Our lives seem to be run by polls. Which presidential candidate is doing better in the latest exit poll? Which foods do you consider worst for your health? What features on a car are most important to our customers? Every point in our routine can be questioned. And it didn't just start when you turned 18.
Grade schools ask kids to pick a class president or secretary. High schools crown kings and queens at homecomings and proms around the country. Yearbooks have pictures from "Best Dressed" all the way to "Class Clown" and in between. Polls can pop up anywhere and at any time. Sports might even have a lead on all other aspects of life.
You can't go half a day without getting a new poll from ESPN's "SportsCenter" about who the best candidate is for "so and so's" championship or which all-time great you would select first in a draft. This discussion pretty much comes to a head in collegiate athletics. Every sport (and I mean every sport) has a poll ranking the top teams in that athletic discipline, but the most commonly known are the ones for football and basketball.
Over the last few years, these ranking systems have become larger in the technological boom and marketing campaigns of things such as BCS bowl games and March Madness. In football, it has become imperative to be highly ranked at some point in the season. Even if you are number one in the country before a game kicks off, you'll be in the discussion for the biggest prizes until you absolutely work your way out of contention. Stay up there by December, and people begin to discuss your plans to go to Miami, New Orleans, Phoenix, or Pasadena. Bluntly stated, if you want the title, you must be at the top of your class come final exams.
Basketball is a little different. Rankings have been available for the perusing since the late 1930s, but the path to a championship is a little hazier. Since the NCAA playoff system expanded to 64 in 1985, the final Associated Press poll has been somewhat telling of how the brackets will shake out ... but only somewhat.
From 1985 to 1989, the final poll ranked the top 20 teams. With regards to the Sweet 16 round of the tournament, the 1989 list had the most number of participants (14). The other four polls averaged 10 teams that made it past the first two rounds. Once the list expanded to 25 teams in 1990, there was more opportunity for the writers to get it right and predict all 16 teams in the third round of the tourney. While the mark of 14 out of 16 squads was established two other years (1995 and 1996), the writers still haven't picked every one of the regional semifinalists right in their last poll before the tournament began.
Going deeper into the bracket, things get even more muddled. The eventual champ started the tourney ranked number one or two eight out of the last 24 years. If you expand to top-five teams, the percentages get a little better (15 out of 24 champs). Final Fours have been a little better for the poll, but the writers correctly predicted three of the last four participants in nine of twenty-four years (with 2008 the only time all four teams were top-five caliber).
Thing is, it seems that at least a couple underestimated, under-appreciated, or off-the-radar squads make a deep run each year. So, do we need to have a top 25 poll in college basketball? As shocking as that sounds to me, I think the answer is no.
I understand the argument. What kind of measuring stick is there without a poll? What'll we talk about, argue over, and hype up during the regular season? How can we shake out the talented and hungry from the underdogs or the underachievers? When tournament time comes around, who'll debate which seeds got hosed and which ones were set too high?
All of them are valid points. Trust me, I debate my friends on all of them throughout the season. But what gets talked about the most after Selection Sunday and before the games tip on Thursday?
1) Who got snubbed all together.
2) What dark horse will make a deep tourney run.
3) What upsets will happen in the first round.
The answers mostly center around teams that are near the bottom of the ranking list or off of it completely. These teams on the fringe turn out to be the most interesting. Cinderella stories like George Mason in 2006 give the tournament its special flair. Unranked champions such as Villanova in 1985 and Kansas in 1988 prove that a team's name doesn't need to be beside a 1, 2, 7, 13, or 24 on a list to make talent and teamwork lead to "One Shining Moment."
And being in the polls isn't all it's cracked up to be. Utah State didn't even make the tournament after finishing in a tie for 25th in the final rankings of the 2004 season.
Tournament committees always look at the body of work of a team that is "qualified" to make the field of 64. Two key points that always seem to be brought up are how that squad plays against both other tournament-quality teams and the "bad" losses they have on their schedule. Let me tell you one thing. A team that would be ranked 1, 25, or 55 in any poll can't lose to a team with a record of 3-8, 7-12, or even 12-14. Those are bad losses for any tournament-quality team.
In the end, the tournament seems to work itself out. Whether you are the top team on a list or a squad with a .500 record, the same pressure applies to everyone. And that, more than a poll, weeds out a champion.
In a world where polls range from family dinner choices to greatest invention that affects our everyday lives, just take a second a look into a life without a list of choices. The sixth number one team will grace college basketball on Monday. But the answer to who can win it all? Fill in that bubble marked "M. All of the above."
Leave a Comment