By Jay Bilas
Special to ESPN.com
Who deserves more at-large consideration? The correct answer, and the only acceptable answer in my judgment, is neither. Each team under consideration for an at-large berth should be evaluated on its own merit -- without regard to conference affiliation -- and judged only by its particular strengths and weaknesses. The key question is whether a particular team is one of the 35 best teams in the nation after all of the automatic qualifiers are factored in.
There have been some excellent mid-major teams that have been overlooked in the past in favor of solid but not spectacular teams from power conferences. The reason usually lies with strength of schedule. Teams from major conferences usually have strong schedules from their conference slates alone, while mid-majors do not have that luxury.
Because the power conferences are assured to get consideration by virtue of their overall strength, it is incumbent upon the mid-majors to play challenging non-conference schedules to prove themselves worthy of inclusion into the field. There is no legitimate excuse for any mid-major to play a weak non-conference schedule and complain to the selection committee if that team loses in its conference tournament.
In my opinion, there are only two reasons for playing a weak non-conference schedule. One is if a coach has a very young team, and wants that team to learn from winning while building confidence, instead of tearing confidence down by overscheduling. The other is if a mid-major is so good that nobody will give it a game, because the stigma of a loss is far worse than any bang an opponent would get out of a win. That's why Jim Valvano used to shy away from Wright State, Coppin State or Murray State. He used to say, "Never play any State school that isn't really a state."
Majors can afford to play some cupcakes. In fact, they have to. Without the occasional cupcake, the big shots couldn't get enough home games to satisfy fan support. Not every game can be a showcase game, and every team has to have a home slate.
Let's be honest, schools from the major conferences are usually stronger because they have more resources to consistently attract the better players. A look at recent NIT champions bears that out. How many mid-majors get left out of the NCAA Tournament and go on to win the NIT?
Everybody deserves a shot at the tournament, and everybody has a shot. Its not always perfect, but there is not a level playing field and there never will be. It may seem like the Selection Committee favors teams from major conferences, even if their records are not as stellar as some mid-majors.
Clearly, sometimes the committee makes mistakes by leaving out a mid-major in favor of a middle-of-the-pack major conference team. However, on average, there have been far more major-conference teams that have been left out of the field over the years when they were superior teams to a mid-major that got a bid. It's a fair system as it stands now, but it should never allow for more consideration for any teams based upon conference affiliation.
When comparing a mid-major with a major conference school, just ask yourself...which team is better? If the facts back up the selection, take the better team.
|
|
By Andy Katz
ESPN.com
The NCAA Tournament should be inclusive, not exclusive. The tournament is
supposed to be for the best teams in the country. It should be competitive.
Bringing in a team that couldn't win half its games in a conference never
makes sense to me.
The selection committee preaches every year that it wants teams that can win
games in the first round. Why reward losers? If a team can't win half its
games in a major conference and is going into the tournament on a losing
skid, why should they be invited over a mid-major team that is on a roll and
has a chance to win?
Teams like Wisconsin, Missouri and Notre Dame. All had significant
non-conference wins. But none of those teams has been consistent in their
respective conferences.
Not taking those three or any one of the three teams isn't penalizing them for tougher non-conference scheduling. The conference
schedule, even if it's in the Big Ten, Big 12 or Big East, is still part of
a team's schedule. Teams have to play well in all parts of their schedule
(non-conference, conference and conference tournament) to earn NCAA bids.
A mid-major team like Hofstra, which won the America East, could be
competitive in the NCAA Tournament. So, too, could second-place Maine or,
even preseason favorite Delaware.
But the America East is likely getting
only one team in the tournament. Why? Because of power rating or strength of
schedule. But Hofstra has played its schedule well, won enough games to
warrant consideration and has a right to a spot over a barely above .500
team from a high-major conference.
Butler could make the same argument as it enters the Midwestern
Collegiate Conference on a tear. But the Bulldogs have to win their
tournament to get a bid. Fair? Hardly.
Teams should be playing well entering the NCAA Tournament,
regardless of conference affiliation. The selection committee slipped in UAB
a year ago and the Blazers looked like a team that was in to fill the
bracket. The committee shouldn't have to feel that way and wouldn't have an
argument if instead of an average high-major team that hasn't played well in
the last month, they put in a mid-major that has won 90 to 100 percent of
its last 10 games.
The tournament wouldn't be hurt if a second team from the America
East or two from the Midwestern Collegiate were to get into the field rather
than six from the Big 12 or seven from the Big 10 or six or seven from the
Big East.
Having mid-major teams has enhanced the field of 64 in the past few
years. A year ago, Miami (Ohio) made it to the Sweet 16, as did Southwest
Missouri State. Both were at-large additions to the tournament. The coaches,
players, television and fans want a balanced field. Deserving mid-major
teams will keep that spirit alive.
|
