UNC was lights out the best team in the tournament. Congrats.

Thus ends one of the worst tournaments I can remember. Too many one sided games and very little drama.

Though it was fun to watch Duke get their butts handed to them.

I don't remember if they said, but when was the last time a team won the tournament by winning each game by at least 12.

lol, one question that always gets asked in these situations... "Tell me how you're feeling right now?" Is there honestly one person out there who is waiting to hear the answer to that, someone expecting the person to not be feeling great?

dola: grats to the NC students, alumni and fans.

Horrible tournament. Dull games with few exceptions (Vill-Pitt was great), and once it was obvious how dialed in Carolina was, the ultimate result was a foregone conclusion several rounds ago. Plus, over the course of the whole year, UNO being terrible and Marquette being great -- both torturous to me personally. 2008-09: Worst. Season. Ever.

On the other hand, it had me anticipating baseball more than I ever have. So there's that.

Yeah- that is very true. No really good upsets or even that many good games except for that first Friday night, last set of games (Siena/Ohio St, Wisc/FSU, and Clev St over Wake).

SI

I know its corny as all hell but to me there is no more enjoyable presentation in any sport than One Shining Moment in the year that the team you love wins the national title.

And I have to point out that "no really good upsets" is just another way of saying the selection committee did a good job of seeding the tournament.
And for the second year in a row I might add.

All I can say is Heels, baby, Heels!

Congrats to the Heels. I was rooting for MSU, but it just wasn't their night. UNC has a real good team there.

Only one shot of Tyler Hansborough's dad and none of his sister.

There's nothing new I have to say about tonight's game or the tournament (I agree wholeheartedly with LloydLungs, by the way) except for one thing:

I'm glad this is over so I don't have to see that damn under-the-basket camera angle when someone goes in on a fast break anymore. I hate that camera angle. I hate it. It makes me angry.

Congratulations to UNC and Radii (and any other Heels fans on FOFC).

It's pretty neat that the whole starting lineup came back after the disappointment of losing to KU in last year's Final Four, and wound up achieving their dream. It would have been pretty torturous for UNC and their fans to not get a title out of this great collection of talent.

I can't wait until next years tourney!

How do you guys measure good games? Buzzer beaters only?

There were plenty of good games, a lot of high quality games. You mean to tell me that Kansas-Michigan State game wasn't a good game? Not to mention you missed Nova-Pitt, Pitt-Xavier, Mizzou-Marquette, Michigan State-USC, Oklahoma State-Tennessee, Marquette-Utah State, Kansas-ND State, LSU-Butler, UCLA-VCU, and WKU-Illinois. All of these games were high quality basketball down to the last couple minutes and I left out Clemson-Michigan because it was high quality basketball.

Seems like a lot of good games to mean but if the only measurable is buzzer beaters or overtime games then I can't imagine you guys would ever be happy.

I actually think the tournament was a little "blah" because college basketball wasn't really that great this year. There were really no great teams besides UNC. We always like parity in sports, but sometimes it eliminates those epic matchups that make the tournament special. This one just didn't have those epic matchups that we're used to.

The gameplay was also kind of shakey. Lot of bad shooting, turnovers, and poor fundamentals. UConn shot 63% from the free throw line in a Final Four game. The runner-up Michigan State had 21 turnovers in the championship game. The most exciting game in the tournament (OSU-Siena) had both teams shooting in the thirties. There just weren't a lot of stars shining in this tournament outside of the guys at UNC (who really didn't play one exciting game all tournament).

You're stretching it a lot with some of those. Kansas-North Dakota State was vaguely close but KU never was behind the entire second half. Mizzou was up something like 12 before almost choking the lead away against Marquette. Kansas-Michigan State was an ugly game. I'm not sure I'd call it a good game- both teams shot maybe 45% but it was close. But it looked great next to Pitt-Xavier where I don't think either team broke 35% shooting- that was just ugly as sin. It was just boring and no one could hit a shot. And that's off the top of my head.

Nova-Pitt was a good game. UCLA-VCU was a good game, tho, honestly most of the game it felt like UCLA had it in hand. Hell, American-Villanova was really fun... for a half. Some of those others were good games. But the percentage was quite low. There were 63 games played- some of those are going to be close. But not very many of them were this year. And a lot of the ones that were are of the "ugly" variety where neither team could hit the barn.

I don't need buzzer beaters but I want something so that when there are 3 and 4 games on at once, there's a game worth CBS flipping to and frequently, there was not a close game or if there was, it was something where one team was just putting another out of their misery and it was a foregone conclusion. The lack of mid majors and cinderellas didn't help as all because the upsets were silly ones that "everyone predicted". Underachieving Arizona knocking off Utah, Western Kentucky beating overseeded Illinois, and Cleveland State- the only real upset- were the only games outside of 8/9 and 7/10. And once you got to the Sweet 16- all 4 1/2/3s (along with 4/4/5/12)- that's the formula for the office secretary winning the pool.

SI

Yep.

Here's a question from my wife, shortly after the messed up tip-off...what would happen if they accidentally lined up wrong for the second tip and were inadvertently scoring baskets on themselves for the entire first half (or at least until someone picked up on the mistake)? I told her I assumed those baskets would have to count against the teams, and you'd have to reverse the score of the game. And even if that had happened, UNC probably still would have won by 5...:D

But seriously, there's no other way to reconcile that error, is there? The coaches might agree on the fair way to score the game, but officially, could those baskets be anything other than scored against their own team? How awesome would that have been?

I'm thinking that, after the first basket made that way, the refs would have to have the team that just scored the basket do the inbounds pass. If the refs did not do that, then I don't think that anything could count, because then it would not just be a player error, it would be an error by the officials.

But officials' errors happen all the time. What are they allowed to change?

I'm just playing devil's advocate, but stsill kinda interested in how they would work through something like that.

It's also exactly how it's supposed to work if the committee does its' job properly.

Perhaps I look at it a different way that you do. Outside of the free throw numbers that you mentioned were a bit iffy in some games, I see a much greater emphasis by many college teams to incorporate strong team defense into their games since many of the stars that might have previously stayed for 4 years are now quickly moving on. You say that MSU played poorly in the final with 21 turnovers. I saw a well-coached NC defense.

I know that Mizzou spends 75% of their practice working on defense. KU runs about 60% defense in Bill Self's practices. Oklahoma State is another 'offense off of defensive pressure' team who gets a lot of shots while sacrificing shooting percentage. I guess it just depends on what you're looking for. I just don't buy the theory that since offensive numbers were down that there weren't good games. It was a defensive buffet from where I was watching.

So if more 11s, 12s, and 13s win, it's the tourney committee doing a bad job rather than bad matchups (i.e. guard oriented teams vs back court)? Who gets in is based on how well a team did during the season. How the tourney plays out is based on how teams match up. It's two different things. I just don't buy the "if it's chalk, the committee did its job". It just means that college hoops was top-heavy this year.

SI

No more than I buy the "it's only good if teams nobody gives a damn about win 10 games" line of reasoning.

In order for upsets to be upsets, you need to have some years where the chalk wins out.

I really hate how the word chalk has gotten so popular this year.

I ranted about this a number of pages back.

Is "favorites" the preferred term?

dola--I have no love or hate for the term chalk, FWIW. Just seems like the term that is now used to describe the tournament going to form. Nice to have a word for that, I guess. But I certainly didn't mean to step into a debate about it.

I don't necessarily hate the term so much as I hate the fact that everyone uses it now. After that first weekend, it seemed like everything I read or heard about the tournament used "chalk" as shorthand for the favorites winning. I agree it's nice to have that, but I just can't stand how it suddenly has become the in fashion term to be thrown around by every sports pundit.

I had never heard the term "chalk" used before this tournament.

Me neither. Hell, until I finally figured out what people meant (sometime around when the Elite Eight games were being played), I thought everyone was just really liking Kansas.

That's the problem - it went from unknown to chic in a matter of weeks. Now it just gets on my nerves. It's like the Boo-ya of 2009.

:(

Spartans came out and tried to match the offense of UNC, I think we should have ground away at them with our normal attack. So many turnovers from zipping down the floor for no reason (this basically helped to dig the giant hole of no escape).

Oh well, MSU is a young team, I'm sure they'll make another run at it next year. Making it to the championship alone is something a few hundred other teams would have liked to do after all!

Yeah, I didn't understand why Izzo seemed to have his kids just charging down the floor every time. Thought they should play more methodical, like what took down Louisville. Thought that was a pretty obviously egregious coaching error by Izzo.

As expected: Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione: We don't want Courtney Paris' payback - ESPN

/tk

Perfect Season for Uconn again. Unbelievable performance by Geno's team

I wonder if there is any chance in hell that, if Calhoun decided to retire, Geno would consider coaching the men's team. Ridiculous stretch, I know, but it would sure be interesting.

I think the only way it would happen is if Geno did it only to try to stick it to Calhoun. They hate each other.

They bring it up the floor quickly on every possession against almost every team. They want to maximize their offensive possession by not walking it up for a full five seconds. That's five extra seconds of offense they can run if needed. They just turned it over way too much. Just young kids making mistakes is what we saw last night.

I was in Detroit to watch the 'Nova-North Carolina game, and it was clear that the Heels clearly outclassed Nova. Best team, by far, in the tourney.

One of the things that really surprised me about Saturday was that there was nary a UConn fan to be found in Detroit. Perhaps they went into hiding with the deluge of Michigan State fans that descended upon the city, but even the cheering section at the game seemed quite small.

Saw that JT Tiller had surgery on the torn ligaments in his wrist yesterday for the injury he aggrevated during the Marquette game. I think we can safely put away any further notion of a faked injury at the end of that game. He was playing with the ligament damage for over a month. That's one tough SOB. Glad Mizzou has him back next year.

Tiller to have wrist surgery | Courtside View