NCAA Tournament

Drexel and Syracuse were the biggest snubs. How 2 teams that finished behind Syracuse in the Big East got in, but they didn't, is ridiculous. Drexel won 14 road games and beat some of the teams that got in the tournament, i.e. Villanova at Villanova.

The 2 most undeserving teams were Arkansas and Illinois. Both of these teams beat some of the better teams in their conference, but conferences that were down this year, Florida notwithstanding in the SEC.

 

Syracuse and WV got jobbed. Stanford and Arkansas should be home. But having said that, the Cuse and WV had the chance to get in and lost in their tournament so they can't exactly complain. The moral of the story is Never depend on a committee to get you in.

 

Only the top 16 teams have a realistic chance of winning the tourament. It's not like the teams the talking heads are complaining about being allegedly snubbed would win the tournament.

The way to get rid of these discussions about who shouldn't have been left out or who shouldn't have been let in is to add one more week and two more rounds to the tournament so that the field can be expanded to 256 teams.

If team number 257 wants to still complain, well, that's just tough for them.

 

I'm changing my opinion on this. When I wrote that about Drexel yesterday, I noted that Syracuse finished ahead of 2 teams that made the tournmanet. Well, Drexel finished 4th in their conference. 2 of the teams ahead of them made it, but Hofstra didn't. If my argument holds about Syracuse, then it should hold for Hofstra, but I don't hear anybody saying that Hofstra should get in. Thus, I have to assume that my original premise about Syracuse is wrong and that the committee got it right. Pastor Larry said it best. Don't count on the committee to get you into the tournament.

Expanding the tournament was discussed briefly on Mike&Mike this morning. Seth Davis was on and said that, during the selection process last year, the committee did discuss expanding it and quickly realized that it's not a good idea to expand.

Everytime I hear this discussion come up, I have to wonder, is the tournament broken? Does it need to be fixed? Do we really need to see #1 vs. #256? Most of the #1 vs. #16 games are terrible as it is. You add another week or 2 to the tournament and suddenly, it's not as interesting. I'm looking at the Sagarin ratings used by USAToday and the 256th ranked team is Northern Illinois, weighing in with a record of 6-23. Do we really need to see Kansas vs. Northern Illinois, Florida vs. Coastal Carolina (11-15), and a whole raft of other pointless games?

Let's learn something from the MLB, NBA and others. Adding more teams to a league, or a tournament, doesn't make it better. 3 weeks is long enough for the NCAA Tournament. You add more weeks, and more bad games, and people will tune out. Guarantee it. Adding more teams to the NCAA Tournament would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

I don't follow your logic on this, Tom.

I don't see how it makes games more competitive. Bad teams getting blown out by good teams doesn't make for more competitive games. The prestige of making a tournament of 64 teams doesn't count as much if it were 96 teams. Line the pockets of universities and networks is a worthy goal for expanding the tournament? I just don't see that at all.

What qualifies the NCAA Tournament as broken anyway? Just because 3 or 4 teams on the bubble weren't selected? I just don't see a good reason to expand the tournament beyond 64 teams.

 

If this were true, then a team like Jackson State wouldn't be playing in the tournament. Their first 4 games this season were against tournament teams 'Bama, Ga. Tech, Illinois and Memphis. The closest game was a 21 point loss to the Illini. On a neutral court, they wouldn't beat a team like Drexel that many consider to have been snubbed. If this were about the best 65 teams, what is Jackson State doing in the tournament?

The point of a tournament is not to determine who the best team is, but to crown a champion. Often, the best team wins the championship. But, there have been several years where the best team going in didn't win the tournament. The point of the tournament is to a) pick the best teams and have them play to crown a champion, and b) reward schools with some bucks for winning a conference championship and letting them play in a national tournament.

Which is more prestigious? Making a 65 team field? Or, winning a couple of games and making it to 16? If you open up to 96, it becomes even less prestigious just to make the field.

 

Niagra over Fla. A & M.

March Madness is officially underway. So far my picks are 1 for 1.

Kinda' figure that percentage won't last, hunh?

Ed

 

I think so as well. It almost happened in 1989 when Princeton nearly beat Georgetown. But, just because it almost happened doesn't mean that the 1 v 16 games are good games.

Has the committee stated that they are putting the best 65 teams in the tournament? I'm not sure that I've ever heard that. I believe that their goal is to pick the best teams from the "at-large" pool, which is a different thing.

Picking on Jackson State, just because I looked them up and remember their record, they got blown out against their 4 games against tournament teams. Drexel beat 2 tournament teams. Is Jackson State a better team than Drexel, or Syracuse? I don't think so, and I'd be extremely surprised if anybody on the committee thinks such.

Easily. I don't have any problem with the best 65 teams not being in the tournament because I don't think that's the goal. If the stated goal of the NCAA is to have the best 65 teams in the country in the tournament, then the tournament needs to change to meet this goal. Again, there's no way that Jackson State, or any of the other #16 seeds, are a better team than Syracuse.

As far as the prestige argument goes, when the requirements to enter the tournament are reduced, I think prestige is lost.

 

I don't see how adding more teams wouldn't effectively lessen the requirements for entry.

 

They are completely related.

Let's say that an RPI of 100 gets you into the field of 64, but an RPI of 125 doesn't. The current at-large pool is 33. If the field expands to 96, the at-large pool becomes 65. Now, a team with an RPI of 125 makes it where they wouldn't have made it with a field of 64.