Look for NCAA to add a cherry to its expansion sundae

By Matt Vachlon

...And then, like a bad dream, it was all over.

At least, that’s how I felt upon hearing the news Thursday that the NCAA was only expanding to a 68-team tournament. After watching the quality of some of the games from this year’s NIT, it truly was unsettling to realize that all those teams could’ve been in the NCAA’s 96-team expansion model.

However, after returning to my senses, I realized that the NCAA’s new plan still had one glaring omission, which leads to one major question.

How will new teams be added into the bracket?

It’s a pretty safe bet that since the NCAA already had one play-in game with 65 teams, that it will simply add three more play-in games so that each region will now have a play-in game. Who will be playing in those games is a different story.

A common assumption is that the play-in games will continue to be for the right to be a 16-seed. I don’t deny that sounds like something the NCAA would do. After all, you can’t humiliate the big schools by making them play an extra game.

Or can you?

You can if the NCAA goes for the money grab. Seriously, I hope the NCAA goes all fifth-grade bully in a school cafeteria on this plan and tries to shake out every bit of loose change available before its implementation.

Now, before I go any further, I know what you’re thinking.

You’re saying to yourself, “How can you utter those words, Matt, especially after writing this a mere two months ago? And even more than that, why are you now backing the same selfish interests that you directly criticized the NCAA of when you wrote about expansion?”

In short: because it’s a win-win for everybody.

Let’s acknowledge for a second that the play-in game was going nowhere. Even though no one even remotely cared about Winthrop vs. Arkansas Pine-Bluff (except those associated with the schools) this past year, you never heard any rumor that the NCAA would go back to a 64-team field. That’s because you’d have to give up an at-large bid to do that since both were recipients of automatic births and likely cost yourself the presence of a big-name school.

I understand that logic, even if I disagree with it. But now, you’re going to tell me that one of the attractions of signing this TV deal for CBS/Turner was to have four of these games?

Nope, the draw is that you match up the bubble teams.

This accomplishes two things. First, it turns that Tuesday night of play-in games into a must-see event. Using teams suggested by ESPN’s Dana O'Neil, a quadruple header featuring Florida-Virginia Tech, UTEP-Illinois, Minnesota-Utah State and Mississippi State-Georgia Tech becomes instantly more palatable than the aforementioned match-up. I know that despite my protests against a larger field, I wouldn’t be against an extra day of meaningful basketball.

Second, from the NCAA’s side of things it gets us used to an extra round of games. According to CBS’s Gary Parrish, the NCAA hasn’t promised it won’t revisit expanding to 96 in teams in the future and I don’t doubt that. The jump to adding an extra round isn’t as great when you’re already used to an extra day.

I realize that my plan pushes us closer to the evil that is a 96-team field. But the reality is that if the NCAA wants it, it will come, no matter what we think. In the meantime, I just want 68 teams to be a great as it can possibly be.

Final Four is nice, but these Dawgs can do better

By Matt Vachlon

Before I’m accused of being arrogant, let me first admit that Saturday will go down as one of the greatest days of my life as a sports fan. I’ve never been so nervous about a game, and that includes watching the White Sox go all the way in 2005. But after the Butler defense locked down the Kansas State scoring duo of Jacob Pullen and Denis Clemente, the Butler Bulldogs will be playing in the Final Four, in Indianapolis.

Let me repeat, Butler is in the Final Four. Saying those words continues to blow my mind.

With that said, over the next week you’re going to hear a lot of "Hoosiers" references and there’s also the storyline of Butler being the first amongst its peers, Xavier and Gonzaga, to reach the Final Four. Those stories are nice and they each have their fair share of validity, but they each miss the major storyline behind Butler’s Final Four run.

These Bulldogs have a legitimate chance to win the national championship.

I know I’m getting ahead of myself and no one dislikes looking ahead more than head coach Brad Stevens. But it’s not like the team hasn’t already acknowledged this as its goal.

And they have legitimate reasons to be confident.

For starters, while every Butler fan knows the team has had its fair share of doubters throughout each round, each ensuing victory has more and more given the team the look of a champion. Against UTEP the Bulldogs made outstanding halftime adjustments, they gutted out a victory against Murray State when they weren’t at their best and they withstood late charges by both Syracuse and Kansas State, the top two seeds in their region.

Instead of wilting under the pressure this team has risen to the occasion. The nation’s sixth best defense in the country, according to Pomeroy, has held all four of its NCAA Tournament opponents below 60 points, including holding Syracuse and Kansas State to their lowest totals of the season. And the Bulldogs bona fide stars have shown up as Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack have scored in double figures in each game and Matt Howard has been solid when he hasn’t been plagued by foul trouble.

Still, it’s always acknowledged that things need to fall into place for a champion and Butler has seemingly had those intangibles as well.

The Bulldogs have had players step up as Ron Nored made clutch shots in both the Murray State and Syracuse games and seldom-used backup center Andrew Smith logged 12 key minutes for the foul-plagued Howard in the victory against Kansas State. They’ve made the hustle plays as epitomized by Hayward and Howard each laying out to knock balls into the backcourt on key defensive possessions against Murray State and Kansas State respectively. And finally, they’ve made the lucky plays like this shot (about 1:35 into the clip) by Willie Veasley against Syracuse.

Butler will no doubt have its hands full with Michigan State next weekend as every team that gets this far is obviously very good. And only one team can cut down the nets. Just don’t be totally surprised if the Bulldogs are that team.

Five Gut Instincts in this Year's March Madness

By Bob Herman

This is, perhaps, one of the greatest sports weeks of the year. Selection Sunday was a joy fest as Greg Gumbel so eloquently rattled off every one of the 65 teams who will square off in the NCAA Tournament.

Tonight officially commenced the race to Indianapolis, and it took off with a bang to say the least (well, for those who give a crap about the play-in game). A scrappy University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff team, which lost 11 straight to begin its seemingly inauspicious year, took down Winthrop and will now face Duke.

UAPB is now 18-15, has won 17 of its last 21, and so far is the epitome of a Cinderella that Matt referenced last week (somewhat). How is that not a sign of things to come?

Now, I may not be as cool at Joe Lunardi or as lucky as, well, anyone, but everyone has gut instincts. While I will dutifully exclude Butler from this list to avoid any sort of jinx (...ok, ok, I have them going to the Final Four, but that's all I'm saying), here are five of my big gut instincts for this year's tournament:

1. North Texas (15-seed) will take down Kansas State (2-seed) in the first round.

KSU is really limping into this tournament, losing three of its last five (yeah, yeah, yeah, two of those were to Kansas; but if you can't beat the best once out of two times, then that's a sign). North Texas, on the other hand, has won its last 11 (albeit against creme puffs). We haven't seen a 2-seed fall in the first round since in a good nine years. If there were to be a 2-seed to go down, it most certainly seems like Kansas State would be that team. UNT is a good free-throw shooting team and have solid players in George Odufuwa and Josh White; KSU's biggest momentum was before 2010 started (they team was 12-1 pre-new year)--this seems so right.

2. The mythical "12-seed defeating 5-seed" game will be Utah State over Texas A&M.

The Pomeroy rankings have the Aggies only winning 48 percent of the time over...well...the other Aggies of Utah State. This is an unintentional rip on the Big XII so far, but Utah State can put up points, while A&M is not all that effective in stopping teams defensively. Utah State is the most efficient offensive team in the country--put them up against an average defense at best, and this appears to be the closest thing to a no-brainer among the 5-12 matchups.

3. The Big East will be the most productive team in the tournament.

Yes, they got the most bids, but this is in terms of who will advance the farthest. As of right now, I can easily see four Big East schools making it to the Elite Eight (five, if you count Syracuse over Butler...). This conference is spread out all over the bracket, so when it's all said and done, the Big East should be making the most noise.

4. Purdue will not lose in the first round.

Siena might be the trendiest pick I've heard thus far. Yes, we get it. Robbie Hummel is out for the year, and Purdue now doesn't have their true offensive anchor.

Honestly, that's a load of bull. The offense runs just as much through JaJuan Johnson as it does Hummel, and E'Twaun Moore and the other guards are still more than capable of running a basketball (the Minnesota game was an anomaly...Moore will not shoot 1-14 again, and his ankle is fine). If Purdue clogs the middle and prevents Ronald Moore from dishing the ball--which is his forte--this game should be manageable for the Boilers. Siena is not a terribly good outside shooting team (32 percent on the year). If they settle for jump shots, this game will not be nearly as trendy as most of the U.S. thinks.

5. West Virginia will make it to the title game.

Of the Mountaineers' six losses, none are to bad teams (well, save for Notre Dame, which really isn't that great of a team...ND's defense is as porous as they come). Their main free-throw shooters hover around 73 percent, which is more than sufficient for those late games that will be mired in clock-stoppage fouls. And most importantly, West Virginia--in addition to its efficient offense--has a decent path to the title. Kentucky and New Mexico are the two biggest deterrents to their Final Four run, but the run-and-gun of Kentucky and UNM can be easily matched by Da'Sean Butler, Kevin Jones, and Devin Eubanks--all of whom pursue rebounds as well as anyone in the country. West Virginia's overbearing frontcourt will no doubt be the make or break of their run.

You've been forewarned: A mid-major perfect storm looms on the horizon

By Matt Vachlon

Granted the brackets aren't out yet and obviously we won't know specific matchups until later this evening. But like Bob, I just couldn't help myself anymore. After watching the carnage that has occurred in the Big Six conferences during "Championship Week," one thing has become abundantly clear:

If you're a fan of Butler, or any other mid-major, you should be licking your chops at the prospect of who you might face in this year's NCAA tournament.

For starters, there has been a baffling amount of mediocrity with regard to the pool of at-large candidates. But the major networks have already given too much attention to this ineptness. The fact of the matter is a lot of winning has been going on around the country and the media hasn't taken notice yet.

As of today, 14 regular season champions or co-champions from one-bid leagues have won their their league's automatic bid. And three more from possible two-bid leagues are in a position to earn at-large births.

So why does this matter?

For starters, regular season champions qualifying mean better overall teams making the tournament. These teams have been solid over the long haul, as opposed to simply getting hot over a four-day stretch. Thus, it's reasonable to believe they can put up a better fight against the big boys. But there's also historical precedent to suggest their success as well.

I looked back at the five Cinderella stories that stood out in my mind the most since I began following college basketball. Each was at least a double-digit seed and each went at least as far as the Sweet 16. The candidates were 1998-1999 Gonzaga (10 seed), 2001-2002 Kent State (10), 2002-2003 Butler (12), 2005-2006 George Mason (11) and 2007-2008 Davidson (10).

The results were that all five were either the outright or co-champions of their league in the regular season. All except Butler made it at least as far as the Elite Eight. While three of those five did win their conference tournaments, George Mason did not, but, the Patriots are the only one of the bunch to make the Final Four.

The correlation to this year is that Butler (5 seed) and Northern Iowa (7) are projected to be much higher than those "Cinderella" teams of years past. Old Dominion (10), Cornell (11) and Siena (12) are also in the mix, along with at-large candidates Gonzaga (7), UTEP (9) and Utah State (11).

Adding to this advantage is the fact that the teams at the top of the major conferences have shown chinks in their armor this week as well. We've already seen two conference co-champs, Michigan State and Maryland, lose in conference quarterfinals and even Kansas, Kentucky, Duke and Ohio St. have let inferior of opponents hang around. And don't forget the chaos that occurred in the Big East.

If there's one thing March Madness proves to us each year is that it's far from predictable. But if next weekend you find yourself wanting to tear up your bracket because of all the Cinderellas, well, don't say I didn't warn you.

Butler men's basketball awaits NCAA Selection Committee bureaucracy

By Bob Herman

I debated about this post in my head: Do I wait until Sunday to comment about Butler's seeding in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament, or do I let it out now, especially since the thrashing of Wright State in the Horizon League championship is still fresh in my mind?

The fact that this has been posted proved that the latter idea won.

Now that the Bulldogs have clinched the automatic bid, it's a simple waiting game until Sunday rolls around, when all the other "big" conferences wrap up their individual tournaments and when the NCAA Selection Committee goes behind its closed doors to concoct its always debatable field of 65. (Thankfully, Matt, it still isn't 96 yet...).

Here's the cold hard facts, not brought to you by Coors Light: Butler is 28-4 (20-0 in conference...please look at that again), with an RPI of 14 and a SOS of 76. Qualities wins include an Evan Turner-less Ohio State, Xavier, and Siena (Northwestern is a borderline quality win, depending on its showing in the Big Ten Tourney). The Bulldogs have no "bad losses," as their four losses have come to Georgetown (20-9), UAB (23-7), Minnesota (18-12), and Clemson (21-9). Not too shabby, right?

Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star made a case for Butler, too, after last night's win. Unfortunately, his article is pretty shoddy. Aside from the fact that the entire piece is Kravitz paying lip service to a productive college basketball school within the city that he normally otherwise could give a crap about, he indirectly sympathizes with Collegerpi.com's Jerry Palm that Butler won't score anything higher than a six-seed yet is hopeful that Butler does land something higher because they pass the "eye test."

The "eye test," my friends, is nothing more than the bureaucratic, subjective feeling of placing an NCAA team in a spot simply because it seems like it belongs there.

And now, Butler's fate rests on the NCAA Selection Committee's multiple eye tests. Yes, I understand it's a rigorous process for those poor individuals who have to compose the tournament bracket, but let's be honest. It's subjective results based on objective data. And it's all done the day tournament championships finish.

When Butler was striken with a seven-seed in 2008 after going 29-3 (I think that's the snubbing Kravitz referred to, by the way), that honestly could not have been based on the objective data surrounding Butler's 2007-08 regular season.

Things will be better this around because, frankly, Butler has garnered more national attention this year than any other year before. It all comes down to the dollar signs, though, as most things unfortunately do in life. March Madness is up there with the Super Bowl in terms ad rates, and it lasts two weeks instead of four hours. The NCAA wants the most viewer-friendly matchups; it's just too PC to say such.

So although the Selection Committee will put out its "finest" slab of a bracket this Sunday, I--along with others who are associated with mid major programs--have fallen to the mindset of "hope for the best, plan for the worst." A six-seed appears to be in store; pinch me if Butler gains a five-seed or higher; and sweet mother, hold me back if it's anything lower than a six. We can only wait with baited breath now.