lohud.com

Sponsored by:

Faceoff

Rick Carpiniello and Sam Borden debate the the hottest topics in sports

Question #170: Big-names or Cinderellas?

March
16

The three days leading up to Thursday’s opening of the NCAA Tournament are rife with plenty of debating and decrying the tournament committee’s selections. This year, there’s already a perpetual argument going over the lack of “mid-major” teams in the 65-team field, which many observers think is a real injustice.

There are 31 automatic bids to the tourney which go primarily to schools that win their conference tournaments (or, in some cases, regular-season championships). That means there are 34 at-large bids to awarded by the committee. This year, only four of those 34 went to teams outside of the six “power” conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC and Pac-10). They were Xavier, Dayton, Butler and BYU. In 2004, there were 12 non-power conference teams in; there were six the past two years, then four last year.

Here’s my question: Does this bother you? Do you believe there need to be more Cinderellas?

The outcry over the field is loud and there’s no doubt that fans love the George Masons and (old-school) Gonzagas and Valparaisos that shred everyone’s bracket. To me, though, going with too many mid-majors can be a risk. The automatic bids already allow for a good number of potential upset-pullers to get into the field, and I don’t have a problem with the committee leaning towards a power-conference school over one from a weaker league.

Does that mean I think the Arizonas of the world should always get the nod over, say, a Creighton or a St. Mary’s? It doesn’t. But until the smaller conferences can start churning out quality play as often as the Pac-10 does, I don’t think there’s anything so terrible about giving the bigger program – and thus, the program playing more quality opposition in more hostile environments – the edge. Certain smaller leagues – like the Missouri Valley and Horizon – have clearly had terrific seasons in recent years and are better than they once were, but I don’t think that puts them on the same level as the power leagues. In my mind, a team from a smaller league HAS to do more than a team from a bigger one to earn that NCAA spot. And this year, I’m not sure that any of those smaller schools actually did that. So I had no problem with Arizona, who was a much-discussed bubble team, getting in.

I know, I know – more small schools and Cinderella-types in the field means a greater chance of those unreal upsets and everyone loves that, but there’s also a greater chance of a 25-point blowout that can really ruin what is supposed to be an awesome Thursday/Friday combo. I know everyone loves the no-name schools getting a chance, but the tournament is about seeing great college basketball, and that means getting the most talented teams in the field. Oftentimes, that means going with the medium-sized fish in a big pond instead of the big fish in the pretty small pond.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pm by Sam Borden. |
Category: 1


Advertisement

One Response to “Question #170: Big-names or Cinderellas?”

  1. NYRg

    i’ve grown up watching hockey and even though there are many different elements to the game that i thoroughly enjoy, fighting is in the top three. It makes the game exciting and differs it from every other sport. In my opinion hockey is the most physical of the sports and the most exciting to watch especially when there is a fight. There’s always a degree of excitement when you know you’re favorite team is about to play their rival, that not only is the pressure going to be on and that all the plays are going to be toward the big W, but that there’s an anomosity on the ice and there’s the possibility of a fight and the hype of who is going to win. I believe that whether fighting is there or not, i will forever remain a true-blue hockey fan, but I do believe that the sport may lose a lot of fans, which i don’t believe it can afford. Hockey fans are limited, and I still don’t understand why. Even the statistics show that the element that women enjoy about hockey is the fighting, and hey who doesn’t want more women fans? Is there anything hotter then a girl who understands the game? Keep fighting, keep the fans. I understand eliminating staged fights, but don’t change the game

Leave a Reply

Advertisement
About this blog
Rick Carpiniello and Sam Borden debate the hottest topics in sports.

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner





About the author
Sam BordenSam Borden grew up in Larchmont, graduated from Mamaroneck High School and has spent all 29 years of his life following the local sports scene. The drama of sports has always fascinated him, and his columns are designed to take a side or tell a story. The best days are the ones where he gets to do both.
Rick CarpinielloRick Carpiniello grew up in lower Westchester and began working in The Journal News' sports department (back when it was The Reporter Dispatch and eight other newspapers) in October of 1977 after a year of covering high school sports as a stringer. For more than 20 years he covered the New York Rangers and the National Hockey League. Carpiniello has been writing columns on everything from local sports to the big leagues since 2002.
Other recent entries

Recently Updated LoHud Blogs
Monthly Archives
Links