MUSINGS ON MARCH MADNESS

All three of us love basketball.  One of us (Woodson) even once owned a semi-pro team. So, this is our time of year.  It’s hard to find a time there’s not a basketball game on television.  With the NCAA tournaments hurtling toward coronation of 2018 champions, we have a few thoughts on the proceedings to this point.

UPSET FOR THE AGES

No matter what else happens, one thing will always define this year’s men’s tournament – the 74-54 win by Maryland – Baltimore County (UMBC) over top

seeded Virginia. Even though UMBC came crashing to earth when it lost in the round of 32 to ninth seeded Kansas State, 50-43, the Retrievers’s victory over Virginia will always have a special place in NCAA lore.  It – a 16 seed beating a one seed – had never happened before in the men’s tournament (it happened once in the women’s tournament, 
a 71-67 win by 16^th seeded Harvard  over an injury --depleted number one seeded Stanford in 1998).  We can only guess when this might happen again. 

Regardless of why the UMBC-Virginia game turned out as it did, lessons abound in it for power five bluebloods and upstart mid-majors.  For the big boys, it’s a reminder not to ever, ever assume victory.  Virginia no doubt believes it took UMBC seriously.  Deep inside, however, the Cavalier players and coaches probably know they didn’t.  They likely understand now they didn’t get emotionally ready to play in the same way they get ready for Atlantic Coast Conference foes like North Carolina and Duke.  It’s human nature (after all, who is UMBC?). The March 16 game, and the resulting lost opportunity for Virginia, proved the risk in succumbing to that instinct. 

For the upstarts, the UMBC-Virginia result demonstrates the reason for keeping hope alive.  Play the game as hard as you can and let the chips fall where they may.  Who knows what might happen?  Think there’s no point in showing up? Think again, says this outcome.  Contests turn out funny sometimes.  Balls take strange bounces.  As ESPN’s Chris Berman so often exclaimed, “That’s why they play the game!”

GODZILLA AMONG THE WOMEN

One of us (Rob) intensely follows the women’s game, so we’re aware of what’s going on in that bracket too.  The tournament’s first weekend suggested not much has changed.  Despite losing in the national semifinals last year, Connecticut appears poised to capture another title.  Unbeaten Connecticut won its tournament opener, 140-52, scoring 92 points in the first half, and their second game, 71-46.  Does anyone not seeing the world through glasses tinted with their home team’s colors really believe Connecticut won’t swat away the pretenders in its path masquerading as challengers?

Pundits don’t quite know what to do with the dominance that’s seen Geno Auriemma’s team win four of the last five national titles and six of the last nine, not to mention being a number one seed 21 times in 25 years and reaching the Sweet Sixteen 24 consecutive times.  Some celebrate Connecticut’s excellence, an understandable response in a culture that’s always revered dynasties (think Green Bay Packers, UCLA men’s basketball, Pittsburg Steelers, the Damn Yankees, etc.). 

But there’s a side of the Connecticut reign for which other coaches in the sport need to answer.  They necessarily lag behind in player evaluation and development, court strategy, teaching, and other aspects of the coaching craft. Notice that list doesn’t include recruiting.  The usual explanation for Connecticut’s superiority is that it has the best players.  Connecticut recruits great players, but those who follow women’s college basketball recruiting know it doesn’t get ALL the top players.  Connecticut, in fact, hasn’t had the nation’s number one recruiting class since 2012.  UCLA, Duke, Maryland, and Tennessee ranked at the top in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 respectively.  Yet, during the last four seasons, Connecticut lost just two games.  Something’s wrong with that picture.

WHAT ABOUT THE PLAYERS?

Returning to the men’s side, the sellout crowds, big television contracts, and saturation media coverage inevitably raise questions about why the players don’t share in the mega dollars the tournament generates.  This matter merits serious debate, as illustrated by recent scandals involving college coaches and agents.  It’s terribly complex, however, raising issues of justice (why should colleges pay coaches million dollar salaries while players struggle just to live?), fairness (if the players get paid, does the guy at the end of the bench get as much as the stud center?), gender equity (female athletes don’t generate nearly as much money as males, but do we really want to tell our daughters their efforts deserve pats on the back while our sons get hard cash?).

The three of us don’t agree on many ideas tossed around as solutions to this problem.  College basketball involves huge amounts of money and entrenched interests driven by deeply felt ideological, political, and economic considerations.  We assume that when the 2019 tournaments roll around, the issue will remain with us.  Given that, we see nothing to do this year but return to our brackets and try making sense of the remaining games.