|
|
|
Tuesday, January 9, 2001
Fans think tourney 'locks' a bunch of BCS
By Joe Lunardi
Special to ESPN.com
|
Maybe it's a New Year's resolution to write more letters. For whatever reason, the mailbag is bursting. Most of the e-mails are in response to last week's column on the BCS. Keep the letters coming (jlunardi@home.com). Let's get right to this week's mail:
Just read your column on the BCS and loved it! Right on the money.
I don't know if it is or isn't (right on the money, that is). What I do know,
Steve, is that college football can't have a legitimate national champion
until every team with a reasonable chance of winning is included in the
process.
I love your column and agree with just about everything you said in comparing the NCAA Tournament to the BCS. However, they have one negative in common: extreme punishment for just one loss.
If you look at a list of the NCAA champs the past 20 years, plenty of them were not the most dominant team(s) of their respective years. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade the excitement of the Dance for anything -- especially the NBA's tedious "best of ..." finals system. But the one advantage that system holds is that it's more accurate in determining the best team, while,
under the tourney system, one bad night for one or more players can make the whole world consider an otherwise spectacular team a disappointment.
Now that's pressure, and a bit unfair.
What's unfair is the first part of your closing statement. I, personally, do not consider a dominant team a failure if it comes up short in one big game. I have also never subscribed to the theory that the NCAA Tournament necessarily identifies the nation's best team. What it determines is an undisputed national champion under the most exciting possible conditions.
The tournament gives us a legitimate champion AND excitement. The NBA gives us the best team, but it takes two months. The BCS does neither.
Nice article on the BCS and their lack of vision. The NCAA 64-team tournament is untouchable in regards to sports entertainment and the process in which a champion is crowned. I would give up all other sports (if I had to) in order
to keep my college hoops. Nothing is close.
On that note, I'm sick of people talking about how this player or that player is the prototypical NBA player or will be a "lottery" pick! Let's face it, the NBA is an absolute shell of its former self (1980s). Many college kids leave their programs for the bounty of NBA riches and lose all respect for the game, of playing defense, of being coachable, of playing as 'a team.'
A "lottery" pick? WHO CARES!
I wouldn't lump all early NBA draftees into the same category (on or off the court). What I would do, if an NBA owner, is avoid paying big money to any player -- of any age -- who isn't mature enough to accept the responsibility of
the profession.
It's easy to forget what we would lose if a college football tournament with 16 teams is ever adopted. The regular season would be just like the dull, ponderous affair that it is in every other sport, especially college basketball. I think it's preposterous that 33 teams are already considered locks for the (NCAA) tournament, and it's only January! Give me college football as it is now vs. college basketball any day.
Having said that, (college football) could be improved by the following:
1. Start the college season on the Saturday after Labor Day.
2. Require all teams to play 12 games.
3. Eliminate conference championship games.
4. Require open dates in the month of October.
5. Have a four-team playoff, with the first round played the Saturday before Christmas at neutral sites.
6. Play the championship game at 8 p.m. on New Year's Day.
I would retain the BCS to determine the top four teams. That seems to be about the best you can get. The long layover between the regular season and the championship game would be largely eliminated.
As for basketball, I'll wait until March to pay attention. Nothing of any real importance will happen until then.
I've never understood the argument that college football's regular season would be diminished by a medium to large playoff. I mean, is the NFL regular season diminished because 12 teams qualify for what is essentially a Super Bowl tournament? Last time I checked, pro football was the most popular game in the land.
If the NFL was run like college football, the Super Bowl pairing would be determined by computer and teams No. 3 through 12 (and more?) would play what amount to exhibition games a neutral, meaningless sites. Remember the old NFL Playoff Bowl (which was anything but)? If the BCS died in favor of a meaningful tournament, college football might surpass the NFL in popularity, much as NCAA basketball is at times more popular than the NBA.
About the only thing we agree on, William, are the 33 "non" locks to the upcoming NCAA tourney. The mail bag really went crazy over that!
I assume after Georgetown's victories over West Virginia and Seton Hall, you will find a seat on the bandwagon. Injuries have hurt this team in past. Now their frontcourt depth puts them in the Big Dance. Hoya Saxa.
Silly me. I thought it was the annual drubbing of Bethune-Cookman that made Georgetown a "lock."
Trivia question: Why does Georgetown have to play Bethune-Cookman?
Trivia answer: Because the Little Sisters of the Poor aren't available.
For years, I have subscribed to the Blue Ribbon Yearbook. I have tremendous respect for the product and the analysis in that effort. I cannot, however, understand your recent comments (subsequently reinforced on paper) that UConn
is the most overrated college basketball team this year.
No knowledgeable observer of college basketball -- PARTICULARLY ONE WHO GETS PAID -- should take that position given the recent history of the University of Connecticut. Shame on you. I scratch my head at how you can look at an RPI
number and make the conclusions you did.
Here's a clue: Jim Calhoun still coaches in Storrs. The talent level this year IS NOT overrated; just young and inexperienced. The low RPI is not reflective of a UConn philosophy (eg., Georgetown); rather, the Dayton loss
led them to Chaminade and Louisville (not Arizona and Maryland/Illinois).
Put that money you make on this question: Will Jim Calhoun find a way to finish as one of the top teams in the Big East come the second week of March? You are probably better when you can sit in front of the keyboard for a
period of time before writing an opinion vs. answering questions on the radio.
Whoa ... It seems to me that most years, Blue Ribbon rates UConn higher then just about anyone. We have written on any number of occasions that the Huskies were the only saving grace of the Big East during its lengthy "dead ball" era. We properly credited Jim Calhoun for both style and substance.
What I've said this year about UConn has nothing to do with RPI (yet). It was based on my feeling that the Huskies, to this point, had in no way earned the top 10 ranking they enjoyed before losing to Boston College. Does it mean
they won't go to the Big Dance? Or be a legitimate highly ranked team? Of
course not.
My opinion is that UConn is a year away from major success. The reality is that they haven't had any this year, either. Hence the word "overrated."
PS: I had the same kinds of opinions before I got paid!
I agree that, by your definition of a "lock" for the tournament, there are very few teams who would meet these criteria right now. But why do go out of your way to specify UVa in your column? Compared to the other five you mentioned, UVa is far and away the best team. In fact, just in the ACC you could make a better case for Maryland or UNC missing the tournament.
Saying that Wake Forest was their first real test is highly subjective. UVa gave Tennessee a thrashing a few weeks ago when they were the No. 4 team in the nation. I would definitely call that game a "real test." Yes, UVa lost by 23 to Wake Forest, but I don't think any team could have beaten Wake on that night. They were on their home court, they only turned the ball over nine
times, they shot an incredible 58.1 percent, had strong bench support and a spectacular game from Songalia (11-for-12).
You also mentioned that UVa could very well have a losing ACC record because they have to face Duke, UNC, Wake and Maryland seven more times. Just so you know, UVa's record against these teams last year was 4-4. You can make a case
that these four teams are better than they were last year but I can also make a case that UVa is also much better.
Is UVa the 8th best team in the nation? Maybe not. Are they Top 20? Most definitely. They would have to completely fall apart to miss the tournament this year.
You're right, Scott. I could have listed Maryland and/or Carolina in my "unlocked" analysis. But as both of those schools have current NCAA participation streaks (and UVa does not), I wanted to point out folly of anointing teams with such an incomplete resume. The Cavs are indeed much better than last year, but so is their conference competition. If UVa goes,
say, 2-6 against the "other four," it could indeed have a losing ACC record.
And that's enough doubt for me.
PS: For what it's worth, my UVa comments generated the most (and strongest) reaction, followed only by ...
I would probably agree that Dayton shouldn't be included on a list of NCAA locks. But I don't understand why you included them on your list of six teams (from Andy Katz's list) that could be unlocked, yet left off Xavier and Kentucky.
Kentucky is terrible (by UK standards), and they may be NIT bound. The Wildcats beat UNC (somehow), but have no other impressive wins. You must think Xavier is a lock, because you listed Dayton but not X. Dayton was better than X last year, and Dayton has improved more than X. If Xavier is a lock, Dayton is a mortal lock.
I also find it interesting that you knock Dayton's win over Maryland, but you didn't list Maryland as a team that could be unlocked. If Maryland is an unimpressive win, then why didn't you question Maryland's lock status?
Also, the ODU loss was bad, but Marshall is an NCAA team. Do you follow college basketball? Do you know anything about mid-major teams? I wouldn't list Dayton as a lock this early in the season, but as a Flyer fan I can tell you they will be in the field of 64. I hope you are willing to eat your words at the end of the season when the Flyers are in the Big Dance.
A few random thoughts (for Paul and other Dayton fans):
1. I obviously did not list every team which could be "unlocked," but did say no more than 15-20 should be considered "locks" at this point. It would have been impractical -- not to mention redundant -- to break every remaining team
down. I chose six of most effectively make my point.
2. Maryland may not be a lock, but it's a lot harder for a preseason top five team to miss the tournament than it is for Dayton.
3. I don't see how anyone could say Dayton has improved more than Xavier since last season. The Flyers lost the more important player on either team (Mark Ashman), and the Musketeers have the higher impact newcomers. That doesn't guarantee anything, of course, but there's a reason why A-10 coaches voted Xavier first and Dayton fourth.
4. I'm fairly certain Xavier would be favored over Dayton if the two played tonight on a neutral court, and that Kentucky would be favored over both of them.
Kudos for the remarks about so-called locks to the NCAA tourney. Probably two-thirds of Andy's teams, maybe even three-fourths will make it, but only maybe half are real locks. It sort of reminds me of the blather from announcers about who "should have been" in last year's tournament. At least six or seven teams were allegedly "robbed" by not being in the last bracket. They conveniently don't bother to say who these teams should have replaced.
It's easy for an announcer to proclaim 40 at-large teams when there are only 34 slots. Keep up the good work.
Finally ... a fan!
Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com. He is also
contributing editor of the Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook,
www.collegebaskets.com. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
Lunardi: Keep BCS off the court
Chat with Joe Lunardi, Friday at 2 p.m. ET
|
|
