The annual writing on the work of the Male Basketball Selection Committee of the NCAA has begun despite the genuinely consistent selections in the net era.
This year, although: I am perplexed.
What coaches, administrators and, yes, bracketologists are looking for more from the committee is consistency. And at least one of this year's selections is extremely inconsistent.
Do you want to include Texas and its seven quad 1 victories? I can live absolutely with that despite the 15 defeats, the League record 6-12 and the calendar of No Conference No. 287.
But then you just can't include North Carolina as well. The Tar Heels are the opposite of the Longhorns. The calendar of No Conference No. 5 produced exactly a quad 1 victory in the a whopping 13 attempts. That is disqualifying me in an era that has correctly prioritized winning the highest level games.
I suspect that we will listen a lot about the combined discs of the two teams in Quad 1 and Quad 2, which are in fact similar. But that seems too much as a convenient answer that seeks what ultimately is the wrong question.
Yes, North Carolina and Texas have 10 combined victories of Q1/Q2. Was that really what led them about the tastes of West Virginia, Indiana, the state of Ohio and the state of Boise? West Virginia also had 10 combined victories of Q1/Q2, Indiana and Ohio State had nine and Boise had eight. There is not enough difference with my seat.
The question should always be: What message is sent to schools for future tournaments? Does it matter if a team is equivalent to the record of most losses for a general team, provided that great games (Texas)? Or do the teams even need to worry about winning games if the schedule is quite difficult (UNC)?
I am not wild for rewarding any of the two paths, but I am horrified to reward both. Nor can I imagine that it was intentional: neither the process nor the people in the room are nothing more than trying to do it well. And if the work continues to do well, this committee no. It is a mixed message of the worst type. That win does not matter, except when it does, something like telling yourself that you don't drink while looking for another beer.
For registration, I do not buy conspiracy theories, or the side eye that is delivered to the president of the Committee and the Atlético de Carolina del Norte director, Bubba Cunningham. A supermayer of the committee members made these selections, and nobody has more than one vote. I am calling his logic, not his integrity, in question.
I would also like to think that I have a very good appreciation of the complexities of this process. I often look back and say: “Hey, I understand what they were thinking about that. I could have gone in any way.”
This committee could also have gone in any way. North Carolina or Texas, but not both.
As for the rest of the group, it was not a surprise after seeing these teams throughout the season. But some things stood out:
-
Western Virginia was stolen from a place. The mountaineers beat Gonzaga and Arizona in Maui. They also beat Kansas and Iowa on the road to an end of 10-10 in Big 12. That is more than enough compared to many other teams in this field.
-
Louisville like an 8 seeds? Again, the inconsistency of the committee lifts his head. The cardinals had 15 combined victories Q1/Q2 and were 18-2 in the ACC. If North Carolina had done that, the Tar Heels could have been a 1 seed (wink, wink).
-
The eight best teams, Auburn, Duke, Houston, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, State of Michigan, St. John's, are as strong as any group of 1 and 2 seeds that I remember. Collectively, this top eight has won 148 games Q1/Q2. All could have been independent of 1 seeds in other seasons.
Let the madness begin!
