Mar 9, 2012, 12:45 AM EST
As Selection Sunday looms the ongoing discussion will get louder:
Is bubble team X more deserving of an NCAA Tournament bid than bubble team Y?
The blind résumé game is a bit played, but when it involves a mid-major and a member of a BCS-conference, the argument can get contentious (and fun to observe for some).
Teams will carry similar RPIs, records against the RPI top 100, strength of schedules, etc. They have many of the same characteristics, but peel back the curtain and if one team is from a major conference, and the other is not, favoritism usually ensues.
Either you’re a big brand guy or you subscribe to MidMajority.com. You usually never waver.
The argument when deciding whom to favor doesn’t really involve numbers, even though when you argue over one mid-major vs. a BCS-conference team, it has everything to do with numbers.
Personally, I don’t really lean either way. I think that taking a stand and picking a side is ignorant.
If you think that NC State should get in over, say, Iona 10 times out of 10, you’re probably refusing to lend any credence the personnel of the Gaels. Sure, Iona shot themselves in the foot by losing a few regular season games, but put them up against the Wolfpack on a neutral court, roll the ball out on the court and let them go at it? I guarantee you the game would be close and interesting.
The problem is you don’t get to do that. Instead, you have to establish a hierarchy of what is most important to you when weighing the information on a team’s resume sheet.
If you back the little guy, you probably refuse to think a middling team from a major conference would run away with a mid-major conference tournament
If you can’t stand the little guy, you’re convinced they would wilt at playing 18-games against “real teams”.
I understand the arguments, but what I look for in distinguishing a tournament team from a non-tournament team, regardless of their conference membership, is finding something that jumps out at me. Something that their peers did not do.
For my argument, Drexel is the perfect example. The Dragons had a 19-game winning streak this season. Regardless of who they played, that’s impressive. To weather unforeseen injuries and off-nights for two months and always pull off the “W” has to earn some level of clout among the selection committee.
They also know how to score, which is something you can’t say about fellow bubble member South Florida cannot say.
But getting back to the Wolfpack – they have done little to impress.
I understand that they stayed afloat in one of the country’s tougher conferences, going 9-7 with a few wins over Miami and a non-conference win over Texas, but they didn’t beat anybody. They had eight chances to get a victory over an RPI top 50 teams, and came up empty every time. They’re were just sort of…there.
Much like the Virginia Tech syndrome of the past few seasons, if you don’t schedule tough or you don’t do something that sticks out, you shouldn’t be in the tournament.
It’s sort of an unwritten rule.
Some of us are never going to find common ground on this argument. BCS teams and mid-majors have fan bases of two different ilks.
To eliminate the minutia, look for something that sticks out. Find a team that has done something great in the regular season. Something the team standing next to them in line did not do.
You’ll at least get the media’s attention.
- Two losses in a row? Three in 11 days? Oh well. Don’t give up on Kansas just yet 1
- College Basketball Talk’s Ten Most Disappointing Players 0
- College Basketball Talk’s Player of the Year Power Rankings 2
- College Basketball Talk’s Top 20 Most Improved Players 2
- College Hoops Week in Review: Wisconsin’s for real, and so is Chaz Williams 1
- Professor at center of UNC’s academic fraud case to face felony charges (8)
- No. 1 Michigan State’s loss to North Carolina: Injuries, or sign of a bigger issue? (5)
- Weekend Preview: Kentucky-Baylor, a trio of in-state rivalry games (3)
- Turnovers, rebounding woes plague No. 3 Kentucky again (3)
- Duke doesn’t need Rasheed Sulaimon if they have three guys that fit into a role (2)