Only a Few Seeds of Discontent

There really aren't many days in the year that are more fun than Selection Sunday. During the 30 minutes when the brackets are unveiled, you almost don't notice the endless commercials for the NCAA's "corporate champions," or the fact that the network insists on bringing the show to a halt every few minutes for meaningless analysis.

The brackets go up and you scream with surprise. "Arizona, they haven't won a game in a month!" Or, "Illinois is a number five seed -- how is that possible?" Sometimes there's genuine relief -- you can bet the Maryland folks were getting a little bit shaky when Arizona and Texas A&M went on the board before they did -- and there's always real disappointment, Saint Mary's, Creighton, Penn State and San Diego State being this year's teams with crushed hopes.

Then there's the immediate aftermath, when all 65 teams are in the brackets and everyone begins breaking them down. Where will the first-round upsets come from? How many No. 1 seeds will make the Final Four? Which No. 1 seed is most likely to lose early? Who is the sleeper team lurking deep in the bracket?

So let's begin this year's discussion of The Selected Sixty-five.

First, as always, let's grade the selection committee. There is no doubt that, aided by computers, satellite television and the NCAA staff, it does a lot of homework before putting together the bracket. The fact that it sometimes acts as if what it's doing is slightly more important than finding a cure for cancer is as much a reflection of all the bracketology that is now plaguing the land.

Let's give credit to this year's group for not caving to sentiment and rewarding the chairman, Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive, with bids that weren't deserved. For all the talk about people leaving the room when their teams -- either from a conference or a specific school in the case of an athletic director -- are discussed, is there anyone out there who doesn't understand that the nine remaining members know exactly what the absent member would like to see happen?

The SEC got three bids, which was exactly what it deserved. It would have only been two if Mississippi State hadn't won the SEC tournament. Kudos to the committee.

In fact, the committee got it exactly right with the ACC (seven bids), the Big East (seven) and the Atlantic 10 (three, with help from Temple winning the tournament). It was close after giving the Big 12 six bids, the only potential quibble being Texas A&M.

There were three areas where it got into trouble. This year's Pacific-10 didn't need six bids. Arizona had several good wins early -- beating Kansas in December when the Jayhawks were still learning one another's names really isn't a big deal -- lost five of its last six and was 2-9 on the road. Sorry, making the field every year since 1985 is impressive, but the Wildcats should have stayed home this year. California is a bit of a mystery pick, too, especially as a No. 7 seed.

Anyone who doesn't bleed some Big Ten color knows the conference didn't deserve seven bids. This was a blatant case of rewarding mediocrity. Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan and and Wisconsin all made their biggest splashes by beating one another or by beating the two legitimate teams in the conference, Michigan State and Purdue -- although those wins frequently came when the Spartans and Boilermakers were banged up.

It would have been nice if the committee had done what it did in 2006, when the ACC was filled with similarly mediocre teams. Even with Virginia AD Craig Littlepage as the chairman, only four ACC teams got bids, the extra bids going to schools like George Mason, Wichita State and Bradley, all of whom performed admirably in the tournament.

The ACC coaches whined quite loudly, but the league survived and some of them learned a valuable lesson: If you schedule too many guarantee games in November and December, it may come back to haunt you in March -- as it should. Penn State and Florida got burned by that this season.