Loading ...
The Tournaments before the Tournament
By Mike
Last week, the NCAA Selection Committee revealed their bracket for the 2009 NCAA Tournament. There was, as always, lots of debate about who should have gotten in but didn’t, or vice versa. But there was relatively little debate about two things that stuck out clearly in my mind: the choice of the number one seeds and the selection of Maryland as a tournament team. To me, the arguments that would justify one of the decisions would immediately undermine the arguments for the other.
Of the four number 1 seeds, Louisville was the only team to win their conference tournament. North Carolina lost after winning just one game, while Pittsburgh and Connecticut were each bounced in their first game. Does a team that loses in the quarterfinal stage still deserve to be a top seed in the NCAA Tournament? The committee resoundingly replied “Yes.” Apparently, they felt that a poor showing in the conference tournament should not negatively affect teams that have played at the highest level throughout the season.
But now, we take the case of Maryland. The Terps were under .500 in conference play, but won two games in the ACC tournament before losing to Duke in the semifinals. Would a strong showing in the ACC Tournament be enough to erase an entire season of mediocrity? The selection committee again resoundingly replied “Yes,” giving Maryland a 10 seed in the tournament. Something doesn’t add up.
Does the conference tournament matter or not? If it does matter, then Duke should have definitely gotten a number one seed over Pittsburgh or Connecticut. If the tournaments are irrelevant, then Maryland’s win over Wake Forest should have come as too little, too late. Which does the committee want to reward: Strong play throughout, or playing well in March?
I don’t know what the selection committee should do. But I do know that they have on occasion used seedings to punish teams who were locks for the tournament but they felt didn’t do things the right way (See: Georgetown 2000-01 team.) If they are reluctant to downplay the conference tournaments, then they should have the nerve to say, ‘if you can’t fight for your own conference title, you should not get the honor of a number one seed.’
Share with other Hoyas: 
| |
|
|
|
March 25th, 2009 at 9:27 am
What about Providence? They were 10-8 in the Big East and didn’t get a bid. The ACC stinks, like always. Duke and UNC are good, everyone else is average at best- see Clemson, FSU, Wake, BC, and MD. Why should a below .500 team in the ACC (Maryland) get in over an above .500 team in the Big East (Providence). Providence beat Pitt, MD beat UNC. Providence had to play 3 #1 seeds and 2 #3 seeds. MD had 7 wins in the conference, only one of which was to a tournament team. Their other wins were GT twice, UVA, VT, MIA, and NC State. That’s not a solid resume. Providence at least also beat Syracuse. The process is terrible. For the final picks, the committee just chooses who they like, end of story.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I like Zo’s rant (er, Zo’s thinking). Maybe Maryland should have gotten in but a 10th seed? I think the committee definitely puts the “bubble” teams they pick for the tournament in a position to win the first game so they are justified. Also the seeds are a win-win proposition for the selection commitee. After winning a first round game you hear the comments for “bubble” teams, they proved they belong by winning. You never hear anyone say, “that 3 seed lost in the first round, they should never have gotten in.” If a low seed advances then they’re happy, if the higher seed wins it proves they seeded the tournament correctly.
I’ll go Zo one further on conference play and say that no team in any conference should get into the tournament if they have a sub-500 conference record except by winning their tournament and securing the automatic bid. If they don’t like playing in the Big East, ACC, SEC, etc. then join Conference USA!
(sorry for the long post, talk about a rant)