>>>A year after winning a national championship? Are you kidding?
>>>
>>>All Syracuse losing proves is the Big East is loaded. They had to play the #22 team in the country in the quarterfinals. Maybe it will cost them a regional #1 seed, maybe it won't. I think it means little in terms of whether they can win the real tournament.
>>>
>>>PS -- Kansas better be keeping an eye on Kansas State. They destroyed Oklahoma State yesterday.
>>>
>>>Just now saw this message....I didn't sweat K-State 24 hours ago - they're good but not great.
>>>
>>>When KU is on its A-game, no team in the country can beat them. They are just too loaded - and if Cole Aldrich [Jr] and Xavier Henry [Fr] stay at KU next year, KU will likely be the #1 pre-season pick next year.
>>>
>>>As for that loser Roy Williams, yes...I will bet you a steak dinner that Roy Williams isn't coaching when UNC starts next year. Roy is all about 1 thing, and that's Roy himself. He showed his true colors this season.
>>>
>>>'Cuse will likely lose their #1 seed (though Joe Lundardi still has them as a 1 seed) - I don't think they're leaking oil after 2 losses, but if I'm Jim Boeheim, I'm a bit concerned.....
>>>
>>>#1 seeds tomorrow will be KU, Kentucky (regardless of SEC final), and the following:
>>>
>>>Duke (probably regardless of ACC final)
>>>Ohio State (if they win the big 10, though I just realized the game will be over by the time the seeds come out)
>>>West Virginia (if Ohio State or Duke loses?)
>>
>>I agree with your assessment. Where we may disagree is how important it is to be a #1 seed.
>
>I heard on the radio some sports commentators discussing the percentage of #1 seeds that end up in the final four. According to them, it is most often (but obviously not always) the case.
>
>And sometimes it is one game that matters in the end:
>
>http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/03/14/983326

Here is something interesting I read in the paper today:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0314-ncaa-seeds-professor-illinois20100313,0,3088174.story

Some of the statistics from his study, which he updates each year, are noteworthy for this week's bracketeers:

•In the Final Four, No. 1 seeds are 7-8 against No. 2 seeds and 2-4 against No. 3 seeds.

•A No. 1 seed doesn't want to see a No. 2 or No. 3 seed in the Elite Eight either. The No. 1 seed is 18-17 against No. 2 seeds and 10-8 versus No. 3 seeds in this round.

•Although Jacobson found higher seeds more likely to win in the first two rounds, there are some anomalies. The No. 12 seed wins 34 percent of the time against the No. 5 seed in the first round. But keep in mind another anomaly: No. 12 seeds (34-66) perform better than No. 11 seeds (31-69) in the first round.

•Of the 100 No. 1 seeds, 44 have advanced to the Final Four. Of the No. 2 seeds, 22 have made the Final Four and No. 3 seeds 13 times.

•Only in 2008 did all four No. 1 seeds land in the semifinals. Only three times did three No. 1 seeds make it.

•It's still a good idea to pick a No. 1 seed to win it all. Of the 25 champions, 15 have been No. 1 seeds, four have been No. 2 seeds, three have been No. 3 seeds and a No. 4, 6 and 8 seed have each won one title.

Obviously #1 seeds do well, but it's not like it's them and then everyone else.