Ones down, four to go

Wow. Wow. That's really all I can say. I guess I sort of predicted this - in a post made March 3, I said, "The top of the field looks so shallow that this could - could - be one of the best years for upsets ever." But I was really referring to the #2-#5 lines, and more to first- and second-round upsets. But 2-3-4-11 in the Final Four?

The obvious history-making here is that since the field expanded to 64, not a single one of the previous 21 tournaments had passed without at least one #1 seed making it to the Final Four. (Although nine of those Final Fours featured just a single #1 - but five of those nine saw the #1 seed emerging victorious.) It also means that in future years, we can't look at a bracket and say, "Well, there has to be one #1 seed in the Final Four, there always is." Because no, there isn't.

George Mason is also the second #11 seed ever to make the Final Four (LSU, 1986) and the first true mid-major to do so since, as noted by many a broadcaster, Penn crashed the Final Four party as a #9 seed in 1979 (the first year of seedings). (Indiana State also made it that year, but then they were a #1 seed, so that's a little less surprising.) I would also be willing to bet - though I don't have the data on this and not nearly enough time to check it myself - that Mason is the first team since the field expanded, and likely the first team in the seeding era, period, to make the Final Four with the first four NCAA Tournament wins in school history.

That's what makes the whole thing so crazy for me. It's not just that Mason beat three of the last six national champions during their run, or started it by beating two of last year's Final Four teams, or even that they upset the #1 seed in the regional final. It's that this school had never won an NCAA Tournament game before this year. GMU was 0-3 before now - a narrow loss to #3 Maryland in 2001 (in that DC West subregional in Boise), a 24-point drubbing at the hands of #3 Cincinnati in 1999, and a 14-point loss to #2 Indiana in 1989. Never before had they been seeded this high or won a single game - and yet now, even if they lose to Florida on Saturday, they'll be a .500 team in the tournament.

It's also how little anyone saw this coming. With Tony Skinn out, 17 out of 17 people in the Challenge took Michigan State (though I wonder if that would have been much different had he played that first game). 16 out of 17 assumed UConn was a mortal lock for the Final Four. And the people I talked to yesterday seemed to think that Mason was finally going to run out of gas.

But the bottom line is this: this UConn team - it's a good thing they didn't win the tournament, because they would have been one of the least enjoyable teams ever to win. All the talent they had couldn't mask the fact that most of that talent didn't bother showing up for long stretches. Not once in the tournament did they put together a complete 40 minutes; had they done so, they probably could have won every game by 20-plus. But UConn, believing its own hype, didn't seem to care. With the possible exception of Marcus Williams, most of the team seemed like it was composed of guys who were made to play basketball because they were tall, but didn't really enjoy doing it. They didn't seem to care that much about winning, usually doing only just enough - they would go on little spurts where they clearly were the best team on the floor, and then would ease up as if to say, "Okay, that oughta be good enough." That seemed to be what happened today. Late in the first half came the blitz, but UConn couldn't battle back when GMU started raining threes in the second, and they seemed rattled by the aggressive Patriot defense.

I'm a little disappointed that Villanova didn't make it - because right now George Mason is probably the most senior team in the Final Four, which is weird, and because I liked Villanova - but otherwise you have to be pretty satisfied with this Final Four. It's not necessarily the most talented teams in the country, but it's some of the toughest and most spirited teams in the country. And really, I'd rather watch some previously unknown, passionate teams battle for the title than the usual three-teams-you've-seen-before-and-maybe-one-outsider-if-you're-lucky snoozefest. This Final Four should produce three close games, and that's all you can ask. Plus I really like watching LSU play (in retrospect, picking against them in the first round was really, really dumb, but then who knew being a veteran team would count for nothing this year?) and I love the Mason story. I'd prefer to see those two teams match up in the final if possible, but I can't complain too much about anything. It's been possibly the most fun tournament ever, and it featured, in terms of size and place put together, maybe the biggest upset in tournament history - at least since seeding began - with only NC State in 1983 and Villanova in 1985 contending for the title. If Mason does somehow go all the way, they would definitely be the biggest Cinderella in the history of March Madness. I'm rooting for that to happen.

Real quick, Challenge. It's down to one game now. If LSU wins, Alma wins. If UCLA wins, Stan wins. If Stan wins, Alma finishes second; I believe Rudnik would finish second to Alma. And my dad is last. Sorry, Dad (though really, finishing last is better than finishing third!).