In the NCAA, the underdogs can sometimes 'match up' suprisingly well with the favourites - a rock solid zone, say, exposing weakness on the perimeter, or a great offensive rebounder slowing down an otherwise explosive transition game. But here, how does the underdog actually DO anything to match up any better against the favourite? I mean, a golf course is an inert object, or at least a static one - it can't make itself play better defence or create scoring opportunities with new schemes. Or CAN it? Ah - there's the interest, I think: okay, let the No 1 seed go against the No 16 seed, but give them both a chance to 'prepare': on one, grow the rough to 5 inches, narrow the fairways and have the greens running at 13; for the other, let it dry out, move the tees around, change a Par 5 to a 4, and hope the wind picks up. Then let's see how the COURSES (i.e. the teams on THAT DAY) fare against eachother, not how the ARCHITECTURE (i.e. the selection-committee seedings based on the SEASON) fares head-to-head. Like in the tournament, the games actually have to take place in TIME and SPACE, not in THEORY.
Peter
PS - Not to say that this thread isn't good and worthy, just to say that's an idea (above) that just popped into my mind, so I typed it.