J.K. Rolling March sadness

Author: Jeff Klein

I am utterly disappointed by the lack of upsets in this year's March Sadness. The lowest seeds to advance past the first round were 11th seeds Virginia Commonwealth (VCU) and Winthrop, who both lost in the next round.

It marked the first time since 2000 that a number-12 seed did not knock off a number-five in the first round. 15th seeded Texas A&M-Corpus Christi almost provided a story for the ages, leading second-seed Wisconsin 25-7 in the first half before they faded after halftime and lost.

The rest of the tournament was similarly marked by a lack of upsets. Top-seed Ohio State was two seconds away from a loss to ninth-seeded Xavier in the second round, but Ron Lewis' tying three-pointer saved the season for the Buckeyes. Ohio State went on to prevail in overtime and rode that momentum all the way to the championship game.

The Rams of VCU nearly pulled off an upset against third-seed Pittsburgh in the second round, storming back in the second half to force overtime, but they too were unable to seal the deal. As the tournament wore on, more and more underdogs, despite valiant efforts, bowed out, leaving all traditional major programs left for the Final Four.

Not exactly the situation from a year ago, when George Mason crashed the party.

What does this lack of upsets mean? For one, it makes you appreciate even more when significant upsets do occur. After last year's upset-heavy tournament, some people, myself included, started assuming that upsets would become the norm, when in fact it is the rare exception.

Underdogs are usually seeded low for a reason - their talent is inferior to the teams they are matched up against. Thus, it takes an extraordinary effort by the underdog for the upset to occur. Even though I found myself severely frustrated, game after game, as I watched the underdogs make critical errors late in crunch-time to seal their fates, I did come to realize that in many cases it is the excellent play of the favorites that forces the underdogs into these mistakes.

I do, however, want to briefly introduce a controversial point concerning what else the lack of upsets may signify. Now, I'm not going to go so far as to say that refs never deliberately try to determine the outcome of a game. I will say that throughout this tournament, it seemed like in certain games the refs came in with a preconceived notion about which team was the favorite and officiated the game accordingly. Take the Sweet 16 match-up between top-seeded UNC and five-seed USC. Obviously, the Tar Heels were the favorite. The game was played at the Meadowlands and featured a heavily pro-Heels crowd. The way I see it, USC stormed out to a huge lead, and then the officials took it away from them. UNC got all the calls in the second half.

USC standout first-year Taj Gibson had played spectacularly in the first half and was the primary reason for the large Trojan lead. His third foul call in the second half was one of the worst calls I've seen. His hands were straight up in the air, Tyler Hansbrough threw himself into him, and Gibson got called. When Gibson got his fourth foul a minute later, the Trojans were done.

In any case, all of this simply elucidates the significance and beauty of upsets. Monumental upsets do not occur every March Madness, as painfully indicated by this year's tournament, so when they do it is all the more reason to celebrate.

Oh, and one last thing: a 16-seed will knock off a one-seed in my lifetime. It's gonna happen.