Running 2010 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament thread

I don't know what to make of the Pac-10 this year. Fourth-place on down were no better than 16-14 but no worse than 14-18 overall. Does that mean the Pac-10 was a big, fat vat of suck or was it full of teams who all happened to be at about the same level that beat up on each other?

 

I've solved it in less than a minute multiple times and I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody would consider me a genius.

 

I'm not sure what this tournament said about the Pac-10 - other than, well, Louisville laid down like a dog and about 61 of the other 64 teams in the field would have beaten the Cardinals that night and Washington, a team full of offensive-minded individuals got hot at the right time.

I mean seriously, the Pac-10 was weak, 30 games for each team don't lie

 

The reason Washington is doing so well in the tournament is that the Huskies are getting great matchups. Washington isn't that deep (like Marquette) and New Mexico doesn't like to run, so the Huskies just needed to tire them out.

 

I wouldn't bet a nickle on Washington against WVU, not without some sweet odds anyway; but "isn't that deep" depends on your definition of depth. Here's a list of ten:

Roster/Stats (per game)
PLAYER POS PTS REB AST
Quincy Pondexter F 19.7 7.5 1.8
Isaiah Thomas G 17.1 4.0 3.1
Matthew Bryan-Amaning F 9.0 5.9 0.4
Venoy Overton G 8.5 2.9 3.2
Justin Holiday F 5.6 4.4 1.9
Elston Turner G 5.5 1.9 0.7
Scott Suggs G 4.8 1.2 0.7
Abdul Gaddy G 4.0 1.4 2.3
Tyreese Breshers F 3.0 2.6 0.0
Darnell Gant F 2.6 2.4 0.4

The tenth guy on the list, Gant, was often a starter in '09 and was in the Marquette game during crunch time. The Huskies have as much depth as any team in the tournament.

 

Back when I was in high school, the rubik's cube was very popular. My brother, who was a genius - literally - and I spent a whole weekend figuring out the pattern - we had a note pad and wrote down every move and the effect it had on the other cubes it was attached to and on and on -- and figured out that you solve one side, then solve one row at a time on the other sides and then the bottom corners then the bottom middle......

At any rate, I used to have a lot of kids pay me $1 (I wasn't greedy) so I could show them how to solve it. I made a killing - then all of the sudden they started selling books and instruction manuals.....which sort of sucked.

That is honestly the only claim to fame in this world and the only thing I claim to be good at - I used to be able to solve the Rubik's Cube in less than a minute!!

Of course, if I spent about 20 minutes teaching any of you that don't how to do it the patterns, you could get it done in less than four or five minutes with a little practice and at that point it would just require a little bit of practice to get down under like 90 seconds.

Ok, that has nothing to do with anything but I love being able to solve the Rubik's Cube quickly - I'll do it at doctor's offices while I am waiting -- and having people watch me because, well, it is about the only chance I ever have of making someone say "wow!!!"

 

Kentucky-Duke: As the Sundays sang many years ago, here's where the story ends. West Virginia? They finally go without a drought and beat U-Dub. I like the Mountaineers to upset UK - the freshmen are freshmen, Cousins does something dumb, and Butler does something spectacular to win it. OK, maybe the fact I share a high school alma mater with Joe Mazzulla has something to do with it, too.

Duke rolls Purdue. Baylor-St. Mary's? Comes down to the Samhan-Udoh matchup, but after watching what the Gaels did down the street from me, I take the Men of Moraga. But in the final, they finally meet a Duke squad that matches up with them.

Michigan State-Northern Iowa? I want to pick UNI, with Lucas out and Proukmanesh throwing down two of the coldest threes in recent tournament history to close both shows, but Izzo will find a way to steal it. Ohio State takes Tennessee, and with my champion pick Kansas gone, I like the Buckeyes in their place.

Butler was my crazy Final Four pick and I'll stand by it, although I'm giving Syracuse reconsideration the way Riley played today. I like K-State to outlast Xavier, but don't think they can handle either Syracuse's muscle or Butler's balance.

 

They might have "depth" but they aren't getting production (on a consistent basis) from anyone other than the first four.

 

Take a look at similar stats for a couple of other Sweet Sixteen teams of your choice. I looked at WVU and Kentucky. And by the way, the Huskies' bench scored 24 in each of the first two tourney games. I'll stick by my statement.

 

I looked at Syracuse and the Orange seemed pretty good.

If Gant was a starter in 2008-09, he shouldn't have been. He averaged 18.3 minutes per game and only scored 3.1 points.

 

Syracuse looked mighty impressive today.

Unfortunately, given the Orange's ability to look like shit they could certainly lay an egg in their next game.