If you think that Littlepage walked away without saying anything, you would be wrong. He spoke out on Monday, coming back at CBS, and saying that the network owed the Tournament Committee more respect and that the two partners in presenting what may be the second greatest show in sports should work together better in the future.

He also criticized Packer for his insane comments that the tournament selection should partially be based on the past performance of the teams and conferences in the tournament. Someone should remind Packer that this would mean leagues like the Pac-10, which often scores numerous bids and don't fair well, would be on the same side of the page as the little leagues like the Missouri Valley who are lucky to get their extra bids and fight tooth and nail to possibly win a game.

Pat Forde's column on the matter highlights what may be the main flaw in Packer's argument:

It's abundantly clear that teams from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC have done better than teams from the Valley, Colonial and other allegedly lesser leagues. But what Nantz and Packer left out was the fact that the best teams from those leagues always start out with higher seeds and weaker opponents.

Sure, the last six Valley entrants in the NCAAs have only won one game. They've also been seeded seventh, 10th, 14th, ninth, 11th and sixth in that time. Valley teams went 1-1 in games where it had the higher seed during that three-year span, and every loss was by single digits. If Southern Illinois losing by a point in 2003 as a No. 11 seed and by a point in '04 as a 9-seed reflects poorly on the Missouri Valley, that's a fairly merciless standard to apply.

And if Nantz-Packer had gone back to 2002, they'd see that the Valley went a combined 3-2 in the dance with teams coming from No. 11 and No. 12 seedings. (All three victories came against higher-seeded teams from power conferences, by the way.)

I would challenge Nantz and Packer to assemble the list of teams that have made deep runs from the lower half of the bracket. They will likely see that the teams come from all sorts of conferences. Think about why we first got to know Gonzaga (10-seed). Or how about Kent State (10-seed) in 2002? You can even count Temple (11-seed in 2001) in this list. Sure, Missouri as a No. 12 or LSU as the magical No.11 in 1986, show up, but the list is pretty balanced.

As I listened to Colin Cowherd's radio show on ESPNRadio during my drive into work on Monday morning, I was reminded of one fact. You aren't going to get a team from the bottom half of the bracket that wins the whole thing. The only team lower than a 6-seed to win the title was Villanova with an 8-seed. Only once has a team with lower than a 8-seed made the Final Four. So, when we complain about the last four or five teams into the tournament, are we really thinking that just getting them in would get them a tournament title. Why not give the last four slots to teams like a Bradley, or a George Mason?

Let the little guy have his shot of breaking history. The first weekend, as Cowherd also pointed out on his show, is about the little guy. No one would care if Michigan had gotten Bradley's spot and beat Kansas. However, when Bucknell beat Kansas last year, what was everyone talking about? I guarantee there is a good portion of America putting Bucknell into the second round match against Memphis solely on that game from last year. And why shouldn't they? Everyone loves to root for the underdog.

So when I look at the teams I got wrong this year, should I be upset? No. The teams I didn't have in the tournament are seeded on lines that have won exactly one tournament final and that was way back in 1988 (Kansas). So, should I care that Utah State and Air Force are in? Nope. History tells me that they will lose in the first round, much like most MRI misses.

What about Marquette or Seton Hall? Seton Hall at the 10 is finally getting a taste of what Wichita State would normally need to go through -- being the underdog. Wichita State has a good chance to make the Sweet Sixteen should take out the Pirates. And my good friends at Marquette? You get the distinct honor of playing another the MRI's misses, Alabama, in what I have determined is a secret plot by the committee to make one of the non-MRI predicted teams win a game each year. Yes, I am picking Marquette to win its first round game. However, you will be saying goodbye in round two.

The only two misses that have a chance historically then are Indiana and West Virginia. Given last year's run by the Mountaineers, I am convinced that there is some mountain man who has mastered a magical spell that gives West Virginia not only its berths in the tournament but its clutch 3-point shooting ability. And it scares me that they will do the same thing again this year. However, this year's seedings have not been so kind though to either squad. Indiana will be going against a San Diego State team built much in the manner of a Big Ten squad - big power inside and at least one deadly guard on the perimeter. Look at the successful Big Ten teams and tell me that they do not have the same make-up. They have to. The entire conference pounds its way out inside, game after game. Illinois had more shooting threats last year, and this enabled them to do more when the post was clogged. Indiana doesn't have that, especially with Robert Vaden a question mark for the game. West Virginia gets a scrappy Southern Illinois squad making their fourth straight tournament appearance - how many schools in the tournament can say that? Southern Illinois showed in their game against Bradley for the Missouri Valley title that they have the ability to hang outside with the best teams. They also were outrebounding a taller and stronger inside team. While Southern Illinois is not the prototype for the team I see beating West Virginia (and likely second round opponent, Iowa, is), there is no counting them out in this game, and I will be putting an 11 on the second round line.

So, here's to the little guys -- the San Diego States, the Bradleys, the Bucknells, and George Masons. Let's all hope that they show Packer and Nantz that slogging to a mediocre record in a power conference doesn't warrant inclusion in the field. Playing your way in, and setting us up for a magical Cinderella run does.