On Air
Commentary: Crushing the Glass Slipper?
By James Staley
1017theteam.com
Where it sprouted, I don’t know.
But it’s all over various sports media – penned by respected columnists, blabbed by the talking heads and ranted about by hoards of message board fanatics.
Twelve.
That’s the number of at-large NCAA Tournament bids doled to mid majors in 2004.
Everybody’s talking about it. That number is referenced like a historic site.
“Look kids, that’s where the big, bad NCAA crushed Cinderella’s glass slipper.”
Why? Ever since 2004 the number of mid major at-large teams in the Big Dance has steadily dwindled. This year there are just four.
According to the theory, this is a clear sign that the NCAA is mitigating the little guy. The BCS is all about the big conferences, so why not the NCAA Tournament?
To me, this idea is a bit over-dramatic and opportunistic.
In January the Utah football team brought increased and justified criticism to college football’s BCS setup after it’s stomping of Alabama capped a perfect season. The Utes, a mid major, proved themselves worthy of national title consideration but didn’t get that opportunity because of the unfair BCS system.
With taste of NCAA blood in their mouths the media pounced again, this time armed with wobbly facts.
It’s true that 12 mid major teams received at-large bids in 2004. It’s true that the number of mid major at-large teams has declined ever since.
But it’s also true that in 2001 only five mid majors got at-large tournament invitations. Three years before that, mid majors got 13 at-large bids. Like almost everything is sports, the number of at-large mid major teams fluctuates.
Isn’t it possible that the body of mid majors hasn’t had an exceptional season?
Compare the Associated Press polls taken before the NCAA Tournament in 2004 and this year. In 2004 there were two mid majors in the top 10, six in the top 25 and 22 receiving votes. This year only one mid major was in the top 10. There were four in the top 25 and 12 receiving votes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad the media is bringing this topic to light. Underdogs are what etch the NCAA Tournament into our collective memory. If the Big Dance as we know it fades into a money-grab for the big conferences, as football has, then we, as fans, should be upset. But it hasn’t reached that point.
The NCAA’s selection process isn’t perfect. Recently the NCAA has made efforts to enlighten the public about the process through mock selections. I’ve read several accounts of these mock selections. To me, this process has a great strength: it’s all about numbers. That gives every team a shot, if it has a great resume. However being so numbers-based is also its greatest weakness. Shouldn’t a selection committee that cobbles together a basketball tournament include some basketball people?
These warts don’t favor the major schools, but the major schools can more readily build an impressive resume. Playing in better conferences gives these teams more opportunities to play opponents with a top 50 RPI. Sure it’s tougher to win, but if you do, you are rewarded.
Locally, people have complained about the Mountain West Conference’s lack of at-large bids. They also have been angered by Arizona’s selection. For better or worse, selection into the NCAA Tournament is a meritocracy. For all its inconsistency, Arizona won three non-conference games against top 50 RPI teams. Conversely, the MWC’s three bubble teams – New Mexico, San Diego State and UNLV – combined for one non-conference top 50 RPI win.
The resumes of each of those teams are stronger than Arizona’s in some ways. But the Wildcats have repeatedly proven themselves when the MWC teams couldn’t.
James Staley can be reached at james@1017theteam.com
