Taking the fun out of March Madness
by Craig Powers on Mar 14, 2009 10:41 AM PDT
Email
PrintI just watched Binghamton beat UMBC to secure their conference's automatic bid the the NCAA tournament. It was a great moment, the crowd rushed the floor and the fans were celebrating as if they had just won the national title. Usually I love watching these things, they remind me of similar moments I've had as a fan.
Not today.
I woke up in time to watch the last 4 minutes or so of this game. What I saw was not good basketball. Binghamton was up 6 with around 2 minutes left holding the ball after securing an offensive rebound. So what did they do? Fadeaway 17 footer with 25 seconds on the shot clock. Not to be outdone, UMBC ran straight down the court and threw it out of bounds off a player that wasn't even looking for a pass. Almost every possession I saw was a bad one. The teams were not fundamentally sound and full of undersized players at every position. Now, some of this may be explained by the fact that these teams were playing their third game in three nights, but I digress.
So where is Binghamton ranked by Ken Pomeroy?
162.
To put that in perspective, Oregon is ranked at 153.
The main purpose of the Pomeroy ratings is to predict how teams will perform against each other. So according to those numbers, the worst team (by far) in the Pac 10 would probably beat the best team in the America East.
WSU, without a doubt, would handle Binghamton easily. There are a lot of bubble and just outside the bubble teams from major and mid-major conferences that would do the same. So the system of auto-bids is just assuring that the best 65 teams in the country will not be participating in the tournament.
Obviously, the NCAA has realized this and that is why they added that play-in game the Tuesday before the 64 team tournament start. (By the way, if you are a 16 seed, wouldn't you rather play in that play-in game? If you win, you get to say you have a ".500" record in the NCAA tournament!)
Does this mean that I am against these auto-bids for low major conferences? Not really. It does make it harder to accept the fact that the Cougs might not be playing next week and the America East, SWAC, and Sun Belt champs will be. However, I know these "cinderellas" are what make College Basketball superior to College Football. The BCS ensures that only a handful of teams will have an opportunity to play meaningful postseason games. Conferences tournaments ensure that every team in the country (unless you are in the Ivy League) will have a chance to get into the tournament.
So the best we have as Coug fans is the knowledge that these low-major teams would have absolutely no answer for Aron Baynes in the post and the 6'6" Klay Thompson out on the wing.
Let's also give Binghamton thanks for winning their conference tournament, because that is one less auto bid that will be handed out for the NIT.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wasn't the play-in game added because a 32nd conference was created?
And they didn’t lower the number of auto-bids afterwards?
Thank you
I forgot about the 32nd conference.
This is where per game statistics go to die.
CougCenter
by Craig Powers on Mar 14, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, I definitley don't think college basketball is superior to college football.
I love both post season formats. I probably like this a little more, but I like that they’re both unique and I like the college football regular season more. But, that argument only goes to nasty places so I probably shouldn’t have even said it.
Also, if my school was from an awful conference, I would much rather go to the actual tournament to lose to a #16 than risk not getting there at all by losing on Tuesday. I don’t know how the players feel, though.
I agree they are both unique
My point was college basketball is superior in terms of nearly every team (except Ivys and indys) has a shot to go to the postseason at the end of the year. I’m not saying all those teams should be in the postseason, but the fact that they do makes it a lot of fun for the fans. In terms of the in game fan experience for CBB and CFB, I think it is a wash. They are both entertaining to watch.
This is where per game statistics go to die.
CougCenter
by Craig Powers on Mar 14, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Why not add more play-in games?
It’s not a bad idea, the tournament needs to embrace it. They should have either 4 or 8 play in games to add 3 or 7 at large bids. The idea is all the 16 seeds would have to play in, and if you want to expand it more, then the 15 seeds would as well. These bad teams that would just get beaten by a one seed would instead get an ESPN game on Tuesday/Wednesday and the get some national exposure. It doesn’t ruin brackets because nobody is picking 16 or 15 seeds to upset. There is no easy or agreeable way to expand the tournament to 128 or 96. Adding play-in games is the best way to add to the tournament without messing with the fundamentals of what makes it great.
Not that I completely disagree...
But it would be an impossible sell to the low major conferences. While an ESPN game on national TV sounds like a great deal, it doesn’t compare with a game against a #1 seed on CBS. I can’t imagine them agreeing to it, as it would lead to teams that get automatic bids being relegated to these play in games because they are low major conferences with horrible RPI’s. And it will result in these teams/conferences getting less exposure as those games wouldn’t be highly watched.
Again, in theory I think your idea makes sense, but if I were alum from a small school in a low major conference, I would hate to see my conference commissioner sell out the one chance I have to see my team automatically earn some exposure and see us play against the big boys.
Two points-
1. The 1/16 2/15 match ups are usually just shown locally. CBS usually opts for the games with close match ups or potential upsets. Therefore, those schools usually don’t get that much exposure out of one game, although like you said they do get their shot at the big boys. I think a game on national television plus the game against the 1 seed for the winner is pretty good exposure.
2. Many people gripe about the automatic bids, but I think they need to stay. Its part of what makes march madness start with the conference tournaments, not with selection Sunday. But, these small conferences can’t assume everyone in the country wants them taking up spots that could go to better teams. I don’t know what the rules are for who needs to agree to adding play-in games, but I don’t think some small conferences could prevent the changes.
They really don't have to agree to anything
The major conferences are the only ones with enough power to object to anything. Do you think the small majors agreed to the play-in game with a smile?
My only argument against this is this: When was the last time you saw one of those teams that just snuck into the tournament actually win it? The lowest seed to ever win the tournament was Villanova as an 8 seed … in 1985. So explain to me why we should work so hard to get more mediocre high major teams into the field? I understand the idea of trying to get the best 64 teams, but would it really make that much of a difference in the outcome of the tournament?
George Mason didn't just sneak in
They were their conference champ. I’m talking about the big majors that get one of those last few at-large bids.
by Jeff Nusser on Mar 15, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
George Mason was an at-large
I’m pretty sure of that.
This is where per game statistics go to die.
CougCenter
by Craig Powers on Mar 15, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I just checked the past champs
The only years GMU has won recently are 01 and 08
This is where per game statistics go to die.
CougCenter
by Craig Powers on Mar 15, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
My bad
OK, so twice in the last 25 years an at-large team that was considered a bubble team did serious damage in the tournament. (LSU was an 11th seed in 1986.) Hardly a convincing argument for figuring out ways to get even more teams into the tournament.
by Jeff Nusser on Mar 15, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
While it's frustrating to know teams we could beat will play on...
It’s what makes the tournament the tournament.
Warning, rant against major conference arrogance coming:
WSU, I love thee, but you don’t deserve the tournament this year. You wouldn’t win the whole thing, and you probably wouldn’t make it to the second weekend. And that’s true of a lot of teams ranked in the KenPom top 50 that will not see their names in the brackets. Yes, WSU is probably one of the 64 best teams in the country, but the disparity between us and the best in our conference is big enough, and our conference isn’t the best in the country this year.
Here is what it comes down to for me. The little guys need a chance too, and they shouldn’t see that taken away just because teams in big conferences that are better, but have just as small a chance of winning the whole thing, feel they are getting the short end. 65 teams is plenty, if more mid-low major conferences come into existence then they need to agree to become a play in type conference and add play in games. Otherwise, don’t mess with it. I wish we had earned a bid this year, but we finished 7th in our conference. We still had a chance, but we lost in the tournament. I am railing against my school only because I see us as an example of the bigger problem. I truly think that if you can’t finish in the top half of your conference, you don’t deserve in. Whether it’s the Big East, ACC, or Pac 10, you don’t really deserve more than 50 percent of your teams in the dance. And the reason is this; if you can’t finish in the top half of your conference, or manage to win your conference tourney, you can assume you are not going to win the national title. Neither are the low major and mid major teams, but they deserve as much of a chance as anyone. The tournament should not follow footballs example and become more exclusive (the BCS conferences) in an effort to make money and strengthen the reputation of the big time teams.
I agree it's important to include the low-major teams
It also allows new teams to emerge as national players. Teams like Gonzaga and Butler, who may have never gotten the national exposure neccessary to sustain a winning program and be a force in recruiting if it wasn’t for the chance to play in the NCAA tournament. That also has a trickle down effect. WCC schools can tell their recruits they will be on ESPN playing Gonzaga atleast once a year, and that is something to get excited about.
I was just displaying some of that major conference arrogance that you rightfully ranted against, and I was a bit disgusted at the play I saw from a team that was supposedly “NCAA tournament quality” and know the Cougs would be a higher quality opponent. Probably a product of the nervousness I am feeling thinking that I may have seen Aron Baynes and Taylor Rochestie play for the last time.
This is where per game statistics go to die.
CougCenter
by Craig Powers on Mar 14, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
and trust me...
I’m every bit as nervous/sad/frustrated to think that Taylor, Aron and Daven might go out with that game against UCLA. After the run they gave us at the end of the year, it would be too bad to see Taylor especially end his career with that performance.
But the Gonzaga, Butler (and possibly soon to be Davidson) point is exactly what I was getting at. Love the Zags or hate them, without their recent success the WCC would be a conference destined for play in games if the tournament went that direction. And college basketball is better as a whole product if there are small, lower budget schools that can make runs and compete. I would hate to do anything to lose the George Mason run, or Davidson last year, times when teams we’ve never heard of make it happen in March.
Hear hear
If you want to expand the field to try and have the best 64 teams through the at large selection process, you’ve got to address the inequities in nonconference scheduling so that everyone has a level playing field.
Given that March Madness is basically the best sporting event around, outside of periodic ones
like the Olympics and the World Cup… why on earth would anyone ever mess with it?
With the exception of the play-in game, which should just be eliminated (really— would it kill us not to see SDSU or Arizona or whoever?), I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
i think that's the big difference between football and basketball
the first team left out of the bcs generally can make a convincing argument as to how they could win the national championship in a playoff. The last bubble team in March generally can’t ever make this claim.
I don’t think the dance has ever been about finding the best 65 teams, nor does it want to be. The players at Binghamton are going to be able to tell their kids about how they won their conference title and how they got to stare down Pitt on national television. Wazzu already had their chance to do that this season.
I don’t know what my point is….other than the tournament should be left alone.
For me, just as a fan....
I love watching teams like Binghamton make the tournament. Having the NIT and CBI takes the sting out of it for teams like the Cougs.
I’m glad ‘The Dance’ was expanded to 64. I remember back to my days at Wazzu when it was only the Pac-8 champs (Ucla was in the midst of 7 consecutive National Championships) that advanced. Ucla only had to win 4 games I believe to win it all. It has evolved into something really special and I think the powers-to-be got it right.
Blame it on Tony (*sarcasm*)
If we really wanted to be upset with somebody because we are not in the tournament, then maybe we could target TB himself. We could of played some cupcakes in our non-conference but he wanted to prepare his young team. Even he himself wasn’t thinking we would be a tournament team this year, so I don’t think we should be too upset that we are 7-10 teams away from March Madness. I think we over-achieved in every sense of the word. The only thing that was unpredictable was that the PAC would be relatively weak and (balanced from 1-9).
As for the tournament, I have no problem with the current setup. Ideally I would want all crappy teams to have to play each other for the right to play the better teams, but they basically do that all season long and really it would just turn into a big mess.
My ideal setup – play the NIT before March Madness. Make it a tournament of mid-major/low-major championship teams looking to prove themselves- regular season champs get auto bids other spots are determined by committee. Don’t necessarily play the tournament all the way through though, just get it to the top 8. After accounting for all the major conference champions you then do the selection process with the understanding that the Elite Eight of the NIT now have automatic bids along with any major conference tournament champions.
Basically this would do two things – it would help mid-major and low-major teams better control their budgets by eliminating their conference championship tournaments which seem to cost more money in travel rather than earn them money; in exchange for splitting the revenue of the NIT. Secondly, you still have 8 teams that would be considered the Cinderellas and bracket busters of the NCAA tourney, and a few additional teams potentially could/would get NCAA at-large bids still.
So, I think this would be a compromise that would see more major conference teams get into the tourney (the same ones who would probably be in the NIT with the current setup), while saving some expenses for low-majors, getting them a few extra games in each year, and potentially giving 8-10 teams the double whammy of playing in two tourneys each year.
by LeaveItToWeaver on Mar 15, 2009 12:58 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
