For my money, the best calling going on isn't on TV at all, but on CBS radio, where you can hear John Thompson Jr. giving fabulous (and sometimes hilarious) analysis. I heard him call the first Georgetown game, and you wouldn't even have known he had a dog in that hunt until it was over. If CBS could just stick with one game at a time (yeah, I know this is not possible), I'd turn the sound off and turn on the AM radio.

And I think I end up saying this every year too. But it has been a great tournament all the way around, and I think that's due to parity that is being created by the drain of talent away from college by the NBA. Remember when Carmelo carried Syracuse into the finals as a freshmen? We could have possibly been watching that this year or last with people like Sebastian Telefair, but we aren't. Packer is a blowhard, but he's a student of the old System (80's mentality of the NCAA Tourny being a lengthened version of ACC vs Big East). I think he dislikes the fact that established teams are becoming the victims of teams from 'lesser' conferences in the Tournament, either in selection or the tournament itself.

On the timeout issue, I do agree with you that it breaks the flow of the game, which at times ruins the mood for fans. But it's a necessity for the game -- timeouts can prevent leads turning into blow outs. In this spectrum, do we rather see games go interrupted or possibly stay more interesting through closer scores.

I'd rather reward players for hustling out of bounds to call a time out then see them throw the ball at an opponents groin as well.

-Alec

Ian: I live in the Canadian Arctic without cable so you're providing all my Madness commentary.

Good God, that sounds awful.

I don't mean that you live in the Canadian Arctic. I mean that I'm providing all of your March Madness commentary. Beware! I'm making it all up!

Glenn A.: Between all of the "TV timeouts" and the other hundred or so they get now it makes the last 2 minutes of a game take what feels like 6 hours to complete.

Feels like? It does. I have a graphic representation of that that I'll mention tomorrow.

Michael Porcaro: There will always be that segment of the population that will never embrace women’s basketball, like ESPN Radio’s odious Colin Cowherd, but they need to close the gap between wheat and the chaff before the women’s tournament becomes a serious topic of sports conversation.

I agree and have written as much in the past. I think the women's game is at the stage now where the Tournament should be 32 teams, though they could stretch it to 48 without hurting anybody. It's at a roughly similar stage to where the men's game was when the Tournament began to expand beyond 16 teams. In those days, the gap was still huge between the top teams and those below, say 50, but the era of UCLA dominance was closing. That's where women's basketball is now, with the chokehold of Tennessee/UConn loosening.

Cory Boone: I like the creativity of the penalty-box idea, but it's too derivative for my taste.

mintosh: Maybe I misuderstand, but I don't think Kaufman has really thought this one through. If you treat the center line as out of bounds when it has been crossed by the offense, then when the defense taps the ball back across it, the ball goes back to. . . the offense. It is, then, even less detrimental to them that it has been tapped out of their hands the either other option. Can someone please explain Kaufman's point to me.

It's just an end line for the offense. What I mean is, if the ball goes back over the center line, it's a backcourt violation, whoever touched it last.

Maybe I misuderstand, but I don't think Kaufman has really thought this one through. If you treat the center line as out of bounds when it has been crossed by the offense, then when the defense taps the ball back across it, the ball goes back to. . . the offense. It is, then, even less detrimental to them that it has been tapped out of their hands the either other option. Can someone please explain Kaufman's point to me.

King

Totally agree with you about foul trouble strategy. I hem and haw about the timeout rule. On the plus side, having 'in media res' timeouts IS a distinctive rule among the major sports. Players are rewarded for attentiveness (or penalized for a failure in this regard: Chris Webber). And defenses are reward in that their opponents waste timeouts.

Still, the rule is certainly annoying, especially as it interrupts the flow of the game. You mentioned hockey as one of the models for a rule change, so how about the following change, which would solve the timeout problem and the poor strategy of benching players in foul trouble: penalty boxes!! Instead of clock stopping and players taking boring free-throws, you have 5 v 4 for a minute or two. Fouls would drop tremendously, and action would speed by.

Now that my bracket is officially busted (thanks Kansas, Iowa, and Ohio State), I found myself following the Women's tournament a little earlier than I normally would. The biggest difference I have noticed is that there is a much wider talent disparity in the women’s tournament. In the first round there were only 5 upsets including the 8/9 and 7/10 games. As upsets go they were all pretty mild. One 9 seed, three 11 seeds and one 12 seed, all of the 7 seeds won there games which are always toss ups in the men’s tourneys. The real difference can be seen by comparing the results of the opening 1/16 and 2/15 games. The victory margin for the men was 14.5 points for the 1 seeds and 13 points for the 2 seeds, which is slated because UCLA won their game by 34 points while the other three 2 seeds won by 2,8, and 8 points with each one being a nail bitter for the favorite. On the women’s side the average margin of victory being 40.5 points for both 1 and 2 seeds, with only two of the eight games being won by less than 21 points.

So much of the charm of the men’s tournament is seeing a team of guys from a school you only know from the Fiske Guide to Colleges, that would look more at home in a Wednesday night rec league beating a team of guys bound for the NBA or Europe. As a casual fan of women’s basketball there is really no reason to tune in until the sweet sixteen. There will always be that segment of the population that will never embrace women’s basketball, like ESPN Radio’s odious Colin Cowherd, but they need to close the gap between wheat and the chaff before the women’s tournament becomes a serious topic of sports conversation.