-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
No NCAA seed looks safe any longer in March Madness
Archive
Comments
Story
In the evolution of March Madness, we stand in the midst of a transcendental moment.
Old dogma: Seeds mean everything.
New dogma: Seeds mean nothing.
Before the NCAA Tournament started last Thursday, Ohio State coach Jim O’Brien shook hands with Perry Clark of Miami as their teams practiced before the Albuquerque sub regional.
O’Brien congratulated Clark on the Hurricanes’ excellent season, in which they had set a school record with 24 wins and were given a No. 5 seed in the West Region.
“Thanks,” Clark responded, then pointed out a grim irony. “And our reward is to get to play Missouri as a No. 12 seed.”
O’Brien’s fourth-seeded Buckeyes awaited the same fate two days later. Both Miami and Ohio State became garden salad for the hungry Missouri Tigers, who rarely answered a dinner bell for most of the season but were ready to dine by tournament time.
Similar themes were played out in other first- and second-round sites.
Lower seeds that won refused to acknowledge their victories as upsets. Higher seeds that made narrow escapes refused to apologize.
Mountain West Conference commissioner Craig Thompson, a former member of the tournament selection committee, spoke of the irrelevance of seeds only moments before predicting the impending downfall of Gonzaga. The Zags were the icon of seeding chaos on Selection Sunday, receiving the No. 6 seed in the West when they and many observers thought they deserved a No. 3 or higher.
Critics condemned the selection committee, accusing it of outright incompetence, or at least disrespect for smaller schools.
Thompson looked at Gonzaga’s first-round opponent, No. 11 Wyoming, and saw a team with fewer credentials, but just as much ability, as the Zags.
His prophecy came true, as Wyoming hushed the conspiracy theorists with a 73-66 win.
Oklahoma State coach Eddie Sutton had to explain to his fans how the Cowboys lost their first-round game to 10th-seeded Kent State. Two days later, second-seeded Alabama was trying to explain its loss to the Golden Flashes.
“When you get past the first four seeds,” reasoned Sutton, “there really isn’t that much difference.”
Thompson, who has tried to decipher the complex guidelines of tournament seeding and the nebulous distinctions among similar teams from different conferences, sees even more balance.
“If you’re not a No. 1 or a 2, you’d better be serious from the opening tip,” he said. Parity is not the only reason teams such as No. 1 seed Cincinnati, upset Sunday by No. 8 UCLA, can’t presume their way into the Sweet 16.
Because of the selection committee’s rededication to placing as many teams as possible within driving distance, and the rule that conference teams can’t meet before the regional finals, seeding can almost become as much lottery as true rating.
A system in which first-round sites are host to teams from more than one region might get more local teams to a site, but it is creating some distinct home court advantages. And not always for the higher seed.
Third-seeded Georgia complained that playing No. 11 Southern Illinois on Sunday in Chicago was essentially a road game.
Third-seeded Mississippi State had the same issue with playing No. 6 Texas in Dallas.
It was home court advantage for two games in 1986 that boosted 11th seed LSU on a path to the Final Four. Those Tigers remain the lowest seed ever to reach the Final Four.
But like most, that’s a record destined to fall. Because in today’s NCAA Tournament, seeds aren’t really that important.
Bill Campbell, The Dallas Morning News