2001 Ad

Sporting News, The, March 26, 2001 by Mike DeCourcy

The loudest sound of March was not the squeal of shock and delight that resulted when the NCAA Tournament's first full day of competition sent home Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Iowa State and left Kent State, Georgia State, Utah State and Hampton standing in their places.

No, the loudest sound was the incessant griping about the selection process that these results resurrected. Shots were taken at the committee that sets the field, the Ratings Percentage Index its members use as a guide, the Big Ten Conference for having seven teams selected and the whole structure of the tournament.

If you think "One Shining Moment" is a tough listen, how about this chorus of carping:

* "There are cases where a Big Ten team loses and their RPI goes up," says Indiana State coach Royce Waltman. "In the Missouri Valley, we win a game and our RPI goes down. I think it is a little bit skewed toward the high-majors."

* "If all the power conferences deserve six or seven," says Utah State coach Stew Morrill, "why can't a league like ours once in a while say we deserve two?"

* "I think we need to think about expanding the field," says Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim. "I've never been a believer that we should let everybody in or, say, 128 teams. But I think it's time for an expansion. There's always going to be some teams left out. But this year and last year there were some teams left out that could have won a couple games."

The proper responses to these contentions:

* Yes, the selection process is skewed toward the high-majors. That's where most of the best players are, most of the best teams and most of the fans who make this tournament a multibillion-dollar affair. And since the RPI does not factor in victory margin--only a team's success and the success of those on its schedule--a mid-major team can raise its RPI by losing by 40 at Duke.

* The Big West can get two bids if it raises its general level of competition. The Missouri Valley has earned multiple bids three years in a row. The West Coast Conference had two in 2000. The Mid-American Conference had two in 1999. It happens.

* No, no, no. The NCAA Tournament field does not need to be expanded. Creating an extra game to accommodate 31 automatic conference bids without damaging the symmetry of the 64-team bracket is one thing. Spoiling the current beauty of the tournament would be the most foolish business decision since New Coke. Besides, add another six teams, and there will be six more beyond that believing they should be included.

For the ninth time in 10 years since the expansion of the Southeastern Conference signaled a landscape shift that divided Division I basketball firmly into the major conferences, mid-majors and low-majors, there is at least one team from outside that upper echelon playing in the Sweet 16.

Gonzaga isn't just any mid-major. The Zags are making their third consecutive Sweet 16 trip, the only team from their level ever to do so.

They've become one of the nation's best programs and, more important this season, one of its best teams.

This is great. Just as Hampton's triumph over Iowa State provides the sort of astonishment we search for each year as the tournament begins, it also is intriguing to watch whether Dan Dickau and Casey Calvary can continue nudging Gonzaga toward the Final Four.

The folks who operate programs at the mid-major level are committed to the game and their athletes. They play entertaining basketball that, under the right circumstances, can be competitive with teams from the big-time leagues.

However, should they continue to harp on the alleged disparities in the selection process, push for an expansion of the field or debate the fairness of the "opening round" game between the 64th and 65th teams in the field, they risk alienating the major conferences so much that the foundation of the NCAA Tournament could be shaken.

To use an analogy that might please soon-to-be Texas Tech coach Bob Knight, this is the major powers' sandbox, and they are letting the others play in it.

Of the spots that were available in the NCAA Tournament field, 22 went to teams from outside the major conferences this year. That's a third of the field.

Does anyone really believe mid- and low-major schools command a third of national fan interest? It could be argued these programs are treated generously.

Some major conference members think the 21 automatic bids awarded to conference champions from mid- and low-major leagues should belong to the big boys. Those people are wrong but could be powerful enough to advance their misguided agenda.

In recent years, it hasn't been uncommon to hear talk the major conferences might separate and compete on their own. The restructuring of NCAA governance to give major conferences more power removed the impetus for that movement, as did the $6 billion extension of the CBS deal. But that's not to say it is dead.

And mid-major programs displeased with their lot have at least one alternative. They can build 12,000-seat arenas, pay their coaches high six-figure salaries and attract masses of fans who contribute thousands of dollars simply for the right to buy season tickets. There is a cost to competing at the major-conference level, and those who pay it expect some return.