So I've been spending a good portion of my off day casually doing some reading and listening to various morning sports talk radio shows, all of which, at some point in their show, began the infamous "bubble team" debate. Personally I find these debates to be as interesting as watching paint dry; if the so called experts are debating whether you're team deserves to be in the tournament, then A) you dont really deserve to be in the tournament in the first place and B) youre not going to win the tournament anyway so who cares. Yes yes, I'm aware some teams that may have been bubble teams have made the final four. But which bubble teams are you talking about when you say this? VCU? George Mason? Butler? Can you name me a "bubble team" from a big conference that made the Final Four in the last two decades? I think not. So this begs the question: Should these teams have even been bubble teams in the first place?
What really sparked this article though was two of these radio shows before mentioned (ill leave them anonomous) were debating on whether UCONN should make the NCAA tournament.
Are you kidding me?
I don't see how this could be even considered "debateable". I am openly admitting before you read further and start nitpicking that I am writing this with minimal research, so the actual facts may not be exact, but close enough to where you will see the point. UCONN currently sits at 10th in their conference. Yes...10th. I can already hear my critics... "But Poorman, its the Big East their the best, even the bottom teams are better than the smaller conferences top teams". I dont plan to even address that issue or how I view the Big East as being overrated because that isn't the point of this article. But I will ask this, do you really think a team that finishes 10th in their own conference should be rewarded with a tournament birth regardless? I think you should not....
My proposal to fix this problem is simple, conferences should be capped at how many teams they are allowed. I haven't done enough thinking to give you exactly what that cap should be, but it should be less than half of the teams in the conference. Maybe 5 for the ACC (12 team conference, 6 for the Big East (16 team conference), again these numbers are debateable, but you get the point. So why would I do this?
First of all, if you allow teams that don't even finish in the top 50% of their conference to make the tournament, youre essentially telling the fans that the regular season is meaningless. Why in the world should I tune in to watch UConn vs. USF if these teams can still make the tournament with a sub-.500 conference record? The result of allowing this? Regular season ratings nosedive. However, if you know that your conference only gets to send 5 teams, or 6 teams or whatever the "cap" is, this could be the game of the season for these schools, and maybe even more importantly, a game that people will actually care about watching!
There is only one argument that can (and inevitably will) be made against my proposal. "Poorman, he best 68 teams (or however many at-large teams are selected) should be picked regardless of conference".
Really? Why?
Let me address the first issue with this argument, how do we know who is better? For instance, how can you tell me for certain that UConn is better than Drexel or VCU? The answer is you cannot, period. The UConn supporters will cling to the argument (their only possible argument) of saying "look at the schedules, UConn's is much tougher!" Ok, I'm looking at the schedules right now, and yes, UConn has played a tougher schedule. I also see another glaring difference when I look at these two schedules, UConn has seven more losses than Drexel. Whether you argue for either team, there is absolutely no way you can say with certaintly that one team is better than the other.
That being said, my next point (which happens to be my main point) is simple: Wouldn't we rather see what Drexel can do in the tournament than UConn? (*Note, I am using Drexel and UConn in this case, but my intention is for Drexel to represent all "small" conference schools who have great seasons, vs. UConn who I am using to represent "big" conference schools who have weak years in their conference).
Unless you are a UConn alumni, you're answer to this should be yes. Why? Simple. UConn get the chance to play in the spotlight all year around, they have faced the "Big Boys" already this season, and they (for the most part) have lost. They will get yet another chance in their conference tournament to play the "big boys" again, and if they have success they will earn their way in the tournament. But assuming they don't, do they really deserve a third chance? Absolutely not. On the contrary however, Drexel has not had the chance to play in the spotlight, to play against the "big boys" as some will say. Even the critics of my proposed "cap" rule will make sure to tell you 1000 times over that Drexel did not play against any "good" teams. So why not give them that chance? What could be more interesting, more appealing, more exciting, then seeing these "david vs. goliath matchups", and finding out just how good these smaller conference teams really are? Is it that we are scared to find out they might be just as good?
March Madness isn't about some sort of deep analysis as the ESPN "experts" would have you believe with their RPI ratings and other nonsense. If we truly only cared about finding out who the best team(s) was, we would simply let Syracuse and Kentucky play a best of 3 series and be done with it, as these are clearly the best teams in the country. The intrigue of March Madness comes from the fact that, on any given night, one of these powerhouse teams may get upset by a Cindarella team. Was Northern Iowa better than Kansas 2 years ago? Please. Cmon. March Madness is about creating excitement that captures the attention of the casual sports fan. People that haven't watched a college basketball game all year become die hard Gonzaga, Butler, VCU, and George Mason fans for a weekend as they root for the upsets that will shatter brackets.
My message to the selection committee, stop worrying about whether the Jim Boheim's or Seth Greenberg's are going to shed tears on ESPN after their subpar teams don't make the tournament....and give the fans what they want, a chance to see teams they never usually would, and more importantly, the chance to put down as many cindarella's on their brackets.
