The best time of year in sports

In case you haven't noticed, the weather is getting warmer, the birds are starting to chirp, and this is the greatest time of year for sports.

Why? Let's start with the NHL and NBA playoffs. Teams are jockying for position, the first round is soon to begin and every game is important (unless you play for the Edmonton Oilers or the New Jersey Nets).

Not only that, but opening day of Major League Baseball is here. For Toronto Blue Jays fans, that means one legitimate month of playoff hopes remaining.

Not enough? How about the Final Four in NCAA basketball and the Frozen Four in NCAA hockey.

Sitll not enough. How about the Masters in PGA golf. I'm not going to mention the slime ball golfer everyone has been talking about. The Masters would and will be great (perhaps better) without him.

This spree of outstanding sports action comes at just the right time. Most people are still feeling a slight Olympic hangover, and this exciting time of the year is just the thing to revitalize sports fans. So get your seat ready, put on your favorite jersey, and let the games begin.

Does the best team win the NCAA tournament?

As a sports fan, you have to love upsets. This year's edition of the NCAA tournament has offered more upsets than our brackets can handle. But these upsets have got me thinking, does the best team really win the NCAA tournament?

Entering the tourny, Kentucky, Syracuse, Duke, and Kansas were regional number 1 seeds. Kentucky got beat by West Virginia in the Elite 8, Syracuse was ousted by Butler in the Sweet 16, and Kansas lost to Northern Iowa in the round of 32.

Does this sound like a tournament where the best team wins? Not necessarily, but some top teams are still surviving. West Virgina won the Big East title, Duke is still alive, and Butler looks like a legitimate contender.

How does this happen? Well, it is a single loss elimination tournament, the games are short, injuries can happen, fouls can happen, and upsets are inevitable.

Part of the confusion however, comes from the inability to accurately rank teams prior to the tournament. West Virgina won the Big East tournament, not Syracuse, yet Syracuse still entered the tournament with the number 1 seed while West Virginia was pegged as a number 2 seed.

As well, it is truly difficult to calculate who actually plays a more difficult schedule. Overall record has a large impact on rankings, but strength of schedule is also weighed in. Mistakes are bound to happen.

Will the best team in NCAA basketball win the NCAA tournament? Probably not, but that does not diminish how outstanding this tournament has been. Cinderella stories have been popping up from every corner of the country and top teams have been slayed by tiny schools from unknown conferences.

For the record, my official pick to win the tournament has been and remains the West Virginia Mountaineers, but I won't be surprised if they don't pull it off.

Will the best team win the NCAA tournament? Likely not. Has the best team already been eliminated? Probably. Will the most deserving team win? Definitely.

Follow Instant Replay on Twitter.

Obama's bracket is boring

I've looked at the President's bracket, and I have to say...booorrring. It does seem like several teams have fairly straight forward routes to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 this year, but come on people, the President needs to be a risk taker...at least when constructing an NCAA bracket.

As a re-cap, Obama has Kansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Georgetown, Kansas State, Syracuse, Duke, and Villanova in the Elite 8. That group includes each and every 1 seed, and every 2 seed, with the exception of Ohio State which President Obama has getting "upset" by Georgetown.

If the tight conference championships were any indication, I think we can expect a little more Madness this March.

One team that has been getting a lot of press, and I happen to agree with, is Wisconsin. As a 4 seed, Wisconsin would not be a monumental longshot, but other than number 5 Temple, they have a relatively straight route and I think they'll upset someone in this tournament.

I do however, agree with President Obama that Georgetown is a threat. They have been playing great lately and could go even farther than Obama predicted.

One team I really like to make the Final Four and potentially squeak into the big dance, is West Virginia. West Virginia won the Big East title over Georgetown and seem to be carrying momentum. The Big East is a tough conference to win, especially this year with number 1 Syracuse and number 2 Villanova playing like contenders.

As for President Obama's NCAA tournament winner Kansas, he might be right there. I'm going to go with either West Virginia or Duke. Either way you look at it, March Madness is here and it's going to be an amazing ride. Still Mr. Obama, make it exciting for us. We're tired of the economy and health care, this was your chance to show some personality. Instead, you played it safe.

Follow Instant Replay on Twitter

Expanding the NCAA Tourny is a bad idea

I'm all for bringing great sporting events to a larger market, but expanding the NCAA basketball tournament from 64 teams to 96 isn't March Madness, it's March Insanity.

If this were for the sake of welcoming 32 extra teams with legitimate chances to advance to the final four, it would be a-ok with me, but it's not. This is about putting money in the pockets of the NCAA and its member leagues.

There is no way, let me repeat that, NO WAY, that the 65th ranked team, 80th ranked team, or the 96th ranked team will EVER win the NCAA tournament. When it truly comes down to it, the best teams are in contention every single year, and the rest are left in the dust.

This year, just as in any other year, it will likely be one of the top 10 teams entering the tournament that walks away with a National Championship. Even more likely, it will be one of the top four teams, Syracuse, Kentucky, Kansas, or Duke that wins.

If there were an ounce of logic behind expanding the tournament for competitive or even developmental reasons, I would be on board with this, but there isn't. The NIT tournament has been created for teams that aren't able to crack the top 64, and that is where these teams belong.

Expanding the NCAA tournament to 96 teams would be ridiculous. It would dilute the pool, add additional length to an already substantial tournament, would make the regular season almost meaningless, and create games that the average fan would be less than interested in watching. I don't want to see a blowout in the NCAA tournament, I want to see Cinderella teams with a legitimate chance to win a game.

That is what makes it March Madness. The NCAA should learn not to mess with a good thing. The NCAA tournament is popular for a reason and needs to be left just the way it is. What would we even call it? Sweet 16, Final Four, Numbing 96?

Follow Instant Replay on Twitter

Obama investigating BCS

Tell me why? Somebody? Anybody? Why is the BCS being investigated for breaking antitrust laws? I understand Obama is a sports fan, but this doesn't seem like a necessary move.

Don't get me wrong, the BCS is a complete and utter farce. There have been years when thousands of fans are left shaking their heads as to why a particular team was named the National Champion, or why a particular team was not invited to play in the big game.

But why is this being investigated? Seriously, who cares. The winner and loser of that game isn't going to change someones life, isn't going to save someones life, isn't going to bring jobs, help the economy, or bring world peace.

I love sports and I love football, but this seems like an incredible waste of time and money to me.

If NCAA football were to go to a strick playoff system, endless arguements would inevitably be brought up. After each individual conference named a winner, how would we rank each team for the next round? What team from what league would be the number 1 ranked team in the playoffs? Big Ten champ? Big 12 champ? What about the ACC? Or the Pac 10?

And then, who would participate in the countless bowl games? The runner up of the Big East versus the Conference USA champion?

The questions and controversy would continue. The BSC rankings in my opinion are bogus, but ranking teams in NCAA college sports is difficult enough. With so many teams and conferences across the nation, there will always be mis-ranked teams.

Regardless, this is an issue for the NCAA and it's residing members, not the government. It is not antitrust when an undefeated team does not get the chance to play for a National Championship. Being the strongest team in a weak division does not make you a great team. If we're going by these standards, shouldn't an undefeated team from Division II or D-III have the chance to play for a national championship?

The system is flawed, but hopefully the Obama administration will leave it up to the NCAA to deal with these issues.

Let the games begin.