This March, Not Madness But Predictability

After the “four-day basketball binge that each year makes up one of the best stretches in American sports,” the results are a little, well, boring, Pete Thamel writes in the New York Times. “The tournament has been as predictable as a 401(k)’s decline or Jim Nantz’s trying too hard to romanticize a story line.” Sure, the Round of 16 will be full of “heavyweight bouts,” but no “passion and novelty.”

“Not one of the 16 teams remaining does not resonate as a recognizable brand name in college basketball,” Thamel writes of the likes of Duke, Connecticut, and Kansas. “None could be considered a remote surprise to have advanced.” It’s “a river of blue blood,” as all of the final 16 have been to the tournament before, “high on predictability and low on charm.”
(More March Madness stories.)