This guy is sure one arrogant son-of-a-gun. His current crusade is to eliminate the automatic bids for conference/tournament champions and replace them with more at-large bids for mediocre finishers from the BCS AQ schools. I guess that he thinks the process that the BCS uses to set the two championship finalists is so systematic and logic that is is far more effective that the NCAA's basketball tournament process?
Here is one excerpt of his reasoning:
His example is UNC-Ashville's automatic bid versus Stanford's probable exclusion from the tournament.
Who really thinks that Stanford, an also-ran in a pathetic Pac-12 is a serious contender to win the whole thing? When they start their tournament, they will have the exact same opportunity that UNC-Ashville had to get in, that being "just don't lose." UNC-Ashville played the teams that were willing to schedule them, got seeded in their tournament accordingly, and are now simply playing until someone beats them. Once the post-season begins, there is no team who wins every game after that point who is excluded from contention. Everyone who laces up their shoes plays by a single rule, "Survive and advance."
Mr. Bilas graduated from Duke Law. He is not incapable of critical thought and the concept of equal application of rules regardless of the parties in question. I find it ironic that it is he, of all of ESPN's crew, that is so adamant that there should be different rules for different participants in the process. Is it anachronistic populism to insist that, in sport, some animals are not more equal than others?
Here is one excerpt of his reasoning:
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/stor...rankings-north-carolina-tar-heels-firmly-no-3
His example is UNC-Ashville's automatic bid versus Stanford's probable exclusion from the tournament.
Who really thinks that Stanford, an also-ran in a pathetic Pac-12 is a serious contender to win the whole thing? When they start their tournament, they will have the exact same opportunity that UNC-Ashville had to get in, that being "just don't lose." UNC-Ashville played the teams that were willing to schedule them, got seeded in their tournament accordingly, and are now simply playing until someone beats them. Once the post-season begins, there is no team who wins every game after that point who is excluded from contention. Everyone who laces up their shoes plays by a single rule, "Survive and advance."
Mr. Bilas graduated from Duke Law. He is not incapable of critical thought and the concept of equal application of rules regardless of the parties in question. I find it ironic that it is he, of all of ESPN's crew, that is so adamant that there should be different rules for different participants in the process. Is it anachronistic populism to insist that, in sport, some animals are not more equal than others?
