Stolen Article: Jay Bilas

I found myself nodding my head to some comments Jay Bilas made today. Since it's an insider article, I thought I'd illegally excerpt it here and see if ESPN.com sues, which would probably be the highlight of my life.

- - -
Excerpted from "Looking Ahead: UConn's Road Looks Best"
By Jay Bilas
March 20, 2006
Re-printed here without the knowledge of ESPN.com or Mr. Bilas...

Deserving of the NCAA or not? That's not the issue.Too many people are evaluating these NCAA Tournament results in a vacuum, and trying to justify inclusion or exclusion by virtue of this weekend only. Sadly, that is not the way college basketball works; it never has been and ever will be. Remember, there have been upsets in years past, and there have been bigger upsets in years prior to this one.

Has the Missouri Valley Conference justified its four bids? Were the Big East and the Big Ten overrated? Did Air Force, UAB and Utah State confirm they should not have been included in the field of 65?

The answers are no, no and no.

If the Missouri Valley Conference had lost all four of its first-round games, the league still would have had four teams deserving of inclusion in the NCAA Tournament. Selection as an at-large team is about the regular season, not the results of the NCAA Tournament. Actually, you could make a great case for the MVC having deserved five or six teams into the field based upon what those individual teams did during the season. Creighton and Missouri State each had the resumes of NCAA teams, and both could have won early round games.

The fact that Seton Hall, Marquette and Syracuse lost in the first round does not diminish the strength of the Big East, which proved to be the best conference in the country. Seton Hall lost to the best team in the Missouri Valley Conference, Wichita State. The Hall was an inconsistent team all season long, so a major downer was not a shocker. Marquette lost to a very good Alabama team, and Syracuse lost to a solid Texas A&M squad that could have easily been in the Sweet 16.

On the flip side, UAB, Air Force and Utah State are all good teams capable of winning the games in which they played and perhaps beyond. They just didn't on those particular days in those particular games. That's all.

This tournament is about matchups and single-game scenarios. It is a completely new season, and everyone is 0-0. The lower seeds are dangerous because they are good and play without fear of losing, and the higher seeds are much younger and more inexperienced. There is nothing to lose for the lower seeds, only gravy. The high-seeded big shots can sometimes play tight because there is a heavy weight of expectations, and if the big shot loses, it knows it will never hear the end of it. It is easy to tell someone to play to win, and not to fear losing, but you can see how some of these inexperienced younger players are playing tight, while some lower-seeded seniors are playing freely. You see a lack of aggressiveness on the part of the higher seeds, while the lower seeds play with great freedom. Navigating this tournament is a mental challenge, perhaps more so than a physical one.

A lot of these games were pinpointed as upset specials, with the potential for a lower seed triumphing. A lot of games have come down to a single play to determine the outcome. Nobody ever said these teams couldn't play. What we did say was that the resumes of certain at-large teams did not measure up to some of the teams left out. That's all. Would anyone really suggest that Northwestern State would beat Iowa in a five-game series? Do you really believe that George Mason is better than North Carolina? Is Bradley better than Kansas? Was Bucknell better than Kansas last year? If so, did the committee completely gag on the seeding of the tournament? Of course not. Would anyone dare say Hofstra could not have won an early round game in the NCAA tournament? Of course they could have. Heck, many teams in the NIT are capable of winning an NCAA Tournament game on a given night. That is not the point, and it never has been. When you get down to the end of the line in the selection process, the teams all look the same, and all of those teams have proven they can lose. The measure is how many good teams were on your schedule, and how did you do against those good teams. A team that has more wins against quality competition than the next team should have a leg up in the selection process, unless you truly believe the team with the lesser resume is truly the better team. Once the tournament begins, any good team can win on a given night. That has been proven.

- - -

Well said, Jay. And after another great first weekend, you have to once again tip your caps to the NCAA for even having a 65-team tournament for basketball, and getting the vast majority of the field right.