27 March 2006

George Mason?

Did something go wrong with the underwater transcontinental internet wires, or is George Mason really in the Final Four? I picked them to upset Michigan State in the first round (and was pretty proud of myself for it), but that was it. Cinderellas aren't supposed to make it this far--midnight strikes at the Sweet 16. I think it is great, because this year I have noticed a lot of "Cinderella backlash." I have read quite a few articles about how these teams pull an upset or two in the early rounds, and it's a nice story and all, but the real contenders always bury them in Sweet 16, and how it's time to get down to the "real" games. Well, take that, Mr Pessimistic Sports Writer. Cinderella's in the Final Four--not UConn, Duke, UNC, Nova, Memphis, or any of the other "real" contenders. My only pick for the Final Four to make it was UCLA, and I probably wouldn't have picked them if they hadn't been in Memphis's region.
Something else I have noticed in sports journalism lately is the overuse of the word "stun," and it hasn't just been during March Madness. Go to ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, or Sporting News, and I can pretty much guarantee you will find at least one "stun" at any given time. I find this extremely lazy. There are so many other words that could be used, so why does it seem they are all recycling "stun"? It's not even the appropriate word most of the time: I understand the ending was crazy, but UCLA didn't stun Gonzaga--UCLA was ranked higher. I'll give you George Mason "stunning" UConn, but everything else should have been "tops," "dominates," "upsets," "shuts down," "sends Team X packing," or a nice simple "beats" or "wins." "Stun" me and use another word.

No comments: