My Pre-Bracket Seedings

So I don't like Joe Lunardi, argued this week that his Bracketology is a sham... yadda yadda yadda. Now I am going to try to prove that anyone can do it, put my money where my mouth is. This could be a huge SOGB or could be a triumphant success . Obviously I am not using that Turdbuggler's chart nor any similar ones offered on cnnsi.com or sportsline.com. This is just me using the RPI index, team schedules, and a list of conference winners.

I have been hiding out since you cant get away from bracket predictions. I tried watching OSU/Purdue but they wouldn't stop hypothesizing so I am not watching that now and instead putting in OSU/Purdue Winner and Loser based on how the game ends. I hope I didn't miss anyone glaring because I did this pretty quickly and hopefully this doesn't blow up in my face. Here goes...

1's: L'ville, UNC, Memphis, UCONN
2's: Pitt, Duke, Oklahoma, Mich State
3's: Mizzou, Wake, Cuse, Kansas
4's: Nova, Washington, Utah, OSU/Purdue Winner
5's: UCLA, FSU, Oklahoma St, Gonzaga (note- they should be worse but the committee loves them)
6's: Xavier, OSU/Purdue Loser, West Virginia, Illinois
7's: Sienna, Utah St, Clemson, Butler
8's: ASU, Temple, BYU, LSU
9's: USC, Maquette, Tenn, Tex A&M
10's: BC, California, Creighton, Texas
11's: Dayton, Minnesota, San Diego State, Michigan
12's: Cleveland St, Mississippi St, W. Kentucky, Maryland (UMD last in)
13's: ND State, American, N. Iowa, VCU
14's: Robert Morris, Akron, Binghampton, (Stone Cold) Stephen F. Austin
15's: Radford, Portland St, E Tenn St, Cornell
16's: Chattanooga, Morehead St, Morgan St, Alabama St, Cal State Northridge

Bubbles Burst:
+St. Marys (no way they deserve a bid for a soft schedule and 3 wins again top 100; sidenote- if I get burned I know it will be here, but I need a legit explanation on how they deserve it more than Maryland, Minny, or SDSU)
+Wisconsin (only 18 wins and an RPI of 45, thanks but no thanks)
+Illinois St (Beat Creighton 2 of 3, but swept by 201st rank Indiana St and 0 wins of tourney teams besides Creight)

Why Joe Lunardi Stinks (Abridged Version)

March Madness is the perfect storm of sports gambling, underdog rooting, school spirit having, competition. There's so many things to enjoy about the NCAA tourney that you can overlook the few pitfalls like the play-in game, which registers BCS levels of absurdity. There is just one thing the tournament buffet has to offer that I will not enjoy, my moral enemy, Joe Lunardi (I don't think he knows yet though).

Lunardi shows up uninvited into our homes every February and March like tax returns and pneumonia. ESPN's resident Bracketologist is treated with the esteem of a founding father while having the personality and necessity of those white powdered wigs. For those not familiar, Lunardi created "Bracketology" or the methodology of predicting which 64 teams will earn spots in the brackets. In fairness, I will tip my cap to this application but that is where Lunardi's relevance should begin and end. Now Lunardi lurks on the interweb prognosticating the bracket as his expertise sees fit. Want to know if your team will make the cut? Well Lunardi has the remarkable answer. 

Oh yeah, except for that pesky little part about how every time a college game is played, the future March landscape is changed (think Back to the Future 2). No sweat to J-Lu, he will just re-write (don't be fooled by the fancy word 'update') his bracket to make up for it. Sounds fancy! So lets apply this: when in December, as Georgetown stormed out to a 10-1 record, Joe slated them in for a 2 seed. Then the Hoyas stumbled through the rest of the season (6-12!!) and of course Lunardi bailed on them quicker A-rod bailed on cousin Yuri. 

So what am I trying to say? Lunardi is the thing we hate the most about sports, he's a bandwagon jumper. Maybe its not his fault as much as it is the hyped up system he created, a momentary snapshot of an intricate and finicky process. His job is to tell us what we know, who is currently good and who isn't currently good; he just squeezes it onto a chart, big whoop. Why tell us where Duke fits in with six games to go when those six results will inevitably change their RPI ranking, their spot in the standings, and six other team's win-loss records? Furthermore, why should we respect a man who's accountability is non-existent thanks to web-updating?

And as Selection Sunday gets closer, Lunardi has the ability to re-do it to cover up gaffs. He's not an analyst, he's not an expert, he's simply a March Madness weatherman. He's predicts what will happen and then report what does. During this championship week, he'll probably release a new bracket every day. Where is the talent in seeing Chattanooga knock of College of Charleston and then sliding them into the tourney? Anyone with a newspaper and an eraser could pull that off.

LOST Love

Normally I think writing about LOST is like writing about religion; useless because everyone has a different vision or interpretation of what they see. That's why the best LOST fan sites are filled with nuggets us regular people missed or one-liners with people's reactions and predictions. 

That being said, last night's episode, "LaFleur" was as individually different from any other episode since that joke where Jack got his tattoos (they're not saying booos... no, wait, they were). "LaFleur" however, not only wasn't a train wreck, it was actually interesting. Seemed like a love story, could have been a trippy version of Mad About You. And for its flaws, those who complain about getting slighted on prime character development in favor of sci-fi time travel, should have enjoyed it thoroughly. Anyway, here are the quick one-hitters that stuck out to me:

-When Sawyer and Juliet kill the two others, Amy seems way more upset about the idea of having to bury the bodies than that her husband had just died. She was upset later when they had to give the body back. It was an odd set of reactions.

-At some point they mention that they are in 1974. The others who were victimizing Amy had pretty advanced walkie-talkies in their bags. Warrants mentioning. 

-Um, its not like you didn't notice this either but, Juliet's cleavage is growing quicker than Walt did. In a related story, Juliet is clearly that girl with the self-esteem issues.

-Speaking of which, for all his layers (bad ass, romantic, con man, ladies man), its hard to take Sawyer seriously when we saw him wake up being cuddled as little spoon by Juliet. Lamest. Hero. Ever.

-Seeing the statue was cool, but no one watches to find out about the statue. Seriously if the show ends and we know about the four toes but not about the Hurley string of numbers or other big details about the main Lost-ies, methinks a refund is only fair.

-I read a theory about the lack of aging: That if you live in 2009 and go back to 1974, perhaps you don't age until you progress back to the 2009 day you originally left. When you reach that day, you would then grow at a regular speed. This could explain how Sawyer and company can look current now and still eventually make it back to '04 (show current day) without getting old. However this also could explain why Richard never ages, if we were to assume he's from the future and has always been time traveling. Faraday would probably have some answers for us if his mind didn't get swapped with Roman Polanski's in the last time change. 

-If life for Sawyer and company were to continue uninterrupted on the island from here on out, wouldn't they die in the 1992 Ben-issued Dharma purge, and never make it back to current day?

-Seriously where the F are Rose and Bernard? My favorite characters (since the death of Mr. Eko) are harder to find than the island location. They weren't shown going to the freight in last years finale, they weren't shown in the fiery arrow attack, so why haven't we seen them yet this year?

That Was a Crazy Game of Pick-Up

Every now and then the karma gods smile down upon us and we are thrown into favorable situations. Teenage Will Smith got sent to Bel-Air,  paralyzed Locke crashed on an island fully mobile, and recently I played in a memorable game of basketball. 

I was recently invited into a pick-up game at the Verizon Center on the Wizards practice court, a pretty sweet score. For a basketball nut, an invite into any competitive pick up game is like having a friend who bartends on a weekend, or a buddy who gives you the password to their porn account. Anyway, I got the first call to play and after wayyy too much deliberation about whether to under dress like Woody Harrelson or show up geared up much too seriously, I headed over one tie-dyed cap short of completely toolish. I subscribe to the belief that its always better to be underestimated.  

The game was everything one could hope for: friendly, fast-paced, and loaded with freeGatorades. I was playing with guys and girls who worked for the Wizards and Mystics (the WNBA equivalent, if that weren't an oxymoron) on the practice court of a semi-legitimate professional team. Two hours later most people were packing up and my connection had bolted a game ago. Since I didn't want to be the stranger who stayed at the party too long, it was time to go.

As I packed my bag I watched the remaining eight try to woo a couple of us back for one more full game. I offered my services if they could grab one more, a safe promise since everyone else was bailing, when I heard a new voice say "I'll fill in as tenth." There stood Gilbert Arenas, in practice garb, ball in hand. Gulp.

Next thing I know we were running it back, with Agent 0 (convenient nickname since he's logged 0 minutes for the Wiz all year) jogging up and down the floor with us. Since Arenas and I were on separate teams I made sure someone else was guarding him; I didn't need the guilt of accidentally causing further injury to the $111 million man. I wouldn't have been too embarrassed though since Gil only jogged, attempted a couple shots, and showed the defense commitment of a paper-mache chastity belt. 

In the end we ran for 10 minutes with Arenas, who looked rusty and/or cautious, but was a cool guy. He gave dap to our good plays, or at least good plays scaled down for a curly, lanky left-hander. He was gracious, generous, and seemed to just be happy being on the court. It was a crazy game of pick-up.

The Pussycat Doll Debate

One of the little perks about work is that we each have little TVs on our desks and recently they were re-wired for a full slate of Comcast Digital Cable (and the BEST of intentions!). Now instead of tuning into Regis and Kelly or another hour of The Today Show, I have the freedom to flip... Long story short I've been spending a lot time in the VH1 part of the spectrum. Longer story short the Pussycat Dolls have some new slow video called "I Hate this Part" or something equally lamentable; for some reason the PD's were advised that their fans demand more ballads... yeah.

Anyway the PD's are totally talentless, and I'm sure we can all agree that in the long run, their relevancy will match their talent level. What they lack in song writing, instrument playing, and singing, they more than make up for in not being so hard to look at (Maybe we exclude the red head though; she's always the one in the far background, shot out of focus, or covered by a fedora). Longest story short, lead singer Nicole Scherzinger is Kelvin-scale hot.

She's got ethnic flavor (a mix of Hawaiian and Russian decent), she's sartorially splendid (dresses to tell you she likes getting down), and is the rich man's version of Kim Kardashian. Nice tri-fecta for the resume. So here's some hypothetical food for hypothetical thought: How long could you last as Scherzinger's mate, if while in said relationship, the only music you could hear would be Pussycat Dolls songs?

(Seriously, isn't this a question that could spark a 45 minute conversation at a dinner party of straight dudes and lesbians? I can't wait for my boss to start letting me run interviews for interns.)

The benefits and detriments couldn't be clearer. The question at stake is how much do you value music in comparison with a love life equipped with off-the-charts hotness, a foot in the door to a celebrity world, ultimate Vegas VIP privileges, and some crazy bragging rights. After many calculations, I think I could go somewhere in the vicinity of nine to 12 months, assuming she's not an amazing match for me (Scherzinger sounds Jewish so mom might be happy, but you get the sense she doesn't want to sit around watching How I Met Your Mother on Mondays or do trivia nights on Tuesdays). At home, a lack of music is tolerable at best; although Don McLean makes it sound pretty bad. Much of the void could be filled with podcasts or talk radio, but a year hiatus from concerts would be a serious bummer. Pus it would have to be suicide-inducing to hear to "Buttons" and "Don't Cha" at bars, stadiums, and karaoke nights. A musically void year seems do-able for a top 10 prospect like Scherzinger, right?

Follow up question: How does hypothetical relationship time with Scherzinger compare with the same scenario for other musicians (try Taylor Swift, Jessica Simpson, Sheryl Crow, Katy Perry, Beyonce on for size)?