Selection Sunday wouldn’t be what it is without its snubs.
Sure, we’d probably still all tune in to see the four No. 1 seeds and which potential Cinderella teams have the most advantageous matchups. But what we really want is to see which bubble teams sneak in and which ones get left out. Even in the least divisive years, there’s usually at least one semi-debatable inclusion or a seeding issue that seems worth discussing.
And then there are some years, like this one, that result in a full-blown controversy — one that could have been easily avoided.
North Carolina was the very last team into the 68-team field despite its paltry 1-12 record in Quad 1 games, which were its most challenging games. More than 77 percent of bracketologists tracked by the Bracket Matrix had the Tar Heels on the outside looking in. Almost all of the bracketologists had West Virginia safely in the field, and the Mountaineers ended up as the first team out.
The problem — the piece of the puzzle that turned an ordinary snub into a full-fledged controversy — was that the chairman of the selection committee was UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham. It’s a terrible look, no matter what the NCAA and the involved parties say.
Cunningham explained multiple times on Sunday that the policies and procedures of the Division I men’s basketball committee prevent the athletic director of a school from being in the room while the group discusses his or her school. Cunningham said that was the case all week when this year’s committee discussed North Carolina. He made the rounds for interviews on Sunday night alongside Sun Belt commissioner Keith Gill, the vice chair of the committee, so Gill could answer questions about the Tar Heels’ inclusion.
I am sure Cunningham followed those rules. I am also sure everyone remaining in the room believed they were evaluating all the bubble teams fairly.
But the optics mattered here, and they were bad. Optics matter when the NCAA relies on subjectivity and uses a closed-door selection process to determine its field. We, the public, have to believe that teams were chosen, seeded and bracketed fairly, and that each member of the committee did his or her job with integrity.
Again, I have no doubt in my mind that everyone on this particular committee checked all of those boxes. But there’s a reason conflicts of interest are often defined as being real or apparent. It’s just as bad to give anyone the impression that someone is receiving favorable treatment.
Cunningham was asked about these apparent conflicts of interest, not just for him in this isolated incident but also for other athletic directors and conference commissioners that serve on these types of committees.
“It weighed on me a lot,” Cunningham said. “I will say that it also weighs on commissioners and it weighs on other ADs when it comes to seeding. With a commissioner that would have multiple teams that are under consideration, they’re hoping their teams get in. It does weigh on you. You have a personal, professional responsibility at your institution. You’re part of a committee of 12 that represent the membership.
“I think people recognize that and honor it. Quite honestly, I think you can sometimes say less in any setting because you want to make sure that you don’t even get up to that line of integrity. I think that’s just part of what we have to work through, the way the committee is designed.”
That’s the problem, though. And it’s one that is easily avoidable — if the NCAA and its schools cared to change how they pick teams for their championship events, especially with one worth as much as March Madness is.
The NCAA (and the College Football Playoff) should not have sitting athletic directors or current conference commissioners as members of their selection committees. I understand that these are prestigious assignments. I get that there are only so many retired players or coaches to fill out the roster. But we cannot and should not start the best week of the year with tinfoil hats on and pitchforks out.
That’s precisely what happens when you have apparent conflicts of interest. You always run this risk. And it doesn’t help matters that the grandstanding governor of West Virginia called a press conference on Monday to call the snub of the Mountaineers (owners of six Quad 1 wins) a “miscarriage of justice and robbery at the highest levels.” It doesn’t help, either, that Cunningham’s contract at North Carolina includes a bonus for NCAA basketball tournament participation — an extra $67,905 per team that qualifies. (The UNC women earned a No. 3 seed in the women’s tournament, so Cunningham receives the same bonus tied to their inclusion as well.)
On Monday, I asked NCAA president Charlie Baker what he made of the controversy and the larger topic of ADs and commissioners serving on these selection committees. He told me that there are always debates and discussions about the teams at the margins.
“It’s been going on forever,” Baker told NBC Sports. “It’s actually one of the reasons why I think if we can come up with a way to make the math work and the geography and the logistics work on expanding the tournament from 68 to 76 (teams), I think it’s a conversation worth having.
“The bigger we can make the field going in, the less likely it is that it’s going to sting as much as it does (to be left out). It probably still will, I suppose, on some level, but it may sting less than it does today.”
Baker brought up the exclusion of Indiana State and Seton Hall last year, the biggest snubs last Selection Sunday. “It’s inherent in the process,” Baker said, adding that the ground rules, procedures and policies involved in the selection committees underscore how seriously the members take their roles and responsibilities.
And they do. I know plenty of administrators who have served on this very committee over the years. That’s not the issue. The problem is what it looks like. It looks like a bunch of committee members did their buddy a solid by picking his team to make the field even though that team played poorly in all but one of their biggest games. It’s very hard to gain the public’s trust and, unfortunately, all too easy to lose it.
What this all looks like is the concern — and I certainly hope the NCAA spends some time thinking seriously about how to fix it.
