Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.
I think the best debates are the ones that elicit the most passion out of those arguing each side. Kudos to both Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless for conveying deep passion for this topic – especially considering both attended “mid-major” schools. But, passion alone does not directly sway my verdict.
My analysis kicked off with Babe Ruthless boldly declaring that the truth behind the quality of a team lies in the caliber of its opponent, not in how many wins it earns. I fundamentally disagree with that assessment on the grounds it is a substantial oversimplification. Championship teams all have something in common – they know how to win. Losing to good teams just proves a team is not good.
While Babe Ruthless was already filling up the “con” side of my judgment sheet on this debate (yea, I have one… it’s that whole geek thing kicking in…), Bleacher Fan balanced things out. Bleacher Fan presents an interesting scenario while relaying the double standard college basketball places on mid-major teams. Major teams dominate the landscape, but a loss by a very good mid-major squad in the conference tournament – even in the championship game – relegates the team to the NIT (stands for “Not In Tournament”) or worse, as Bleacher Fan points out with the example of Akron in 2007.
Bleacher Fan is also spot on in claiming that too much emphasis is often placed on which team gets into the NCAA Tournament based on a three day event at a neutral site (read: conference tournament). The conference tournament is unduly weighted in a way that places far too much emphasis on a single game in a tournament. In fact, the de-emphasis on the regular season is EXACTLY why BCS advocates favor the BCS. The same principles are in play here in college basketball. Winning the regular season should be considered more impressive than a three game winning streak at season’s end in a tournament. The selection committee seems to understand that principle for major conference teams, but memory lapses for mid-majors, despite the fact that the exact same circumstances are at work.
If a team’s potential is any part of the selection criteria, a mid-major has more unknowns – and more to prove – in THE tournament than does a major conference team that has done nothing but lose to tournament-quality teams it plays against. That is a known commodity. The tournament thrives on the unknown. Putting in a mediocre major team, according to the criteria put forth by Babe Ruthless, is nothing more than bracket fodder and a waste of everyone’s time. There is nothing interesting about watching a Connecticut team that struggled all season struggle again in the tournament when an upstart Akron team might pull a big, headline-grabbing upset. THAT, is appointment TV.
And since the topic of Akron has come up again, it makes sense to point out that there is little doubt that Georgia Tech’s presence in the Atlanta media market influenced their selection in 2007 over the Zips. Akron certainly does not have the same draw that Georgia Tech does because the market sizes are vastly different. If you are reading and dismissing this assertion as a conspiracy theory, you are flat wrong. The tournament needs balance, sure. But it is also a TV show skewed toward attracting eyeballs, and the most eyeballs belong in the biggest markets.
Even if, as Babe Ruthless states, a mid-major pulling an upset is a bit of an anomaly, isn’t that a more compelling viewing experience for fans? While it remains crucial for tournament organizers to attract big market eyeballs, it is also responsible for creating as many memorable tournament moments as possible, and mid-majors having a presence in the tournament makes that happen. Otherwise One Shining Moment at the end of the tourney is full of an overrated Connecticut team missing a bunch of threes. That sounds fun to watch.
Babe Ruthless’ example of regular season conference champs Coastal Carolina being shut out of the tournament because Winthrop won the conference tournament is interesting. Does Winthrop deserve a bid? Yes. But, did Coastal Carolina prove anything by winning the conference in the regular season? Absolutely. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that winning the regular season is a more difficult and grueling accomplishment than winning three games in three days in a neutral tournament setting. Both teams should have received a tournament nod.
Opponent quality and RPI is meaningful. But, in the scenario of one tournament spot open, and a duel between a good mid-major school and a lesser-accomplished major conference school, the better television and more compelling viewer experience happens when the mid-major team gets the spot. More, the mid-major team is always poised to surprise. And, in March, who doesn’t like surprises? Bleacher Fan does, and the debate victory is earned by him.
The battle between quality TV and rewarding big media market schools is waging. Fans of basketball should, in this case, advocate for quality TV – and the mid-major teams.
Posted by Loyal Homer 
