Now that George Mason is in the Final Four, how about a little crow-eating from all the people on Selection Sunday who said they had no business being picked for the tournament field? Any of them (cough-Billy Packer-cough) think Cincinnati would've made the Final Four?

In fact, for the first time ever, I can say with complete confidence that the selection committee really nailed it this year. I thought going in that Gonzaga got screwed being a 3 instead of a 2, but boy - somebody on that committee must have ESP. Tennessee was probably over-seeded, but that's a minor quibble.

And can I point out - since I haven't really heard anybody mention this - that, given that they now have SIXTEEN teams in their damn conference, the Big East getting eight teams into the field isn't really an amazing achievement? Six teams from the bigger power conferences, the ones with eleven or twelve teams, has been the norm for a long time now. Anything less than eight from the Big East should actually be considered a "down" year.

Oh, and in case nobody noticed, there are two SEC teams in the Final Four. Take that, Billy Packer.

While it's great that GMU has donned the Cinderella shoes, Billy Packer was right. GMU lost to Hofstra!!! twice in ten days leading up to the tournament. Fortunately for them, Packer's diss allowed them to play with a chip on their shoulders and being in the DC region meant they got to play essentially home games. Also the teams they beat, excepting UConn (who were trying to sleepwalk their way to the Final Four), were a bit overrated. Of the teams left, Florida looks dangerous.

As a UNC fan, I watched the George Mason-Michigan State game with great interest. If you had asked me after GMU won what I thought their chances of making the Final Four were, I would have said, pretty good. UNC had played their 3rd straight game like they were playing in January (when they were average), not like in February (when they were title contenders), and with the return of Shin, GMU had the psychological advantage. After that, Wichita State. After that, likely a UConn team that played to the level of their opponents, in a virtual home game for GMU.

You mentioned guard play. There was once a time when backcourt play really WAS as important as the pundits all say it is. But nowadays, probably 95 of the top 100 teams have guard play that at least is solid, so it tends to balance out from one team to another. What is not near-universal are teams with good low post scoring. THAT'S the difference maker. And if you look at the Final Four...you see Noah, Lewis, Big Baby and that guy who blocked about 5 shots against Duke, and UCLA's inside players. You don't see Nova. Look at last year, and you see Sean May, MOP. The year before, you see Okafor.

Bringing it back to George Mason...I knew they were really dangerous when I saw how Jai Lewis could score in the low post against UNC as well as Shelden Williams did. Mid-majors tend to have solid guard play, just because there are so, so many kids who are 6'0"-6'5" who can play, the big boys can't sign them all. But George Mason had something few mid-majors do, what Al McGuire used to call an aircraft carrier. They have inside-outside balance, so they can match up with anyone. The (mis)matchup of Lewis' offense against Hansbrough's defense was just as critical in UNC losing as Rashawn Terry going, IIRC, 2-12, and designated zone-buster Wes Miller missing 5 straight good looks from the arc when GMU was in their zone, and the zone remained unbusted.

What has changed from the time when this cliche had alot of truth to it is that big men leave early or never enroll, so they're the X factor, the variable between teams. Some teams have it and some teams don't. At some point in the next 5 years, I think the pundits will catch up to the truth that's been clear to people who watch games with their own eyes and not Vitale's, which is that the difference between making the NCAAs and winning there is low post scoring.

PS...UNC and Sean May and Marvin and Jawad Williams beat Illinois' 3 guard offense last year.

I've been rolling my eyes at the "guard play this time of year" cliche for awhile now. As you point out, most college teams have capable guard play and spot up shooters but they don't have quality low post men.

You construct your bracket with your head, but you watch the games with your heart. You take a shot at the underdog that'll advance, pick the one and two seeds elsewhere, and then watch the games, rooting for the underdogs.

Domestic tranquility issues led to my listening to the Huskies vs Huskies on radio rather than TV, and I gotta say that Dave Sims does a really fine job at play by play.

Aside from the fact that 99% of people's NCAA pool picks have blown up in their faces, I do find it kind of funny that in the DC area, some of the folks in the lead at this point probably know nothing about basketball, but penciled in George Mason on pure sentiment.

To break it down, they probably got advice from friends or loved ones about the rest of the field -- and maybe some good upset picks -- but when it came down to it, they couldn't pick against their team.

Now I could wax poetically about these off-court underdogs and analogize their crazy NCAA picks to George Mason's crazy NCAA run, but that would be too syrupy. It's just damn funny that for once, in some of those testosterone laden office pools, there very well may be the secretary or the geeky guy in the corner who comes out on top.

People will win all those NCAA pools out there, but they will win ugly... except for those few Cinderellas out there who didn't know any better. They'll be sitting pretty.