The Unsavory Smell of Selection Sunday: Fair Play or Favoritism in March Madness?

The sting of exclusion is a familiar ache for many college basketball programs on Selection Sunday. But for West Virginia University this year, that sting likely carried an extra dose of bitterness. The Mountaineers, ranked a frustrating No. 69, were left out of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, a decision that felt particularly unjust given the inclusion of the University of North Carolina, a team with a notably weaker resume.

The crux of the issue, the source of the outrage and suspicion, lies in the fact that North Carolina’s Athletic Director, Bubba Cunningham, also serves as the chairman of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Selection Committee. While safeguards exist to prevent direct conflicts of interest, the appearance of impropriety casts a long shadow over the entire process.

The numbers paint a stark picture. North Carolina limped through the season with a dismal 1-12 record against "Quad 1" opponents, a key metric used by the NCAA to evaluate the strength of a team’s schedule and their performance against top-tier competition. Their lone Quad 1 victory came way back in December against UCLA, a team that itself struggled to find consistency throughout the year.

West Virginia, on the other hand, boasts impressive wins against formidable opponents like Gonzaga, Arizona, Kansas, and Iowa State. Despite these marquee victories, the Mountaineers found themselves on the outside looking in, their tournament dreams dashed by a seemingly inexplicable decision.

Before delving deeper, it’s crucial to acknowledge Cunningham’s reputation. The author of the original piece, a long-time observer of college athletics, vouches for Cunningham’s integrity, citing years of interactions and unwavering respect for his character. The author believes that Cunningham adhered to established protocols, recusing himself from direct discussions and votes concerning North Carolina’s selection.

However, even with these assurances, the optics are undeniably problematic. The structure of the selection committee, composed of athletic directors and conference commissioners, is increasingly under scrutiny. The immense stakes involved, both financially and in terms of institutional prestige, demand a process that is not only fair but also perceived as impeccably independent.

The current model, while rooted in the belief that athletics directors have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of the process, is vulnerable to criticism and suspicion. The very nature of these individuals’ positions creates inherent conflicts of interest, or at the very least, the perception of such.

Keith Gill, the commissioner of the Sun Belt Conference and vice chair of the selection committee, publicly stated that all policies and procedures were followed during the North Carolina discussions. Cunningham echoed this sentiment. But these statements are unlikely to quell the doubts and frustrations of West Virginia fans, players, and coaches.

The reality is that decisions regarding the final teams to make the tournament are always contentious. These teams typically possess flawed resumes, making the selection process a delicate balancing act. In North Carolina’s defense, their predictive metrics, such as KenPom.com ranking of No. 33, were superior to West Virginia’s No. 53 ranking. They performed well in power rankings.

But predictive metrics alone don’t tell the whole story. West Virginia’s quality wins surpassed North Carolina’s, and the Tar Heels squandered numerous opportunities against NCAA tournament-caliber teams within the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).

While West Virginia’s late-season fade and a disappointing performance in the Big 12 tournament contributed to their predicament, the lingering question remains: did the presence of North Carolina’s athletic director on the selection committee, even with recusal, unduly influence the decision-making process?

For years, the collegiate sports governance model has relied on the expertise and accountability of athletic directors and conference commissioners to make critical decisions. The idea is that these individuals, deeply invested in the success and reputation of their institutions and conferences, would act with integrity and impartiality.

The argument goes that individuals like Cunningham and West Virginia’s athletic director, Wren Baker, will inevitably cross paths in professional settings. There is value in knowing that Baker might one day face a similar situation. This fosters a sense of professional comity and shared responsibility within the NCAA’s leadership.

However, the escalating stakes and the intense media scrutiny surrounding the NCAA basketball tournaments and the College Football Playoff demand a more transparent and demonstrably independent selection process. The current system, even with its safeguards, struggles to dispel the perception of bias and favoritism.

The situation puts Cunningham, and other committee members in his position, in a no-win scenario. Even if the decision to include North Carolina was entirely justified based on objective criteria, the appearance of a conflict of interest will inevitably lead to skepticism and accusations.

The system needs to evolve. Perhaps it’s time to explore alternative models for selecting tournament teams, moving away from the heavy reliance on athletic directors and conference commissioners and towards a more independent body. This could involve incorporating a blend of data analysts, former coaches, and unbiased observers to ensure a more objective and transparent process.

Ultimately, the goal is to restore faith in the integrity of the selection process, ensuring that every team has a fair shot at earning a spot in the tournament based solely on their performance and merit, not on the perceived influence of powerful figures within the NCAA. Only then can we eliminate the unsavory smell of Selection Sunday and ensure that the focus remains on the excitement and drama of March Madness.