NCAA Tournament Rant!

by johnnycougar on Mar 16, 2009 12:03 PM PDT

I just had to go on a mini-rant about a few NCAA things. If you disagree with me please let me know in the comments and hopefully we can discuss these things rationally, unlike what the talking heads and print media seem to be doing.

1) The Claim: Washington got a tough draw. My Answer: Bull. MSU is rated 60th by KenPom, and for all this hype about their shot blocking prowess they are only 59th in Defensive Efficiency. Do you want to know who is insanely better than that? WSU! 31st by ranking and 6th by Defense. Oh and USC (27th, 19th), and ASU (12th, 36th). Heck, even Stanford has better numbers. UW swept all of those teams in the regular season. Wazzu took care of MSU on a neutral floor by double digits.

Okay, so MSU definitely isn't that great a team by the season-long numbers. What's your argument then? That they won the SEC tournament by beating good teams en route to four straight victories? I didn't see Georgia do anything special in the tournament last year after doing exactly that. All teams that won their conference tournaments are on a roll right now, what are you going to do? All the other 13 seeds have similar accomplishments, although not against as good of teams. Please note however that the SEC received exactly TWO at large bids this year, same as that other noted power conference the Atlantic 10.

So what can you then argue? That MSU is the best of the #13 seeds? Fine, I'll agree with that, tough luck. You couldn't have a rematch against Portland State but in some ways they could be more dangerous in the tournament anyways (catching fire from 3). Akron or Cleveland State could have been better matchups. But in general UW can't complain about their bracket position. The Committee pairs up the "worst" #1 seed with the "best" #2, and everyone is assuming Memphis is the best #2 which means UConn is the worst #1 seed. If UW can make the Sweet 16 (which I believe is their minimum expectation) then they have the most favorable matchup of any of the #4 seeds.

2) The Claim: St. Mary's got snubbed. My Answer: Maybe, but not for the reasons the majority of people are claiming. The reason I hear most often is "mid-major snub" especially in relation to Arizona making it in. I will address Arizona later, but let's just see if St. Mary's is really a tournament team first.

Starting with Ken Pomeroy again, St. Mary's is 61st, right behind Miss. St. as it turns out. Teams below them that made the tournament as an at large: ZERO. As a side note, by looking at the rankings right around them you can almost fill out the NIT bracket - Auburn 53, VA Tech 57, Tulsa 58, South Carolina 63, Northwestern 66, Creighton 67, UNLV 69, Niagara 70, Davidson 72, Nebraska 73, etc. Anyways, teams above them that had a realistic shot of making the tournament but didn't: San Diego State, Tulsa, VA Tech, Kentucky, Auburn, Baylor, UAB, Kansas State and New Mexico.

So just by Pomeroy's statistics St. Mary's didn't deserve to be in. Let's look at some more traditional numbers. RPI 48th, SOS 159, 2-3 against RPI Top 50 (beating Utah State and San Diego State). Those numbers are okay, typical bubble team numbers. Their best win was against an #11 seed in the tournament. I think the main thing to take away here is that they didn't schedule very many good teams and didn't do particularly well against the ones they did. Some of that was without Patty Mills, I get that. But he didn't convince the committee that he was back from his injury, and I think that ended up being the difference. They got absolutely creamed by Gonzaga in their conference tournament just a few days ago - if Mills was healthy, then apparently they're just not that good a team; and if he wasn't fully recovered, is he really going to get all better by Thursday?

I know that the NIT committee isn't composed of the same people as the NCAA one, but I believe they have similar ideals for selection and seeding. St. Mary's wasn't considered by them to even be in the "next four out" since they got a #2 seed. We don't even know if they were the top #2, and it is conceivable that the committee thought they were the eighth best team not in the NCAA's. Look at the #1 seeds and tell me if you think their profile is any less deserving than St. Mary's:

Auburn: RPI 63, SOS 59, 2-4 against Top 50 (beating Florida and LSU)

Creighton: RPI 40, SOS 111, 2-2 against Top 50 (beating Dayton and Illinois State)

San Diego State: RPI 35, SOS 35, 2-6 against Top 50 (beating Utah and BYU)

Florida: RPI 52, SOS 94, 1-5 vs. Top 50 (beating only UW)

Combining RPI-type and KenPom numbers, you could easily argue that San Diego State (34 KP) or Auburn (53 KP) deserved inclusion ahead of St. Mary's (61 KP). Actually strictly by the numbers there is no way San Diego State should feel less snubbed than St. Mary's. Which brings me to:

3) The Claim: Arizona didn't deserve to be in. My Answer: I agree, but here's why they were included. 39 KP, 62 RPI, 36 SOS, 6-10 (!) against Top 50, meaning half their games were against Top 50 RPI and maybe you can start to see why they only got 19 wins total. The only legitimate beef with the numbers is their lack of road wins, which I didn't go into with the other teams because this is already long enough as it is. I understand that road wins are important, and in fact it is on this point that I personally agree with those who say Arizona shouldn't have made it. But evidently that wasn't that big a deal to The Committee, perhaps deciding that the games in the tournament are either neutral or semi-road, or perhaps deciding that the overall schedule and results compensated for no notable road victories.

Just by the numbers, San Diego State is the only team that can top Arizona. I am willing to hear arguments about that of course, but really it's not that big of a shock that they were included. We heard MANY times this year about "body of work" and perhaps that's why the late faltering / tiring of the Wildcats was considered less important. I cannot emphasize this enough: The selection has nothing to do with major conference bias or name recognition, something which multiple articles regarding the selection procedure have addressed. For reference, check here. Actually, I recommend everyone read that article (by the excellent Andy Katz) even if you are only curious rather than angry with me for my arguments!

This FanPost does not necessarily reflect the views of the site's writers or editors, who may not have verified its accuracy. It does, however, reflect the views of this particular fan, which is just as important as the views of our writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Pretty much agree with your entire assessment

Arizona is a known quantity. At this point, you know that the Wildcats can beat good teams, and you just don’t know that about St. Mary’s, Creighton and San Diego State.

It’s unfortunate St. Mary’s had Mills get hurt, but it’s also unfortunate that the Cougs had to break in a bunch of freshmen this year. The Gaels were probably one of the top 34 at large teams in December; the Cougs probably are one of the top 34 at large teams right now. Neither belongs in the tournament. Tough crap.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 16, 2009 2:19 PM PDT reply actions

My take

1. Yeah, they did get a tough draw. MSU is better then any other 13 seed, and half the 12 seeds. This doesn’t mean UW is going to lose, just that they get a tougher matchup then the Zags, for example. It may be beneficial and help keep them focused, knowing they are playing a hot team.

2. Agreed

3. I would go for the team that played 16 tough games vs. a team that played 5. The selection crew agree.

by peaty411s on Mar 16, 2009 2:27 PM PDT reply actions

3. So why don't you just declare that only major conference teams are eligible for at-larges?

St. Mary’s cannot get 16 top 50 opponents. Under any circumstances. Will not happen. That “argument” is just blaming the victim.

No one really believes that St. Mary’s is “better” than Arizona. The argument for them is based on fairness, not on skill. The system as it stands is massively stacked in favor of BCS conference teams. If you think that’s a good thing, then fine. I don’t understand why, but fine. If you think that having more competitive conferences and programs is a good thing, then small conference “affirmative action” is a good idea.

The arguments are really exactly the same as for affirmative action in schools and businesses— which I’m also in favor of— but the difference is that unlike government, the NCAA is not a democracy but a plutocracy owned and controlled by the richest teams. It’s more akin to the Jim Crow south (with small-conference teams playing the role of sharecroppers— and yes, the fact that the HBCU conferences [SWAC and MEAC] routinely come in at the bottom of the power rankings is ironic but hardly a coincidence) than modern America.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Mar 16, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions

I like your style

This is where per game statistics go to die.

CougCenter

by Craig Powers on Mar 16, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the argument was that if Arizona played a similar schedule to St. Mary's

They’d have the same or better record than the Gaels. But I see what you’re saying. Until the NCAA starts to address the inequities in scheduling, you’re going to have inequities in the postseason selection process. You can’t ignore the trend away from them in terms of at-large berths over the past seven years.

However, Is it because midmajors are getting less good? Or is it because of some kind of collusion? I can’t really speak to past years, but I just think this was a bad year for midmajors. Just not the quality out there.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 16, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Good point

Nuss is right in how I meant to approach the argument. I hear a lot of yammering about 26 Wins vs. 13 Losses, or how Arizona had no meaningful road wins, and I meant to point out that Arizona played a much much harder schedule than St. Mary’s and thus deserved it more.

I agree that there is no way with our current system that St. Mary’s can play 16 top 50 teams in a season. But they can certainly play more than 5, especially when at least two (vs. Gonzaga) and often 3 are built into the schedule. Some other “mid majors” scheduling against the Top 50: Utah had 10 games, Xavier had 9, Sienna had 7, Gonzaga had 9, BYU had 8, Temple had 7, SDSU had 8, Northern Iowa had 7, New Mexico had 8, UNLV had 9…. At least meet me halfway here St. Mary’s!

And looking down the list, by the way, most major conference teams don’t have Arizona’s 16, it looks like 12-13 is more common.

Tony Bennett for Heisman!

by johnnycougar on Mar 16, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Saint Mary's has a totally different mindset than Gonzaga

If they would follow their lead somewhat they would get more respect nationally, not just when they have a standout player. That’s just not enough to hang your hat on, IMO.

by SW WA Coug on Mar 16, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions

There's a downside to that, too

If you schedule tough and have a rough go of it, you really kill yourself — imagine if the Cougs had scheduled only Baylor and Gonzaga instead of additionally playing Pitt and LSU? Imagine what a difference two more wins would have made as we got closer to selection time.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 16, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions

You are right, but in the WCC

You have to take the opportunity to showcase your program like Gonzaga has done. Otherwise, even if you do schedule cupcakes all season, 26 wins gets you NIT. It happens all the time.

It’s a whole different situation for a Pac-10 team. think we get punished less for a tough schedule than a member of a weak conference does for playing relative weak schedules. Make sense? Two more wins still makes us 8-10 in our conference and from what I recollect, no member with less than a 10-8 before this season ever played in the Big Dance. Maybe it was 9-9.

by SW WA Coug on Mar 16, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions

AZ was 9-9 last year too

This is where per game statistics go to die.

CougCenter

by Craig Powers on Mar 16, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions

OK, so

St. Mary’s plays 9 opponents. All of the extra 4 are going to be on the road, because that’s the only way they can possibly get the games. They probably lose 3 of 4, maybe all 4. Best case, they end up 3-6 against the top 50. Worst case, 2-7. How is that better than 2-3?

It’s a lose-lose situation. By contrast, Arizona played virtually no relevant opponents outside the state of Arizona. It’s pretty damn easy to pick up 6 wins in 16 against the top 50 when you play two-thirds of those games at home.

Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"

by PaulThomas on Mar 17, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions

That's not the only way they can get the games

They can also play in tournaments at neutral sites. Which they did this year, but screwed up their chances by blowing it against UTEP.

And it’s not a lose-lose situation. Gonzaga has shown in the past that even if you lose some of those games, you’re still showing the committee something. They haven’t won the WCC tournament every year in those last 11 they’ve made it into the Tournament. Last year, they lost in the championship but were a seven seed even with seven losses (four to ranked teams). In 2002-03, they got in the tournament as a No. 9 seed with nine losses.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 17, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually, they had eight losses before losing to No. 1 seeded Arizona in the second round that year

Sorry.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 17, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the NCAA tournament is

the most fair to the weaker teams then any other postseason tournament in sports. What other tournament guarantees about 20 teams a chance at the big tournament that would otherwise not have a chance? Everyone agrees better teams are left out because of automatic bids of weak conferences. For the record, I love the automatic bids for those conferences, they are a big part of what makes march madness. But when it comes to at large bids, give them to the best teams. If you think St. Mary’s is the better team, great, but lets not give them the bid over AZ or Wisconsin because they are from a weaker conference.

by peaty411s on Mar 16, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions

If the Cougs take care of business at Saint Mary's

It will totally justify Arizona making it to the dance. In the final analysis, even with the best data available, it’s a totally subjective issue. I love all the discussion about it, it’s what gives this time of the year it’s special meaning.

I can’t believe how favorably it worked out for us IF we take care of business. We MAY get a chance to make a huge statement against Saint Mary’s and Davidson. One can only hope.

by SW WA Coug on Mar 16, 2009 4:12 PM PDT reply actions