Cinderella's Pumpkin Has Arrived

Well, well. How quickly Cinderella retreated back to her attic room. The story of the tournament so far is the lack of any low-seeded teams to get excited about going into the second week. This year's George Mason is - UNLV? That in itself is a ludicrous statement to make. It's a school that along with sketchy dealings, is synonymous with domination, as the early '90s teams were some of the greatest in the sport's history. And considering the slim to nonexistent gap separating the tournament's #4-#10 seeds, it's really not all that surprising to see the Rebels there. They're more of a curiosity at this point because - let's face it - they're from Vegas and no one east of the Rockies has seen them play.

While the Tournament has been pretty ho-hum other than Saturday's batch of games, college basketball fans were still setting themselves up for disappointment this year. Excitement was at an all-time high last year when George Mason made the Final Four. And it was warranted. It was an unbelievable feat that has never happened in this modern era of college basketball. (By modern, I'm talking post shot clock and 3-point line implementation and major network exposure. So that's why I don't count Larry Bird's 1979 Indiana State team.) It was a high, and like a drug, you wanted more of it. But this time, a team making it to the Final Four wasn't enough - they had to get even further. Clearly that wasn't realistic, and as a result the tournament seems pretty boring to the fan that no longer has a team to root for.

But when you think about it, what was the real effect of George Mason's run? It gave the mid-majors the responsibility of raised expectations. Now, instead of a small school needing to catch lightning in a bottle and a couple of lucky breaks to make a real run, people expect them to advance because of their merits. That's why nobody is talking about Southern Illinois and Butler with any real excitement. They were expected to get this far because they are good teams that really can be counted among the best 15 or 20 in the nation. When they won, predictability won out, and that doesn't make for a compelling storyline.

I'm not saying that the mid-majors won't always have the some of that underdog in them - clearly they will, as there are only so many resources to go around. Not every school can realistically dream about a national championship. But as the gap between them and the power conferences closes, the aura of Cinderella that reached an all-time high last season will continue to wane.

The interesting point this brings up is - is this good for college basketball or not? I argue that it is, as more competition creates for a higher level of play, and more exposure for schools that would traditionally get none nationally. But if the rise of the small school continues, the number of teams that will fit our traditional profile of the Cinderella team in the NCAA Tournament will decline, and that could create for diminished excitement in a tournament whose appeal is based around excitement.

southern illinois
butler
unlv
george mason

Who's Gonna Be the LaDainian Tomlinson of 2007?

You've heard it being asked all year. Who will be the George Mason of 2007? After yesterday's loss to Virginia Commonwealth in the CAA Championship game all but killing their NCAA tournament hopes, the notion that it could be the Patriots yet again has been laid to rest.

But what exactly does it mean to be the George Mason of 2007?

It's not a question that's asked too often in the media, but I think a good "What the hell are you talking about?" is in order here. The next time someone asks you, "Who will be this year's George Mason?" do me a favor, and respond with, "What the hell are you talking about?" Do they mean, "Which mid-major nobody is going to surprise the nation and make it to the final four?" Maybe. Or do they mean, "Which under-dog is going to go the furthest?" Could be. Or do they mean, "Which team is going to have a bizarre monster as their mascot when your usual big headed man in a hat would suffice?"


Let's just run through these options briefly.
1) "Which mid-major nobody is going to surprise the nation and make it to the final four?"
Now that's a silly question. My brother made a good analogy: In stud poker, the odds of getting a royal flush is 1 in 649,740. Let's say we're watching the World Series of Poker, (not an unlikely possibility seeing that ESPN2 has become All-Poker-All-the-Time) and for some reason Jim Larranaga has entered and is doing pretty well so far. Now imagine that to advance to the final round, he wins a huge pot with a royal flush. It would be absurd to say, "Who's gonna be next year's Jim Larranaga? Who's gonna get the royal flush this year?" You gotta be out of your mind to expect that to happen every year. It may not happen again in a 100 years.

So if after asking "What the hell are you talking about?" you get an answer that sounds anything like 1), tell the dude he's out of his gourd. And walk away.

2) "Which under-dog is going to go the furthest?"
That's a more acceptable question. And I don't know the answer. You'd probably have to wait until Selection Sunday, then fill out a fake bracket, then decide what you'd classify as an "under-dog", and then come up with an answer. Too long of a process for me.

So if after asking "What the hell are you talking about?" you get an answer that sounds anything like 2), tell the dude he's out of his gourd too. He's really not. But it's a lot easier than doing all of that stuff I just mentioned.

3) "Which team is going to have a bizarre monster as their mascot when your usual big headed man in a hat would suffice?"
That's an excellent question. Tell them it's unlikely that there'll be another one this year, but look out for DePaul. They probably don't have a shot of making it to the big dance unless they win the Big East Tournament, but if they do, he'll definitely give the Patriot a run for his money.


(P.S. I'm Johnny, and I'm helping Sami out with the blog this week since he's out of the country.)

Sizing Up BracketBuster Saturday

First off, let me clarify something - this post isn't going to be about analyzing tomorrow's BracketBuster games and predicting winners. I don't know how Butler and Southern Illinois match up against each other. And I have no idea if Virginia Commonwealth out of the CAA can be this year's George Mason.

What I do know is that the mid-majors for whom this day is dedicated have carved out quite a niche for themselves that would have been hard to foresee a decade ago. Upsets from lower-profile schools in the NCAA Tournament have always brought 15 minutes of fame to #15 seeds like Santa Clara and Hampton (upsetting Arizona and Iowa St. respectively). But until the last 5 years or so, teams like that were an afterthought. making their 2-line cameo appearance in the major motion picture of the big time conferences.

So how did we get to the point where now, in 2007, BracketBuster Saturday is a big-time, all-day event that gets real, substantive attention? The emergence of Gonzaga as a consistent force that can hold its own among the big boys is probably the biggest factor. It's not just that they made the Elite 8 (and held a lead on eventual champion UConn with 10 minutes to go in the Regional Final) in 1999. The fact that they sustained their success and translated it into recruiting prowess, regular national television appearances, and respect (even fear) from major conferences is what made them an enduring force. And it gave hope to the other mid-major conferences that you don't necessarily to be Duke or North Carolina to win and win big, year in and year out.

George Mason's run to the Final Four last year was the coming-out party of the mid-major uprising, but really, the signs had been there all year. A national player of the year candidate from the West Coast Conference in Adam Morrison of Gonzaga. The Missouri Valley tournament championship game being televised nationally on CBS. And perhaps sweetest of all, an across-the-board grilling of smug CBS candidate Billy Packer for his initial criticism of the Selection Committee placing too many mid-majors in the tournament.

Even with all that, I think the mid-majors in college basketball are given attention now more because they're a burgeoning curiosity than the completely legitimate fact that they play great basketball. People want to be able to try and predict the next George Mason so they can look like the genius in their March Madness pool. Or they watch a Missouri Valley game because it's the hot conference of the moment, that carries a certain sex appeal to it. (Which in itself, seems outright odd to say on the surface, but you'd have to say it's true.) Mid-major basketball is kind of like indie music - a few select people really truly appreciate its beauty, and then a whole lot of people say that they're into it because it's hip at the moment.

Either way, I'd say they're glad to have the attention.

bracket buster
billy packer
adam morrison