Selection Sunday was 6 PM EDT. As usual, people always, always complain about teams that were left out. This year, the complaint was with Arizona State getting left out. They had a better record than Arizona, and beat Arizona twice. They also lost to teams they shouldn't have.
Why do these pundits care so much about how a team is doing in the middle of the conference? Perhaps they really should have 128 teams, as Bobby Knight suggested. They know ASU and Arizona, but some team like Southern Alabama, they've never heard of, so they have a passion for a fifth or sixth ranked team to make the tournament. Why do they care? Neither ASU or Arizona are going to win, or get close enough that it will matter.
Every year, there's always some team left out. Would 128 teams solve the problem? Partly, yes. The teams left out would be SO insignificant, that they wouldn't defend the tenth team in a conference, right? Of course, if they did it Bobby Knight's way, then maybe Ivy League teams wouldn't make it in.
And, is it even possible to figure out a top 128 teams? The experts know the next, 10-15 teams to add, but another fifty teams? At that point, the differences seem kinda trivial. And how do you properly seed them?
At 65 teams, and really, 34 at-large teams, it gives pundits enough to complain about each year. I would love for them to put John Feinstein on the ESPN show if, for no other reason, to have a dissenting voice, someone who would support the smaller conferences, who would say yea to the Patriot League champ. ESPN's whole crew favors the big conferences, and they seem to worry about the major conferences getting 6 or 7 teams in.
Besides, if they ever let 128 teams in, what would these guys ever complain about?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment