Yet Another Pet Peeve–Who is Looking Out for the Little Guy?

I have never claimed to be the protector of all things “mid-major.”  And, I am very much opposed to crazy conspiracy theories, so I am going to tread lightly on how I phrase today’s Pet Peeve.

I think the NCAA Committee, for the upteenth year in a row, screwed the “Little Guy.”  I am not claiming that this is a conscious intentional occurrence (though, there is a TON of money involved in the television deals that would undoubtably prefer the least possible small schools beyond the first round), but I believe it is happening, and it is having a major effect on the brackets that we love so much.

Take the following aspects of this year’s bracket:

• Illinois St. and VCU were certainly in the “bubble” discussion.  I see the flaws in their resumes and also cannot really make a good case that either of them should be replacing someone who was chosen (though, personally, I would probably have taken Illinois St. over Villanova or Baylor, but I do not feel that strong either way). 
• In my opinion, there are eight or nine quality “mid-major” teams in the field.  Just looking at it objectively, there are 9 mid-major teams that received a 12-seed or better.  Six of these teams are playing against another one of these eight.  In fact, of the four at-large bids given to mid-major schools, two of them are playing against OTHER MID-MAJOR SCHOOLS.  S. Alabama got a 10-seed, but drew Butler.  Gonzaga got a 7-seed, but drew Davidson (in Raleigh).  The other two mid-major at-larges were St. Mary’s, who is playing Miami, and BYU (not really a mid-major program, just in a mid-major conference), who drew Texas A&M.  Also, you have auto-bid Drake getting a 5-seed, but drawing mid-major auto-bid sleeper W. Kentucky.  I know the Committee has said repeatedly that they do not “set up matchups,” they just pick the seeds and the regions and plug them in, so I guess this is just a coincidence.
• Only one of the “protected seeds” (1 through 4 seeds in each region are considered “protected”) went to a non-Big 6 Conference team–Xavier–and who do they draw as their 14th-seeded opponent?  An SEC team?  Granted a pretty bad SEC team, but still, Georgia just won the SEC tournament.  So, the only non-Big 6 protected seed draws the only Big 6 team in the below a 12-seed?  Again, probably another explainable coincidence.

I know, I know that each of these, by itself, is completely explainable and appears to be merely coincidental, but if taken as a whole, might there be reason to believe that the Committee just continues to protect the Big Guys even though the Little Guys have proven time and time again in recent years that they are just as good?  I am not saying that this is a conscious, vindictive, or even economically-driven “conspiracy” to get as few Little Guys in the later rounds as possible–and, honestly, I do not know if it doesn’t make for a better tournament sometimes–but is it not possible that this is just another indication of a subconcious bias against smaller programs?

Thanks for listening, friends…