[David Rosenthal]

Interestingly, if you google "bracket," the first five pages or so are filled with references to the tournament.

Meanwhile, Frank -- I love it too, really. I love the underdog thing. Cal didn't have a chance against Duke, bu then neither did UNI against Kansas. I'm rooting for St. Mary's now -- the only Bay Area team left in the mix. But I'm loving UNI and Cornell, too.

David R.

[Julie Steiner]

To those still mystified...

Since high school, every place I've ever worked has had a gambling pool based on the big U.S. college basketball tournament (NCAA). Just about everyone in the office, whether or not they give the tiniest rip about basketball, fills out big, spidery-looking tournament-matchup charts (a.k.a. brackets), predicting which teams will advance to the next alarmingly alliterative level (First Round, Second Round, Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four, National Championship Game).

Here's a sample bracket chart, although this one is being updated as the games are played. (Obviously, office pools start with only the first round teams known.)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask.../printable_men

If you are actually a basketball fan, you spend hours (if not the entire season) studying all the teams and trying to determine your picks, based on which teams are more skilled, better coached, don't have to travel as far for the game, have fewer injured stars, and other such factors. Favoring the team of your alma mater (if applicable) and refusing on principle to pick certain perennial shatterers of dreams (Duke University comes to mind) are about the only socially permissible deviations from this scientific approach.

If you're like me, though, you are blissfully unaware of which teams "should" win. Your selections are based on more whimsical criteria, and it takes you about five minutes to complete your bracket--which document subsequently becomes the object of much derisive humor at the water cooler. I mean, really, Cornell over Wisconsin? What moron would pick Cornell over Wisconsin?

When the inevitable upset victories occur (Cornell actually did beat Wisconsin), we who don't really care tend to do far better in our prognostications than the people who obsessively do. This drives the latter absolutely nuts, which I enjoy in a mildly sadistic sort of way.

The whole silly enterprise monopolizes water cooler conversation during the month of March.

Related story:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14748724

[David Rosenthal]

I participate in a $20 buy-in pool with nearly 300 people across the country. The top five get money, first prize is $2,000. Last year I came in 8th -- would have won it all if Xavier had beat Pitt, which very nearly happened. This year is another story.

David R.

[W.F. Lantry]

When Julie says everyone does it, she's not joking:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_502619.html

And she rightly points out I was wrong. There is *one* single demonstrable perfect bracket in the country so far. I predict it won't last... but wouldn't it be something if it did?

Thanks,

Bill

[David Rosenthal]

Syracuse goes down. Wow what a tournament. West Virginia has a legit shot at Kentucky, and both Purdue and Baylor are capable of taking down Duke. We could have a final four with no number 1 seeds.

David R.

[Jones Pat]

I have my Duke hat on....it's old and worn but often comes through.

[Jones Pat]

And I'm still wearing it! : )

[Chris Childers]

Kentucky is going to win it all, then have the championship revoked because John Wall cheated on his SATs. Calipari will leave in disgrace, and God will afflict him with a plague of boils. This is the Just World scenario.

Chris, who is thoroughly bitter at this NCAA tournament, because neither of his teams is in it, and one of them, Memphis, gave its recruits to form the starting lineup for two of the #1 seeds (Kansas & KY)

[Chris Childers]

Haha! Kentucky's out! Go Baylor.

[R. S. Gwynn]

"He kept on plugging at the four aways."

Philip Larkin, "Mr Bleaney"