Strange Selections: Arkansas, but no Syracuse?
1. This year's Selection Sunday marked a first for me. Never had I seen a team whom everybody had safely in the tournament be left out when they announced the bracket. Until Sunday, that is, when Syracuse -- who seemed to have tied all their late-season loose ends by winning at Providence and taking a game in the Big East tournament -- was left on the outside looking in.
Almost seven hours after the field of 65 was announced, I still can't come up with a logical explanation for how the Orange were left out.
In the final analysis, once the tournament field is set, we look at "bubble" teams in two ways: The teams that made it, we look at what they did to get in; the teams that didn't, we look for what they didn't do, or what they could have done.
With all the other outsiders, we know what they didn't do. We know that Drexel -- they of the 13 road wins, including at Villanova, at Syracuse, and at Creighton -- didn't take care of business in their conference (they finished fourth in the Colonial, and went a combined 1-5 against the three teams that finished ahead of them, including 0-4 against the two teams representing that conference in this year's Dance). Ditto Missouri State, a bubble non-invitee in consecutive years now, who beat Wisconsin and went 12-6 to finish third in a tough Missouri Valley, but who were ultimately done in by an 0-5 record against conference foes (and tourney teams) Creighton and Southern Illinois, as well as an 11-point home loss in the BracketBuster to Winthrop.
We know that Kansas State has too many bad losses -- at New Mexico by 24, at Cal by 30, at Colorado State -- to offset its few good wins, and that they were only mediocre down the stretch, going 5-5 in their all-important final ten.
We know that Florida State went 7-9 in the ACC, and lost five in a row before closing the season with wins over relative doormats North Carolina State and Miami.
None of these things apply to the Orange. Traditionally, 20 wins overall and 10 in conference get a BCS school an invitation to the Dance. Jim Boeheim's club had 22 wins and went 10-6 in the Big East. They went 7-3 in their final ten games. The only complaint I could fathom with them as they didn't really beat anyone out of the Big East -- Hofstra might be their best non-conference win -- but the non-conference games they did lose were to solid teams: The Orange had close losses to Wichita State and Oklahoma State when both teams were ranked, as well as against a very strong Drexel squad. Their loss at Saint John's is something of a black spot on their resume, but their big wins -- at Marquette, over Georgetown, both convincingly -- should more than make up for that. They won a game in their conference tournament, and played Notre Dame very tough in the Big East quarterfinals.
I didn't even realize Syracuse had missed the tournament until someone mentioned it on CBS; they were that much of a lock in my mind. Leaving them out of the field is stunning.
2. Syracuse's absence is particularly notable given the inclusion of a team like Arkansas. The Razorbacks did hit the 20-win mark, but they went 7-9 in conference play, a full three fewer wins than Syracuse had in the Big East. And before you pull out the conference RPI -- I actually don't know where the Southeastern falls in relation to the Big East, and I don't particularly care -- I defy you to find anyone who has watched as much of these two conferences as I have this year who will tell you that the SEC is so much better that a team that goes 7-9 in it is better than one that goes 10-6 in the Big East.
If we're defending the committee, then our goal is to find something in the Razorbacks' tournament resume that compensates for three fewer wins in conference play. It's not the strength of conference, as I've already said. It's not the conference wins: Arkansas has but two wins -- both against Vanderbilt -- over an SEC opponent that made the field of 65.
It's not a lack of "bad" losses like Syracuse's at Saint John's. Arkansas has plenty of those, both in-conference (Georgia, Auburn) and out (by 22 at Missouri, by 15 in Fayetteville to Texas Tech).
It's not they finished all that strongly; before their three game run in the SEC Tournament, they had gone 5-5 in their last 10 and won just six of their previous 15.
Nope, all the 'backs have over the 'cuse are those three wins in the SEC tourney and a neutral court overtime win over Southern Illinois. And even that nice run in the postseason isn't as impressive as it sounds. Mississippi State did their dirty work by upsetting Kentucky in the quarterfinals, so the only real "surprise" was the one-point win over Vanderbilt -- a team that many, including myself, feel that the committee overvalued, as evidenced by their six seed (and, to make a circular argument, by the invitation of this same Arkansas team on the strength of two victories over the Commodores).
Those aren't bad credentials, and Arkansas may even be a better team on the hardwood than they are on paper, but there's no way it's enough to close the gap between 7-9 in conference and 10-6.
3. I wasn't thinking quickly enough to take notes and get some specific examples, but I wasn't happy with the way Gary Walters answered questions in the post-bracket interviews. Walters, the Princeton athletics director and chair of the selection committee, gave few solid answers. Recent chairs -- notably, Craig Littlepage -- have been candid and specific about why certain teams were in and why others were out, and have even played along with "why A instead of B?" even though comparisons like that aren't really parallel to how the committee operates.
Instead, Walters made a big deal of qualifying points he made by saying something along the lines of "this isn't categorical," and spoke broadly of different factors that affect the committee's decisions. His evasiveness did a disservice to the committee and left a bad taste in the mouths of the fans (and presumably players and coaches) who -- absent hard and fast rules for inclusion in the field -- would like to see at least some consistency in what is admittedly a very difficult process.
And1 What I find most irritating about all of this is that the inclusion of Arkansas and, to a lesser extent, Stanford -- the two BCS teams least-deserving of at-large bids, in my mind -- is that their respective draws are very favorable, making their bids very likely to become self-serving justifications for the committee. Stanford's size will be very problematic for Louisville's game but physically ailing David Padgett and Juan Palacios, and the talented but impetuous and foul-prone Derrick Caracter. Meanwhile, Arkansas has been matched with USC, one of the weaker five seeds (only Butler is weaker) whose impressive wins (the Trojans swept Oregon and Arizona) are offset somewhat by puzzling losses (by 13 to Kansas State, by 15 at Stanford, by 10 at Arizona State).
I'm not accusing the committee of purposely putting its more controversial at-larges in situations favorable to their success. It will be unfortunate, however, if a win or two by either of these teams is used as justification for their inclusion.
Almost seven hours after the field of 65 was announced, I still can't come up with a logical explanation for how the Orange were left out.
In the final analysis, once the tournament field is set, we look at "bubble" teams in two ways: The teams that made it, we look at what they did to get in; the teams that didn't, we look for what they didn't do, or what they could have done.
With all the other outsiders, we know what they didn't do. We know that Drexel -- they of the 13 road wins, including at Villanova, at Syracuse, and at Creighton -- didn't take care of business in their conference (they finished fourth in the Colonial, and went a combined 1-5 against the three teams that finished ahead of them, including 0-4 against the two teams representing that conference in this year's Dance). Ditto Missouri State, a bubble non-invitee in consecutive years now, who beat Wisconsin and went 12-6 to finish third in a tough Missouri Valley, but who were ultimately done in by an 0-5 record against conference foes (and tourney teams) Creighton and Southern Illinois, as well as an 11-point home loss in the BracketBuster to Winthrop.
We know that Kansas State has too many bad losses -- at New Mexico by 24, at Cal by 30, at Colorado State -- to offset its few good wins, and that they were only mediocre down the stretch, going 5-5 in their all-important final ten.
We know that Florida State went 7-9 in the ACC, and lost five in a row before closing the season with wins over relative doormats North Carolina State and Miami.
None of these things apply to the Orange. Traditionally, 20 wins overall and 10 in conference get a BCS school an invitation to the Dance. Jim Boeheim's club had 22 wins and went 10-6 in the Big East. They went 7-3 in their final ten games. The only complaint I could fathom with them as they didn't really beat anyone out of the Big East -- Hofstra might be their best non-conference win -- but the non-conference games they did lose were to solid teams: The Orange had close losses to Wichita State and Oklahoma State when both teams were ranked, as well as against a very strong Drexel squad. Their loss at Saint John's is something of a black spot on their resume, but their big wins -- at Marquette, over Georgetown, both convincingly -- should more than make up for that. They won a game in their conference tournament, and played Notre Dame very tough in the Big East quarterfinals.
I didn't even realize Syracuse had missed the tournament until someone mentioned it on CBS; they were that much of a lock in my mind. Leaving them out of the field is stunning.
2. Syracuse's absence is particularly notable given the inclusion of a team like Arkansas. The Razorbacks did hit the 20-win mark, but they went 7-9 in conference play, a full three fewer wins than Syracuse had in the Big East. And before you pull out the conference RPI -- I actually don't know where the Southeastern falls in relation to the Big East, and I don't particularly care -- I defy you to find anyone who has watched as much of these two conferences as I have this year who will tell you that the SEC is so much better that a team that goes 7-9 in it is better than one that goes 10-6 in the Big East.
If we're defending the committee, then our goal is to find something in the Razorbacks' tournament resume that compensates for three fewer wins in conference play. It's not the strength of conference, as I've already said. It's not the conference wins: Arkansas has but two wins -- both against Vanderbilt -- over an SEC opponent that made the field of 65.
It's not a lack of "bad" losses like Syracuse's at Saint John's. Arkansas has plenty of those, both in-conference (Georgia, Auburn) and out (by 22 at Missouri, by 15 in Fayetteville to Texas Tech).
It's not they finished all that strongly; before their three game run in the SEC Tournament, they had gone 5-5 in their last 10 and won just six of their previous 15.
Nope, all the 'backs have over the 'cuse are those three wins in the SEC tourney and a neutral court overtime win over Southern Illinois. And even that nice run in the postseason isn't as impressive as it sounds. Mississippi State did their dirty work by upsetting Kentucky in the quarterfinals, so the only real "surprise" was the one-point win over Vanderbilt -- a team that many, including myself, feel that the committee overvalued, as evidenced by their six seed (and, to make a circular argument, by the invitation of this same Arkansas team on the strength of two victories over the Commodores).
Those aren't bad credentials, and Arkansas may even be a better team on the hardwood than they are on paper, but there's no way it's enough to close the gap between 7-9 in conference and 10-6.
3. I wasn't thinking quickly enough to take notes and get some specific examples, but I wasn't happy with the way Gary Walters answered questions in the post-bracket interviews. Walters, the Princeton athletics director and chair of the selection committee, gave few solid answers. Recent chairs -- notably, Craig Littlepage -- have been candid and specific about why certain teams were in and why others were out, and have even played along with "why A instead of B?" even though comparisons like that aren't really parallel to how the committee operates.
Instead, Walters made a big deal of qualifying points he made by saying something along the lines of "this isn't categorical," and spoke broadly of different factors that affect the committee's decisions. His evasiveness did a disservice to the committee and left a bad taste in the mouths of the fans (and presumably players and coaches) who -- absent hard and fast rules for inclusion in the field -- would like to see at least some consistency in what is admittedly a very difficult process.
And1 What I find most irritating about all of this is that the inclusion of Arkansas and, to a lesser extent, Stanford -- the two BCS teams least-deserving of at-large bids, in my mind -- is that their respective draws are very favorable, making their bids very likely to become self-serving justifications for the committee. Stanford's size will be very problematic for Louisville's game but physically ailing David Padgett and Juan Palacios, and the talented but impetuous and foul-prone Derrick Caracter. Meanwhile, Arkansas has been matched with USC, one of the weaker five seeds (only Butler is weaker) whose impressive wins (the Trojans swept Oregon and Arizona) are offset somewhat by puzzling losses (by 13 to Kansas State, by 15 at Stanford, by 10 at Arizona State).
I'm not accusing the committee of purposely putting its more controversial at-larges in situations favorable to their success. It will be unfortunate, however, if a win or two by either of these teams is used as justification for their inclusion.
posted by H.S. Slam, Ph.D at 1:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home