Upsets are what set the NCAA basketball tournament apart from every other major sporting event.
American sports fans, from the die-hard to the most casual, get sucked in every year by the prospect of seeing previously unheralded teams win games against foes from major conferences.
This “anything can happen” climate garners so much interest in the event that even people who don't know O.J. Mayo from O.J. Simpson fill out a bracket and root for “their” teams. Even the rare few without a bracket can quickly hop aboard the bandwagon and root for any team.
Not too long ago, all the perennial “little guy” hoped for was the chance to hang with a superior team for 40 minutes, and maybe get lucky enough to pull off a shocking win.
In the cases of Old Dominion in 1995, Coppin State in 1997, or Hampton in 2001, each of whom pulled off first-round upsets, no one cared that the teams bowed out in the second round. When it came time for the “One Shining Moment” montage, we relished their time in the spotlight, and reflected positively on their achievements.
If a team could win two games, like Valparaiso in 1998, then it was praised as one of the great sports stories of all time.
But times have changed. We have all become spoiled.
Two years ago, George Mason turned the NCAA tournament on its head with their shocking run to the Final Four. They also radically changed the expectations that fans and commentators have for “Cinderella” teams. Now, an underdog does not have a good story unless they make it out of the first weekend.
Today, an upset can be forgotten as quickly as it happens. CBS’ lightning fast coverage has improved to the point where rarely is a crucial moment from any game missed by viewers, and all games are also accessible via the Internet.
We, the fickle fans, are able to move on quickly from one underdog to the next.
Collectively, we're like a heroin addict looking for the next big fix. We’re all just chasing the dragon instead of appreciating what is happening right before our eyes. When an underdog team wins, we say, “Congratulations!...Now who’s next?”
Today's Must Reads
Siena? Sorry, no one cares anymore. You may have been the lowest-seeded team from your league to win a (non-play-in) tournament game since 1995, but you got knocked out before the prognosticators could find time to talk about your season.
San Diego? Again, we apologize. There was just no time to point out that you beat two tournament teams in a row to win the WCC and earn a tournament berth.
And that first-round overtime win against Connecticut? Worth some highlights, but Western Kentucky did the same thing and then beat you. So, they get all the attention. It doesn't matter that the Hilltoppers beat Drake, which had not been to the Big Dance in eons, while you beat UConn and their legendary coach Jim Calhoun.
If you can’t win two, you’re no good to us anymore.
In today's sports world, full of lightning-fast information, we can't possibly devote five minutes of Monday morning’s SportsCenter to reflect on what happened Friday.
Friday? Are you kidding? There's baseball in Japan, Pacman wants to be a Cowboy, and Patrick Roy's kid is going Chuck Liddell in Junior Hockey.
And of course, the NFL draft is only ONE MONTH away! We must know the weakest positions for every team in the NFL, and we require full coverage of the wind-sprint/ bench press competition in Indianapolis.
Why would we want to hear about the biggest wins in the history of some mid-major basketball teams, when we can see clips of Felix Jones jogging around the RCA dome in mesh shorts?
I understand that “balanced” coverage is the supposed goal of ESPN and other sports media outlets. But, as a former athlete and a current high school coach, I believe that it is not always the wins that define the measure of an athlete.
Let's not take anything away from the compelling stories of Davidson and Western Kentucky. But I'd also like to hear about the state of Siena and San Diego's programs, in the aftermath of their tournament appearances.
How have their fans, coaches, and young players reacted to reaching the pinnacle of their athletic careers and then, merely two days later, suffering a crushing defeat?
In my mind’s eye, I can envision a two to three minute video package on either team.
It begins with video of the team celebrating their win. Then there are two post-game quotes from the winners, one about the win and one about preparation for their next game.
And then the images of defeat flash upon the screen, visceral reactions from the moments directly after the second round loss. Press conference clips from the losing players and coaches are spliced-in with the footage. They talk about the loss, and what went differently than in their first game.
The piece ends with the team's return to campus. After everything has settled in for a day, the players and head coach try to put the tournament experience in perspective. What was the stronger emotion: pride in victory, or the sting of defeat? How does this affect the future of your program? How do you keep the players’ heads up and focused on what they accomplished?
To me this is more compelling television than a report on what Jerry Jones wants to do with his first round pick.
But maybe I’m in the minority.
(Subtext: Thanks to the Internet, we can all see what the respective teams' local media has to say about these two particular schools.
The North County Times has an article about San Diego here: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/26/sports/collegesports/30524bd2ce7fe8958825741800153eac.txt
New York's Daily Gazette caught up with Siena after the loss: http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/mar/24/0324_fisher/
It'd be nice to see more coverage in this vein.)
comments (3) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
Nice piece - this is pretty on point. It's a shame these great accomplishments get swept under the rug so quickly.
4 months ago
You're right the coverage was short for Siena and San Diego, but... they had a few things working against them.
1) Certainly they were lower seeds. However, Siena was matched against a Vandy team that didn't exactly light it up away from home and San Diego slid by UConn who clearly missed AJ Price.
2) Their next round games were versus two 12 seeds. WKU who won a very dramatic/outstanding game against Drake and Villinova, who some questioned their eligibility for the tournament. The story for those teams would've been more compelling if the teams they were facing had been bigger over-achievers.
3) In a season where Drake and Butler were consistently in the top 25 and a traditional powerhouse like the ACC gets only one more team in the tourney than the WCC, these upsets are less surprising now. Don't you think?
Great job on the column though! (I'm sort of a contrarian - apologies.)
from 4 months ago
Ben,
No need for the apology - you make several valid points.
I think the increased profile for mid-major teams has directly contributed to upsets being received with less surprise than in previous years. Certainly, it is a positive thing that the respect for these teams has increased to the point where the upsets are not treated as earth-shattering events.
But I still think these two teams had more of the classic characteristics of the underdog, rather than the new brand of mid-majors who are every bit as strong as the top competition. For one thing, these are teams who would not have been in the tournament without winning their leagues, whereas Drake and Butler had strong enough resumes to get in with an at-large. And though it's been debated, I think Davidson would have got in with an at-large as well.
Obviously, WKU is in the same boat; they needed to win their tournament to get in. They're definitely deserving of all the praise they're getting. My point, which I think you got, was that the coverage should be well-rounded enough to give America to a closer look at these other programs.
One thing I think the general public didn't get a chance to realize is just how much of a different world it is in the MAAC than in the MVC, CAA, WCC, or any of the other higher-profile mid-majors. The MAAC is a league packed geographically-close teams who are typical afterthoughts. They never land the big-time recruits from their region, which is very over-saturated with D - 1 teams. For a team to come out of that league and win an NCAA tournament game is very impressive, regardless of the opponent.
I just think there should be some time made to cover this sort of story; I'd even have liked to hear more about Belmont. They found their place on a TV set in every home in America, and quickly disappeared after their one point loss. Their narrow defeat may have been an even bigger "upset" than any team's win in 2008.
Even if the major shows can't make time for their stories, I think there is room on the hour-long programs that specifically emphasize college basketball. Instead, these shows rehash the same points all week. With only 8 games left in the season, I think a little time can be spent looking back. Instead, these shows have told us about the same players over and over in the week leading up to these games.
Thanks for the well-expressed feedback - I always appreciate a dissenting opinion.
write a new comment