The Bubble

I watched far too many basketball games yesterday. I am already losing enthusiasm for the NCAA Tournament, and the teams have not been selected. I blame ESPN.

ESPN has created a cottage industry out of "Bracketology," just as they did with the NFL Draft, as both feature year-round programming now, not just coverage of an event.

So, for the past several weeks, every college broadcast has featured discussion of the "bubble" teams and their relative merit.

Some, like Jim Boeheim, advocate expanding the field of 64.5 to give more teams the opportunity. Why? Just to match the lunacy of rewarding.500 teams with bowl game invitations? There are not 64 deserving teams right now. Why add more teams because a selection committee cannot decide which undeserving team should make it?

This morning, I saw Virginia Tech's Seth Greenberg interviewed about Va Tech's merits. I like Greenberg. I liked Greenberg when he was at Long Bech State. However, he used yesterday's post-game news conference and an interview today to lobby for inclusion. I don't blame him so much as the way the entire tournament selection process has taken on a life of its own. To fill more time and create more controversy, the hosts ask the questions and coaches are obliged to answer. Couldn't ESPN show a women's game or a high school state championship game rather than hour after hour of studio shows fixated on the brackets and the bubble?

I feel no sympathy for BCS teams. As I see it, BCS teams have two chances to make the NCAA Tournament: have a good regular season or win the conference tournament. For mid-majors, they often have one opportunity, which makes their entire regular season irrelevant. VCU dominated its conference, but lost in its conference tournament and likely will not make the tournament. I dislike this, as I believe the regular season should have some merit and value. What if St. Mary's was excluded after a 25-win regular season because they lost in their conference tournament, in OT, to USD on USD's home floor? That one game decides a team's fate more than a 30-game regular season body of work?

A BCS team, as I see it, needs to be 1 or 2 games above .500 in conference and play a decent, not great non-conference schedule and win a game or two against pretty good teams. Va. Tech's best win is against Miami. I have no problem if they make the tournament, but when your best argument is that we only lost to UNC by 2, we have issues. When did close losses start to count as positives? Sure, if an Ivy League school goes to Carolina and has a close loss, that's a good achievement. But a conference foe on a neutral court? If you can't beat a pretty good team all year, why do you belong in the tournament?

When Villanova played Georgetown in the Big East Quarterfinals, some described it as a must win for Nova. Again, I like Nova and Jay Wright is one of my favorite coaches. One of the ESPN guys said it was unfair that a team's season rests on beating the best team in your league. Really? That's what happens in every mid-major conference. That's what happened with USD, as they beat Gonzaga to get into the tournament. If you can't beat the best in your conference, why do you deserve to make the tournament? I agree that the regular season should count for more - I don't even like the conference tournaments and only watch because it is the only time ESPN shows many of the teams, like Fullerton State and Boise State who I enjoyed watching. But, if a team like VCU is eliminated because they lost in their conference tournament despite winning the regular season, why is it unfair to hold Va. Tech or Nova to the same criteria?

The ESPN guys like Digger and Dookie V continue to say that a team like Illinois State would not win 25 games in a conference like the Big East. That's not the point. You don't have to win 25 games in the Big East. You basically have to go .500. And, because of the unbalanced schedule, you can hope for the easy schedule. The only conference record that mean anything, to me, is the Pac 10 because they play everyone home and away so there is balance between conference members. Imagine a Big East team that played GTown and Louisville once each, but played St. John's and Seton Hall twice each. Much easier schedule than playing GTown and Louisville twice and SH and SJ once each.

With the mid-majors, the point is that it is reasonable to expect a very good mid-major team like Illinois State or St Joe's could go .500 in a BCS league. The ACC has 2 ranked teams. Va Tech went 9-7 in the ACC, but did not beat Duke or UNC. So, who did they beat? Nc State, BC, Florida State, etc. We're arguing that St. Joe's or Illinois State could not beat these teams? It's not that a mid-major would duplicate its record in a major conference; it's that a mid-major could duplicate an average record in a BCS conference, and an average record in a BCS conference is often enough.

Personally, as a Pac 10 homer, I hope the Pac 10 teams get in to the tourney. When looking at Nova or Va Tech against Arizona State, at least ASU beat Stanford and Xavier. However, if they do not get in because they could not beat USC in the conference tournament, so be it. They had their chances. They could have won 1 or 2 more regular season games or they could have won a game or two in the conference tournament. Same with all the BCS conference teams. There just is no room for Dookie V to get all choked up this afternoon when one of his power teams like Syracuse or Maryland get left out of the tournament because they had plenty of opportunities.

The only teams I feel bad for our mid and low majors who won their conference championship, but slipped in the conference tournament. Teams like VCU, who we know is good enough, as they beat Duke last year. These teams proved all season that they are good teams, but then had one bad loss in a tournament and all the work all season long, all the wins, mean nothing at the end of the day. I would feel much better about the tournament if it meant 2 teams in from a weaker conference versus the 8th place team fromthe Big East or 7th place team from the Pac 10.