2001 NCB Preview

M COLLEGE BB
Scores
Schedules
Rankings
Standings
Statistics
Transactions
Teams
Players
Recruiting
Message Board
FEATURES
NIT
Fans Poll Top 25
D-II Tournament
D-III Tournament
CONFERENCES


ESPN MALL
TeamStore
ESPN Auctions
SPORT SECTIONS
Thursday, February 7
 
Bracket Banter

Let's get right to it!

Point
Thank you for your in-depth analysis every week. It's a very good weekly snapshot of the state of college basketball, and I never miss it. Your objectivity in your picks is to be lauded.

Having said that (in the opinion of you and seemingly every other college hoops pundit), I clearly embody everything that is wrong with college basketball fans. My school has a whole lot of money to spend on athletics, and is currently in the middle of the standings of one of the big six conferences. We are Notre Dame, and we are the enemy of hundreds of poor, picked on, unfairly disadvantaged schools who would get into the NCAA Tournament if not for my school buying it's way in every year.

Boo, hoo, hoo. It just makes every good and decent American want to cry, doesn't it?

We've been hearing this for years, and it's all a load of crap. When a big conference member fills their non-conference schedule with teams from the little conferences, we're criticized for playing a weak schedule. When we don't play them, we're criticized for "dodging" the competition. Whenever a little conference school beats a big conference school, it's proof that the little guys belong, but the other 80 percent of the games in which the big conference school wins, they get no credit because, after all, they were supposed to win (Do you really think U of Portland is a better team than Oregon?).

Conferences are voluntary alliances of schools. No one ever forced Gonzaga into its pathetic conference. It is the 'Zags fault they play two-thirds of their games against weak competition. It's not say, Iowa's fault. Iowa (RPI No. 43 as of Feb. 3) has chosen to fill its schedule in every sport with schools that field top-caliber teams. They deserve to be rewarded. The WCC has a non-conference record of 46-54 (RPI No. 14). The Big East (RPI No. 5) is 124-43. Think maybe that's why the Big East will get more teams in? They won the games on the floor.

Come March, the best 65 teams will not be invited to the dance. Instead, we reward conference champions by giving them an automatic berth. Only the best 34 teams are guaranteed a berth. Of course, the fact that this number is 34 and not 33 is a horrible injustice according to all of you writers out there. Oh how unfair that the 34th best team is invited instead of the play-in game loser!

But the play-in teams stink. You all keep forgetting to mention that fact. I'd bet over the next 10 years about half of them will actually have losing records against bad schedules. If a team of their caliber played in the ACC and made it in, you'd all converge on the NCAA offices with torches.

If everything were truly fair, only the best 65 teams would get in. The 35th through 45th best at-large teams are the ones with the legitimate gripe. Even though they are certainly some of the best 65 teams, they don't get into the field. They don't get the money to pay scholarships for poor students. They don't get the new engineering building. Instead, the 128th best team gets in and gets the cash.

We have this huge glaring tribute paid to the weak conferences: Your champion gets in, even though they stink. Isn't that enough of an advantage to those schools?

My Irish might play in the NIT even though they are clearly one of the best 65 teams in the country. They have an RPI of 44 and Sagarin has them at 37. ND could easily win 10-15 different conferences, but instead they have chosen to align themselves with other really good basketball programs like Syracuse, Georgetown and UConn. So they're punished?

ND is clearly not a Top 10 quality team. Duke would beat us. Kansas would beat us. But we deserve a spot in the field of 65 at least as much as Pepperdine. Not that you have talked up Pepperdine in particular, but they seem to be the type of team that everyone is up in arms over. No one is ever going to be up in arms over the team with the fifth best conference record in the Big East not making it.

Matthew Ryan
Portland, Ore.

I think the critical distinction which needs to be made here is "low" major vs. "mid" major. No pundit that I know of is arguing for additional tournament berths for Big South or SWAC or other such schools. In fact, I would argue that more of these conferences take part in the revised Play-In arrangement. Not only would it open up spots in the main bracket, it would give each of these conferences a 50/50 chance at winning an NCAA game (unlike the current zero percent figure when matched against a No. 1 seed).

These leagues deserve their automatic bid, however, much as the champion of weak divisions in other sports do. Why? Because they are qualified members of the league/conference/association. It's not up to me to determine what constitutes Division I membership. But it is up to Division I to be inclusive. CBS isn't paying billions for six conference; it is paying (and we watching) a NATIONAL championship.

You're right. The real arguments are among teams in the 35-45 range. And I am arguing that the better mid-majors-given a neutral court, neutral officials and a fair number of tickets-have more than proven themselves worthy of greater consideration/representation. These are the schools the "majors" don't want to play. These are the schools that rarely get a significant non-conference home game. These schools are overachieving in the face of every financial, scheduling, recruiting and exposure disadvantage.

I'm okay with the disadvantages (except scheduling). The "majors" deserve the money and the TV time, because they generally are better and certainly have a larger fan base. But the scales have tipped a little too far in their direction. If Notre Dame and Pepperdine played best-of-seven on a neutral court, the series would be longer and more competitive than you think.

I know this to be so for the most basic reason possible: There are enough high-level players to fill more than 35 teams. That, more than anything else, is what makes the NCAA Tournament so great. But I'm greedy. I think it can be greater still.

Bracket Guy:

Again, another story about how mid-majors deserve some sort of affirmative action over power conference teams with sub-500 conference records. Absurd and totally unjust.

Frankly, there are too many teams in Division I and too many conference that are full of such teams. Teams from schools with paltry enrollments and even paltrier fan followings. Justice? I see no justice in letting some mid-major school with a few thousand students, a 4,000 seat assembly hall (that averages about 800 fans), that plays a host of similar schools and maybe two or three major also-rans (and goes 25-4) get in the tourney over a school like, say Arkansas, who might go under .500 in conference and yet play tough schools home and away year in and year out (and has a great fan following).

Just because Butler upsets someone in Hawaii (where conditions and emotions are always a bit affected) or some similar school catches a major power on an off night during finals week in December doesn't mean these teams are that good. If they played 16 games in the Big 12, Gonzaga would be lucky to finish at 6-10 (I give them six wins because of travel fatigue by the losers).

Frankly, I'd like to see more teams from the real power conferences. These conference schools fill their arenas year in and year out. They have fans that follow them. They play tough schedules. They deserve to make the tourney. Heck, I'd chop off about a third of the Division I roster. Make the small schools with no fans play for the Division II championship.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it's a small school it belongs in a division with other small schools. Or something like that.

Anyway, just had to comment. Oh, and I hate Kansas.

Spencer Moore
San Francisco, Calif.

And I suppose the Twins and Expos should be kicked out of baseball because they don't have the fans, following or revenue of the Yankees. If there was no such competition, the Yankees wouldn't exist. If Division I basketball consisted of only six conferences, there wouldn't be enough teams to play the 30-game schedules and post-season that creates such fan following in the first place.

Better argument: If Kansas played Oklahoma six times instead of twice per year, the populace would quickly tire of the repetition. And it sounds like you would to. I'm not saying the mid-majors will ever surpass the majors. What I'm saying is that a handful of them each year deserve closer scrutiny, particularly given the built-in disadvantages they face.

Finally, as a personal favor, I'll not give your email address to Gonzaga fans. I'd bet my Bracketology membership card the current 'Zags would be .500 or better in any conference in the country. To suggest otherwise is to be flip or ignorant, so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's the former.

Counterpoint
Your recommendation that conference teams need at least a .500 record is fantastic. I graduated from a Big 10 school (though if the Hawkeyes don't start playing like they're capable, I may have to deny it), but still would rather see Western Kentucky make the tourney than the Hawks right now. If you can't even finish even in your conference, how can you aspire to be a champion?

My only suggestion is that teams have two opportunities to reach .500. If a team finishes the regular season at .500, they're eligible. If a team has a .500 conference record after the tourney, they're eligible. This double dipping would be more agreeable to the "Super Six," yet would still allow for a better showing of deserving mid-majors.

To further make your case (when you pitch this to the committee...wink, wink), it seems that the mid-major teams that get the last few spots in the tourney pull the most upsets (Gonzaga, Pepperdine, Butler, Valpo, Utah State), while the lowest-seeded "Super Six" teams tend to bomb out early (Oklahoma State, Providence, Wisconsin and Georgia come to mind from last year).

I know that each team is to be judged on its own merits, and that past performance shouldn't count, but shouldn't someone be noticing this besides the people who win their bracket pools?

Thomas C. Ksobiech
Kansas City, Mo.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And like the stipulation about being .500 during the conference regular season. A team in that instance should not be punished for losing one conference tournament game.

I just read your 2/4 column, and all I can say is "Amen!" I think your plan is the perfect way to level the playing field a bit in the tournament.

Problem is, the Super Six don't want the playing field to be level. Of course, it's all about money. More conference teams in the tournament equals more money for the conference.

Your mention of the SEC is particularly noteworthy. They do the same thing in football. Rarely does an SEC team travel north of, say, Memphis, for an out of conference game. They stay in-bred, get their 6-5 or 7-4 record, get in a bowl and cash in.

In hoops, they may get around the country a little more, but the concept is the same-schedule so you can get to 17-13 or 18-12 and get in the dance. In hoops, the SEC is far from the only guilty party. The RPI clearly helps, but your idea would ensure that conference play means as much as the out of conference RPI builders. And counting conference tourney games is a great element of it, because it would do exactly what you suggest-make those first round 4-5 matchups mean something.

One factor in this "stacking" of the tourney with mediocre major conference teams may be the makeup of the selection committee. I honestly don't know if this is true. Maybe you can tell me, do the mid-majors get fair representation on the selection committee? I know the chair is almost always somebody from a major, but what's the makeup of the rest of the group?

But again, your plan would eliminate that from being a factor. So, how do we get your plan implemented? I think you need to get Dick Vitale on the bandwagon. If he started trumpeting this on TV, that might start a groundswell of support.

Thanks for "listening." Keep up the great work on college hoops.

Joe Martellaro
Harrisburg, Pa.

There is fair regional and "level" representation within the committee. And, although I can't support your specific claims about the SEC, they speak to the overall problem. With such "in breeding," it becomes increasingly difficult for mid-majors to break through.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking revolution. The "majors" are the majors become they generally have the best teams. But there are exceptions, and there are exceptions every year. We need to make just a little more room at the inn to right those wrongs.

Lunardi for President!!! You're a great democrat, Joe, and I really appreciate you sticking up for the mid-majors and the underdogs who deserve a shot in the Dance. I'm a long-time Murray State fan and, though we're a little down this year, it makes me happy to see you giving some of our top mid-major foes some serious respect. Thanks for the brilliant plan and interesting article!

Eric Easley

Appreciate it, Eric. But I'll stick to this job. Not sure if I could afford the pay cut!

More Geography
Thanks again for "bracketology." It's clearly the best regular feature on the web for college basketball. It seems that there's a lot of confusion about which schools should go where if they end up being a protected seed. There's no defined criteria, for instance, for which teams would play in D.C. in the first two rounds if Duke, Maryland and UConn were all No. 1 seeds.

Here's a few suggestions for the committee which could make life easier for everyone:

1) At the beginning of the season every school sends a list to the committee ranking, 1-8, which sites they would like to play at in the first two rounds. This would eliminate the guess work the committee would do to decide whether Mississippi would prefer Greenville or Dallas. Duke's list might look like...

1) D.C.
2) Greenville
3) Chicago
4) Pittsburgh
5) St. Louis
6) Dallas
7) Albuquerque
8) Sacramento

2) No. 1 seeds get their first choice of sites, followed by No. 2 seeds and so on, based on the list they submitted earlier.

3) In the case of multiple No. 1 seeds all listing one site as their first choice (like Duke, Maryland and UConn listing D.C.), the tie is broken by geographic proximity.

This would take politics out of the issue here, allow teams to play for a clearly defined goal, make travel plans of fans easier (hence selling more tickets) and, most importantly, allowing bracketologists to concentrate on more important issues. What do you think?

Barry Geraghty
Madison, Wis.

I like it, Barry. My only quibble would be with your tiebreaker. I think S-Curve position, not mileage, should determine who has "dibs" when multiple teams are competing for the same bracket position. Good plan overall.

Miscellany
Saw the new brackets, and to a large extent, the question still stands. What does C-USA (8th or 9th ranked conference by most rating systems) do differently as a conference than the MWC (ranked 7th by most rating systems) to get so many more bids?

C-USA
Cincinnati 8
Marquette 25
Charlotte 29
Memphis 41

MWC
Utah 11
BYU 32
New Mexico 45

Why is the #4 team from C-USA with a worse RPI picked before the #2 from the MWC with a better RPI? This is not a criticism of your predictions. You are certainly right. If the tourney was today, the committee probably WOULD take four from C-USA and one from the MWC. But my question, as a MWC fan is, "What are we doing wrong?"

The MWC #2 (BYU, at 32) didn't even make your (or anyone else's) "almost" or "last four out" lists. What hurts MWC teams in this process? Is there something that could be done in scheduling, TV contracts, etc, that would help in the future?

It seems that most objective criteria would point to a more even number of teams from C-USA and MWC making it, but that isn't what happens historically. So there must be something else going on. Something beyond the RPI that really hurts the MWC worse than C-USA. I'm wondering if you have any idea what it is? And what, if anything, MWC schools could do to change it?

This is at least a three-week trend in your predictions and everyone else's. It is also a three-year trend in what the committee actually does. Just wondering if someone "from the outside" can give me (who is admittedly biased!!) a hint.

Steve Clarke

One quick answer is that Conference USA has 50 percent more teams than the Mountain West. So, all other things being (mostly) equal, C-USA is likely to get more teams in the NCAAs.

More specifically, the Conference USA group has performed better against quality competition and in more difficult places. Adding Wyoming to the Mountain West sample (giving each group four teams) produces the following results:

RECORD vs. RPI Top 50:

  • Conference USA (10-12, .455)
  • Mountain West (7-13, .350)

    RECORD vs. RPI Top 100:

  • Conference USA (26-15, .634)
  • Mountain West (21-16, .568)

    ROAD/NEUTRAL RECORDS:

  • Conference USA (27-12, .692)
  • Mountain West (12-15, .444)

    The statistical differences are not overwhelming (at least in two of the three areas), but they are distinctive enough.

    Thanks for your great weekly column. I have a question for you that I don't think I've seen before.

    I remember that at one time, the committee used to factor in injuries as a consideration when determining who does and does not make the Big Dance. Is this still part of the selection criteria? And, if so, how is it used? Is it only when key players miss games?

    For example: BC took some of their worst losses this year when Ryan Sidney had a broken jaw; he played in spite of the injury, and clearly was unable to make his typical contribution. Can this factor into BC's NCAA chances, or would they actually have been better off if he had sat out the games?

    Mike Saperstein

    To the best of my knowledge, no distinction is made regarding type of injury or time missed. Individual schools may report to the committee as they wish, and all such information is factored into the equation. I believe it is significant to have a player at far less than 100 percent, and I believe the committee adjusts its thinking accordingly.

    I'm about to do my projections this week, but before I make them I have a question. Can Division I independent teams qualify for the NCAA Tournament?

    Texas-Pan American is an independent Division I program with a 17-7 record, and they are ranked higher in the RPI then a couple of teams that are leading their conference. However, Pan Am's schedule strength is way low.

    Lonnie Getchell

    They are eligible, but would be very hard to select at-large because of the reasons you mention.

    Rumor has it that the Selection Committee uses a "leapfrog rule." Basically they will not take an at-large team without taking every team that finished higher in the conference standings, thus preventing one team from "leap-frogging" over another. This week, Illinois (4-5 in the Big 10) is in, and so are Michigan State (4-4) and Wisconsin (5-5). However, Arkansas (4-5 in the SEC) is in, but Mississippi State (4-4) is out.

    As a rookie bracketologist, should I pay attention to the "leapfrog rule" or is this an urban legend?

    Ben Wiles
    Willmar, Minn.

    It is neither urban nor legend. Nor is it a rule. Good luck!

    Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He is also editor and publisher of www.bracketology.net. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.






  •  More from ESPN...
    Bracket Banter: Jan. 31
    Every edition of ...

    Bracket Banter: Jan. 23
    Every edition of ...

    Bracket Banter: Jan. 17
    Every edition of ...

    Bracket Banter: Jan. 9
    Every edition of ...

    Bracketology: Projecting 2004's field fo 65
    Just where will Syracuse ...

     ESPN Tools
    Email story
     
    Most sent
     
    Print story
     
    Daily email