Early Reflections on the 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament
There’s no doubt in my mind that the Big East was the best conference in college basketball this season. With that said, there should never be an instance where one conference has 3 number one seeds. While it’s a problem bigger than just this tournament, the Big East needs to be cut in half. 16 teams is ridiculous and largely trivializes conference performance if winning the whole thing only guarantees something as silly as a rather predictable “automatic bid”; and that’s just the conference tournament at the end of the season.
I think Memphis does have something to complain about, considering they’ve done everything asked of them only to earn a 2 seed. To that point, beating up on garbage teams from Conference USA all season long did not reward Memphis, which was a good thing.
With that said, one of the most mind boggling aspects of this year’s tournament was the number of teams from each power conference that got in. With only 4 at large bids to non-power conference schools, a lack luster conference, such as the Pacific 10, only had one less bid than the Big East, the Big 12, and the Big Ten. A real shame if you ask me.
The Pac-10, similar to the SEC, stole two of those at-large bids thanks to teams winning conference tournaments that wouldn’t have made it to the Big Dance otherwise (USC and Mississippi State).
With that said, one of the oddest results of the selection process was the Pacific 10 Conference’s seeding. The Pac-10, on one hand, got six teams into the tournament (Washington, UCLA, Arizona State, California, USC, and Arizona), however, the committee showed little confidence in the Pac-10′s play at all. Each team seems to be incredibly low or faced with an exceptionally difficult task ahead.
Washington, who finished as the conference champions, came out best at a 4 seed. After that, ASU and UCLA both sit as 6 seeds (UCLA with the unfortunate task of perhaps playing Villanova at Villanova’s home arena should UCLA make it to the round of 32).
At first glance, I was very unhappy with the seeding of UCLA and the rest of the Pac-10. Rather low seeding for a set of teams from a power conference, if you ask me. Further examination of RPIs, however, showed that the committee was more right than wrong. This begs the question though, what point are the polls which have UCLA almost 10 spots higher than their 6th seed ranking?
Even more importantly, I felt that UCLA was finally not rewarded for legacy or for the brand of UCLA. With that in mind, I can’t understand at all what Arizona is doing in this tournament. I can’t help but feel that they, on the other hand, are riding their recent legacy to skate into the tournament this year.
Anyways, these are just my initial impressions. Thursday morning, I’ll reveal my bracket and I encourage you to show yours off as well. Until then.
