(Photo by Joe Murphy/Getty Images)
For those of us who always root for the underdog, there hasn’t been much to cheer about in this year’s March Madness.
Cleveland State was the only true Cinderella to survive the first round, and made a gallant effort against a high-seeded opponent for at least three quarters of the second round game. But the fact that I lead with this is a testament to the disappointing results of this year’s tournament.
Other notable achievements by Cinderellas include admirable efforts by Akron and American University who kept it close for a half against high seeds in the first round, and Sienna, who gave Louisville a scare in the second round.
For true blue underdog fans, the Sweet Sixteen was an adjustment period. It was hard to get behind teams that had dashed our best hopes for Cinderella, but as the brackets continued to fill, new preferences began to emerge.
As the field for the Final Four is now complete, underdog fans have lost their ambivalence. In comparison to the three Goliaths in the group, Villanova suddenly looks like a shepherd boy with a sling shot, if not a peasant girl in rags.
Before we do a detailed analysis of Villanova, however, we should review the selection criteria.
What Makes an Underdog?
There are classic underdogs, and there are relative underdogs. That is why we can only get excited, early in the tournament, about the smaller schools, the long-shots, and the new arrivals.
For the first round we favor firsts, worsts, small, and the wall.
Firsts
First appearance or, lacking this, first in so many years.
Worsts
Lowest seed, lowest RPI ranking, or least difficult schedule.
Small
Smallest school, smallest market if applicable, small in socio-geographical, demographic-economic status—in other words, from somewhere not frequented by the beautiful people.
1 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete