|
|
|
Wednesday, July 18
Updated: July 20, 2:37 PM ET
NCAA's tourney tweaks make good sense
By Joe Lunardi
Speical to ESPN.com
|
First things first. The 2001 NCAA men's basketball championship bracket was FAR AND AWAY the best recent work of the tournament selection
committee. While this is an admittedly subjective opinion -- namely mine -- I doubt if anyone looks at enough alternative brackets to know better than
your otherwise humble correspondent.
Nobody really got screwed in 2001. Sure, you could have tweaked the seeding or geographic placement here and there, but there were no
obvious bonehead maneuvers. And, while there will always be at-large candidates who howl about being omitted from the field, this year's
consensus "Last Team Out" -- Alabama -- had a relatively weak argument compared to any recent predecessor.
Why, then, did the men's basketball committee feel compelled to mess with important bracketing criteria for the 2002 tournament? Because it
was unusually proactive as well as the right thing to do, that's why. If implemented for the stated reasons (and not to give teams from the six so-called "power" conferences an even greater competitive advantage, as many conspiracy theorists are arguing), the tournament will indeed become more "user-friendly" for fans, players and families.
That's an awfully big "if," however.
So, let's take a close look at each of the bracketing changes announced last week, including some you may not have heard, and analyze them across several categories:
The implementation of floating "pods," similar to those used in the women's championship bracket. These 16 four-team groupings, each headed
by a No. 1-4 seeded team, will be assigned to first/second round sites independent of their eventual regional placement (East, South,
Midwest, West) in an effort to keep teams closer to home in the early rounds.
WHAT THE NCAA SAYS: Reduces travel expenses and missed class time. Creates better arena atmosphere. Makes attending easier and less
expensive for fans and families.
WHAT THE CYNICS SAY: More pseudo-"home" games for the power teams. A
blatant ploy to increase gate receipts.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: The committee's intentions are good and noble. However, it will be the power teams who benefit FAR MORE OFTEN in terms
of being assigned to early round sites closer to home. Geographic assignments for the tournament's first weekend will be based strictly on
the No. 1-4 seeded teams. "Middle seeds," as in the past, will benefit only when the dominoes of bracket-building fall their way.
WHAT I THINK: The pseudo-"home" games could evolve into a competitive advantage for power teams. When Weber State upset North Carolina, for
instance, the game was played in the state of Washington. Would the result have been different if the same game was played in a state ending
in, say, "Carolina?"
BY THE WAY: The word "pod" should be reserved for films starring Angelina Jolie. Henceforth, the word "quad" will be used by this bracketologist when referencing four-team groupings in the NCAA field.
The top-seeded team from each conference will be regionally separated from only the next two teams from that conference, not the next four (as
is currently the case) or the next six (as was once the case).
WHAT THE NCAA SAYS: More travel reduction, less missed class, etc.
WHAT THE CYNICS SAY: Easier to slot more power teams into the No. 1-4
seeds.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: This little-known criteria will make
bracket-building considerably easier by reducing the instances of
"conference conflicts." Bracketologists throughout the land rejoice.
WHAT I THINK: This change really could help the middle seeds stay closer to home, as team placement options on lines 5-12 will increase a
fair amount. However, said geographic benefit will only occur if a mid-seed is grouped with a compatible No. 1-4.
BY THE WAY: Teams from the same conference still cannot meet until a
regional final, as it should be.
Teams seeded 1-5 will now be bracketed away from a "home crowd disadvantage" in the early rounds, whereby only Nos. 1-4 were previously
protected.
WHAT THE NCAA SAYS: Seeds 4-5 should be treated equally, as they are
bracketed to face one another in the second round.
WHAT THE CYNICS SAY: Another advantage for up to four more power
teams.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: With seeds No. 1-4 now getting a potential "home
crowd advantage" in rounds one and two (through favorable geographic
placement), the No. 5 seed gets a far greater penalty in the second
round than it gains in the first.
WHAT I THINK: This is silly. Why not also "protect" the No. 6 seeds,
which are bracketed for second round games vs. the No. 3s, and so on?
The high seeds already have better players and more fans. How much more
protection do they need?
BY THE WAY: So many No. 5 seeds are upset each year, this new
provision may not have been worth the time spent on it.
The committee has appointed a subcommittee to review the RPI and discuss "extra credit" for playing (and winning) games away from home.
WHAT THE NCAA SAYS: All selection criteria are regularly reviewed.
WHAT THE CYNICS SAY: Bullspit.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: The NCAA will adjust its RPI formula, and also do everything possible to keep it a secret. As usual, this "closed" process
will INCREASE (as opposed to lessen) complaints about the at-large selection process.
WHAT I THINK: These aren't nuclear secrets, people. Make all selection committee data public, people, even if it puts a bracketologist out of
business.
BY THE WAY: It wouldn't hurt to have the correct data in the first place, which the committee did not for each team in last year's field.
But that's another column for another day.
In the meantime, tell me what you think. We'll sample your opinions and play with sample brackets -- old and new -- next time.
Joe Lunardi is the resident "bracketologist" for ESPN.com. He may be
reached at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
|
|
