So, I thought I would write about some of the things that have been on my mind lately aside from my inability to find gainful, full-time employment with benefits. March Madness is here and aside from the casual glances at the score from Georgia games, I know very little about this year's brackets but I do have an opinion on one particular matter that annoys me: 11-seed "play-in" games. I think they are bullshit. The only seed that should have a "play-in" game is the 16-seed because these teams were legitimately the final teams selected to participate in the tournament. Having potential "11-seeds" play to gain entry into the field of 64 is nonsense because you are essentially saying: win and you are the 11-seed, lose and you are the technically the 17-seed or the team that just missed out on the 16-seed to Austin Peay and Hampton (the two 16-seed schools that did not have to participate in the "First Four" play-in games). Exactly, what sort of bullshit logic is being employed here? If the four schools forced to play in the 11-seed First Four games were deemed worthy of vying for the 11-seed in the first place, then would it not make more sense for one school to be the 11-seed and while the other school is the 12-seed? Also, if the point of these First Four games is to expand the field while not officially expanding the field (because these games are rarely included in March Madness bracket contests) and to include more schools from smaller conferences, then would it not make more sense to determine every 16-seed with First Four play-in games? It makes more than enough sense to me and I do not even follow college basketball because taking this approach ensures that your top or mid-major conferences are seeded appropriately while a couple more schools from smaller conferences have the opportunity to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime experience while gaining additional exposure for their institution that they would not normally receive outside of participating in an event like March Madness. By the way, in case you were wondering, I am going to go with Kansas to win the NCAA Championship. I am sure that this would make many of my Twitter acquaintances happy.
I must confess something: I am a fan of professional wrestling (or sports entertainment if we are going to go with Vince McMahon's description for his product). Truthfully, it is nothing to be ashamed of and yet, I feel some urge to hang my head lower because I casually watch WWE (and not much else) and browse the "dirt sheets" of the online wrestling community. Anyways, it is WrestleMania season and all of the hype is building toward the grandest event in sports entertainment and to be frank; I am feeling rather "meh" about it. In the dual main events, you have Triple H defending the WWE Championship against Roman Reigns and The Undertaker facing Shane McMahon in a "Hell in a Cell" match for control of Raw on the line. First, Triple H should not be the WWE Champion. Yes, he is married to the daughter of the owner of the company, Stephanie McMahon, but it is my opinion that title match should have been between Reigns and Lesner. Of course, that is just my opinion and I know that Lesner would have been the fan favorite in the match and I am aware of the fact that is not what WWE wants. As for the Hell in a Cell match, really? Look, it is great seeing Shane McMahon back in the mix, but to place him into such a high-tier match immediately after he returns from a long time away from the company reeks of nepotism and cannot be good for backstage morale. Also, does anyone seriously expect him to come out on top? Because I cannot see WWE ruining the mystic of The Undertaker by having him lose for a second time in three WrestleManias and against a non-performer in a match that was "designed" for him. Of course, this match is better than the previously rumored match of The Undertaker versus Braun Strowman, who looks like a bearded, steroid-fueled version of Ogre from the original Revenge of the Nerds films. Again, in my opinion, the match would have been better served by inserting a Superstar (WWE's term not mine) like Dolph Ziggler into the match. Basically, it would have went as follows:
- Ziggler defeats Triple H on Raw meaning Ziggler could name his match at WrestleMania
- And rather than name his match immediately, Ziggler waits till either WrestleMania or the Raw before WrestleMania to name his match
- Of course, the match would be Dolph Ziggler AND Shane McMahon versus The Undertaker in a handicap Hell in a Cell match
- Ziggler and McMahon defeat The Undertaker, which (1) gives control of Raw to Shane, (2) provides a more plausible (if not more respectable reason for The Undertaker to lose at WrestleMania for the second time), and (3) makes Ziggler responsible for the removal of "The Authority" from power again thus establishing Ziggler as even more of a "face" if not a "babyface"
Seriously, why would one not want one of the company's best performers in such a high-profile match? It provides cover for Shane's lack of in-ring experience and places one of the best "bump takers" in the company in a match notorious for some of the most memorable "bumps" in the business. This could be Ziggler's true WrestleMania moment and it could inject some new energy into the product and take the company into a different direction. Anyways, I am just talking out of my derriere.
