Teams should largely be ranked based on wins and losses. There is a thought that a team from a power conference has a tougher schedule than a team from a mid-major by virtue of which conference they play in. But who decides that's the case? You're telling me that beating Georgia Tech is better than beating VCU? Before the tournament, most so-called college basketball experts would've said yes.
If the Colonial had 8 teams in the tournament every year, we'd get a team in the Final Four at least every other year. Especially, if our best teams were given #1 or #2 seeds. George Mason's #8 seed was the second highest seed in the Colonial's tournament history. As it is, the Colonial has had two Final Four teams in the last five years without any of those advantages. Let's look at the Colonial in this tournament. The conference had three teams in. One made it to the Final Four. Another lost to a Final Four team. The third lost to the number one seed in the entire tournament. VCU, which finished 4th in the conference and lost in the conference tournament final, was the Final Four team.
But you'd still have to consider Old Dominion the best team in the conference. They beat VCU in the tournament final. Their NCAA tournament loss was to Butler, a Final Four team. Talent-wise Butler should have been a #1 or #2 seed. ODU should have been a #4 seed. It's a travesty that that was a first round game. I'm a George Mason fan. We won the conference's regular season. But VCU had our number in the conference tournament and beat us easily. Our problem was we peaked too early in the season. Still, we should not have had to play the tournament's #1 seed overall so early. That too is a travesty.
More at large bids for mid-majors! Better seeds for mid-majors! It's a question of justice and fairness.
No comments:
Post a Comment