On the Necessity of Cinderella Teams

THEY AREN'T. Necessary, that is. Other than the obligatory championship predictions, the majority of what I've heard on talk radio the past two days boils down to disappointed moaning, complaining, whining, and downright bitching. So, what if last year all four number one seeds made it to the Final Four? So what if this year the Sweet Sixteen is comprised of four 1's, four 2's, four 3's, two 4's, a 5, and a 12? These pundits act as if a tournament without a Cinderella team is an utter failure. If you get a Honus Wagner in every pack of Cracker Jacks and a Bill Ripken error card with every stick of gum, they aren't rare anymore. If a George Mason makes it to the Final Four every year, it loses its meaning.

So, Dear Columnists and Talk Show Hosts, WE KNOW. We know there is no Cinderella team in the Sweet Sixteen. Now that we know, you aren't allowed to bring it up again until after the tournament. We know that the brackets have been mostly *"Chalk," but stop saying this is a disappointment. Just because something is fun and extraordinary when it does happen doesn't mean it is disappointing when it doesn't happen.

I have some theories on why so many "experts" are making these complaints:

-They aren't big enough fans of the sport to appreciate the game itself, they just want a story to hype.
Although plausible, I don't really agree with my own theory here. Most of the guys I listen to at least seem like they are into it. Moreover, there are PLENTY of stories going on in the tournament right now. I'll talk about some of them in a second.

-The need for a "Cinderella" is just another manifestation of the sports writer, broadcaster, talk show host need to witness and cover one of the greatest moments in sports that will live on forever.
Seriously. Why can't "exceptional" suffice? Or even just "good"? Why does the question always have to be asked "Could [insert performance] in [insert sport] be THE BEST EVER? I've only (seriously) been following sports for about a year now, and I swear I've heard THE BEST EVER been mentioned hundreds of times. Give it a rest and enjoy the game for what it is. Stories can be told without them having to be one for the history books. Not to mention, your coverage will not be the make-or-break that determines how we remember a game or a tournament.

-Their brackets suck. Experts want to be the ones to pick the great upsets. They are pissed when the games go chalk because in their heads, they wanted to go chalk but forced themselves to pick a few "intelligent upsets."
I think this has a lot of merit. I know I do the same thing. I pick at least one 12 over a 5 seed as a rule. What makes me and other sports laymen different from the sports expert? I don't complain when I'm wrong, and my bracket is pretty bad. Keep watching. I say again, appreciate the sport for the sport. This is not about you.

Whatever the reason may be, the fact is the media for the past two days has been harping on the fact that this tournament has so far proved somehow disappointing. They cite a lack of a Cinderella team. Stop emphasizing this. If a tournament is going chalk, then the Selection Committee must have done a decent job. And if your response is "But what about teams like Davidson, St. Mary's, and San Diego State?" then I say WHY AREN'T YOU WATCHING THE NIT? The tournament is 65 teams, not every pretty little mid-major can make it. The NIT is still quality basketball.

The point is, stop indoctrinating listeners to believe that something crazy seed-wise has to happen for March Madness to be "mad." There are currently sixteen very good teams left in the tournament and some very entertaining games to be had. That's mad enough for me. Despite the chalk, let's take a brief look at some of the better stories so far in only two rounds of the tournament:

-Before a single game had been played, yells erupt that Arizona should not have gotten into the tournament. They are the sole-surving PAC-10 team.
-Five, count 'em FIVE Big East teams are left, probably the most physical conference out there.
-Blake Griffin gets thrown and slammed into the floor by some dude know one has ever heard of (and I refuse to dignify him with looking up his name) from Morgan St. Griffin plays the bigger man and doesn't retaliate. He even tells Jim Rome that he understand why the guy did it.
-UConn posts the third largest winning margin ever in the tournament, beating Chattanooga by 56, honoring their hospitalized coach.
-For the superstitious and fellow Huskie fans, UConn won it all in 1999 and 2004, a five year difference. Five years later, it's 2009. Both times they came out of the West. 2009: They're in the West. Jim Calhoun has only missed two other tournament games. Both were years that they won it all.
-Pitt, a number one seed and many people's favorite, struggles in their first TWO games.
-Dayton knocks off West Virginia. Cleveland State knocks off Wake Forest!
-Marquette player Lazar Hayward steps over the line on an inbound pass with just seconds left to turn the ball over, eliminating the possibility of a buzzer beater and a sixth Big East team to move on.
-Not one, not two, but THREE twelve seeds beat the five seeds in the first round.

Those are just some of the highlights of a fantastic two rounds of play in this March Madness tournament. There is sure to be more where that came from. This list might not satisfy the sports media pundits, but it's enough to make me go crazy. Or should I say, mad.



*If you didn't already know, "chalk" refers to teams advancing that were favored to advance, based on seed.