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


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


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


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


The NCAA Basketball Tournament Expansion Debate – Quality Over Quantity Wins Out

January 15, 2010

Read the arguments from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan about whether or not the NCAA Basketball Tournament should expand.



Talk of expansion is a natural progression in any sport. Usually, it comes in terms of adding a franchise to a particular league. In my lifetime, I have seen the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL all add expansion teams. Occasionally, expansion is contained within a particular conference, with the most recent example being the expansion of the ACC earlier this decade with the addition of Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami. This particular debate, however, deals with the expansion of the number of teams the NCAA selection committee invites to its men’s NCAA college basketball tournament.

Babe Ruthless played the financial angle. More teams in the tournament equals more games, which in turn leads to more sponsors and TV commercials. That would obviously lead to a bigger flow of revenue. Babe also pointed out the fact that expansion gives more teams an opportunity to make a name, just like Davidson, Winthrop, and others such as George Mason have done in the past decade or so. The public loves a Cinderella story, and having 96 teams in the tournament gives the mid-majors more of a chance to make that dream push through March.

Bleacher Fan, on the other hand, feels that an increase of the teams to 96 would severely water down the tournament. Most college basketball fans know that a team that goes into the tournament ranked as a 16th seed has NEVER won a game in the tournament, though I do feel that one eventually will win a game. Using teams like Nicholls State and Cincinnati in examples, Bleacher Fan writes that these types of teams do not deserve to play in a tournament competing for the national championship.

I really swayed back and forth on this decision. At first, I favored Bleacher Fan, but then my verdict was leaning toward Babe Ruthless. However, it is time to make a decision. It is Judgment Day! It is selection Friday!

Both the debaters are currently on the bubble waiting for my decision. After much deliberation, I award the victory to Bleacher Fan.

I understand what Babe Ruthless is saying. More teams in the tournament definitely brings the opportunity for more money to the NCAA and likely costs a larger contract for whatever network agrees to the broadcast rights for the tournament. But by expanding the amount of teams eligible for the tournament, it is essentially water down the whole event. These extra 31 teams are eligible for postseason play by playing in the NIT. They just do not belong in the sacred field of 65. The NCAA runs the risk for having the tournament last a significant amount of time. Before long, the length of the tournament will be approaching the length of the NBA playoffs!!! That is just too much! Maybe expansion would bring more teams to the party, but at what point does the party become too crowded? And at what cost to the quality of the party?

Maybe the NCAA will come up with a format that pleases everyone, though even at 96 teams, the 97th team is going to feel snubbed. As it stands right now, though, a field of 65 is the perfect amount to determine the national champion.

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


The NCAA Recruiting Rules Debate – Rules are Good, The NCAA Is the Problem

June 16, 2009

Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s opinion.



Bleacher Fan poses an interesting question – should the NCAA even bother with recruiting rules in the age of “self-reporting” and NCAA nonchalant governance. Of course they should! The NCAA must have some measures in place to protect against entities (and coaches, boosters, etc.) that are seeking to exploit athletically talented students for their own gain and fortune. Protection of the student-athlete is one of the primary reasons recruiting rules came to fruition in the first place – along with the need to comply with Federal law and level the athletic playing field between institutions. However, rules that are open to a wide array of possible interpretation and a general lack of strict enforcement has distracted from the real value these rules still contain. It’s time to close the loops and get serious.

What started (in 1890) as a basic set of instructions for how a college coach can seek an athlete’s talents for their various teams – and, lest we forget, their intellect for the institution they represent – has devolved into a secret battle where opposing coaches try any method possible to reach out to a high school student-athlete, make a connection, and secure their talent. If a coach goes to an extreme to get a student admitted into a school (such as complicity in faking SAT/ACT scores) or students knowingly cheating in class in order to maintain their academic eligibility (ahem, Alabama, ahem, Florida State… ahem), then those students and coaches involved should receive a penalty. A big penalty. They’re cheating. If a student is expelled for cheating in a class, why does an athletic program or coach get a pass for cheating? Because the rules are poorly written and improperly enforced, not because they aren’t good rules.

To play sports in college a student must adhere to certain academic standards. If those standards are not met (or completely ignored in some cases) then the athlete becomes a de facto professional athlete, not a student athlete, and the playing field is no longer level. Therefore, the rules must exist.

But, it is not the rules themselves that are an issue, rather the NCAA’s decision about when and how to enforce them, and when they choose to turn a blind eye. The so-called “Death Penalty” for athletic programs at an institution is losing the specter of intimidation because it’s never been effectively used. The first instance of the rule being invoked involved Kentucky men’s basketball got the Death Penalty in 1953 after a point-shaving scandal. Somehow, they managed to get back into the NCAA Tournament after two years, and win another championship before the decade ended. In fact, in each instance where the penalty was levied, the athletic program managed to resurface later. Kinda takes the “Death” out of the “Death Penalty” – doesn’t it?

The enforcement issue comes from a convoluted definition of the core NCAA recruiting rule – what constitutes a “lack of institutional control?” Here’s how the NCAA defines that term:

“In a situation in which adequate institutional procedures exist, at least on paper, a practical, common-sense approach is appropriate in determining whether they are adequately monitored and enforced by a person in “control.”

Huh? Something tells me the “practical, common-sense approach” is widely defined and applied when determining punishments for offending institutions. Also, why is the program always at fault? Why doesn’t the NCAA ban a coach, or this mysterious “control” person, if they break the rules?

The rules exist because they’re important. But, the NCAA is terrible at responsibly enforcing them. The consequences and bad press are going to continue to pile up until the NCAA gets serious. With increasing scrutiny and public outcry, the NCAA should step up and enforce the rules to prove they’re more than just window dressing.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.