We say we like underdogs. But do we?
Every season I hear more officials and more commentators offer evidence that the ninth-place team in the major conference (which lost more conference games than it won) should go to the NCAA basketball tournament while the smaller school that dominated the regular-season but lost in the small-conference tournament should go to the NIT.
But is the NCAA basketball tournament a reward for being good? Or is it a reward for having a superior season? If a school can't win half its conference games, how good is it and how good a season did it have?
My favorite moments in the tournament are provided by the small schools. It is Davidson beating Georgetown and Wisconsin and almost beating Kansas. It is Gonzaga making another run. It is Winthrop finally winning a first-round game. It is Wofford, which is coached so well, being poised to.
So I'm pulling for Wake Forest in the ACC tournament today. My NBA friends tell me that Jeff Bzdelik can coach. He had little talent with which to work this season. But maybe he'll find some today and the Deacons will upset Boston College in Greensboro. Maybe Wofford will win in the first round next week.
Somebody somewhere is going to win a game today or this week or next week that will entice all of us to bag work and run to the laptop or TV. Remember that.
Let's hope the selection committee remembers Sunday night.