Cinderella Could Be Dead

Friday, March 21, 2008

I did a quick piece over at Sporting News about Cinderella being dead, and I wanted to share part of it in this space. I'm praying Friday's games will be better today and obviously that the announcing will in turn, but I don't see that happening unfortunately (on both accounts)....

Quick name me last year's Cinderella! Too late, there wasn't one. The lowest seed to make it to the Sweet Sixteen was 7-seeded UNLV and there was really only two upsets in the first round (Winthrop and VCU).

Yesterday, there were none (K-State over USC was not an upset, I'm sorry). The "magic" that Laranaga referred to in the above speech appears to be gone for the moment, and that's really a shame. I like the magic, I like the mysticism, and that's probably the reason I got only 10 picks correct out of a possible 16 yesterday.
Blockquoting yourself is so Meta, but seriously what happened to Cinderella? Ever since Butler and Gonzaga made the move to CBB's elite their replacements just haven't been able to keep up. It's a shame really. Check out the rest of that piece (there's a video!) and I'll see you at noon for another day of "Non-Madness"!

The Tournament Has Seriously Been Lacking Magic (The Sporting Blog)

Posted by Awful Announcing- at 10:31 AM


The problem is that the power conferences were tired of having their teams lose to the mid-major, which cost them money, so they are now scheduling more and more games where the mid-majors are playing each other; there by eliminating David vs Goliath match-ups in the first round.

Anonymous said...
Mar 21, 2008, 11:31:00 AM  

Two words, AA: South Alabama.

Willmott said...
Mar 21, 2008, 11:38:00 AM  

What up, what up, what up!!!! Let's get this open thread/ live blog business goin!!! I see Wilmott is unfortunately here again, but we'll battle through it. Dominate on 3 1-2-3 DOMINATE!!!!!

Anonymous said...
Mar 21, 2008, 11:46:00 AM  

I'm sure that if we took a quick poll, far more people would be pissed to see you than me, joe.

Willmott said...
Mar 21, 2008, 11:50:00 AM  

Just when I was going to join this open thread....

TJX said...
Mar 21, 2008, 11:52:00 AM  

SS, what up man? Gonna rub a quick one out to Gus before the games get started?? Or are you gonna wait and hope he gets excited during his game. I know that gets you really worked up.

Anonymous said...
Mar 21, 2008, 11:56:00 AM  

AA - you apparently don't watch enough tv. Cinderella is dead.

Mal said...
Mar 21, 2008, 12:09:00 PM  

Well it's because of David Stern. Before players had to go to college for a year, all the best programs would recruit the best players, who mostly went to the NBA. The guys who would end up being the best players were more spread out among good and great programs. For instance (although I know Louisville and Kentucky are big time programs, but bear with me), when Telfair was still considering college, Louisville was actively recruiting him. They were also interested in Rajon Rondo. Rondo really wanted to go to Louisville, but they spent too much time recruiting Telfair, and Rondo decided to go to Kentucky instead, while Louisville got neither. Now, all the college coaches know that the best players have to go to college, so the best programs are getting the best players, thus lowering the chances for big upsets (Bucknell/Kansas, Vermont/Syracuse, etc.) like the ones from a few years ago.

Anonymous said...
Mar 21, 2008, 12:36:00 PM  

Great point Anon....hadn't thought about it that way.

Mar 21, 2008, 12:38:00 PM  

I was actually going to point out the "would-be NBA players going to top teams" theory (which I read about on Slate last year) but the anon fleshed it out more than I ever could have figured.

Morgan Wick said...
Mar 21, 2008, 12:57:00 PM  

There is one advantage - a lack of upsets in the first round tends to set up some really good matchups in the second. But I like the first-round craziness better.

Anonymous said...
Mar 21, 2008, 1:07:00 PM  

I completely agree with the
"would-be NBA players going to top teams" theory. The past two years the top couple seeds have just been better than the lower seeds because their talent level is that much better. Last year's elite 8 was 4 #1 seeds, 3 #2 seeds and 1 #3seed. If you put the 2005-06 George Mason team against any of those teams or any of the #1 or #2 seeds this year(with the possible exception of Duke), George Mason isn't winning.

Anonymous said...
Mar 21, 2008, 3:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment