home

March Madness, Day 2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:37:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Exciting day yesterday. Bad day for me as my Gators lost in 2OT and my bracket lay in ruins at the end of the day.

We strive forward anyway. My picks today's day games - Siena, Mizzou, Texas A&M, Pitt, Xavier, Temple and Wisconsin. Those are my win picks. As betting propositions, I have different selections but that is too complicated to describe here.

This is an Open Thread.

< More On Progressive Bargaining: Bad Bluffs | SEIU To Seek Primary Challenger To Health Bill No Vote Arcuri >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    March Madness, Day 2 | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    this is priceless (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    but between guffaws consider for a moment what it would be like to go through life with a name like Fuk King Kwak

    How are we to become educated (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    on the subject of betting if BTD thinks it is too complicated to post here?

    BTW:  it is all about baseball.  Spring training.  Lousy pitchers.  5 runs per inning.  Almost lose a 16 to 9 game.  Who needs basketball.

    NCAA match-ups announced (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:54:41 AM EST
    last weekend.  NIT playoffs immed. begin.  How does this work.  Might not a team be set to play in NIT but then receive a slot in NCAA playoffs?  

    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    NIT is for those who weren't good enough or didn't win the right games to make it to the NCAA tournament.

    Kind of like a consolation prize to win the NIT.

    Parent

    Is there collusion between those selecting (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    teams for NIT and for NCAA playoffs?  

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    NIT makes their selections AFTER the NCAA makes theirs. And since 2007, the NIT is run by the NCAA, so it's all the same people.

    The NIT was actually the first tournament, but for a long time, it generally favored NY-regional teams.

    From Wiki:

    The stigma of the NIT

    So strong is the stigma of the post-season National Invitation Tournament as a "consolation" fixture that when teams with tenuous hopes of an NCAA Tournament berth lose away from home late in the season, opposing fans will taunt the players in the closing seconds with the prospect of having to play in the NIT[3]. This is done regardless of whether the home team is headed for the NCAA Tournament or not. Irv Moss, a journalist for the Denver Post, once wrote of such a taunt to a defeated team, "The three-letter word... was far more cutting than any four-letter word they could have hollered." [4]

    Since the post-season NIT consists of teams who failed to receive a berth in the NCAA Tournament, the NIT has been humorously nicknamed the "Not Invited Tournament", "Never Important Tournament", "Nobody's Interested Tournament", "No Important Team", "National Insignificant Tournament," or simply "Not In Tournament".[5] It has also been seen as nothing more than a tournament to see who the "66th best team" in the country is (since there are now 65 teams in the NCAA Tournament). However, proponents of the NIT often point out that many of the NCAA Tournament participants would likely not win the NIT. Because 31 of the teams earn automatic bids in the NCAA Tournament, the claim that the NIT determines the "66th best team" can be seen as spurious since an automatic bid NCAA Tournament team may be weaker than a NIT Team.

    But let's face it - it's a way for more teams to continue to play basketball, thus leading to more coverage, and more chances to make money.

    Parent

    I'm just old enough to (none / 0) (#7)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    recall when the NIT was a fairly important b-ball tournament.

    Not so these days, seems to me.  Not with the regular NCAA tournament selecting so many teams to compete -- 64 today versus, what, 32 previously?  

    Already too many teams to keep up with in the regular tourney.  The NIT is mostly for the truly hardcore fan.

    Parent

    Weren't smaller colleges with terrific (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:22:53 AM EST
    basketball teams often in the NIT back in the day?  I am thinking Bradley, for example.

    Parent
    I think so (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:25:49 AM EST
    Like I said - teams were chosen by a Metropolitan Regional Sportswriting organization, so it really was more of a localized tournament for the NY region.

    Parent
    And Virginia, ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    ... in Ralph Sampson's last year before he turned pro, I think.

    Parent
    The NCAA... (none / 0) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    ...is currently looking at greatly expanding the field of teams in the tourny.  If that goes through, it could very well be the death blow to the NIT.

    Parent
    Expand the NCAA (none / 0) (#13)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    tourney?  It's already too big.  That's like saying the NBA needs to expand the number of playoff teams.

    Of course, back in the day with far fewer teams (I don't recall the exact number), they only took teams that won their conference, plus some at-large indies.  That was brutal.  Especially for top conferences with 2, 3, and even 4 top teams all evenly matched and tournament-worthy.

    I'd probably prefer something like 48, with the lowest seeded having to compete against each other in the initial round, and the higher rateds starting later.

    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    ...they are looking at 96 teams

    They say things like this...

    The NCAA is considering expansion for a variety of reasons. First, says NCAA senior vice president for basketball and business strategies Greg Shaheen, a broader field would give more athletes a chance to experience the thrills of March Madness. Second, more games gives the organization extra chances to promote its educational mission and the life skills that playing college sports can teach.

    ...but everyone knows it is for one reason only--the money.


    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    The NBA finals go into July - why not the NCAA tournament?

    Parent
    My college got into the NIT one year I was (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    there. We were thrilled (Illinois State University, not to be confused with U of I). It really was a big deal. We upset UNLV big time in the regular season, which I'm sure helped get us our invitation.

    I'm sure it must be a lot of fun for the students at the NCAA tourney schools, especially the ones that don't make it every year.

    Parent

    The Fighting Redbirds! (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:31:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Curse Vandy and the Big East! (none / 0) (#8)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:14:42 AM EST


    West Virginia (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    Forgot that one.

    Even though they are down 10 already, they are my pick.

    No worries... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    ...with WV, but Temple getting creamed by Cornell is another matter.  

    Parent
    Is there that much parity in (none / 0) (#15)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    college basketball now, or are some teams/conferences just that much more over hyped?

    March Madness Graduation Rates (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    6 of the 65 teams in the Tournament have 100% graduation rates for their basketball players.

    Brigham Young
    Marquette
    Notre Dame
    Utah State
    Wake Forest
    Wofford

    Alone at the bottom and so far behind everyone else it's unfair to list anyone else.

    Maryland at 8%

    Not that I want to stick up for the Terps (none / 0) (#18)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    but, the means by which they calculate the graduation rates is far from accurate.

    Parent
    Not sure to what "they" (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    you are referring, but in this case you'll need to take it up with
    The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida.

    Parent
    "They" being the NCAA which (none / 0) (#28)
    by coast on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    established the GSR and APR equations.  The rates are strictly based on how many athletes enter the program in a specific year as compared to how many of those athletes earn a degree in five years.  The equations don't take into account athletes that leave early to play professionally, those that earn a degree after the five year period, or those that transfer to another program and graduate.  Gary Williams, the coach for Maryland, addressed this specific report.  3 or 4 of the athletes that did not graduate, and therefore counted against the school, left to go play in the NBA and are still playing.  I don't see how someone going off to go play a professional sport, earning millions of dollars, paying taxes, and likely giving money back to the school should be counted against a school simply because the kid didn't receive a degree.

    Parent
    Need to append (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    6 out of 64 were perfect. Cornell doesn't report so they aren't included but would likely be at or near the very top.

    Parent
    100% is a completely unfair standard (none / 0) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    for top teams- it essentially means they need to both graduate players at a level more than twice that of the normal student body, and that they need to somehow make players who went pro for millions come back and graduate with summer work (which I'm sorry, but I doubt even 2-3% of 20-22 year olds would go to college during the summer to graduate when they're getting paid tens of millions to do something they love).

    Parent
    It is unfair... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    which is why we need to end this "scholastic athletics" charade and just call NCAA Basketball the AAA of the NBA and start paying these kids.

    Parent
    Not saying 100% (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    is the fair standard for all. Above average? Equal to the student population? Improve year to year? All would be worthy standards. This was just a list of the top six schools. Six that I presume put the student in student-athlete at the top of their criteria and an impressive accomplishment for all six schools.

    Parent
    Fess Parker: (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    LAT politics blog

    I'm sure you mean Davy Crockett (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    Who is also known for saying:

    "Be sure you're right then go ahead."

    Words to live by.

    Parent

    Yet another... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    case of an outta control NYPD...this time they they were out trying to entrap poor slobs into soliciting, this guy doesn't take the bait,  yet the bastards lock him up anyway and he misses his father's funeral.  Link

    Damn that NYPD misbehavior file is getting thick...mad props to Mr. Quarles for insisting on a trial, most people don't have the fortitude or patience to fight such injustices.

    Ah, the old woman scorned bit (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    careful (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:13:11 PM EST


    Parent
    What happened to the team was supposed (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    to beat Tennessee?

    Don't you have to win the game before you play UT?

    hehehe

    Health care reform taxes (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    For those who are interested, the potential tax increases from HCR:

    Link

    For those earning over $200,000 ($250,000 for families), the bill imposes a 3.8 percent tax on returns on investment, which include interest payments, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, and capital gains -- home sales could be included here. The tax appears to be applied on net investments. People will also pay a 1.9 percent tax on income over these figures. Payments begin in 2013 and go to the Hospital Insurance payroll tax.

    People who don't abide the healthcare mandate and buy insurance will be fined by the IRS roughly $700, or 2.5 percent of income by 2016. For families, the penalty is the greater of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income. It is unclear if this tax is on gross or adjusted gross income. For those of you who have applied for a loan, household income usually means gross. So dodgers earning $200K a year would have to pay 5 grand - on top of all other taxes.

    For employers with 50-plus workers, not offering coverage will cost $2,000 per full-time worker, at a minimum. In other scenarios the penalty is $3,000 per full time worker.

    The "Cadillac" tax, which labor unions have fought against, begins in 2018 for high-end policies costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. However, these thresholds could increase if insurance companies accelerate premium prices too quickly, meaning fewer policies would be subjected to the tax. But the tax man giveth and taketh away because the index for the tax is much slower than the index of medical inflation, meaning over time more policies will be subjected to the tax.



    with the exception (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    of the Cadillac tax, which even the Hill says will likely change, that all sound pretty fair to me.

    Parent
    Some around here (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    Were concerned that the fine for non compliance was not a tax.

    Parent
    why does (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    it matter?

    Parent
    Call it whatever (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    but it will be see what happens in court on this.

    Just one of the reasons I prefer a true single payer plan modeled on Medicare and paid for by a National Sales Tax....

    All are covered....all pay.... illegal aliens, dope dealers (sorry Kdog, prices will gop up ;-) )
    Ebay merchants....rich man poor man beggar man thief

    And yes the items used more by the "poor" will need to have their tax rates adjusted as will the Caddies and $65K SUV's.....

    Parent

    Don't underestimate West Coast teams (none / 0) (#40)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:37:15 AM EST
    Cal (8), Gonzaga (8), Saint Mary's (10), Washington (11) are all through to round 2. Next up for these four: Duke (1), Syracuse (1), Villanova (2), and New Mexico (3). What are the odds that two of the four will survive the weekend?

    March Madness, Day 2 | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment