First, some good news: the tournament as it stands is still terrific drama, with strategy and athleticism to spare. Unlike in football, non-BCS schools from mid-major conferences have a chance to compete for the number one spot in basketball. All they have to do, once selected for the tournament, is win six or seven games in a row.
More good news? Every tournament game will be shown in its entirety everywhere in the USA that offers CBS, TNT, TBS, CBS College Sports, and truTV. The great in-studio TNT crew of Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, and Charles Barkley will also be on hand for much of the action.
Other good news? The ten members of the NCAA selection committee are carefully selected to represent a cross-section of schools and conferences large and small, from East to West.
More good news? Every tournament game will be shown in its entirety everywhere in the USA that offers CBS, TNT, TBS, CBS College Sports, and truTV. The great in-studio TNT crew of Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, and Charles Barkley will also be on hand for much of the action.
Other good news? The ten members of the NCAA selection committee are carefully selected to represent a cross-section of schools and conferences large and small, from East to West.
This year, the committee consists of athletic directors from UConn (Big East), Wake Forest (ACC), Ohio State (Big 10), Xavier (Atlantic 10), SMU (Conference-USA), UT-San Antonio (Southland), Utah State (WAC) and UC Riverside (Big West), as well as conference commissioners from the Big 12 and the Big Sky. The chairperson is Gene Smith of The Ohio State University (no surprise). Noticeably absent are any representatives from the other major conferences, the Pac-10 and the SEC.
Did they get it right? Are the selections and seedings properly objective? For the most part, given the complicated rules and conditions they work under (or set themselves), I would say perhaps. However, there is room for improvement. Discrimination against smaller schools, smaller conferences, and schools in the West still runs rampant.
The committee hides behind allegedly objective criteria (won-loss records, road records, records against Top 25 foes, recent trends, RPI's, strength of schedules, and strength of conferences) just as the BCS committee hides behind its allegedly objective criteria to retain the status quo in major college football making it virtually impossible for non-BCS schools and conferences to become BCS eligible in future bowl games or seasons.
I know some observers focus on poor Colorado, Virginia Tech and Alabama this year. Yes, Virginia Tech was robbed again. But Colorado? The team finished sixth in the Big 12. I hate to say this because I normally defend teams in the West, but were they really robbed? Was Cal robbed for being denied a tourney bid when they tied for fourth in the Pac-10 with USC and got thoroughly thrashed in the conference tournament by those same inconsistent Trojans? I think not. Nevertheless, better Cal and Colorado than Marquette and Villanova, Big East stocking stuffers. It would be better for geographic diversity.
Let us focus on second-place teams in mid-major conferences, particularly those in the West (from Hawaii, Pacific, or Mountain time zones). I contend that many of them have been robbed for many years. Oftentimes, strength of conference and strength of schedule are a matter of impressions, not just records.
What is the disturbing rule and related vicious cycle pertaining thereto? Selection committee members must base their questions and decisions on games they have actually seen in their entirety, whether in person, on live television, or on DVR. Four members live in the eastern time zone. Three members live in the central time zone. How many stay up late to watch live games from the West when they have full-time day jobs? How many are dedicated enough to take time from their busy schedules to watch in full games from previous nights on their DVR's? How much fun is it for anybody to watch a game in its entirety when the result is already known via the internet or newspaper?
I submit old games aren't watched much due to human nature. The drama for a competitive contest where the result is known in advance is lower than the drama during Final Jeopardy when the leader has more than double the score of his or her closest competitor. That means most discussions and questions concern central and eastern time zone schools. That, combined with the already-prevalent national media bias for Midwest and East teams, creates a perfect storm for recruits and a vicious cycle for schools in the West.
A star recruit wants to attend a power conference school, a school that receives maximum media exposure, media favoritism, and selection committee preference (subconciously or rule-related consciously). The player signs to play with a power conference team, the team flourishes in its non-conference schedule, the conference flourishes with its NCAA tournament selections, and the non-power conferences continue to decline in strength, perceived and actual. The cycle continues.
Is it a healthy cycle? Exaggerating cause and effect, does the tournament really need eleven teams from the Big East and seven teams from the Big 10? I thought the end-of-season major conference tournaments meant more than just seedings in the NCAA tourney. Who knew the eleventh-place game was the most important in the Big East tourney? What a joke! The conference tournaments aren't going anywhere: they are all great revenue producers.
Let us focus on second-place teams in mid-major conferences, particularly those in the West (from Hawaii, Pacific, or Mountain time zones). I contend that many of them have been robbed for many years. Oftentimes, strength of conference and strength of schedule are a matter of impressions, not just records.
What is the disturbing rule and related vicious cycle pertaining thereto? Selection committee members must base their questions and decisions on games they have actually seen in their entirety, whether in person, on live television, or on DVR. Four members live in the eastern time zone. Three members live in the central time zone. How many stay up late to watch live games from the West when they have full-time day jobs? How many are dedicated enough to take time from their busy schedules to watch in full games from previous nights on their DVR's? How much fun is it for anybody to watch a game in its entirety when the result is already known via the internet or newspaper?
I submit old games aren't watched much due to human nature. The drama for a competitive contest where the result is known in advance is lower than the drama during Final Jeopardy when the leader has more than double the score of his or her closest competitor. That means most discussions and questions concern central and eastern time zone schools. That, combined with the already-prevalent national media bias for Midwest and East teams, creates a perfect storm for recruits and a vicious cycle for schools in the West.
A star recruit wants to attend a power conference school, a school that receives maximum media exposure, media favoritism, and selection committee preference (subconciously or rule-related consciously). The player signs to play with a power conference team, the team flourishes in its non-conference schedule, the conference flourishes with its NCAA tournament selections, and the non-power conferences continue to decline in strength, perceived and actual. The cycle continues.
Is it a healthy cycle? Exaggerating cause and effect, does the tournament really need eleven teams from the Big East and seven teams from the Big 10? I thought the end-of-season major conference tournaments meant more than just seedings in the NCAA tourney. Who knew the eleventh-place game was the most important in the Big East tourney? What a joke! The conference tournaments aren't going anywhere: they are all great revenue producers.
Even with the expanded tournament field (from 65 to 68, although 64 is just right), BCS major conferences accounted for (hogged) 30 of the 37 at-large bids. Zzzzzzz. Wake me when it's over. I thought diversity was important, not just as a concept but as something to practice. Evidently, I'm mistaken.
Allow me to make a modest proposal that would make the NCAA basketball tournament much more exciting and diverse. At this time, there are 31 automatic bids and 37 at-large bids. I suggest that each automatic qualifying conference be given two bids, meaning there would only be five at-large bids. Three teams each from the Big East, Big 10, ACC, SEC, and Pac-10 is acceptable.
Think how much easier and faster the selection committee would have it. Seedings would still be somewhat controversial, but pairings and bracketing would be easy, too. Keeping teams from the same conference in different regional brackets would be a cinch.
Allow me to make a modest proposal that would make the NCAA basketball tournament much more exciting and diverse. At this time, there are 31 automatic bids and 37 at-large bids. I suggest that each automatic qualifying conference be given two bids, meaning there would only be five at-large bids. Three teams each from the Big East, Big 10, ACC, SEC, and Pac-10 is acceptable.
Think how much easier and faster the selection committee would have it. Seedings would still be somewhat controversial, but pairings and bracketing would be easy, too. Keeping teams from the same conference in different regional brackets would be a cinch.
What is the best reason for making this proposal a reality? It would make college basketball more like college football in that every game would count. Teams from power conferences couldn't just coast through the regular season and conference tournament knowing they would qualify for the Big Dance as long as they finished with a record above .500. It also wouldn't penalize teams and players from mid-major conferences who might steamroll through the regular season but lose a tournament bid on a fluke last-second shot against them in a conference tournament game.
With the new rule, both the regular season champ and the conference tournament champ would qualify for the Big Dance if they were two different teams. If they were the same team, then the second conference qualifier would be the team with the second-best conference record percentage-wise, including conference tournament games.
I also propose eliminating the games-in-their-entirety viewing rule which works against teams in the West without national reputations (meaning every school except UCLA, Arizona, and Gonzaga). I suggest that highlights from ESPN or another media outlet should suffice so more committee members could at least get some cursory knowledge of all of the conferences in the West.
With the new rule, both the regular season champ and the conference tournament champ would qualify for the Big Dance if they were two different teams. If they were the same team, then the second conference qualifier would be the team with the second-best conference record percentage-wise, including conference tournament games.
I also propose eliminating the games-in-their-entirety viewing rule which works against teams in the West without national reputations (meaning every school except UCLA, Arizona, and Gonzaga). I suggest that highlights from ESPN or another media outlet should suffice so more committee members could at least get some cursory knowledge of all of the conferences in the West.
Imagine looking forward to a 2011 NCAA championship tournament with teams like Saint Mary's, Long Beach State, Montana, Boise State, and Harvard instead of Marquette, Villanova, Michigan State, Penn State, and Vanderbilt.
In the long run, does it really matter who the bottom 32-36 teams are in the tournament when one of the favorites almost always wins? No. Therefore, make the Big Dance fun again by selecting diversity over virtual power conference tournament replays for each of the four regional brackets.
As an aside, did you know selection committee members are also responsible for assigning officials to handle the tournament games? Hopefully, the members never allow for a conflict of interest to occur on the court. With Mr. Gene Smith of The Ohio State University in charge, I'm sure there is nothing to worry about. Or is there?
In the long run, does it really matter who the bottom 32-36 teams are in the tournament when one of the favorites almost always wins? No. Therefore, make the Big Dance fun again by selecting diversity over virtual power conference tournament replays for each of the four regional brackets.
As an aside, did you know selection committee members are also responsible for assigning officials to handle the tournament games? Hopefully, the members never allow for a conflict of interest to occur on the court. With Mr. Gene Smith of The Ohio State University in charge, I'm sure there is nothing to worry about. Or is there?
No comments:
Post a Comment