Tweet
Murphy
Just to veer back for a moment to what was supposedly the subject of this thread: namely, Pat Murphy and his presence on the selection committee, what it really highlights is what a corrupt, inbred organization the NCAA is and how comfortable it is with self-dealing.
Who has the strongest vested interest in the selection process? Coaches, of course, because success on the field directly affects their jobs. Next after that would come ADs, because their success is based on competitive and financial results. And next would come conference commissioners, whose success is measured in much the same way as that of ADs, but for all the schools in their leagues rather than just one.
All three, therefore, have significant conflicts of interest in picking teams to get at large spots in the tournament, and an organization with integrity wouldn't use any as selectors -- most especially not coaches. But who makes up the entire committee? People from those three groups, including two coaches.
It's not as if people without such a vested interest don't exist. There are plenty of college baseball writers and analysts who could serve on a selection committee. Obviously, such people would have their own backgrounds -- geographical interests, schools from which they've graduated or that they've covered, etc.; nobody except robots or computers doesn't -- but at least they'd be as free as possible of career and financial conflicts while still having the requisite knowledge and interest.
That's an easy and obvious solution, but in the corrupt world of college sports, the likelihood of it happening is, as the saying goes, slim and none.
Just to veer back for a moment to what was supposedly the subject of this thread: namely, Pat Murphy and his presence on the selection committee, what it really highlights is what a corrupt, inbred organization the NCAA is and how comfortable it is with self-dealing.
Who has the strongest vested interest in the selection process? Coaches, of course, because success on the field directly affects their jobs. Next after that would come ADs, because their success is based on competitive and financial results. And next would come conference commissioners, whose success is measured in much the same way as that of ADs, but for all the schools in their leagues rather than just one.
All three, therefore, have significant conflicts of interest in picking teams to get at large spots in the tournament, and an organization with integrity wouldn't use any as selectors -- most especially not coaches. But who makes up the entire committee? People from those three groups, including two coaches.
It's not as if people without such a vested interest don't exist. There are plenty of college baseball writers and analysts who could serve on a selection committee. Obviously, such people would have their own backgrounds -- geographical interests, schools from which they've graduated or that they've covered, etc.; nobody except robots or computers doesn't -- but at least they'd be as free as possible of career and financial conflicts while still having the requisite knowledge and interest.
That's an easy and obvious solution, but in the corrupt world of college sports, the likelihood of it happening is, as the saying goes, slim and none.
Comment