Didn't I say that at far as entertainment value, having an All-Cinderella, or even an All-Surprise Final 4 is bad for college basketball? Didn't I say that the 2010 Final 4 would be forgettable, among the lines of the 2006 Final 4, the last one to feature no #1 seeds? I know a lot of people had a different idea - a lot of people thought that March Madness was imbued with new life in a year where all but one #1 seed was gone before the Elite Eight, and the best seed left in the tournament in the Final 4 was a team that went 9-9 in conference. It was a forgettable season of college basketball, with no great team (unlike last year, which had great teams, but teams that lost early, like Kansas and Kentucky). The tournament was highlighted early with odd refereeing decisions capping a glut of close, tightly played games. It was then taken over by two cinderella stories - one a team that lost its best player off of a miracle season and made it back to the Final 4. Amazingly, that wasn't the most ridiculous Cinderella story, with VCU, who's inclusion in the tournament was met with the fury of a thousand winds from Jay Bilas, somehow blowing through their region and making the Final 4 as a #11 seed. Of course, Cinderella's aren't always a great thing, and that point has never had any more evidence than that dud of a Title Game yesterday.
18.8%. That is what Butler shot from the field. I can shoot a higher percentage shooting three pointers in any gym in America. Most NCAA teams could shoot a higher percentage playing against an NBA team. That was an unconscaibly bad display of offense. UCONN's amazing defense and shot blocking and altering should take some credit, but even then, shooting that bad needs help from an impotent offense. Butler could do nothing. Every team, from this years Pitt team to last year's Syracuse team, to Butler's two semifinal opponents Michigan St and VCU, were all wondering "Where was this Butler team then?" Butler rode a magic carpet ride for two tournaments, but that display will probably cloud everything, and it shouldn't. Butler was in the end, who we thought they were. They couldn't play this well, this composed forever. Sooner or later, they would play like a mid-major (especially this year, where they tremendously overachieved). Sooner or later, they would lose the test of wills to a bigger, faster, more athletic team. They met that team, and the result was historic... ally bad.
UCONN should not be blamed. They were down 6 early in the second half despite in many ways outplaying Butler, and did not get discouraged. Rather, they came together, and played the most dominant 10 minutes in UCONN history, rolling Butler for a 22-3 run. It was hard to watch, but also beautiful. Here UCONN was, playing Butler's game. Butler loves to play ugly, they love to get into a street fight. For once, Butler met a team who loved a street fight as well. UCONN relishes these physical games, and they always have. Ever since UCONN won the title with Okafor in 2004, they have been defined by their defense and shot-blocking. From Okafor, to Villanueva, to Thabeet. UCONN has always had a great defender down low. That was supposed to be what made this UCONN team different. They weren't supposed to have that. Well, here comes Alex Oriakhi, out of nowhere. The best part, he's only a sophomore. Just hope he doesn't have Hasheem Thabeet's NBA career.
UCONN took advantage of the worst Final 4 talent wise ever. The 2006 Final 4 might have not had a #1 seed, but there was a lot of talent - starting with obviously Florida's starting 5. This Final 4 had a Butler team that overachieved and a VCU team that was a team playing well over its head. Kentucky also overachieved, getting to where its previous team should have. UCONN was well coached, and had a singular great talent. That was enough in 2010, and that shouldn't be the case. It is unfair to call UCONN a true one man team, like Carmelo Anthony's Syracuse, but they are really that at heart. That usually isn't good enough (Carmelo is probably the most dominant college player we have seen this decade). Usually teams have to not only have good players, and a good coach, but be deep with talent and skill. That wasn't necessary to win in 2011, and I hope that does not stay the case. There should be some skill requirement to win a title, and 2011 did not deliver.
Was March Madness 2011 a fun ride? Yes, because it took advantage of a watered-down year in the NCAA to give us true madness, with upsets all over. It was an amazing ride for two weeks. However, it was not for three weeks, and that is the worst part. A tournament like this is only great when it ends great. That was the beauty of the 2005 March Madness, which had crazy games, upsets all over, amazing finishes, but delivered when it gave us the two best teams in the country to finish it off. It happened in 2007, where the first two weekends were pretty wild, especially the middle weekend, and in the end had the two best teams again. This was not the same. This finished with a loud thud. Forget the great exploits of VCU. Forget the amazing run of Butler. Forget all those odd referee decisions. Forget Kentucky's great win over Ohio St, or Arizona running all over Duke (although I'll try hard to not forget that one, since seeing Duke mauled like that was fun). This tournament will always be remembered for a Championship Game ending 53-41. You realize that just one year ago, There was an NFL Playoff game that had two more points scored? That is really the definition of madness.
