Over the next few days, Pete from Burnt Orange Nation and I will exchange letters about this tournament, this championship game and the season to come.  George Will may call this narcissistic, but we call it a way to avoid the cold, harsh realities of the dual offseason.  Pete's response should be up sometime today.

Dear Peter,

Even though there were some that were blindingly eager for this Final Four - mainly ESPN, with the misleading claims of Hibbert/Oden being some sort of traditional big man battle - we knew what to expect.  Without the chance of a Florida/Kansas rematch, which was considerably more palatable than the rematch we saw on Saturday night, and without perhaps the spark of North Carolina or Memphis' dedication to running, we both expressed doubts that the Final Four games would be much better than last year.

They were not.

Still, I have to wonder if my whole jaded view of this tournament comes from the Irish's early bouncing at the hands of those damned Winthrop Eagles.  It's not like I didn't think the possibility was there, but it hurt all the same, both my heart, my love of the sport and my liver.  Texas and Notre Dame's squads this year were a lot more similar than a lot of people would realize.  Not a lot was expected of either, a renaissance was led by a freshman forward/point guard combo, they were capable of scoring in bunches and both spent the last game before the tournament scaring the life out of the number-one seeds and eventually conference tournament champions, with Texas going to overtime with Kansas and Notre Dame coming within a missed three at the buzzer of defeating Georgetown.  In the end, both were let down by poor play from the freshman point guard and exited sooner than fans would have liked.

So my point is, are we simply jaded towards this tournament because reality didn't reach expectation?  In the first half of Notre Dame's semifinal game with Georgetown, there Walter Mitty-esque whispers of this team being able to get on a senior guard, three-point-shooting run.  Most everyone had Texas at least in the Sweet Sixteen, some further.  So do we complain to each other about the quality of play and general suckiness of this tournament because it's truly that bad, or because we simply can't enjoy it without our schools still involved?  

I'd like to think that our basketball fanhood is mature enough that we're completely rational in our argument, as while the quality of play has been high from time to time, the entertainment value has not been so much.  UCLA mucked up hideous games with Indiana (20-13 at halftime!), Pittsburgh, Kansas and then attempted to against Florida but ran into the old Ben Howland problem: an inability to keep pace with a great offensive team when the refs decide to call the game a little bit closer.  Ohio State makes things interesting, but the sort of "This is inevitable fate for amazing freshman" thing always catches up with them, and victory is theirs.  Florida's contests also shared that sort of fateful aura: no matter what happened in the first thirty minutes, the Gators were going to flip the switch and destroy you when it mattered.  After the first two rounds went off with very few upsets, the simple teasing of bracket chaos wasn't enough.  We needed that actual upset to occur, and despite the best efforts of Butler, Rocky Top, Southern Illinois, Butler, Memphis and Oregon, it just wasn't mean to be.

While most of top teams in the tournament proved to be exactly what we thought they were, who were the players that stood out to you, either in solidifying their role as college hero or gaining a lot in their draft stock?  Those that hurt their legend were most definitely Acie Law IV (how did he miss that lay-up?!) and should he choose not to return, Aaron Afflalo, who again stunk it up in the Final Four after doing a lot of he heavy lifting to get his team there.  Both Aaron Gray and Josh McRoberts proved to be as incapable as I thought they were, while all the guards in the Virginia/Rocky Top game - Singletary, Reynolds and Lofton - all more than lived up to the hype.  On a personal note for you and the rest of us that followed him all year, Kevin Durant was no Carmelo Anthony, although in his defense, DJ Augustin was no Gerry McNamara.

I know you're a big Jeff Green guy, and while he carried his team for periods of the time late against Vanderbilt and North Carolina, I just can't shake his lack of aggressiveness against an Ohio State team that had no real match for him at the four.  If you don't mind me putting on my hypocrite hat for the remainder of the paragraph, I think Al Horford - he of barely taking a shot against the Bruins - further established himself as exactly what I thought he'd be in the NBA: a wide-bodied rebounder and shot-blocker capable of passing out of double teams and finishing at the rim.  He's not particularly polished in the post, but he's brutally effective.  While I'm not a Joakim Noah hater as others are, I simply feel that while his motor might be a little more active than Horford, the stick "You Can Call Me Al" carries is big enough to make up for it.

So other than the previous questions I asked of you, is there anything you're going to take from this tournament, either in the form of greater hoops knowledge or a certain memory?  There are a few things I have in mind, but I await your response.

Yours in hoops,

Chris