the shrewdness of apes

every year at tournament time, we all become experts for 3 days, analyzing trends and matchups before trying to find our way to a TV at noon on Thursday. i wish i had a database from the past 20 years that showed me how teams fared against the conventional wisdom regarding them (i.e., hot or cold, tough or soft, peaking or declining, etc.) because i have a sneaking feeling that many of the justifications people (paid talking heads and laypersons alike) use for their picks and preferences end up getting flushed within four days. i know mine usually do - it's just too hard not to pick with my heart most of the time. here's some of the things i've picked up on in recent days:

• teams that everyone agrees got hosed in seeding: Pittsburgh, Wisconsin
• teams that got a higher seeding than they deserved: Florida, Maryland, Texas Tech, Alabama
• teams no one likes because "they don't play well in the tournament": Miss. St., Cincinnati
• teams everyone likes because they've got "tournament history": Michigan St., Syracuse
• team who got a #1 seed despite going 6-4 in their last 10 because they've cast some sort of spell over people: Duke
• teams no one cared about 2 weeks ago but who are now being overpicked (relative to seeding): Washington, Maryland, Xavier, Utah, Pacific
• teams everyone cared about 2 weeks ago who are now being underpicked (relative to seeding): St. Joe's, Providence, Air Force, Louisville
• teams from Conference USA who no one knows much about: DePaul, UAB, Charlotte
• teams somewhat under the radar who have serious chances of winning 3-4 games: Cincinnati, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Boston College, Memphis, Seton Hall

of course, now i look at how the picks are breaking down and see that much of the above is simply conjecture. with all of that said, it's hard to pick against Stanford and their consistency to win it all. #1 seeds have won it all 11 of 19 times since the field expanded in 1985 and 10 of the last 14. oh, and i love Lehigh in tonight's play-in game. lay the points.