On the college hoops calendar, Selection Sunday is perhaps the most anticipated day of the year. Year-round bracketology coverage is all pointing to the event. There is a committee of highly paid athletic officials that goes into a mysterious bunker and produces the results. Though the years, the process has been somewhat demystified, but that doesn't stop speculation about the Committee's findings. I had meant to watch CBS selection show (presented by their corporate champion AT&T) at the close of the tournament and post some impressions after the tournament, but April turned to May, and May turned to… Last week, I had a spare hour and selected the Selection Show from our DVR amid numerous episodes of Curious George and Cyberchase. My intention was not to look back at the announcers' picks and denounce them as idiots. I'd have to do the same for myself, and that is someone else's call.
Before I get into the experience of watching a show that has an expiration date that passes a minute after it is off the air, I'd like to make two quick points and a digression (which I'll try to make as briefly as I can). My first point is that I generally trust the Selection Committee's results. They are often left comparing apples (Tier 1 schools) to oranges (Tiers 2-3 schools). Their decisions can at least be justified if not defended wholeheartedly. So, I am a Committee apologist.
I am also somewhat of a network apologist. This year CBS teamed with TNT and TBS to provide the best tournament coverage ever. I didn't have to rely on the network to choose which game I was going to watch. That was fantastic. They also brought in NBA announcers, which could have been problematic. It wasn't. It helps that Marv Albert is my favorite announcer without regard to the sport. He was complemented by Steve Kerr, who is very good as well. On the Selection show, Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith joined Greg Gumbell, Greg Anthony, and Seth Davis. Barkley is easily the best in-studio NBA analyst and he did a nice job for college basketball as well. They had the right people in the right places.
Now, the digression: it is much easier to be negative than positive. Maybe this seems obvious, but I learned this point when I sat in on grant discussions as an intern with the National Endowment of the Humanities many years ago. The NEH discussions centered on grants to be awarded to various museum projects and the panelists included museum directors and bigwigs. When a panelist disliked a grant proposal, it was much easier for him/her to point out the negatives than a person who backed the same grant proposal. The same could hold true for criticism of the Selection Committee and that seemed the case for the Selection show.
While no one (except me, perhaps) wants to be a Committee brownnoser, other than the actual announcement of the bracket, the show tended toward the negative. It was as if Billy Packer was back. Teams like Alabama and Virginia Tech, who fell outside the bubble, received as much air time as the teams that did make it. Neither the Crimson Tide nor Hokies (why seem to be on the edge of the bubble every year) should really have much to complain about, especially with the expanded field.
Speaking of the expanded field, let me be the last one to deride the NCAA's idea to make the actual first round be called the "second round." While I am a proponent of expanding the tournament, this choice of words seems like a backdoor method for expansion. I liked the First Four games, but they were essentially play-in games for what was the first round. Once the First Four becomes First 16 or 32, I'd be willing to call the round of 64, something other than the first round. Of course, the NCAA is not big on numbers having much meaning (why else would the Big Ten have 12 teams and the Big 12 ten teams?).
There was a little grousing about the seeds and who snuck in the bubble. Barkley did not think that Florida was a proper two-seed. As it turned out, they were one of two two-seeds to play up to their ranking (North Carolina was the other). Davis was quite hard on the First Four teams. He noted that UAB and Clemson had one top fifty win between them and VCU lost seven games in the Colonial. He probably could have picked apart St. Mary's and Missouri State had they been selected.
As for the picks, Davis and Anthony picked the Southeast to be the region of upsets, but Florida, BYU, and Wisconsin held their two, three, and four seeds, respectively. Pitt was the first one seed to be upended. No one talked about Butler and Matt Howard much, although Davis did mention that their first round game against Old Dominion should be a good one (and it was). Three of the four panelists picked Kansas to win the entire tournament, while Greg Anthony went with Ohio State (I picked them as well). Anthony was the only panelist to correctly pick a sleeper when he tabbed Connecticut to make the regional final out of the West. Little did he know …
I have one final suggestion, which I believe I have made before. I think it would be interesting to watch the Committee's proceedings after the tournament is over. Maybe the individual committee members are afraid of burning bridges, but I would be interested in watching a reality show type serial (i.e. boiled down to remove any hint of reality) of the committee proceedings. Perhaps they could air this a few years after the actual tournament to protect the committee members, and perhaps I would be the only one watching (wouldn't be the first time), but why not take down the entire curtain? It would also be an interesting look at group dynamics.