Ah, omens. There's an image that's been winding through our discussion, of Mark's daughter wandering lost in the desert, and I hope this isn't a foreshadowing of our own casting about for picks....Hmm. Resolutely, I'll plunge ahead. Though I'll bow to your superior ACC knowledge, Devin, I stand by my earlier assessment. If Hansbrough's so tough, let me see him take it strong to the rim, not just bull into the defender, flop and collect the foul. He shots 10 free throws per game, the most in the conference, and that's a big chunk of his scoring that, to my mind, isn't always earned.  

Speaking of omens, did either of you see the latest bit of statistical analysis from Bill James? Over in the Web pages of our corporate sibling, Slate, Mr. Sabermetrics says that 40 years of witnessing the University of Kansas blow out opponents at Allen Fieldhouse left him wondering, basically, at what point on the clock does it become impossible for the losing team to come back? (The subtext here: How much do the Jayhawks have to be up by in the second half before it's safe to bail early and get a head start on the crowds? (Lawrence traffic is murder on game days)). The piece comes with a nifty lead calculator (though: no widget? Basketball fans everywhere could use one of these for their Blackberries); just input the lead, time left to play and which team has the ball, and voilà! You get the chances that your lead is safe. According to James, as far has he's been able to tell, no team has ever lost after having what the calculator says is a safe lead.

Except one. As James notes, 

On March 2, 1974, North Carolina trailed Duke, 86-78, with 17 seconds to play—a safe lead for Duke. Duke had repeated misadventures in in-bounding the basketball and wound up losing the game in overtime. 

Does this tell us something about the future of this tournament? Maybe. I have my doubts, though, mainly because, according to my somewhat less scientifically calculated bracket, Duke and Carolina never get chance to play each other.  The papers in Kansas are giddy over the Jayhawks tournament draw, noting that in 1988 (It's the 20th anniversary of the last Kansas championship!) the Hawks played the first two games in Nebraska, before heading to Detroit, just like this year! Then, of course, unlike this year, Kansas played two Final Four games in what was essentially its home court in Kemper Arena. If only Kansas could get this years contest moved to Kansas City, I'd feel a lot better.

As I would if Danny Manning were 20 pounds lighter, 20 years younger, and on the court instead of charting plays from the bench. If there's one thing that Kansas has lacked over the past few years, it's the transcendent talent who can carry his team. North Carolina has that in Hansbrough. Texas has it in D.J. Augustine, to my mind the best point guard in the college game. So those two are in my Final Four. The other two spots...Devin, I may like Duke more than you in their draw, but I really think that if they can get by a tough Xavier team, they can get by UCLA. So make it Duke, Texas, Carolina and.....Kansas, as the One Team to Rule Them All. There's an omen for you.
 

All I could think about  yesterday while I was filling out my bracket was Starr's daughter, Sarah, wandering through the Namibian desert, blithely unaware that she's beating the snot out of me in some NCAA tourney pool. I can't carry around this secret any longer: I'm lousy at filling out the brackets. I love college basketball, follow it attentively, especially the ACC and my  Blue Devils, and each and every year I get my clock cleaned in bracket pools. I'm not terrible. I'm just completely mediocre. I'm correct just as often as the people who pick winners based on whose mascot would win a fight. So after a parting thought or two about the Hansbrough / Beasley debate, I'll get to my Final Four picks. If history's a guide, approximately 1.6 of them will be correct.

On Hansbrough / Beasley, you raise some valid points about the media and its propensity to over-praise white players, especially for "intangibles" such as grit and headiness. But this year is a tricky case, because this time, the prescribed narratives for each player happen to be true. Start with Tyler Hansbrough. Yes, it's become a cliche to talk about how tough he is, but the word "tough" doesn't really do Hansbrough justice. Plenty of kids are tough. Hansbrough's teammates call him "Psycho T."  See, if you're like me, you live by a simple rule of thumb:  Be careful around people nicknamed "Psycho." In ACC country, one of the most famous YouTube videos of recent years is this clip of Hansbrough and teammate Bobby Frasor playing something called Texas-style ping pong. 

If you watch it, you'll get my drift. Hansbrough isn't just the latest participant in some meta-narrative about race in sports. He's a certifiable nut job,  which is part of the reason why he's the first Carolina player I've ever really coveted.

And Beasley? There can be no mistaking his enormous talent, but as similar as their numbers are, he plays a very different type of game from Hansbrough. In a Jan. 10, 2008 Sports Illustrated profile of him, my friend Grant Wahl writes that Beasley's nickname is "B-Easy," a reference to his laid-back, almost goofy personality. He doesn't play with any lack of effort--you don't put up the kind of numbers he has by letting the game come to you--but his game is built around grace and fluidity, not skull-thumping. there's a limit to his intensity. Hansbrough? I think he'd eat Darren Collison with his bare hands for an NCAA title. And I mean that as a compliment.

OK, onto my picks. Like everyone else, I'm psyched for the first-round clash of the titans, the game  where all the celebrities will be  courtside, where Pat Riley's scouts will be out in force: Stanford vs. Cornell, the Nerd Bowl. Out of curiosity, Mark, who are you rooting for? Or are you unwilling to split that baby? I'm also very excited about the Gonzaga / Davidson game, having seen Davidson and their star Stephin Curry up close for years now thanks to annual match-ups with Duke--that's Del Curry's kid and like his old man, he can really fill it up. And of course, I'm keenly interested in the West Virginia / Arizona game--assuming we squeak past Belmont, we'll get the winner.    

First, I should make a projection for Duke, considering how much I've flapped about them this weekend. (If we lose to Belmont, I'm leaving the country.) We got a very friendly draw--our probable course to an Elite 8 showdown with UCLA is a very non-scary Belmont / West Virginia / Xavier stretch--but I've said all year that this particular Duke team is an unsual bunch. I think we can beat anyone in the country, but I also think we can lose to just about quality team in the field, and there are lots of them out there. We should get to the Elite 8 (where UCLA  will beat us by eight points in a game that  will not be nearly as close as the final score) but it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if we lost to West Virginia on Saturday.

My Final Four: UCLA, North Carolina, Pittsburgh and Georgetown. Not a ton of skill out there, so this year its all about tuffness, and these teams are big-time tuff. I'm picking Georgetown to win it all, if only because I can't resist the charm of John Thompson coaching a team led by Patrick Ewing to win the title. You should be pleased, Coatney. By picking against your Jayhawks, I've given them a fighting chance.