More Love

BerninDownTheHouse

Serial Lurker
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
They may not be the foremost authority on college basketball, but the Wall Street Journal's analytical model has us going to the Sweet 16.
 

ernie_getting_stoned.jpg


Fine by me though.
 





I love the piece there on expanding the tournament, especially this gem on just going all the way and expanding to 347 lol:

But think of the upside. Absolutely no one is going to get snubbed from the Magnificent 347. Think of how delightful Selection Sunday would be. No bitter coaches, no weeping cheerleaders, no strident five-minute rants on ESPN about how so-and-so really deserved to get a slot in the NCAA tournament. This may briefly mitigate the need for certain humans on ESPN, but they can just go get Mr. Musburger a sandwich or a honey lozenge.

And that's not all. In our Magnificent 347, you wouldn't actually ever get eliminated. There will be no consequences—teams may beat each other, but no one will technically "lose." One school will be crowned the champion, but everyone will be considered a "winner." The idea is to replicate the drama, energy and positivity of a third-grade gingerbread-house-making contest.

You might find this silly, but we think it's fitting. We've become a country of zero-down loans, 10 best-picture nominees, 64-calorie beer and fat-free pizza. There's no need to make hard choices anymore, and no stomach to make college teams endure the cruelty of a snub or an elimination basketball tournament. Let's leave that madness where it belongs: high school.

LOL, so true, so true.
 


They also have Duke winning the whole thing.....automatically insane in my mind....

I disagree. They have the easiest road of the 1s and are a very efficient team.

I have a tough time seeing Purdue getting to the sweet 16 w/o Hummel but I'm sure their calculations have no way of compensating for his loss. I can, however, see the other 3 B10 teams making it to the sweet 16.
 




Top Bottom