While there's always a critique here and there when the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee announces the 68-team field, the criticism was bumped up a notch this year, especially from yours truly.
After the field was set, most college basketball analysts rightfully complained that there was no good reason to invite Arizona State and UCLA over USC or Oklahoma over Oklahoma State. USC finished 2nd in the Pac-12, lost in the conference title game to top seeded Arizona, and both Arizona State and UCLA finished near the middle of the pack in the conference standings. Meanwhile Oklahoma State defeated Oklahoma twice during the course of the season and the Sooners struggled more during the tail end of the season than a drunk blind man struggles at the urinal. So when it comes to these gripes, I completely agree with the ESPN commentators, but that's where the agreements ended.
Two teams who were fully deserving of earning a spot in the field of 68 were Middle Tennessee State and St. Mary's. While some analysts mentioned these schools in their list of bubble teams which may have had an argument to make the tournament, they also tended to say, "The big-name schools are what make the tournament what it is. It's about viewership. People don't want to see these nobody smaller schools. This is why we need to select the major conference schools to the tournament and leave the mid-majors and lesser known schools out." On this point, I completely disagree. Who remembers which big-name schools were in the 1992 Final Four? Hell, who remembers the title game winner from two years ago? On the flip-side, who can ever forget the Final Four run Virginia Commonwealth went on in 2011 under Shaka Smart? Who can ever forget when George Mason busted everyone's brackets this side of Mars in 2006? When 16-seed UMBC defeated top overall seed Virginia on Friday night, becoming the first 16 seed to do such a thing, even the most drunk among us will remember where they were when that happened. The Kansases of the world, Dukes, North Carolinas and UCLAs, they'll get their championships. While players and coaches on the teams may disagree, after a certain point, said titles kind of blend in with one another. What makes the tournament what it is, arguably the best three weekends in sports, are the Cinderella stories, the overmatched teams who play above and beyond their seeming potential for a game, and give us a bracket-busting moment we'll carry with us for the rest of our lives. I'm sorry, but college basketball nuts don't want to see a 10- or 11-seed ACC or Big Ten team, who underachieved throughout the season, and will likely be a one-and-done. They'd rather see a talented unknown team who has the chance to pull off the shocker of the tournament.
How is it that an 18-13 team from a major conference, who struggled immensely down the stretch, is more deserving of a tournament bid than a 29-5 team from a lesser conference? Is a gifted student who failed a difficult exam more deserving of positive recognition for the result than a student with limited opportunities who aced an exam? Middle Tennessee State and St. Mary's combined to go 54-13 this season. The former faced a rather brutal non-conference schedule and was competitive in all of them. The latter is 29-5 on the season. They finished the regular season ranked 25th in the country. How does an almost 30-win team who finished in the top 25 not make the tournament? I don't believe I've ever seen that before.
March Madness is great for a number of reasons, but mediocre middle-of-the-pack major conference schools is not one of them. Sure, they played a more challenging schedule, due to conference play, yet that also means they had more opportunities to prove themselves to the selection committee and failed to do so. Finishing sub-.500 in conference may partially mean you play in a superior conference, but it also means you failed to prove yourself in said conference, and if you can't prove yourself in conference, why should you be deserving of attempting to prove yourself to the country? They're called Cinderella teams for a reason. They create magical moments, moments viewers never forget, moments an 11-seed UCLA team could never capture in a play-in game. While major conference teams who play well throughout the course of the year have every right to be in the tournament, stop selecting those in the middle of the pack, sporting a sub-.500 conference records, over 29-5 clubs like St. Mary's. We may all like seeing a glass slipper fitting, but this can't happen if the selection committee doesn't select potential Cinderellas.
After the field was set, most college basketball analysts rightfully complained that there was no good reason to invite Arizona State and UCLA over USC or Oklahoma over Oklahoma State. USC finished 2nd in the Pac-12, lost in the conference title game to top seeded Arizona, and both Arizona State and UCLA finished near the middle of the pack in the conference standings. Meanwhile Oklahoma State defeated Oklahoma twice during the course of the season and the Sooners struggled more during the tail end of the season than a drunk blind man struggles at the urinal. So when it comes to these gripes, I completely agree with the ESPN commentators, but that's where the agreements ended.
Two teams who were fully deserving of earning a spot in the field of 68 were Middle Tennessee State and St. Mary's. While some analysts mentioned these schools in their list of bubble teams which may have had an argument to make the tournament, they also tended to say, "The big-name schools are what make the tournament what it is. It's about viewership. People don't want to see these nobody smaller schools. This is why we need to select the major conference schools to the tournament and leave the mid-majors and lesser known schools out." On this point, I completely disagree. Who remembers which big-name schools were in the 1992 Final Four? Hell, who remembers the title game winner from two years ago? On the flip-side, who can ever forget the Final Four run Virginia Commonwealth went on in 2011 under Shaka Smart? Who can ever forget when George Mason busted everyone's brackets this side of Mars in 2006? When 16-seed UMBC defeated top overall seed Virginia on Friday night, becoming the first 16 seed to do such a thing, even the most drunk among us will remember where they were when that happened. The Kansases of the world, Dukes, North Carolinas and UCLAs, they'll get their championships. While players and coaches on the teams may disagree, after a certain point, said titles kind of blend in with one another. What makes the tournament what it is, arguably the best three weekends in sports, are the Cinderella stories, the overmatched teams who play above and beyond their seeming potential for a game, and give us a bracket-busting moment we'll carry with us for the rest of our lives. I'm sorry, but college basketball nuts don't want to see a 10- or 11-seed ACC or Big Ten team, who underachieved throughout the season, and will likely be a one-and-done. They'd rather see a talented unknown team who has the chance to pull off the shocker of the tournament.
How is it that an 18-13 team from a major conference, who struggled immensely down the stretch, is more deserving of a tournament bid than a 29-5 team from a lesser conference? Is a gifted student who failed a difficult exam more deserving of positive recognition for the result than a student with limited opportunities who aced an exam? Middle Tennessee State and St. Mary's combined to go 54-13 this season. The former faced a rather brutal non-conference schedule and was competitive in all of them. The latter is 29-5 on the season. They finished the regular season ranked 25th in the country. How does an almost 30-win team who finished in the top 25 not make the tournament? I don't believe I've ever seen that before.
March Madness is great for a number of reasons, but mediocre middle-of-the-pack major conference schools is not one of them. Sure, they played a more challenging schedule, due to conference play, yet that also means they had more opportunities to prove themselves to the selection committee and failed to do so. Finishing sub-.500 in conference may partially mean you play in a superior conference, but it also means you failed to prove yourself in said conference, and if you can't prove yourself in conference, why should you be deserving of attempting to prove yourself to the country? They're called Cinderella teams for a reason. They create magical moments, moments viewers never forget, moments an 11-seed UCLA team could never capture in a play-in game. While major conference teams who play well throughout the course of the year have every right to be in the tournament, stop selecting those in the middle of the pack, sporting a sub-.500 conference records, over 29-5 clubs like St. Mary's. We may all like seeing a glass slipper fitting, but this can't happen if the selection committee doesn't select potential Cinderellas.
Comments
Post a Comment