The College Basketball Top 25 Purpose Debate… Watch Me Pull A Ranking Out of My Hat!

February 15, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

When I was eight years old I thought the greatest illusion ever performed happened on my television when I watched David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China.

Then I discovered college basketball.

The NCAA Division I basketball, each year, pulls off a feat that would make Blackstone ask, “How’d they do that?!” What is the illusion, you ask? It is the illusion that there is any value at all to the top 25 ranking.

In college football, the top 25 rankings serve a very important function. They help to determine which teams get to participate in the series of the biggest bowl games, and ultimately which two teams will compete for the National Championship.

What purpose does the top 25 poll serve in basketball?

Last year, do you know what the respective national rankings were for Duke and Butler as they entered March Madness? Duke was ranked fourth in the nation, while Butler was ranked number 12. Despite those rankings (which in College Football earned #12 Missouri an invitation to the Insight Bowl… Ooooohhhh!!!!), those were the two teams that faced off for the crown last April.

Unlike the Football Bowl Subdivision of the NCAA, every single one of the more than 300 teams in Division I basketball kick the season off with an opportunity to compete for the National Championship. They don’t have to impress any voters, or beat the “right” teams. They don’t even have to have a good regular season.

All they have to do is win the conference tournament.

Sure, the worse a team does in the regular season, the tougher their road to, and through, the national tournament is, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that a team needs only to win in the post-season, and it is through to the Tournament.

If the top 25 rankings are irrelevant and unnecessary when populating the 64 teams for the national championship tournament, they must SURELY impact the seeding in the tournament, don’t they? I mean it only makes sense to do it that way. Teams ranked one through four would be given one-seeds, then the teams ranked five through eight get two-seeds, and so on.

WRONG!

Last year, for example, the teams ranked one through four did each earn a top seed in the national tournament (Kansas, Duke, Syracuse, and Kentucky).

So what about the two-seeds?

After the top four in the rankings came Ohio State (fifth in the nation), Purdue (sixth), West Virginia (seventh), and New Mexico (eighth). But neither Purdue nor New Mexico were rewarded with the second spot in their respective brackets. Instead, it was Ohio State, West Virginia, Kansas State (ranked ninth in the country) and Villanova (ranked tenth).

New Mexico actually received a three-seed, and Purdue (the sixth best team in the country, according to the national rankings) was bumped all the way down to a four-seed, while Baylor (the 21st ranked team in the country) was seeded third, ahead of them in the same region.

What led to the disparity between the national rankings and the seedings for the national tournament? Once again, it was the selection committee.

Rather than overload a region with too many teams from the same conference, or with a prospective high-powered regular season rematch too early in the dance, they try to distribute the Major Conference representatives evenly across the bracket, regardless of their projected worth on the national stage.

Now, as this year draws towards another March full of basketball Madness, fans of the San Diego State Aztecs (currently ranked sixth in the nation by the AP) can expect the same head-scratching logic as an answer to the questions of why they were seeded third or fourth – behind some big-named program from a big-named conference like the 20-team Big East – that will simply ride the merits of their name and neighborhood into an easier road to Houston.

The top 25 rankings are completely worthless in college basketball. They provide water cooler conversation at the workplace, and give sportswriters something to do each week in the football off-season. But when it comes to what really matters (a chance at the national championship), they hold as much value as a Mel Kiper, Jr. mock draft.

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

Leave a Comment » | The College Basketball Top 25 Purpose Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Dropping Mid from Mid-Major Debate… I See Your True Colors Shining Through

April 1, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

All over this great nation of ours society has forced many of its schools to conform to a lifestyle that they can no longer abide by. No matter how much society tries to ignore the writing on the wall, they simply cannot deny the truth that is as plain as the nose on their collective faces.

Mid-major conferences have been pretending to be “MID” for long enough, and they cannot live that lie anymore. It is time that we all start recognizing them for what they really are – MAJORS.

You can try to deny it all you want. You can scream that it is not right, or not normal. You can talk about how “mid” major programs are not supposed to compete with the big boys, or that they CANNOT compete with the big boys. You can use flawed logic that “mid” majors should only play to a “mid” level performance, because that is how it has always been, and that is how it SHOULD be. What you cannot do, though, is deny the facts.

March Not-So-Madness

It seems that the 2010 March Madness tournament has finally given these once downtrodden teams a voice, and their indomitable spirit has shone through!

For starters, the 2010 Sweet Sixteen featured representatives from ELEVEN different conferences. Joining the “regular” party-goers this year were contingents from the Ivy League, Missouri Valley, Horizon League, Atlantic-10, and the West Coast Conferences.

The tournament favorite Kansas Jayhawks fell to the MVC champion Northern Iowa Panthers.

Ohio Valley champion Murray State upended SEC Vanderbilt’s tournament hopes.

Ivy Leaguers from Cornell stormed through the Big Ten’s Wisconsin Badgers.

The most damaging piece of evidence for power conference traditionalists, though, was the collapse of their mightiest conference, the Big East. Of the seven teams from the Big East that are no longer in contention, FIVE of them fell at the hands of “mid” major schools, including top-seeded Syracuse losing to Butler (Horizon League). Second-seeded Villanova lost to the St. Mary’s (West Coast). The Georgetown Hoyas, after earning a three-seed in the tournament, were EMBARRASSED in their first-round matchup against Ohio University (who finished the regular season as the NINTH PLACE TEAM out of the MAC). Rounding out the Big East’s undoing, Notre Dame was toppled by Old Dominion (Colonial), and Pitt lost to Xavier (Atlantic-10).

Regular Season Stereotypes

In a feeble attempt to counter this argument, traditionalists will point to the regular season as proof that the old standards NORMALLY hold firm, and that flukes are BOUND to occur in a tournament where 65 games take place. DO NOT BUY INTO THAT FLAWED ARGUMENT!

The regular season is structured specifically to favor power conferences, and “mid” majors are put at a disadvantage before they even step on the court. Think about it. When was the last time Duke travelled into the MEAC to take on a school like Bethune-Cookman? How about NEVER!

“Mid” majors are constantly forced to travel far away from home into hostile environments where foreign officiating crews will govern their play – not exactly a level playing field. Yet, the power conference schools are unwilling to return that favor and put their own reputations at risk by travelling into a “mid” major program’s neighborhood. Proponents of this system claim that powers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by putting their records at risk against teams that they perceive as being a lesser class than their own.

If these power conference programs were TRULY confident that they were superior to the “mids” then they would not be AFRAID to put their status on the line. The REAL TRUTH of the matter is that these programs KNOW the gap between powers and “mids” has been narrowed, and they are relying on myths and stereotypes to propagate a system that artificially manufactures a separation in class, rather than embrace a field of OPEN competition to truly determine who is the best.

For proof, look no further than Kansas and Cornell. During the regular season, Cornell travelled into Kansas to take on the Jayhawks. In a game played at Big XII’s own Phog Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, KS, officiated by a Big XII crew, the Big Red from Cornell stood TIED with Kansas with only 0:17 seconds left in the game, before Kansas finally EEKED out a win at the foul-line.

Fast-forward to the NCAA tournament, where games are instead played on neutral courts with neutral officiating crews, and what happens – Kansas loses to a “mid” in the second round, and Cornell reaches the Sweet Sixteen over Temple (ranked #17 in the country) and Wisconsin (a power conference team that was ranked #13 in the nation).

Just imagine what would have happened if the Cornell-Kansas game was played on a neutral site, or at Cornell.

I know there will be teams at the bottom of these “mid” major conferences that struggle, but how is that different from the power conferences, with teams like Northwestern who have NEVER been to March Madness?

Am I saying that power conferences are worse than “mid” majors? Of course not, but it is time to stop treating “mid” major schools as if they were second-class programs that cannot match up against “real” Division I programs.

The curtain has been pulled back, the myth has been busted, and the lies have been exposed. It is time to demand equal rights and recognition for teams and conferences that are truly EQUAL!

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

Leave a Comment » | The Dropping Mid from Mid-Major Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Dropping Mid from Mid-Major Debate… Separation Still Exists

April 1, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

I am all for a mid-major team making a deep run into the NCAA Tournament every so often. And yes, I am still calling Butler a mid-major. In this year’s case, having Butler in the Final Four could add to the buzz of the event since the Bulldogs call Indianapolis home. (As an aside, I think buzz is very much needed at this year’s Final Four.) But Butler, the mid-major, having a presence in the Final Four is a onetime exception and not par for the course. Perhaps due in large part to college football, as Sports Geek pointed out in the intro, there still is a mental separation in the minds of most fans between power conferences and mid-majors. That is the way it should be.

Take this year’s Final Four teams as an example. Duke, West Virginia, Michigan State, and Butler. Butler you say? Hmmm. To the true college basketball fan, Butler is recognized as a solid team who has built up its credentials over the past few season. During the past four seasons the Bulldogs have won 119 games. Mid-major or not, that is quite impressive. But if you look at those four teams in the Final Four as the average fan, or even the non-fan (you know, that person who is probably leading your office pool right now), they have absolutely no clue who the Butler Bulldogs are, or that they are even located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Doesn’t that tell you something about the lack of respect that mid-majors currently have?

It is one thing for a “Cinderella” to make the Sweet Sixteen. Kudos to Northern Iowa and St. Mary’s for doing that this season. However, it is quite another for a Cinderella team to make it to the Final Four.

Counting this season, let’s look at the past ten Final Fours and see how many of them are mid-majors. Obviously, George Mason and their magical run from four years ago comes quickly to mind. But with the 40 teams that have made it to the Final Four over the past decade, only three (this season’s Butler team, the 2008 Memphis team – whose victories are now vacated – and that 2006 George Mason team) are from conferences outside the so-called power six, which are the BCS conferences in football. That is much less than ten percent of all the teams that have made it to the Final Four.

There is no doubt that there are mid-major teams that are capable of pulling off upsets come tournament time. We have seen that this year, haven’t we Kansas and Villanova? There are even some mid-major teams, like Butler and Gonzaga, which have begun to thrust themselves into the upper echelon of college basketball. But mid-majors need to have success on a larger stage with more Final Four appearances and possibly even a championship or two before we even considered lifting the “mid-major” label.

To answer the question Sports Geek posed in his intro… NO! The term “mid-major” should not be dropped from college basketball terminology. Fans and media need to see more before we consider doing that.

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

1 Comment | The Dropping Mid from Mid-Major Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Best 2010 NCAAB Championship Game Debate… There Should Be a First Time for Everything

March 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

Duke and Michigan State have made the Final Four… yawn!

In no way are my comments intended to diminish the impressive accomplishment that both schools have made. But let’s be honest – it is nothing new. And in this March Madness tournament, where the unprecedented has become the only precedent, there just is not any room on my wish list for programs and coaches who visit the Final Four with the same seeming regularity as my weekly trips to the grocery store.

Their counterparts, however, in the collection of 2010 NCAA Tournament Regional Champions are about to experience something altogether new.

It has been more than 50 years since the West Virginia Mountaineers last reached the Final Four with a shot to compete for the national championship, and 2010 marks the first time since the Calvin Coolidge administration that the Butler Bulldogs are in consideration for the nation’s top basketball prize. In this tournament of firsts, it only seems fitting that the championship matchup should pit two teams against each other that are competing for their first ever tournament title.

More important is the fact that both West Virginia and Butler are more deserving of the crown than Duke and Michigan State.

To begin with, neither of these teams should be a surprise as Final Four participants. Although Butler is coming out of the mid-major Horizon League Conference, they are the owners of the longest active winning streak in the country with their last loss coming at the hands of UAB BEFORE Christmas last year! Throughout the season they faced off against (and defeated) some of the top teams in the country, including victories over Ohio State and Xavier, both of whom were Sweet Sixteen teams.

As for West Virginia, the Mountaineers simply have too much talent on the floor to be stopped. In a year where much of the talent within the “usual” Big East powerhouses would be lacking (I TOLD YOU SO!), the combination of Da’Sean Butler, Devin Ebanks, and Joe Mazzulla was more than enough to carry the Big East banner deep into the 2010 tournament. Behind their seemingly re-invented head coach, Bob Huggins, this Mountaineers team has played like a team of destiny all season long.

Next, when comparing the tournament roads that each of the respective regional champions took to get to the Final Four, Butler and West Virginia have clearly faced off against the tougher competition, and both have survived intact. Butler had to take on and defeat both of the top two teams within their region (Syracuse and Kansas State) in order to continue the nation’s longest active win-streak. West Virginia was handed the task of beating the Kentucky Wildcats, a team which led the rankings as the nation’s top program for much of the 2009-2010 season (at least when Kansas wasn’t).

Compare that to Duke, who coasted into the Final Four as the beneficiaries of the weakest regional draw in the tournament, or to Michigan State, who played lesser-ranked teams in both of their Sweet Sixteen (against ninth-seeded Northern Iowa) and Elite Eight (versus sixth-seeded Tennessee) matchups.

While Butler and West Virginia were busy taking care of the so-called best teams in the country, Duke and Michigan State simply sat back and let other teams do all the hard work, while they just cleaned up the scraps.

Butler and West Virginia have already proven to be the best two teams remaining in the tournament, because they have both BEATEN the teams previously recognized as the best in the tournament. A championship game featuring these two teams would provide one of the most entertaining and dramatic tournament finals in memory.

If we have learned anything from the 2010 March Madness tournament, it is that the “establishment” needs to be shaken up a little bit. What was once considered gospel in the world of college basketball can no longer be counted on. The tried and true principles that we have assigned to the game of college hoops for years no longer seems viable, and we are now forced with redefining our criteria for recognizing the top teams in the country. It is time to see some new faces on top of the heap, and what better way to cap off this season of revolution than with a Butler-West Virginia national championship?.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Best 2010 NCAAB Championship Game Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Best 2010 NCAAB Championship Game Debate… A Duke-Butler Matchup Salvages the Final Four

March 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

I will be the first to admit that I am not terribly excited about this year’s Final Four. Yes, it is the Final Four. Yes, I will be watching because I am a sports fan. But it is not something I am going to anticipate all week. In my roughly 20 years or of picking a March Madness bracket, this is the first time EVER that I have not gotten one team right in the Final Four. My Final Four consisted of Villanova, Kentucky, Kansas State, and Kansas… and I know a lot of you had at least two of those teams in your bracket. Some of you may have had West Virginia or Duke, but how many of you had Michigan State or Butler? I actually had Butler in the Elite Eight, but not the Final Four. Nevertheless, here we are with our four teams, and we will make the best of it. CBS has to be cringing at the ratings that could be coming their way. Duke, and to some extent, Michigan State, have national followings, but the other two really do not. (Do you think the casual fan can name more than five players participating in Indianapolis Saturday night?) However, putting aside ratings and name recognition, I think the best matchup would be the Duke Blue Devils against the Butler Bulldogs.

I know the popular sentiment is going to want to see Tom Izzo and Mike Krzyzewski battle it out for the right to cut down the nets ( Sports Geek, in his love for Izzo, is hyping that dream matchup today). But in following the underlying theme of this year’s NCAA tournament, I want a powerhouse versus Cinderella matchup. Butler’s status as a Cinderella-type sleeper team Butler is debatable, but we will actually touch on that in another debate later this week.

Butler, in case you have not noticed, has had a very strong season. They have not lost since December 22, 2009. They went undefeated in the Horizon League. They have a coach in Brad Stevens who looks young enough to be the son of the other three coaches. The media guide states he is 33 years old, but I don’t believe it. Either way, out of the four teams left, Butler is the team that is the obvious underdog.

Duke, meanwhile, fully expected to be in this position. Even as a number one seed they have had their share of haters – including me – but here they are at their first Final Four in six years. They won yesterday despite Kyle Singler not having a single field goal, as he went 0-10 from the field. But Jon Scheyer and Nolan Smith stepped up to help the Blue Devils beat the crowd favorite Baylor.

It will not exactly be David versus Goliath, but keep in mind this is unchartered water for Butler. Butler also would have strong support from the crowd, as their campus is right there in Indianapolis. But Duke, love them or hate them, has the national following and is the favorite. That is the kind of matchup we need in this season’s championship game.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Best 2010 NCAAB Championship Game Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The 2000-2010 Best NCAAB Tournament Coach Debate… The Underappreciated Bill Self

March 26, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

I really wish all of the loyal TSD readers could have been a part of our editorial meeting Wednesday night. We all know that Dick Vitale loves Coach K and Robert Montgomery Knight. We know that Tim McCarver believes the Yankees can do no wrong. We know that Urban Meyer has a deep relationship with Tim Tebow, and if you don’t believe that, then maybe you should ask Orlando Sentinel reporter Jeremy Fowler. But all of those “infatuations” are extremely minute when compared to the feelings Sports Geek has toward Tom Izzo. All I have to say is “wow.” For more on that, take a look at his article.

In all seriousness, we are debating today the best tournament coaches of the past ten years. While I have nothing but respect for Izzo and Roy Williams, who is Bleacher Fan’s choice, it is obvious to me that Bill Self is the best tournament coach of the past decade.

You know, before researching information for this debate, I had forgotten that Bill Self took Tulsa to the Elite Eight back in 2000. It was the school’s first ever Elite Eight appearance. But we all know that Self made his name coaching for Illinois and Kansas.

I am a big believer that Self’s work at Illinois has largely gone unnoticed by fans and the media. Perhaps that is because of his hasty move to Kansas after telling Fighting Illini supporters that he was happy in Champaign. In his first season there he led Illinois to the Elite Eight before falling to national runner up Arizona. And though it really has no bearing on his status as a tournament coach, keep in mind that it was largely “his players” that went to the national championship game when Bruce Weber took over.

While in Kansas, he has continued the success that he achieved at previous stops. He took his first Kansas team to the Elite Eight in 2004 where the Jayhawks lost to eventual national runner-up Georgia Tech. In 2008, he finally won the big one as the Jayhawks defeated the Memphis Tigers in a thrilling national title game. It was indeed redemption for Self, but especially for the Jayhawks and Rock Chalk Jayhawk nation.

Self is one of two active coaches to take three teams to the Elite Eight. Can you name the other? It is Rick Pitino, of course. His last twelve teams have made the NCAA tournament. Granted, this year’s team underachieved once in the tournament. And yes, two of his earlier Kansas teams lost in the first round of the tournament. Beginning with the 2000 NCAA tournament when he was finishing up his stop at Tulsa, his teams have gone 24-10 in the crapshoot known as March Madness. Not bad at all!

Sometimes I feel as though Self does not necessarily get a lot of credit as it is taken a lot to overcome the stigma that Kansas chokes in the tournament. That stigma was built in large part by Bleacher Fan’s choice today, Roy Williams. And yeah, maybe Kansas does underachieve in the tournament at times. But it is hard to argue with Self’s results at three different schools. That is something Tom Izzo and Roy Williams cannot say.

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

Leave a Comment » | The 2000-2010 Best NCAAB Tournament Coach Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The MLB Team Rebuilding Debate Verdict… Give Me a Reason to Cheer

March 26, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

Baseball is America’s pastime. It has a history as rich in tradition as our own great nation, and Babe Ruthless’ argument does a tremendous job of capturing the diversity that has made the United States what it is today.

Unfortunately for the Babe, that was not enough to seal a victory in this debate. The victory is awarded to Loyal Homer.

As pointed out in the winning argument, baseball may be America’s pastime, but it is clearly lacking at present time.

Across the board, baseball has struggled in terms of both attendance and television ratings. For many different reasons, the game has failed to attract and retain fans at the same levels as other sports. Baseball needs to make LEGITIMATE changes, quickly, if it wants to remain relevant with the American public.

Babe Ruthless discusses the World Series droughts of the Red Sox and Cubs, as well as the nine year gap between Yankees’ championships, arguing that their respective droughts have endeared those teams to fans around the country (and world). While that may be true, and those championship droughts may be substantial, they do not really fit the context of this debate, which is to discuss teams that are perpetually rebuilding.

During the final 20 years of the Red Sox drought, while they did not win a World Series Championship, they did manage to reach the postseason seven times, including two American League pennant victories. The Cubbies have been to the postseason three different times in the last ten seasons, reaching the NLCS is 2003. The Yankees, during the nine-year so-called “drought” (pardon my lack of sympathy, Babe) still reached the postseason SEVEN times.

This debate was not about teams that have stayed competitive, but fell just short of the championship goal. It was about teams that have failed to even remain competitive.

In comparison to those so-called hardships suffered by teams like the Red Sox and Yankees, there are other teams like the Kansas City Royals that have not even seen the postseason in 25 years, or a Pittsburgh Pirates team that just last season finished off their 17th consecutive season with a losing record. THOSE are the fans who have checked out, and THOSE are the fans that MLB must appeal to once more.

Despite the lack of a World Series ring, fans of the Red Sox, Yankees, etc. still have reason to be excited each season, because they are still COMPETING for the postseason – there is still hope.

What on earth do the fans of the Pirates and Royals have to look forward to? There simply is not enough incentive for people to travel out to places like PNC Park or Kauffman Stadium, and that is bad for MLB business! You can only have so many “dollar-dog” nights and “college students get in free” promotions. Even those carnival attractions will eventually lose their luster under a constant barrage of fun-eroding, excitement-draining failure.

As I write this verdict, I am watching yet another round of sensational college basketball in the March Madness tournament. What has helped to make this tournament one of the most thrilling in recent memory is the simple fact that no outcome has been predictable, regardless of the pedigree that teams carried into the tournament.

The playing field in college basketball has been leveled in recent years. The separation between the power conferences and the mid-majors has been reduced drastically, and that parity has never been more evident than over the past two weeks of tournament play. Mid-major programs have turned in some of the greatest performances of this postseason, helping to get teams from a record ELEVEN different conferences into the Sweet Sixteen.

Sporting events are exciting to watch because we fans want to believe that our teams always have a chance to win. While we understand that our teams cannot win ALL of the time, we want to believe that they will win SOME of the time. If we cannot have that faith, then what is our incentive to watch? If I am going to EXPECT my favorite team to lose 60 percent of the time, then I am probably going to find something else to do for entertainment, rather than watch the game. The last thing that ANY sports organization wants is a collection of apathetic fans!

If Major League Baseball wants to improve its overall product as a business, they must find a way to improve their current system so that fans in EVERY city can believe their teams have a real shot at the postseason.

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

4 Comments | The MLB Team Rebuilding Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The 2000-2010 Best NCAAB Tournament Coach Debate… Living in the Wild Wild West

March 24, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

Oh, what a difference a weekend can make.

This time last week, basketball fans everywhere were filling out brackets. Basketball know-it-alls around the country were confidently making their can’t-miss picks for the tournaments. You could hear them at water-coolers everywhere:

“The Big East is the best conference going into the tournament! They have eight teams, and any one of them can make a run!”

“Kansas is far and away the favorite to take this tournament!”

“The Pac-10 teams are ALL down this year!”

Then the weekend happened. The only sound heard in living rooms and sports bars alike was that of brackets being busted.

Of the eight Big East “monsters” that were all seeded as favorites in their matchups, only four survived the first round, with two more falling before the Sweet Sixteen. Kansas, the number one seed overall, was bounced by mid-major Northern Iowa, and the Pac-10’s only two entrants. California and Washington turned in some very exciting performances with the 11th seeded Huskies reaching the Sweet Sixteen over top-ten ranked New Mexico.

NOBODY could have guessed the carnage that so many underdogs would have wreaked on the 2010 NCAA Basketball championships. In fact, ESPN.com reports that, out of the 4.78 million entries in their online bracket challenge, there were none (that’s ZERO) that had predicted all of the Sweet Sixteen teams (Editor’s note: One dude has a perfect bracket on CBS), and only four people out of the nearly five millions even picked 15 out of 16 correct (but there were more than 6,000 who went 0 for 16).

With the upheaval of the past weekend, the question must be re-asked: Which region of the 2010 March Madness Tournament is NOW the toughest to win?

In looking at the sixteen teams still alive and vying for the national crown, the four which pose the toughest collection of competition for each other live in the Wild West.

Each region claims strong teams, and each also boasts a great story, from Cornell’s run in the east to Northern Iowa’s toppling of the giant in the Midwest. The West, though, possesses the strongest collection of FOUR teams still remaining.

With all due respect to programs such as Northern Iowa, St. Mary’s, Cornell, or even Washington, their success has been surprising, and by all accounts should be short-lived. As much as I would love to see each of those teams advance deeper into this tournament, the EXPECTED result (although I will acknowledge that this tournament has provided anything BUT expected results) is that their 15 minutes is quickly drawing to a close now that they are facing progressively more talented competition.

Because of those EXPECTED outcomes, each of those double-digit seeded teams creates a seemingly weaker spot in the “Road to the Final Four.” Realistically, if I had to choose between Syracuse or St. Mary’s as my opponent, I would pick St. Mary’s.

Each of the regions in the March Madness tournament holds at least one of those double-digit seeded “weaker” team in it except for one – the West Region. The West may have two teams from mid-major conferences remaining (Xavier and Butler), but these teams are mid-major in name only. Both have proven all season long (and consistently over several seasons) that they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Like Gonzaga and Memphis (at least while John Calipari was coaching on Beale Street), these two programs are worthy of power-conference status.

Occupying the remaining spots in this region are top-seeded Syracuse and second-seeded Kansas State.

Syracuse was the biggest surprise story of the regular season. They began their 2009-2010 campaign unranked before playing all the way up to the top spot in the country, ultimately finishing the season in the third spot behind Kentucky and Kansas. As for Kansas State, they probably would have been a number one seed in the tournament had it not been for three losses against Kansas (who are now out of the picture and no longer a threat to the Wildcats).

In a seed-by-seed comparison, the West poses the toughest overall road to the regional championship games. Along with the East, the West is the only region with both of their top two seeds still alive, and they are the ONLY region that does not include at least one double-digit seeded team. All four of the teams in the West finished 2010 ranked in the top-25, and all four of those teams have a LEGITIMATE shot at playing in Indianapolis.

While all 16 teams remaining deserve recognition for their accomplishments this season, the toughest challenge still lies ahead for the four teams playing in Salt Lake City this weekend!

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 Tourney Toughest Region Debate Redux | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The 2000-2010 Best NCAAB Tournament Coach Debate… The South Still Will Rise

March 24, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

Last week one of our debates centered on the hardest region to win in this year’s version of March Madness. I argued that the South region would be the toughest to win, and provided two primary reasons were Villanova and Siena. Obviously things did not quite pan out for me, and it sure did not pan out for MY bracket which was officially put in the garbage after the loss by Kansas. But despite the loss of Villanova I still believe the South region is the toughest.

Obviously, Duke still remains the favorite to make it into the Final Four. The ACC champs have looked good in their first two games as they won with relative ease. Next up they have Purdue. Now, I have been openly critical of Purdue. I felt pretty confident Siena would knock off Purdue in the first round. In fact, I actually had Siena in this game in my recently disposed-of bracket. To his credit, Bleacher Fan told Sports Geek and I last week that we should not so quickly dispose of Purdue.

“Purdue is more than Robbie Hummel,” Bleacher Fan said. Well, I hate to say it, but Bleacher Fan was right! Chris Kramer, E’Twaun Moore, and JaJuan Johnson have stepped up at different times during the first two rounds. And let’s not forget that Purdue, through all the heat they have felt over the past month or so, still holds a record of 29-5.

The other game in this bracket fascinates me for various reasons, as Baylor takes on St. Marys. I have become a fan of the Gaels during the past couple of weeks. I watched them absolutely beat down Gonzaga in the WCC Championship. After their first round victory over Richmond they messed up quite a few brackets by upsetting Villanova. During this little run, Omar Samhan has become a star. He is averaging 30.5 points during the tournament and pulling down nearly ten boards a game. It is not like he played poorly in the regular season, either. He averaged 21.5 points per game and 10.9 rebounds per game. In fact, he has scored in double figures in 32 of 33 games. It is easy to see why St. Marys comes in with a record of 28-5.

Let’s not discount Baylor. It really is amazing what Scott Drew has down at Baylor. He has turned the whole mindset of Baylor basketball around in a short time. It was not that long ago that the Bears had all kinds of off-the-court drama. That, however, is now in the distant past. Another key point to consider, something that could give a big advantage for Baylor, is the fact that South region games are being played in Houston. It is just a three hour drive from Waco to Baylor so Baylor should definitely have some hometown support.

Three of the top four seeds remain in play in the South region. That, and the diversity shown by the four teams still remaining, makes the South region the toughest to win.

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 Tourney Toughest Region Debate Redux | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The 2010 Best Sweet 16 Story Debate… Big Games from Big Red

March 22, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer/Bet Loser and Sports Geek.

My first thought for this debate was to argue The Ohio State Buckeyes, who won a very impressive game against Georgia Tech yesterday afternoon. However, Loyal Homer was practically BEGGING me to let him argue on behalf of his new favorite team, so I acquiesced. (Editor’s Note: Loyal Homer lost a bet to Bleacher Fan and had to write about the Buckeyes. Check it out! He makes a good case.)

I have also already discussed the talent and potential of the Xavier Musketeers who rolled into the Sweet Sixteen over the Pitt Panthers yesterday, making them another of the many hapless Big East teams to crumble under the pressures of this March Madness tournament.

But Xavier and Ohio State make up only two of the teams still remaining in contention for the 2010 NCAA Basketball national championship, and neither have been a part of the REAL story of this March Madness. The REAL story has been the increased (but not surprising) success of longshot underdogs and mid-majors against some of the so-called best teams in the country.

Davids like Northern Iowa, Old Dominion, Ohio, Murray State, and St. Mary’s have already slain Goliaths from the power conferences like Georgetown, Villanova, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and even the overall top-seeded Kansas Jayhawks. Because of these mighty minis, no office pool bracket survived the first weekend of competition unscathed.

No team, however, has captured the spirit of “The Little Engine That Could” more than the Cornell Big Red. Defying odds, stereotypes, and history, the Big Red have rolled into the Sweet Sixteen as the highest seed still standing. I learned a long time ago, though, that you should never judge a book by its cover. Especially not one that has earned the seal of approval from sage minds of staff from the likes of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton – those folks tend to know what they are talking about!

Teetering on the thin line between “mid” and “low” major, the Big Red received virtually no respect entering the tournament. As a member of the Ivy League, a conference known more for its prowess in the classroom than on the hardwood, Cornell cruised through their regular season to a 27-4 record en route to their conference championship. For all their effort, they were slotted in as a 12-seed in the 2010 tournament and were slated to face Temple (ranked 12th in the nation) during their first-round matchup.

The fact that Cornell was the nation’s best team from beyond the three-point arc got them a little recognition, and they quickly became a “sexy” upset pick against the A-10 champs. Still, most considered the group of “nerdy” Ivy-Leaguers a longshot to upset their much more battle-tested opponents.

At the end of the game, those who did believe Cornell had all the makings of a real tournament contender were repaid with a win, making them look like geniuses worthy of admission into Cornell’s own ivy-walled institution.

But the ride wasn’t over yet. Cornell could enjoy the reward for their stunning first-round victory only briefly, because a REAL test was looming on the horizon. Cornell would next face their first “power conference” foe, the fourth-seeded Wisconsin Badgers out of the Big Ten.

Wisconsin had already beaten several top-ten teams this season (Duke, Ohio State, Purdue, and Michigan State). By comparison Cornell should have been nothing more than a blip on the Badgers’ power conference radar. It seems once again that Cornell had other thoughts in their oversized minds.

When the hour was up and all the pencils were down, it was Cornell who took their more esteemed opposition to task, schooling them in every facet of the game. Wisconsin was out-shot, out-rebounded, and most importantly out-scored by Cornell, allowing more points in this game than they had all season.

The Big Red provided Wisconsin with a Master’s-level education in butt-whoopery (that is an official, Ivy League accredited term), soundly defeating them by a score of 87-69.

Cornell’s tournament play thus far has been nothing short of remarkable. Both their program and the conference that they represent have long suffered when in competition with other Division I programs. As a school, 2010 marks Cornell’s third consecutive appearance in the NCAA Tournament. It is only the fifth overall tournament appearance in the entire history of the school, with two other one-and-done appearances in 1954 and 1988. As far as the conference is concerned, the last time an Ivy League school won even a single tournament game was in 1998 when Princeton defeated UNLV.

Now Cornell is the first Ivy League member since 1979 to survive the first weekend of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Whether they win or lose against the top-seeded Kentucky Wildcats on Thursday night during their Sweet Sixteen matchup, the Big Red have already proven to be biggest winners in a tournament loaded with mid-major magic!

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

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 Best Sweet 16 Story Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.