Four years later, Paulus lost his job in his senior season for Coach K, and was merely a role player to close out his college career. His NBA prospects are pretty much non-existent, so what’s a guy to do with only a Duke education to get him through life?

How about going back to football?

Paulus worked out for the Green Bay Packers, and they are interested in drafting the 6′1″ former high school star. Each of Paulus’ brothers played D-I football, while he choose basketball, so not only is the talent there, but so is the pedigree.

Not only did he set a bunch of state records in high school, he was the Gatorade Player of the Year his senior season and a first-team All-American in Parade Magazine. And he hasn’t taken a snap since.

Apparently, the Packers worked out Paulus this week, having him throw passes to receiver Eron Riley during his workout, and now, PFT is also reporting that several other teams are interested in the point guard.

As if there wasn’t enough reason to hate a guy who had to make such a tough Notre Dame QB/Duke PG decision, then he plays four years at Duke, and now he may get a shot to play in the NFL after quitting the game four years ago. Can you create a more hatable situation?

Of course, after witnessing Paulus’ college defense, I am led to the awful pun that he will now possibly spend his career avoiding a whole new kind of sack. Thank you, I’ll be here all week…

UPDATE: And as if Paulus getting drafted into the NFL doesn’t make you hate this guy enough, there is also now a possibility that Paulus will be Michigan’s starting quarterback next year (HT: tonyblogs.net). Rough gig — play four years of basketball at Duke, head to Michigan for your fifth year of college (one remaining year of football eligibility), enroll in some graduate program, be big man on campus for another year, win the starting job (shouldn’t be hard), and then get drafted into the NFL. Don’t take this the wrong way, but what an asshole.

The online sportsbook is taking action on the entire league to win the title, but under a current promotion, if the Lakers win it all — all other futures bets are refunded (up to $50).

“In all my years in the business I’m not aware of any sportsbook that has ever taken a side, especially against a favorite such as this years’ Lakers to win the NBA Championship,” Bodoglife.com sportsbook manager Richard Gardner was quoted as saying by CNBC’s Darren Rovell. “However, I just could not resist the temptation to take a stand, especially since the general public is betting the Lakers down to even money. The Cavs are clearly playing better basketball than the Lakers and if the Celtics can get healthy by the semifinals, they can handle the Lakers as well.”

I’ve spent a lot of time in a lot of sportsbooks, real and online, and they all occasionally offer promotions like this. I’ve never seen one, however, take this big a stand against such a heavy favorite.

Of course, knowing bodog’s reputation, there is also a damn good chance that you won’t get paid even if you have a winning bet. But I digress.

Kudos to bodoglife.com for taking a chance here, as surely this will drive them traffic and increase the number of futures bets placed. But they do stand to lose a lot of money if the Lakers win it all.

When I was younger, I would watch games religiously and fail miserably when the tournament rolled around in my pools. Having what I thought was actual college basketball knowledge turned out to be detrimental to my postseason handicapping.

Then a funny thing happened around 2005. I stopped working in radio, therefore had no real reason to follow the sport in a professional manner. I began watching it casually and now it makes complete sense to me why the guy who watches no basketball, or the chick who watches no sports, always wins the office pool.

Take a look at my impressive final ranking in my ESPN.com bracket.

With no “knowledge” of the teams, you don’t fall into the upset trap. Upsets occasionally happen, but trying to predict them is worthless. I’m no expert now, but I’ve realized over the last few years that when I think I know what I’m talking about, I don’t. When I just wing it, I do well.

I don’t know how many people were entered in ESPN.com’s fantasy bracket thing, but I know it was well over 4 million. So for me to finish in the top 7500 is something I’m quite proud of.

Oh well, March Madness is now over and One Shining Moment is done. For my money, this was the worst tournament of my lifetime. No upsets, no Cinderellas and all blowouts.

But still — infinitely better than the BCS.

And finally, One Shining Moment to put the 2009 NCAA tournament to rest.

Take a look at my impressive final ranking in my ESPN.com bracket.

So far, there have been 56 games played in the tournament. Of those, just eight of them were decided by a single possession. So 48 out of 56 games lacked an exciting conclusion. Sure, there were plenty of good games that weren’t decided by less than three points, but this tournament is supposed to be about “madness” and excitement. Overall, it’s lacked both.

The Sweet 16 round was particularly disappointing. Of the eight games played Thursday and Friday, the average margin of victory was 16.1 points, and just two of the games were even decided by single digits.

On the bright side, of the eight teams remaining, you have four 1-seeds, two 2-seeds, and two 3-seeds. If you’re going to do a postseason, at least make it where the best teams are vying for the championship (you hear that football!). The games may not have had exciting conclusions thus far, but that is because the good teams are playing like they are supposed to.

This means two things: 1) CBS is not enjoying this tournament so far; and 2) we are all set up for seven great games (or at least matchups) to finish this thing off.

And most importantly, by the time the national championship game is set, it’s baseball season. So no matter how bad the rest of the tournament is, sports matter again in one week.

American almost gave Villanova a run. East Tennessee State nearly shocked Pittsburgh, and the world. Madness almost happened on a number of occasions. But it never did.

On Thursday, just two of the 16 games played were decided by three points or less. On Friday, two of the first 14 games played were decided by a single possession.

But the last two games to go final in the first round made up for the March Averageness with some solid Madness.

Simultaneously, Ohio State battled toe-to-toe with Siena, and Wisconsin and Florida State went back and forth.

As Ohio State and Siena finished their first overtime, Wisconsin and Florida State were just starting theirs. CBS cut back and forth practically at every whistle to keep on top of things, allowing everyone to see all of the action as it happened.

By the time it was all over, 12-seed Wisconsin had knocked off Florida State in overtime with a last-second bucket, while Siena topped Ohio State in two overtimes on a 3-pointer with just four seconds left.

After nearly two full days of waiting around for the Madness to kick in, it finally did. At midnight Eastern Time on Friday night, we got two thrilling endings, coming just minutes after 13-seed Cleveland State knocked off ACC powerhouse Wake Forest.

Our biggest upset and two best finishes, all in the final hour of the first round. The first round is supposed to be about miracle wins, while it’s the second and third rounds that give us our Cinderellas. Let’s see what the weekend offers.

Out of the 63 games in the tournament, Barry only had nine games where a lower seed beat a higher seed, with only three double-digit seeds getting out of the first round.

President Obama had no seeds lower than 11 advancing in his bracket, with 27 out of 32 higher seeds winning in the first round. In the second round, he picked two five-seeds to advance. After that, he had just one three-seed winning in the Sweet 16 round, and one two-seed getting into the Final Four.

Outside of those nine games, Obama has the higher seed advancing in every game. Since 1985, only twice has no seed lower than 11 won a game — 2000 and 2007.

In the Midwest, Obama has the higher seed winning every game played, right up until Louisville heads to the Final Four. In Obama’s bracket, the four teams that will meet up in Detroit are Louisville, Pittsburgh, North Carolina and Memphis, with North Carolina cutting down the nets.

Out of curiosity, do you think if Obama entered his bracket over at pickmanager.com, and scored himself $100 million for a perfect bracket, would he quit his job like everyone else in the United States? You have to figure he’s set for life financially anyway, but damn, $100 million. Even he should know to take the money in today’s economy.

It was a close one between North Carolina and Memphis for the second slot in the title game, but then I remembered that Memphis only plays in the Conference USA, while North Carolina is in the ACC. Of course, North Carolina didn’t win their conference…but, when in doubt, major conference always trumps mid-major.

So go ahead and rip up your brackets and call back in not-sick to work on Thursday and Friday, there is no need to settle it on the court. Why have a tournament to determine a champion when you can simply crown the best team at the end of the year that happens to play in a major conference?

I mean, that’s how college football is settled, and I’ve never heard anyone complain about that, right?

Here’s your BCS lineup for the college basketball postseason:

• BCS Title Game: Louisville vs. North Carolina
• Sugar Madness: Memphis vs. Pittsburgh
• Fiesta Madness: Duke vs. Missouri
• Orange Madness: Mississippi State vs. Oklahoma
• Rose Madness: Washington vs. Michigan State

Doesn’t that sound great?

These matchups are based on the college football model. You have your six major conference champions (Pac-10 and Big Ten regular season only, like football), as well as the four at-large teams of Memphis, Pittsburgh, Duke and Oklahoma. Sorry UConn, only two teams per conference.

When put into a different context, it becomes a little clearer just how awful the college football bowl system is. It takes a great regular season and strips it down to a set of arbitrary decisions, rather than real-life games.

The only way to determine a basketball champion is by doing it on the court, and the only way to crown a football champion is to do it on the field.

If the idiots in charge of college football can look at this and still think that they have the best system possible for their sport, then they are even more stupid than I thought.

It feels ridiculous that I even have to make this argument, but sadly, that’s the state of college football these days. It is time for a playoff, and if you can’t recognize that this week, then you are just blind.

While the lack of interest in the game is one thing, there is a bigger issue here, and it is why that it is time to change the format for the play-in game.

What about Alabama State?

At 22-10, Alabama State won the SWAC, and in their minds,earned a spot to play in the tournament and a shot to shock the world on CBS. Instead, they were relegated to Tuesday night hoops on ESPN against 20-15 Morehead State, who also won their conference.

Both teams earned a right to play in the tournament and only one of them will. That’s just not fair.

Why should the Alabama State players not get to enjoy the atmosphere of being in the real tournament. This was not being in the tournament, this was two teams that won their conference (the only requirement to earn your way into the tournament) and they are playing in a game no one is watching and getting no real reward for their season.

So why not change the format? Put Morehead State and Alabama State in the tournament, and have two bubble teams play each other. Do you really think that an Arizona-Wisconsin game would have done worse on ESPN? Don’t you think it is more fair for two conference losers to play in the play-in over two conference winners?

I sure do.

The play-in game is a joke. And I don’t mean that because it involves lower caliber basketball. I mean that because it is played between two teams that earned their spot in the tournament. Trust me, there will never be a play-in game that involves a non-conference winner. The play-in game, in its current format, will always be between two teams that won their conference.

I can’t see where this is hard to change. Put two bubble teams in a play-in game, and reserve them a 12-seed. You just put Morehead State and Alabama State in the tournament as 16-seeds, and everyone below them jumps up one spot on the 64-team rankings. When you get to the spot where bubble teams are seeded, you leave an empty spot.

By most accounts, Arizona and Wisconsin were among the last two teams in to the tournament. Of course, Arizona had no business getting in to begin with, but for the sake of my argument, we’ll just accept that they are in.

Having two true bubble teams play to get in, while rewarding every conference champion with a berth in the tournament is the only fair way to use the play-in game. I don’t care that Morehead State and Alabama State have zero chance to win it all — a lot of teams don’t. But if you’re going to have a ridiculous 64-team bracket, at least include all the conference champions.

Apparently, when it comes to NCAA postseasons, nobody can get it right. A tournament is right, but you have to do it right. The guys on Wisconsin and Arizona and every other bubble team can understand why they are not in the tournament — they didn’t win their conference. But winning your conference, then having to go to Alabama State to win again before really going to the tournament is just terrible.

I haven’t filled out a bracket yet, but I will. In the meantime, here are the important story lines for the 2009 NCAA tournament.

• How the hell did one conference land three one-seeds? I know that Pittsburgh, UConn and Louisville were all great teams this year, but let’s face it — Memphis got screwed.
• Arizona State is back in the tournament, scoring a six-seed (yeah, fine, I root for one team). That’s nice and all, but the feeling should have been so much better with Arizona missing the dance. But for some unknown reason, Arizona is in while more deserving teams are sitting at home.
• Speaking of which, St. Mary’s got screwed. How Arizona is in and St. Mary’s is not is baffling. If Arizona wasn’t riding a 24-year streak of getting in the tournament, there’s no way they’d be in.
• Of interest from ESPN.com:
  

  Among the last teams to make it were: Wisconsin, a 12th seed in the East; Maryland, a surprisingly high 10th seed in the Midwest; and Dayton, one of only four teams from small conferences to earn an at-large bid.

  The so-called mid-major conferences have gone from nine at-large bids in 2005 to four this year. Besides St. Mary’s, Creighton got left out, as did New Mexico, UNLV and San Diego State, all from the Mountain West.

This follows the same disturbing trend in college football, that when in doubt, give the spot to the major conference. What more do the Memphis basketball programs and Utah football programs have to do to get the respect of the guys in suits who dictate their future.

Admittedly, I’m not the basketball expert that others are. My expertise is in — well, everything else. But the dismissal of mid-majors because it is assumed that they are a lower-level quality in sports is sad. Clearly, when given the chance, they’ve shown that they are quality teams, but wins over them by each other are so quickly dismissed. That’s unfortunate, and I hope I’m wrong about this crossing over into basketball.

Tournament play kicks off on Tuesday night when Morehead State plays Alabama State for the right to get their asses kicked by Louisville. The real fun starts Thursday, though.

And I have to tell you this: The NCAA tournament is one of the sports experiences that gets completely ruined living on the West Coast. It starts too early in the morning for a weekday, and ends too early at night. It ranks right up there with NFL football starting at 10 a.m., college football at 9 a.m., and late baseball games being over by 10:30. I miss sleeping in and watching ball games into the morning hours. March Madness was better on the East Coast.

Now, perhaps with just one article, Lewis is ready to revolutionize basketball in the same way.

Kevin Youkilis “starred” in Moneyball, and in the sequel, Shane Battier plays the lead. Of course, over the years, Youkilis has gone on to show that the Oakland A’s were correct to value him so much, and he’s shown it in ways that can be quantified.

Battier has been in the NBA since 2001 and has yet to have a season that basketball statisticians would call great. He’s the definition of average, statistically. For his career he’s averaging just over 10 points, less than two assists and less than five rebounds. I don’t think you could get more statistically average if you tried.

So where is the value? Well, the Houston Rockets won’t say. All they say is that they have the formula to determine unseen value in players, and that Battier is one of the most valuable players in the game.

Sure, people love to bash Battier, and they have done so since he was at Duke being “overrated.” Yet he continues to be a common ingredient on winning teams.

At Duke, Battier went to two Final Fours and won a national championship.

He was drafted to the Memphis Grizzlies, one of the worst franchises in sports at the time. Their winning percentage hadn’t topped .280 in the previous six seasons. In Battier’s third year with the Grizzlies, they were in the playoffs.

Sure, they may not have been in the playoff because of Battier, but who am I to argue that he wasn’t a reason they were.

Battier joined the Houston Rockets in 2006, with the Rockets coming off of a 34 win season. In Battier’s first year, they won 52 games and went to the playoffs. Battier has been to the playoffs in five straight years now.

Is he the reason? Many say no, Lewis says yes.

Here we have a basketball mystery: a player is widely regarded inside the N.B.A. as, at best, a replaceable cog in a machine driven by superstars. And yet every team he has ever played on has acquired some magical ability to win.

What happened is that the ownership of the Rockets put together some people and said, “go find us new stats.” And what they did was start compiling and analyzing data. They won’t share it, since it is, for now, uniquely theirs, but it exists. And in this world, Shane Battier is a superstar.

Basically, what Battier does is play smart. He takes good shots, doesn’t turn the ball over, and he puts his teammates in a position to be better basketball players. Amazingly, in ways that aren’t counted by traditional stats, he makes his team better and the other team worse. But his box score numbers don’t show a thing.

Battier’s game is a weird combination of obvious weaknesses and nearly invisible strengths. When he is on the court, his teammates get better, often a lot better, and his opponents get worse — often a lot worse. He may not grab huge numbers of rebounds, but he has an uncanny ability to improve his teammates’ rebounding. He doesn’t shoot much, but when he does, he takes only the most efficient shots. He also has a knack for getting the ball to teammates who are in a position to do the same, and he commits few turnovers. On defense, although he routinely guards the N.B.A.’s most prolific scorers, he significantly ­reduces their shooting percentages. At the same time he somehow improves the defensive efficiency of his teammates — probably, Morey surmises, by helping them out in all sorts of subtle ways. “I call him Lego,” Morey says. “When he’s on the court, all the pieces start to fit together. And everything that leads to winning that you can get to through intellect instead of innate ability, Shane excels in. I’ll bet he’s in the hundredth percentile of every category.”

One of the interesting statistical conclusions that the Rockets have come to is that “It turns out there is no statistic that a basketball player accumulates that cannot be amassed selfishly.” How about that? If you want to be selfish, you can make yourself look good statistically. This has led the Rockets to rethink their contracts and statistical incentives, but more importantly, led them to no longer devalue players that lack eye-popping stats.

In the meantime, Battier has developed a reputation as a solid defensive player, one that is almost always matched up with the opposition’s superstar. This and plus/minus are the closest you get to being able to define Battier with stats.

I am admittedly not a basketball fan. I played the game in high school and still enjoy playing it, but I’m not a fan of the NBA. To a lesser extent, I am a fan of college hoops, mostly because of the difference in the level of passion. If anything were to bring the passion of college (for the whole game) to the NBA, I might be interested.

Additionally, I love baseball. One of the things I like about it is the ability of everyone who wants to to analyze seemingly inane details and draw original conclusions. With basketball, that aspect has never appeared to be there. It was a simple points-rebounds-assist, with maybe a bit of blocks and steals thrown in.

Adding the ability to truly dive into the stats could go a long way to bringing people like me aboard. Any ability to change the game (for the better) from the game it currently is (clear out, one-on-one) to a team oriented game (Battier’s are valued and create better teams) would be an improvement on the league.

I loved Moneyball and despite my lack of enjoyment in the NBA, I loved this article. If the Rockets let their secret out, and a guy like Lewis documents it, you may see the NBA change in the next ten years like baseball changed in the last ten years.

I think that’s a good thing.