|
|
Direct Links Home Index
Stats
About Us
Links |
|
|
2000 NCAA Tournament Selection Analysis Analyzing the NCAA Tournament selections, there are some interesting (and questionable) choices as always. This might have been the toughest year ever to make the field, due partly to the changing structure of western conferences, but owing more to injuries (Cleaves, Woods, Martin) and suspensions (Porter, Barkley) of key players on top teams. Temple surely deserved a top seed. How did the Pac 10 get two (Arizona and Stanford)? Perhaps none from the Pac 10 would have been a better decision. Then you have Cincinnati's Bob Huggins complaining about not getting a top seed. The committee has to try to fairly balance the regionals (which never are.) Getting a #2 seed was lucky for the Bearcats, who aren't a top 10 team without Kenyon Martin. Further down, it's hard to see how Oklahoma State got a #3 seed, but that's good for Indiana, who was underseeded at #6. Yet both have to play in the toughest regional by far, the East. Duke and Temple both deserved #1 seeds, and you also have Illinois, Florida, Oregon, Kansas, and DePaul in the East. The Midwest has all the historically overachieving tourney teams, and it is stronger than it looks on paper. The West is incredibly thin, and the South is crippled with Cincy as a #2. Other strange overseedings: Syracuse as a #4, Kentucky as a #5, Louisville as a #7, Tulsa as a #7, Utah as a #8, St. Louis as a #9. If Arkansas won the SEC tournament and is an #11, how did St. Louis get a #9 by winning the C-USA? Auburn proved that they could play without Chris Porter in the SEC tourney but still only got a #7 seed, so how did Cincinnati get a #2 when they lost Martin and flopped against St. Louis? Almost all the Big Ten teams should have been at least one seed higher, but the committee historically underseeds the Big Ten teams. Tennessee should also have been seeded higher, as well as Connecticut, Miami, Kansas, and Gonzaga. As for the annual "in or out" controversy, it's hard to understand how North Carolina got in (as a #8 seed, no less) when Virginia did not. The Cavs record was about the same, they had a winning ACC record, and beat Carolina twice. Notre Dame should have been in over St. Bonaventure, who lost to Fordham twice. Villanova has as good an argument as Notre Dame. The committee slapped the ACC and the Big East in the face this year. And if the Pac 10 deserved two #1 seeds, then why didn't Arizona State get in over the Bonnies, too? I have to side with the committee on Indiana State (first in MVC, good win over Indiana), UNLV (red-hot at the end), and Dayton (quality win over Kentucky). It looks like Dayton, Pepperdine, and Seton Hall were a lot closer to missing the tourney than the writers thought. On the other hand, Louisville, DePaul, Missouri, Carolina, Fresno State, and Wisconsin were in much more solidly than previously believed. Don't forget about the National Invitation Tournament, too. -The Commissioner
|