Mitch to NBA

Mitch to NBA

Submitted by JeepinBen on April 25th, 2014 at 8:59 AM

According to Yahoo Sport's Dan Wetzel Mitch to the NBA after testing positive for marijuana which netted him a YEAR LONG BAN from the NCAA

EDIT: Because some people aren't reading the article:

  • Mitch failed an NCAA administered test during the tournament - schools test during the year
  • The NCAA has harsher policies than schools do. Had Mitch failed a Michigan adminstered test it would have been 1-2 week suspension
  • Mitch dressing did not affect his test. Had Mitch been in street clothes or in AA he could have been tested by the NCAA during the tournament
  • Mitch passed 8 tests during his 2 years at Michigan, this was his only failure…

Mitch McGary took a deep breath. He wanted to tell the story of why he smoked marijuana one night in March, why the NCAA suspended him for a year because of it and why the confluence of those events is helping lead him to declare for June's NBA draft. It wasn't easy, so he started at the beginning. For months, McGary had struggled to come to terms with the back injury that limited him to just eight games for the University of Michigan this season, none after mid-December.

EDIT 2: Quotes from Mitch and Beilien from

"My family and I want to thank everyone for giving us privacy and the time to make this decision," said McGary. "As you know, it was important for us to weigh all the factors that go into something like this. With that being said, I am ready to move on to the next stage in my life and enter the NBA Draft. "Being a part of a program that values integrity, it is important to let everyone know of a poor decision I recently made. I tested positive for marijuana during the NCAA Tournament. We were notified of that result after the Final Four. I regret thoroughly disappointing my family, coaches and administration. Despite all of this they have been understanding and helpful over the last couple of weeks. "I take full responsibility for this poor choice and want to apologize to everyone, especially those I have grown close to during my fabulous two years at the University of Michigan. "I love the University of Michigan and all it has allowed me to do. I have had my ups and downs, especially with my injury this season. I want to thank all the fans for embracing me. This has been the best two years of my life and I have some unbelievable memories. I know that I will be a Wolverine forever. Go Blue."

Go North Young Man! Players from the B1G footprint still in the tournament

Go North Young Man! Players from the B1G footprint still in the tournament

Submitted by Yeoman on March 28th, 2014 at 7:14 PM

One of the stories of the tournament for me are the seemingly large number of kids that got away--players that weren't even recruited by the major schools in their home state that are now playing and in some cases starring somewhere else.

There are the obvious, of course: GR3's father's jersey hangs from the rafters at Purdue. Traevon Jackson's father's jersey hangs from the rafters at OSU. Frank Kaminsky only got a single out-of-state offer and Illinois showed no interest, now he's blocking six shots in a Sweet Sixteen game.

But it's more than that. There are six Indiana players with significant roles for teams still in the tournament at this late stage--they've combined for 144 minutes, 55 points and 25 rebounds per game. No Indiana school even made the tournament.

Five Illinois players are stil in, combining for 126 minutes, 54 points, 15 rebounds and a couple of blocks per game. No Illinois school made the tournament.

OSU is gone but nine Ohio players are still in, combining for 201 minutes, 90 points, 34 rebounds and 13 assists per game. Sibert transferred to UD from OSU, OSU whiffed on Payne and Nigel Hayes, but the other six they didn't even offer.

Here's the full list of players from the B1G footprint that are still in the tournament, have averaged at least five minutes per game and aren't playing for their home B1G school. Iowa doesn't get dinged for players at Iowa State--that's an in-state power-conference team and they deserve their share. But OSU gets fully dinged for losing players to an in-state mid-major.

If Illinois and Indiana and Purdue want to know what's gone wrong, they can start right here. OSU might want to pay attention too.

(And Pennsylvania is not in the B1G basketball footprint.)



Wayne Blackshear

19.5 minutes, 6 points, 1.4 rebounds

refused Illinois offer


Ryan Boatright

39.5 minutes, 14 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists

no Illinois offer


Ben Brust

27 minutes, 14.3 points, 4.3 rebounds, 1.7 assists

no Illinois offer


Frank Kaminsky

29 minutes, 15.3 points, 4.3 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 2.3 blocks

no Illinois offer


Kendall Pollard

11 minutes, 4.7 points, 1.3 rebounds, 1 steal

no Illinois offer




Spike Albrecht

9.5 minutes, 2.5 points, 1 assist

no Indiana or Purdue offer


Branden Dawson

30.5 minutes, 18 points, 8.5 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1 steal

refused Indiana and Purdue offers


Gary Harris

31.5 minutes, 14 points, 3 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.5 steals

refused Indiana and Purdue offers


Zak Irvin

14.5 minutes, 3 points

refused Indiana and Purdue offers


Glen Robinson III

35.5 minutes, 14 points, 6 rebounds, 1.5 steals

Purdue legacy

no Indiana or Purdue offer


Stephan Van Treese

22.5 minutes, 4 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks

no Indiana or Purdue offer




Monte Morris

33 minutes, 14 points, 2 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.5 steals

no Michigan or MSU offer


Devin Oliver

29.7 minutes, 10 points, 7 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1 steal

no Michigan or MSU offer


James Young

35 minutes, 10 points, 6.5 rebounds

refused MSU offer




Nigel Hayes

16.7 minutes, 7.3 points, 4 rebounds, 1.3 assists

refused OSU offer


Traevon Jackson

29 minutes, 13.7 points, 6.3 rebounds, 4.3 assists

OSU legacy

no OSU offer


Matt Kavanaugh

20.3 minutes, 7.7 points, 2.3 rebounds, 1 steal

no OSU offer


Caris LeVert

32.5 minutes, 10 points, 4.5 rebounds, 3.5 assists

no OSU offer


Adreian Payne

27 minutes, 26.5 points, 6 rebounds

refused OSU offer


Jalen Robinson

11.7 minutes, 3 points, 2.3 rebounds

no OSU offer


Terry Rozier

12.5 minutes, 2 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1 steal

no OSU offer


Jordan Sibert

28 minutes, 12.3 points, 4 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 1.3 steals

transferred from OSU


Travis Trice

23.5 minutes, 12 points, 2.5 rebounds, 1.5 assists

no OSU offer




Phillip Nolan

8 minutes, 3.5 points, 2 rebounds

no Wisconsin offer


Matt Thomas

11.5 minutes, 3 points, 1 rebound, 1 assist

refused Wisconsin offer



OT: Cleveland Clinic Doctor reports 50% increase in vasectomies for March Madness

OT: Cleveland Clinic Doctor reports 50% increase in vasectomies for March Madness

Submitted by Billy Ray Valentine on March 27th, 2014 at 10:47 AM


"We do have [in March] typically about 50 percent more vasectomies than in other months," Dr. Ed Sabanegh, chairman of the Department of Urology at the Cleveland Clinic, told CNN. "A lot of patients come in and say, 'I have to have this during March Madness, you have to talk to my wife about it. Tell her what my limitations are and that I need to be on the couch.'


Sweet, fancy Moses!  This article seems like mgoboard gold, Jerry (The last two lines are Seinfeld references for the younger generation).  


I'm curious to see the responses.  Will it be Oiho jokes?  Will it be shots on me for posting something so stupid?  Who will be the first to post their own vasectomy "Cool story, bro" anecdote?  EDIT: mGrowOld = Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!







MGoBlog vs. the Stars

MGoBlog vs. the Stars

Submitted by Yeoman on March 24th, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Ever wonder how the collective knowledge of MGoBloggers stacks up against the big names and professional blowhards of the business?

As many of you know, Saint_in_Blue has once again set up a bracket contest at ESPN for the blog. There are 440 entries (well, 455, but 15 of them are blank and I'm going to ignore them).

ESPN and CBS have posted "celebrity brackets" at their websites and here's how we measure up after the first weekend. (Scores are normalized to the standard 1-2-4... pts/game method used at CBS and most private contests--ESPN multiplies these scores by ten, to no effect.)

  • 436 of 440 have scores of 33 or better. (Jimmy Kimmel)
  • 424 of 440 have scores of 36 or better (Fran Fraschilla)
  • 418 of 440 have scores of 37 or better (Gregg Doyel)
  • 349 of 440 have scores of 40 or better (Colin Cowherd)
  • 221 of 440 have scores of 43 or better (President Obama)
  • 181 of 440 have scores of 44 or better (Jay Bilas, Dick Vitale, Dennis Dodd)
  • 133 of 440 have scores of 45 or better (Doug Gottlieb)
  • 37 of 440 have scores of 48 or better (Andy Katz, Jim Cramer--yes, that Jim Cramer)

Yes, it's true...four of you are doing worse than Jimmy Kimmel.

I won't name names.

The Incongruity {REDACTED} of the Two Seed

The Incongruity {REDACTED} of the Two Seed

Submitted by saveferris on March 19th, 2014 at 1:25 PM

My excuse to post the Trey Burke GIF

Last season, as the Michigan basketball team entered the NCAA Tourney as a four seed, we took a look at historically how the fours have fared in tournaments past. The analysis produced this incredibly scientific chart (since adjusted to include 2013 tourney results).

  1 Seed 2 Seed 3 Seed 4 Seed Other
Final Four Appearances 47 25 14 13 17
Percentage 41% 22% 12% 11% 14%*
Championships Won 18 4 4 1 2
Percentage 62% 14% 14% 3% 7%*

* - this 14% represents all Seeds higher than 4 that have made it to the Final Four, so while this number appears high, it's coming out of a much larger pool of participants.  When you factor in the total pool, only about 1% of Seeds higher than 5 make it to the final weekend, with only about 0.1% of those teams winning it all (1985 Villanova, 1988 Kansas)


Yes, the answer was discouraging and as it turned out, almost irrelevant as Michigan proceeded to go on an epic run that saw them become just the 3rd four seed ever to make it to the Finals and then came damn close to winning the whole shebang. Through that assessment though, we came across a strange statistical anomaly that this season proves presciently relevant.

  2 Seed
Final Four Appearances 25
Percentage 22%
Championships Won 4
Percentage 14%


What’s up with that? While 2 seeds make the Final Four at about half the rate of the one seeds, they win titles at less than a quarter of the rate as the ones. If you like nice, statistical symmetry, you’re probably experiencing one of those involuntary facial tics right about now. Why have 2 seeds historically fallen flat in the Final Four? Let’s have a look.

Diving deeper into the numbers the winning percentage for the Top 4 Seeds in the past 29 tournaments since 1985 for the Semi-Finals and Finals break down like this.

  W L Pct.
1 Seed 27 20 57.4%
2 Seed 12 13 48.0%
3 Seed 9 5 64.3%
4 Seed 3 10 23.1%


  W L Pct
1 Seed 18 9 66.7%
2 Seed 4 8 33.3%
3 Seed 4 5 44.4%
4 Seed 1 2 33.3%


So in the Semi-Finals, the 2 Seeds don’t do too poorly; batting around .500. Plus, of the thirteen 2 Seeds that didn’t advance to the Finals, 10 of them lost to a 3 seed or higher, so it’s not like there are upsets galore grinding them up. Still, when we look at their winning percentage in the Finals? Woof. 2 Seeds have not fared well in the title game of years past. The big reason for this seems obvious, 6 of those 8 losses came against a 1 Seed. The other two losses were delivered by a 3 Seed, which judging by the numbers we’re showing, the discrimination between 2 and 3 seems to be much finer than 1 and 2.

As for those lucky four winners, 3 of those wins all were earned by defeating a 3 Seed. Only one 2 Seed since 1985 has taken home the Championship by defeating a 1 Seed (1986 Louisville over Duke)

So the math here draws some pretty reasonable conclusions. First, the Final Four is averaging just under a 2 Seed per season, so that’s nice. Year-to-year, you can expect at least one 2 Seed to advance to the final weekend. Second, if you are a 2 Seed, hope that the tournament gods deliver you from the evil of the 1 Seed, because you just don’t beat them much. The good news for Michigan this year is that there seems to more parity amongst the Top 16, which means 1 Seeds could be ripe for falling. Of course, that parity affects the entire Top 16 equally, and Michigan’s path seems particularly difficult with Duke sitting out there at the 3 Seed.

Still, compared to last season, the data delivers better news. It’s much better to be a 2 Seed than a 4 Seed (LOLSparty), so here’s to hoping we get to enjoy another deep and entertaining tourney run.

Coders Bracket: Write successful tourney code, win $2000 (algorithms and coding and stuff)

Coders Bracket: Write successful tourney code, win $2000 (algorithms and coding and stuff)

Submitted by ProfMurdoc on March 18th, 2014 at 4:00 PM


Write your own algorithm for picking your bracket (or hard coding a Michigan victory). You can pull in all manner of stats and rankings, plus add your own special sauce. 

Has default examples like picking by seed or at random, or increasingly based on seed in later rounds. 

Nothing as silly as picking by SAT scores, but a chance to test your hunches on what is really going to matter. 


Based in JS. I figured there was a decent enough programming crowd here to pass it along. Plus, there are actually basic JS lessons there too, if you are both into winning at sports *and* learning marketable skills.



Forgot to mention the prizes, the key one being $2000 hard cash for the valiant victor.

Code on.

How Teams With Top 30 Offenses and Sub 100 Defenses Have Fared NCAA Tournament

How Teams With Top 30 Offenses and Sub 100 Defenses Have Fared NCAA Tournament

Submitted by Soulfire21 on March 17th, 2014 at 9:50 PM

/u/LOLmodel on Reddit compiled a list of how teams with top 30 offenses and sub-100 defenses have performed in the tournament (using Kenpom's adjO and adjD numbers).  This year, Michigan enters the tournament with the 3rd best offense and 104th best defense.

The results were not incredibly encouraging, but I found it a highly interesting examination.  Click the image below to open a full-sized (i.e. legible) version in a new window.

Sorry I couldn't fit more words in the title...

The reverse (top 30 adjD and sub-100 adjO is also available here).

Wofford - A First-Hand Preview

Wofford - A First-Hand Preview

Submitted by Paps on March 16th, 2014 at 11:03 PM

[EDIT: Normally, I don't dabble in making decisions about diary-worthy stuff, but I definitely think this is worthy - LSA]

Wofford – A First-hand preview - I didnt realize how much I wrote until I was done... If this should be a Diary or something, I am so, so, sorry.

I made the drive from Atlanta up to Charlotte for a Davidson game about a month or so ago.  We chose the Wofford game, as they seemed to be one of the more competitive teams in the conference, and were close enough to the end of the schedule that Davidson would be playing with something on the line.  I had signed to play athletics at Davidson back in November (humble-brag alert!), but had not attended any athletic events, as my recruiting trip was on a Friday-Saturday when the football team was out of town.  So we wanted to go see a game to get the feel of the campus on a big weekend, and watch some good basketball.  It was a great time, Davidson ended up prevailing in what was a low scoring affair, 59-49. At the time I would have thought that Davidson would be playing Michigan in a hypothetical tournament game, not Wofford.  But that is not how it all worked out, as Davidson was bounced by Western Carolina in the semifinals of their conference tournament.

Here are some general facts to know about Wofford:

Name: Wofford College

Founded: 1854

Type of School: Private, Liberal Arts

Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina.  About 45 minutes east of Greenville.

Nickname: Terriers

Size: 1,600 students (approximately)

Conference: Southern Conference (from here on referred to as the SoCon)

Wofford has a very nice, tree-filled campus, and is very academically challenging.  I visited there, and was very impressed with the nice, small campus feel, and the mix of old and new buildings.  They have a great student body, and a spirited and devoted alumni base.

Athletically, Wofford has been very competitive in the major sports within their conference, and nationally, especially within the last few years. Their football team is always a tough game in the SoCon (the conference that produced Appalachian State and Georgia Southern, who are now going FBS), and won conference championships in 2003, 2007, and 2010.

Their best sport is by far baseball, where they have put a good deal of players in the MLB.

Wofford was never good in basketball until very recent. In the ’09-’10 season, they won the SoCon, and made the NCAA tournament for the first time. They got a 13 seed, and almost knocked off Wisconsin, losing 49-53.  The next year, in the ’10-’11 season, they made the tournament once again, this time losing by 10 to BYU. This year will mark their third appearance all time. 


The game: To truly understand the Davidson-Wofford game, a little background is needed.  Wofford came into that game (at Davidson) having won 9 straight games, all of them in-conference.  It must be noted that the SoCon was particularly horrid this year, with 3 or 4 decent teams, and then just a bunch of horrid teams for those 4 decent ones to feast on.  Davidson entered that game equally hot, having won 12 of their last 13 games (the lone loss being in OT against Elon).  This game also held conference championship impliactions.

The atmosphere was pretty hyped up, as this was one of the best home games of the year for Davidson.  Davidson has a small lineup this year – they run a 4 guard lineup, and their starters are by height: 6-7, 6-7, 6-6, 6-4, and 5-11, with nobody with any significant height on the bench.  They have a bunch of 3 shooting stretch 3.5 types. The only exception is senior De’Mon Brooks.  At 6’7”, 230lbs, De’Mon won the SoCon player of the year award.  He absolutely dominated inside all year, and the Wofford game was no exception.  

The first half started out great for Davidson, with a couple of threes bookended around some layups and dunk, and Wofford was forced to call a timeout at the 13:00 mark, down 13-3.  The Terriers had no ball movement, and would often get the ball “stuck” on one side of the court without moving it around.  They relied almost solely on individual creation by their guard Karl Cochran, as he started off cold from the field.  On the defensive end, they left a couple trailing shooters open for good looks, which Davidson capitalized on.  Most of the buckets Davidson made early were either off turnovers, in transition, or just off of transition before the Wofford defense could get set.  Davidson runs an offense with 4 guards around the perimeter and De’Mon down low, but with hardly any ball screen action from the big, unlike Michigan.  After that timeout, Davidson made a few more buckets, and then began to get sloppy, and a lid went on the basket.  Wofford did three things with the score at 6-19:

1: They went right at De’Mon Brooks three straight trips down the floor, got him with two fouls, and forced him to the bench

2: They began foregoing offensive rebounds in order to get back in transition, and

3: started running Davidson off the three point line.  Davidson doesn’t have superior athletes to drive the paint a lot, and their offense sputtered.

A couple of threes later, and Wofford’s offense was clicking.  They channel their offense through three main players: guards Spencer Collins, Karl Cochran, and forward Lee Skinner. These three players played 35, 35, and 36 minutes respectively, which was 10 more than any other player on the team. Those three accounted for 13 of the next 20 points for Wofford, who went on a 20-2 run.  Davidson was able to beat the buzzer with a three to keep it tied at the half, 26-26.  Davidson had several good looks from the outside, but was unable to knock them down.  If the Michigan big men go out or aren’t playing well, our ability to stretch the floor and shoot will be crucial, as Wofford ran both man-to-man, and a 2-3 zone.  They ran kind of a sagging man to man that didn’t switch a lot. It was definitely a man defense with some zone elements incorporated. They did not display a tendency to pressure the ball on the way up until late in the game, which is something everyone does. 

In the second half, with De’Mon Brooks back in the game, Davidson was able to play their game.  The went inside out, throwing it into Brooks, and letting him shoot or kick.  He is much better finishing version of Jordan Morgan.  I can’t help but think that Mitch could tear this team up if he was healthy, with his distribution skills out of the post position.  Davidson started on a 20-10 run over the first 10:00 of play in the second half.  Brooks was the key here, registering at least 4 “hockey assists” on passes out of the post.

But with 5:00 to play, Wofford brought it back to a 3 point game, down 45-48.  A key block inside by Brooks fueled a Davidson run, and they would hold Wofford to only one point for the next 4:30, with the final score being 59-49.  Down the stretch, Wofford turned into a “Karl Cochran go do something while we stand here” team, and after a lot of late shot clock attempts didn’t go in, the game was all but over.


Key Stats and Notes:

·         Guards Karl Cochran and Spencer Collins are the guys for Wofford.  Wofford’s success goes as those two go.

·         Cochran is 6-1, 175, but looks bigger. Collins is an accurate 6-4, 195, but plays most of his game on the perimeter.  Cochran, while smaller, is a much better rebounder.

·         In this particular contest, Cochran and Collins went a combined 11-29 from the field.

·         Karl Cochran had a particularly bad night from three, hitting only 1/8, while Collins hit 3/5.

·         Wofford isn’t a particularly big team- the rest of their starting lineup is 6-8, 6-6, and 5-11. Their most used benched players are 6-6, 6-6, 6-2, and 6-3.  Not tiny, but no dominating force. 

·         Davidson’s De’Mon Brooks finished 6-6 from the field, 6-7 from the line, and with 18 pts, 8 rebounds, and 3 assists.

·         Wofford shot free throws at a 67% clip (10/15)

·         Davidson was able to take 14 threes, and make 6 of them. These were mostly wide open looks.

·         Wofford is well coached, doesn’t turn it over or foul a ton, and their coach isn’t afraid to make adjustments.

·         Wofford doesn’t have names on the back of their jerseys.


The tips for Michigan:

·         Penn State is the closest comparison I can make to Wofford on Michigan’s schedule with two good guards that run the show and not a lot of size and skill on the inside.  Granted, Wofford is a worse version of Penn State.  A slightly worse version of Penn State that’s won 11 of their last 13 games.

·         Morgan, GRIII the keys.  GRIII will be matched up against someone he can physically take to the rim and push around a little.  Morgan will have to play a role of rebounding and distribution- not looking to score. This is something he can do.

·         Put LeVert on Cochran.  Let LeVert guard him.  Davidson had a slow, Albrecht-esque defender on him, and time and time again had to rely on a double team because he was blowing past the defender.  LeVert shouldn’t have an issue.

·         Unleash Irvin/Stauskas.  Let it rain from deep! Death from above! Let the threes happen!  Both of these guys will have plenty of opportunities especially if Michigan is able to

·         RUN! Get out in transition! Davidson did that very well until Wofford shut it down, and they are a relatively slow team.

·         Finally, let Walton use his speed.  I was not impressed by the Wofford point guard, a guy named Eric Garcia.  They let Cochran run the show most of the time, but Walton should be able to take Garcia to the hoop and finish/distribute.  Also would like to see some of that extended 1-3-1 to harass these guards. 


I hope this covered it! I wrote literally everything I could remember.  If anyone in the comments has questions about this game or anything else, please ask, and I’ll be happy to respond! I probably missed something. Go Blue!!! (and go Davidson in the NIT. Yaaaay!)

Buffalo vs. Milwaukee: Your Locale Preference for Michigan's First (Two) Rounds

Buffalo vs. Milwaukee: Your Locale Preference for Michigan's First (Two) Rounds

Submitted by Billy Ray Valentine on March 10th, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Generally speaking, I imagine most people would agree that it is beneficial to have a large contingent of Michigan fans present for neutral-site games.  I have seen the majority of posts indicating that Milwaukee would be the most preferable location for Michigan's first two rounds, as Michigan alum are littered throughout the Upper Midwest.  That said, I can't help but thinking Buffalo would be equally as desirable for several reasons.


Ann Arbor to Buffalo: Approximately 298 Miles (Source -- Google Maps)


Ann Arbor to Milwaukee:  Approximately 331 miles (Source -- Google Maps)


I have never driven from Ann Arbor to Buffalo, or vice versa, so I defer to the board as to the pros and cons.  I have driven the Milwaukee route many times, and the relative ease or difficulty depends on traffic and weather.  


I wonder if droves of Wisconsin supporters would show up just to cheer against us or for us (B1G pride?).  I wonder if our gigantic Chicago-based alumni would take over the arena.  I wonder if Stauskas is generating significant Ontario-based support and pride that would translate into large groups crossing the border to cheer on their new Canadian hero.  I wonder if the rather large Ohio and New York-based Michigan alumni network would rally.


What say you?




Amateur bracketologists page.

Amateur bracketologists page.

Submitted by Yeoman on March 9th, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Mistersuits posted a bracket projection a couple of days ago and I thought it might be good to have a single thread where people could post their contributions to the genre.

Mine is more or less the current Massey rankings turned (I hope) into a rule-conforming bracket. I'm mostly posting it because I'm amazed at how many interesting matchups I got without moving anyone off their natural seed and with minimal movement within the seed lines off the desired s-curve:

  1. possible 2nd round Harvard/Michigan (needs no explanation)
  2. UCLA/St. John's (Lavin)
  3. Dayton/Xavier (byobracket doesn't allow movement of the play-in games from the default regions, as far as I can tell, but I would put this in the east under Villanova so the winner would be in the Cincinnati/Toledo/Pitt pod)
  4. Louisville/Eastern Kentucky
  5. Creighton/Nebraska share a pod
  6. And lots of former conference rivals separated in this year's restructuring meeting early: Louisville/Syracuse, Villanova/Cincinnati/Pittsburgh.

Last I heard, the NCAA hadn't decided what they would do if Dayton were one of the last four at-large teams. My guess is that they'd slide them up and out of the play-in game instead of giving them home court (and wouldn't tell us that's what they'd done), but I'm not giving up Xavier at Dayton without a fight. If you live around here, you understand.

Anybody else have one?