Every year, there's a great amount of backseat driving after the NCAA Tournament field is announced. Questions are asked about why certain teams made it and others didn't and why this team got this seed or was sent to play there or drew this matchup. Usually the committee chair provides reasonable answers to these questions so that, even if you don't necessarily agree with their logic, the explanations make you feel comfortable enough with the bracket that was put together.
But this year, there are way too many of those questions, and the reasons given for those questionable choices didn't really do it for me. And I'm not the only one. It goes beyond the bubble teams, too. People are never satisfied with the bubble teams that make it over those that don't. There were oddities all over the bracket.
I think, this year especially, the common consensus isn't how great a job the committee did. It's more, "What were they thinking?" A few examples of what I mean...
Syracuse and Tulsa? I'm not going to get into which bubble teams I think should've made it. San Diego State, St. Bonaventure, South Carolina, Monmouth, Saint Mary's, Valparaiso, etc., all had legitimate arguments for being the field. And I agree with the committee that all of the No. 1 seeds losing in mid-major conference tournaments didn't help matters (because it dropped all those teams onto the bubble instead of in with automatic bids). But it's hard to justify putting Syracuse and Tulsa in the tournament over any of them.
Tulsa came so far out of left field that they themselves probably thought they had no shot and were preparing for an NIT game. It's also hard to justify Tulsa's selection. They got smacked by Memphis twice, including once in the American tournament, and Memphis isn't good. The committee obviously thinks very highly of The American for some reason. Tulsa was the fourth team from the conference to get in, and ineligible SMU was the best team in that league.
As confusing as the Tulsa selection is, the Syracuse choice is downright infuriating. Because not only did they put Syracuse in the tournament, they put them directly in the field. No play-in game for them. Nope, apparently the same Syracuse team that lost to eight-win St. John's and finished ninth in the ACC was better than all of those mid-major bubble teams (more on the ACC in a minute).
There are two things that really bother me about the Syracuse selection. The first is that the committee chairman pretty much admitted that they took the fact Jim Boeheim missed nine games into account. Why? Why were they rewarded for playing nine games without their coach? Especially when he missed those games because of an NCAA-issued suspension because of violations the program committed. There are plenty of valid reasons for a coach to miss games. An NCAA suspension isn't one.
What bothers me more, though, is that they gave Syracuse credit for its strength of schedule, which is inherently unfair to non-Power 5 programs. Yes, Syracuse played North Carolina and Duke and Virginia on the road. Those were conference games! ACC teams automatically have a strong schedule because they play other ACC teams. Same thing with Big Ten teams. Same thing with Pac-12 teams. Talk about non-conference strength of schedule all you want. That's fine with me. But don't give Power 5 teams credit for playing other Power 5 teams in January and February. Those are called conference games.
Likewise, they asked him directly about Monmouth, a team that pretty much everyone agreed did everything that the committee asks of mid-majors, yet still didn't get in. He said that the overriding thing that they couldn't shake about Monmouth was three losses to the bottom-200 in the RPI. Two of those three losses were conference road games! It's a little ridiculous to expect mid-majors to go undefeated in conference play just to have a shot at an at-large.
Vanderbilt and Michigan are perfectly justified in my mind. If I had my choice of the two SEC teams, I would've gone with South Carolina, especially since Vanderbilt got crushed by Tennessee in the SEC Tournament, but I can make my peace with the Commodores. Same with Michigan. They were probably out until they beat Indiana in the Big Ten Tournament. Personally, I thought they'd need to beat Purdue, too, but apparently just beating Indiana was enough.
It wasn't limited to confusing bubble selections that were difficult to justify. There are plenty of things about the bracket itself that have resulted in significant second-guessing. Such as...
Virginia over Michigan State for the fourth No. 1 seed? Oregon getting a 1-seed is fine. They were going to the West no matter what, so it doesn't really make a difference if it was as 1 or 2. But how did Virginia get one over Michigan State? The committee clearly thinks very highly of the ACC, seeing as the team that finished second in that conference in both the regular season and tournament was deemed worthy of a No. 1 seed. Over a Michigan State team that won the Big Ten regular season and tournament and is the consensus third-best team in the field behind Kansas and North Carolina.
Most people just assumed Michigan State was going to be a 1-seed, especially after they won the Big Ten Tournament. Villanova losing their 1-seed after they lost to Seton Hall at least makes sense. But what's the reason Michigan State didn't get one? At least they put Michigan State and Virginia in the same region, where the Spartans will actually be closer to home in Chicago.
Why does the Holy Cross-Southern winner have to go all the way to Spokane? Among all the things on the bracket, this is the one I found the most perplexing. The winner of the Holy Cross-Southern First Four game has to fly to Spokane to play Oregon. Spokane is not exactly near Dayton.
They needed a Friday site. I understand that much. And Oregon is the only 1-seed with a Friday game, which made Spokane their only option. (Had Villanova beaten Seton Hall, I'm sure they would've gotten the winner in Brooklyn on Friday.) But this is definitely a problem of their own making, and it's one that's easily solved. You know how? Making Michigan State a 1-seed! Michigan State is playing in St. Louis, which is significantly closer to Dayton than Spokane. They also could've put Kansas in St. Louis instead of Des Moines (and Kansas, as the No. 1 overall seed, theoretically should play a First Four winner).
For that matter, why is Kansas in the South instead of the Midwest when Louisville and Chicago are approximately the same distance from Lawrence? Now they have Virginia making a significantly longer trip to play a virtual road game against Michigan State in the Regionals. And don't tell me they didn't move Villanova out of the East on purpose. The Regional is in Philadelphia. They were protecting North Carolina from having to play the Wildcats on what's essentially their home floor.
Some of the stuff involving seedings and who's playing where I can make my peace with much more easily. Making that bracket can't be easy, so the committee does have my utmost respect for doing that job. Except this year, they left themselves open to much more second-guessing than usual. And the answers to those questions weren't great.
No comments:
Post a Comment