define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);
The teams I mentioned – Butler, Mason, VCU & Wichita last season, all had to play legit teams throughout their runs (and legitimacy doesn’t necessarily always tie to seeding, in my eyes). I’d argue how legit that USC play-in team was, but even if I concede the Trojans as a quality opponent, VCU was still in my view a long way from winning it all.
Theoretically, Wichita as a #1 or possibly #2 seed this season wouldn’t face a legit team in its first game, but they’d still have to win five subsequent games against quality teams, not to mention the one or two that they’re almost guaranteed to face in the F4 and title game where it’s unlikely they’d have as much talent as their opponent.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s extremely rare. The last non-power conf team to win it all was UNLV in 1990 and they had more talent than anybody in the country. Before that, it was Louisville twice in the 80s, and they too had draft picks all over the place. Then you have to go back to Marquette in 77, Texas Western in 1966… you get the point. It’s been a long time since a true mid-major broke through.
There’s a lot of talk about parity nowadays in CBB, and to a certain extent for many reasons there is some truth behind it. But not at the national title level. At least not yet.
]]>So you view a power conference 12 seed like USC as not NCAA worthy compared to say the typical 16? Or even most 14, 15 or 16?
]]>Of course that’s right. VCU won five games, but four legitimate NCAA-worthy ones.
]]>