...and Kravitz is acting like the Boilers should be pissed off about not getting a 4-seed. I mean, it's not like it was a top 2 RPI team that got screwed down to a 9-seed (keep reading...)

Does one seeding spot make that much difference? Not really. If form holds, the Nos. 4 and 5 seeds will play each other in the second round, anyway. And even given the geographic disadvantage of possibly playing Washington in Portland, there's a lot to like about Purdue right now against anybody.

So now you're saying a 5-seed is okay? Do you always write stream-of-consciousness style?

Sure, one seed makes little difference between a #4 and #5. But I'd say there's a tremendous difference between #7 and #8...

Big picture, the Big Ten really can't complain. Seven teams was exactly the right number, with four teams in the top half of the bracket (Michigan State, Purdue, Illinois, Ohio State) and three as double-digit seeds (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin).

I disagree. For the third year in a row, the NCAA selection committee has made a concerted effort to reward the big conferences and eliminate the at-large selections for mid-majors. The Big Ten did not deserve seven teams. Creighton (RPI-40), St. Mary's (46), and UAB (41) should have been considered before Michigan and Wisconsin.

As for Penn State, consider this equation: If your RPI is within 20 of Joe Paterno's age, you don't get the NCAA bid. So no whining.

Joe Paterno=82 years old. Arizona's RPI=62. Arizona is the #12 seed in the Midwest.

It's funny, pathetic, and sad all at once that the only time Kravitz uses RPI in his article, he fucks it up.

As for the other in-state team, Butler, the selection committee got it right. The Bulldogs could have been an 8 or a 9, which makes absolutely no difference. Sorry, but if you fall short in the Horizon League Tournament final and lose at home to Loyola, an 8 or a 9 is as high as you're going to rate.

Purdue lost at home to Northwestern. Now I'm not suggesting that Purdue be seeded lower than Butler (though their RPIs are very similar), but citing one loss as a basis for a seeding is stupid at best.

Butler has been in the Top 20 or 25 RPI all season--currently 22. How this warranted a 9-seed--who the fuck knows? Yes, Butler lost in the Horizon League championship game and went 7-3 over the final 10 games. So does that one tournament loss hurt you that much, especially when it's to a good Cleveland State team that has played well all season?

I know that Butler's strength of schedule isn't much--ranked 96th--but the Bulldogs had a great non-conference schedule, which included a road win over Xavier.

Let's compare Butler to a wildly successful mid-major: Gonzaga. Both Gonzaga and Butler have been ranked in the Top 25 all season--not that polls matter--but they've both been consistently good all year. Both teams are 25-5. Gonzaga won its conference tournament and went 9-1 over its last 10 games, and the one loss was against Memphis. However, Gonzaga's RPI is 29--seven spots worse than Butler.

What about strength of schedule? I mentioned already that Butler's is 96, but Gonzaga's is only marginally better: ranked 92nd! Somehow, Gonzaga is a 4-seed while Butler only got a 9-seed. Evidently, playing well at the end of the season is worth a whopping five spots in seeding. And for Butler, not only does the 9-seed give Butler a tough first round game against LSU, but it also means that if Butler wins, it gets 1-seed North Carolina in the second round.

As we've mentioned before on Lom Henn.com, many of us are Butler fans, myself included. Of course I'd like to see them seeded higher. But the NCAA has clearly been punishing the mid-majors over the last three seasons. At this point, I don't think Gonzaga qualifies as a mid-major anymore, despite the fact that it plays in a weak conference.

Back to Kravitz--the question he should be asking here regarding Butler and Purdue is why Purdue's conference tournament win didn't seem to be a factor in the selection committee's seeding, yet Butler's conference tournament loss did seem to be a factor. Shouldn't he notice and inquire about the inconsistency?

If they can beat LSU in an interesting first-round matchup, they'd have to face North Carolina in Greensboro, N.C. Apparently, the Dean Dome was booked at the time. Good luck with that, gentlemen.

That's it. That's all the analysis Kravitz has regarding Butler: "if you can win your first round game, forget about the next one." With North Carolina looming in the second round, isn't it more important Butler have gotten a higher seed? Maybe at least humor the Butler faithful a little by saying that it's too bad they got a 9-seed for that reason? Something? It's obvious during the season that Kravitz couldn't find Hinkle Fieldhouse if he ran into it with his tractor, but I'd think that Butler deserves a bit of coverage based on what they've done over the past few seasons. Not to mention that Butler is located in Indianapolis, after all, which is the same city of Kravitz's employer...

But no, we just get the same amount of meaningful analysis we've come to expect from Kravitz, which is none at all. At least he's consistent.

Indiana Won the NCAA Tournament In 1987, So They Should Be In This Year

It's an exciting time for college basketball right now, with all of the conference tournaments this week. For many, this is as exciting or even more exciting than the actual NCAA Tournament, which begins next week.

Nothing like a fetid pile of feces courtesy of Gregg Doyel to ruin all of the fun.

Pssst, selection committee: In case of Davidson, break rule

The NCAA tournament selection committee needs my help. That's one of the things I learned during a mock selection exercise last week at the NCAA offices in Indianapolis. The selection committee needs my help.

They do? I would imagine they have plenty of people on the committee.

Not a lot of my help. The committee is hooked up better than I dreamed. Even before arriving for the annual media exercise, which in Year 3 finally got around to inviting me, I knew the committee had access to reams of stats and notes and updated information. What I didn't know was the level of electronic sophistication it had reached. The Internet search engines designed specifically for the committee. The high-speed voting they do online for each team, each seed, each little line in the bracket. Electronically speaking, and this is a little bit humbling considering my place of employment, the selection committee is more hooked up than I am.

Dude, you work for CBSSports.com, not ARPANET or SkyNet. I'm sure what you have access to is great, but the NCAA has been doing this for quite some time now. And since it's for a specialized purpose (i.e. selection of the NCAA basketball tournament field), it's not too hard to come up with specialized software.

And I hope you're kidding about the NCAA "finally getting around to inviting" you. I know you work for CBS, which thinks it runs the NCAA Tournament, but I'll just assume you were kidding.

But the selection needs my help nonetheless.
It needs my help with Davidson.

Oh? Really? Do you have SSS (super-specific-software) about Davidson that no one else could have? I'm guessing not.

See, I know what the selection committee knows. I know what information the committee will consider, and what information the committee will ignore. So I know the committee will be instructed to ignore one of the most vital pieces of information available.

Maybe Doyel has a scoop here: what vital piece of information could the NCAA Tournament Committee be ignoring? What a huge story--that the committee will knowingly ignore vital information about a mid-major school. What a conspiracy! It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma!

The committee will be instructed to ignore last season.
When Davidson reached the Elite Eight.

Oh. Never mind--it's just stupidity.

It didn't happen, as far as the 2009 selection committee is concerned. Davidson, which is perched dangerously on the bubble unless it wins the Southern Conference tournament, didn't reach the Elite Eight in 2008. Didn't beat Gonzaga in the first round, Georgetown in the second, Wisconsin in the Sweet 16. Didn't almost beat eventual national champion Kansas in the Elite Eight.

Actually, Davidson did do those things, and it was wonderful. How exciting would it have been for Davidson to reach the Final Four? Even so, Davidson again showed how mid-majors should be better considered for the NCAA Tournament than they have been.

Didn't happen, selection committee. Don't consider it. That's a guideline, and not just an implied guideline. So it is written, in the inch-thick folder given to every selection committee member upon arrival in Indianapolis:

Materials not influential:

Performance by a team in a previous NCAA Tournament.

To which I say: You must be joking.

To which I say: you are a Fucktard. Why would last year's performance be a consideration for this year's tournament?

Last year happened. Last year was real.

Yes, I already said that.

And while college teams do change from year to year, Davidson didn't change that much. The Wildcats return three starters from their 2008 Elite Eight team, and they return 10 of their top 13 scorers

Good for them. They should have been very good this year, with a successful team returning so many players. Making the NCAA Tournament really shouldn't be a problem.

Those numbers are all well and good, but in reality, this is all the selection committee needs to know:Stephen Curry is back. And so is Bob McKillop.

Okay...their best player and their coach is back. See above.

Curry was the humble star who put Davidson on his back and damn near carried his team into the Final Four. He had one of the most prolific four-game scoring totals in NCAA tournament history, and he's a better player this season. McKillop, meanwhile, is the coach who made it happen. Designed the offense to free up the heavily guarded Curry. Designed the defense to stop Davidson's bigger opponents. Gave his team the confidence and toughness to believe it could do things logic said couldn't be done.

But as far as the 2009 selection committee is concerned, none of it happened. None of it can be considered. When the committee convenes next month, Davidson -- which has lost two consecutive games -- will clearly be on the far side of the bubble with its CBSSports.com RPI of 54. Davidson would be behind, presumably, Michigan (No. 48 RPI), Miami (49), Cincinnati (50), Boston College (51), Creighton (52) and Baylor (53)...

This article is a bit old, so I'll update: Davidson is 25-7, but its CBSSports.com RPI is now 73. This is a team that likely needs to win its conference tournament to get in.

Which would be a travesty. None of those schools has done a damn thing in the NCAA tournament in years.

And that has what exactly to do with this year's tournament? Oh, yeah--nothing!

The primary duty of the committee, if I'm not mistaken, is to put together the strongest NCAA tournament field possible. With that as the most important guideline, this Davidson team -- one year after that Elite Eight run -- gets in. Simple as that.

The RPI and the strength of schedule and any other bullcrap statistic the committee considers won't take into consideration this: Davidson did it last year, and its most important pieces -- the star and the coach -- are back.

Yeah, RPI is a "bullcrap statistic." All it does is try to rate teams objectively based on strength of schedule, wins over quality opponents, etc. Objective measures are bullcrap, man!! Let's use stuff that has nothing to do with this year instead, like last year's performance or the number of players with size 12 1/2 shoes. Fuck yeah!

This isn't even a Davidson argument. This is a common sense argument. Three years ago, underdog George Mason reached the Final Four. If the Patriots had entered the 2007 selection phase on the bubble (they didn't), and then been left out without the committee even considering their Final Four run from 12 months earlier, that would have been imbecilic bordering on irresponsible. Whoever the darling is this year -- and there will be a Davidson-like darling this year -- that team will deserve this same consideration if it's on the bubble in 2010.

So let me get this straight--you're saying that if a team is on the bubble (which at the time Doyel wrote the article Davidson was), if it had a good performance in last year's tournament, it should be automatically included in this year's tournament, even if its not as deserving as another school based on this year's performance?

This makes absolutely no sense. As you said already, the job of the selection committee is to put together the "strongest NCAA tournament field possible." How would rewarding a team for last year's performance accomplish that?

This is common sense, people. Let's assume Davidson doesn't win the SoCon tournament. Upsets happen, so let's assume one happens to Davidson. Even so, Davidson already has played its way onto the 2009 NCAA tournament bubble. This isn't a below-average team needing a sentimental gift from the selection committee. This is a team that has earned its way onto the bubble thanks to its 2008-09 victory total and its RPI.

And from the bubble, Davidson played its way into the 2009 field by nearly playing its way into the 2008 Final Four.

Yes, Davidson has played its way onto the bubble--not into the tournament. Playing its way onto the "bubble" just means Davidson should be considered. Lots of teams are on the proverbial "bubble." How will the selection committee decide who gets in and who doesn't? By using objective measures such as RPI and strength of schedule.

Look, I love mid-majors. I want to see Davidson get into the tournament. And I would agree that it's a legitimate criticism to say that the NCAA often rewards big conference schools over small conference ones. The fact that there was legitimate discussion about the Big East possibly getting 10 teams into this year's field shows how ridiculous this can be.

And I'd say it's a valid complaint that the RPI favors big conferences. It's been well documented the troubles mid-majors have had scheduling schools from big conferences. Since teams like Davidson, Butler, or Gonzaga play in weaker conferences, their strength-of-schedule suffers because of the conference games. Since schedule strength is a factor in RPI, this gives the big conferences an advantage in RPI.

But you can't use last year's performance as a criterion! And even if you did, you'd have to apply it to everyone. What happens if you have two teams left on the bubble that both performed well last season? Do you go back two years? Five?

Why stop there? Why not reward teams for all-time performance? Indiana has five national championships. Of course IU is having a dreadful season this year, but shouldn't its history of providing exciting and memorable tournament performances be taken into account?

How about Loyola Marymount? CBSSports.com RPI is 319. But remember Bo Kimble and the 1990 Loyola Marymount team that got to the Elite 8, losing to UNLV? The team that dedicated its tournament to fallen teammate Hank Gathers? Why not reward them?

What about Indiana State? Their CBSSports.com RPI is a whopping 200. But remember Larry Bird carrying ISU to the final game against Michigan State? If ISU gets in this season, it could set up an ISU/MSU rematch! Who wouldn't want to see that?

It's a ridiculous idea to use last year's performance--or any other year's performance--as a criterion for selection into this year's tournament. I'll definitely be rooting for several mid-majors who are on the bubble to get at-large berths, and I'll know if they do indeed get in, it will be because the NCAA selection committee thinks they deserve it for this season...period.