The NIT Winner or NCAA Tournament Loser Debate… The NIT is the Losers Bracket

March 17, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

After my first debate here at TSD I remember being frustrated that I lost. Who could blame me? My argument was as compelling as it was entertaining, but nevertheless I lost. I remember bragging that I may have lost the debate, but I had the popular support (as my argument received 62 percent of the vote), but Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan were there to serve me a large slice of humble pie. One of them emailed me saying, “Losing the debate but winning the popular vote is like being the prettiest ugly girl at the dance.” As much as it pains me to say this… they were right. (You might want to bookmark this debate as it will be one of the last times I ever concede that point.) Their words are extremely applicable to today’s debate: Is it better to win a couple of games in the NIT than to lose in the NCAA tournament?

The NIT is the loser’s bracket. I am not saying that there aren’t any talented teams in the NIT, because there are. But for the most part, teams are in the NIT because they were not good enough for one of the real tournament’s spots. Sure, there are exceptions of snubbed schools and good mid-major teams that arguably deserve to be in the Big Dance, but that just proves my point. We cry foul at their exclusion from the NCAA tournament because we feel they don’t belong in the loser’s bracket. The NIT is like competing and winning honorable mention. It is a glorified participation trophy, a consolation prize. And you know who gets consolation prizes, right? Losers. I know that’s tough for people to read out there, but it is true. In sports, like life, there are winners and losers. Experiencing defeat is important in life. It encourages growth and provides motivation for the future.

You know that annoying guy at work. The guy who thinks he is always right, always wants to do everything his way, and cannot take constructive criticism. He is like that for a reason. He is apart of a whole generation out there now entering the work force. Men and women who were told there are no losers in life and we are all the same. He probably never learned to work hard, be disciplined, or work as a team because he was never forced to lose. There was always a certificate of participation or a best effort medal there to remind him he’s perfect just the way he is. But I digress.

Teams that did not make the NCAA tournament failed to reach their goal – winning the national championship. If winning the national championship, as unrealistic as it may seem for some teams, is not their goal, then they are selling themselves short. Decent teams like Cincinnati, Virginia Tech, and UConn were not good enough for the Big Dance. Does that make them losers? Absolutely! But losing should serve as motivation to not only return to the NCAA tournament next year, but to win it as well.

Loyal Homer mentioned in his introduction to this debate that teams like Memphis, Baylor, and Notre Dame have gone from deep runs in the NIT to deep runs in the NCAA Tournament. This only proves my point even more. They were not satisfied with a good performance in a secondary tournament. These teams wanted to win where it mattered most – The Big Dance.

Even high school athletes don’t set out to be second best. No one really wants to play on the junior varsity (JV) team. Real competitors want and strive to play on the varsity level. Why? Because it is the only one that matters. Even if a JV team goes undefeated it’s not really a big deal because JV games are not competitions at the highest level. They are glorified scrimmages, over-hyped exhibitions between practice squads. The same should hold true for college athletes. They should not put too much stock into a tournament of teams excluded from the recognized national championship. Bragging about winning the NIT is akin to bragging that your school has the best JV team in the state.

Finally, let’s compare two schools – UNC (17-16) and Georgia Tech (22-12). The University of North Carolina Tar Heels began the season attempting to defend their national championship, but as the season went on it became clear that they would not be able to do that. In fact, their record was so poor they were not even included in the Big Dance at all. North Carolina not only lost to competitive conference teams like Clemson, Duke, and Georgia Tech, but suffered defeat to mid-major upsets like College of Charleston. Georgia Tech, on the other hand, is playing at an elevated level this season, even defeating one seed Duke during the regular season. The Yellow Jackets figure to make a strong showing in the NCAA tournament. Even if UNC goes on to win the NIT and Georgia Tech only wins two rounds of the NCAA tournament, can the accomplishments of UNC be considered superior? No.

In the end, it all boils down to the level of competition. The NIT by its very nature is less competitive than the NCAA tournament and cannot be compared… that is unless someone is looking for the title of prettiest ugly girl at the dance.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

5 Comments | The NIT Winner or NCAA Tournament Loser Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The NIT Winner or NCAA Tournament Loser Debate… NCAA or NIT?

March 17, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan.

As we all know, the first round of the NCAA tournament begins tomorrow and employees all across the country will be slacking off at work tomorrow afternoon so they can follow their brackets! There is a good chance I will be “casually” following some of the early games if it is a slow day at work. However, did you also know that last night was the beginning of the NIT tournament? If you didn’t, you missed a very entertaining North Carolina-William & Mary game in which the Tar Heels won while playing at their old gym. They also won despite the fact that William & Mary hit 16 three pointers!!

Obviously, the NCAA tournament is the place every team wants to be at the end of the season. A rigorous season is endured in hopes of getting one of the 65 slots in the NCAA Tournament. You get to play on national TV, which is quite a thrill for some of the kids who play for the automatic qualifiers who do not really get to experience that during the regular season.

While that is true, the NIT also offers a chance for teams like Mississippi State and Virginia Tech – teams that felt they were wronged by not being selected for the Big Dance – to continue playing. The field of 32 is eventually trimmed down to one, with the championship being played at one of the most famous arenas ever, Madison Square Garden. Many teams also use the NIT as a springboard for the following season. A quick look at the results of the past ten seasons and you will see several examples of this. Memphis parlayed three deep runs in the NIT, including an NIT championship in 2002, into a string of strong finishes in the NCAA Tournament. Just last season Baylor and Notre Dame made it to the semifinals of the NIT. Look where they reside this year. Baylor is currently a three seed in the tournament, while Notre Dame is a six seed and is probably a sleeper pick among many of you.

Today’s debate revolves around one central question:

Is it better to win a couple of games in the NIT, or is it better to be a one and done in the NCAA Tournament?

Bleacher Fan will argue that it’s better to win a couple of games in the NIT in the hopes of building continuity for next season while serving as some type of reward for the season just completed. Babe Ruthless will argue that it is much better to make the NCAA Tournament, even if you make a quick exit.

The floor is yours. Let’s see what you got!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NIT Winner or NCAA Tournament Loser Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The NIT Winner or NCAA Tournament Loser Debate… It is Better to Win Something Small than to Lose Something Big

March 17, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

Let’s take a trip back in time to April 2, 2009, shall we?

On this date, who would you rather be – Wake Forest (seeded fourth in the NCAA Midwest Region), Utah (seeded fifth in the NCAA Midwest Region), or Penn State (seeded second in the NIT)?

When April 2, 2009 rolled around there were only six teams in all of college basketball that were still alive and competing – the national championship field had been narrowed down to the Final Four, and two teams were still alive in the NIT.

Both Wake Forest and Utah, who had been given the glory of being invited to March Madness, were sitting at home on their couches after being bumped out in the first round, while the “snubbed” Penn State team was getting ready for their NIT championship matchup against Baylor.

There is no question – I would rather be with Penn State!

I understand the excitement and drama around being selected to compete for the National Championship. If this were a debate about whether it is better to be selected for the NCAA Tournament, or instead selected for the NIT, there is no doubt that the NCAA Tournament is the clear preference. But that is not the subject of the debate today.

We are instead asking the question of which is better – NIT success or NCAA Tournament first-round failure. There will invariably be 33 losers after the first round of the NCAA Tournament games are completed, and every single one of those losers would trade places IN A HEARTBEAT with a team that was still alive in the NIT. Why? Because the NIT kids still get to play!

Let me put the question another way. Would you rather own a losing PowerBall lottery ticket, or winning $500 scratch-off ticket? With PowerBall, you had the POTENTIAL to win a better prize, but came away empty handed. With the scratch-off ticket, you may not have had the opportunity to win a prize as impressive as the PowerBall, but you actually have a real prize in your hands that is worth celebrating.

I’ll take the cash!

Penn State, who went on to win the NIT last season, had a more successful postseason than Wake Forest, Utah, and many other so-called favorites who were given the opportunity to compete for a spot in the Final Four. Does that mean the Nittany Lions were happy to have been selected for the NIT instead of March Madness? No, but only a fool would trade their NIT Championship for Utah’s first-round ouster.

When the 2009 season was completed, Penn State had a postseason championship. Wake Forest and Utah did not.

Looking ahead to the 2010 brackets, the University of Illinois serves as another example to illustrate what I am talking about. Would the Illini prefer a shot at the national championship over a shot at the NIT crown? Of course they would. However, if they go on to play deep into the NIT, they will be much happier with their postseason than are the Winthrop Eagles, who last night were defeated by Arkansas Pine-Bluff during the play-in Game of the National Tournament.

By the end of March, the two teams still vying for the NIT crown will have had a more successful postseason than MOST of the teams which played in March Madness. They will have accomplished something worthy of celebration, and would not trade that experience for a first-round loss in the national championship tournament.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

1 Comment | The NIT Winner or NCAA Tournament Loser Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate Verdict… Apparently It’s Not Always Sunny In Philadelphia

March 17, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

Philadelphia is an amazing city. It brought the world revolutionary contributions, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Philly Cheese Steak. It serves as the backdrop for one of the best shows on television – It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia – and the home of the greatest a fictional athlete of all time, Rocky Balboa (Rocky! Rocky! Rocky!) Add the Philadelphia Eagles, Flyers, and Phillies to the mix, and we are talking about one very special place with a lot to brag about. But, can Philadelphia claim the greatest infield of all time?

Loyal Homer apparently thinks so. He agrees with Philadelphia Daily News sports columnist Bill Conlin that the 2010 Phillies infield is the greatest in all of baseball history during the modern era. As I stated in my introduction to this debate, this is a huge claim to make.

Loyal Homer gave a detailed breakdown of the accolades of the alleged “greatest” Phillies infield of all time. He described the hitting prowess of former league MVPs Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins and suggests that there is even room for improvement in the future for these stellar players. These guys must be good if Atlanta Braves-loving Loyal Homer can sing their praises. Loyal Homer lost me for a moment, however, when he mentioned a recent rumor about a potential Howard for Pujols deal between the Cardinals and Phillies as another merit of the slugger. This confused me because I am not really sure why a team would want to trade away their first baseman if that player was a key part of the greatest infield in baseball’s modern era. But, he quickly got back on track by proclaiming Chase Utley as, more than likely, the best second baseman in the game today, a point I think most people will concede. Placido Polanco gets more of an icing on the cake type of designation with his ability to serve as a table setter for the big bats behind him and his above average defense. These facts do prove that the Phillies’ infield is stacked with talent the likes very few teams past or present can compare.

Bleacher Fan counters Conlin and Loyal Homer’s arguments with a statistic supported case of his own. He actually took the high road, refusing to pander to my obvious bias, by declining to explore the argument that the New York Yankee’s 2009 infield was superior (a point Conlin mentioned was arguable). Although on the surface it appears he is doing his opposition a courtesy, he is actually making a stronger point for himself. Bleacher Fan made the 1975-76 Cincinnati Reds’ infield, more fondly referred to as the Big Red Machine, the focal point of his argument. Bleacher Fan argued that according to the criteria which Conlin used to define greatness – batting statistics – the Cincinnati Reds team was certainly superior in more than a couple of areas. He explained that the Big Red Machine had a better batting average, hit more triples and stole more bases than the Phillies. An intelligent argument, but one more suited for Sports Geek than the king of cut-throat, Babe Ruthless.

Then Bleacher Fan got ugly, and I started paying attention. He called out the Phillies on their inability to seal the deal.

Bleacher Fan stopped being nice and started being ruthless when he went after the credibility of a team that failed to be successful in the only aspect of the game that truly matters – winning. He pointed out that the Reds won consecutive World Series championships, a feat which the 2009 Phillies attempted and failed. While Polanco was not apart of last year’s Phillies team, the logic holds. If you cannot win what’s most important, nothing else matters.

That is why I’m awarding this debate victory to the Bleacher Fan. Bleacher Fan wins not because the statics he presented wowed me but because he was able to get vicious and capitalize on his opponent’s obvious weakness – winning the big one. This debate takes nothing away from the incredible talent Philadelphia will put on the field in 2010. It just states that, as of right now, the Phillies are not the undisputed champions of the infield.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate

March 16, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

Modern infielders are proving to be as good with the lumber as they are with the leather. The infield dirt has long been the home of baseball’s defensive specialists. Whether they are robbing a speedster of an infield hit or relaying for the dreaded 6-4-3 double play, infielders never cease to amaze spectators with their inventiveness and agility.

But several of today’s infielders have established themselves as being equally dangerous on offense. Guys like Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, and Nomar Garciapara plowed the way – in the late 1990s and early 2000s – by making the position of shortstop as beneficial on offense as it was on defense. Now players like Chase Utley, Dustin Pedroia, and Robinson Cano are redefining the position of second baseman with their prolific offense. The game is changing and evolving, and it isn’t hard to believe that baseball is climbing atop the highest rung in the evolutionary ladder of the infielder’s usefulness. So in this era of dominate infielders, which team reigns supreme?

At least one sports columnist from the Philadelphia Daily News, Bill Conlin, believes that the Philadelphia Phillies are unequivocally the best infield of the modern era. That is a really big statement considering both the talent we have seen since baseball integrated and the unparalleled offense of today. Usually when someone makes a bold statement like that a debate ensues, and here at TSD we live for debates.

Today’s debate question: Is the Phillies infield of third baseman Placido Polanco, shortstop Jimmy Rollins, second baseman Chase Utley, and first baseman Ryan Howard the best infield in the modern era?

Bleacher Fan will argue that there is no way that the Phillies infield can be considered the best infield of the modern era, finding a couple of major flaws in the foursome’s game and pointing out some other teams that have some measurable edge on this year’s Philadelphia infield.

Loyal Homer will have to suppress his Atlanta Braves love long enough to argue that Mr. Conlin is right – the Phillies’ Phab Phour (I smell a cheesy t-shirt in the works) are the best infield of the modern era. Clearly defining what criterion constitutes the “best” infield will be a critical aspect of this debate. Loyal Homer will need to explain how observable measures prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Phillies meet these criteria.

On a personal note, this debate marks historic occasion for The Babe as it will be the first baseball debate that will be judged by Yours Truly. Gentlemen, I suggest that you swing for the fences. Be cunning. Be aggressive. And most importantly, be ruthless!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate – Good Cannot Compete With Great

March 16, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

In an article published last week, Philadelphia Inquirer Sports Columnist Bill Conlin claimed that the Philadelphia Phillies infield of third baseman Placido Polanco, shortstop Jimmy Rollins, second baseman Chase Utley, and first baseman Ryan Howard is potentially the greatest infield of baseball’s modern era. He then follows that claim up with an open invitation to solicit opposing arguments.

Don’t mind if I do!

I could POSSIBLY accept that they are the best infield in the game today (although Conlin himself points out the 2009 World Series Champion New York Yankees infield of Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Robinson Cano, and Mark Teixeira as being worthy challengers to that claim). I could also accept an argument that they are AMONG the best infields of the modern era. But that is as far as I am willing to go.

In response to Conlin’s very bold statement, which eliminates those qualifiers, I offer three simple words: Big. Red. Machine.

Career Comparisons

Polanco, Rollins, Utley, and Howard may be good, but when compared to the Cincinnati Reds infield of 1975 and 1976 they may as well be the Bad News Bears.

The names of the four Reds infielders during those seasons are probably enough to win this debate:

1B – Tony Perez (Hall of Fame, 7x All-Star)

2B – Joe Morgan (Hall of Fame, 10x All-Star, 5x Gold Glove winner, 1x Silver Slugger, 2x League MVP)

SS – Dave Concepcion (9x All-Star, 4x Gold Glove winner)

3B – Pete Rose (SHOULD BE in the Hall of Fame, 17x All-Star, Rookie of the Year, 2x Gold Glove winner, 1x Silver Slugger, 1x League MVP, MLB’s all time hit leader)

Compare those totals to the current Phillies infield, which has only 10 All-Stars, eight Gold Gloves, seven Silver Sluggers, one Rookie of the Year, and two League MVPs.

With all due respect to the Phillies’ infield today, they have a very long way to go before they can consider their collective careers on par with four legends.

Season-Specific Hitting Statistics

Conlin uses the hitting statistics of the four Phillies infielders to justify his claim of “best infield.” Using the very same criteria he selected, let’s compare the results of the 1975 Reds, 1976 Reds, and the 2009 Phillies. (Note that Placido Polanco’s 2009 stats were actually earned while with the Detroit Tigers).

1975 Reds
In 585 total games in 1975 the Reds infield combined for 2,178 at-bats and amassed 656 hits for a combined batting average of .301. They scored 355 runs, and racked up 326 RBI, 125 doubles, 14 triples, 49 homeruns, and 101 stolen bases. Each player also earned an All-Star selection, Morgan and Concepcion were awarded Gold Gloves, and Morgan was also named League MVP.

1976 Reds
In 594 total games the same four players combined for 2,240 at-bats, 665 hits, and an average of .297. They scored 394 runs, knocked in 334 runs, and hit 132 doubles, 24 triples, 65 homeruns, and notched 100 stolen bases. Once again, each player earned an All-Star selection, Morgan and Concepcion were awarded Gold Gloves, and Morgan was also named League MVP.

2009 Phillies
In 624 total games, Polanco, Utley, Rollins, and Howard combined for 2,477 at bats, 677 hits, and a batting average of only .273 (compared to .301 and .297 for the Reds). They scored 399 runs, knocked in 383 runs, and hit 139 doubles, 17 triples, 107 homeruns, and only 69 stolen bases. Only Howard and Utley were named as All-Stars, Utley also earned a Silver Slugger Award, and only Rollins and Polanco earned Gold Gloves.

What do these statistics reveal?

The current Philadelphia infielders – who last season combined for at least 30 more games played than did the 1975 or 1976 Reds – had a lower batting average and only 12 more hits than the (1976) Reds, five more runs, 49 more RBI, seven more doubles, and seven fewer triples.

Make no mistake, the 2010 Phillies offense has the potential to put up phenomenal numbers. But they have much to improve upon if they hope to compete historically with the Big Red Machine.

What Matters Most

At the end of the day, only one thing matters – winning. That is something Cincinnati’s infield of the mid-1970s was able to accomplish at will. During the 1975 and 1976 seasons, the Reds went on to win a combined total of 210 out of 324 games (a win percentage of .648), all en route to TWO World Series Championships.

That is the bar that has been ultimately set by the Reds, and THAT is the standard to which the Phillies must be compared.

The infield of the 2010 Philadelphia Phillies cannot yet match the collective career achievements, in-season production, or (most importantly) the wins of the 1975-1976 Cincinnati Reds. History may prove otherwise, but for today, Mr. Conlin, “the BEST of the Modern Era” is a claim that the 2010 Phillies cannot make.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate – Philly’s Infield Gets Much Love from Loyal Homer

March 16, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

We take a break from your scheduled editorial calendar full of March Madness debates to throw in a fascinating baseball debate that is sure to start some discussion. Babe Ruthless has asked Bleacher Fan to determine if the current Philadelphia Phillies team has the best infield in the modern era. I am not a Phillies fan by any stretch of ANY vivid imagination (being a fan of a National League East rival makes it difficult to root for the Phils), but I am someone who appreciates greatness, and greatness currently resides in the city of Brotherly Love. Yes, this Phillies infield, consisting of first baseman Ryan Howard, second baseman Chase Utley, shortstop Jimmy Rollins, and third baseman Placido Polanco is the greatest infield of the modern era.

I realize this is a tough argument to make. The infield that up North that dons the pinstripes is pretty strong as a group, and Bleacher Fan has mentioned casually in editorial conversations about some of the mid 1990s Indians infields. But let’s take a closer look.

Ryan Howard needs no explanation, but we are going to explain anyway. Howard, who won the 2005 Rookie of the Year despite only having 312 at-bats (which is quite impressive if you think about it), has continued to improve each season. His defense is definitely improving as he is not the most agile guy over at first base. The thing is, he can still get so much better. He has won an MVP award and is a strong candidate to win more. In essentially five years of playing he has amassed 222 home runs and 640 RBI. I will let you pull out the calculator and do the math. He is so good that his name was recently rumored to have been mentioned in a trade for the arguably the game’s greatest player, Albert Pujols.

Chase Utley, who is my favorite Phillies player, is arguably the best second baseman in the game today. The thing is, he would have been a starting second baseman sooner in his career if not for the fact that second base was manned by his current (again) teammate at the hot corner. He has been a full-time starter for four years now (he was not a full-time starter in 2005 until Polanco was traded in June) and in those four years, he has put up impressive numbers. He’s made the All-Star team as a starter all four years and is in the conversation for MVP every season. He has had 118 home runs in four years as a starter and has 161 home runs for his career.

Love him or hate, the brash Jimmy Rollins definitely reigns as one of the game’s best overall shortstops. He has pop in his bat (146 home runs), he has speed (326 stolen bases), and he has the glove (three-time Gold Glove winner). He also won a league MVP award in 2007. I would have to say that he is the spokesman for the Phillies, and is likely also the team’s leader.

Polanco’s career has come full circle with the Phillies and now he mans third base after being their starting second baseman several years ago. Polanco is one of those guys who flies under the radar, and he is going to fit in nicely with this current Phillies team. He is going to get on base quite often, as evidenced by his career .303 batting average. He, along with Rollins, will likely be responsible for setting the table at the top of the lineup for the big guns like Utley, Howard, and Jayson Werth. He’s a former All-Star and a two-time Gold glove winner. In short, a very nice resumé.

So there you have it. Excellent gloves on the left side of the infield and pop on the right. Show me an infield that is better OVERALL.
My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best Infield of the Modern Era Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The 2010 NCAAB Tournament Selection Surprise Debate – Bulldogs Howl At The Moon Too

March 15, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

These tournament debate topics, though we are actually beginning our first tournament season here at TSD (can you believe we’re not even a year old yet??), are fairly formulaic. That does not, however, mean they are bland. Today’s “surprise” debate encompasses anything from whether a team should have earned a bid and did not to which teams were mis-seeded to a surprising amount of love for a particular conference.

I am choosing a snub here because of one so egregious that it almost seems impossible for the tournament Selection Committee to miss. Nevertheless, the exhausted Mississippi State Bulldogs came within one tenth of a second of defeating the number two team in the nation and earning an SEC conference tournament win and an automatic bid. Instead, an intentionally missed free throw turned into a lucky bounce for Kentucky, then into an extension of the game into overtime which prevented a physically and emotionally spent Bulldogs team from receiving an earned ticket to the Big Dance.

And it all happened with a mere one tenth of a second left on the clock. Mississippi State had their ticket to the Big Dance signed and sealed before Kentucky’s SEC freshman of the year DaMarcus Cousins delivered a game-tying layup. One-tenth of a second, after leading Kentucky for a substantial amount of the second half and notching big shot after big shot to keep the Wildcats at arm’s length, Cousins found himself in the right place at the right time (in front of the rim to catch an air ball three point attempt from player of the year candidate John Wall) and lived up to the moment by making a big play.

The problem with Mississippi’s State snub is that they were not expected to win. They greatly surpassed what appear to be incorrect expectations. Sure, the team took Kentucky to overtime in the regular season too – another notch in the team’s belt, proving how talented they are – but here they were a tenth of a second away from certain tournament berth.

Through all of the analysis and boring interviews of committee chairman who had plenty of non-answers in his memory bank, it all boils down to how a team finishes a season. I know of no basketball team that is exactly the same at the beginning of the season as it is at the end. The ups and downs of a team matter a great deal, and character of a team is determined throughout the course of the season, and then defined when the pressure is at its highest point. The journey to excellence took longer than expected, apparently, for Mississippi State. While the Bulldogs ended the regular season with two straight losses, the nothing-less-than-impressive performance in the SEC tournament should have been enough to earn a place in the NCAA tournament.

If the Selection Committee uses the tried and true fallback of claiming to have reviewed a team’s “entire body of work” – even though the committee talks specifically about the importance of how a team ends the season – Mississippi State gets a passing grade. First, Mississippi State is one of the few teams in the country to beat another conference winner, Old Dominion, from the Colonial conference, in regular season play. Also, unlike Florida, for example, the Bulldogs won their conference division in the regular season. They beat a supposed tournament team in Florida in the first round of the conference tournament and then defeated a team in the second round, 20th ranked Vanderbilt, by ten to advance to the championship game.

And what a championship game. An exhausted and admittedly lacking in depth Bulldog team – which also happens to feature the conference defensive player of the year in center Jarvis Varnado – refused to give in to second-ranked Kentucky’s up tempo game. Varnado delivered a typical superb performance by grabbing nine rebounds, blocking five shots, putting in 18 points, and holding Kentucky star DaMarcus Cousins to just 10 points. Dee Bost, MSU’s point guard LITERALLY had no backup to spell him during the game – or the entire tournament – and ended up cramping badly at the end of regulation and in overtime. Through all of that he still managed to pour in 16 points, six assists, and five rebounds. Guard Ravern Johnson connected on four of eight three point shot attempts to lead the team with 20 points. Despite a great effort and wonderful defense, Kentucky’s Cousins connected on a layup with one tenth of a second left in the game.

Surprisingly, MSU’s near victory and excellent tournament performance did not convince the Selection Committee. I can easily rundown the several other teams that I believe should not be in the tournament but are (Minnesota and Florida come quickly to mind), the fact is that the Bulldogs were snubbed despite a solid resumé. Perhaps Starkville, Mississippi simply is not a big enough media market to warrant inclusion in the tournament.

The SEC was one of the strongest conferences in college basketball this season, and Mississippi State – a division champion in the regular season – was one of its strongest teams. While other teams have a legitimate beef with the Selection Committee for being excluded (Virginia Tech loses out to Wake Forest… REALLY????), it is Mississippi State that has the biggest gripe. But, the best way to prove the team was snubbed is to win the NIT beginning Tuesday night.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 NCAAB Tournament Selection Surprise Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The 2010 NCAAB Tournament Selection Surprise Debate – I Guess it is Better to be Lucky than Good!

March 15, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.

ESPN Radio’s SportsCenter anchor, Bob Picozzi, hit the nail on the head when he referred to the day after Selection Sunday as “National Whining Day.”

Now that the March Madness field of 65 teams has been announced, pundits and analysts from around the country now get the opportunity to scrutinize every choice made by the Selection Committee.

Obviously, the players and fans of teams that made it in feel they were justifiable selections, while those that did not are left to dwell on the bitter sting of rejection. As for me, I think the Selection Committee did a pretty good job this time around of getting it right (at least, this was a better result than in years past).

In fact, of the three schools which are even ATTEMPTING to use the word “snub” this year to describe their non-selection, only Illinois has a legitimate beef.

More specifically, Illinois has a right to feel snubbed primarily because it was passed over by the Selection Committee in favor of conference rivals, the lesser-deserving Minnesota Golden Gophers.

Minnesota was selected over Illinois for one reason – timing. Simply put, Minnesota is playing in the National Championship Tournament because Illinois lost to Ohio State first.

Let’s compare the teams’ Big Ten Tournament runs, shall we?

First Round – Minnesota vs. Penn State; Illinois earned a bye

Before entering the Big Ten Tournament, Illinois held a slight edge over Minnesota in the standings. Both teams had 18 total wins, and Illinois had a better in-conference record, so the mere fact that Minnesota even played in the first round of the Big Ten Tournament was a nod to Illinois being the better team. Additionally, Minnesota drew the weakest team in the conference, the hapless Penn State Nittany Lions, for the first-round matchup.

It was a cupcake game for Minnesota, giving them a token “W” that Illinois did not have the chance to match because they FINISHED WITH BETTER RESULTS in the regular season and earned a subsequent bye.

Although the first round tipped the scales towards Minnesota in terms of records, I still give the edge to Illinois… since the team earned it all season long.

Second Round – Minnesota vs. #11 Michigan State; Illinois vs. #18 Wisconsin

This round brought the only QUALITY tournament wins for both teams. Both had to pull off upset victories over ranked teams (that had surely already earned March Madness invites), and both did so in impressive fashion.

Although Wisconsin is a very talented team with a lot of postseason potential, I have to admit that a win over Michigan State is SLIGHTLY more impressive an accomplishment, and so I give the slight edge for this round to Minnesota.

Third Round – Minnesota vs. #5 Purdue; Illinois vs. #7 Ohio State

Based on name and ranking alone, these are equally difficult assignments to face. Both Purdue and Ohio State rolled through the regular season, and both had positioned themselves for very high seeding in the national tournament.

There is, however, one key difference between those two teams. Ohio State was at full strength, led by the “should-be” 2010 Player of the Year (Evan Turner), while Purdue was not at full strength, having been hobbled since the loss of their star forward Robbie Hummel (who suffered a torn ACL during their regular season matchup against Minnesota).

As was expected, considering the circumstances surrounding those two semifinal matchups, Minnesota breezed past the reeling Boilermakers while Illinois lost at the hands of the Buckeyes.

It is very important to note that Illinois took Ohio State all the way into double-overtime before finally succumbing to Turner and his cohorts. Minnesota was the fortunate beneficiary of a weaker matchup against a team whose current state placed it at a lesser caliber than their on-paper pedigree would have you believe.

Championship Round – Minnesota vs. #7 Ohio State

The reason it is so important to note Illinois’ performance against the Buckeyes is because Minnesota played them the very next day, in the Big Ten Championship.

After having been taken to the brink of elimination by Illinois one day prior, Ohio State came out and absolutely DOMINATED Minnesota, eventually winning the game by a score of 91-60. It was not even close! Ohio State manhandled Minnesota from tipoff all the way to 00:00.

What does that tell us?

Illinois had the better regular season, faced a MUCH tougher road in the Big Ten Tournament, and played MUCH better against the top team in the conference. The only thing they did wrong was that they had to play Ohio State on Saturday, instead of Sunday.

Because Minnesota had the sheer dumb luck to not have to face Ohio State until Sunday afternoon, they were rewarded an at-large Bid OVER Illinois, and will get to play for the National Championship, rather than the NIT.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 NCAA Basketball Best Conference Tournament Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The 2010 NCAAB Tournament Selection Surprise Debate – How Did Florida Get a 10 Seed?

March 15, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

I am a huge fan of Selection Sunday. It is one of my favorite sporting days of the year. Not only do I get to watch three of the big six have their championship games (ACC, SEC, and Big Ten), but I also get to watch the brackets being filled out. There is nothing more maddening than being one of those teams on the bubble and having to wait the selections out. I fully believed the Florida Gators were one of those teams on the bubble. I had serious reservations about whether or not they would even make the tournament at all. Judging by the seeding, the Gators evidently were not really on the bubble, as they were awarded a ten seed. To me, that is the biggest surprise from the announcement of the teams in the tournament. Does Billy Donavan have scandalous pictures hanging over the heads of all of the committee members?

The Gators finished the regular season with a 9-7 in a conference that, after Kentucky, was a mediocre conference. Sorry Tennessee and Vanderbilt but your teams are too inconsistent. After beating an Auburn team that actually fired its coach after losing Thursday night, and losing to Mississippi State in the quarterfinals on Friday, the Gators sat at 21-12 and by all indications, were straight on the bubble. After upset losses by California, and UTEP in their respective conference tournaments, I had the feeling that Billy Donavan’s squad would be playing in the NIT for the third consecutive year. That feeling was wrong.

One of the big components to be considered when deciding whether or not a team belongs in the tournament is the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI). A quick look at the up-to-date RPI standings shows the mighty Gators at 56!! Fifty-Six folks! That is low for an at-large team, much less a ten seed. That RPI is lower than the rating that teams like Mississippi State and Rhode Island, teams that are preparing for that other postseason tournament. Not to mention they lost four out of their last five games, with two of those losses coming to teams that eventually did NOT make the tournament (Georgia and Mississippi State). Does that mean they passed the so-called “eye test”?

As a ten seed, the Gators will be playing the seventh seed in the West Region, which is the BYU Cougars. This is not exactly an easy matchup. BYU ran into a hot UNLV team in the Mountain West Conference or they would be a much higher seed. Even with that loss, the Cougars are still ranked #16 in the current rankings.

Obviously, it is impossible for the NCAA selection committee to get everything right (and by the way, if any of the powers that be are reading this, Loyal Homer would love a spot on that committee). But they really surprised me with not only the selection of the Florida Gators but also the seeding.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 NCAA Basketball Best Conference Tournament Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.