It doesn't take much to beat Pennsylvania. But the same goes for Ohio. 

I don't understand the argument that history has anything to do with it. What does Memphis not being in the Final Four since the 70s have to do with the team they have right now? People harp on tradition and all of that all the time, but what impact does it actually have on the game? Zero. Memphis has been to the Elite Eight for 3 straight years too and the year before that won the NIT with ease. They also have an extremely talented team with an experienced coach. They didn't have to rely on comeback wins. They pretty much shut everyone down that they played with the exception of Tennessee who was ranked #2 at the time and only took the lead with :30 to play and eventually won by only 4 points. A 37-win season is nothing to scoff at. I couldn't disagree more that UCLA was the clear logical choice. They simply were not deep enough to hang with Memphis.That wasn't bias here. Some were picking Memphis, but those who picked UCLA had pretty good reason to. A 3rd straight trip to the Final Four, a very talented team with an experienced coach, comeback wins recently. Memphis had not been to a Final Four in something like 20 years (Keith Lee and his crew, whenever that was). It was a logical and sensible pick to go with the Bruins.
Go If you're someone who just tuned into the last minute or just picked up the final score, I can see how you might get that impression. I watched both games in their entirety and loved it. There was a tremendous collection of talent and intensity. Both games ended up with margins that were a little misleading. Memphis sank an awful lot of free throws that stretched it out. UNC had whittled the Kansas lead down to 4 pts midway through the half.
Not as intensely competitive from beginning to end as I'd have liked but far from boring as far as I'm concerned
Western PA, perhaps. However, southeastern PA knocks Ohio out of the water. True story.It is over Pennsylvania.That depends. You live in the Buckeye State, yes? Not sure that's an improvement...
Disagree. It doesn't have everything to do with it, but it does have influence. History and tradition does affects recruiting, fan support and so on. Those can combine to affect perceptions of people picking a game. That may not make much sense but you know it has and does happen. Is that bias? I suppose you could make an argument. However, would it also explain why there was such a big deal made about how some teams had not reached a certain point in the tournament? When a team consistently makes it to a certain point and recently so, people will notice and make decisions based upon that. All of the factors you mentioned for Memphis, well UCLA had them and perhaps moreso. Talent, experience on the court. And even though Memphis had made the Elite Eight, UCLA had made the Final Four, a step farther and against arguably a tougher schedule over that same stretch of time. That doesn't mean people picking the game thought Memphis would do poorly but that it's possible UCLA would do better because they had been doing better. I did not say UCLA was the "clear logical choice", just that those picking them made a logical choice.I don't understand the argument that history has anything to do with it. What does Memphis not being in the Final Four since the 70s have to do with the team they have right now? People harp on tradition and all of that all the time, but what impact does it actually have on the game? Zero. Memphis has been to the Elite Eight for 3 straight years too and the year before that won the NIT with ease. They also have an extremely talented team with an experienced coach. They didn't have to rely on comeback wins. They pretty much shut everyone down that they played with the exception of Tennessee who was ranked #2 at the time and only took the lead with :30 to play and eventually won by only 4 points. A 37-win season is nothing to scoff at. I couldn't disagree more that UCLA was the clear logical choice. They simply were not deep enough to hang with Memphis.
Then we're listening to many different programs, because while I heard what you've said I also heard that while the winners were the better playing teams it wasn't as if there was no competition. For example, the first half of the UCLA / Memphis game had all of the CBS analysts saying that even though UCLA was trailing they were in great shape. On the Kansas / UNC game, they were taking UNC to task and giving Kansas props for that magnificent stretch in the first half. But they also gave UNC credit for never packing it in and getting back to within four pts in the second half.Actually, from what I heard on various sports talk programs, they were saying just the opposite. That even when the games were close, it was obvious who was the superior team waiting to take charge. The games were called anywhere from "disappointing" to "dogs - especially if you were hoping for classics from four #1 seeds." Often, a relatively close game does not automatically make it a very good game at all.
Well, it's flatter. I will give you that.It is over Pennsylvania.That depends. You live in the Buckeye State, yes? Not sure that's an improvement...![]()
I just saw the replay of the end of this game... WOW! The winning basket was I think the first one of the game for that girl. Talk about a heart-breaking loss for LSU.Tennessee survived another battle with LSU and is playing for it's eight national title in 21 years Tuesday night. Even with Candace Parker's bum shoulder, they still completely shut down LSU. Five straight Final Four trips for the Lady Tigers and they can't close the deal. Hey - but at least they have that nifty regular season win over UT a few months back to hang their hat on.
Don't know if they'll beat Stanford, but they're playing for the title and that's all you can ask.
Derrick Rose had the stomach problem, not CDR.Halftime and Kansas has a 5 pt lead. Interesting since they've turned the ball over several times. Right now ... I have to wonder of that stomach bug that was affecting CDR esterday isn't still having some latent effect of some kind. He has made some nice plays and done a good job handling that ball. But he has hardly scored at all.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.