Thank God this only happens once a year

I think I say this every single year, but: I hate this bracket. It's really getting to me. Even though I've said for a while that this year seems like the kind where the favorites run away with things, I can't believe that would actually be the case. There are always some surprises. But where are they? My first two runs through the bracket yielded minimal stunners, and worse yet, I'm just having a hard time seeing places where I think they could happen. Of course, this could always be one of those years like 1999, where the Final Four was 1-1-1-4, but with the overall parity - and the obvious weak spots of the four #1s - I have a hard time believing that's the case.

If I weren't running the Tournament Challenge, I'd probably talk about my initial impressions of how far certain teams were going to go. But because I'd rather not publicize my picks at the moment, let's talk instead about some of the things that had me going "What the hell?" as I watched the selection show.

George Washington, 8 seed. We know the A-10 is down this year, and aside from a win over Maryland that got worse-looking as the season went on, GW really had no marquee wins and a bad OOC schedule. They also have a questionable Pops Mensah-Bonsu and went out early in the A-10 tourney without him. But at 26-2, was this team's conference really so bad as to merit an 8 seed? It's not like they went 26-2 in the Atlantic Sun. It's not even the 8 seed so much as "here, let's put you right opposite the overall #1." Really, really bad break for the Colonials in Round Two - if they even survive a hot UNCW.

Syracuse, 5 seed. Holy crap. I've talked in previous years about teams zooming up the seed lines beyond all reasonable expectations due to nothing more than a big conference tournament performance, but this was ridiculous. When the Big East Tournament started, Syracuse was out. The win over Cincy put them on the good side of the bubble, the win over UConn locked them... and then beating Georgetown and Pitt was apparently enough to move up, what, five or six seed lines? That just seems preposterous, 23 wins or not. Worth noting - the teams that have their seed lines inflated by a single tourney run frequently seem to flame out early (and if you think four games in four days hasn't taken a lot out of the Orange, you're kidding yourself).

Gonzaga, 3 seed. I don't buy the "Gonzaga had a case at #1" talk because of the weakness of the West Coast... but the Zags can't help their conference for the moment and they played everyone they could in 2005. They probably should have been a 2.

UCLA, 2 seed. And not only that, but based on their position across from Memphis, apparently the strongest 2 seed. Sure, they won the Pac 10 regular season and tourney titles, but how bad was the Pac 10 this year? Are we sure that the committee didn't switch UCLA and Gonzaga by accident?

Air Force and Utah State, in. These had to be the most shocking at-large calls, aside from perhaps Seton Hall (and at a 10, no less). What on earth was Air Force - who lost to the #7 seed in the first round of the MWC tournament and whose OOC schedule was brutally bad - doing getting in over Cincinnati or Missouri State? And how could the talking heads say that the committee was sending Florida State a "you have to play a better non-conference schedule" message when they turn around and let in Air Force? The bubble was weak, but it wasn't this weak. Ditto for Utah State. It feels like these teams only got in because someone on the committee said, "Hey, the WAC and MWC should be two-bid leagues... let's stick the #2 teams from those conferences into the field!"

Tennessee, 2 seed. I'm a bit surprised they stayed up that high with the way they finished the season. Then again, the win over Texas got better-looking as the year went along, and they did beat Florida twice. This year's poster team for "it's your entire body of work, not just how you finish." (They and Syracuse can fight to the death to determine which one the NCAA actually values more. Every year you get these opposite picks that prove that no matter what it says, the NCAA is nothing if not inconsistent.)

Villanova vs. the play-in game. Does this mean Villanova was the #2 overall seed? It can't, right? Because why wouldn't they be in the Washington DC region if that was the case? Does the committee even care who it puts the play-in winner up against? Nova and UConn are in the same subregional location, so it's not a matter of the whole Friday/Sunday thing. Odd.

Nevada, 5 seed. Maybe nothing in the whole field surprised me as much as this one (though Montana way up at #12 as their opponent was a bit shocking too). A win at Kansas before the Jayhawks found themselves is the only really impressive win on Nevada's resume; the 14-game win streak must have factored in here, but then why was Gonzaga only a 3? (Again, inconsistency.) Montana's 12 makes no sense either - aside from a win over Stanford, their OOC schedule ranks among the most pitiful in the field to my eyes, and they didn't even win their conference in the regular season! There's no reason Bradley or Xavier couldn't have taken this spot instead except that I feel like the committee thought matching up mid-major teams from out west had some cachet. Meh.