Now I would be remised to give thoughts on the NCAA tournament without posting my bracket so here goes:
Why We Love March Madness?
March Madness offers an indelible experience for even the most casual basketball fans. Every year, stories abound of non-fans filling out exceptionally accurate brackets by picking the mascots they like the most. But it's not the fan fare of filling out brackets or flexing ones college basketball knowledge in front of complete strangers that makes the NCAA Tournament one of the best sporting events of the year. Certainly, these things add dimension to the tournament, but what is truly gripping is the "anything can happen" atmosphere. We watch for the '13 Florida Gulf Coasts, '06 George Masons, and '85 Villanovas that defy the odds in exhilarating fashion. The Warren Buffett sponsored billion-dollar bracket challenge brings nice context to the popularity of March Madness; it is almost literally unpredictable.
Unprecedented Parity in the Field of 64
Unprecedented Parity in the Field of 64
This year's tournament offers an almost unprecedented level of parity, especially amongst the top twenty teams in the nation. Of the top-rated seeds, a championship run from any of the top four seeds in each region would not be surprising. Teams like Kansas and Kentucky offer the high end talent to win it all, but health concerns and lack of consistency would make early tournament exits unsurprising. Several teams in this year's tournament offer exceptional guard play, a strong indicator of post-season performance (Syracuse, Wichita St, every team from the AAC). While, a handful of lower seeds add transcendent players with the talent to lift their teams to the top (see Oklahoma State's Marcus Smart, UConn's Shabazz Napier, Creighton's Doug McDermott). When comparing the preseason and postseason AP polls, the top 20 teams have moved all over the map, leading to a large disparity between talent (perceived or actual) and performance on the court.
A Team Effort
A Team Effort
One of the most interesting dynamics to play out in recent years of the NCAA tournament is the rise of Mid-Major teams as legitimate Final Four contenders. This can be attributed to, in large part, by the advent of the NBA's "One Year Rule". One-and-done players are more common than ever before, as the days of the four-year superstar are all but gone (see Patrick Ewing at Georgetown, Chris Mullin at St. Johns, Michael Jordan at UNC for 3 years). Perennial powerhouses with freshman sensations, such as Duke with Jabari Parker and Kansas With Wiggins/Embiid, must match up with well-oiled, senior-laden mid-major squads. The results, as have been the case in many recent years are more upsets and lower seeds advancing than past tournaments. Perhaps the logjam of top 20 teams with legitimate title hopes will stifle this current trend, but expect to see at least one 6+ seed advance to this year's Elite Eight.
Transcendent Talent, No Transcendent Team
This year's tournament offers exceptional talent on the individual level. Freshman phenoms Jabari Parker and Andrew Wiggins lead highly ranked Duke and Kansas, respectively. Despite a disappointing sophomore campaign, Oklahoma State's Marcus Smart has the talent to play at the next level. Senior's Shabazz Napier of Connecticutt and Doug McDermott if Creighton may not offer high-level NBA talent, but both represent their conference's Player of the Year. However, the amount of individual talent in the tournament has not led to a true favorite to win the tournament.
Bracket Bias for Big Conferences?
One thing I noticed when examining this years bracket is the tendency to align big conference teams in a way that gives them the most potential for tournament success. This may or may not be an intentional move by the selection committee to promote exposure for the larger market share the large conferences bring in. When examining the ACC, Big 10 and the AAC for instance, the difference in potential tournament conference success is clear. The ACC boasts 2 teams in each of the South, East and Midwest regions, while the Big 10 boasts 2 teams in the West region and one team in each of the remaining regions. Meanwhile, the AAC has 3 of there 4 tournament teams in the East region. Seeding plays a big role in the location of each team, but the question should be asked, why are big conferences seemingly favored in terms of tournament spread?
Bracket Bias for Big Conferences?
One thing I noticed when examining this years bracket is the tendency to align big conference teams in a way that gives them the most potential for tournament success. This may or may not be an intentional move by the selection committee to promote exposure for the larger market share the large conferences bring in. When examining the ACC, Big 10 and the AAC for instance, the difference in potential tournament conference success is clear. The ACC boasts 2 teams in each of the South, East and Midwest regions, while the Big 10 boasts 2 teams in the West region and one team in each of the remaining regions. Meanwhile, the AAC has 3 of there 4 tournament teams in the East region. Seeding plays a big role in the location of each team, but the question should be asked, why are big conferences seemingly favored in terms of tournament spread?
No comments:
Post a Comment