It’s old news that the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team won the NCAA championship. We’ve all heard that, in beating Stanford, they’ve notched yet another victory in their streak of 54,673 consecutive wins (actual number: 78).

The NCAA PR squad isn’t about to let go of that storyline. It’s the only thing that’s made women’s basketball relevant in a long time.

ESPN was pleased to report that the game drew a 2.7 TV rating (according to Nielsen), up a very pretty 29% from last year. But context brings down the heavy hammer of reality. The Tuesday night of the game was owned by American Idol, with its 7.8 rating, and UConn’s triumph also fell in line behind Lost (3.8), NCIS (3.4), The Biggest Loser (3.3), and NCIS: LA (2.9).

Ouch. And those were just normal, mid-season episodes of each of those shows. To drive the dagger home, consider that the men’s final between Duke and Butler garnered a 16.0.

While this year’s 2.7 rating for the championship game is indeed up from last year, it’s not a continuation of long-term growth. The overall trend has been down in the last ten years, even in a time when we consider ourselves fairly enlightened and freak out at the suggestion of sexism.

But the real question here isn’t sexism, it’s relevance. Women’s basketball, both in college and in the WNBA is at all-time high in skill level. It’s legit basketball—#2 Stanford, who just lost to UConn in the final, even runs a triangle offense just like the Los Angeles Lakers (and Chicago Bulls of old).

The appeal of the NBA is clear: it’s basketball at the world’s highest level, it’s fast-paced, it’s physical, and it’s got enough colorful personalities for a dozen soap operas. The appeal of men’s basketball is equally apparent: it’s about tradition, alma maters, and rooting for the underdog at all cost.

Watching women’s basketball, for many of us, is like walking into a movie that’s half over. We have no idea what’s going on. We don’t know the players, the teams, or the rivalries. We barely even know what’s good or bad.

Is it unfair for us to compare women’s basketball to men’s? Our hyper-politically-correct society makes us assume that we should see the NBA and WNBA on equal footing, and same for men’s and women’s in college.

But other sports leagues don’t pretend to be top-tier. The Arena Football League knows it will never be anything but the strange nephew of the NFL, and everyone’s okay with that. Major League Soccer has all the trimmings of a big-deal league, but folks in the U.S. know it can’t compare with the NBA or NFL and folks outside the states know it will likely never measure up to Premier League.

I don’t see a women’s basketball league in the United States ever coming to equal its male counterpart in popularity. I don’t think that’s pessimistic, nor do I want the WNBA to fail, but I think it’s something we can agree on, at least in essence.

Instead, it seems much more likely that—should the right players emerge—NBA teams would open their doors to women, and we’d see a co-ed league.

I don’t think it’s likely, mind you. But it sure seems more likely than the WNBA ever drawing the same TV ratings and pulling in the same merchandise sales numbers as the NBA. Or the women’s Huskies ever attracting more viewers than the men’s Blue Devils in a championship game.

The moral: the only way women’s basketball players will ever be fully relevant to mainstream audiences is if they’re in the NBA.

Now, bang down my door with all the reasons why the NBA, or any professional league, will never cross the gender barrier. It makes for locker room weirdness, and the physical contact between players during gametime could create some problems. That’s fine, I agree.

But we can also agree that there’s a large chunk of the broader basketball-watching audience that has little or no interest in watching the WNBA, or women’s college basketball. They’ll give any number of reasons, be they right or wrong: skill level, physicality, lack of dunks.

That said, there are a handful of folks (including some prominent NBA bloggers) who have no interest in college ball for similar reasons. It makes sense, somewhat—watching college basketball does mean having to endure some missed open jump shots.

When it’s both women’s, and college? Two big strikes against.

Even when it’s transcendent. UConn wrapped up a second consecutive perfect season with their win over Stanford. They’ve averaged—averaged!—a 32.7 point margin of victory in this 78-game streak.

It’s amazing. It’s nothing most of us have ever seen before.

The Huskies are ten games shy of the NCAA men’s basketball record for consecutive wins. That distinction belongs to UCLA (duh), coached by John Wooden (duh), and starring Bill Walton (could have been Kareem, right? Nope. Walton.).

They went 88 games in a row, from 1971-1974. That ’74 season marked not only the end of UCLA’s win streak, but also the end of their run of seven championships in a row. Nobody has ever challenged the latter record—while UConn is on the brink of breaking the first, they have seven championships total in their history. Their streak of titles is, well, two now.

UConn’s win streak is obviously the NCAA’s holy grail of relevance. Get ready to hear a lot more about it when the women’s NCAA basketball season starts up again—which I suppose is around the same time the men start up. I’m not sure.

I guess I haven’t been paying attention.

If the BCS had their way, these guys would have gone home a long time ago.

Ask anyone outside the state of Indiana, and they’ll tell you that Butler has almost no chance of beating Duke in tonight’s championship game. They’re probably right: most analysts put the Bulldogs’ chances of winning between ten and twenty percent. But Butler has already proven us wrong five times so far. Who’s to say they can’t pull out a sixth shocking win?

Perhaps even more incredible than their miracle run, however, is the fact that they’re even allowed to play in the title game at all. 65 teams, including at least one from every conference, are given a chance to compete for the national championship each year in college basketball. In football, however, the BCS limits that number to two, and it puts a stranglehold on the number of teams even eligible to crack those two. If the basketball tournament were governed by the same rules that run the BCS, we’d be looking at a title game between Kansas and Kentucky. It would be a great game, to be sure, but we also would have been deprived of dramatic upsets from teams like Cornell, Northern Iowa, Murray State, and St. Mary’s.

I think you’ll agree with me that basketball’s model is much, much more interesting.

But here’s the question: as dramatic and entertaining as March Madness is each year, how often do we actually see teams outside the six power conferences get a crack at the title? It’s exciting to be included in the field of 65, sure, but Arkansas-Pine Bluff made the field, and they never had a realistic chance of winning the championship. How many mid-majors have actually made the title game, and of those, have any of them actually won?

For clarity’s sake, let’s define “mid-major” as “non-BCS school”. We’ve seen plenty of power teams make Final Four runs, despite being outside the power conferences (I’m looking at you, Memphis and UNLV). Some non-BCS schools like Xavier and Gonzaga aren’t considered to be mid-majors anymore because of their consistently high level of play. So let’s just even things out and focus on teams who don’t play in the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, or SEC.

Using those criteria, we find 9 mid-major teams that have played in title games since 1979 (the Bird vs. Magic game, and the moment I feel college basketball really started to matter), coming from just seven universities. (Louisville and Houston, both from Conference USA, each played in two title games.) That means out of 64 spots between 1979-2010, only about 14% of them were mid-majors. Of those nine, six of them game before 1990. In the 20 years since, mid-majors have a title game appearance rate of just 7.5%. Granted, it’s far higher than the 0% rate for mid-majors in football, but it’s not all that impressive. As for title wins, mid-majors have gone just 3-5 so far in championship games, with all three wins coming before 1991.

So here’s what all this tells us: mid-majors are more than welcome to come participate in the Big Dance. They’d just better not expect to win.

This creates an interesting precedent for the BCS. If they’re looking for a way to silence the complaints of teams like Boise State, Utah, and TCU, why not just let them in? If their success rates are comparable to basketball teams’ (and the formats are similar enough that there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t be), their chances of making a championship appearance, let alone winning one, are negligible.

It’s a win-win situation. Mid-majors feel happy that they’re being included and being given a shot at the title. Power conferences are happy because they can continue winning championships unabated. Viewers are happy because they’d get to see upsets. And happy viewers mean high TV ratings, which has to please network officials and BCS commissioners.

Clearly, it’s not as simple as all this. I understand there are real logistical problems that would need to be ironed out. You would need to find a way to give everyone equal representation in the postseason, or at the very least give everyone a chance. There are TV contracts to be signed, bowl agreements to be arranged, and students’ classwork to be considered. (That last one was a joke. Basketball players get up to three weeks off from classes during March. Why are we pretending that football players have to go to class?) But if your biggest fear over a playoff is seeing a mid-major hold up the trophy, you can put those fears to rest. It’s just not that likely.

Paradoxically, that’s what Butler’s heroic run to the title game has shown us. There’s a reason people get so excited when a mid-major gets to the championship game. It’s the same reason we were so excited when George Mason crashed the 2006 Final Four, or when Davidson nearly knocked off eventual national champion Kansas in 2008. It’s exciting because it’s so astronomically unlikely. In real life, when David and Goliath face off, David almost never gets that shot from his sling off. No, usually Goliath lops off David’s head and takes a victory lap. Just ask 30 years’ worth of mid-majors in college basketball.

One strange note to end on: Duke has twice faced mid-majors in the title game, facing UNLV in 1990 and Louisville in 1986. Both times, the Blue Devils lost. So while I fully expect Duke to win tonight, and even more fully expect the BCS to be rooting for them, that’s something that might give Butler fans some extra hope.

As they hold up their regional championship trophy, you don't get the impression Butler cares much that ASM has them ranked #25.

Now that the Final Four are set and only one of my four picks has made it, you’re probably thinking that I have no idea what I’m talking about and that my rating system is completely bogus. You’re probably not too far off the mark, either, considering picking strictly by ASM (for more about adjusted scoring margin, click here) would have earned you a mark of 44-16 so far – and that’s assuming you get to reset your picks after each round. My bracket has just 40 correct picks in it, and that’s where it’s going to stay, since I predicted Kansas over Kentucky in the final.

So why do I insist on defending a system that has completely embarrassed me this year? Because this year has definitely been the exception, rather than the rule. We’ve seen a historic amount of upsets this year. Going solely by seeding (so including “minor” upsets where a 9 beats an 8 or a 5 beats a 4), we’ve seen 20 upsets out of 60 games. That’s a full third of the games played ending in an upset. The combined seed total of our Final Four teams (1 Duke, 2 West Virginia, 5 Butler, and 5 Michigan State) is 13, tying it for the fourth-highest total since the tournament field was expanded to 64 back in 1985. Only 1986 (15), 2000 (22), and 2006 (20) were higher, and two of those years featured 11 seeds crashing the Final Four. It’s safe to say that we’ve seen an unusual degree of chaos this year.

Most of that can be traced to the format of the tournament. Most professional sports use a best of seven format for their playoffs to ensure that the best team advances. College sports can’t do that since their athletes (theoretically) are supposed to be primarily students, so they use a winner-take-all format. You only need to be hot for one game to advance to the next round.

Even if we saw best of three rounds, you’d see the number of upsets fall dramatically. Northern Iowa played a fantastic game against Kansas, but I doubt the Jayhawks would have played that flat again. Ohio and Cornell shot the lights out in their early games, but quickly fell back to earth. If Temple, Wisconsin, and Georgetown were given a second chance, I imagine they could have righted the ship pretty quickly and advanced to the next round.

But that’s not how it works in March. The best teams don’t always advance simply because you only get one crack at it. If you have one off game, you’re done. You go home. The NCAA Tournament, then, doesn’t measure which team is the best or most talented so much as which team was the hottest over a six-game stretch.

That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy the tournament. The chaos and unpredictability are what make it so enjoyable, in fact. But it does explain why we’ve seen such improbable results.

The last four teams standing in the tournament are not, as you might have expected, the four teams with the highest ASM ratings. In fact, they aren’t even close. Duke would have made the cut at #2, but the next highest is West Virginia at #18 (putting them just beneath Murray State and UTEP). Butler and Michigan State check in at #25 and #32, respectively. Just by looking at the numbers, they don’t appear to belong. We should have seen a Final Four of #1 Kansas, #2 Duke, #3 Syracuse, and #5 Kentucky (#4 BYU misses out by virtue of having to play Syracuse in the regional final).

And as great as those games would have been, they also would have made for and extremely boring tournament. No one wants to see Goliath win all the time. It’s why we hate the Yankees. It’s why we hate Duke. It’s why we hate the Lakers. We like to see the little guy win. That’s what makes March Madness so great. It’s chaotic, unpredictable, and supremely entertaining.

It’s also why I don’t expect you to take either of these picks seriously, because I have no way of knowing for sure how these games are going to play out.

5 MICHIGAN STATE (7.4 ASM, #32) VS. 5 BUTLER (8.0 ASM, #25)

You know what? I’m done picking against Butler. My bracket had them losing in the first round to UTEP, and ASM has had them losing every game they’ve played since (against #17 UTEP, #16 Murray State, #3 Syracuse, and #12 Kansas State). The Bulldogs have consistently defied the odds, and to boot, they’re playing a virtual home game in the Final Four. That said, I feel like I’d be just as foolish picking against the Spartans. This is virtually the same group that made a run to the title game against UNC last year. They aren’t going to be rattled under the bright lights. So who do you pick here? My gut tells me to go with Butler, and fortunately, the numbers back that up. I feel like this will be a close game for Butler, which means Michigan State probably wins in a blowout. I dunno. I give up.

2 WEST VIRGINIA (8.7 ASM, #18) VS. 1 DUKE (15.0 ASM, #2)

I think it’s interesting that of all the top seeds in the tournament, the one we felt was the weakest is the only one left standing in the Final Four. Duke has looked extremely impressive in dispatching its opponents so far. Even when Baylor made its run at the end of last night’s game (in front of a virtual home crowd), Duke remained calm and poised and held them off. That’s the mark of a champion to me. Of course, West Virginia stayed calm when Kentucky made their run, too. I just feel like Duke has too many weapons to fall here. That, and they nearly have the Mountaineers’ ASM doubled up. It’s really hard to pick against a team like that. The Blue Devils move on here and continue to prove the doubters wrong.

As much as is possible, I offer in-game commentary on all of the tournament games via Twitter at @TheRealSamOrme, so if you’re into that sort of thing, feel free to follow along. You can also heckle me over the complete collapse of my bracket via our bracket challenge group at ESPN.com.

Orange you glad you got to play Butler? (groan...)

After the first two rounds of this year’s tournament were filled with a historic pace of thrilling upsets, you might have been forgiven for thinking we might see a double-digit seed or two in the Final Four. Really, we were all thinking it, or at least hoping it. But if the first weekend is Cinderella’s time to shine, the second is when the carriage turns back into a pumpkin. It’s not unusual to see underdogs make a run to the Sweet Sixteen, but it is rare to see them go much further than that (2008 Davidson and 2006 George Mason being recent exceptions). So it’s not too surprising to see lovable mid-majors like Northern Iowa, Cornell, and St. Mary’s sent packing, restoring a modicum of order to a crazy tournament.

What was surprising, though, was seeing a pair of top-two seeds ousted this early, even if by respectable programs. I didn’t expect either Syracuse or Ohio State to win it all this year, but I also didn’t expect them to lose to Butler or Tennessee. The double-digit seeds may be gone, but the spirit of the underdog lives on. There’s an excellent chance we could see two five seeds (or even a five and a six!) meeting in the Final Four next weekend.

Picking games based on ASM (learn about Adjusted Scoring Margin here) this round would have given you a record of 5-3. While that’s not a great showing, it’s actually not too terrible considering the carnage most brackets have seen. Anything better than flipping a coin at this point is about all you can ask for.

So it is with extreme trepidation that I present my picks for the Elite Eight. I stand by a system that has posted a record of 43-13 so far, but it’s worth pointing out that the last two rounds have seen a record of 16-8, which isn’t quite as impressive. Pay attention to these predictions at your own risk.

5 MICHIGAN STATE (7.4 ASM, #32) VS. 6 TENNESSEE (7.6 ASM, #29)

I’m just as surprised as you are that these are the two finalists from the Midwest, but looking at the numbers, I’m thinking this is going to be an extremely competitive game. Tennessee was probably underseeded a bit, having been blown to pieces by Kentucky in the SEC tournament, but they’ve been a solid team all year. They ought to give the Spartans all they can handle on Sunday. However, since the game looks to be so close, I think I might give the edge to Michigan State here. The whole team has been here before, making a run to the title game last year. Tom Izzo has certainly coached a few Elite Eight games in his time. The Vols, however, are making their first ever appearance this deep in the tournament. I doubt you’ll see much stage fright from this team, but I imagine it will affect them just enough that one or two possessions will make this game. Should be a doozy.

1 KENTUCKY (12.1 ASM, #5) VS. 2 WEST VIRGINIA (8.7 ASM, #18)

Considering all of the chaos we’ve seen this year, it seems downright strange to see a chalk regional final. It’s even stranger to think that this could just have easily have been an 11 vs. 12 matchup with Washington and Cornell. Just that kind of year, I guess. West Virginia has cruised to the Elite Eight, winning their matchups by an average of 16.3 points, though to be fair, they’ve played an average of a 12 seed. But Kentucky has won by an average of 25.3 points, playing against virtually the same level of competition (average seed of 12.3). So who do you take? Frankly, I think the Mountaineers’ run is over. Kentucky has hardly been challenged in this tournament. I think they continue to roll here. They probably won’t win by 25 points, but don’t be surprised if they make it double digits.

5 BUTLER (8.0 ASM, #25) VS. 2 KANSAS STATE (9.6 ASM, #12)

If there’s one team in this tournament that has consistently surprised me, it’s Butler. ASM had them losing all three games they’ve been in so far (against #17 UTEP, #16 Murray State, and #3 Syracuse), and they’ve defied the odds every time. Then again, if there’s one team that has surprised me that shouldn’t have, it’s Kansas State. The Wildcats won by an average of over 10 points a game this season, and that against the third toughest schedule of any tournament team. Is it any wonder they’re cruising through their opponents? While watching Thursday night’s games, I tweeted that I expected a Kentucky-Kansas State final based on what I was seeing. At the risk of jinxing both teams, I stand by that statement. K-State looks invincible right now. Pick against them at your own risk.

1 DUKE (15.0 ASM, #2) VS. 3 BAYLOR (9.2 ASM, #14)

I know it’s trendy to think that the Blue Devils are overrated, but they’re winning by nearly 20 points a game so far, and that against the toughest teams they could have faced (16, 8, 4). Do I expect that trend to continue against Baylor? The same Baylor that just pasted St. Mary’s by 23? No, probably not. But I think it’s time we stopped thinking of Duke as a team destined to collapse early. They’re not just winning games, they’re winning them easily. And remember, before last night’s slaughter of the Gaels, Baylor was struggling to put away 11^th seeded Old Dominion and 14^th seeded Sam Houston State. The Bears are a trendy pick for the Final Four. (Just ask my wife – she has them winning it all.) But I’m not quite convinced they have the chops to get past Duke. I’m picking the Blue Devils, and I see them winning by at least ten.

As always, if you want to see how the HTWS writers and friends’ brackets are looking, or if you just want to laugh over some hideously busted brackets, take a look at our bracket challenge group on ESPN.com.

We’ve all seen that President Barack Obama fills out a March Madness bracket every year. It’s refreshing to see that our Commander-in-Chief is a normal sort of guy, who watches Sportscenter and has his bracket shattered by upsets just like the rest of us. It’s all in good fun.

Right?

Cue the sinister music. A deeper plunge into Obama’s seemingly-innocent picks reveals a shocking, dark underbelly—sixty-four games’ worth of unabashed gerrymandering and political favor-trading. It’s Washington at its Washingtoniest, and our President is in the thick of it.

Here’s his bracket, written in the unmistakable Presidential Handwriting. Take a look at the political implications of just a handful of Obama’s picks, marked in red.

Click the image to see it larger.

1. UNI over UNLV

It’s a little strange that it says “Panthers” here instead of UNI, but Obama looks past that to Northern Iowa’s star Ali Farokhmanesh. He’s Iranian-American; his father played on Iran’s national men’s volleyball team. Obama clearly picks the team with an Iranian connection to bolster relations with Iran—it’s a bouquet of roses sent to Iran’s bearded, wildly-anti-American president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

2. Georgia Tech over Oklahoma State

Easy one. Oklahoma’s senior Senator James Inhofe called Obama “the best liar ever.” Obama’s response, with this pick? An emphatic political middle finger.

3. Murray State over Vanderbilt

Clearly—clearly!—the most powerful man in the world had an inside source on this one.

4. Florida over BYU—no wait, BYU over Florida

It was easy for Obama to pick Florida here, remembering “The Hug”—the time he was scandalously hugged by Florida’s Republican governor Charlie Crist. But on second thought, he decided to reach across the aisle to BYU—easily one of the country’s most Republican schools—to shore up his own bipartisan support.

5. St. Mary’s over Richmond

First thought: Pick the higher seed. Second thought: Give the Gaels some props for awarding Obama a special commendation for community service.

6. Villanova over Duke

One of the most perplexing picks. Reggie Love, Obama’s personal aide (think Dulé Hill in the West Wing) played basketball for Duke. And yet he didn’t pick the Blue Devils? Sounds like there’s bad blood. That, or he’s got his eye on Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes over North Carolina’s paltry 15.

7. Kansas over Kentucky

President Obama has been involved lately in a wicked firestorm with Kentucky’s Senator Mitch McConnell over the healthcare bill. Throw in that Obama’s HHS secretary is a former governor of Kansas, and the Jayhawks become a gimme pick for the scheming President.

There it is. An entire political career’s worth of intrigue, power struggles, and political maneuvering—hidden in plain sight, in the President’s NCAA Tournament bracket.

And you think that’s bad? Wait until you see his picks to win American Idol.

(Special thanks to Benjamin H. Chatterton for his contribution to this article).

I'm a multimillionaire! Oh, and we're going to the Elite Eight, I guess.

The NCAA men’s basketball tournament is one of the biggest events in sports each year. Short of the Super Bowl, World Series, and NBA Finals, I can’t think of anything more heavily hyped and watched, including the playoffs of each of those sports. When March Madness games are showing, workplace productivity plummets nationwide. (Admit it. When Murray State’s Danero Thomas hit his buzzer-beater to oust Vanderbilt, you were watching, even though you were still supposed to be working at 4:30 PM EST.) It’s exciting, compelling viewing, and it’s worth its weight in gold to the organizers.

What a pity, then, that the players themselves don’t see a cent of those millions of dollars. The people directly responsible for shocking, legendary upsets like Ohio over Georgetown and Northern Iowa over Kansas do all the work but see none of the profits. It hardly seems fair, does it?

It doesn’t. For a few players, however, March is a time when millions of dollars can be made. NBA scouts are watching, and like it or not, they subconsciously weigh performance in March more than the regular season. If you’re just going to play four outstanding games in your college career, the last two weeks of March is an excellent time to play them.

Take a look at Stephen Curry. By all accounts, he had a tremendous career at Davidson. During his three years as a Wildcat, he averaged 25.3 points a game on 46.7% shooting. Pretty impressive, but that’s not why he was drafted so highly. No, the reason he was drafted seventh overall was because in his four games in the 2008 NCAA tournament, he blistered his opponents for 40, 30, 33, and 25 points. That averages to 32 points per game. Before that scorching performance led Davidson to the cusp of the Final Four (remember, they came within seconds of knocking off eventual champion Kansas that year), scouts were projecting Curry as a late first-round or early second-round pick.

Jumping twenty to thirty slots in the draft order makes a big difference, trust me. Since the NBA has a salary scale for rookies, Curry went from a non-guaranteed contract (as a potential second-round pick) to a three-year guaranteed contract worth an average of $2.4 million per year. And all of that based on his (admittedly fantastic) performance in just four games.

Essentially, he increased his net worth by $1.8 million for every game he played in the 2008 tournament.

Curry’s hardly the only example. Reaching back a bit further, we find Miami of Ohio’s Wally Szczerbiak, whose stellar play during the 1999 tournament (including a 43/10 performance in the first round against Washington) boosted him to a number six draft selection. Western Kentucky’s Courtney Lee led the Hilltoppers to a Sweet Sixteen berth in 2008, earning him the 22^nd spot in the 2008 draft (and a starting spot in the NBA Finals for Orlando). Patrick O’Bryant of Bradley torched Kansas and Pitt in 2006 and found himself drafted ninth overall that same year.

Okay, so we know that a few killer games in March can earn you a lot of money. But can the opposite happen? What if a great player has a stink bomb of a game in March and his team is eliminated? Can a player lose himself millions of dollars with one bad game?

It’s a little trickier to prove this, but I think it’s reasonable to assume this happens. Let’s consider Georgetown’s Roy Hibbert. The Hoyas made a surprising run to the 2007 Final Four, after which many thought Hibbert would leave for the NBA, since he was projected as a lottery pick.(Again, four great games could have earned him millions.) Instead, Hibbert said he had “unfinished business” at Georgetown and decided to return for his junior year. The Hoyas were primed for a deep run in 2008 as a 2 seed, but ran into Curry’s Wildcats in the second round and were unceremoniously bounced. Hibbert only managed six points (and five fouls!) in 16 minutes.

Disappointed, Hibbert declared for the draft. Where he was once a lottery pick (probably top ten), he fell to the 17^th spot. So how much money did he lose with that loss to Davidson? For simplicity, let’s assume that Hibbert would have been drafted tenth in 2007. He passed up a contract that would have been worth $5.2 million (over three years) for one worth $3.9 million. Essentially, that one sub-par performance cost him $1.3 million dollars.

Now, Roy Hibbert is a good player. He does an excellent job for the Indiana Pacers, and he’s certainly earning every penny of his contract. And, to be fair, he didn’t have a great game against Davidson. Had he stepped up, there’s a great chance Georgetown would have won. So is it fair for him to have lost so much money based on one bad performance?

No, probably not. But that’s the way the system works. You want big bucks? Play big in March.

We have two players testing out this theory in this year’s tournament. Northern Iowa’s Ali Farokhmanesh has done his best to earn some big dollars with two big shots to keep the Panthers alive against UNLV and Kansas. He would have been a second-round pick at best if he had declared for the draft this year. Now? Your guess is as good as mine, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some team made him a first-round pick, earning him that three-year guaranteed contract. On the flip side, Villanova’s Scottie Reynolds, long projected as a high draft pick this summer, scored just 8 points on 2-11 shooting in their loss to tenth-seeded St. Mary’s. He’ll probably still go in the first round, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he drops at least five to ten spots. Five spots costs him $1 million per year. Ten spots could cost him double that amount.

The moral of the story? Even though none of the players in the tournament are being paid, there’s an awful lot of money being made and lost. Just ask Stephen Curry or Roy Hibbert.

Through two rounds and 48 games, this year’s tournament has featured a staggering 16 upsets by seed (including 9 over 8 and 5 over 4). That means one out of every three games ended in an upset this year. For comparison, the 2009 tournament featured 16 upsets total.

So if Kansas, Villanova, and Georgetown’s absence from the Sweet Sixteen have left your bracket in shambles, don’t worry too much about it. You’re not alone. 99% of brackets created on ESPN.com had Kansas in the Sweet Sixteen. 60% of those had the Jayhawks winning it all. When Cole Aldrich hung his head after Northern Iowa’s stunning victory, a grieving nation hung their heads with him.

So how did the By the Numbers bracket hold up? Well, to be fair, I was already missing three teams from the Sweet Sixteen, but the fact that I lost five more should tell you all you need to know. Even assuming that you could have started with a clean slate, basing your picks on adjusted scoring margin wouldn’t have done well for you. Favorites by ASM went just 10-6 (62.5%) in the second round. That doesn’t sound too bad, but bear in mind that using that same metric for the first round yielded a record of 27-5 (84.4%).

So let’s forget about the brackets now. Everyone’s are equally ruined, except, of course, for my wife’s, who picked a Syracuse-Baylor final and is sitting on top of the HTWS bracket group. (She made me take a screen shot so she can lord it over me for years to come.) Let’s take a look at the eight games in the regional semi-finals and see what we have in store. Like the first two rounds, it promises to be one for the ages.

Yeaaaaaaah! How does your bracket look now, suckas?

9 NORTHERN IOWA (6.8 ASM, #37) VS. 5 MICHIGAN STATE (7.4 ASM, #32)

There isn’t a person in America who doesn’t know the name Ali Farokhmanesh now. Northern Iowa is brimming with confidence after dispatching the favorite to win it all, and now that they’ll be playing in nearby St. Louis, they’ll have a friendly crowd on their side. Michigan State has the tools for a deep March run, but they’ve struggled to put away their first two opponents. The numbers suggest that this will be another close one, but don’t be surprised if the Panthers extend their miracle run another game.

6 TENNESSEE (7.6 ASM, #29) VS. 2 OHIO STATE (10.0 ASM, #7)

The temptation is to pick the Buckeyes. They’ve won their first two games going away. Evan Turner has been explosive. And Tennessee has hardly been tested, dispatching no. 11 San Diego State and no. 14 Ohio. So why am I so nervous about this one? With the way the first two rounds have gone, anyone with a high seed should be uneasy. I’d be a fool not to pick Ohio State here, but don’t sleep on the Vols.

1 KENTUCKY (12.1 ASM, #5) VS. 12 CORNELL (6.8 ASM, #36)

Surprised to see an Ivy League team here? Don’t be. The Big Red have caught two potent teams napping in Temple and Wisconsin, winning both games comfortably. Will Big Blue be the next victim? Well, while Cornell is good, I’d go so far as to say that Kentucky is great. Cornell hasn’t seen a team anywhere near as good as the Wildcats. In a year like this, I’m hesitant to make write any picks in ink, but when a team is nearly doubled up in ASM, I think you can be pretty confident going with Kentucky here.

11 WASHINGTON (7.8 ASM, #27) VS. 2 WEST VIRGINIA (8.7 ASM, #18)

A lot of people are surprised to see the Huskies still alive, but they’ve actually been slightly favored in each of their games so far. That ends here, but they’re far from overmatched against the Mountaineers. Washington has some major playmakers in Quincy Pondexter and Isaiah Thomas. I like West Virginia’s chances here, but I expect Washington to be competitive all the way to the final horn.

1 SYRACUSE (13.2 ASM, #3) VS. 5 BUTLER (8.0 ASM, #25)

Butler has been impressive so far, blasting UTEP and holding off scrappy Murray State. But Syracuse has been murderous in finishing off Vermont and Gonzaga. I don’t doubt that the Bulldogs have the guns to make this game competitive. But as great a team as they’ve been this year, they haven’t seen anyone like the Orange. I can’t pick against a 5.5 ASM advantage. The Orange move on here.

6 XAVIER (9.1 ASM, #15) VS. 2 KANSAS STATE (9.6 ASM, #12)

This should be one of the best games of the round. Kansas State has been lights out so far, blowing out a tremendously underrated BYU squad. But it’s not as though the Musketeers have been sleepwalking through the tournament. They edged a tenacious Minnesota team and knocked off a vicious Pitt group. No way Xavier has stage fright here. In fact, they have more experience under the bright lights than K-State has. The numbers say K-State, but I’m going to follow my gut and pick Xavier here.

1 DUKE (15.0 ASM, #2) VS. 4 PURDUE (8.3 ASM, #22)

Robbie who? Purdue hasn’t seemed to miss their star Robbie Hummel, moving on to the third round despite being a popular upset pick. They now face Duke, another popular upset pick who people felt was overrated as a 1 seed. So who do you take here? Say what you will about Duke, but they’ve shown themselves worthy of that top seed so far. I think the Blue Devils will be too much for the Boilermakers here. Welcome back to the Elite Eight, Duke. It’s been a while.

3 BAYLOR (9.2 ASM, #14) VS. 10 ST. MARY’S (9.3 ASM, #13)

Baylor was a popular pick here, but the Gaels? They’ve breezed to victories over Richmond and Villanova. They aren’t going to be afraid of the Bears. That said, they might want to worry about the crowd. This game is going to be in Houston, and Baylor fans will be out in force. In a virtual coin-flip game, that might be the difference maker. I like the Bears, but I like them in an ultra-competitive game that should come down to the last tick.

As always, if you’re looking to see how the HTWS authors are doing with their picks, or even if you just need a good laugh, take a look at our bracket group on ESPN.com.

Vanderbilt didn't see Murray State coming. Did you?

It’s been an exciting two days, hasn’t it?

Now that the first round is in the books, I’m going to hold myself accountable and evaluate how my picks turned out. And like I said, I’m going to compare my bracket to my wife’s, who chose her picks largely based on feminine intuition. (She watched exactly one basketball game this year, a Blazers-Sixers game I dragged her to in Portland over Christmas.) Let’s review.

Through 32 games, I’m looking at a record of 27-5, putting me in the 99.8^th percentile. I managed to avoid most of the more devastating upsets, correctly picking Murray State over Vanderbilt, Old Dominion over Notre Dame, and Washington over Marquette. Like most of the country, I didn’t see Ohio’s shocker over Georgetown coming, although I only had Georgetown making the Sweet Sixteen. I also botched most of the 5-12 picks, only getting Michigan State’s nailbiter correct. (You’d think I could have done a bit better, considering Roger broke those matchups down pretty thoroughly on Tuesday. Alas.)

My wife, however, posted a record of 26-6, only misfiring on Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Temple, Marquette, Louisville, and Notre Dame. She’s also only missing one team from her Sweet Sixteen (compared to my three), although she did have Georgetown in the Final Four. She’s currently sitting in second place in the HTWS bracket group. Pretty impressive stuff.

While the first round had some epic games, the second round isn’t lacking for excitement. Let’s take a look at the biggest games and I’ll give you my picks.

5 BUTLER (8.0 ASM, #25) VS. 13 MURRAY STATE (8.9 ASM, #16)

The Racers are already the talk of the tournament with a thrilling buzzer beater to knock off Vanderbilt. Wanna bet they can make it two in a row? Butler is an incredible team, but a big part of their win was the fact that UTEP inexplicably failed to take the court for the second half. (Wait, you mean they were actually out there? Yikes.) I’ll take Murray State here, but I expect this to be another game that comes down to the wire.

6 XAVIER (9.1 ASM, #15) VS. 3 PITTSBURGH (6.0 ASM, #42)

Much has been made out of the dominance of the Big East this year, but they’ve failed to impress so far in the tournament. I expect Pitt to continue that trend. The Panthers were sleepwalking in the first half against Oakland before finally coming to life in the second half. Xavier, however, battle and put away a tenacious Minnesota squad. If Pitt shows up with that same attitude on Sunday, the Musketeers should steamroll them. Even if they don’t, I don’t expect Pitt to make much headway against Xavier. Fear the X.

7 BYU (12.8 ASM, #4) VS. 2 KANSAS STATE (9.6 ASM, #12)

Admittedly, I’m a BYU alumnus, but I’m 100% on board the Jimmer Fredette bandwagon. In postseason play, he’s averaging over 35 points a game. The Cougars were atrociously underseeded this year, and figure to be a much tougher draw for K-State than the typical 7 seed would be. I like BYU’s chances here, though I see this one coming down to the wire. Maybe not double overtime again, but it’s going to be close.

11 WASHINGTON (7.8 ASM, #27) VS. 3 NEW MEXICO (7.7 ASM, #28)

Don’t let the seeding fool you – this is about as close a matchup as you’ll see in this tournament. (Thursday’s UNI-UNLV tilt was closer; the numbers said the two teams were exactly evenly matched.) This game will probably come down to the condition of New Mexico’s Darington Hobson. He took a nasty fall against Montana, and if he’s not 100% for the game, I expect Washington’s Quincy Pondexter and Isaiah Thomas to take over. As it is, I have the Lobos in my bracket. My fingers are crossed for Hobson.

10 MISSOURI (9.8 ASM, #8) VS. 2 WEST VIRGINIA (8.7 ASM, #18)

Seems like a slam dunk for Missouri, right? Normally, I’d say yes, but this Tigers team is a completely different bunch now that Justin Safford is out with a torn ACL. Their double-digit loss to Nebraska in the Big 12 tournament shows as much. I expect the Mountaineers to roll on Sunday.

11 OLD DOMINION (8.2 ASM, #24) VS. 3 BAYLOR (9.2 ASM, #14)

Baylor is a trendy Final Four pick out of the South region, but this is going to be a vicious matchup for them. Old Dominion is a sneaky tough team. They’ve already finished off a resilient Notre Dame squad, and I expect them to make things tough for the Bears. Tough enough to come out with a win? Well, I don’t know that I’d go quite that far. Baylor is a full point per game better than the Monarchs. Baylor wins here, but it’ll be closer than most will expect.

10 ST. MARY’S (9.3 ASM, #13) VS. 2 VILLANOVA (8.5 ASM, #20)

I expected to have to make an impassioned case for why the Wildcats are grossly overrated as a 2 seed. Fortunately, they made that case for me as the staggered their way to an overtime win over Robert Morris. Meanwhile, the Gaels looked impressive as they dispatched a tough Richmond squad. If Villanova plays like they did on Thursday, they’ll lose by 25 to St. Mary’s. Looks like another big loss for the First Bracket.

For those eager to see how the HTWS team’s brackets are doing, as well as our other blogging comrades, take a look at our bracket group on ESPN.

These biceps say everything you need to know about #5 Michigan State.

My bracket isn’t complete without a couple of them.

History has come to increasingly favor the #12 seed over the #5. If you factor in the last 25 years, since the field expanded to 64 teams, the #12 seed has a .333 record against the #5′s. If you just count the last 20 years, that goes up to .425. In the last nine years it’s an even .500, with 18 wins apiece.

And last year? The #12′s won a staggering three of the four showdowns, for a .750 record.

This year doesn’t look any different. The #12′s tend to be underrated, small-time teams (like UTEP and Cornell) while the the #5′s are better-known names or trendy picks (like Michigan State or Butler). We’ll break down the matchups, so that you can officially destroy the rest of the office in your bracket pool. Then you can rub it in their sorry faces.

The analytical tool of choice here is the spider graph. It’s a method of analyzing the style and strengths of a player or team—if it’s your first time seeing them, read up on them first here. You may be tempted to “pick with your gut” on the 5-12 matchups, but remember that your gut also thinks fake cheese is going to be good. Better to go with the numbers here.

In the West: #5 Butler vs. #12 UTEP

Take a quick look at the spider graphs. Now take another look, and realize that UTEP’s is the graph completely swallowing Butler’s, and not the other way around. UTEP is statistically superior to the Butler Bulldogs in all six of our categories, and that’s a good start in picking an upset.

It’s true that pace can inflate statistics, but careful analysis gets us past that. Notice that the Miners’ stats tend to be stronger proportionally on the lower half of the graph, which represents defense. This isn’t a New York Knicks, Golden State Warriors, Phoenix-Suns-a-few-years-ago team—UTEP may play at a quicker pace than Butler, but they also jump the passing lanes and modify shots. And crash the boards. And assist their shots.

On top of that, a quicker pace is often a help rather than a hindrance in March Madness. Out of the four matchups, this one is an absolute gimme.

The pick: UTEP. Score one for the underdog.

In the Midwest: #5 Michigan State vs. #12 New Mexico State

On the other side of the coin, this is the easiest 5-12 matchup for picking the favorite. No team coached by Tom Izzo should be dismissed lightly, and Izzo has taken his Michigan State Spartans to five Final Fours and a national championship.

The graphs are pretty similar, and in these six in-game statistics they trade off a little bit. But when it boils down to it, Michigan State went 24-8 this year and played the in the Big Ten. The NMSU Aggies went 22-11 while playing in the WAC. To cap it off, Michigan State’s average point difference was about +10. NMSU’s was about +1.

The pick: Michigan State. I’ll take the big name here.

In the East: #5 Temple vs. #12 Cornell

The Temple Owls aren’t much of a notable power in recent years, unless you compare them to the Cornell Big Red. Temple enters the tournament with some nice credentials—a #13 ranking nationally and a ten-game winning streak.

But Cornell has also had a ten-game winning streak this season. And an eight-game streak. And they’re currently on a seven-game run. They may play in the weak Ivy League, but they’re no stranger to big competition: two of their four (only four!) losses this season come to Syracuse and Kansas.

The spider graph seals the deal. Cornell dominates Temple in every corner except the boards. But that might not matter, since one of those dominating stats is a nice 48% field goal percentage.

The pick: Cornell. That’s two upsets now.

In the South: #5 Texas A&M vs. #12 Utah State

With two upsets in the bag, this showdown of Texas A&M’s Aggies and Utah State’s Aggies is perhaps the most compelling. Utah State is chronically under-regarded, while A&M is typically solid. Who to take?

Texas A&M tied for second in a competitive Big 12 that ended the season with four ranked teams. Utah State dominated a WAC absent of national powers. We go to the spider graph.

Not a lot of help there either, but at least the picture starts to come into focus. We can tell at a glance that Utah State is a strong offensive team, that gets things done efficiently with a high shooting percentage and good teamwork in assisting shots. A&M figures to be a little quicker—steals are a strong indicator of that—but Utah State goes on to hold its own on the boards.

So we go one deeper. Texas A&M has an impressive +7 average point differential over the season, but Utah State’s is impressively about twice that, at +14. And while neither team lost more than one game at home, Utah State’s 8-5 road record gives them a tiny edge over A&M’s mediocre 5-5.

There are good arguments both ways on this game. But with a 5-12, you have to do some soul-searching. Take a good, hard look at your life. And then pick the team that racked up a 17-game win streak during the regular season.

The pick: Utah State. By a hair.

Yep. That’s right. Three #12′s. It’s going to be a great, great March.

The Jayhawks won it all in 2008. Can they make another run to the title?

Now that the field of 65 has been announced, it’s time to fill out the bracket and attempt to forecast what will happen over the next couple of weeks. Clearly, no one has a foolproof way to predict how the tournament will unfold – if they did, they would take it to Vegas and make millions instead of spreading it across the Internet. So I’m not going to tell you that my bracket is invincible. I’ll be lucky if I can get 75% of the games right. But I’ve gone with this strategy for several years now, and not only has it consistently picked the champion, but it usually predicts underdogs that make big runs (like Davidson in 2008).

So what’s the secret? I base my bracket picks, for the most part, on just one statistic: adjusted scoring margin. The number of points a team outscores its opponents by, on average, is a stronger indicator of their strength than any other factor. It’s more accurate than their win-loss record, their seeding, or anything else. Granted, the quality of the opponent makes a difference here. Beating Duke by 20 points means a lot more than beating Marist by 20 points. To compensate for different opponents, I use a formula that adjusts the scoring margin based on the team’s strength of schedule. It’s not foolproof, obviously, but it’s a fairly reliable way to separate the contenders from the pretenders. So let’s take a look at the top ten tournament teams based on their adjusted scoring margin.

The teams you might expect make an appearance, including all of the 1 seeds, but we see three major surprises. BYU checks in as the #4 team by this metric despite being a 7 seed. Utah State, a 12 seed, isn’t far behind at #6. Consequently, I have them making fairly deep runs in the tournament. If I’m right, it should be a happy year for the state of Utah.

I won’t post my entire bracket here, although I have taken the liberty of posting it on ESPN.com’s Tournament Bracket Contest under the group “How to Watch Sports.” Feel free to join and submit your own bracket so you can show me how much better you are at making picks. (My wife has submitted her own bracket, based solely on feminine intuition, in an effort to show me that I shouldn’t spend so much time assembling a database.)

Instead, I’m going to write about a few games of interest that we might see in the next few days, including their seeding, adjusted scoring margin (ASM), and rank out of the field of 65.

8 UNLV (6.8 ASM, #38) VS. 9 NORTHERN IOWA (6.8 ASM, #37)

This could very well be the best game of the first round. UNLV and UNI are about as evenly matched as you could hope for. In fact, they were so evenly matched that I ended up flipping a coin to pick the winner. I went with UNI, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see UNLV win it.

5 BUTLER (8.0 ASM, #25) VS. 12 UTEP (8.8 ASM, #17)

With their experience in the tournament and their close location to Indianapolis, Butler is a trendy pick to make the Final Four. That said, my system isn’t especially impressed with them. It loves UTEP, though, which was criminally underseeded thanks to a close loss to Houston in the C-USA title game. UTEP is a dangerous team, and I expect them to catch Butler napping in the first round.

4 VANDERBILT (6.6 ASM, #39) VS. 13 MURRAY STATE (8.9 ASM, #16)

Pretty much the same scenario as above, which is fitting, since they’re in the same pod. Vanderbilt received a generous seed considering their play this year, and I think their run ends early, much the same as it did in 2008 against Siena.

5 TEXAS A&M (6.0 ASM, #44) VS. 12 UTAH STATE (10.3 ASM, #6)

This game is interesting, since my rankings suggest that the seedings might be more appropriate if they were switched. Not a lot of love here for the Texas Aggies, despite their strong strength of schedule. I expect Utah State to roll here and surprise a lot of people. Fear the Utah Aggies.

6 NOTRE DAME (6.0 ASM, #45) VS. 11 OLD DOMINION (8.2 ASM, #24)

Notre Dame made a surprisingly deep run in the Big East tournament and seems to have impressed the committee, picking up a 6 seed. Less impressive was the scoring margin for Notre Dame. While they kept winning games, they did so in tight fashion, never really distancing themselves from their opponents. They’re talented, certainly, but luck played a big factor in winning so many close games. Old Dominion should put an early stop to the luck of the Irish.

5 TEMPLE (7.1 ASM, #34) VS. 12 CORNELL (6.8 ASM, #36)

Another coin-toss game. Temple has had an incredible year, but Cornell might be the best team no one is paying attention to. Temple’s slight edge in ASM and much stronger schedule earn them the nod here, but Cornell should give them all they can handle in this dynamite first-round matchup.

16A ARKANSAS-PINE BLUFF (-0.4 ASM, #65) VS. 16B WINTHROP (0.4 ASM, #64)

This game probably won’t be very interesting, but I think it’s noteworthy that the selection committee correctly identified the two worst teams in the field for the play-in game. In my years of ranking the tournament teams, this is the first time I’ve actually seen that happen.

Consider this a taste of what we can expect from the first round of the tournament, which is, in my mind, the two greatest days of the sporting year. Will I pick them all correctly? Almost definitely not. That’s why they call it March Madness. And when my bracket goes to pieces, you can all watch with me as my wife cruises to victory.

Isn’t March great?