Running NCAA men's tournament thread 2012

Well that tends to happen when one school wins a dozen or so national titles in football and baseball to go along with seven Heisman Trohphy winners. Not to mention all the other titles in the Olympic sports. South Carolina finally won its first national title a couple years ago. Oh, let's not forget the academics either.

 

I found this to be interesting.

diddukewin.com

 

To few people's surprise (pun intended), Gonzaga stopped short of the Sweet 16 again today.

Thing is, they were right there with Ohio State, tied with about 3 minutes left ... despite the re-appearance of The Bad Pangos. The Zags' other freshman guard, Gary Bell Jr., and sixth man Sam Dower almost were enough to topple the Buckeyes.

Will be interesting to see how Sacre does in the pros ... he held his own against Sullinger today.

 

Apparently, being a Syracuse fan and using recreational drugs go hand and hand now.

Not that I would do that type of thing. ;D

 

I'm with you, albert777. You need to spell out Southern California and South Carolina on first reference, and you can't use USC in any story that mentions both, unless you're in a Pac-12 or maybe a Southeastern Conference market. And avoid USC in headlines unless it's very obvious which school you're talking about (e.g. "Texas beats USC in Rose Bowl").

 

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, to me the tourney really gets cooking when the Sweet Sixteen gets set. Now I'm in, baby. I think that, early on, there are just too many damned teams to keep track of. I can't bring myself to learn Harvard or Detroit or New Mexico State's personnel and style of play when those teams are relevant for about three minutes of game time, then gone.

 

Reminds me of:

 

Christian Watford, hero of the Kentucky game, shoots Indiana right back into the game.

 

Wisconsin's offense reminds me of the Hickory Huskers before Coach Dale and Jimmy showed up.

 

I would guess that over 95 percent of readers of newspaper sports sections, and 100 percent here in Boston, see USC and know it's the University of Southern California. South Carolina trying to claim the initials could well be actionable under trademark law. South Carolina has a name, South Carolina. When they say USC, they're to conceal their century-old mediocrity in college sports.

 

Lesley Visser's eyebrows are scary.

 

I beleive in the past Southern Cal has sued South Carolina over the use of interlocking SC logos, even though they're rendered in completely different styles and South Carolina only used such a logo on its baseball caps.

I think there's also some sort of agreement between the schools over the use of "USC" which favors Southern Cal in any dispute.