The first two letters between Pete and I can be found here: my initial questions and his enlightened response.

Dear Pete,

Thanks for the quick response, and I agree about Ben Howland.  I don't put Howland in the A-Rod/Manning/Roy Williams/Red Sox/Cubs/Marty Club of "Not Being Able To Win The Big One" (and half of that Club already proved many a pundit wrong in the past few years), I just put him in the club of not being a good enough offensive coach to get it done.  If he recruits a transcendent scorer or manages to play every game in the tournament against good offensive teams with the refs swallowing their whistles, then that defense is good enough to get it done.  That, and maybe learning a proper technique for the use of timeouts, finding a happy medium between his current use and that of your man, Rick Barnes.

I think there's little doubt that when you look at who's been the Player of the Tournament so far, you've got to give it to Mike Conley, Jr.  He's a pest on defense, capable of getting to the rim at will and dropped a 6 assist, 1 turnover game on Georgetown while getting his own shot anytime he wanted.  While Greg Oden is quickly growing ( and aging?) right in front of us, the Buckeyes wouldn't be in their current position - a scant game away from avenging 41-14 and the Ghost of Scoonie Penn - without the freshman point guard.  DJ Augustin and Tory Jackson wilted under the pressures of March while Conley flourished, and while we're left to debate whether the Longhorn and Irish point guards will return to form next season or be irrevocably scarred, college hoop fans at large, especially those in scarlet and gray, can discuss the ceiling for Buckeye #1.

To fill out the rest of my all-tournament team, I'll start with the senior ying to Conley's freshman yang, Ron Lewis.  He only had nine points in the Final Four game against Georgetown, but filled it up to the tune of nearly 25 points per against Xavier, Rocky Top and Memphis, including The Shot against the Musketeers.    

Across the frontline, I'm going to go with Joakim Noah, who seems to be everywhere on the floor, managing to enrage opposing fans while empowering his teammates, and Jeff Green, who despite the quiet effort Saturday night was the reason the Hoyas even made it there, hitting his own version of The Shot against Vanderbilt and engineering the comeback against North Carolina.  I know this seems like some sort of Gator-loving copout, but when left with placing the final player on the front line, I've got to go with Al Horford.  He's only averaging a little over 12 points a game, but he's doing it on 20-of-28 shooting in addition to 56 boards, 8 blocks, 12 assists and countless other "hockey assists" out of the double-team and shot alterations.  Every time Butler's Julian Betko goes for a lay-up - for the remainder of his basketball career - he's going to see Horford coming behind him, a specter of Sweet Sixteens Past.

Since you asked for a second team, I'll fill it out with Eric Maynor and Aaron Afflalo in the backcourt with Jared Dudley, Tyler Hansbrough and Roy Hibbert (with the option of that spot becoming "Greg Oden" after tonight) up front.  Do these choices ring true with you, or is there a decided lack of Durant?

As far as needing a Cinderella to make the tournament great, I don't think it's particularly necessary, although it certainly helps.  Last year is a prime example, because even though it was ripe with Cinderellas, take George Mason out of the equation and you're still left with the following taking place in just the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight rounds: Boston College/Villanova, Florida/Georgetown, UCLA/Gonzaga, Washington/UConn, Texas/West Virginia, Duke/LSU and Texas/LSU.  That was amazing, exciting basketball without a true Cinderella, and when you added in the absolute thrill of George Mason upsetting Connecticut, it was a great extended weekend of basketball.  

I, of course, say that as a fan who can appreciate the game without a bunch of storylines (even though I'll always defend Gus Johnson's purpose in the sport), but I think for the popularity of the tournament to peak, you need that Cinderella.  The only problem with the scrappy underdog is that their eventual demise is usually not nearly as competitive as their victories were, finally running into a team with the talent, coaching and luck to just squelch their pumpkin carriage dreams far before midnight strikes, and usually in depressing, unentertaining fashion.  

I think the decline in fairy tales this year came from the fact the committee did a great job in properly seeding teams like Butler, who would previously have been much lower, to the point they couldn't truly be Cinderellas.  Notice the one team that a lot of people thought was grievously underseeded, the Running Rebs, made it into the Sweet Sixteen as the only true underdog with the only true second round upset.  Of course, this has nothing to do with the uninspiring finishes that happened over the last few weeks, as the far more "talented" teams fail to put on much of a show.

So I leave you on the day of the championship, expecting your response tomorrow morning, with a few key questions.  What did you think of the title game, and did it somehow make up for the dissatisfaction you've felt with the rest of the tournament?  Who's your tournament MVP, and most importantly, what are your visions of next year?  What team inspires you to look forward to the Maui Classic and preseason NIT, simply for the chance to see them play?

(For the record, I'm taking Florida, and since the experts say the line is 4.5, I'm saying by more than they think.)

Yours in hoops,

Chris