I’m watching the Lakers-Mavericks game right now. At halftime ESPN’s Hannah Storm said something along the lines of: the Lakers are trying to avoid falling into an “insurmountable” 3-0 hole.

The word insurmountable really stuck out to me. If the Lakers lose Game 3 and the deficit is insurmountable, then why play Game 4 (or any of the other games if the Lakers win a or some games)?

This wasn’t the first time I’ve heard something like this… I hear it all the time. A few years ago I co-hosted a sports talk show called The Monday Night Sports Block on WTBU in Boston. When it was time to make out picks for the 2006 NBA Playoffs, I chose the eighth-seeded Golden State Warriors over the top-seeded Dallas Mavericks. Boy did I hear it after that. My fellow co-hosts and some callers chimed in to inform me that, with the first round now being seven games, there was no way an eight seed would ever beat a one seed. No way, no how. I kept my argument based in basketball. Among my arguments was that the Warriors had the advantage at four out of five starting positions. But I left out the most important argument, one that I’m more apt to use today. It really is one that so much simpler:

If an eight seed can’t beat a one seed, then the eight seed should not be in the playoffs. Give the one seed a first-round bye.

Of course, I was right. The Warriors won that series, though they fell in the second round. This year the Grizzlies proved me right again. Not because I picked Memphis over San Antonio, but because an eight beat a one and now an eight is leading a four 2-1 in the second round. Those eight seeded Grizzlies could very easily advance to the Conference Finals.

It’s the same argument I use when picking an NCAA Tournament bracket. This year I picked 16th-seeded BU over top-seeded Kansas. Yeah, I was biased. No doubt about that. I will always pick BU because that’s where I went. But if you’re telling me a 16-seed will NEVER beat a 1-seed, then there should not be any 16 seeds. Give the top seeds first round byes. You can’t tell me an America East school will never win a game because #13 Vermont upset #4 Syracuse in 2005 and then came within five minutes of knocking off eventual champion Michigan State. Heck, #16 Albany came within a matter of minutes of knocking off #1 UConn in 2006.

Is it more likely that the #1 seed wins? Sure. That doesn’t mean it will always happen. A #16 already beat a #1 in the women’s game, when Harvard knocked off Stanford in 1998. Considering that the women’s game is not very deep and the best way to pick your bracket is to take all the #1 and #2 seeds making the Elite 8, that’s pretty impressive. Did you know this year was only the second time in women’s NCAA history that there was no #1 seed in the championship game? The analysts talked a lot about how huge that was. It was a pair of #2 seeds. In the men’s game no one would bat an eye because there’s more depth. Yet it’s the men’s game in which there can’t be a huge upset? Give me a break.

#11 VCU made the Final Four after playing a play-in game. Afterwards there were those who said it would never happen again. Coach Finch and I chatted about it and he had the same conclusion as me. Every team playing post-season ball has a chance to win. Yeah, it’s better to have a higher seed, but once you’re in the playoffs, you have a chance to win it all. And that’s all you can ask for.