Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser of Pardon the Interruption obviously aren't college basketball guys. They mostly talk about high-profile NFL and NBA stuff. Important topics like LeBron James' Twitter account and such. So when they debate college basketball, they shouldn't pretend like they know what they're talking about. This exchange on PTI on Monday was ridiculous and downright upsetting.
Tony Kornheiser: "What I found sort of notable was the top sixteen teams, the top sixteen seeds, Mike--take Kentucky out from the SEC, the next fifteen in a row: the Big East, the ACC, the Big Twelve, the Big Ten. I mean, the prejudice towards the power conferences, that not a single mid-major can get in that? Really? Really? Murray State can't get in, Creighton can't get in, UNLV, really?"
Okay.
Deep breath.
Tony. Tony, Tony, Tony. Tony. You managed to cram so many false assumptions into such a small amount of time, it would be impressive if it wasn't so depressing. Let's go one at a time.
First. The top sixteen seeds were from the SEC, the Big East, the ACC, the Big 12, and the Big 10 for a reason. Because the best teams in the country are in those five conferences. It is impossible to debate this. In fact, those are literally the five best conferences in the country based on conference RPI. (Actually, the ACC technically ranks 7th because of the terrible teams at the bottom; still, there's no doubt that UNC, Duke, and FSU are three of the 16 best teams out there.)
If the best teams in the country were in the Atlantic 10, or the Mountain West, or Conference USA, then of course they would be given high seeds. Just look at past years.
2011: SDSU was a #2, BYU was a #3.
2010: New Mexico was a #3.
2009: Memphis was a #2, Xavier was a #3, Gonzaga was a #4.
2008: Memphis was a #1, Xavier was a #3.
And so on. Obviously, the Selection Committee will give a non-power six school a high seed if it earns it. It's just less likely to happen, because such schools don't play in the big conferences that have big schools and big money and big recruits and big programs. If you don't like that system, fine. But don't claim that mid-majors don't get a fair shake in the Selection process. There is no conspiracy. The selection process is so transparent and open, and the criteria for seeding and selection are so well-defined, that claiming an 'anti mid-major scheme' exists is ludicrous.
Now, Kornheiser is upset that mid-majors were shut out of the top sixteen seeds this year, which is just a seeding quirk. Here's why his point of view is, well, wrong.
A) Eleven mid-majors got at-large bids.
B) The Big East got nine bids, the Big 12 and Big 10 got six bids each, and the ACC got five. But the Mountain West and Atlantic 10 tied the SEC with four; the West Coast got three in; and the Missouri Valley and Conference USA each got as many teams in as the Pac-12 (two).
C) The regular season champ of a power six conference did not make the field (Washington).
D) Iona of the MAAC got in over power six schools like Mississippi State and Seton Hall.
E) The group of four or five teams that just missed the tournament included Drexel, Oral Roberts, and Nevada.
F) Wichita State, Temple, and New Mexico earned #5 seeds, and UNLV, San Diego State, and Murray State earned #6 seeds.
G) Tony Kornheiser does not know what he is talking about.
Okay. So. The Selection Committee does not discriminate against mid-majors; in fact, mid-majors were treated quite nicely this year. Now we address the three teams Kornheiser mentioned specifically that he felt deserved a top-four seed: Murray State (6-seed), Creighton (8-seed), and UNLV (6-seed).
None of the three finished in the top 16 in RPI. UNLV was 19, Murray State was 21, and Creighton was 25. All 16 teams that got top-four seeds did rank in the top 16 in RPI, except for Indiana (17) and Wisconsin (23). Indiana, though, beat 1-seed Kentucky, 2-seed Ohio State, and 1-seed Michigan State; Wisconsin beat 4-seed Indiana twice, plus 2-seed Ohio State and, as luck would have it, UNLV.
Creighton's best wins were Wichita State and San Diego State. Murray State's best wins were Memphis and Saint Mary's. UNLV did beat 1-seed North Carolina, plus New Mexico and San Diego State, but the Rebels have that head-to-head loss to Wisconsin plus defeats against TCU and Wyoming. Now throw in the fact that the Big 10 was a much stronger and deeper conference than the MVC, the MWC, and the OVC, and it's easy to see how Indiana, Wisconsin, and the other power-six teams got top four seeds over the best mid-majors.
Anyway, it's not as simple as just switching two teams. There are bracketing rules and geographic concerns to deal with, too. It's possible that a mid-major came close to a top-four seed (Wichita State perhaps?) but was bumped from that line because of another factor.
So, to recap: There is no conspiracy against mid-majors. Mid-majors get top seeds when they earn top seeds, which is less often than power six teams because of obvious reasons. This season, no mid-majors got a top-four seed for the first time in a few years, but six of the eight #5 and #6 seeds went to mid-majors. It's hard to argue that UNLV, Creighton, or Murray State deserved a top-four seed.
Now go back up and read what Tony Kornheiser said. Is it not the dumbest thing ever uttered?
Actually, I lied. Michael Wilbon's response quickly surpassed Kornheiser's comment as the new dumbest thing ever uttered.
Michael Wilbon: "Tony, it's getting like the BCS."
[listener chokes on own disbelief]
MB: "It is getting to the point where there is an armed guard to say, 'You stay out. We don't care if you get to the Final Four in back-to-back years like Butler or VCU or George Mason. We don't want you. And we're going to have to look at college basketball in-- [inaudible; cannot be heard over oozing stupidity]--"
I'm sorry...what? What?! College basketball is getting like...the BCS? College football?!?! I'm sorry...hang on. The sport in which the last two national championship games have featured the Butler freaking Bulldogs is getting to be like the sport that keeps TCU and Boise State out of its national championship games? The sport whose postseason criteria are clearly defined and debated each year is getting to be like the sport whose postseason criteria is determined by a computer formula? The sport with the best postseason tournament in the world is getting to be like the sport with the worst postseason "tournament" ever conceived? The sport that invites teams from conferences-you've-never-heard-of to compete in said ultimate tournament is getting to be like the sport whose champion is from the SEC every year? The sport that's featured three of the best Cinderella stories in sports history over the past six years (George Mason, Butler, and VCU) is getting to be like the sport that actively works to suppress Cinderella stories? Just how many different drugs are you on?
Saying that college basketball has an armed guard keeping mid-major teams from the country's elite is preposterous. Mid-majors make college basketball what it is. There wouldn't be nearly as much national interest in March Madness each year if there weren't so many underdog teams invited and given a chance to compete with the national powerhouses. Of course college basketball belongs to the huge programs, like Michigan State and North Carolina and Connecticut. But no one remembers 2006 as the year Florida won the national title. That's the year George Mason went to the Final Four. That's the year George Mason beat Michigan State and North Carolina and Connecticut. George Mason is what college basketball is all about. Same goes for VCU, and Gordon Hayward and Ali Farokhmanesh, and Gonzaga and Valparaiso, and Davidson and Saint Mary's and Loyola Marymount. There is no equivalent in college football, or anywhere else. Saying that the Selection Committee has an armed guard keeping mid-majors out is so ignorant because the Selection Committee would mean almost nothing if it weren't for mid-majors.
Of course Wilbon's upset that, I guess, mid-majors don't get consistently high seeding even after they prove themselves on the biggest stage. But what is the Selection Committee supposed to do? Give VCU a 2-seed even though the Rams' best win is over South Florida? Invite Butler back to the tournament as a 3-seed even though the Bulldogs didn't win their conference tournament? That's not how it works. Best bodies of work get high seeds, and VCU, Creighton, and Murray State didn't beat very many good teams. There's no armed guard--rules are rules, man. How can you not get this?
As the icing on the cake, both Kornheiser and Wilbon misunderstand some basic seeding concepts after having taken a dump on all of college basketball:
Tony Kornheiser: "I'm surprised that the number-four overall seed is in the same region as the number-eight. That's a great advantage to Missouri and Michigan State. Great advantage."
First of all: the Committee may have put them at 8, but no one really thinks Missouri is the number eight overall seed. No one. The Tigers are better than Duke and Ohio State, and perhaps Kansas, since the two teams split but Mizzou won the Big 12 tourney.
Second of all: you shouldn't be surprised, because this kind of stuff happens all the time. Bracketing rules and geography come into play, which means that the official 1-through-68 seeding often gets jumbled. Missouri was ranked as the number eight team, but got placed where the number five team normally would go because of these other factors. Interestingly, this works out well, because a lot of people would argue that Mizzou is actually much closer to being the number five team rather than the number eight team that the Selection Committee deemed them as.
Third of all: how is this an advantage for Michigan State???? Theoretically yes, a one-seed like the Spartans would rather see the weakest two-seed instead of the strongest. But in this case, is Missouri the weakest two-seed? Uh, no way. Wouldn't Tom Izzo rather see Duke across his bracket? Or Ohio State, who his team has beaten twice? Or perhaps even Kansas? In whose psycho world is sharing a bracket with Missouri a good thing?
Michael Wilbon: "Looks like it. Looks like it to me too, Tony."
In your psycho world, Michael Wilbon.
No comments:
Post a Comment