bukie

Floor and ceiling talk is nonsensical. It's meaningless scoutspeak and has no place in a rational baseball discussion. If either one or both of those two are playing poorly they should be replaced. It doesn't matter if its .290 OBP vs. 270 OBP or whatever numbers one wants to use. Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't make it true. There is definite merit to compare a low-risk, low-reward player to a high-risk, high-reward player. If you know you are getting between a .320 OBP and a .340 OBP with one player, but the other player could give you between a .290 OBP and a .360 OBP, it's worth considering the safer player, especially if you can't afford the low-end production of the risky player.

I would say UNC is as bad defensively as Wisconsin is offensively. As in, it's not nearly as bad as it looks due to the pace they play. Sure, they aren't in the top 10 overall, but probably top 30.

Hey, there's a Cub.

That's possible and it's also possible that Theriot will work on his weaknesses and limit the holes. I agree on both points being plausible. He's had just one full season right? I am REALLY glad someone started this thread. I am not solidly behind Theriot either, but I do think he could be quite adequate. I never have understood the vitriol directed at him. I get both sides of this arguement, but Theriot has to this point been a better hitter than Cedeno, who really hasn't shown me much with alot of opportunities. Tons of potential has gone unrealized in this league, and tons of players playing over there heads have had nice careers. I am willing to see if Theriot, who for his shortcomings is a smart player, can become more consistent over the long haul. All that said I am a big fan of EPatt! So, it's not fair to judge Theriot based on one full season, but Cedeno has proven he can't hit based on one full season? Those of us that think Cedeno is the better option are basing it on more than one full season, and the fact that Cedeno is much younger and has shown more development at a younger age.

You bolded the wrong part. True. that is relevant. I just read somewhere that Ryan has never beaten a team higher than a six seed. Anyone know if that's true? They've had 5 games against teams higher than six seeds. Four 1 seeds and a 3 seed (Pitt). Really the only game they arguably should have won was the Pitt game, since it was in Wisconsin.

So, after all that, the only game I lost today was Stanford/Marquette. Stupid Brock Lopez. EDIT: Wait, Duke too, but I consider Duke a moral victory.

You know, if A&M wins, the West bracket comes down to A&M, WKU, San Diego, West Virginia and Xavier...

Still only missing two sweet 16 teams. Was going to take Villanova, too, but I had already taken Siena and I thought two lower seeds winning at the same location was a real long shot.

Bracket still in good shape, as the only sweet 16 team I lost so far lost on a buzzer beater in OT.

Butler absolutely blasting South Alabama.

Crap, 15 of 16. Stupid Arizona.

Yep, Wisconsin is even frustrating to watch when you're rooting for them. They don't really blow teams out, they just methodically take control of the game, but very slowly. Even in the Big Ten championship game against Illinois, as an Illini fan you never felt out of it, but you never really felt like you had the game under control...ever.

Yeah, I've been sticking up for Wisconsin, it'd be in poor form for them to let me down. However, I only have them in the Sweet 16. As much as I don't think K-State can beat them, I don't think Wisconsin can beat Georgetown. Now if Davidson/Gonzaga upsets Georgetown... UCLA/Wisconsin is my final game. It would just figure that the first game I get wrong is a team that gets to my championship game. And yes, I have G-town losing to Davidson.

OK, now Wisconsin really needs to win to avoid blowing my bracket completely up. EDIT: And UCLA, but it doesn't look as if they'll have an issue with the worst tourney team in history.

Neat, 12 of 12 so far. Need some help from Arizona to go 16-16.

Man, why did I put Duke in the Elite Eight...Any other situation and I root for Belmont, but until I actually lose a matchup, gotta root for the bracket.

Both USC and Kansas State are among the 20 most inconsistent teams in college basketball. Who knows what is going to happen in that game. I have K-State, but that's my least confident first round pick. And I have SIena beating Vandy.

Cornell-Stanford...a matchup of two of the most academically qualified teams in the field, for sure. Cornell likely overrated even as a 14 seed, though.

So, 9 of the 53 brackets in the pool went chalk for the first 7 games. Only one of the 53 brackets has lost an elite 8 team so far (Baylor).

Kent State trying to make the final score respectable, down 13 with 40 seconds to play.

Baylor's performance this afternoon has me concerned with my faith in the Big 12 for tonight's games.

On the bright side, that combination would set you a record for the fastest complete implosion of the bracket. It was dead before the games even started.

Crawford playing absolutely out of his mind today to keep Kentucky in it.

That's not so much moving the seed line as an entirely different bracket, which was likely ready well ahead of time just in case. The committee likely had to have 4 separate brackets ready depending on the results of Sunday's games (one with Illinois/Georgia both losing, one with Illinois/Georgia both winning, one with Illinois winning/Georgia losing, and one with Illinois losing/Georgia winning). That affects the S-curve itself, not the individual seed-line moves. More often than not, there are very few seed-line moves, only used in cases where a conference team HAS to move to the other half of a bracket (i.e. Marquette this year). The only conferences where seed-line moves would have been forced to come into play would be the Big East with 8 teams, and the Pac 10 and Big 12 with 6 teams each. More often, the committee will move teams along the same seed line to a different matchup within the same seed-line (for example, say Notre Dame and Villanova were matched up with each other on the S-curve...easy enough to shift Villanova over to another 5-12 matchup and move a small conference team into that slot with ND). This is why I am inclined to believe the seed difference is at least as significant as it looks. The closest matchups are things like the worst 2 seed against the best 3 seed (and so-on down with 4-5 and 8-9 matchups).

That is awful. I hope Hill is working on some pitch he has never thrown before. A strike? (kidding)