Tweet
Well, maybe not exposed but this article by Al Featherston posted on Dukebasketballreport.com offers up a theory that corruption entered into this year's selection. He also states that it's been happenning for a while but this was the year that broke the camel's back.
Warning: Long read as usual from one of Al's columns but it's very good. Great quote from Jerry Palm at the end of the article:
******************************************
When I first scanned the 2006 NCAA Tournament bracket Sunday night, I was struck by what I saw as a number of stunning inept choices by the selection committee.
My first inclination was to chalk that up to incompetence. I think it was Shakespeare who first pointed out the difficulty in distinguishing between fools and knaves, noting that much of what men see as vice is nothing more than sheer stupidity. And I???¬??ve always been skeptical of conspiracy theories. I???¬??m always guided by Emerson???¬??s dictum: Grand theorems demand grand proofs.
But the longer and harder I studied the 2006 bracket, the more convinced I became that it demonstrates the growing corruption of the NCAA selection process. I don???¬??t think corruption is too strong a word to use when we see administrators tweak the process to enrich their schools and their conferences. When you consider that each NCAA bid is worth at least $900,000 (it???¬??s complicated, but each bid is what the NCAA calls ???¬?a unit???¬?? and was worth $150,000-plus last season. Since each unit is rolled over for six years, every bid is actually worth $900,000, PLUS for every win that extra team gets in the first four rounds, the league gets ANOTHER unit, worth another $900,000), I???¬??d suggest the only other term that fits is ???¬?grand larceny.???¬??
What ???¬?grand proof???¬?? to I offer to support such a claim?
I have long believed that the presence of a school or conference official on the selection committee has a major impact on the NCAA fortunes of teams from that school or conference. I first formed the theory in 1984, when Virginia received a bid (to the then 48-team field) after compiling a 17-11 record and a 6-8 ACC finish ???¬??? a lackluster season capped by a lackluster performance in a 73-61 ACC Tournament loss to Wake Forest. Georgia Tech, 18-10 and also 6-8 in the ACC, didn???¬??t get a bid.
So how did the Cavaliers get in?
When I suggested to Bill Brill, the ACC???¬??s resident bracketologist, that the fact that both current (at that time) Virginia athletic director Richard Schultz and former Virginia athletic director Gene Corrigan were on the selection committee, he dismissed the idea. Every time I pointed out an odd connection between favoritism for certain borderline teams and membership on the committee, Brill assured me that I was wrong ???¬??? committee members would leave the room when their teams were discussed.
Yeah, I thought, but then they???¬??d come back in and their fellow committee members would tell them how their teams had done. Then one of the other committee members would walk out of the room and the guy who had just been rewarded or shafted would get to return the favor.
Does having a representative on the committee make a difference?
I did a study in 2000 that looked at the first 20 years of the NCAA???¬??s expanded field ???¬??? once an unlimited number of teams per conference were admitted. I found that the ACC was represented on the NCAA Selection Committee 14 of those 20.
In those 14 years, the ACC received a total of 77 bids, an average of 5.5 a year.
In the six years the ACC was not represented on the committee, the league received a total of 24 bids, an average of exactly four bids a year.
That???¬??s a pretty big difference ???¬??? an average of 1.5 bids a year ... and at least $900,000 a bid, that???¬??s A LOT of money.
I also looked at some the most controversial decisions made by the committee in those years. Besides the favorable treatment given Virginia in 1984, I found (just a few samples):
In 1988, Duke swept North Carolina and earned the right to play in the East Regional, even though the sub-regional was on UNC's home court. A year later, North Carolina took two out of three from Duke, including the ACC title game ... yet, the Tar Heels still were shipped to the South, while Duke was kept in the East and allowed to play in nearby Greensboro. Duke AD Tom Butters was on the committee both years.
In 1995, four ACC teams tied for the regular-season title with 12-4 records. Georgia Tech was 8-8 in the league and 18-12 overall, but didn't get a bid. The ACC was not represented on the committee. By contrast, Minnesota, which finished 13 spots below Georgia Tech in the RPI, got in with virtually the same record - the second-lowest RPI team to get a bid. It just so happened that Minnesota AD McKinley Boston was on the committee.
In 1999, the ACC got three bids despite being the second-ranked RPI conference. New Mexico, ranked No. 75 in the RPI after going 5-6 against the top 100, was included, becoming the lowest ranked RPI team ever to get an at-large bid. The ACC was not represented on the committee. New Mexico athletics director Rudy Davalos was the committee chairman.
But that???¬??s past history. And while some of those decisions (and others) give off the faint odor of corruption, the action of this year???¬??s committee stinks to high heaven.
The Smoking Gun
It???¬??s hard to compare teams from different leagues and different strata of the basketball universe. It???¬??s difficult to look at a mid-league team from a power conference and compare it with an upper level team from a mid-major conference. That very difficulty has provided committee chairmen cover for years from criticism of the selection process. It???¬??s been amusing to watch current selection committee chairman Craig Littlepage present his interviewers with a moving target by selectively switching selection criteria.
Q. Why didn???¬??t Florida State get in? A. Look at their non-conference strength of schedule. Q. But Texas A&M got in and their non-conference strength of schedule was worst than Florida State ???¬??? No. 323 of 334 teams. A.They have a better RPI than Florida State. Q. But Missouri State has a better RPI than either and they didn???¬??t get in. A. But they didn???¬??t beat enough top 50 teams. A. But they beat more than Air Force (which didn???¬??t beat ANY!) and the Falcons got in.
You see how it goes. Is a strong finish important? It sure was to Syracuse, which rocketed from out of the field to a No. 5 seed with a great four-day run in the Big East Tournament. It sure wasn???¬??t to Tennessee, which stumbled into a No. 2 seed, despite losing four of its last six.
Littlepage has been able to duck and weave by constantly changing the subject. And in all the cases mentioned above, it???¬??s easy to read ineptitude into the lack of consistency. But not in every case.
Take a very good look at George Mason vs. Hofstra.
We???¬??re not comparing apples and oranges here. We???¬??re looking at two teams from the same conference, who played very similar schedules with very similar results. In fact, let???¬??s look at the two Colonial Conference teams side by side:
Team Record RPI Last 10 vs. 1-25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100
George Mason 23-7 26 8-2 0-0 2-4 6-2
Hofstra 24-6 30 8-2 0-0 3-2 4-3
Pretty tough call, right? Hofstra has a one-game better record, but Mason has a very slightly better RPI. Both are exactly the same over the last 10 games. Hofstra has more wins and a better record against the top 50. Mason has one more top 100 win, although Hofstra???¬??s top 100 winning percentage is marginally better.
If that were all there was to it, it would be hard to get too excited over the committee???¬??s choice of George Mason over Hofstra.
But that???¬??s not all there was to it. There are two other factors that the committee had to consider:
(1) Coming down the stretch of the season, the two teams met head-to-head twice. On Feb. 23, Hofstra, playing at home, defeated George Mason, 77-66. Less than two weeks later, on a neutral court in Richmond (although a lot closer to George Mason), Hofstra defeated George Mason 58-49 in the Colonial Conference Tournament semifinals. That was after beating Richmond on its home court in the first round.
You???¬??d think that in a case where two teams were so even, the fact that one team finished the season with two head-to-head victories over the other, would be the tiebreaker. But there???¬??s also:
(2) George Mason guard Tony Skinn ???¬??? the team???¬??s best or perhaps second-best player -- was suspended one game by coach Jim Larranaga for throwing a Chris Paul punch in the second loss to Hofstra. He won???¬??t be eligible for the NCAA opener.
That???¬??s a factor that by NCAA guidelines the committee has to consider ???¬??? just as if it???¬??s an injury. Its very similar to the issue that kept Maryland out of the field (the Terps aren???¬??t the same team without academic casualty Chris McCray). Skinn is out for just one game, but it???¬??s not like this is a No. 1 seed that can get past a No. 16 without a top player. As a No. 11 seed, George Mason???¬??s chances of surviving a first-round game with No. 6 Michigan State are EXTREMELY compromised by the absence of Skinn.
Can any reasonable person look at all the data and explain why George Mason got a bid and Hofstra didn???¬??t? No bullshit about weak SOS or power conferences dodging the weaker conferences or strong/slow finishes here. This is two teams from the same conference that are dead even until you factor in the head-to-head results and the suspension of Skinn.
So why did George Mason get the bid instead of Hofstra?
It???¬??s painfully obvious when you look at the lineup of the selection committee and see the name Tom O???¬??Conner, athletic director at George Mason. Quite a coincidence, huh?
And if that???¬??s not enough, when I predicted such an outcome last week before the pairings were announced, a Virginia reporter told me that if O???¬??Conner needs help, Littlepage is very close to George Mason???¬??s coach, Jim Larranaga who used to be an assistant at Virginia (you might remember him as the assistant who got the crucial technical foul in Virginia???¬??s 1983 ACC title game loss to N.C. State) along with Littlepage.
Now, the selection of George Mason over Hofstra won???¬??t mean anything to the Colonial Conference, which would get the same money whichever team was picked, but it certainly means a lot to Mason and its program.
Want more?
Let???¬??s take a look at the next most controversial selection ???¬??? Air Force.
The Falcons finished tied for second in the Mountain West with a 24-6 record, which looks pretty good until you start breaking it down.
First, throw out two non-Division 1 wins ???¬??? they don???¬??t count. Of the remaining 22 wins, seven were against teams with an RPI above 200. None were against the top 50 ???¬??? in fact, Air Force was 0-1 against the top 50 and 5-3 against the top 100. That???¬??s right ???¬??? five wins against teams in the top 100 in the country. One of those came over Miami of the ACC on a night when the Hurricanes played without point guard Anthony Harris.
Again, let???¬??s not fall into the trap of comparing apples to oranges. Let???¬??s compare Air Force to a similar mid-major team:
Team Record RPI Last 10 vs. top 25 vs. top 50 vs. top 100
Air Force 22-6 50 7-3 0-0 0-1 5-2
Missouri State 20-8 21 8-2 1-2 3-6 1-0
Could anyone seriously suggest that Air Force, which piled up its two extra wins against teams from the bottom third of the pool is a worthier candidate than a team that played 12 times as many games against top 50 competition? Again, we???¬??re not trying to compare a mid-major with a mid-level team from a power conference. These are two teams from similar conferences. One team played the much tougher schedule, had many more quality wins, finished stronger (Air Force folded against 13-18 Wyoming in the MWC Tournament) and came in 29 places higher in the RPI.
What advantage did Air Force have over Missouri State?
Let???¬??s once again go to the committee roster. There you see Chris Hill, the athletic director at Utah. He couldn???¬??t do much for the Utes (14-15 on the season), but he made sure that the Mountain West got a second bid ... and an extra $900,000 payoff that will be split among conference members.
Kurt Benson, the commissioner of the WAC, took care of his league too, making sure that Utah State got in as a second team from his conference. At least the Aggies, unlike Air Force, went down fighting in their conference tournament finals, losing to a pretty good Nevada team in overtime. Still, Utah State???¬??s profile paled when compared to the aforementioned Missouri State ???¬??? 22-8 against Division 1, a No. 46 RPI, a 1-2 record against the top 50, a 7-5 record against the top 100, a 7-3 finish in the last 10.
It goes without saying that Missouri State???¬??s athletic director was not on the selection committee. Neither was the Missouri Valley Conference commissioner nor any other AD from the league.
Now, the Missouri Valley DID get four teams in ???¬??? a result that appeared to drive Billy Packer and Jim Nance up the wall during their Sunday night interview with Littlepage. I???¬??m not suggesting that the MVC deserved five or even six bids (although Creighton has a better resume than Air Force or Utah State too). But using the committee???¬??s own logic ???¬??? and Littlepage???¬??s insistence that it???¬??s about teams, not conferences ???¬??? using Missouri State???¬??s case merely makes it easier to demonstrate that cronyism was as much behind the selection of Air Force and Utah State as it was behind the selection of George Mason over Hofstra.
The real crime
Personally, I think the teams that most deserved a bid were from major conferences. If I were on the committee, I???¬??d have argued for Cincinnati, Michigan and Florida State over George Mason, Air Force and Utah State and over Hofstra, Missouri State and/or Creighton.
But I believe the committee clearly has an agenda to push the mid-majors at the expense of the power conferences. Again, a ???¬?grand theorem???¬?? ... is there ???¬?grand proof???¬???
All I can offer is evidence based on the makeup of the selection committee. I think it was very interesting that in an interview Monday with the Indianapolis Star, Littlepage offered a very misleading read on the makeup of the selection committee.
???¬?He said six of the 10 committee members work at Division I-A schools, primarily from the Bowl Championship Series conferences, while only four work at schools with Division I-AA football programs,???¬?? the newspaper reported Littlepage as saying.
That???¬??s clearly a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts ???¬??? and Littlepage knows it.
The fact is that just three members of the committee come from BCS conferences ???¬??? Littlepage, UCLA athletic director Dave Guererro and SEC commissioner Mike Slive. How does that translate into ???¬?primarly from BCS conferences???¬???
The other three members from Division 1-A conferences are Laing Kennedy, the athletic director at Kent State; Kurt Benson, the commissioner of the WAC and Chris Hill, the AD at Utah. Those are mid-major basketball leagues.
That means that seven of the 10 members of the committee come from mid-major or smaller conferences. They control the process and they???¬??re going to make sure that the smaller schools are going to get a bigger piece of the financial pie that is the NCAA Tournament. Littlepage???¬??s clumsy attempt to obscure the real makeup of the committee is to me a clear sign that he knows how bad the truth would be perceived.
The best 34
Monday night on Pardon the Interruption, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were debating the NCAA field. Kornheiser raised the mistaken claim that the idea is supposed to be to put the best 64 teams in the tournament. Wilbon answered that he wanted a national tournament ???¬??? with small schools given a chance.
Well, that???¬??s what we have now ... or at least we did until the committee members started siphoning off bids for their own teams and conferences.
Kornheiser???¬??s statement is wrong, although to be fair to him, it???¬??s a mistake that I hear a lot of coaches make ???¬??? most recently FSU???¬??s Leonard Hamilton at the ACC Tournament. In fact, the idea is NOT to put together the best 64 (or actually 65) teams. That???¬??s because 31 spaces are reserved for the champions of 31 conferences. That???¬??s the part of the equation that assures Wilbon of a national tournament, embodying schools from every region and every level of play.
What???¬??s left are 34 at large spots. And according to the NCAA guidelines, THOSE are for the best 34 teams that aren???¬??t automatic NCAA qualifiers. Those 34 spots aren???¬??t there to spread the wealth or to make sure every little team that can schedule itself 20 wins gets a bid. They aren???¬??t there to provide an avenue for members of the selection committee to line the coffers of their school or conference. And they???¬??re not there to allow members of the committee to push their socialistic philosophy that everybody deserves an equal split of the NCAA payday.
All leagues are not created equal. Craig Littlepage was upset when Nance and Packer started comparing the historical success rate of mid-major teams in the field with those from the power conferences that got short-changed. Littlepage was too tongue-tied to respond at the time, but Monday he fired back. The Indianapolis Star reported:
???¬?But what riled Littlepage was Packer's assertion the committee look at a five-year track record of teams and conferences. Littlepage and past committee chairmen have stated regularly that past performances have no bearing on the brackets.???¬??
Technically, there is no provision in the NCAA guidelines for the committee to consider past results in their deliberations. I???¬??ve written about this before ???¬??? nobody is asking the committee to give a bid to Louisville because they???¬??re a great program or to UCLA because the Bruins won 10 titles under John Wooden 30 years ago. We???¬??re only asking for some common sense ???¬??? when the committee is trying to decide whether to give a bid to an attractive team from a mid-major or a mid-level team from a power conference, shouldn???¬??t they look and see which kind of team has been more productive in past tournaments?
There is so much wrong with the way the committee did its job this year that it???¬??s not worth getting into such minor, but interesting questions such as how Tennessee, losing four of its last six, earned a No. 2 seed (LSU won the SEC regular season title and got a No. 4 seed; Florida won the SEC East title and the SEC Tournament and got a No. 3 seed) and how the best record in the country translated into a No. 8 seed for George Washington (I know their SOS is awful, but so was St. Joe???¬??s two years ago, when a similar record earned the Hawks a No. 1 seed).
I suspect both results are the result of incompetence, not venality ???¬??? although it???¬??s worth noting that the team with the favorable seed (Tennessee) had its conference commissioner on the committee, while the team that got the unfavorable seed (George Washington) was not represented on the committee. Just more coincidence, I???¬??m sure.
Of course, a cynic could point out that Littlepage???¬??s presence on the committee did little for the ACC. The league???¬??s two bubble teams were both ignored and the ACC???¬??s second and third best teams drew extremely unfavorable draws ???¬??? UNC, which had more right to a spot in Greensboro than Tennessee, was shipped to Dayton, Ohio, for a potential second-round game with Michigan State in Big 10 country, while Boston College, which was begging for a Friday-Sunday site after the long, grueling ACC Tournament, was instead given a Thursday morning game (10:30 local time) in Salt Lake City at 4400 feet of altitude. The ridiculous No. 4 seed for the Eagles is a minor detail compared to that injustice.
Maybe Littlepage???¬??s failure to protect the ACC was the reason there was so much grumbling in ACC circles after the pairings were unveiled. Florida State AD Dave Hart, whose father served on the selection committee from 1981-86, knows how the system works. And when it didn???¬??t work in his favor, he complained, ???¬?I think politics entered the process,???¬?? he told the Tallahassee Democrat.
That???¬??s what I???¬??ve been saying for a long time. Brill hasn???¬??t tried to argue the issue since Davalos pulled off his magic act in 1999. And now Jerry Palm (of collegerpi.com), long one of the NCAA???¬??s biggest defenders, is coming around:
???¬?Now that I've had a night to almost sleep on it, I think the credibility of the selection process was significantly damaged in one important way and it???¬??s going to be hard to recover from it,???¬?? he posted on his website Tuesday morning. ???¬?The committee has said all along, and I have believed them, that having a friend on the committee is not useful. I think most people agree that the three most questionable selections in this field are George Mason, Utah St and Air Force. George Mason's AD, Utah State's commissioner and an AD from Air Force's conference were all on the committee. Cincinnati, Missouri St and Creighton had no such help, while Florida State's non-conference schedule apparently was so poor that having a friend as the chairman wasn't enough.???¬??
The time has come to fix the system. The corruption that marked the process this year is too obvious to continue to ignore.
Warning: Long read as usual from one of Al's columns but it's very good. Great quote from Jerry Palm at the end of the article:
******************************************
When I first scanned the 2006 NCAA Tournament bracket Sunday night, I was struck by what I saw as a number of stunning inept choices by the selection committee.
My first inclination was to chalk that up to incompetence. I think it was Shakespeare who first pointed out the difficulty in distinguishing between fools and knaves, noting that much of what men see as vice is nothing more than sheer stupidity. And I???¬??ve always been skeptical of conspiracy theories. I???¬??m always guided by Emerson???¬??s dictum: Grand theorems demand grand proofs.
But the longer and harder I studied the 2006 bracket, the more convinced I became that it demonstrates the growing corruption of the NCAA selection process. I don???¬??t think corruption is too strong a word to use when we see administrators tweak the process to enrich their schools and their conferences. When you consider that each NCAA bid is worth at least $900,000 (it???¬??s complicated, but each bid is what the NCAA calls ???¬?a unit???¬?? and was worth $150,000-plus last season. Since each unit is rolled over for six years, every bid is actually worth $900,000, PLUS for every win that extra team gets in the first four rounds, the league gets ANOTHER unit, worth another $900,000), I???¬??d suggest the only other term that fits is ???¬?grand larceny.???¬??
What ???¬?grand proof???¬?? to I offer to support such a claim?
I have long believed that the presence of a school or conference official on the selection committee has a major impact on the NCAA fortunes of teams from that school or conference. I first formed the theory in 1984, when Virginia received a bid (to the then 48-team field) after compiling a 17-11 record and a 6-8 ACC finish ???¬??? a lackluster season capped by a lackluster performance in a 73-61 ACC Tournament loss to Wake Forest. Georgia Tech, 18-10 and also 6-8 in the ACC, didn???¬??t get a bid.
So how did the Cavaliers get in?
When I suggested to Bill Brill, the ACC???¬??s resident bracketologist, that the fact that both current (at that time) Virginia athletic director Richard Schultz and former Virginia athletic director Gene Corrigan were on the selection committee, he dismissed the idea. Every time I pointed out an odd connection between favoritism for certain borderline teams and membership on the committee, Brill assured me that I was wrong ???¬??? committee members would leave the room when their teams were discussed.
Yeah, I thought, but then they???¬??d come back in and their fellow committee members would tell them how their teams had done. Then one of the other committee members would walk out of the room and the guy who had just been rewarded or shafted would get to return the favor.
Does having a representative on the committee make a difference?
I did a study in 2000 that looked at the first 20 years of the NCAA???¬??s expanded field ???¬??? once an unlimited number of teams per conference were admitted. I found that the ACC was represented on the NCAA Selection Committee 14 of those 20.
In those 14 years, the ACC received a total of 77 bids, an average of 5.5 a year.
In the six years the ACC was not represented on the committee, the league received a total of 24 bids, an average of exactly four bids a year.
That???¬??s a pretty big difference ???¬??? an average of 1.5 bids a year ... and at least $900,000 a bid, that???¬??s A LOT of money.
I also looked at some the most controversial decisions made by the committee in those years. Besides the favorable treatment given Virginia in 1984, I found (just a few samples):
In 1988, Duke swept North Carolina and earned the right to play in the East Regional, even though the sub-regional was on UNC's home court. A year later, North Carolina took two out of three from Duke, including the ACC title game ... yet, the Tar Heels still were shipped to the South, while Duke was kept in the East and allowed to play in nearby Greensboro. Duke AD Tom Butters was on the committee both years.
In 1995, four ACC teams tied for the regular-season title with 12-4 records. Georgia Tech was 8-8 in the league and 18-12 overall, but didn't get a bid. The ACC was not represented on the committee. By contrast, Minnesota, which finished 13 spots below Georgia Tech in the RPI, got in with virtually the same record - the second-lowest RPI team to get a bid. It just so happened that Minnesota AD McKinley Boston was on the committee.
In 1999, the ACC got three bids despite being the second-ranked RPI conference. New Mexico, ranked No. 75 in the RPI after going 5-6 against the top 100, was included, becoming the lowest ranked RPI team ever to get an at-large bid. The ACC was not represented on the committee. New Mexico athletics director Rudy Davalos was the committee chairman.
But that???¬??s past history. And while some of those decisions (and others) give off the faint odor of corruption, the action of this year???¬??s committee stinks to high heaven.
The Smoking Gun
It???¬??s hard to compare teams from different leagues and different strata of the basketball universe. It???¬??s difficult to look at a mid-league team from a power conference and compare it with an upper level team from a mid-major conference. That very difficulty has provided committee chairmen cover for years from criticism of the selection process. It???¬??s been amusing to watch current selection committee chairman Craig Littlepage present his interviewers with a moving target by selectively switching selection criteria.
Q. Why didn???¬??t Florida State get in? A. Look at their non-conference strength of schedule. Q. But Texas A&M got in and their non-conference strength of schedule was worst than Florida State ???¬??? No. 323 of 334 teams. A.They have a better RPI than Florida State. Q. But Missouri State has a better RPI than either and they didn???¬??t get in. A. But they didn???¬??t beat enough top 50 teams. A. But they beat more than Air Force (which didn???¬??t beat ANY!) and the Falcons got in.
You see how it goes. Is a strong finish important? It sure was to Syracuse, which rocketed from out of the field to a No. 5 seed with a great four-day run in the Big East Tournament. It sure wasn???¬??t to Tennessee, which stumbled into a No. 2 seed, despite losing four of its last six.
Littlepage has been able to duck and weave by constantly changing the subject. And in all the cases mentioned above, it???¬??s easy to read ineptitude into the lack of consistency. But not in every case.
Take a very good look at George Mason vs. Hofstra.
We???¬??re not comparing apples and oranges here. We???¬??re looking at two teams from the same conference, who played very similar schedules with very similar results. In fact, let???¬??s look at the two Colonial Conference teams side by side:
Team Record RPI Last 10 vs. 1-25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100
George Mason 23-7 26 8-2 0-0 2-4 6-2
Hofstra 24-6 30 8-2 0-0 3-2 4-3
Pretty tough call, right? Hofstra has a one-game better record, but Mason has a very slightly better RPI. Both are exactly the same over the last 10 games. Hofstra has more wins and a better record against the top 50. Mason has one more top 100 win, although Hofstra???¬??s top 100 winning percentage is marginally better.
If that were all there was to it, it would be hard to get too excited over the committee???¬??s choice of George Mason over Hofstra.
But that???¬??s not all there was to it. There are two other factors that the committee had to consider:
(1) Coming down the stretch of the season, the two teams met head-to-head twice. On Feb. 23, Hofstra, playing at home, defeated George Mason, 77-66. Less than two weeks later, on a neutral court in Richmond (although a lot closer to George Mason), Hofstra defeated George Mason 58-49 in the Colonial Conference Tournament semifinals. That was after beating Richmond on its home court in the first round.
You???¬??d think that in a case where two teams were so even, the fact that one team finished the season with two head-to-head victories over the other, would be the tiebreaker. But there???¬??s also:
(2) George Mason guard Tony Skinn ???¬??? the team???¬??s best or perhaps second-best player -- was suspended one game by coach Jim Larranaga for throwing a Chris Paul punch in the second loss to Hofstra. He won???¬??t be eligible for the NCAA opener.
That???¬??s a factor that by NCAA guidelines the committee has to consider ???¬??? just as if it???¬??s an injury. Its very similar to the issue that kept Maryland out of the field (the Terps aren???¬??t the same team without academic casualty Chris McCray). Skinn is out for just one game, but it???¬??s not like this is a No. 1 seed that can get past a No. 16 without a top player. As a No. 11 seed, George Mason???¬??s chances of surviving a first-round game with No. 6 Michigan State are EXTREMELY compromised by the absence of Skinn.
Can any reasonable person look at all the data and explain why George Mason got a bid and Hofstra didn???¬??t? No bullshit about weak SOS or power conferences dodging the weaker conferences or strong/slow finishes here. This is two teams from the same conference that are dead even until you factor in the head-to-head results and the suspension of Skinn.
So why did George Mason get the bid instead of Hofstra?
It???¬??s painfully obvious when you look at the lineup of the selection committee and see the name Tom O???¬??Conner, athletic director at George Mason. Quite a coincidence, huh?
And if that???¬??s not enough, when I predicted such an outcome last week before the pairings were announced, a Virginia reporter told me that if O???¬??Conner needs help, Littlepage is very close to George Mason???¬??s coach, Jim Larranaga who used to be an assistant at Virginia (you might remember him as the assistant who got the crucial technical foul in Virginia???¬??s 1983 ACC title game loss to N.C. State) along with Littlepage.
Now, the selection of George Mason over Hofstra won???¬??t mean anything to the Colonial Conference, which would get the same money whichever team was picked, but it certainly means a lot to Mason and its program.
Want more?
Let???¬??s take a look at the next most controversial selection ???¬??? Air Force.
The Falcons finished tied for second in the Mountain West with a 24-6 record, which looks pretty good until you start breaking it down.
First, throw out two non-Division 1 wins ???¬??? they don???¬??t count. Of the remaining 22 wins, seven were against teams with an RPI above 200. None were against the top 50 ???¬??? in fact, Air Force was 0-1 against the top 50 and 5-3 against the top 100. That???¬??s right ???¬??? five wins against teams in the top 100 in the country. One of those came over Miami of the ACC on a night when the Hurricanes played without point guard Anthony Harris.
Again, let???¬??s not fall into the trap of comparing apples to oranges. Let???¬??s compare Air Force to a similar mid-major team:
Team Record RPI Last 10 vs. top 25 vs. top 50 vs. top 100
Air Force 22-6 50 7-3 0-0 0-1 5-2
Missouri State 20-8 21 8-2 1-2 3-6 1-0
Could anyone seriously suggest that Air Force, which piled up its two extra wins against teams from the bottom third of the pool is a worthier candidate than a team that played 12 times as many games against top 50 competition? Again, we???¬??re not trying to compare a mid-major with a mid-level team from a power conference. These are two teams from similar conferences. One team played the much tougher schedule, had many more quality wins, finished stronger (Air Force folded against 13-18 Wyoming in the MWC Tournament) and came in 29 places higher in the RPI.
What advantage did Air Force have over Missouri State?
Let???¬??s once again go to the committee roster. There you see Chris Hill, the athletic director at Utah. He couldn???¬??t do much for the Utes (14-15 on the season), but he made sure that the Mountain West got a second bid ... and an extra $900,000 payoff that will be split among conference members.
Kurt Benson, the commissioner of the WAC, took care of his league too, making sure that Utah State got in as a second team from his conference. At least the Aggies, unlike Air Force, went down fighting in their conference tournament finals, losing to a pretty good Nevada team in overtime. Still, Utah State???¬??s profile paled when compared to the aforementioned Missouri State ???¬??? 22-8 against Division 1, a No. 46 RPI, a 1-2 record against the top 50, a 7-5 record against the top 100, a 7-3 finish in the last 10.
It goes without saying that Missouri State???¬??s athletic director was not on the selection committee. Neither was the Missouri Valley Conference commissioner nor any other AD from the league.
Now, the Missouri Valley DID get four teams in ???¬??? a result that appeared to drive Billy Packer and Jim Nance up the wall during their Sunday night interview with Littlepage. I???¬??m not suggesting that the MVC deserved five or even six bids (although Creighton has a better resume than Air Force or Utah State too). But using the committee???¬??s own logic ???¬??? and Littlepage???¬??s insistence that it???¬??s about teams, not conferences ???¬??? using Missouri State???¬??s case merely makes it easier to demonstrate that cronyism was as much behind the selection of Air Force and Utah State as it was behind the selection of George Mason over Hofstra.
The real crime
Personally, I think the teams that most deserved a bid were from major conferences. If I were on the committee, I???¬??d have argued for Cincinnati, Michigan and Florida State over George Mason, Air Force and Utah State and over Hofstra, Missouri State and/or Creighton.
But I believe the committee clearly has an agenda to push the mid-majors at the expense of the power conferences. Again, a ???¬?grand theorem???¬?? ... is there ???¬?grand proof???¬???
All I can offer is evidence based on the makeup of the selection committee. I think it was very interesting that in an interview Monday with the Indianapolis Star, Littlepage offered a very misleading read on the makeup of the selection committee.
???¬?He said six of the 10 committee members work at Division I-A schools, primarily from the Bowl Championship Series conferences, while only four work at schools with Division I-AA football programs,???¬?? the newspaper reported Littlepage as saying.
That???¬??s clearly a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts ???¬??? and Littlepage knows it.
The fact is that just three members of the committee come from BCS conferences ???¬??? Littlepage, UCLA athletic director Dave Guererro and SEC commissioner Mike Slive. How does that translate into ???¬?primarly from BCS conferences???¬???
The other three members from Division 1-A conferences are Laing Kennedy, the athletic director at Kent State; Kurt Benson, the commissioner of the WAC and Chris Hill, the AD at Utah. Those are mid-major basketball leagues.
That means that seven of the 10 members of the committee come from mid-major or smaller conferences. They control the process and they???¬??re going to make sure that the smaller schools are going to get a bigger piece of the financial pie that is the NCAA Tournament. Littlepage???¬??s clumsy attempt to obscure the real makeup of the committee is to me a clear sign that he knows how bad the truth would be perceived.
The best 34
Monday night on Pardon the Interruption, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were debating the NCAA field. Kornheiser raised the mistaken claim that the idea is supposed to be to put the best 64 teams in the tournament. Wilbon answered that he wanted a national tournament ???¬??? with small schools given a chance.
Well, that???¬??s what we have now ... or at least we did until the committee members started siphoning off bids for their own teams and conferences.
Kornheiser???¬??s statement is wrong, although to be fair to him, it???¬??s a mistake that I hear a lot of coaches make ???¬??? most recently FSU???¬??s Leonard Hamilton at the ACC Tournament. In fact, the idea is NOT to put together the best 64 (or actually 65) teams. That???¬??s because 31 spaces are reserved for the champions of 31 conferences. That???¬??s the part of the equation that assures Wilbon of a national tournament, embodying schools from every region and every level of play.
What???¬??s left are 34 at large spots. And according to the NCAA guidelines, THOSE are for the best 34 teams that aren???¬??t automatic NCAA qualifiers. Those 34 spots aren???¬??t there to spread the wealth or to make sure every little team that can schedule itself 20 wins gets a bid. They aren???¬??t there to provide an avenue for members of the selection committee to line the coffers of their school or conference. And they???¬??re not there to allow members of the committee to push their socialistic philosophy that everybody deserves an equal split of the NCAA payday.
All leagues are not created equal. Craig Littlepage was upset when Nance and Packer started comparing the historical success rate of mid-major teams in the field with those from the power conferences that got short-changed. Littlepage was too tongue-tied to respond at the time, but Monday he fired back. The Indianapolis Star reported:
???¬?But what riled Littlepage was Packer's assertion the committee look at a five-year track record of teams and conferences. Littlepage and past committee chairmen have stated regularly that past performances have no bearing on the brackets.???¬??
Technically, there is no provision in the NCAA guidelines for the committee to consider past results in their deliberations. I???¬??ve written about this before ???¬??? nobody is asking the committee to give a bid to Louisville because they???¬??re a great program or to UCLA because the Bruins won 10 titles under John Wooden 30 years ago. We???¬??re only asking for some common sense ???¬??? when the committee is trying to decide whether to give a bid to an attractive team from a mid-major or a mid-level team from a power conference, shouldn???¬??t they look and see which kind of team has been more productive in past tournaments?
There is so much wrong with the way the committee did its job this year that it???¬??s not worth getting into such minor, but interesting questions such as how Tennessee, losing four of its last six, earned a No. 2 seed (LSU won the SEC regular season title and got a No. 4 seed; Florida won the SEC East title and the SEC Tournament and got a No. 3 seed) and how the best record in the country translated into a No. 8 seed for George Washington (I know their SOS is awful, but so was St. Joe???¬??s two years ago, when a similar record earned the Hawks a No. 1 seed).
I suspect both results are the result of incompetence, not venality ???¬??? although it???¬??s worth noting that the team with the favorable seed (Tennessee) had its conference commissioner on the committee, while the team that got the unfavorable seed (George Washington) was not represented on the committee. Just more coincidence, I???¬??m sure.
Of course, a cynic could point out that Littlepage???¬??s presence on the committee did little for the ACC. The league???¬??s two bubble teams were both ignored and the ACC???¬??s second and third best teams drew extremely unfavorable draws ???¬??? UNC, which had more right to a spot in Greensboro than Tennessee, was shipped to Dayton, Ohio, for a potential second-round game with Michigan State in Big 10 country, while Boston College, which was begging for a Friday-Sunday site after the long, grueling ACC Tournament, was instead given a Thursday morning game (10:30 local time) in Salt Lake City at 4400 feet of altitude. The ridiculous No. 4 seed for the Eagles is a minor detail compared to that injustice.
Maybe Littlepage???¬??s failure to protect the ACC was the reason there was so much grumbling in ACC circles after the pairings were unveiled. Florida State AD Dave Hart, whose father served on the selection committee from 1981-86, knows how the system works. And when it didn???¬??t work in his favor, he complained, ???¬?I think politics entered the process,???¬?? he told the Tallahassee Democrat.
That???¬??s what I???¬??ve been saying for a long time. Brill hasn???¬??t tried to argue the issue since Davalos pulled off his magic act in 1999. And now Jerry Palm (of collegerpi.com), long one of the NCAA???¬??s biggest defenders, is coming around:
???¬?Now that I've had a night to almost sleep on it, I think the credibility of the selection process was significantly damaged in one important way and it???¬??s going to be hard to recover from it,???¬?? he posted on his website Tuesday morning. ???¬?The committee has said all along, and I have believed them, that having a friend on the committee is not useful. I think most people agree that the three most questionable selections in this field are George Mason, Utah St and Air Force. George Mason's AD, Utah State's commissioner and an AD from Air Force's conference were all on the committee. Cincinnati, Missouri St and Creighton had no such help, while Florida State's non-conference schedule apparently was so poor that having a friend as the chairman wasn't enough.???¬??
The time has come to fix the system. The corruption that marked the process this year is too obvious to continue to ignore.
Comment