How'd I miss this thread for the entire last two weeks! Count me in as one more semi-obsessed roundball fan. Basketball is the one sport I was able to play at the high-school level, and I still love to watch, even though I quit playing pickup games at about age 40, back in the last century.

None of my usual favorite teams got into the field of 65* this year (my alma mater, my brother's and sister's, the local state university, etc., etc.). That isn't stopping me from obsessive TV watching over these three extended weekends. Because I'm free from all loyalties and entanglements, I can adopt a new favorite every day or two, generally siding with the most obvious "Cinderella" underdogs.

I kinda like Utah to maybe sneak through and take it all. Their big Australian center is really quite a player; I knew nothing at all about him before tournament coverage started last week, and I'm very impressed. He should become an outstanding pro ~ hopefully, for my lowly New Orleans Hornets, who have a pretty good shot at the #1 draft pick this year.

*What's with that one extra team, and the extra "lead-in" game? I wasn't paying attention when the NCAA snuck this stupid new wrinkle into the setup two or three years ago. Isn't a nice, even, large number like 64 enough teams?

I assume that one more small-time conference champion was added to the list of automatic bids, and the big-time powers lobbied to prevent the loss of even one at-large entry. What a load of crap. Making sure to include the fifth-best team in the ACC or the sixth-best in Big East doesn't really improve the tournament as a fair process for producing a genuine National Champion: it only makes sure that just as many major-school coaches as ever can put "made the tournament this year" on their resumes ~ even coaches whose teams won't make it past the first two or three rounds. Pure politics.

Of course, they could add a whole new preliminary round and invite 128 teams. That oughta make plenty of coaches happy.