Why the First Four Benefits Top Teams the Most

Many are hailing the NCAA's decision to have a First Four which isn't just 4 play in games for the 16 slot visionary and great for the sport. We like the format but have to ask: is this actually just throwing a bone to the #1 and #2 seeds?

To review, under the new NCAA plan, 31 teams will automatically make the tournament and 37 teams get at large bids. To get to a 64-team bracket, they'll schedule four "First Four" games:

• 2 potential 16 seeds will square off for the right to play the top 2 seeds overall.
• The last 4 at large teams will compete in two games with the winners facing something like a #4 or #5 seed.

Prior to yesterday's announcement, everyone presumed the NCAAs would simply have 4 play in games and 8 automatic qualifiers from the worst 8 conferences would play in what were essentially "16/17" seeded games to determine who plays the #1 seeds. We see two real reasons for instead adopting the First Four format.

1. TV ratings. It goes without saying that a game like Oklahoma State--Iowa would draw better ratings than, say, Davidson--Monmouth. Frankly, I don't know anyone that watched the old play in game because who cared? Now with some berths against teams ripe for an upset on the line, people may car

2. It helps the top seeds. It's well-known that a #16 has never beaten a #1, and the 1/16 games are rarely close. It's also well known that a #15 seed had beaten a #2 five times and pretty much every year, one or two 15 seeds put the fear of god in a 2 seed. Some recent examples:

• Villanova needs OT to beat Robert Morris (2010)
• Cal State Northridge makes Memphis' life miserable for 35 minutes before Memphis pulls away late (2009)
• Belmont almost knocks off Duke (2008)
• Tennessee fends off Winthrop by 2 (2006)
• UConn-Central Florida goes down to the wire (2005)

Why the disparity in results between 15 and 16 seeds? Well, every year there are 2-4 teams that enter the tournament that are truly poor. We're not saying that the SWAC and Southland shouldn't get automatic bids, but them and 1-2 other teams every year enter the tourney DOA. They're pushovers for the Kentuckys of the tournament whether or not they're in the play in games.

That said, the next level of the bottom rung teams has gotten much, much better over the past decade. As evidenced by the 15 seeds that have given the 2's a legit scare, those teams not only deserve to be in the tourney, they're a threat to win a game, especially if they catch a 1- or 2-seed with a flaw, on an off night or coached by Rick Barnes.

And by adding 3 more at large teams to the tourney, if you had 4 play in games, those old 15 seeds would now be 16 seeds. They would likely bulldoze the crappy bottom 3 teams and could give weak #1's a real scare or pull off the improbable upset. Even worse for big conferences, old #14 seeds, which already hold their own in the tourney (just ask Georgetown fans) would get bumped to #15 seeds and now get #2 seeds in the first round. We're not suggesting there would be a raft of upsets as a result of this shift but we think it would certainly happen more often than once every 5 years. And that is not a result the BCS conferences want. As has been said multiple times, the first weekend of the NCAA tournament is for the upsets and little guys, but when you get to the Sweet 16 and beyond, you want the big name schools there.

So applaud the NCAA for not tinkering too much with the best tournament out there. Just remember that it's probably for self-protective reasons.

Cornell-Wisconsin: 1994 Redux?

Your humble Gazette authors, being Penn and Columbia alums, have a pretty straightforward ethos when it comes to the Ivy League in the NCAAs:

(1) Root for the smarty-pants to beat whatever Big Bad Wolf team they draw in the first round;

(2) Unless it's those Princeton Pricks.

As noted last year, the Ivy League had been going down in flames for a dozen years in the first round of the NCAAs...until yesterday's glorious victory by Cornell over Temple, where Cornell shot 56.3%, including 39.1% from behind the arc. Up next: the Wisconsin Badgers, who barely beat the Wofford Terriers in a defense-and-rebounding slugfest that's the hallmark of Wisconsin basketball.

Everyone not from the Cheese State is going to be rooting for Cornell, and Vegas is giving the Big Red some real respect: they're only a 4 point underdog. Still, we can't help but note that this setup is quite similar to the 1994 NCAA Tournament. Let's turn back the clock a little and look at what happened that year.

• The Ivy League's Pennsylvania Quakers finish an excellent 25-3 year by getting an 11-seed and drawing Danny Nee's Nebraska, led by Eric Piatkowski, in the first round. The Quakers shoot lights out, lead by future pros Matt Maloney and Jerome Allen each handing out ten assists and Barry Pierce scoring 25 on 11 for 15 shooting. Penn jumped out to a quick 15-4 lead, and never trailed, eventually winning 90-80. On that night, Penn could have beaten nearly anyone.

• In the next game at the Nassau Coliseum, third-seeded Florida Gators, led by Andrew DeClerq, Dan Cross and Da Meat Hook (Dametri Hill) take on James Madison. In one of the ugliest slugfests ever, the teams combine for fewer than 10 field goals in the first half and JMU leads 22-18 at halftime. About 2/3 of the Coliseum attendees promptly left, and missed a back-and-forth physical matchup, where Florida prevailed by 2.

• Flash forward to Saturday, and everyone in the Nassau Mausoleum is rooting for the Quakers. Alas, not to be: the Quakers can't hit 3's at the same rate, they can't grab a rebound against Florida's massive frontcourt, and are outplayed on the other end to the tune of a 70-58 loss. The game was always close, but never really in doubt.

We want to see the Quakers move on to play Kentucky, if only because John Wall versus the Ivies would be a hoot. But we wonder if we're in for another disappointment today, because it'll be tough for the Big Red to go inside on the Badgers and they may not shoot 56% again.

LSU-Butler Live Blog

So, in advance of our live blog for Deadspin on Friday we decided to take a crack at live blogging Thursday's LSU-Butler game. If you like it, well, expect more of the same on Friday. If not, treat this as a dry run. Click the circle to begin.

The Collapse of Ivy League Basketball

We're taking a brief diversion from baseball coverage to discuss a subject near and dear to the editors of this blog: college basketball, and specifically, Ivy League hoops. Because you may finally be able to relegate the Ivy to the bottom of the college hoops phylum.

College basketball conferences can be divided in to 5 fairly predictable and exact strata:

1. The BCS Conferences. The Big East, ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big 10 and Pac-10. The elite of the sport, those that dominate the NCAA tournament.

2. The Not Quite Majors. Conferences that are top-heavy with 1-3 schools that can compete at the national level at any time but lack real depth. This group is pretty small, and basically is made up of Conference USA, the Atlantic 10, the Mountain West, and if we're generous, the WAC. These conferences can send schools to the Final Four and compete for national championships, just not every year.

3. The Mid Majors. Conferences that are very competitive and can compete with the big boys on any given night, but rarely crack the top 10 in rankings or higher than a 4 seed in the Tourney. The names are familiar: the Missouri Valley, the WCC, the Horizon, the Big West, and if we're in a good mood, the Colonial.

4. The Frisky Conferences. Often dominated by 1-2 teams, these conferences will be good for 2-3 first round upsets in the Tourney, a biannual Sweet Sixteen darling, and your occasional Davidson Run. The conference champs usually get 12-14 seeds and at a minimum will give the higher seed a headache for 30 minutes in the opening round. Generally speaking, if you've heard of a school because of an NCAA appearance/upset but know nothing about them (Valparaiso, Winthrop, Weber State, College of Charleston), they belong here.

5. The Doormats. Conferences that produce perennial 15 and 16 seeds and not only rarely win 1st round games, they're rarely competitive in 1st round games. We see the same names here every year: the SWAC, Patriot League, American East, MEAC and Northeast Conference. For every wild Hampton upset, there are a dozen drubbings of Monmouth.

Over the last 15 years the Ivy League has been treated by the Selection Committee as a Category 4 conference, and been accorded almost uniform respect by getting a 11-13 seed most years. This was backed up by good play in the 90s: Matt Maloney (right) and Jerome Allen led 11-seeded Penn to a first round upset of Penn in 1994, Princeton upset defending champ UCLA in '96 (by boring America to death 43-41) and followed that up with a superb run in '98 that culminated in a 5 seed and a second round loss to Michigan State.

Unfortunately, Princeton's first round win over UNLV that year was the last win by an Ivy in March Madness. Let us trace the inexorable decline:

1999: 11-seeded Penn falls 75-61 to Florida. This was actually a pretty good Gator team that fell to the Gonzaga Buzzsaw in the next round and then went to the Final game the next year.

2000: 13-seeded Penn drops a 68-58 contest to a not particularly inspired Illinois team.

2001: A not-any-good Princeton team gets a 15 seed and is trounced by UNC, a team coached by Matt Doherty that then can't beat Penn State. Remember, this is basketball, not football.

2002: A fair Penn team is rewarded with an 11 seed and is manhandled by California to the tune of 63-50. As I recall, this game was never close.

2003: Penn once again returns as an 11 seed and loses by 12 to Oklahoma State. OSU is the 4th straight team to beat an Ivy League opponent in Round 1 and lose in the second round.

2004: Princeton gets a 14 seed, and loses to Texas by 17. UT at least wins another game before losing to Xavier.

2005: In an absolutely horrid matchup, Penn gets a 13 seed and draws BC, who wallops them by 20. Irish guys all over the Eastern seaboard were rather confused about who to root for.

2006: In by far the best appearance that wasn't a win, Penn gets a 15 seed and draw Kevin Durant-led Texas, playing in Dallas...and only lose by 8. The outcome was never in doubt, but Texas could not put this team away to save its life.

2007: Penn gets a 14-seed and everyone's sleeper team as an opponent, Texas A&M. They lose by 16 in a horrible mismatch.

2008: Cornell gets the first non-Princeton/Penn bid since the Reagan administration and draws Stanford and the Lopez twins, who crush them and their soul by 24. This game was close for about 12 minutes, until the Stanford coach realized that Cornell didn't have a single player over 6'5".

Yes, you can make excuses for this run of losses. Teams like Texas are too big and athletic for Penn to stand a chance. The lack of a postseason tournament has kept the seeds artificially high because you never get an 11-17 Brown qualifying thanks to a hit week in March. They've just gotten unlucky. But the bottom line is we're staring at a 11-year gap in losses, which will probably continue this year when Cornell gets pummeled in the first round by Oklahoma or Missouri.

So where are the Ivies now? Well, Penn has fallen off a cliff since Fran Dunphy left for Temple and can't beat Columbia. (Note: this is me blatantly trying to bait my co-author.) Princeton has been fair in conference, but is the definition of a paper tiger and really have been "good" since Bill Carmody left for Northwestern, a.k.a., the Greatest Rebuilding Project Ever. Cornell has stepped into the void somewhat. The problem is they're really not any good.

Which leads us to the ultimate conclusion: at this point, the Ivies have fallen from a Frisky Competitor to a Doormat. Without superbly coached teams that Penn and Princeton had for years that could win if they shot over 50% and could control the tempo, the league has no outstanding coaches, talent or abilities. They're not competitive against BCS conferences. Hell, they're not even fun to watch. As a result, the Ivies should be relegated to permanent 15/16 seed status and should be in the rotation for the play-in game until they dig up a new Kit Muller or Matt Maloney or a new coaching phenom emerges. Sorry guys, but the truth hurts.