Because we live in a society where no one is ever satisfied with a good thing, we keep trying to improve upon things we already enjoy. That leads to some horrible ideas. Like the apparently inevitable decision to put a runner on second in extra innings, a move that will almost certainly make baseball worse.
Closer to the topic at hand, the NCAA Selection Show has been deteriorating for a while, hitting a new (but likely not final) nadir on Sunday. But while the NCAA Tournament is definitely flawed, it’s still one of the most fun things in sports. And that’s still not enough to avoid tinkering. From 64 to 65 teams, from 65 to 68. An inevitable further expansion. The list goes on.
But while there are things that can and should be improved upon (hello, entire selection committee criteria/process), but it’s important to look at potential improvements without instituting a structural change. There’s one structural change in particular that’s always seemed to sound better than it would work in practice, but it pops up now and again when people try to come up with ways to make the tournament “fairer”.
If you want the best illustration of the argument, you should probably watch this. (It’s unsurprising that the best argument for any particular point of view comes in the form of a video from Jon Bois.)
It’s not easy to contradict Jon, because he’s amazing. And it’s not like his point is entirely without merit; there are real points to be made about certain seed lines having an easier path than others. But his point (or at least one of his points), that the tournament should be re-seeded, is misguided.
That re-seeding would be a logistical nightmare is almost beside the point, though it would probably require any version of the idea to take place after each week. Leaving that aside, the main thrust of Jon’s point (and the main thrust of anyone who makes a similar point, although again, they don’t do it as well), is that it’s somehow not fair to certain seeds. Take this shot from about the 4:35 mark in the video:
On the surface, it’s intriguing; charts and graphs can do that. It’s also important to note that seeds aren’t always an accurate reflection of talent, and sometimes they don’t even come close. (See above about changing the entire selection criteria and committee process, etc.)
But if this graph was the winning percentage of teams in the round of 32, that 8 seed bar would likely be near the very bottom, right next to the 9, because if a team wins on either of those seed lines, they have to play the 1 seed. Every single time. No 1 seed has ever lost to a 16. If a team on the 8 or 9 line makes the Sweet 16, they’ve already had to face a 1 seed, earlier than just about anyone else in the tournament.
And that’s the beauty of the structure, such as it is. Once things are set, everyone has a chance to win on the floor. Seeds are earned (sort of) by accomplishments throughout the regular season, and that’s the handicap. It’s perhaps not the best way to find the best team, but if you want to do that, just look at the KenPom rankings and call Virginia the winner, then go sit by yourself and watch Sneaky Pete for a few weeks while the rest of us enjoy college basketball. (Or, you know, whatever, I’m not married to that suggestion, but it is a pretty fun show.)
Would a team with the talent level of a 5 seed rather be a 6 sometimes? Possibly! But any benefit isn’t really felt until you get to the Sweet 16 at that point, and even then you’re playing a 2 seed. Say what you will about college basketball, but in terms of a chance at a national championship, it’s about as fair as it gets. Jon’s video opens with this comparison, and it’s perhaps the best illustration of where I think he’s gone wrong (just in this case):
These charts shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. The worst, cheapest professional teams are still placed on a much more even playing field than the smallest college basketball programs. College basketball has not and never will be about parity. But parity doesn’t equate to fairness. Imagine, if you will, one of those schools that have appeared but not won a game, or even a school that’s never appeared.
Pick a tiny one, if you want, a clear Cinderella. Say they hit on a few surprise recruits, maybe take on a transfer or two from a bigger school, and play together for a few years. They can earn a shot to make the tournament on the court. It’s not easy, and it’s clear that smaller schools face unfair odds, and that should be remedied. (See, for the final time, above on changing selection criteria.) But say they make get hot, win their conference tournament, and they’re slotted in as a 14 seed. They win their opener against a 3 seed (probably coached by Steve Alford) and they head to the next round.
At that point, yes, they’d likely face a 6 or an 11 seed, while the 4 and 5 seeded teams would have to play each other. Which is more fair: forcing the team that’s already overcome so much to then play, say, the 1 seed in their region, if we’re reseeding after each round? Or do we reward the team for the success they’ve already had along the way, which is the whole point of a tournament, which is what everyone loves?
Focusing on the round that teams play good teams is pointless. When you view the bracket on the whole, things will have pretty much always evened out; teams earn whatever advantage they might have in later rounds by winning earlier rounds. If you don’t agree with that premise, then you can’t agree with the idea of the tournament altogether. (Enjoy Sneaky Pete.)
Looking for order in chaos, as Jon does in his video, is silly. There’s never order in chaos. Just a different kind of disorder. And the disorder we have now is just fine as it is. Let’s leave it that way.
