The Missouri Valley

I don't remember who, but one of the CBS guys after the selection show complained about the Missouri Valley having 4 teams in the tourney, and mid-major conferences in general.

His complaint: In the last 3 years the Valley has had 6 teams in the tourney and only 1 win.

Well, despite the fact that the Valley has actually had 7 teams in the tourney and only one win and he could have made his point a little better... It doesn't add up.

In 2003, the Valley had 2 teams in the tourney, a 6 seed and an 11 seed. Both lost, but the six-seed, Creighton, lost to eleven-seed Central Michigan, of the MAC. Not exactly a reason to put more major conference teams in the tourney.

In 2004, the Valley had 2 teams in the tourney, a nine-seed, an eleven-seed and a fourteen-seed. Both lost, but that's exactly what the seeding would predict.

In 2005, the Valley had a seven-seed, a ten-seed, and an eleven-seed. In the first round, the seven-seed won and the 10 and 11 seeds lost, just as the seedings would predict. The seven-seed lost to a two-seed in the second round, as would be predicted.

Bottom line: The Valley has performed in the tournament almost exactly as seeding would have predicted, with the one exception coming from a loss to a team in a mid-major conference.

Now, lets look at the ACC.

Between 2003 and 2005, the ACC had 16 teams in the tourney. Three one-seeds, two two-seeds, Three three-seeds, Two four-seeds, a five seed, Three six-seeds, a nine and a ten.

Sure, they've won 15 of their 16 first round games, but 14 of those were the higher seed winning (The lone exception, NC State as a ten-seed last year).

In the second round, last year, Boston College, a four-seed, had an embarassing loss to UW-Milwaukee, a twelve-seed from a mid major. In addition, a two-seed lost to a seven-seed. Granted, NC State kept their run as a ten-seed going by beating a two-seed. Overall, the ACC went 3-3 in the second round last year.

In 2004, the ACC also went 3-3 in the second round, with no ACC teams winning as lower seeds, and with an ACC three-seed losing to a six-seed.

In 2003, the ACC went 2-1 in the second round, with a six-seed beating a three-seed, but also an embarassing loss by Wake Forest, a two-seed, to Auburn, a ten-seed.

I'm rambling right now, and if your're still reading, I commend you. My point is that the reason the ACC wins more games in the tourney than the MVC teams is that the seeding works, and ranks ACC teams higher than MVC teams. If the ACC had more teams in the tourney, they'd be lower seeds, and wouldn't have any more success than the MVC.