Continued from Part One: What Was
the Committee Thinking?
-Another team that should feel good about its seed is
UAB, which really didn’t play a much tougher non-conference schedule than
Texas A&M but at least had the look of an NCAA team almost all year. It is
just incredible, though, how the committee punished teams like George
Washington for their schedules, and not others. Compared to the Colonials,
the Blazers made out like bandits.
-I feel a little better now. Bracket superman Joe
Lunardi is about as flummoxed by this committee as I am. When asked by the
ESPNews anchor about if his missing two at-large picks this year (as
opposed to his usual one) is a sign of a downward trend, Lunardi said
something to the effect of: “It will be if these committee members stay
on.”
-It’s now four hours after the selections, though, and
I still can’t believe 1) how inconsistent the selections were, and 2) how
bad the committee homered for the football conferences. The committee went
to great lengths to make sure the Missouri Valley couldn’t be considered
above any of them in any way. I’d honestly come to believe that the
committee did its job honestly, with little bias. I’d also fallen for the
line that conferences don’t get bids, teams do. Feeling rather duped at
this time, apparently the past few years were just a façade.
-Again, to reiterate, nothing personal against
California, Texas A&M, Utah State, Air Force or Montana. Actually happy
for the last three that they benefited from a process that usually shorts
Rocky Mountain schools, and I enjoy watching USU and AFA as much as any
teams out there. And Cal and Texas A&M are quality teams who probably
deserved to be in on the basis of their play. However, based on the rules
that are in place, they all made off very well this year, and it’s not
right. If there’s one team in there that we’ll concede on, it’s Utah
State, a team that lost the WAC final on Saturday night in heartbreaking
fashion and hasn’t received many breaks from selection committees in the
past.
-On to matchups, this year will furnish a super
opportunity for a 15 seed to beat a 2. Mark it down right now: Winthrop
has a golden chance to beat Tennessee. In fact, the Eagles could be a
sleeper Sweet 16 pick for many, since if they beat the Volunteers their
second game will be against Wichita State or Seton Hall. Other great upset
opportunities include Northwestern State against Iowa and Xavier against
Gonzaga. (Prediction: the country is going to fall in love with
Northwestern State in a few days) Don’t count out red hot South Alabama
against Florida, and even UCLA will likely have a close game against
Belmont. In fact, the potential for upsets by teams seeded 14-15 may be
equal to or even higher than the chances of 11-13 seeds pulling surprises.
Several 11, 12 and 13 seeds have very tough matchups that just don’t look
good for those teams on paper.
-That said, we think the best chances for upsets in
that range include UW-Milwaukee over Oklahoma, Southern Illinois over West
Virginia, Pacific over Boston College and Utah State over Washington. UWM
possibly should be favored over the Sooners, while the finessed
Mountaineers are a great matchup for the undersized but tenacious Salukis.
Pacific is a team that is tourney tested and won’t wimp out against B.C.,
and Utah State will not allow the Huskies to run up and down the floor,
which will frustrate them and make for a very tight game.
-We’re supposed to believe that line that the committee
doesn’t pay attention to matchups? Right. Kentucky and UAB met two years
ago in a memorable second round game and just happen to be meeting this
year. Three of the four MVC teams are by pure coincidence playing Big East
schools. Florida/South Alabama features a pair of Rick Pitino disciples
coaching against each other. Even the Memphis/Oral Roberts matchup is a
rematch of ORU’s last NCAA appearance in 1984.
-Upon further review, the pod system still stinks.
Three seed Florida gets to start out with essentially two home games,
while top seed Memphis goes to Dallas, possibly to take on former SWC
member Arkansas in the second round, a location that will no doubt favor
the Hogs. This system needed to be eliminated yesterday.
-On the other hand, happy to hear that the committee is
going back to the old “East, South, Midwest, etc.” regional names next
year.
-Guessing most are going to be calling the East or
South regions the most difficult, but personally, they all look pretty
well balanced. Unlike past years, Duke doesn’t have a custom path laid out
for it, nor does any other team. Another indication of the parity across
the land this year.
-As I continue to look at this, I become more and more
floored with how overrated the Pac-10 was by the committee. If they’re
using an S-curve and we’re assuming that Memphis was the weakest 1 seed,
then they should be in the region with the strongest 2 seed. Are they
really saying that UCLA is the fifth-best team in the tourney? Or was it
just convenient that UCLA can stay in the regional where they could play
the semis and finals in Oakland? We’re actually guessing it’s the former,
and we applaud when the committee keeps teams in their regional areas, but
by playing in state, the Bruins could have a pretty hefty advantage over
other regional teams if they make it that far, including top seed Memphis.
Is that really the point, to give 2 seeds placement advantages over 1
seeds?
-Favorite first-round matchups: George Washington-UNC
Wilmington, Arkansas-Bucknell, Kentucky-UAB, Oklahoma-UW Milwaukee,
Nevada-Montana, LSU-Iona. Some great contrasts of styles there. If we had
to pick one game we’d recommend to the entire country, it would be
Arkansas/Bucknell. The Bison actually have some athletes to compete with
the Razorbacks, but they play better defense.
-Worst first-round matchups: Arizona-Wisconsin,
California-N.C. State, Marquette-Alabama, Indiana-San Diego State,
Illinois-Air Force, Kansas-Bradley. The first four are boring, while the
fifth is a terrible matchup for the Braves against one of the few teams in
the tourney that matches up and is more athletic than them. Bradley likely
would have a better chance against almost any other 3, 4 or 5 seed in the
field.
-Arizona-Wisconsin and Marquette-Alabama are two of
those games that many will say look good, but really won’t be.
-South Alabama-Florida could most certainly be
interesting, but you know what they say about two teams that play the same
way: pick the team with the better athletes. That would be the Gators.
However, Florida looked dead tired against South Carolina in the SEC final
and could again be gone very early. We’re just not expecting it in round
one, although the Jaguars are hot and are good enough to win a few games.
-Best possible second-round matchups: Arkansas-Memphis,
Boston College-Nevada, Wichita State-Tennessee, GW-Duke, Syracuse-Iona
(rematch of 1998 1st Rd. classic), Texas-California (how much
fun would it be to see Leon Powe against LaMarcus Aldridge?).
Return to Part One: What Was the
Committee Thinking?
