Mar 18th, 2008
Bracket advice you can take to the bank — maybe
WADE PAYNE / AP
Tennessee senior guard Chris Lofton, shooting against Kentucky in a game earlier this month, leads a talented Volunteers team. Tennessee is a No. 2 seed that might have what it takes to win it all.
It’s all about the Hack-a-tology now, an exhaustive, ranting look at the NCAA tournament. Now that the field of 65 has been set, let’s rank the teams according to how likely they are to win the national title, based on both the team’s ability and its draw.
(WARNING: If you choose to treat the following as advice and wind up getting creamed in your tournament pool, I will deny I ever made these predictions.)
65. Coppin State. The MEAC champs are the first 20-loss team ever to make the tournament. They won’t get past Mount St. Mary’s in the play-in game.
64. Mount St. Mary’s. The Mountaineers will get past the play-in game, but then North Carolina awaits.
63. Texas-Arlington. The Mavericks won the Southland tournament after finishing seventh in the regular season. They are a great shooting team (47.9 percent, 23rd best in the nation), which might keep them in the game for a half, but Memphis will overwhelm them.
62. Mississippi Valley State. The Delta Devils, who won the SWAC, lost 71-26 to Washington State earlier this season. Now they get UCLA, so I’m predicting a 57-6 final score.
61. American. NCAA tournament newbies, the Eagles won the Patriot League to get here, and their reward is a shootout with Tennessee. Combined, the teams chuck up about 43 three-pointers a game. Tennessee might want to stay away from a shooting contest with American, however. The Eagles ranked third in Division I in three-point percentage at 40.9.
60. UMBC. The University of Maryland-Baltimore County, is a first-timer at the Big Dance. Which means the Retrievers will stand against the wall and watch Georgetown thrill the crowd.
Tags: nit, results
12 Responses to “Bracket advice you can take to the bank — maybe”
There’s a certain poetic justice to the reign of foreign capital in our economy. For a century we were going in to foreign countries and buying up everything they had. When forces in favor of nationalization invariably rose to power, we’d respond by supporting coups or with military intervention. Now we have committed the one sin that undoes every hegemony: we tried to expand beyond our means (Iraq). Now we watch our own empire unravel. Nothing left to do but acquiesce?I, for one, welcome our foreign capitalist overlords!
sigh. no.The reason the dollar is weak is that foreign investors are no longer interested in buying american assets.
I have an Idea, end the drug war, stop putting half of my fellow citizens in prison, get rid of minimum wage and i will still pay them more than the jails will, fully fund education, open the medical industry to competition and pay me in euros.Then let foreigners buy up what they want, just give me 15 years with a healthy society and well buy it back later.
There will be assets for sale to American speculators as well. People can hate it all they want, but everyone wants to be the first one that sells when the time comes for firesales. It happened in the 80s when the Japanese were buying up US real estate and will happen again. Eventually it funds the resurgence and the foreign investors sell back.
you are confusing the IOUs that treasury sell with real assetts like factories and forests. Chinese, Singaporeans and Middle Eastern funds are already buying.
On the plus side, we’ll probably get back all those jobs we’ve been sending overseas for years. Of course, it’ll be companies in other countries hiring our local call center this time around, though.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst102504.htm
Link?
I remember. They were kicking ass … and then they had a long recession. They call it ‘the lost decade’.
Interestingly, Hilliary Clinton has noted the issue of the foreign debt. She has made speeches before the Senate decrying us selling America to foreigners. This isn’t relevant to to hard assets, but she does see something about us selling ourselves away. It ignores the total debt though, which I can’t see how she justifies.I haven’t seen any similar recognition by other candidates.
Link? It’s called Google. Search for “japanese investment in usa in the 80s”. Second hit is an article from 2005 explaining part of what I’m talking about.