They went in a little down spell in 2000. So if history goes back to 2000, this is a scenario that does make sense. But the theory that is jumping on a brand new bandwagon, it's just not there.

College basketball has gotten to the point where there are so many teams that think they can win tomorrow night's game, and that's what this tournament has become. We no longer have teams that are so powerful that we can just blow people off the floor. So you got contrasting styles, different ways to win games. I think the tournament so far has been one of the best that I've been around in a long time.

Can you imagine the difference in (power teams) now that allows a team like George Mason to do this? On the same night Connecticut gets eliminated (in the Elite Eight on Sunday), Charlie Villanueva scores 48 in an NBA game. You know what year he would be at Connecticut? A junior. . . . It is all creating an overall balance. Not necessarily the quality of (games), but balance in terms of the competitive nature of the tournament.

Nobody is going to be bothered by that, at least the person who's hired won't be. If somebody is bothered by that, he shouldn't be a candidate anyway. You've got to be more competitive than that.

They proved what they can do. So my opinion is useless. If every team had lost, does that mean those teams can't play? No.

I'd expect if they face each other it would be quite a basketball game.