Sunday selection would not be what it is without its snobs.
Of course, we would probably still be attentive to see the four seeds n ° 1 and which potential Cinderella teams have the most advantageous matches. But what we really want is to see in which bubble teams sneak and which are excluded. Even in the least divided years, there is generally at least a semi-favorable inclusion or a sowing problem which seems to be discussed.
And then a few years ago, like this one, which causes full controversy – a controversy that could have been easily avoided.
The North Carolina was the latest team in the field of 68 teams despite its derisory 1-12 file in the Quad 1 matches, which were its most difficult matches. More than 77% of Brackets followed by the support matrix If Tar’s heels outside had looked. Almost all hookologists had a safe Virginia-Western on the ground, and the Mountaineers found themselves as the first team.
The problem – The piece of the puzzle which transformed an ordinary snob into a full controversy – was that the president of the selection committee was a sports director of the UNEC Bubba cunningham. It is a terrible look, no matter what the NCAA and the parties involved say.
Cunningham explained several times on Sunday that the policies and procedures of the male basketball committee in division I prevent the sports director from a school from being in the room while the group discusses his school. Cunningham said it was the case all week when this year’s committee discussed North Carolina. He went around the interviews Sunday evening alongside the Sun Belt belt commissioner Keith GillVice-president of the Committee, so that Gill can answer questions about the inclusion of Tar Heels.
St. John’s has a “recipe” to win the West region
Brad Thomas and Vaughn Dalzell analyze the western region of the NCAA tournament, both chatting with the reason why they love that St. John’s passes in the final oven on the head of N ° 1 in Florida.
I’m sure Cunningham has followed these rules. I am also sure that everyone staying in the room believed that they evaluate all the bubble teams fairly.
But the optics imported here, and they were bad. Optics is important when the NCAA is based on subjectivity and uses a selection process behind closed doors to determine its field. We, the public, should believe that the teams were chosen, sown and in parentheses fairly, and that each member of the committee has done his job with integrity.
Again, I have no doubt in my mind that everyone on this particular committee has checked all these boxes. But there is a reason why conflicts of interest are often defined as being real or apparent. It is just as bad to give anyone the impression that someone receives favorable treatment.
Cunningham was asked about these apparent conflicts of interest, not only for him in this isolated incident, but also for other sports administrators and conference commissioners who are used for these types of committees.
“It weighed me a lot,” said Cunningham. “I will say that this also weighs on the commissioners and that he weighs on other advertisements in terms of sowing. With a commissioner who would have several teams who are being studied, they hope that their teams will enter.
“I think people recognize and honor it. Honestly, I think you can sometimes say less in any context because you want to make sure you don’t even manage this line of integrity. I think that is part of what we have to work, the way the committee is designed. ”
This is the problem, however. And it is one that is easily avoidable – if the NCAA and its schools care to change the way they choose the teams for their championship events, in particular with a value as much as March Madness.
The NCAA (and the university football playoffs) should not have seated sports directors or current commissioners as members of their selection committees. I understand that these are prestigious missions. I understand that there are only so many retired players or coaches to complete the list. But we cannot and must not start the best week of the year with tin paper hats and forks.
This is precisely what happens when you have apparent conflicts of interest. You always run this risk. And that does not help things that the governor of Grandstanding of Virginie-Western called on Monday a press conference to call the snobbish of Mountaineers (owners of six Victories Quad 1) a “error of justice and theft at the highest level”. This also does not help that the Cunningham contract in North Carolina includes a bonus for the participation of the NCAA basketball tournament – additional $ 67,905 per team that qualifies. (UNC women have obtained a seeded n ° 3 in the female tournament, so Cunningham also receives the same bonus linked to their inclusion.)
Monday, I asked the president of the NCAA Charlie Baker What he did with the controversy and the broader subject of advertisements and commissioners sitting these selection committees. He told me that there were always debates and discussions on the teams on the sidelines.
Gonzaga could challenge Houston in the midwest region
Brad Thomas and Vaughn Dalzel weigh on the Midwest region of the NCAA tournament, highlighting Gonzaga and Clemson as teams that could surprise in March.
“It has always been going on,” said Baker at NBC Sports. “This is actually one of the reasons why I think if we can find a way to operate mathematics and geography and logistics that work on the expansion of the 68 to 76 tournament (teams), I think it’s a conversation to have.
“The more we can bring in the field, the less it is likely that it will bite as much as (to be left out). It will probably still be, I suppose, at a certain level, but it can sting less than today.”
Baker spoke of the exclusion of the state of Indiana and Seton Hall last year, the last selection of snobs on Sunday. “It is inherent in the process,” said Baker, adding that the basic rules, the procedures and policies involved in the selection committees emphasize how seriously the members occupy their roles and responsibilities.
And they do it. I know many administrators who have sat on this committee even over the years. This is not the problem. The problem is what it looks like. It seems that a lot of committee members made their boyfriend a solid by choosing his team to make the field even if this team played badly in all the biggest games except one. It is very difficult to gain public confidence and, unfortunately, too easy to lose it.
What it looks like is concern – and I certainly hope that the NCAA spends time seriously thinking about how to repair it.
