TWO's longtime friend, frequent debate loser and sometime muse, Gus Johnson's Whisper, wrote a blog entry countering TWO's previous entry arguing for more mid-majors in the NCAA tournament. GJW, for reasons known only to him, screamed like a school girl during a Jonas Brothers sighting when he learned of the inclusion of Arizona, Maryland and Wisconsin in the tournament field. Humorous similes aside, GJW is a fan of the Jonas Brothers. Just stating facts here.
I will attempt to summarize his argument so that you will not have to wade through the general incoherence and disorganization of his piece. It essentially breaks down into a few ideas:
- He breaks up mid-majors into two categories, mid majors from the A-10 and "Boppers" (bottom-toppers) which are good teams from terrible conferences.
- He shows that in this and in previous years, most of the final 4, final 8 and final 16 were teams from BCS conferences, not "Boppers".
- He shows that a high percentage of "Bopper" teams do not make any sort of tournament runs, and that Arizona, Maryland, Wisconsin and Michigan (this year's questionable at-large teams) each won at least one game.
- He propounds that, in some years, when the BCS conferences are down, midmajors deserve more bids, but this year was not one of those years.
Unfortunately for GJW, his argument, in addition to following no known logical progression, is also mostly unresponsive to mine.
First of all, trying to remove Xavier and Temple from the ranks of mid-major is a bit self-serving, but ultimately inconsequential for this discussion.
Second, the fact that the teams advancing in the tournament are mostly BCS schools should suprise no one. Generally the very best teams are from BCS conferences. They get the most bids. In a bad year for BCS schools, they get 24 of the 34 at-large bids, and in a good year (like this one) they get 30 out of the 34. It makes sense that there would be more BCS schools advancing deep into the tournament. At no point was TWO arguing that midmajors, or a high percentage of midmajors, will be regularly advancing to the Final 4.
The argument, rather, is about teams on the margins. Bubble BCS teams vs Bubble midmajor teams. When the selection committee had 4 remaining at-large selections (having given out 26 of the previous 30 to BCS schools), they had a choice between BCS teams like Arizona, Wisconsin and Maryland and midmajors like Creighton, St. Mary's and Davidson.
Why should they have picked the latter?
1) The NCAA selection committee has a responsibility to pick a field for the tournament that will both provide an opportunity for the top teams to play and be enjoyable for students, fans, and the viewing public.
2) The BCS teams have proven, beyond a doubt, that they are not top teams. There is plenty of information available to suggest that these schools will not get very far in the tournament. When you play 16 ACC games and lose 9 of them, as Maryland did, sure, you might have a good game and beat a 7th seed, but then you will do as you did all season long, and get handled by a top team (Memphis blew out Maryland in the next round).
3) The midmajors - or Boppers - are more mysterious, but are likely not top teams either. They have not played as much top competition. There is a strong likelihood that these schools will, like the BCS bubble teams, get handled early in the tournament. GJW correctly points out that only one or two midmajors, if any, make significant tournament runs each year.
4) Because of the lack of information on midmajors, however, once every couple of years there is a midmajor team drastically, drastically undervalued that actually is a top team. Davidson - which in 2006 lost to eventual national champion Kansas by 2 points in the Elite 8 - was a 10 seed. George Mason made it to the final 4 in 2006 as an 11 seed and, prior to their run, were famously told that they "didn't belong" in the tournament by Billy Packer.
5) Somewhat more sentimentally, the public LOVES Cinderella runs and upsets, no matter the sport. No one, not even graduates of the school, will remember that Arizona beat Utah and Cleveland State and then got beaten by 40 points by Louisville, but everyone remembers Cinderella runs of Davidson and George Mason. I don't think its unrelated that this is widely considered the most boring NCAA tournament in recent years.
6) Because choosing BCS bubble schools over midmajor bubble schools risks that a top team will not make the tournament (even if this is the case only once every two or three years), while the reverse choice does not run any comparable risk, coupled with the enjoyment fans get out of seeing smaller schools play against big schools leads me to once again aver that the NCAA Selection Committee should select more midmajor at-large teams.
If anyone is wondering what trip you just took with me over the last 6 paragraphs, its called a logical progression.
This weekend's upset prediction: Michigan State over UConn. Thabeet gets in foul trouble.
In conclusion, Dr. Octagon was GJW's pediatrician during his formative years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You could have condensed that to: 'I prefer upsets. And because I assume that my opinion speaks for everyone, 'everyone prefers upsets'. Not so much a logical progression as a 'this is what I like'. You prefer little schools to have chances because they are unkown, we prefer the best 64 teams judged on a yearly basis. You prefer a circus sideshow of teams that no one has heard of, we calmly analyze the situation on a yearly basis. You have a kneejerk reaction to include a small school no matter what, we LOVE facts and judging cases based on facts.
ReplyDeleteJust for your review:
-The top of college hoops is as good or better than it has been in years
-The effects of this includes teams like Maryland competing against the top teams (they played 3 teams that were at one point ranked #1 in the country and beat 2 final four teams) regularly. There is a trickle down when the Big Conferences are dominant.
-Your point against us of 'if the big schools get more chances, of course they'll have more teams' is the same point we made about Boppers. They typically perform in a similar way to big schools (read unpredictable) so automatically giving them bids in some kind of bizarre affirmative bid action cannot be defended beyond your personal preference.
-This year was a special case with upsets in conference tournaments stealing bids and the dominance at the top of the college game.
Thanks! GJW
Your frantic, hecticly organized prose belies your claims of calmness.
ReplyDeleteAmazing how someone who tells people they're in mensa (or, more specifically, tells people they once kissed a girl who was in mensa) can just ignore arguments. "I like upsets" would have been an acceptable summary if my argument had just been point #5. Please read points 2,3 and 4 and respond. Or don't.
I enjoyed your use of Trickle Down and Affirmative Action Theories, but Maryland playing against more top teams means nothing to me. Is there any indication that Maryland might be a top team? One crazy upset in the context of all of their terrible losses and 7-9 conference record should not distract from the obvious answer: No.
Why don't you have a wine cooler and try to relax yourself?