David vs. David, Goliath vs. Goliath

Ugh. The NCAA selection committee has once again bracketed the tournament in such a way as to prevent many potentially compelling matchups where mid-major and low-major teams would be able to test their mettle against big-conference teams.

Among the 8-9 games, two are Goliath vs. Goliath (Indiana-Arkansas, Mississippi State-Oregon) and one is David vs. David (UNLV-Kent State). Only one is sort of a David vs. Goliath (BYU vs. Texas A&M). Would it have killed them to flip a couple of those teams, producing, say, UNLV-Arkansas and Indiana-Kent State?

Among the 7-10 games, it's a similar story, as we get two David vs. Davids (Butler vs. South Alabama and Gonzaga vs. Davidson) and one Goliath vs. Goliath (West Virginia vs. Arizona), and only one David vs. Goliath, Miami vs. St. Mary's -- which isn't really that interesting anyway, as Miami is hardly a traditional basketball powerhouse. Again, would it have killed them to pit, say, Butler vs. Arizona and West Virginia vs. South Alabama?

I won't complain about the 6-11 games, since there really wasn't anything to work with there; all of those teams are from power conferences, except St. Joe's. But what about the 5-12 games? Again, we get Clemson vs. Villanova in one bracket, while Drake faces Western Kentucky in another. Why not flip them, so it's Clemson vs. Western Kentucky and Drake vs. Villanova? Much more compelling.

I realize the committee supposedly doesn't look at matchups, but this is the second consecutive year they've done this, and it really detracts from the drama of the tournament's opening weekend. Nobody tunes into the first round to watch David vs. David and Goliath vs. Goliath. We all want to see how the "little guys" stack up against the "big guys." Instead, the committee has created a situation where the mid-majors are inevitably going to cannibalize each other.

CBS's Seth Davis said during the Selection Show that "some of these non-power-conference teams need to step up and win some games." But this bracket denies them a ton of potential opportunities to do just that, against major-conference opponents at least. Is anyone in the mainstream sports media going to give proper credit to Western Kentucky if they upset Drake, or South Alabama if they upset Butler, or Davidson if they upset Gonzaga? Of course not. And that's a damn shame.

This unfortunate bracketing really takes away from one of the very best things about the NCAA Tournament. I don't know if the committee is doing this on purpose, or just by accident, but like I said, it has now happened two years in a row. They need to make an effort to prevent this from happening so commonly in future years if they want the tournament's early rounds to remain the most compelling four days in sports.

Comments

[Andrew]

Trend: Less mid-majors; and mid-majors pitted against each other. That is totally not an accident.

[Brendan]

I think it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions simply from the raw number of at-larges given out to mid-majors in a given year, because you're dealing with such a small number that I question the statistical significance of a difference between, say, 6 and 9 or whatever, especially when so much depends on whether mid-majors win their conference tournaments. For instance, Drake, Davidson and Kent State don't count as "at-larges" because they won their auto bids, but their seeds suggest they would have gotten at-larges if they needed them. Same goes for UNLV if you count the MWC as a mid-major league. And anyway, frankly, if the committee was conspiratorially committed to shutting the door on mid-majors, South Alabama wouldn't be in the tournament, and either Virginia Tech or Arizona State or Ohio State would.

As for whether it's an accident that mid-majors are pitted against each other, I fear you might be right, since it now appears to be a trend, but I can't imagine what on earth the committee would be trying to accomplish by doing that. Don't they understand that the David vs. Goliath element is a key aspect of the tournament's appeal? WHY would they want to snuff it out?

[Andrew]

I agree last year and this year have been particularly strong years for the major conferences, so the drop in mid-majors is not that damning. But I didn't necessarily mean each of the two trends on their own are unexplainable, just that the two tied together are ominous.

For instance, if there were ten or a dozen mid-major at-large teams, the committee would really have to go out of their way to avoid a few David vs. David matchups. But when there are just a half-dozen or so, the high number of mid-major vs. mid-major matchups indicates that the pairings were quite deliberate, and they seem willing to underseed or overseed as necessary to make it happen.

As an example, why do you drop Butler down to a 7 seed and send them to play South Alabama in Birmingham, AL? Why do you inflate Davidson to a 10 seed and bring Gonzaga to play them in Raleigh, NC? And if South Alabama is a 10 seed, how is Western Kentucky a 12 seed and paired with Drake? I think this is a case where both are natural 11 seeds, but they've been moved up or down in order to be paired with another mid-major. Kentucky, Baylor, Oregon, Villanova, Arizona, and Kansas State were all in the vicinity and could have been juggled around instead. Finally, with the 8 and 9 seeds, you have five major teams and three mid-majors... so instead of three potential David vs. Goliaths, we get just one (and consider that switching UNLV and Mississippi State would eliminate an unfair home-court advantage for MSU, which is playing in the state next door).

No doubt, this is intentional, and the only reason I can come up with for this is that the committee wants to reduce the number of mid-majors advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. But like you, I just don't understand why they want to do that except to protect the major conferences' interests in TV exposure and recruiting and such.

[yea]

i doubt there is any conspiracy to keep mid-majors out of the sweet 16. a sample size of 2-3 tournies is nowhere close to sufficient to prove a conspiracy or bias in my opinion.

[Brendan Loy]

I agree with yea that it's too early to conclude that this is deliberate. The pattern is enough to raise suspicion, but not to prove anything.

Andrew's theory also go against everything I've ever read about the committee's selection and seeding process. Admittedly, no one really knows for sure what happens behind those closed doors, except the people behind them, but they always swear they don't try deliberately to set up certain matchups, and if you look at the evidence, it suggests they're telling the truth. People always point to sexy matchups like Mayo-Beasley as evidence that they MUST be doing it on purpose, but some sexy matchups are inevitable, and there are a thousand more examples of matchups that easily COULD have happened, given the seedings, but didn't. Last year, for instance, without changing anyone's seeds or violating any bracketing rules or causing any bracket problems whatsoever, the committee could have flipped two teams and created an Indiana vs. Texas Tech 6-11 game ... Bobby Knight vs. his old team. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from doing this, but instead they gave us a lame Indiana-Gonzaga rematch from the previous year. If they actually paid attention to matchups, that never would happen.

My point is that they SHOULD pay more attention to matchups. I don't advocate re-jiggering seeds to create certain matchups, but I think if you can easily create more David vs. Goliath games rather than fewer of them, you should. That said, I'm not buying Andrew's conspiracy theory, at least until I see more solid evidence of it.

[Brendan Loy]

It should also be noted that one of the reasons this has started happening more often is easy to decipher: mid-majors have been getting more respect in recent years, and thus, higher seeds, making matchups with teams in the 10-13 range (where mid-majors often call) possible. Last year, Butler and Southern Illinois both got seeded in the 4/5 range, and both got matched up with other mids; this year, Drake got a 5, and Gonzaga and Butler got 7s, and all got matched up with fellow mids. You never used to see mid-majors gets seeds like that, which is part of the reason why these sorts of matchups didn't happen. A first-round matchup between a 10 seed and a 12 seed is pretty hard to engineer. :)

Andrew and I are right that a disproportionate number of these matchups have happened the last two years, but the reality is that SOME of them are inevitably going to happen in a scenario where a bunch of mid-majors are getting Top 8 seeds. I just think the committee should make reasonable efforts to minimize it, for the sake of making the tournament more exciting, rather than maximizing it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as has been happening lately.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

Only one is sort of a David vs. Goliath (BYU vs. Texas A&M).

Yes, but who's the David and who's the Goliath?

[yea]

if someone could look further back, like say 7-8 years worth of tournies, we could see if there really is a trend. i disagree with brendan saying that they should care about matchups. lets just seed the teams and whatever happens happens. as long they did a remotely fair job of seeding the tourney will be fine.

david-david matchup gonzaga vs. davidson will be really good imo. davidson is a dangerous team and we all know how gonzaga does when no one pays attention to them at tourney time. goliath-goliath matchup, marquette-kentucky really intriguies me too. david-david early round matchips ensure at least some mid-major teams make it past the first day, setting up david-goliath matchips with more at stake and potentially better stories. im not trying to see that this is ideal, but lets remember there are some incredible matchips here, and this will be a realllly fun weekend. im very happy to be off on good friday.

[Andrew]

Brendan, of course nobody can prove anything, but there is an economic incentive to reduce the amount of mid-majors getting past the Sweet 16, and the best way to do that is to limit the amount of mid-majors who get out of the first round. That's all I'm saying.

As for the notion that higher seedings for mid-majors is behind the pairings, that only partially explains it. As I ranted above,

[W]hy do you drop Butler down to a 7 seed and send them to play South Alabama in Birmingham, AL? Why do you inflate Davidson to a 10 seed and bring Gonzaga to play them in Raleigh, NC? And if South Alabama is a 10 seed, how is Western Kentucky a 12 seed and paired with Drake? ... Kentucky, Baylor, Oregon, Villanova, Arizona, and Kansas State were all in the vicinity and could have been juggled around instead. Finally, with the 8 and 9 seeds, you have five major teams and three mid-majors... so instead of three potential David vs. Goliaths, we get just one....