Updated March Madness 2012 Picks

NCAA basketball just isn't the game for the 4-year-old.  Despite picking NFL games better than us, he doesn't have the knack for March Madness.  But then again, none of us have done all that great.  JDaddy is the only one that still has the possibility of picking a championship game participant and an actual champion.  And since he's winning after the Elite 8, he has already clinched our division.

I didn't even get 1 Final Four team correct and neither did the kid.  TJ Kool got Kansas correct, but he has them losing in the Final Four. He still has the most correct picks, however.

In any event, here are our standings.  See our post here to get a rundown of the scoring.  We used the same scoring scale most people use.

Points
JDaddy - 66
TJ Kool - 64
CDog - 53
4-Year-Old - 37

Correct Picks
TJ Kool - 35
JDaddy - 34
CDog - 34
4-Year-Old - 25

I guess I'll go for Kansas now.  Not really sure now, except for Big 12 allegiances.  But having said that, my team is moving to the SEC next year, so maybe I should pull for the Wildcats.  But that would require hoping for the best for this guy.  I just can't do it.

March Madness 2012 Against a 4-Year-Old Through Round 2

After 2 rounds of March Madness 2012, it looks like we are finally going to outdo a 4-year-old in picking games.  We had no such luck during the NFL season, but now that the kid isn't picking against the spread, his soothsaying ability is marginalized.

We're keeping score based on the usual 1 point for first round, 2 points for second round, 4 points for third round, etc. and after the first two rounds I have the most correct picks with 30.  However, due to JDaddy having the most Sweet 16 teams still in the running, he has the most points overall.  The kid?  He just has 6 Sweet 16 teams left, and his champion, St. Mary's was out in the first round.  So sad.

Here are the standings:

Correct Picks
CDog - 30
JDaddy - 29
TJ Kool - 29
4-Year-Old - 23

Points
JDaddy - 38
CDog - 37
TJ Kool - 36
4-Year-Old - 29

First Round March Madness Results Against A 4-Year-Old

March Madness 2012 now has one round complete.  Duke is gone.  Missouri is gone.  So are the bracket hopes of our very own TJ Kool.  And so far, it looks like the 4-year-old kid is not going to out-pick us like he did during the football season. 

Here at the Cheap Seats, we made our picks earlier this week.  JDaddy and I invited TJ and the kid to join us.  I thought it might be tougher for the 4-year-old to keep up since these picks are not against the line.  So far, that's been the case.  When you're 4 and you pick St. Mary's to win it all, things aren't going to go your way.

Here is how we stand after the first round.

CDog - 23
TJ Kool - 22
JDaddy - 20
4-Year-Old - 17

JDaddy may still have the upper hand as he has all 4 Final Four picks still alive.  TJ and I have 3 picks, and the kid has 2.

Stay tuned.

New to the Web Site - JDaddy's Gasoline Price Tracker

March Madness 2012 - Against A 4-Year-Old Again

March Madness 2012 is upon us. That can mean one thing, and one thing only. It's time for JDaddy and CDog to show how little they know about sports. And we have invited the 4-year-old back to pick against us. If you'll remember, he easily beat us during the NFL season in picking against the spread.  We'll see how he does in the NCAA Tournament since we're not picking against the spread.  The left side of his bracket looks ok, but we're going to have fun if the East and Midwest turn out the way he predicts!  Lets just say the championship game will have spiritual consequences.

In addition to the 4-year-old, we're going to be picking March Madness games against fellow blogger, TJ Kool.  I'll keep this updated after each weekend to see how we're doing.

Owner With a Backbone?

Recently, the owner of Arena Football League's Pittsburgh Power, Matt Shaner, cut his entire team at a pregame meal at Olive Garden.

Before I hop on my soap box, note that the team was at an Orlando Olive Garden, and the players that did not cross the picket line had to find their own way back home. That part of the story made me smile.

While it appears wrong on a lot of levels, I personally side with the owner. How many times have we heard people say, "Man, I'd play (enter your favorite sport here) for free." That is essentially what AFL players do. According to thestar.com, rank-and-file players get paid $400 a game to hold on to their dreams. That's $7,200 for a 20 week, 18 game commitment. Compared to the millions of dollars thrown around in the NFL, that seems like chump change. The AFL players were threatening a strike to get an extra $300 per game. Again, that does not seem like a lot of money.

Let's put this into a different perspective. Let's say that you own a company with 24 employees that make $40,000 per year, and have a very desirable job that many other people could do. At the end of your fiscal year, your ledger shows that you have just barely made a profit (or possibly even had a net loss). At the same time, your employees tell you that if you don't increase their salaries by 75% (to $70,000), they are going to walk out. I would tell those employees, "Um, no, feel free to leave, I will find others who are happy with $40,000." That is essentially what Mr. Shaner did.

I understand that the players probably have a very difficult time living on the salaries that they are paid. However, that is the life they have chosen. They could work elsewhere and make more. Thousands of very talented football players go unrecruited out of high school and undrafted out of college. It would likely be easy for AFL owners to go to the local parks and find guys who would be willing to play for them. Why would, or should, the owner of any business hamstring his business financially when there are other options. It simply does not make sense.

I am a sports fan, I love seeing my favorite teams win. I understand, however, that owners of teams are in it to make money. Sure, there are the Robert Krafts, Mark Cubans and George Steinbrenners of the sports world who would seemingly do anything to win. Why though? It is because winning brings in more revenue. The best owners know that spending to win may raise costs, but raises income even more. When it comes to the AFL, though, even the best teams struggle to sell out arenas, sell jerseys and gain sponsors. So what is the point of increasing player salaries by 75% if there is no way to prove that it will in turn increase profits?

I am happy to see an owner willing to stand up to his players and the players association. I don't care how miniscule it may seem to sports in general. If the big 4 sports had owners that would, or could, do something like that, we would likely not have the strikes and lockouts that leave fans wanting more.

TJ Kool, see my thoughts on more than sports at tdugan1010.blogspot.com.

TJ Kool In Da House

Thanks to JDaddy and CDog, TJ Kool (that's me) is now a contributor to the Cheap Seats. I look forward to many fruitful discussions about Jai-Lai world championships, who is hotter: Rooney or Messi, and other talks that dominate when you have a view from the cheap seats. In the mean time, feel free to read my previous posts on sports and more at tdugan1010.blogspot.com.

Thanks again to the keepers of the cheap seats, I hopefully will not let you down.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Disasters

By now we have all seen Kate Upton on the cover of the 2012 Swimsuit Edition of Sports Illustrated. In fact, we got to see a LOT of Kate Upton. As is always the case, this year's cover has become very popular. But the magazine is not perfect and SI has made mistakes in the past. We think it is only fitting that we at "A View From the Cheap Seats" pointed out these colossal blunders.

( All of these great photos may be found at http://www.cnnsi.com/ )

Sports Illustrated's
5 Worst Swimsuit Edition Covers