Tweet
On the Prowl: The Davidson Effect
The loss of the Davidson Wildcats in the Elite Eight means that the Final Four in San Antonio this weekend features all one-seeds for the first time since the tournament's 64 (65?) team format. The reactions from the world of the media have been varied. Some have decided to go the "VIP" route. All one-seeds on the final weekend of the tournament surely means two things: this has become an elitist tournament with no surprises (technically true) and this is setting up to be the greatest Final Four ever (certainly untrue).
Others, some who shall remain nameless but their names end is "Elliston" believe that this marks the end for the teams that truly matter to them. Unnamed journalist even drove his point home with a beautifully saddening montage of teams losing in the NCAA tournament. There's one problem though: if you really want to get nit-picky, UMass remains alive. They play Ohio State in the NIT Final. Bradley and Tulsa face off in Game 2 of the College Basketball Invitational Wednesday. It doesn't always end in a loss. 3 of the 340+ teams in Division I will wind up winning.
But I digress. The point is that fans of the UNI Panthers might have had a certain connection with the Davidson Wildcats as they traversed the line separating the big-money elite from the humble-but-mighty. They went to the Elite Eight, and some asked if they could repeat what the now-mythical George Mason Patriots were able to do in 2006. They came up one shot short. Somehow this means they will never achieve the legendary status that George Mason because of one measly loss that came at an inopportune time.
But what does it all really mean? Should teams like the Cats be denied the "honor" of being another George Mason? More importantly, why is GMU the new benchmark? Are they the first? Drake was a Final Four team in 1969. UNC-Charlotte did it in 1977. Indiana State and Penn both did it in 1979.
What have I learned from Davidson's run? Short memories make for a compromised sense of achievement. That's both unfair to all those who were Final Four teams pre-2006 and post-2006, whether they are named Duke, Marquette, Memphis, or East Tennessee State. Being a Final Four team is incredibly hard. For some, the sense of joy is identical to that of winning a national title.
That's the other part of this year's final four (lowercase) being treated unfairly. Since the participants were all one-seeds, their accomplishments are almost being diminished, like they were EXPECTED to be here. Doesn't it mean something that this is the first all one-seed Final Four? That's kind of an upset within itself.
Add those two together, and I come to this conclusion: what George Mason did in 2006 was prove that there's still a place for schools of all walks, even in modern-day college basketball. Davidson reminded us of that this year. The name on your jersey does not immediately determine your role in the tournament. At some point in this tournament Davidson coach Bob McKillop told his players "why not us? Why can't we become national champs?" At some point Davidson was unsatisfied with just "going far in the tournament," just as George Mason likely was in 2006.
Mark these words down: it won't stop with George Mason, Davidson, Navy (remember that?), Indiana State or Penn. A school from the Ranks of the Unfamilar will someday win it all. Simply put: it doesn't have to end with a loss, and that doesn't just mean the NIT or CBI (in theory).
So here's to you Memphis, Kansas, North Carolina, and UCLA. Don't let the media diminish your accomplishments just because they view you as the "elite." You worked just as hard and got just as many breaks as anyone else has in your position. It will end in a loss for three of you, but the hope will always be there.
The loss of the Davidson Wildcats in the Elite Eight means that the Final Four in San Antonio this weekend features all one-seeds for the first time since the tournament's 64 (65?) team format. The reactions from the world of the media have been varied. Some have decided to go the "VIP" route. All one-seeds on the final weekend of the tournament surely means two things: this has become an elitist tournament with no surprises (technically true) and this is setting up to be the greatest Final Four ever (certainly untrue).
Others, some who shall remain nameless but their names end is "Elliston" believe that this marks the end for the teams that truly matter to them. Unnamed journalist even drove his point home with a beautifully saddening montage of teams losing in the NCAA tournament. There's one problem though: if you really want to get nit-picky, UMass remains alive. They play Ohio State in the NIT Final. Bradley and Tulsa face off in Game 2 of the College Basketball Invitational Wednesday. It doesn't always end in a loss. 3 of the 340+ teams in Division I will wind up winning.
But I digress. The point is that fans of the UNI Panthers might have had a certain connection with the Davidson Wildcats as they traversed the line separating the big-money elite from the humble-but-mighty. They went to the Elite Eight, and some asked if they could repeat what the now-mythical George Mason Patriots were able to do in 2006. They came up one shot short. Somehow this means they will never achieve the legendary status that George Mason because of one measly loss that came at an inopportune time.
But what does it all really mean? Should teams like the Cats be denied the "honor" of being another George Mason? More importantly, why is GMU the new benchmark? Are they the first? Drake was a Final Four team in 1969. UNC-Charlotte did it in 1977. Indiana State and Penn both did it in 1979.
What have I learned from Davidson's run? Short memories make for a compromised sense of achievement. That's both unfair to all those who were Final Four teams pre-2006 and post-2006, whether they are named Duke, Marquette, Memphis, or East Tennessee State. Being a Final Four team is incredibly hard. For some, the sense of joy is identical to that of winning a national title.
That's the other part of this year's final four (lowercase) being treated unfairly. Since the participants were all one-seeds, their accomplishments are almost being diminished, like they were EXPECTED to be here. Doesn't it mean something that this is the first all one-seed Final Four? That's kind of an upset within itself.
Add those two together, and I come to this conclusion: what George Mason did in 2006 was prove that there's still a place for schools of all walks, even in modern-day college basketball. Davidson reminded us of that this year. The name on your jersey does not immediately determine your role in the tournament. At some point in this tournament Davidson coach Bob McKillop told his players "why not us? Why can't we become national champs?" At some point Davidson was unsatisfied with just "going far in the tournament," just as George Mason likely was in 2006.
Mark these words down: it won't stop with George Mason, Davidson, Navy (remember that?), Indiana State or Penn. A school from the Ranks of the Unfamilar will someday win it all. Simply put: it doesn't have to end with a loss, and that doesn't just mean the NIT or CBI (in theory).
So here's to you Memphis, Kansas, North Carolina, and UCLA. Don't let the media diminish your accomplishments just because they view you as the "elite." You worked just as hard and got just as many breaks as anyone else has in your position. It will end in a loss for three of you, but the hope will always be there.
