Trying to keep up with sports or Oscar trivia is true madness
by Beth Teitell

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

This year I've made a decision. I'm not going to follow the NCAA tournament.

``But you never do,'' a friend said when I mentioned my plan. True, but in past years, I've at least tried to follow it, and when that failed, I had the decency to fake it, saying things that I imagined sports fans - or were they imposters like me? - wanted to hear.

``All these players leaving early for the NBA is ruining the amateur flavor of college basketball,'' I'd say, shaking my head, or ``I'd love to see a great upset, like we had back in '85, when Villanova beat Georgetown in the final.''

This year, I am not pretending to know that the Jayhawks' forwards have dominated the tournament, or that Illinois can match their depth and athleticism. I'm not even feigning excitement that Duke, my alma mater, is, as usual, doing so well.

But why aren't I? At some point in life one makes a decision about what she will or will not be interested in, and I've realized I've made some bad choices. In a world that values sports, the bulk of my expertise is about the Miss America pageant.

If I'd applied the same level of scholarship to the study of the American presidency that I have to moisturizer, I could have been a Doris Kearns Goodwin, the toast of PBS.

As one of my colleagues said about herself, ``I have a great depth of knowledge about very shallow subjects.'' In her case, it's Princess Di. ``I have no patience for people who don't know she was a nursery school teacher before she married Prince Charles,'' she said.

But do those people have patience for her? Can the great divide be bridged? Perhaps no month is as bifurcated as March. I'm not just talking about the whole lion/lamb thing, either. There's the great March Madness/Oscars split.

While there is some crossover, in general, the person who knows that the Georgia Bulldogs played the toughest nonconference schedule in the country does not know that the Golden Globes are usually a good predictor of the Oscars, or even what the Golden Globes are.

To give my theory scientific validity, I conducted a study, choosing two subjects, one a sports fan, the other a woman whose interests run in another direction. Did one know anything about the major focus of the other's month? First, I asked the sports guy to explain the betting pools I always hear about but can never force myself to focus on. He described the intricacies of the bracket - you have to pick the winner of all 32 games and you earn an escalating number of points for each successive win - and didn't laugh when I asked about ``squares.'' ``That's the Super Bowl,'' he said.

``I have one more question,'' I said. He leaned forward patiently. ``Who do you think will win `best actress' at the Oscars?''

He looked a little panicky. ``I assume Julia Roberts must be up for her portrayal of . . . that other lady,'' he said. ``She found some trash or something - what is her name?''

Next I asked Subject No. 2 if she knew what the NCAA was. ``Yes,'' she said, absurdly proud. ``It's a basketball tournament between colleges. I only know that because I went to UMass-Amherst when Rick Pitino was the guy there and my friends were sleeping with basketball players. I liked March Madness because you could go grocery shopping and the stores would be empty.''

A recollection that March Madness equals an empty L'il Peach was as far as her knowledge went. ``Those betting things are like algebra to me,'' she added.

``Who,'' I asked, ``will Julia wear to the Oscars?''

``Probably who she always does,'' she replied. ``Armani.''

Armani. Hey, didn't that Pitino guy like designer clothes? Maybe there is common ground after all.