Lyssa BeyerThe last two NCAA Div. I men’s basketball tournaments have proven that March Madness history has almost no bearing on how things will turn out in the Final Four. And subsequently, I’ve become less and less likely to research my bracket picks to the extent I did in high school.
Combine this with the contradicting picks from experts on who will be a sleeper, a Final Four shoe-in or just plain overrated, and the only thing I’ve concluded that is guaranteed is Duke losing in or before the Sweet 16 every year.
In the 2006 tournament, George Mason made an unpredictable run to the Final Four as a No. 11 seed. There were no No. 1 seeds in those games and two No. 2 seeds never made it to the Sweet 16, causing many people to pull their bracket’s feeding tube after opening weekend.
In contrast, the 2007 tournament saw two No. 1 seeds in the championship game and three out of the four Elite 8 match ups were between the top two seeded teams in that region. There were very few upsets and the teams that were supposed to win did so, much to the dismay of those hoping for a new George Mason-like run.
Every year the NCAA selection committee is hoping to create the best possible match ups in the final three games, and now, for the first time since seeding began in 1979, the tournament committee is grinning from ear to ear.
With North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA and Memphis in the Final Four, the tournament is faced with its first ever match up between the top four seeds. You could’ve envisioned this happening, but no one wants to trust every No. 1 seed with their bracket.
The 2008 tournament is unique in more ways than the seed numbers. These four teams are far and away the best in the country and it only makes sense that the majority of them had little to no trouble making it to this point, the only exception being Kansas hitting a red hot Davidson that couldn’t miss a shot if you paid them. Well, paid Stephen Curry at least.
To make things even better, every one of the Final Four teams is going into the game with momentum, including its conference regular season and tournament championships. I’m not disrespecting any of the past Final Four teams, but UNC vs. Kansas and Memphis vs. UCLA both have ESPN Classic written all over them, which is something that has been lacking in recent Final Fours. Each team also features NBA caliber star talent, giving the tournament a little extra appeal to those bored with basketball without dunks.
On top of all that, every team is a basketball powerhouse school with tournament experience under high pressure situations. That makes it even harder to try and pick a winner, but in the end, my champion is the same as two weeks ago.
The first game on Saturday pits UCLA against Memphis. This is the best game of the two because both teams have been deep into the tournament over the past few seasons but fell short of a championship. If this was 1990, I’d say both teams would be back in the same spot next year, but that isn’t the case, as more and more players leave school early in their careers.
Memphis freshman Derrick Rose and junior Chris Douglas-Roberts will probably declare eligibility for the NBA draft after their season ends and senior Joey Dorsey will be gone too. Likewise, UCLA freshman giant Kevin Love and juniors Darren Collison and Josh Shipp will likely enter the draft once the clock reads double zeros on their season. This leaves both teams with a win now mentality, which only increases the appeal of the game.
The individual matchups are also intriguing, considering the best player on the floor for both teams is a freshman. With Roserunning point, Memphis only lost one game the entire year, and it was by only four points to then No. 2 Tennessee. Combined with All-American guard Roberts and Dorsey on the inside, the Tigers have more than a few weapons to help them get to the championship game.
UCLA is led by Love, who gives the team the size it severely lacked the past two times the Bruins reached the Final Four. We all saw the impact Greg Oden had on Ohio State last year and he was hurt at points throughout the season. Love has played all year and seems to be getting stronger as the tournament progresses, as shown by his three straight double-doubles. Collison and junior sixth man Russell Westbrook are two guards with the ability to shoot and lockdown their opponents. Overall, UCLA is the most defensively sound team left in the tournament.
However, I’m a pretty big believer in sports karma, and the amount of referees wearing powder blue during Bruins games is pretty ridiculous. Plus, with the Tigers’ tournament dominance against good opponents and the ability to crash the boards from every position, Memphis is looking more and more like the team to beat overall.
But North Carolina is the only team in the tournament that hasn’t hit at least one bump. They’ve dominated on each end of the court and have an All-American in junior Tyler Hansbrough that just takes a game over when it matters most. Team him with sophomore guards Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington and junior benchman Danny Green and I don’t see the Tar Heels stopping for anyone. They remind me a lot of last year’s Florida Gators team that just cruised to the championship.
Kansas seems like the odd man out here, considering it was a Stephen Curry three pointer, which obviously is a rarity, away from elimination. However, Kansas is what the Wisconsin Badgers would be if they had a go-to reliable scorer. The Jayhawks play strong defense, have players that can score from all over the floor and are silently being the overlooked No. 1 seed, if that’s possible.
Junior guards Brandon Rush and Mario Chalmers are a dangerous 1-2 punch, and although sophomore forward Darrell Arthur hasn’t played as well as expected in the past couple games, if he finds a way to score, Kansas could ruin my entire column. The upside to Kansas losing is that it’s a young team that can easily return next year with the majority of its current roster still intact.
When I was in high school, I would bring a portable television to class and flip it on when the teacher wasn’t looking or just excuse myself and go to my locker to watch the games for 10 minutes. Now, I couldn’t name the 2006 or 2007 Final Four matchups, partially because I never pick my brackets right and partially because the games weren’t worth remembering.
But given the circumstances and history surrounding this year’s Final Four, I can comfortably say that it’ll be worth knowing who played because you never know when you’ll see four No. 1 seeds in it again. That’s what makes this seemingly predictable tournament unpredictable.
McCormick is a junior print journalism major and news editor of The Spectator.
