I'll admit, I got a little carried away with saying the Colonial Athletic Association should be a power conference, but it got Bilas to tweet me, right?
Anyways, I really want to focus on my last tweet. For those of you who don't know, VCU beat Drexel in the CAA tournament to clinch the league's automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Drexel now has to rest its hopes on the selection committee adding them to the tournament as an at-large candidate. "Bubble" teams have always been a topic of heated discussion among experts and fans alike. Drexel is now a bubble team, and they will surely have polar opposite opinions on them.
Bilas argued that Drexel might not deserve to be in because the CAA isn't a top rated conference (13th by kenpom.com as Bilas notes). I would argue that because of what CAA teams have done in the recent past, that Drexel should be a lock for an at-large berth into the Dance. Allow me to explain...
First and foremost, Drexel won the regular season CAA title and sports a 27-6 record. They had won 19 straight up until the loss to VCU on Monday. It doesn't matter what conference you are in, 19 straight wins is an impressive feat. Drexel also had solid wins over VCU, George Mason, and Cleveland State during this run. They did have a couple of bad losses early in the season (Delaware, Georgia St.) but a lot of teams suffer bad losses to start a season. Overall, a solid (but not bulletproof) case to make the tournament as an at-large.
The real reason Drexel should make it is because of the CAA's success in the tournament. If teams from a conference succeed in the NCAA tournament, then other teams from that conference should start to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to selecting at-large teams. Let's explore.
Since 2006, the CAA has placed two teams in the Final Four (George Mason in 2006 and VCU in 2011). The combined record for CAA teams in the NCAA tournament over the last 5 years: 12-10, good for a .545 win percentage. In comparison, the PAC-10/12 has had 3 Final Four appearances (UCLA in 2006, 07 and 08) and has a record of 33-22 (.600). The PAC-10/12 teams were the higher ranked team in 32 of those games while the CAA teams were higher ranked in one (George Mason was an 8 seed and played 9th seeded Villanova. Not much of an advantage). Out of the 10 CAA teams to make the tournament in the last 5 years, 2 have made it to the Final Four. That gives the CAA a 20% Final Four success rate. For comparison...
The ACC has had 3 Final Four teams since 2006 (out of 32 teams that made the tournament, good for a 9% Final Four rate). The Big East has had 5 Final Four teams (out of 48 teams, giving them a 10% rate). The Big Ten had 3 Final Four teams (out of 34 teams, good for 9%). You get my point.
So I am not arguing that the CAA is the best conference ever, but I am arguing that the CAA is doing more with less in the NCAA tournament. With the success they have had, their teams should start to gain favor from the selection committee. Basically, Drexel should be a no brainer as an at-large team. They have a solid profile when standing alone; but paired with their conference's success, putting them in the tournament should be as easy as saying that Indiana or Marquette should make it.
And if Drexel makes it and gets pummeled in their first round matchup, then we know why Jay Bilas is on ESPN and I am on Blogspot.
But if they make the Final Four...
No comments:
Post a Comment