Sunday, March 22, 2009

Holy MACkerel!

Okay, a very cheesy pun, I know, but well worth it because ...

Today was a very good day for the Mid-American Conference.

In the NCAA women's basketball tournament, Ball State defeated one of the most prestigious programs in NCAA women's basketball history--none other than two-time defending champion Tennessee. Yes, I know it was a down year for the Volunteers, with their roster loaded with first-year players, but, still, this win was significant, particularly because it marked the first time that Tennesee failed to advance to the Final Sixteen in the history of the tournament. Way to go, Cardinals ...

And, meanwhile, several hours before that game took place in Bowling Green, Kentucky, another women's basketball game was held in Bowling Green, Ohio. In that one, which I had the thrill of attending, Bowling Green State University defeated Syracuse in the second round of the women's NIT tournament. Way to go, Falcons, too ...

That's a win over a Big East opponent and a win over an SEC opponent in the same day. On Tuesday Ball State is scheduled to play a Big 12 opponent (Iowa State) and on Thursday night BGSU is scheduled to host a Big Ten opponent (Indiana). Is it too much to ask that both teams soar to another pair of victories over big conference teams? I sure hope not ...

Friday, March 20, 2009

Right and Left

I remember when I was a kid my dad had a sign that hung in his office that read "War never determines who is right. It only determines who is left." Over the years, I've consistently thought that that was a profound statement that certainly applies to violence and warfare ... and, for that matter, sports ...

And so, with that in mind, the Arizona Wildcats men's basketball team defeated Utah by a score of 84-71 Friday evening and that surely fuels many to suggest that that "proves" that Arizona belongs in the tournament, despite the debate that has gone on about that since their selection to the field this past Sunday (though, I appreciate the counterview to that offered by Gary Parrish on CBS Sportsline). As Gary points out, this doesn't "prove" anything. Many teams not included in the field could have beaten Utah and Arizona happened to do so as well. And, of course, if they defeat Cleveland State on Sunday, which isn't a foregone conclusion, but is certainly a definite possibility, then Arizona will be in the Final 16 and that will just provide more light under the fire for those arguing that this "proves" that they deserve to be there. Again, it doesn't "prove" anything, but it does show that the matchup worked for Arizona to advance and it could do so again on Sunday. Put them against one of the other 5 seeds from the tournament (Illinois, Purdue, and Florida State) and perhaps Arizona doesn't win.

This is about more than Arizona, though. It's about the whole idea that the tournament decides who is the national champion, the best, etc. It only decides who the champion is because we have agreed to allow it to do so, but it doesn't necessarily mean that team was the best. It just means that that team won 6 games in row, whether by luck, by outperforming 6 other teams (if even by small margins), or simply because a team received the matchups that allowed it them to advance.

And, so, the NCAA tournament doesn't necessarily determine who is right (read: best). It only determines who is left.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

New Rules for NCAA Basketball Tournaments

Here some things I’d like to see considered for the NCAA basketball tournaments (women’s and men’s):

1. If a team goes undefeated in conference play in the regular season, it should earn an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament even if it loses in its conference tournament. I’ve been advocating this for years and, frankly, it won’t make a lot of a difference overall, since many teams that go undefeated within their conferences either win their conference tournaments and make it moot or end up being considered good enough to be an at-large team by the NCAA tournament committees. Tthis season, Memphis and Gonzaga on the men’s side and Boston University, Sacred Heart, Connecticut, and Wisconsin-Green Bay on the women’s side are the only 6 teams to go undefeated in league play. Memphis, Gonzaga, and Connecticut have nothing to worry about, but based on projections by ESPN, the other three will need to win their conference tournaments in order to make the NCAA tournament. This has happened on the men’s side as well. In 2003-2004, Austin Peay went undefeated in the Ohio Valley Conference, but lost in the OVC tournament final and went to the NIT. My thinking here is that a team should not be punished if its one and only loss to a team in its conference came during a conference tournament. Going undefeated in a conference during the regular season pretty much indicates you outperformed the other teams in your conference and I’d think you have more of a right to be in the tournament than a team that lost once in conference during the regular season, but won its conference tournament. Of course, I’d even want to start arguing that both merit serious consideration, but the undefeated rule would set a high and reasonable guideline.

2. In many cases, this might supersede Number 1 (though not in Austin Peay’s case in 2003-2004), but perhaps there should be a win total that mandates inclusion in the NCAA tournament. I think of 25 wins as a starting point for the discussion, but I could see it as 26 or 27, too, to ensure it’s not set too low. I envision this as a win total just for the regular season, before one’s conference tournament. Mandating that you make the tournament if you have 25 regular-season wins would guarantee that teams like Creighton and Davidson on the men’s side (both of whom won 25 games in the regular season) make the tournament, even though each lost in its respective conference tournament. It would also guarantee a spot for Utah State on the men’s side (who won 27 games during the regular season) even if it loses in the WAC tournament. On the women’s side, teams like Bowling Green (yes, the influence of my own loyalties on my positions here is clearly showing with mention of this school and I’ll gladly acknowledge that), Montana, South Dakota State, Middle Tennessee State, Wisconsin-Green Bay, and Marist would have spots. Among these six teams, it looks like South Dakota State and Middle Tennessee State would be or would have been, respectively, okay this season, but the other may have to (or might have had to) sweat out the selection process without a conference tournament championship in hand. I’ve intentionally not included schools from more prestigious conferences in these lists, since the point is moot for them; they’re getting in anyway. This is something to help teams from less prestigious conferences be rewarded for what, frankly, are outstanding regular seasons. Raising it from 25 to 26 or 27 would pare those lists down a bit, but, at least based on teams on those lists, a standard of 25 regular-season wins certainly seems reasonable.

3. A team has to win at least 20 games in order to qualify for the NCAA tournament. So, for instance, Providence and Arizona are discussed on the men’s side as bubble teams, yet each lost today to finish the season at 19 wins. Both are questionable as at-large teams for the NCAA tournament, but both are still getting consideration and may still get in. In a day and age in which teams usually play a minimum of 29 games and, including exempt tournaments and conference tournaments, this turns into 32, 33, 34 games quite easily, winning less than 20 games just doesn’t seem impressive enough to be an NCAA tournament team. So, in this scenario, Providence and Arizona would not be in. The caveat here is that, unlike rule number 2 above, conference tournament wins can count toward one’s win total. So, had Providence and Arizona each won today, each would then have earned consideration for the NCAA tournament. That doesn’t mean each would be in, but it would mean they could be considered. It seems like that would provide an interesting, useful, and beneficial level of intrigue to the conference tournaments.

Of course, I do realize that these rules are not without their downsides. Rules 2 and 3 might encourage teams, especially teams from more prestigious conferences, to schedule less dauntingly in their out-of-conference fare. Yet, I’m not sure that would be too great of a trend to make a big difference to matter. I also realize that the strength-of-schedule critics would argue that a team like Arizona has beaten a number of top-level teams, while Davidson, though they played some of these top-level teams, did not defeat any, and that this should be considered in Arizona’s favor. I understand that point of view and, again, I recognize that as a loyal alum of Bowling Green State University, I do have a bias based on that loyalty here (of course, I also attended Michigan State and Arizona State, on the other side), yet I think these kinds of rules are worthy of consideration and, at least, further discussion in this forum and in more prominent forums, particularly as we might attempt to create a system of college athletics that contains more equity for what have come to be known as “mid-major” schools.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Maybe I Should Make This the Unofficial Jesse Orosco Should Be in the Hall of Fame Blog

I read another reference to Jesse Orosco that implies that he is the handy reference for reliever longevity ... or the handy reference for something anyway. Surely, that should count for something.