In this time called by some March Madness, I learn yet again that I subscribe to TruTV, and I learn yet again where it is on my cable system. March Madness refers to the college basketball tournaments. They have so many games that some plop onto otherwise obscure cable stations.

Before the tournaments begin, sports commentators speculate and speculate some more about which teams will be the #1 seeds. There are four of them, which, of course, is contradictory, but the tournament is divided into four sections of sixteen teams each with a #1 seed. Despite all the discussions of #1 seeds, it hardly matters whether a team is a #1 or a #2 seed. The #1seed plays the #16 seed, and the number two seed plays the fifteenth seed, but the designation of fifteenth or sixteenth are semi-random. Although sports pundits may say some team should have been a one seed instead of a two, I have never heard a commentator say that a team got screwed by being designated a sixteenth seed when it should have gotten a fifteenth designation. Whether a team is a first or second seed, it is certainly a heavy favorite, and, of course, if the seeding really works, the first seed will end up playing the second seed on a neutral court. Whether a team is a first or second seed should hardly matter, so shut up about it.

In other sports such as tennis, commentators will say that a player has made it to the round of sixteen or the quarter- or semi-finals, but not in college basketball. Instead, it will be the “Sweet Sixteen,” the “Elite Eight,” the “Final Four.” Perhaps this was endearing or cute many, many years ago, but they are just annoying clichés now. (Battology: “The continual reiteration of the same words in speech or writing; the wearisome repetition of words in speech or writing.” You’re welcome.) Could at least someone stop using them? (No one has come up with something approaching alliteration for a team winning the first game and being one of the remaining thirty-two teams. No one says the Thundering Thirty-Two or the Thriving Thirty-Two. Someone needs to work on that.)

The men’s tournament concludes after March concludes. Don’t we need something for games played in April? Since the games feature scholar-athletes, perhaps we could have a semi-learned shoutout to T.S. and call it April Cruelty, since somebody is going to lose. But I guess it has to be at least some weak attempt at alliteration. The best I have is April Apeshit. April Absurdity is alliterative but does not seem right. Surely you can do better.

Many are saying that the women’s tournament has bigger stars and will be more exciting than the men’s side. This is partly because of Caitlin Clark. When she is mentioned, we are usually told in the same breath that she has scored more points than any other Division 1 basketball player, either male or female. This points out the difficulty of comparing players from different eras. Of course, women did not play Division I basketball at all until relatively recently. And while Clark passed Pete Maravich in Division 1 scoring, the rules did not allow freshmen (first-year students, if we are being woke) to play varsity ball when Maravich was at Louisiana State University. He played three years while Clark has played four. Moreover, there was no three-point line when Maravich was in college. His per-game scoring average was, in fact, much higher than Clark’s. This takes nothing away from Caitlin Clark, who is an exciting player, one I love to watch. Nevertheless, I offer just a small caveat about comparing players from different eras.