(This update was written before Siena won their tourney game tonight, you can take them off the bubble, but the arguement remains the same).
I think Davidson and Siena should be in the tournament and here is my explanation why I think they both not only should be in, but WILL get in.
For starters, I know it isn't supposed too, but I think the fact Davidson was in the Elite 8 last year (even though this years team isn't NEARLY as good as last year's) and the fact that they still have Superstar Stephen Curry puts them MUCH closer to the bubble line than most think.
A few bad losses by BCS teams in the FIRST ROUND of their conference tourneys could put Davidson back in the discussion and into the tourney.
It's a shame that people are going to write them off because of their loss to Charleston, because Charleston is a DAMN good team this year. Charleston beat South Carolina, they beat TCU and they only had two OOC losses, to the UNC Tarheels and to Temple by 5. They beat Davidson twice and were 26-7. They could end up foiling Davidson’s at-large chances because they beat them twice this year, but what BCS team would be punished for 2 losses by 2 and 7 points, to a 26 win team? The answer is not one.
Davidson doesn’t have a single bad loss this year. Not one. The losses on their record are at Oklahoma by 4, at Duke, at Purdue, Charleston twice by 2 and 7 points and then the 2 losses while Curry was hurt for 1 (at Citadel) and was nowhere near 100% for the other, against Butler at home.
So 4 of their 7 losses are against top 25 teams, 3 of which were on the road. No ranked BCS teams wanted any part of Davidson at Belk Arena. Two more of their losses are to a 26 win, in-conference, rival team. Finally, there is the 1 fluke loss to the Citadel when Curry was hurt (btw, the Citadel is also a 20 win team).
They don't have one BAD loss on their entire resume. I’ll repeat it again, 7 losses, 4 of them against top 20 teams, 3 of those on the road, 2 losses to a 26 win team that is a conference rival and a fluke loss with their best player hurt to a 20 win team.
On the other hand, Davidson has wins over West Virginia (who will make the dance) and another BCS team, NC State. The key to Davidson not getting in will most likely not be the losses they have this year, it more than likely will be the lack of quality wins. They had their chances sure, but they got a bad breaking playing Butler with Curry nowhere near 100%. I’d love to see that game played again with him at full strength. And let’s be honest, it isn’t like Oklahoma or Duke was going to come play Davidson at the Belk Arena. So how can you blame them for road losses against top 10 teams? How can you use the “they didn’t beat them, so they shouldn’t get in argument?
What really ticks me off is people are starting to put a team like Auburn on the bubble. Auburn is 21-10, 10-6 in the SEC, all that sounds good right? Well look at their OOC schedule. Losses to Xavier, Northern Iowa and Dayton (none of those teams is as good as any of the 4 Davidson played too and lost OOC). They also lost to MERCER out of freaking conference. 17-15 in the A-Sun MERCER!
Auburn’s two best OOC wins? UVA and Tulane!!! What a freaking joke. Give me WVU and NC State over both of those teams any day of the week.
So it basically comes down to conference. Is going 10-6 in a very weak SEC with some decent wins against LSU and Tennessee more impressive than 16-2 in the So-Con? Yeah, those wins are good, but they also got a lot more SHOTS at pulling those wins off. I honestly believe, in my heart of hearts, Davidson could most definitely have gone 10-6 in the SEC playing the schedule that Auburn did. That’s where the rub lies. Yes, the SoCon isn’t nearly as good as the SEC, but should going 10-6 be rewarded over 16-2 in a decent conference? Should 2 good in conference wins be rewarded when they had 6 or 8 chances to pull out those 2 wins?
There are a few other factors to add into this discussion. Auburn lost to South Carolina by double digits; the same South Carolina team that Charleston upset on the road. Auburn also lost to Kentucky and Ole Miss, neither very good teams, but apparently those loses don't affect them because they are SEC losses against decent teams.
But Davidson's losses to Citadel and Charleston are enough to keep them out? I don't get it. There are going to be WAYYYYY too many mediocre BCS teams with .500 records or worse in the Big Dance at the expense of teams like Davidson, who dominated their conference regular season or teams like Niagara and Siena, one of whom has to lose tonight in the conference Finals but who should BOTH be in the tourney.
Siena is in a similar boat as Davidson. Last night, their star player Kenny Hasbrouck got hurt, making him a question mark for tonight's Championship game. If he is unable to play, I am fairly sure Siena will lose, leaving them on the outside looking in even though they DOMINATED their conference regular season going 16-2 and are 25-7 overall.
Much like Davidson, their only losses are to fairly good teams OOC. They lost 3 of their 7 games before December, to Wichita State by 2, Tennessee by 14 and Oklahoma State by 9, all away from home. Their other 2 OOC losses are at Kansas and at Pitt, Top 10 teams. They have lost 2 games since January 6 and that 7 point loss on the road to Kansas.
One loss was to another 24+ win team in Niagara on the road (much like Charleston for Davidson) and against Rider on the road by 2 points, another very good team in the MAAC (much like Citadel in the Southern Conference).
That's it, 2 games, in conference, since February. They also beat the same Northern Iowa team that beat Auburn OOC.
Siena also has some VERY good OOC wins as well, better than Davidson's most likely. They beat a solid Boise St. team that is in third in the WAC by 30 points. They beat 3 teams that are likely going to the NCAA tourney in Cornell (Ivy Champ), Buffalo (MAC Champ) and Holy Cross (Patriot Champ) and a pretty decent St. Joe's team on the road. They played the number 3 toughest OOC schedule in the country!
They are 25-7 and deserve a chance to play in the NCAA tourney, but if they lose tonight, they might end up getting screwed for what? Maryland? Georgetown? Michigan? Auburn? There is a MASSIVE list of overrated, crappy, BCS bubble teams that have proven over and over again that, much like Davidson and Siena, they can lose to Top 10 teams as well. The only difference is, In-conference, they got to play those Top 10 teams AT HOME, an opportunity schools like Davidson and Siena will more than likely never get. How much should we make of the wins vs. the losses against good teams when BCS schools consistently get 3 or 4 chances a year against Top 10 and definitely top 25 teams at home when Davidson and Siena will get none? So Maryland beat UNC and Michigan State, they also got blown out by Georgetown (22 points), Gonzaga (27), Duke (41), Clemson (29) and lost to UVA and Morgan State!!! Quite frankly, the losses to Morgan State and UVA are worse than any losses Siena or Davidson had all year long.
Same goes for Georgetown. Sure, they beat UConn, Memphis, Villanova and Syracuse. They also got blown out by Tennessee (22), Pitt (16), the same WVU team that Davidson beat (17), and Louisville (18). Georgetown also has losses to St. John’s and Seton Hall, again, both teams that are probably as bad as anyone Davidson or Siena lost against. They went 7-11 in their conference. I don’t care how tough your schedule is, if you can’t even get within 2 games of .500 in your own conference, you don’t deserve to take the spot of someone who went 16-2 in theirs, no matter how weak you might think the conference is. If Georgetown can lose to St. John’s and Seton Hall, then they could also to Rider, Niagara, Charleston or Citadel.
Finally, if either Davidson or Siena get left out in favor of one of those teams or another middle of the pack BCS team that has lost 8 or 9 games in conference it will be an absolute shame and proof that they need to adopt the system I have been asking for.
Play-in games for the last 10 at large spots. 20 teams, 10 games, must include upper tier mid-major teams that won their conference regular season but lost in their conference tourneys, but only if they aren't already assured of getting in (for instance, Butler and Gonzaga, if they were to lose, wouldn't need to play so they would be exempt because they will be in no matter what). So for instance, if VCU lost to GMU tonight, VCU would get an invite to a play-in game. VCU’s resume is debatable, but they would deserve a chance to play for an at-large bid against a mediocre BCS teams since they dominated their conference regular season. Davidson and whoever loses the MAAC Championship, Siena or Niagara, would also get invites to the play-in games. They key to the invites is that the teams have to have legit, worthy resumes and have proved that they could dominate their conference and win OOC. So in other words, if Buffalo loses the MAC tourney, they wouldn't get invited because they don't have the resume. But if Utah State loses the WAC tourney, they would get to play in the play-in game.
So that would be 4 or 5 spots at the most going to mid-majors, the other 15 to middle of the pack BCS teams and you let them play their way into the tourney. That would be a much fairer system than the current on in place, picking and choosing which teams you want to get in through a “selection committee” that has no strict criteria or guidelines for how to pick who should be in. Not to mention the fact that A. it would include more teams in the tourney and B. it would be a blast for fans everywhere to see these teams scrap and claw for those final bids. Who wouldn’t want to watch Siena, Davidson or Niagara play Maryland, Georgetown or Michigan for one of the final at-large spots?
But then again, that would make way too much sense for the NCAA, so we should just stick with the system that continually rewards mediocrity in the BCS leagues.
