What I Hate (And Why I Hate It)...

As we run up to the conference tournaments (and in honor of the inane reasoning that is the conference tournaments), I'm going to take the next few days to let it all out.  The negativity.  The annoyances.  The irritations.  Everything that bothers me right now about college basketball.

That doesn't mean I hate college basketball.  And it doesn't mean that there will not be some negativity during the actual tournament.  But there is the possibility that a little "anger cleansing" prior to the selection show next Saturday will help me get over the Hawkeyes freefall.

I doubt it.

But it's worth a try.

To start the rants, I give you the Wichita State Shockers.

At 34-0, the Shockers tore through a Missouri Valley Conference that is so "mid-major" by nature their tournament is decided a week in advance of the NCAA selection show.  The conference is feeling a lack of self-worth to the point that they couldn't even afford separate shirts for the winners.  After the Shockers crushed Indiana State in the final, they celebrated on the court wearing shirts that displayed them as champs but had a different bracket on the back with Indiana State as the champions.  In the world's defense, if the MVC really wanted to refute mid-major status, they are doing a very poor job.

Having said that, the world's griping about Wichita State as a #1 seed is ridiculous.  Poor strength of schedule.  Bad conference.  Mid-major.  Unproven.  Blah, blah, blah.  The world seems to have a short memory.

Last year, a mid-major team started the tournament as a #9 seed after finishing as the runner-up in its conference tournament--already a fairly rare feat that an obscure mid-major conference got two entrants.  Typically, a second entrant from a mid-major indicates that there was an upset in the conference tournament (stupid but a different rant).  Aforementioned 9-seed defeated the #1 seed in the second round (albeit a Gonzaga team that was the world's gripe last year) and, in the regional finals, the #2 seed, an Ohio State team that played in a very competitive Big Ten during an "up year" for the league and was picked by many to the Final Four.  This mid-major team lost in the Final Four to the eventual champs, Louisville, after leading by 12 midway through the second half.

But that same mid-major team also lost eight times, seven of those conference losses, leading up to the NCAA tournament.  They were expected to cower in the first round before a mighty representative from the conference formerly known as the Super Big East.  Apparently, they didn't get the memo.  It was an 18-point thumping.

Which team is more deserving?  Both are mid-majors.  One lost eight times to "weak" teams and was probably a bubble team but obviously more due to its mid-major status than due to actual talent.  They made the Final Four.  The other has torched a mid-major conference for an undefeated season, a surprising rarity in today's college basketball.

But in this case, one sets up the argument for the other.  Wichita State made an incredible run to the Final Four last year.  Six players returned this year, including three starters. There are no "weak" losses because there are no losses period.  They beat everyone in front of them.  A #1 seed means you are favored to make it to the Final Four.  The Shockers already did that last year.

Not deserving of a #1 because of strength of schedule?

The case "for" was already made last year.  The undefeated season just solidified it.

Stop griping world.

Peace,
Reg