Tim Weiser, the committee chairman, talked about Connecticut being a No. 2 seed. He said the rationale is to put a regional site in a location that hasn't historically had one, which is fine for UConn being a host. But why wasn't UConn a No. 1 seed? He didn't really answer the specific question, though, which is why is UConn a No. 2 seed?
From here, I've always thought it was a good move to try to spread the game, and Connecticut did enough this year to earn a regional host spot. It would have been fascinating to see if Oregon had finished stronger to see if the Ducks would have been a host as well.
For what it's worth, Kyle Peterson did a solid job as usual on the broadcast, but I thought ESPN rifled through the 64-team field too fast and never analyzed which regionals match up in supers. Not ESPN's best work.
Comments will be monitored prior to being added to the site. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be rejected. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed.
We have chosen to open up commenting to everyone, so comment away! We want to hear from each and every one of you! Leave a comment.
About This Blog
Syndicate This Blog
Search This Blog