JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 28, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
And now a word from ESPN college basketball analyst Jay Bilas:
"I wonder," Bilas said on ESPN, "if some people on the committee know whether the ball is round."
Ouch.
Some of the snubs include Virginia Tech, Boston College, Colorado, Alabama, St. Mary's and even Harvard, while some of the questionable selections include Clemson, Alabama-Birmingham and Virginia Commonwealth.
"That sounds harsh," Bilas said of his statement, "but I'm wondering. These were bad decisions. They're indefensible.
"I've seen UAB play. I've seen VCU play," he added. "All of the teams on the 'snub list' should have gotten in before those two. All of them. There's a reason none of us brought up UAB and VCU as having a chance to get in -- and it's because they had no chance to get in. The committee has gone against their own principles."
Oh, wait -- that was before the teams started playing. So what happened to Virginia Commonwealth, anyway?
13 comments
Yeah, that doesn't change whether or not they deserved a bid. Things that happen after that decision have no impact or implication on whether or not the call was deserved. And no matter how hot they are now, their body of work at the time was highly suspect. Bilas was right, then. The fact that a team that lost 5 of their last eight, including to team as pathetic as Northeastern, and lost earlier this year to Georgia freaking State, doesn't become irrelevant because they win 5 in a row in the tournament. Why bother playing the regular season at all, just make it like the FA Cup where everyone gets in on day one.
- Crock1701
March 28, 2011 at 8:16am
Mr Chait, you're confusing what a team did in the regular season with what it has done in the Tourney. VCU has played brilliantly in the Tourney, but it was a very pedestrian regular season team. The comments made by Bilas -- who has forgotten more about college basketball than you'll ever know -- remain perfectly valid. Also, just an FYI -- a post like this would have been more impressive if you'd predicted a VCU run to the Final Four two weeks ago.
- DC Spence
March 28, 2011 at 8:36am
I understand the argument that what a team does in the tournament doesn't change whether its "body of work" was sufficient for it to get invited. However, the Committee and VCU were subject to so much vitriol (and from level-headed, respected analysts such as Bilas, who I like very much), that I think VCU's run should force second-thoughts. I mean these commentators basically said that only an idiot would think VCU is good enough to belong in the tournament, going well beyond the statement that VCU should have been left out of it. Perhaps - just perhaps - the committee did appropriate rank VCU's accomplishments and abilities, at least more so than those who thought it was a farce that they should be included. And besides, those still defending the NCAA/VCU bashers even after VCU's amazing run remind me of those free-marketeers still claiming that "market discipline" will solve any problems, even after the financial crash. Results should mean something, right?
- rshepard
March 28, 2011 at 8:53am
RSHEPARD: Of course results mean something. These results mean VCU has had a great tourney after a mediocre regular season. These are two different things. I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to grasp that. By the standard you're applying, Pitt had no business being in the Tourney. Sure, it had a great regular season and was regarded by just about everyone as a top team in the country. But it choked [again] and lost early. Therefore, Pitt had no business even making the Tourney, right. The regular season is one thing. The Tourney is another. They are different. Separate. One thing is not the other. It's quite simple, really.
- DC Spence
March 28, 2011 at 8:57am
I believe Kansas scored a basket right before the buzzer Sunday which was not counted, nor was it commented on by the announcers or anyone else. It didn't make any difference to the outcome or the over under but was just another example of the idiots not refereeing to the end of the game.
- stanmvp48
March 28, 2011 at 9:30am
Nothing wrong with a little intelligent dialogue about one of those other 3 teams that join UCONN in the Final Four.
- Tristan
March 28, 2011 at 9:32am
SND. Nush?
- liberalref
March 28, 2011 at 10:24am
Grr. Grumble. You had to go and ruin my morning by bringing up VCU, didn't you? (Note: posted from Lawrence, KS)
- cspencef
March 28, 2011 at 10:50am
- A sobering statistical hurdle from Nate Silver:
By this weekend it wasn't a secret that these four teams had already defied the quantitative assumptions so their opponents probably weren't evaluating them based on the past season. And at least half of the teams in the Sweet Sixteen were still in position to maximize the opportunity Silver cites. I don't question the skill or desire of any of the coaches or players who failed but Wooden's advice is less banal this year: "It's not so important who starts the game but who finishes it."- michaelg
March 28, 2011 at 11:16am
Yeah, it may give the committee some vindication, but if you look at VCU's regular season resume there is absolutely no justification for them getting in. They beat the worst Wake Forest team anyone can remember and UCLA. Those are their only two wins against big leagues, and they had 11 losses.
- Jonas
March 28, 2011 at 12:23pm
- This could be a fluke or the top ranked programs might want to not read the press next year. I don't know why the focus is on a few teams that should or shouldn't have made the initial cut. No this year anyway. The lack of non conference exposure, the poor record on the opposing team's court and predictable officiating has always cast suspicion on predicting performance in March. (See the long odds for everyone surviving to the semi) It's interesting to see how teams who are too familiar with success may not be able to draw upon the intangibles when they aren't in control of the game. There are lessons in not winning the season's elite don't appreciate. If they get in or are a good seed, fine. They explain a few losses and wait for March. This is a poor time in the season to let the doubts about hype interfere with playing the game.
- michaelg
March 28, 2011 at 1:19pm
The statements that VCU had "absolutely no justification" for getting in reflect the same big-conference bias and ignorance that produced reactions like Bilas's in the first place. Joe Sheehan, formerly of Baseball Prospectus, did a great job (before the tournament) of showing -- based on all the relevant metrics -- that VCU very much deserved to be in and the ESPN big-conference boosters were all wet. http://joesheehanbaseball.blogspot.com/ and scroll down a little.
- straw18
March 28, 2011 at 1:46pm
I am sorry, but there is an element of complete bullshit to this, they were an 11th seed. Only twice before have such low seeds gone this far, LSU and George Mason, and it looks like VCU can go onto the Championship game. The tournament is designed for the top teams in the regular season, to expend this much blather about low seeded teams is crazy, so BC should have earned the right to lose in the first or second round? BFD I am glad that VCU was picked for the only reason that the have WON, have gotten this far, and to have a team with a coach with the name of Shaka Smart and a scrappy group of players has been one of the joys of this tournament. I see nothing wrong with a little bit of leeway given to the tournament in hopes they can pick teams like VCU and not teams that getting to the second round might seem vindication enough. "doesn't become irrelevant because they win 5 in a row in the tournament." Of course it becomes irrelevant. The team made it irrelevant, give them credit.
- blackton
March 28, 2011 at 1:51pm