Then wouldn't the ball still go to the offense when the defense pokes it back over the line?

I did hear someone on ESPN this morning talking up the women's game by saying they have the dunk now too. 4 players ever is not having the dunk. That is like the NFL hyping the drop kick after Flutie did it this past year. Too rare to bother with.

I know this is killing all you Duke-haters out there, but CBS had no less than 4 Dukies in their employ this weekend - Bilas, Gminski, and Spanarkel doing games, and Chronicle alum Seth Davis back in NYC. Must be a conspiracy...

I don't see the Thurston Howell III reference KK made on Bilas. I'd go with The Professor. Jim Nantz should stick to Amen Corner at Augusta. Gus Johnson is very good and I like Kellogg doing color better than back in studio.

The tournament makes you do crazy things -

I'm still toweling off after rooting for UK to upset UConn yesterday.

I agree 100% about no timeouts falling out of bounds. I liked it when the refs during one of the late games, instead of doing double-techs when it was getting chippy inside came in a told them to 'clean it up'. I like troopers that give me warnings, too :)

I am in total agreement on the preposterous airborne timeout thing we are seeing these days. In order to call timeout, the player should be required to have possession of the ball and have at least one foot on the ground. Too many guys are getting timeout calls while diving out of bounds like wide receivers catching a sideline pass. The refs shouldn't be able to save a player who is in trouble, especially in TV games where there are so many timeouts that the loss of one in these circumstances is rarely a real penalty.

The other rule that needs to change is the full minute that coaches get to make a substitution after a fifth foul. Why should tbe offending team get the equivalent of a free timeout just because one of its players is disqualified? The coach should have ten seconds max to make the change and the other players should remain on the floor.

King, I completely agree with you about the timeouts. If players are allowed to bail themselves out with a timeout, they shouldn't get so many of them. They already get 5 TV timeouts per half. Make it like the NFL: 3 per half, period. That way, they actually have to budget their timeouts and use them wisely.

I'm a little more ambivalent about the foul trouble issue. On the one hand, you're right that taking a player out now guarantees less time, whereas keeping them in gives the possibility of less playing time. On the other hand, fatigue often plays a large roll in a player's ability. Taking them out immediately when they're in foul trouble gives them a chance to rest for a few minutes. If they have to rest, might as well use foul trouble as an excuse. In the end, it's probably more about control. Coaches would rather have the option of putting players back in when they want to. They don't want to lose that option. "Don't tell me that my player can't play anymore. I'll take him out just to show you!" It's illogical, I know, but on some level I can understand the impulse.

Incidentally, I remember during the Olympics a few years ago the American announcers talking about how the European coaches don't take players out when they get in foul trouble. They made it sound like it was a very curious habit, like professional athletes who smoke (also common among the European basketball teams.)

I know it's not feasible for a major reason-- men and women play in the same arena's at pretty much every level-- but I've always thought you lower the rims to 9 feet for the women's game. They use a smaller ball, supposedly because it makes ballhandling and shooting easier. But what are the strengths of the women's game already? Ballhandling and shooting. I highly doubt that, given the time to acclimate to the regular (mens) sized ball, women wouldn't be able to shoot and handle just as well. As a matter of fact a good friend of mine was a manager at Uconn, and one day we watched Diana Taurasi shooting around with a men's ball. She did fine, including hitting several from NBA 3-point range.

But if you could lower the rim, everything would improve. It would counter the two biggest disadvantages women have compared to men, height and leaping ability. You'd make the inside game easier, leading to more emphasis on pounding it inside (and better action if you ask me.) There would be more of an advantage to getting it down low.

And, yes, you'd have more dunking. I understand the arguments for not trying to make the women's game into the men's game. But the fact is that dunking would greatly increase the interest of the average fan. At 9 feet, many WNBA and top college players would be able to dunk, and some would be able to dunk in traffic. A fastbreak would be that much more exciting, and the first time a player crams on a player from a rival team in the tournament-- that would really get people interested.

I know it's not likely to ever happen, and it would take time for current players to adjust their shooting. And you would need many many more adjstable rims out there. But I've been thinking about it for years and I bet it would be great for the women's game.

Four points:

1) Yes, it was nice for Packer and Nantz to aplogize for their previous remarks about the MVAC. Unfortunately, a lot of this apology time occurred while Arizona and Villanova were within 2 points and 2 offensive sets occurred with no commentary.

2) CBS is a little more sedate than FOX, I agree. But how many times do they show you previously unknown coaches' wives in the final minutes of a close game? Too many.

3) Enberg still is the class of the play-by-play commentators.

4) It's a little thing, but why does CBS repeatedly refer to "NOVA"? Even on their bracket graphics? Do they think "VILL" would get us confused, thinking they were referring to the Villa Park High School? Or the Village People?