It seems to me that your ideas about small-conference schools getting in to the tourney are a bit at odds with each other. A few days ago, you said that small conference tournaments serve only to potentially harm the NCAA tournament by sending the weaker team.

Now, you're stating that even though those 2nd best small-conference teams which didn't win their own championship would weaken the tournament, we should send them in favor of major conference teams that might have a better shot.

"The company announced the deal in a press release Monday that called Amaechi "the first male athlete to secure a corporate endorsement deal after coming out of the closet.""

Make that first male athlete in the US. Austalian rgby star Ian Roberts came out of the closet years and years ago and landed all sorts of endorsements Down Under. And to pick the nit even more I suppose they should say first in a team sport since I'm sure those gay figure skaters have endorsement deals.

It's nice that Amaechi is getting something out of his coming out other than book sales. But those PR departments should at least do some basic research.

If several teams are essentially tied in the minds of the tourney jury, the first tiebreaker ought to be the teams not invited the previous season, or the teams with fewer recent appearances. I.e., since there doesn't seem any way to make the methodology "fair," they might as well continue to make it unfair in a way that supports the organizational missions of the NCAA as a whole. I.e., making more money but also promoting as many of its members over the long rus as possible.

Sixty-four teams, more than one of which must be somewhat pedestrian, and you just happen to pick out the Trojans? I'm not feeling the love, King "Cal Bear" Kaufmann, not that there should be any.

I don't have any sense of whether USC could beat Drexel or not, but I would have thought that for a non-rival (or in the case of Arkansas, a non-spankee), it would be more satisfying to beat an actual basketball school rather than just a big university.

Akron lost the MAC tourney to Miami(OH) on a controversial, but mostly correct, call on Saturday. Not making the NCAA tournament was not a surprise, but they were also snubbed for the NIT after posting a 26-7 record.

The Zips are ranked 7th in the Mid-Major Top 25 poll. The first 6 teams went to the NCAA tournament and Akron is the only team in the top 20 of that poll not to have a tournament invitation.

I don't think snubs get any harsher than that.

I think a fair rule would be to limit eligibility to the top half of each conference. How can you be the best team in the country if you're not even above the median in your own league?

Or is it the first? Don't get me wrong, King, I'd love to believe you and Mark Cuban when you predict windfalls for openly gay athletes, but HeadBlade? Looks like they've got Toney Freeman and Howie Mandel as endorsers... not exactly a testament to a Wall Street titan, from where I sit. My gut says when an active team-sport player comes out, it'll be more like he won't lose any endorsements, rather than really cashing in. These are athletes after all; if they're remotely recognizable or successful, they'll already have quite a few contracts in their pocket. Hey, I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, though. HeadBlade money would be riches to me anyway.

I'm not sure you made your point here, King. For a moment, let's set aside that the real purpose of the championship is to make the NCAA and the schools a big pot of cash. Is the purported purpose of the Championship to give us that warm and fuzzy feeling of watching an underdog get to the third round, is it to see some really exciting basketball, or is it to figure out who is really the number 1 team in basketball? If it isn't the third option, then it what's the point? Why not go with something like the NCAA football method. You get lots of exciting games with good ball. You get upsets a-plenty. And it could all be done in a week or so. But if the point is to find the best team, then they absolutely shouldn't err on the side of underdogs, no matter how much we all want the underdog to win. They are, by definition, less likely to be the best team in the country. You think those 8-9 seed games suck? Then let's drop all the 9+ seeds and loose the first round, but let's not pick teams that are underdogs just because we wish they'd win.

DUKE a #6?!? You have got to be kidding me. Duke ended the season unranked but managed to be seeded as a 6. Oh well.

Let's take things one step farther. I agree, George Mason was fun last year, and people like slapping their foreheads at 6pm on Thursday when they've already 'completely screwed' their chances of winning their office pool.

Let's eliminate big schools from contention for the Divison I NCAA Mens Basketball National Championship. I mean, anyone with a brain knows I'm right. Who wants to watch Joakim Noah or Greg Oden or Kevin Durant?? No one. I want to see Drexel play an intersquad game before I watch those other players. I'm sure we all agree.

In fact, if a team has 3 recruits who are in the top 10 nationally, that team shouldn't even be allowed to play a season. Those coaches and athletic departments should be immediately censured by the NCAA, and the team should forfeit their right to compete - for the next 4 years. Also, basketball teams from schools (or even states) you have heard of -- have no right competing for a title.

________________________

Glenn A write: "It's nice that Amaechi is getting something out of his coming out other than book sales."

It is nice, good point Glenn. He will also get eternal damnation.