2010 NCAA Tournament: Thoughts & Reactions

Well, the bracket is here. Bracket Day is winding down and all that's left is to listen to Vitale ramble about making a mid-major play the Big East schedule. Oh, we already did that? Sorry. I guess all that is left then is to dish out some Blue Team-style analysis and opinions. Per tradition, we will analyze the 2010 NCAA Tournament bracket selection first, with thoughts on the field itself, seeding, and the big picture. I'm seeing some region-by-region work over the next couple of days, then the Tar Heels' path to the Final Fo-...nevermind. Maybe instead, we'll wait a few weeks then take a look at the season that was for Carolina and the seasons to come. I'm sure I'll post my predicted bracket late Wednesday or early Thursday for anyone that cares as well. For now, let's go ahead and get busy with the initial thoughts segment of our program.

In or Out: I think the committee was close to getting this right, but is inconsistent in who they put in. To me, there were two schools of thought: 1) value lots of wins over weak competition and cite the eye test; or 2) value the tough schedules and quality victories while overlooking a few blemishes. Utah State, UTEP, Virginia Tech, & Cal fall into the first group while Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, and Georgia Tech fall into the latter. Clearly, there was room for both in the tournament, but Illinois & Virginia Tech both found themselves on the outside looking in. I think, therefore, that the perceived inconsistency between these two groups actually forms a consistency of sorts: neither school of thought wins out, they just guessed on who the best candidates were. How is Utah State's resume better than Virginia Tech's? How is Florida's resume better than Illinois'? And you can cross that up too, Utah State is better than Illinois and Florida than Virginia Tech? I don't think there was a solid formula this year at all and that is probably what does not set well with some coaches. I personally felt Illinois was more deserving than VT or Utah State, but it is not the end of the world.

On a side note, Jay Bilas said that the entire argument was stupid. His point was that there is little reason to argue over who is the 34th at-large team or the "65th" best team in the field because that team will not be playing for the National Championship. I suppose he has forgotten about George Mason's Final Four run, because the Patriots were a sqaud who were admitted to the field under heavy fire and yet proved themselves more than worthy of inclusion. No doubt someone among the last four or so teams in the field will win at least one game, maybe more. I like Jay and think he does a good job, but he is wrong on this argument.

Finally, I feel bad for Virginia Tech, as the excitement around basketball was very high here in Blacksburg this season. While Seth Greenberg has taken tremendous heat, some of it justified, for the weak non-conference schedule, one should not lose cite of the weak ACC schedule the Hokies faced. This is the major problem with unbalanced scheduling, which is now present in all of the BCS Big Six leagues, sans the Pac-10. VT played Duke, Maryland, and FSU (the top three in the ACC) only once apiece and went 0-3. They played the bottom of the league (UVA, UNC, NC State, and Miami) twice each and went 6-2. Hence, 10-6 in the ACC suddenly does not look so good, you know? That portion of the schedule is completely out of control for the coaches, but it remains a fact on the resume of the Hokies and other teams. To me, this hurt Virginia Tech's chances just as much as the non-conference schedule.

Seeding: I'll be honest, I was not too down on the seeding initially. But, now that I've sat down and digested the bracket (along with some sushi), I am beginning to scratch my head. It seems that all of the Big East teams got pushed on the high end of their seeding range, especially Notre Dame & Marquette. Temple got hosed, they've been solid all year and I think their resume is much stronger than Butler, Maryland, or Vanderbilt. A 4-seed at worst, imo. Cornell also took a low spot, as did Siena, both of whom I could see in the 10-seed range. The 6-seed for Tennessee was harsh as well. I could go on for a while here, as there just is not a lot of rhyme or reason to the way these teams were seeded.

So, why is this? I think it has a lot to do with the high number of non-major teams in the field. This year's bracket includes sixteen non-Big Six conference squads seeded twelfth or higher. That's a lot, folks, 1/3 of the top forty-eight teams in the field. That is 33% more than last year based on my quick look back and math skills, both of which should be verified. My point is that I think there was a sense of comparing apples and oranges and grapes and watermelons this year instead of having an easier criteria of teams from power leagues with similar resumes. You can thank the down year from the Pac-10 for blessing us with those extra spots. Instead of six Pac-10 teams getting into the field like last year, we had two. That left four more spots for other leagues to essentially fill in, which gave us the 33% increase in teams from outside the Big Six among the 12-seeds and higher.

Big Picture: This tournament bracket is imbalanced, period. Take a look at Kansas. Oh, Kansas. There was not much doubt in my mind who to pick this year at any point in the season until seeing the Midwest region. A road that goes through 28-4 Northern Iowa or UNLV, then Michigan St/Maryland, Ohio St/Georgetown/Tennessee? Wow. Let me put it this way: if Carolina was having a normal year and was a 1-seed stuck with the path Kansas just got, I'd be livid. The saving grace for KU is that the bottom of the Midwest region could blow up, because the 7, 10, & 11 seeds are all capable of beating any team, any place, any time. It looks to me like there are no less than five teams in this region that could earn a Final Four berth: KU, Ohio St, Georgetown, Michigan St, & Tennessee.

Kentucky and the East region is no walk in the park either. That tantilizing matchup with former number one Texas looms in the second round, with an experienced, physical team likely waiting in the Sweet 16 in the form of Wisconsin or Temple. West Virginia has been playing incredible ball the few weeks, but could have a rough time with Clemson or Missouri in the second round. I'm interested to see what Washington can do now that they're healthy and playing focused ball as well.

On the flip side, both the South & West regions are much softer. Duke itself is a weak 1-seed, as I think their style could lead to them exiting before Indianapolis this season. Villanova has struggled down the stretch, but has the experience and players to return to the Final Four. None of the other teams really jump out of the South region as scary: Baylor is erratic, Purdue is without Hummel, Texas A&M has trouble scoring...the list goes on. Notre Dame is finally starting to click, but I wonder about their ability to continue playing at a high level. I saw a great tweet earlier as well, basically saying that Louisville would either beat Duke or lose by 26 points. I'd take it a step further and say Louisville could see the Elite 8 or lose by 26 points to California - they are that maddening. To me, this is the region most likely to implode and give us a number of upsets.

Syracuse becomes a default selection of sorts in the West region, as they are definitely the best team out there. Pittsburgh & Vanderbilt are both squads I felt would be ripe for disappointment entering the tournament and somehow they ended up 3 and 4-seeds respectively in the West. It is not quite equal to the famed UCLA Invitational of 2008, but I think Syracuse got a break. I will admit to wondering if the committee might have considered this a tradeoff for sending them out west to begin with. I know things aren't supposed to work like that, but the thought crossed my mind nonetheless. Kansas St is strong at the bottom of the bracket, but they have a habit of hurting themselves with bad shots and missed free throws. They are talented, but I'm just not sure they can focus for four straight games and earn their way into the Final Four.

We'll take a more in-depth look at the regions the next couple of days and delve into some potential matchups and extended runs. I know that a lot of you readers (a lot if a relative term when there aren't many readers, but whatever) are Carolina fans and alums who are bummed that the beloved Heels are not part of March Madness. Take this season to relax and gain some further perspective on how fortunate we are to cheer for a team that not only participates in the NCAA Tournament most every March, but wins lots of games and some championships too. There is a reason that Roy Williams mentions in almost every winning post-game press conference that "we feel very fortunate to have won tonight" - because they are. I love March Madness for all of the pomp and circumstance around it, but especially when it involves Carolina. Just think, it will make it that much sweeter when we're back in the tournament and spitting nails over a bad call or just chewing on nails in the final two minutes of a tight game. 2005 does not happen without 8-20 and 201X might not happen without this year's NIT. We'll be back.

Happy March Madness to all and to all a good night.