Well, none of the three big cinderellas were able to continue their storybook runs past the round of 16, something that honestly surprised me. But what surprised me in particular, more than the fact that they lost, was how these teams' leaders, after displaying top-notch performances in the first two rounds and leading their respective teams to uncharted territory, played so poorly in the Sweet 16. Both Cornell's Ryan Wittman and Northern Iowa's Ali Farokhmanesh badly faltered. And by badly faltered, I mean they looked like they had forgotten how to play basketball. Farokhmanesh, after missing seven free throws all season, missed three against Michigan State and missed all but two of his nine field-goal attempts. Wittman similarly had a night to forget, as he finished 3 for 10 from the field after going 7 for 10 and 10 for 15 in the first two rounds of the tourney. As for St. Mary's? Well, their entire team just didn't show up, as the Gaels trailed Baylor 46-17 at the half before succumbing to the Bears by a 23-point margin.
Look, I understand that these three teams were playing out of their minds up until this point, and it would have been unrealistic to expect them to keep up that level of play. But that still doesn't make it any less puzzling when you consider the extent to which these teams, and their best players, struggled in the Sweet 16. Maybe it was the hype doted on them by an adoring media, maybe it was the pressure of keeping their improbable rides going, I don't know. All I know is that Ryan Wittman is better than what he showed against Kentucky, and Ali Farokhmanesh is better than what he showed against Michigan State. When you consider that Cornell, despite a terrible first thirty-five minutes, trailed Kentucky by only six with 5 minutes to play, and that Northern Iowa was neck-and-neck with State until the final minute or so, you realize that these two teams could have won had their best players had even average games.
Anyway, all is not lost for the mid-majors, as Butler, in its typical workmanlike fashion, took out both Syracuse and Kansas State to reach its first Final Four in school history. Even better, Butler will get to play its remaining games in downtown Indianapolis, a mere seven miles away from campus. Of course, the loveable underdog theme has been played up non-stop since Saturday, especially since the Bulldogs play their home games in the same place (Hinkle Fieldhouse, it's called -- doesn't that sound like just the perfect home court name for a loveable underdog?) as the legendary movie Hoosiers was filmed. It should be great, with Butler going against a tradition-rich power conference team in Michigan State, which could be followed by a national championship game against an even more tradition-rich program in Duke. Whether the Bulldogs play one more game this season or two, they will undoubtedly have almost everyone in 70,000-seat Lucas Oil Stadium, as well as the large majority of the country, on their side.
This is what makes March Madness great -- having a team like Butler, who almost nobody predicted would make it here, in the Final Four. I find it ridiculous listening to people like Gary Parrish of CBSSports.com (bonehead sports writers at CBS -- seems to be a trend here these past couple of weeks), who wrote in his latest column that "the nation would be more excited to watch a Kentucky-Kansas title game than, say, a Duke-Butler title game. No question about that." Really, Gary? No question? Because at least for me, and I suspect many other sports fans across the country, we'd rather see a championship game between two true teams than a star-studded matchup that features players doing little more than auditioning for the NBA. I watched the Wildcats and Jayhawks get bounced from this tournament, and they looked awful. Selfish play. No semblance of teamwork. Just individuals trying to do their thing...and failing. If Butler is able to win the national championship, it will truly demonstrate that a team whose players are willing to put their egos aside and sacrifice individual accolades for the success of the group will be the last one standing.
I hope it happens.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sweet 16 -- Year of the Underdog
When three of the 16 teams left in this year's Sweet 16 are Northern Iowa, St. Mary's, and Cornell, you know this is no ordinary March Madness. After George Mason's improbable run to the Final Four in 2006, the last three years have seen a depressingly low number of upsets. With the NCAA trying its hardest to minimize the chances of multiple mid-majors advancing past the tournament's first weekend, it's simply amazing that 11 different conferences are represented among the 16 final spots in this year's tourney.
But hopefully this is not the end. This year's three biggest cinderellas (although I'm not sure that term is appropriate anymore after watching them play) all have at least a decent shot of advancing to the Elite Eight. Here's why:
1. Northern Iowa vs. Michigan State: perhaps the biggest factor that gives the Panthers of UNI at least even chances of getting past the Spartans is due to an unfortunate circumstance, but one that will favor them immensely. Kalin Lucas, State's star point guard, ruptured his Achilles' tendon in Sunday's game against Maryland and will miss the remainder of the season. Although I would never wish an injury on a team that I'm rooting against, you gotta like what this does for Northern Iowa's chances. Lucas was the Spartans' best player, averaging 14.8 points and 4 assists on the season, and his lightning quick speed would've given the Panthers fits on defense. Korie Lucious, who hit the game-winning buzzer-beater against the Terps on Sunday, will likely start in his place. Lucious has averaged a shade over 5 points per game and doesn't have the athleticism or overall presence that Lucas has. If Northern Iowa is able to implement their game plan -- which is to slow the game down, control the tempo, and work the shot clock down for good open looks --they should be able to keep this improbable ride going to the Elite Eight.
2. St. Mary's vs. Baylor: Of the three "cinderellas", I think St. Mary's has the toughest task in its Sweet 16 matchup. Baylor is an extremely big, athletic team that should have a sizeable advantage in the post and on the boards -- not to mention in the crowd, as the Bears will be playing in Houston, just a couple hours away from home. But to count out St. Mary's at this point would be downright foolish. We saw what they could do against 'Nova. When they're hitting shots and effectively feeding the ball to Omar Samhan, they are a scary team to face. Not to mention, they're probably one of the most unselfish teams left in the tournament, exude a relaxed and confident demeanor (watching them laugh it up on the bench against Villanova, they looked like a high school-aged CYO team or something), and are pretty much playing with house money at this point. This could be the perfect storm for the tiny school from Moraga, California to pull yet another upset.
3. Cornell vs. Kentucky: I'm not gonna mince words -- this Cornell team is flat out sick. Apparently ignoramuses like CBSsports.com's Mike Freeman haven't realized it yet, though; Freeman's under the impression that Kentucky will win by at least 30. Which really makes me scratch my head. Because Cornell has already played a team of Kentucky's caliber -- none other than the Kansas Jayhawks, and the Big Red lost to them by just five. Cornell's offense is a model of efficiency. They shoot the lights out, display excellent teamwork, have a dominant -- as-in "Big 6 Conference dominant" -- seven-foot center in Jeff Foote, and have one player who speaks five languages and can solve a Rubik's cube in two minutes (wait, that last reason doesn't matter for this game? Fine, look at the first three then). Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Cornell's entry into the Sweet 16 was no fluke. Kentucky, meanwhile, while obviously ridiculously talented and athletic, is also young and undisciplined. This upset I can really see happening.
So yeah, Freeman, I'd love to bet you that your 30-point prediction will be wrong. I'll even give you odds.
But hopefully this is not the end. This year's three biggest cinderellas (although I'm not sure that term is appropriate anymore after watching them play) all have at least a decent shot of advancing to the Elite Eight. Here's why:
1. Northern Iowa vs. Michigan State: perhaps the biggest factor that gives the Panthers of UNI at least even chances of getting past the Spartans is due to an unfortunate circumstance, but one that will favor them immensely. Kalin Lucas, State's star point guard, ruptured his Achilles' tendon in Sunday's game against Maryland and will miss the remainder of the season. Although I would never wish an injury on a team that I'm rooting against, you gotta like what this does for Northern Iowa's chances. Lucas was the Spartans' best player, averaging 14.8 points and 4 assists on the season, and his lightning quick speed would've given the Panthers fits on defense. Korie Lucious, who hit the game-winning buzzer-beater against the Terps on Sunday, will likely start in his place. Lucious has averaged a shade over 5 points per game and doesn't have the athleticism or overall presence that Lucas has. If Northern Iowa is able to implement their game plan -- which is to slow the game down, control the tempo, and work the shot clock down for good open looks --they should be able to keep this improbable ride going to the Elite Eight.
2. St. Mary's vs. Baylor: Of the three "cinderellas", I think St. Mary's has the toughest task in its Sweet 16 matchup. Baylor is an extremely big, athletic team that should have a sizeable advantage in the post and on the boards -- not to mention in the crowd, as the Bears will be playing in Houston, just a couple hours away from home. But to count out St. Mary's at this point would be downright foolish. We saw what they could do against 'Nova. When they're hitting shots and effectively feeding the ball to Omar Samhan, they are a scary team to face. Not to mention, they're probably one of the most unselfish teams left in the tournament, exude a relaxed and confident demeanor (watching them laugh it up on the bench against Villanova, they looked like a high school-aged CYO team or something), and are pretty much playing with house money at this point. This could be the perfect storm for the tiny school from Moraga, California to pull yet another upset.
3. Cornell vs. Kentucky: I'm not gonna mince words -- this Cornell team is flat out sick. Apparently ignoramuses like CBSsports.com's Mike Freeman haven't realized it yet, though; Freeman's under the impression that Kentucky will win by at least 30. Which really makes me scratch my head. Because Cornell has already played a team of Kentucky's caliber -- none other than the Kansas Jayhawks, and the Big Red lost to them by just five. Cornell's offense is a model of efficiency. They shoot the lights out, display excellent teamwork, have a dominant -- as-in "Big 6 Conference dominant" -- seven-foot center in Jeff Foote, and have one player who speaks five languages and can solve a Rubik's cube in two minutes (wait, that last reason doesn't matter for this game? Fine, look at the first three then). Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Cornell's entry into the Sweet 16 was no fluke. Kentucky, meanwhile, while obviously ridiculously talented and athletic, is also young and undisciplined. This upset I can really see happening.
So yeah, Freeman, I'd love to bet you that your 30-point prediction will be wrong. I'll even give you odds.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Shot
Sherron Collins drives strong to the hoop, puts in the lay-up. Kansas immediately calls timeout. 43 seconds left, one point game. The crowd is going bonkers. And I'm thinking, "Are you f****** kidding me???"
Northern Iowa had played 38 minutes of superb basketball. Had totally outplayed the overall number one seed in the tournament. Had led by seven -- SEVEN -- just 25 seconds ago. And now, a couple of bad turnovers later, the Panthers were on the verge of blowing it.
I thought back to Kansas-Bucknell in 2005, when Bucknell had led for almost the entire game before one of their players committed a stupid intentional foul that gave Kansas two shots and the ball, and ultimately, a one-point lead. But then Chris McNaughton, Bucknell's 6'11'' center from Germany, came to the rescue, hitting a baby hook that proved to be the game winner for the Bison and seal an upset of monumental proportions.
As the commercial break ended and Northern Iowa prepared to inbound the ball, I thought to myself, "Who's going to be the Panthers' McNaughton?" (Ok, I wasn't exactly thinking in that composed a manner; I was more yelling and cursing at the TV while pacing back and forth. But humor me.) There were still 43 seconds left on the clock; somebody from Northern Iowa was going to have to come up big and hit a shot.
What happened next is history. Freshman Jake Koch inbounds to senior brother Adam Koch, who passes it back to the younger Koch, who finds point guard Kwadzo Ahelegbe, who throws it ahead to cold-blooded assassin Ali Faroukhmanesh. Faroukhmanesh pauses, surveys the scene, thinks, "What the hell," and launches what will undoubtedly go down as one of the clutchest shots in the history of the NCAA tournament. Nothing but net. One Kansas offensive foul later and Northern Iowa had essentially sealed one of the great upsets in tournament history, eliminating the team that many had picked to win it all.
In the three days since, The Shot has been endlessly talked about and analyzed. The conventional thinking is, "There's no way Faroukhmanesh should've taken that shot." There were 30 seconds left on the shot clock (37 in the game), UNI was up one, and Faroukhmanesh, after making his first three 3-pointers in the game, had missed his last seven shots. Conventional wisdom says he should've held the ball and either waited until Kansas fouled or worked the shot clock down and taken a shot with under 10 seconds remaining in the game.
I don't buy it, and I'm glad Faroukhmanesh didn't either. He's a shooter; he had to take that shot. As a so-called "shooter" myself (at least back in my high school days), I subscribe to the idea that shooters should keep shooting, even if they are in a cold streak. Eventually, they'll start falling again.
For the last couple of minutes, Northern Iowa had been playing scared. They were playing not to lose instead of to win. Somebody had to step up and make a play. That somebody was Ali Faroukhmanesh.
Because of him, the tournament's number one seed is one-and-done. And Northern Iowa is marching on.
Northern Iowa had played 38 minutes of superb basketball. Had totally outplayed the overall number one seed in the tournament. Had led by seven -- SEVEN -- just 25 seconds ago. And now, a couple of bad turnovers later, the Panthers were on the verge of blowing it.
I thought back to Kansas-Bucknell in 2005, when Bucknell had led for almost the entire game before one of their players committed a stupid intentional foul that gave Kansas two shots and the ball, and ultimately, a one-point lead. But then Chris McNaughton, Bucknell's 6'11'' center from Germany, came to the rescue, hitting a baby hook that proved to be the game winner for the Bison and seal an upset of monumental proportions.
As the commercial break ended and Northern Iowa prepared to inbound the ball, I thought to myself, "Who's going to be the Panthers' McNaughton?" (Ok, I wasn't exactly thinking in that composed a manner; I was more yelling and cursing at the TV while pacing back and forth. But humor me.) There were still 43 seconds left on the clock; somebody from Northern Iowa was going to have to come up big and hit a shot.
What happened next is history. Freshman Jake Koch inbounds to senior brother Adam Koch, who passes it back to the younger Koch, who finds point guard Kwadzo Ahelegbe, who throws it ahead to cold-blooded assassin Ali Faroukhmanesh. Faroukhmanesh pauses, surveys the scene, thinks, "What the hell," and launches what will undoubtedly go down as one of the clutchest shots in the history of the NCAA tournament. Nothing but net. One Kansas offensive foul later and Northern Iowa had essentially sealed one of the great upsets in tournament history, eliminating the team that many had picked to win it all.
In the three days since, The Shot has been endlessly talked about and analyzed. The conventional thinking is, "There's no way Faroukhmanesh should've taken that shot." There were 30 seconds left on the shot clock (37 in the game), UNI was up one, and Faroukhmanesh, after making his first three 3-pointers in the game, had missed his last seven shots. Conventional wisdom says he should've held the ball and either waited until Kansas fouled or worked the shot clock down and taken a shot with under 10 seconds remaining in the game.
I don't buy it, and I'm glad Faroukhmanesh didn't either. He's a shooter; he had to take that shot. As a so-called "shooter" myself (at least back in my high school days), I subscribe to the idea that shooters should keep shooting, even if they are in a cold streak. Eventually, they'll start falling again.
For the last couple of minutes, Northern Iowa had been playing scared. They were playing not to lose instead of to win. Somebody had to step up and make a play. That somebody was Ali Faroukhmanesh.
Because of him, the tournament's number one seed is one-and-done. And Northern Iowa is marching on.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
St. Mary's over 'Nova
Riding a wave -- or should I say, Gael storm -- of unselfish play, clutch shooting, and a dominant and intelligent big man in Omar Samhan, St. Mary's outplays Villanova, the officials call a fair game, and the Gaels send the Wildcats where they belonged Thursday -- home.
Congratulations to St. Mary's on advancing to the Sweet 16 for the first time in school history.
Needless to say, I'm kinda happy.
Congratulations to St. Mary's on advancing to the Sweet 16 for the first time in school history.
Needless to say, I'm kinda happy.
Friday, March 19, 2010
First-round Recap and Villanova-Robert Morris Refs
The first round of March Madness has ended, and man, was it awesome. Thursday was probably the most exciting day of college basketball I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. Overtimes, buzzer beaters, a slew of upsets...the opening day of the tournament had it all. Ohio over Georgetown? Unreal. And it wasn't just that they won -- the team that finished 9th in the MAC conference (with a losing record, to boot) killed the Hoyas. It wasn't even close. Major bracket buster there, and I'm loving it. In Friday's action, Cornell took down Temple for their first ever NCAA win, and the Ivy League's first since 1998. The Big Red look legit, with a bunch of seasoned vets that play smart, can shoot the three (they were 9 for 23 against Temple, including a bunch of daggers that put the game out of reach in the second half) and a 7-foot center in Jeff Foote, who wouldn't look out of place playing in a BCS conference. I can definitely see Cornell beating Wisconsin (who barely squeaked by Wofford) and giving Kentucky a real run for their money in the Sweet 16.
Unfortunately, one game has already put a damper on the tournament for me and lots of other sports fans. Villanova will be playing in the second round after barely beating Robert Morris in overtime, but they shouldn't be. The officiating was an absolute disgrace. Simply put, the officials gave the game to Villanova -- and if you insist otherwise, then you're just deluding yourself. Here are a couple of absolutely ridiculous calls that went against Robert Morris that I took note of while watching the game:
-First half: Scottie Reynolds spins, crashes into Robert Morris player, falls down...and the Robert Morris guy gets called for the foul.
-6 seconds left in first half: 'Nova player grabs a rebound, falls down (never touched), loses the ball out of bounds...and a phantom foul gets called on Robert Morris.
But the absurdity was just getting started. Robert Morris was up by 8 with 4 minutes to play. After that, the officials apparently decided that they needed to get Villanova back in the game. Over these next four minutes, Villanova shot a total of 10 free throws, while Robert Morris shot 2. Scottie Reynolds shot 8 of those, getting "fouled" on four consecutive possessions (two or three of those could have easily been no-calls). With under three minutes to play, a Villanova defender had both his arms around the Robert Morris guy as a pass came his way. Which, you know, usually makes it hard for the guy on offense to catch the ball. Ball went out of bounds. If Villanova had had the ball, you know the foul would've been called immediately. But Villanova did not have the ball; Robert Morris did, and as a result, no foul was called. Villanova possession.
The refs shameless performance was just enough to get Villanova to tie the game up and send it into overtime. But they still weren't done -- there was one final play that epitomized all the bullshit that transpired in this game. Robert Morris was down four, and Villanova had the ball. A Robert Morris defender appeared to have tied up the Villanova guy -- and in fact, one of the refs who had the clearest look at the play called a jump ball. But then another official -- whose view was obstructed by about 3 other players -- burst onto the scene and called a foul. Which ref would win out? Obviously, the one with a bad view of the play who made the call against Robert Morris. Foul called, Villanova player goes to the line and makes two free throws. And although Robert Morris, fighting valiantly in the face of near impossible odds, somehow cut the deficit to one, they were never able to get over the hump, and they finally lost by three, 73-70.
For the game, Scottie Reynolds shot a total of 16 free throws while going 2 of 15 from the field. The foul disparity for the two teams was 31 to 19 (do I really need to tell you which team got called for 31 fouls and which team got called for 19?). The free throw disparity was 40 to 26. The disparity in the overall respect each team received from the refs was egregious.
Look, I can already hear the counterargument coming. "Villanova did what they needed to do to win. Robert Morris screwed up when it mattered most, which is why they lost the game." Yes and no. Robert Morris certainly did not help themselves by turning the ball over and missing shots at a couple of inopportune times. But seriously, when you're a number 15 seed, and you're going against not only a superior opponent, but the officials as well, don't you think you have the right to complain? Without those highly questionable foul calls that Scottie Reynolds received starting when Robert Morris was up by 8 with under 4 to play, Villanova does not win that game. It's that simple.
So was this pathetic display of officiating an overt conspiracy or just the inherent bias that seems to always occur when a popular team from a BCS conference plays against a small, relatively unknown mid-major? Honestly...I don't know. But as my buddy Ryan texted me after the game, "Big conferences pay the bills." And it's true. The NCAA would certainly prefer popular BCS teams with large fan bases to advance deep into the tournament, not unknown mid-majors with only a few thousand students. An upset or two is cute, maybe even wanted by the NCAA and CBS execs. But a team like Villanova...bounced in the first round? Nah, they don't want that. While watching the Georgetown-Ohio game later on, I couldn't help but wonder if the refs would pull a Robert Morris-like act on Ohio as the game got down to the wire. Fortunately, Ohio was so good -- and Georgetown so bad -- that it became a moot point (I actually thought the refs did a good job in this game, treating both teams fairly. You should be taking notes, Villanova officials).
The Robert Morris travesty wasn't the only example from these past two days of terrible calls going against the underdog mid-majors -- far from it. I saw a lot of poor calls and non-calls, and the overwhelming majority of them went against the lower seeds. Now I'm obviously not saying that every bad or missed call that went against the underdogs was part of a devious scheme to screw them over. I understand refs have a tough job, trying to keep up with a fast-paced game that often features ridiculous athletes sprinting up and down the court. But when refs do a poor job officiating in the tournament, it just seems that the calls almost always go against the less heralded underdog teams from non-BCS conferences.
Officials have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game. Every team -- whether you're Villanova or Robert Morris, Kansas or Lehigh, Duke or Arkansas-Pine Bluff -- should be entitled to a fairly reffed game. Robert Morris didn't receive that. There was something more going on in that game than just a few poor calls. And that's sad.
Villanova should not be in the second round of the tournament. I'll be rooting hard for St. Mary's to knock them out.
Hopefully Villanova won't have their personal refs to save them this time.
Unfortunately, one game has already put a damper on the tournament for me and lots of other sports fans. Villanova will be playing in the second round after barely beating Robert Morris in overtime, but they shouldn't be. The officiating was an absolute disgrace. Simply put, the officials gave the game to Villanova -- and if you insist otherwise, then you're just deluding yourself. Here are a couple of absolutely ridiculous calls that went against Robert Morris that I took note of while watching the game:
-First half: Scottie Reynolds spins, crashes into Robert Morris player, falls down...and the Robert Morris guy gets called for the foul.
-6 seconds left in first half: 'Nova player grabs a rebound, falls down (never touched), loses the ball out of bounds...and a phantom foul gets called on Robert Morris.
But the absurdity was just getting started. Robert Morris was up by 8 with 4 minutes to play. After that, the officials apparently decided that they needed to get Villanova back in the game. Over these next four minutes, Villanova shot a total of 10 free throws, while Robert Morris shot 2. Scottie Reynolds shot 8 of those, getting "fouled" on four consecutive possessions (two or three of those could have easily been no-calls). With under three minutes to play, a Villanova defender had both his arms around the Robert Morris guy as a pass came his way. Which, you know, usually makes it hard for the guy on offense to catch the ball. Ball went out of bounds. If Villanova had had the ball, you know the foul would've been called immediately. But Villanova did not have the ball; Robert Morris did, and as a result, no foul was called. Villanova possession.
The refs shameless performance was just enough to get Villanova to tie the game up and send it into overtime. But they still weren't done -- there was one final play that epitomized all the bullshit that transpired in this game. Robert Morris was down four, and Villanova had the ball. A Robert Morris defender appeared to have tied up the Villanova guy -- and in fact, one of the refs who had the clearest look at the play called a jump ball. But then another official -- whose view was obstructed by about 3 other players -- burst onto the scene and called a foul. Which ref would win out? Obviously, the one with a bad view of the play who made the call against Robert Morris. Foul called, Villanova player goes to the line and makes two free throws. And although Robert Morris, fighting valiantly in the face of near impossible odds, somehow cut the deficit to one, they were never able to get over the hump, and they finally lost by three, 73-70.
For the game, Scottie Reynolds shot a total of 16 free throws while going 2 of 15 from the field. The foul disparity for the two teams was 31 to 19 (do I really need to tell you which team got called for 31 fouls and which team got called for 19?). The free throw disparity was 40 to 26. The disparity in the overall respect each team received from the refs was egregious.
Look, I can already hear the counterargument coming. "Villanova did what they needed to do to win. Robert Morris screwed up when it mattered most, which is why they lost the game." Yes and no. Robert Morris certainly did not help themselves by turning the ball over and missing shots at a couple of inopportune times. But seriously, when you're a number 15 seed, and you're going against not only a superior opponent, but the officials as well, don't you think you have the right to complain? Without those highly questionable foul calls that Scottie Reynolds received starting when Robert Morris was up by 8 with under 4 to play, Villanova does not win that game. It's that simple.
So was this pathetic display of officiating an overt conspiracy or just the inherent bias that seems to always occur when a popular team from a BCS conference plays against a small, relatively unknown mid-major? Honestly...I don't know. But as my buddy Ryan texted me after the game, "Big conferences pay the bills." And it's true. The NCAA would certainly prefer popular BCS teams with large fan bases to advance deep into the tournament, not unknown mid-majors with only a few thousand students. An upset or two is cute, maybe even wanted by the NCAA and CBS execs. But a team like Villanova...bounced in the first round? Nah, they don't want that. While watching the Georgetown-Ohio game later on, I couldn't help but wonder if the refs would pull a Robert Morris-like act on Ohio as the game got down to the wire. Fortunately, Ohio was so good -- and Georgetown so bad -- that it became a moot point (I actually thought the refs did a good job in this game, treating both teams fairly. You should be taking notes, Villanova officials).
The Robert Morris travesty wasn't the only example from these past two days of terrible calls going against the underdog mid-majors -- far from it. I saw a lot of poor calls and non-calls, and the overwhelming majority of them went against the lower seeds. Now I'm obviously not saying that every bad or missed call that went against the underdogs was part of a devious scheme to screw them over. I understand refs have a tough job, trying to keep up with a fast-paced game that often features ridiculous athletes sprinting up and down the court. But when refs do a poor job officiating in the tournament, it just seems that the calls almost always go against the less heralded underdog teams from non-BCS conferences.
Officials have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game. Every team -- whether you're Villanova or Robert Morris, Kansas or Lehigh, Duke or Arkansas-Pine Bluff -- should be entitled to a fairly reffed game. Robert Morris didn't receive that. There was something more going on in that game than just a few poor calls. And that's sad.
Villanova should not be in the second round of the tournament. I'll be rooting hard for St. Mary's to knock them out.
Hopefully Villanova won't have their personal refs to save them this time.
Monday, March 15, 2010
March Madness Selection Committee's Choice of Bracket
March Madness is my favorite time of year. Nothing else in the way of sports matches the excitement, intrigue, and unpredictability that the NCAA men's basketball tournament brings. As a passionate sports fan, one of the things that I've always loved the most are upsets. I simply love watching the little guy rise to the occasion and defy the odds by beating a team that, on paper, is far superior. Go back five years, for example, to the first round of the 2005 NCAA tournament, where 14th-seed Bucknell stunned the nation by defeating what was a vastly superior Kansas squad. Nobody in their right mind would have predicted that upset -- but it happened. And that's what makes sports so great: on any given day, any team has a chance, no matter how remote. Sounds cliched, but it's true.
Which is why I am, once again, extremely frustrated by the bracket that the selection committee unveiled for March Madness 2010. In recent years, I, along with any other sports fan who cares passionately enough, have noticed a disturbing trend: the committee, it seems, tries to eliminate mid-major teams -- especially teams that have decent chances of making cinderella runs in the tourney -- by pitting them against each other in the first round.
Coincidence, you might say. Well, I have my doubts. Main reason? Consider a first-round seeding match-up -- say 6 vs.11, or 5 vs. 12. There has been an unmistakable trend where the selection committee pits 2 mid-major teams against each other...while having two teams from traditional power conferences with the same seeding match-up also play each other. The reason this last part is important is because it shows that, in many cases, the committee has had a choice of whether to pit mid-majors against majors or mid-majors against each other -- and has consistently chosen the latter. To make this clearer, let's look at the past 5 years, where there has been at least one case per year of this phenomenon:
-2005: Utah vs. UTEP (6 vs. 11 match-up #1, mid-majors ); Texas Tech vs. UCLA (6 vs. 11 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2006: Nevada vs. Montana (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Syracuse vs. Texas A&M (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2007: Butler vs. Old Dominion (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Virginia Tech vs. Illinios (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2008: Drake vs. Western Kentucky (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Clemson vs. Villanova (5 vs. 12 match-up # 2, power conferences)
-2009: Gonzaga vs. Akron (4 vs. 13 match-up #1, mid-majors); Washington vs. Mississippi State (4 vs. 13 match-up #2, power conferences)
Which is why I am, once again, extremely frustrated by the bracket that the selection committee unveiled for March Madness 2010. In recent years, I, along with any other sports fan who cares passionately enough, have noticed a disturbing trend: the committee, it seems, tries to eliminate mid-major teams -- especially teams that have decent chances of making cinderella runs in the tourney -- by pitting them against each other in the first round.
Coincidence, you might say. Well, I have my doubts. Main reason? Consider a first-round seeding match-up -- say 6 vs.11, or 5 vs. 12. There has been an unmistakable trend where the selection committee pits 2 mid-major teams against each other...while having two teams from traditional power conferences with the same seeding match-up also play each other. The reason this last part is important is because it shows that, in many cases, the committee has had a choice of whether to pit mid-majors against majors or mid-majors against each other -- and has consistently chosen the latter. To make this clearer, let's look at the past 5 years, where there has been at least one case per year of this phenomenon:
-2005: Utah vs. UTEP (6 vs. 11 match-up #1, mid-majors ); Texas Tech vs. UCLA (6 vs. 11 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2006: Nevada vs. Montana (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Syracuse vs. Texas A&M (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2007: Butler vs. Old Dominion (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Virginia Tech vs. Illinios (5 vs. 12 match-up #2, power conferences)
-2008: Drake vs. Western Kentucky (5 vs. 12 match-up #1, mid-majors); Clemson vs. Villanova (5 vs. 12 match-up # 2, power conferences)
-2009: Gonzaga vs. Akron (4 vs. 13 match-up #1, mid-majors); Washington vs. Mississippi State (4 vs. 13 match-up #2, power conferences)
Why is this important? It's simple. Obviously, each year the NCAA tournament has a lot more teams from major BCS conferences in it than it does mid-majors. So for every instance in which the committee decides, "Let's have two mid-majors play each other in the first round," it ensures that there will be one less mid-major possible of making a deep cinderella run in the tournament.
The committee continued that trend this year. Richmond vs. St. Mary's (mid-majors) makes up one 7 vs. 10 match-up, while Oklahoma St. vs. Georgia Tech and Clemson vs. Missouri (power conferences) make up two of the other 7 vs. 10 match-ups. Even more significant, Butler and UTEP play each in a first-round 5 vs. 12 match-up, and they just currently happen to be two of the most formidable mid-major squads in the country. Gary Parrish of cbssports.com saw this for what it probably means, writing the following in his March Madness column this past Monday:
"The plan is to make the good non-BCS teams eliminate the other good non-BCS teams: I suppose (or at least I hope) it's a coincidence, but it seems every year one of the non-BCS teams most likely to make a run in this event gets paired with another non-BCS team that's likely to make a run in this event. This year's best example is a first-round game in the West between Butler and UTEP. I said last week that the three non-BCS schools with the best chance to make the Sweet 16 were New Mexico, Butler and UTEP, and now either Butler or UTEP is guaranteed to have its season end Thursday because of an unfortunate pairing."
Hmmm. Makes you wonder about the committee's intentions, huh? After all, it's no secret that teams from major conferences generally create more viewership, and thus, revenues, than mid-major schools. Casual fans are more likely to tune into a game involving traditional powerhouses like Duke or Kentucky than one involving, say, Siena, a small Catholic school with only a couple thousand students. Could that have been on the committee's mind as they were determining the first-round match-ups? Did they intentionally create the bracket to minimize the chances of a talented but not-sexy-for-ratings-purposes mid-major making a deep run in the tournament?
Again...makes you wonder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
