I've heard each of the following arguments in the past week.
1. VCU and Butler don't deserve to win the championship based on their regular season records
...Then why do we have a playoff system? Every major sports tournamens has teams with poor records; most include teams with even worse records. If the NBA tournament began today, two teams would have losing records. The one exception to this is baseball, however Bud Selig and others have said that playoff expansion has been considered to make it more exciting and inclusive.
The NCAA tournament is difficult enough to prevent a bad team from going on a hot streak and winning it all. Some people point to a loss to 9-21 Youngstown State in the middle of the season to argue that Butler doesn't belong. One game doesn't exemplify an entire season, however. The 2000 Michigan State National Championship team lost to a Wright State team earlier that season that finished 11-17.
2. VCU's success from the "First Four" onwards proves that the tournament should expand
VCU isn't in the range of the 60th-68th best team by virtue of being in the "First Four". They were ranked in the 40th-46th best range by virtue of being an 11 seed. What VCU's success does prove, however, is that we don't have the right 68 teams in the NCAA tournament. There are 346 teams in Division I basketball right now, so roughly 20% make the tournament. The talent difference between teams like Kansas and VCU is significant. Not too much, however, that VCU can't have a special run and beat Kansas. The talent difference between a team like Kansas and Boston University is astronomical. So much so that no team that is seeded 16th has ever won, teams ranked 15th have only won four times, and the highest a 14th seed has advanced is the Sweet 16 (which happened only twice). The tournament committee almost made a mistake by leaving a quality team like VCU out of the tournament. However, VCU hasn't won the championship yet, so the severity of that potential mistake isn't yet known. Rather than expand, the NCAA should either demote some teams to Division II or eliminate the automatic berth for conference tournament champions so we can strengthen the talent among the 64-68 teams.
3. You can't root for VCU or Butler to win it all if you didn't support TCU having a shot at the BCS title
Yes I can and yes I am. The argument that "if you support mid-majors in one sport, you have to support them all" is valid, but the two sports aren't comparable right now. I would be in favor of a college football tournament that would include undefeated "non-BCS conference" teams. March Madness includes a wide variety of teams that all have an equal shot. The tournament committee takes conference strength into account when selecting the field. That's why 23-9 Butler from the Horizon League was given the same seeding as 20-13 Michigan from the Big 10. The BCS has to take conference strength into account as well and that is why a team with 1 loss from a BCS conference will, and should, be chosen time after time over an undefeated Boise State or TCU. The challenge and rigor that comes with playing a schedule with teams like Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Penn State; Florida, Auburn, and Alabama; or Oklahoma, Texas, and Oklahoma State doesn't compare with Utah, San Diego St, and Air Force.
4. It is a slap in the face to Purdue for Matt Painter to interview with Missouri
"When you talk professionally with other people, it stays private," Painter said. "You have to assess where you are, where you're going, but through discussions of that nature, you're listening. Talk is cheap and it comes down to action. I'm happy to be a Boilermaker."
For him to interview with Missouri specifically, sure. They don't compare with Purdue as a basketball program. However, I don't think that he would have ever chosen to go to Missouri. This was a "power move" to guarantee himself more money. Some people would argue that the new contract he received last year for $1.3 million per year through 2016-2017 should be sufficient. His new contract takes him through 2018-2019 and pays $2.3 million. I find it hard to criticize any coach for making business decisions since they have less job security than any of us ever will. If an 18 year old kid does something against the rules that they don't know about or if they have two bad seasons in a row, they could be gone in an instant. Layoffs are a possibility for any industry, but a skilled worker can usually find a comparable job. Head coaches gain stigmas that live with them forever.
Contract negotiation is one aspect of sports that I wish was covered much less than it is because it always damages one's image. Most people, however, would leave one job for a comparable one that offers more money. We shouldn't criticize players and coaches just because their figures are in the millions rather than the tens of thousands. If being an operations manager involved working all day, traveling a few times a week, and was broadcast on TV, I would think it's reasonable to fight for an extra million dollars too.
4 comments:
Besides money, Painter also wanted a commitment from the el-cheapo athletic department of Purdue. Hard to sustain success without proper $$$ backing. Also, did you hear about the 11 Purdue fans who showed up to the rally to keep Painter? Nice.
1. Completely agree. If are able to win the NCAA tournament, you deserve the championship.
2. I agree that the best 68 teams in college basketball don't make the tournament, but I don't think that necessarily means that teams like Boston U or UNC-Asheville shouldn't make the tourney. I like that high seed teams are rewarded with a cupcake in the first round, and I like that no-name schools get a chance to go dancing. If it were up to me, I would reduce the teams back to 64 and keep the selection process the same.
3. First of all, no one has to be logical about the reasons they root for a team. But the BCS is so fucked up that comparing it to anything else is futile. The college football post-season is a joke compared to any other post-season for any other sport.
4. Mostly agree, but I would say the exception is for guys like Izzo. I did feel insulted that he came so close to the Cavs job. Izzo absolutely had the right to interview with them, and in his shoes I might have done the same thing, but it still seemed like a slap in the face.
I felt slapped in the face too when Izzo interviewed for the Cavs job. Just like when the rumor of him and Oregon didn't get squashed completely from the beginning. Which is why I think those kind of things should take place behind the scenes. But I realize in the Information Age, that's not possible anymore.
Yeah, if you remember Izzo tried to keep everything behind-the-scenes. That's why everyone was speculating so much, and when it was all over, Izzo lashed out at the media. But like you said, it's the 21st century and the age of technology- it's impossible to do things like interview for NBA jobs a secret.
I didn't feel him interviewing for the Cavs job was a slap in the face. I mean, the NBA is a new challenge and he had the chance to maybe coach LeBron. I couldn't take that as a slap in the face. The non-squashing of the Oregon rumor, however, was a definite slap in the face.
Post a Comment