When it comes to the NCAA Tournament There are always going to be teams that get "snubbed." There are always going to be teams that get an unfair seeding. There are always going to be the teams that get to play home games at neutral sites.
This year is no exception. However, this year seems to be the worst I can remember seeing it. Of course recent events always seem worse, and this is the first year, I'm blogging on it. Next year at this time we'll have something to compare it to.
This is not meant to be a comprehensive list of what has went awry. Here are a few notable head shakers:
--- Might as well go with the elephant in the room to start. Taking Arizona (19-14, 8-10) over Arizona State (19-12, 9-9) is easily the biggest injustice. Besides finishing higher in the Pac-10, ASU beat Arizona both times in head to head.
I realize ASU's RPI was in the eightees, but a better conference record and head-to-head sweep is where the surf board hits the wave.
Besides that when did 19-14 become good enough for an at-large bid, no matter what conference a team is from? Do we even now care that Arizona's streak of 24 consecutive appearances, the current longest in the nation and third most of all-time, if they're going to there invite served to them on a platter?
Arizona interim coach O'Neill added insult to injury not only by claiming his team was just as worthy as ASU to get the invite; but by saying that his teams was 3-8 without his two star guards playing in the line-up together.
We all know, that injuries or not, a team is expected to get it done. The what if talk on the injury front should be reserved for fans, not for coaches trying to justify whether his team deserves to be in the tournament. That was preposterous and the radio host he was talking to was too intimidated to call him out on that horse and buggy thinking.
Arizona getting in over ASU reminds me of the movie 'Unforgiven.' Right before Clint Eastwood shoots a mortally wounded Gene Hackman with a shotgun, Hackman cried he didn't deserve it and that he was building a house. Eastwood's response: "Deserves gots nothing to do with it." Well ASU can build their house all they want but the more prolific, less deserving team is in and most likely so that the NCAA could preserve a higher money producing headliner.
--- Ever hear of Garner Webb? No, it's not a player it's a school. Kentucky (18-12) knows who they are. They lost to them by 16 in their own arena.
That is not Kentucky's most humiliating loss though. Only on Feb. 12, Vanderbilt handed them their you-know-whats, routing them by 41 points.
To begin with, 18-12 is NIT territory. A team better have a top 15 RPI with that.
Kentucky was also 2-5 verses teams that were ranked at the time. If the selection committee justifies selections based on quality win percentages, then shouldn't a team be discounted when they prove they don't stand up to the quality teams? Especially, a bubble team at that.
Not only that, Kentucky was bounced in the opening round by the Georgia Bulldogs. At 17-16, Georgia went on to win the tournament and stole some team's spot with an automatic bid. But not Kentucky's spot! Kentucky is a legacy, why hold them accountable. Why not crush a more deserved team's dreams. After all, we established deserves has nothing to do with it.
Of course the selection committee does not just drop bombs, they drop nukes. They want everyone to know, that their logic is superior. They gave Kentucky an 11 seed, not a 14 or 15 seed that would be much more logical (though not precedented).
--- USC vs. Kansas St. It's cool that the two most exciting college players, OJ Mayo and Michael Beasely are squaring off. But we all know the fix is in to get that.
This is a 6 vs. 11 match-up if you can believe that. Chances are if you didn't scrutinize it, then you did.
USC had close 4 point losses to 1 seeds Kansas and Memphis. So what. I can promise you that in years past, when better Gonzaga teams were struggling for recognition, close but no cigar was the answer they always heard. With that they'd get a 'here enjoy your 11 seed and by the way we matched you up with a team that deserved a three seed.'
USC clearly scored points from the Pac-10 having a strong year. But just because a team is from a top performing conference should not be cause for too much credit. USC had 11 losses and like Kentucky was 2-5 vs teams that were ranked in the top 25. Nothing about that screams sixth seed to me.
Do we realize that sixth seed should roughly equate to a team being in the top 25? More on that in the Davidson/Gonzaga segment. Sufficed to say USC is not in the top 25 for a reason and they had no business getting the sixth seed.
On the other side of the coin, Kansas State went 3-7 vs. Tournament teams. If a mid-major team did that they would not get consideration let alone warrant the eleventh seed. But we all knew that having the best player in the country was about as good of an automatic bid as a team not in the top 25 could ever get without winning their tournament. The eleven seed is the sprinkles on their cake.
--- Davidson vs Gonzaga. Year after year, by the rankings, I see the committee putting teams that should be in a fifth or sixth seed at the 7 to eleven seed.
It's usually the little guy that has played well and is ranked in the top 20 or 25. This year Davidson is 23 and Gonzaga is 24. Davidson got the 10 seed and Gonzaga the 7 seed. Both teams are perfect examples of teams that deserved a better seed than USC. Can we really say we wouldn't expect these teams to go 2-5 vs. top 25 teams?
Well the Zags didn't have a spectacular year vs. top 25 teams, going 1-3, so a good guess is a stalemate there. So why not give it to the team who otherwise achieved more?
The Zags lost to Memphis by 8 and USC lost to Memphis by 4. The committee loves to justify seedings by silly little nuances like that.
Davidson was 0-3 vs top 25 teams. Of course, when the losses are close losses to top 10 teams like UCLA, Duke and North Carolina, it wouldn't be such a crime to give them the 6 seed they deserve.
Still, we know that the committee loves their fuzzy math, when it comes to getting teams seeded where they want.
--- North Carolina can go to the Final Four without even leaving their state. That's right four games slated for Raleigh and Charlotte; the East Regional one seed stays in North Carolina. So North Carolina essentially has four home games.
Obviously rhis was planned well in advance for the sake of having better odds of getting NC or Duke to the Final Four and consequently creating better ratings deep into the tournament.
For all their ethical hang-ups the NCAA are shrewd businessmen. More on that ahead.
--- The selection committee make-up is fundamentally flawed! I was surprised to learn the types of people on the ten member committee. Some members include SEC commissioner Michael Slive (next year's committee commissioner), UCLA athletic director Daniel Guerrero and UCONN athletic director Jeffery Hathaway.
That is about as sound as having Senator Mitchell, a Red Sox board member do the steroid report. Not surprisingly, no dirt on Big Papi or Manram was included in that report.
How is it that the NCAA can crack down on violations with regularity and even admirable precision and then on the other hand completely ignore fundamental rules of ethics? Lots of
narcissistic personalities would be my guess.
There is no doubt in my mind that money and insider considerations play a big part (whether collusion is involved or not). Don't ever expect fair brackets as long as that foundation exists.
--- BYU is a team that has not had an Adam Morrisson to bring credibility to their achievements (Nevermind that they have not won a first round game in forever). For a team like them, they get the shaft with regularity. When they finish in the top 25 or near it and would reasonably expect a 7 seed or better, they never get it.
This year it's worse since they got the 8 seed while being ranked 25th on RPI and finishing in the top 25.
They sported 27 wins and seven losses, but Perdue and West Virginia who both had 24 wins and ten losses and worse RPIs were seeded six and seven ahead of them.
It may seem like a small thing, to drop two or three spots, but it is not. Last time I checked, the nine seed has actually won more match-ups then the eight seed. Generally a six seed will get a much softer opponent. For instance, the weak St Josephs is an 11 seed this year.
Ideally a team can control the 6 vs. 11 match-up and be tuned up to win the next game for a sweet sixteen entrance. That second game is often verse a three seed they would match-up well with or against a 14 seed that pulled off a first round upset.
The reality is a team like BYU is forced to scrap in an 8-9 match-up and then if they manage to come out of it, they are rewarded with a game against a one seed.
---
And now for the part that we've all been waiting for; some tournament predictions.
Let me preface it by saying I've always predicted at least one Final Four entrant, but have yet to predict all four. There was a year that I came close, picking three out of four and having my other pick make it to the sweet 16.
Unfortunately that was before bracketology. I was writing in my predictions and posting it on the fridge long before most people knew what March madness was. But that doesn't make me extra special (Ok, maybe just a little).
Still I don't want to sound like a groupie proud of himself/herself for liking a band before they ever went platinum. Quick tangent for my groupies: Remember that time we went to the Boxcar Racer (Blink182 side band project) concert, because Mr. Deeds won free tickets.
One friend made a girl mad by calling them Soapbox car racer and she called him out for not being a fan and winning tickets on the radio. Then on top of it, I was late and just walked right into the concert hall and down into the pit without even having my ticket. I asked my other friend if I needed a ticket and he just laughed for years.
But away from the concert and back to the big dance.
I have North Carolina, Vanderbilt, Stanford and UCLA going to the Final Four. I may end up changing out Vandy for Kansas or Stanford for Wisconsin or Memphis. But for the purpose official picks on this blog, that is my Final Four.
In my own interactive bracket, I may make changes based on things I may see in first round and second round games; but the fun of it all is predicting the Final Four before the ball one jump ball even goes up in the air (If you'll allow me to not count the play-in game that took place yesterday).
I have North Carolina beating UCLA in the final. Incidentally, I can't think of two teams I generally would rather not see in the Final more than those two teams. Of course the rule is that teams I root for usually lose, while teams I root against win; so my predictions seems to comply with universal standards.
Also, I don't think UCLA is anything too special, but they clearly seem to be in the easiest region. Duke is a terrible two seed and may not even make the Elite Eight. Xavier is nothing special for a three seed. UCONN is a legacy pick at four. They shouldn't even be in the west. A team like Vanderbilt is tougher and would make more sense. Drake at the five seed, benefited from a 20-0 league record in a bad league. UCLA really got the nod by default.
UCLA is talented and well coached though, so it is not my intention to put the knock on them. They are deserving of their one seed.
Upsets I predicted in earlier games include:
- #12 George Mason over #5 Notre Dame. ND is clearly where they are for their home domination. On a neutral court, it's more of a coin flip. I expect a close game. Maybe I would have picked ND if I thought they'd beat Washington State in the next game. So I have one and done for the winner of that match-up, so picking the 12 seed just made for more fun.
- #3 Louisville over #2 Tennessee in the East semifinal. Tennessee is only 3-2 on neutral courts, and Rick Pitino is the only coach to take three teams (Providence, Kentucky, Louisville) to Final Four appearances. Plus I have it on good authority that Larry Bird and Kevin McHale will be walking through his door to suit up.
- I want to throw caution to the wind on the potential #9 Kent State vs. #1Kansas match-up in the 2nd round. But I have Kansas winning that game. Still if Kent State has their outside shots dropping, it may come down to the final minutes.
- Vanderbilt is my dark horse, but I half-way expect them to not make it to the Final Four. Vandy has proven they can beat good teams like Tennessee. That combined with facing an overconfident Kansas team in the Midwest semifinal is a good formula.
- I believe the winner of Davidson/Gonzaga will beat Georgetown. I especially think Davidson is the strongest 10 seed in the tourney (and stronger than Gonazga). Meanwhile the Hibbert mania isn't catching on with me. He's no Oden. He's not dominant. He's too slow and and mediocre on defense to to be compared to Patrick Ewing. I have just not been impressed with Georgetown this year. Even if I'm wrong about them not making the sweet 16, I still haven't seen such a poor two seed in a long time.
- It's a small upset, but I have #10 St. Mary's beating #7 Miami, FL. St. Mary's was good enough to not only get a rare WCC at-large bid, but got one of WCC two at large bids. But my main thinking is I just see them as a much more disciplined team than Miami. That makes the difference in close match-ups at this time of year.
- I have Stanford beating #2 Texas and #1 Memphis. Texas is over-rated at the two seed and Pac-10 insiders point out how tough Stanford is. Their smart play and inside presence of Lopez's 1.7 blocks per game should be enough to dismantle Texas. I think Memphis is a more savvy team, but they seem to let teams stick around. I think that'll be playing with fire, if they do that with Stanford. Still picking Stanford is always volatile. They are subject to getting knocked out in any round or beating a team in any round. Picking Stanford is not for the faint of heart.
- In the West, the only higher seed I have winning is #5 Drake over #4 UCONN in the 2nd round. It's the weakest region and still no upsets to predict. I just want to rip up that bracket and blackout all the games. Sports Center highlights will do there.
No comments:
Post a Comment