Defending the mid-majors

It's been argued in several corners that this year's tournament somehow features a watered-down field because it includes four teams from the Missouri Valley, two from the Colonial, and similar "irregularities." In today's Sun-Times, Rick Telander suggests that the tournament is missing some "magic" because these teams are in instead of mediocre Big Six teams like Michigan and Maryland, while Jim Nantz and Billy Packer fried Craig Littlepage to a crisp, so I've read, for some of the decisions regarding teams like Bradley.

Say what you want about the selection committee - and I have - but to suggest that it has a bias towards mid-majors is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. In most years, the pundits go crazy because seemingly worthy mid-major teams are left out in favor of major conference also-rans; this year a couple extra MVC teams get in and suddenly it's nuts in the other direction.

Of course, it's always just the angriest people who are the loudest, and The Three Billy Packer Goats Gruff has long held a vendetta against mid-majors. See 2004, when he railed against the selection of St. Joe's as a #1 on account of one loss to Xavier in the A-10 tournament. (The Hawks and Musketeers both ended up being among the last eight teams playing, which I'm sure drove Packer quietly crazy.) This year, he and others complained about the MVC's four bids - aside from tourney winner Southern Illinois, regular season champ Wichita State, analyst darling Northern Iowa, and house-afire Bradley made the field - as though it were some sort of injustice. Let's look at the facts.

1. Who the fuck got left out? You can complain about Air Force, a team with no top 50 wins (and I have). And Bradley wasn't the strongest choice ever, no. But teams like Michigan and Florida State had seed advantages in the first rounds of their conference tournaments and fell to Minnesota and Wake Forest (3-13 in the ACC this year) respectively. You're telling me a Michigan team that won 2 of its last 9 games was that much more deserving because it beat Illinois once? Sure, the Wolverines have a case, but they also held their own destiny. A win over Minnesota - not a good team this year - and they would probably have been in. Cincinnati had the strongest case, and I think they should have made it in over Air Force or Utah State, but the rest I could take or leave.

2. Missouri State got hosed! With an RPI well under 30, the Bears became the, statistically, best team ever to be left home. Now, the RPI is hardly a perfect system, but it's at least an easily accessible stat. Analysts were suggesting for two months that the Missouri Valley was practically a lock for five or even six teams. (Personally, I always thought four was the more likely prognosis.) Now it's down to four, a team that could be strongly argued as deserving was left at home, and the MVC was pulling some kind of snow job on the big conferences? Fuck you, Packer.

3. The MVC hasn't been as unsuccessful as Billy Packer suggests. Gee, Billy Packer said something sweeping, arrogant, and wrong-headed? No way! According to ESPN.com's Pat Forde, who had the stomach to sit through Nantz and Packer's attack on Littlepage, the two argued that "Past NCAA performance by teams from power conferences dwarfs that of teams from leagues like the Valley, and should be kept in mind when issuing bids."

First of all, past performance should NOT be kept in mind when issuing bids. If that were the case, we might as well have made Louisville and Michigan locks - I mean, come on, those programs have national titles, right? And CCNY's exclusion was bullshit.

Second, the MVC really hasn't done all that poorly for a traditional one-bid league (two at the most in most years) whose teams aren't expected by their seeds to win games at all. Let's take a look at recent performances:

2005: #11 Northern Iowa loses by five; #7 Southern Illinois wins by nine, then loses by eight; #10 Creighton loses by two
2004: #14 Northern Iowa loses by five; #9 Southern Illinois loses by one
2003: #11 Southern Illinois loses by one; #6 Creighton loses by six
2002: #11 Southern Illinois wins by eight, then wins by two, then loses by 12; #12 Creighton wins by one, then loses by 12
2001: #10 Creighton loses by 13; #13 Indiana State wins by two, then loses by 17

So in the last five years, by my count, the MVC is 5-11. Impressive? Maybe not. But you have to look at it this way: MVC teams underperformed their seed lines once out of those 11 trips (the 2003 Creighton team that was upset by #11 Central Michigan). By comparison, the teams overperformed three times. And no MVC team has lost by double figures since 2002, and both teams that did so that year had already won at least one game. So it's not like these teams aren't competitive.

"Big deal," you're saying (if you're Billy Packer). "You're going to tell me a team like Michigan or Cincinnati wouldn't do better than that?" I don't know, what makes you so sure they would? Would you pick Cincy over Georgetown (where Northern Iowa currently sits)? Do you think Michigan would have a much better chance against Kansas than does Bradley? I don't.

Really, that's what it all comes down to. The fact is this: as much as we complain about the last few teams in the field every year, none of those teams is winning the national title either way. No 12 seed has ever gotten past the Elite Eight; only one #11 seed has ever made the Final Four. And neither Michigan nor Florida State would have been seeded higher than that, and neither was going anywhere near Indianapolis.

In other words, I say let the mid-majors in over mediocre big-conference teams. Because if you want these teams to improve their scheduling, they have to improve their exposure. Look at Gonzaga! No one questions their placement now - Seth Davis, another prominent CBS face, stated on the air Sunday that he felt Gonzaga was closer to a 1 seed than the 3 they ended up. Why? Because they played a great early-season schedule. But they didn't get to do that because they play in the West Coast Conference. They had some tournament success and were able to build on that. I think we should want other mid-majors to at least be able to do similarly, and the way to do that is by rewarding them for good seasons and hoping that encourages major-conference teams to play them in situations other than "Here's fifty grand to come to our place." The problem is that it's not worth it to Big Six teams to play teams from the MVC when it's the bigger schools that have everything to lose. But college basketball is and should be a national game, and that means everyone should have a chance if they can make their chances.

Another good point by Forde: Packer and Nantz apparently charged Littlepage with suggesting that the MVC was as good as the ACC (because they both had four bids). This certainly proves that Packer and Nantz know nothing about math, but says nothing about the MVC or ACC. (Did I miss the part where Wichita State was a 1 seed?)

4. It was just a weak bubble. If the rest of that hasn't swayed you, cry yourself to sleep with this: it just wasn't a very good year for bubble teams. Remember 1998? Three teams from the MCC (now the Horizon League) got into the field, and Florida State - at 6-10 in the ACC - was possibly the worst at-large ever. Oh, and a mid-major made the final game that year (Utah). So you know what? Maybe this was just a down year for the big conferences. Big freakin' deal. You'll get over it soon, Packer, and will be plenty obnoxious on my TV set into April.

(Seriously, if CBS offered an alternate feed where any game for which Packer was doing color was transmitted with someone else doing it instead (pick whoever you want), but they made it a pay service, how much would you be willing to pay for that? I think I'd go at least fifty bucks for the whole tournament.)