...And at #25

(Note: AP is not a big NFL draft-nik, but tonight's event attracted attention, because of the range of opinions around Florida QB Tim Tebow.)

The Denver Broncos picked Tim Tebow in the first round -- at #25 -- well ahead of where almost every observer expected him to be.

On ESPN, Tom Jackson (a former Bronco himself) was literally speechless -- staring blankly into the camera in the moments after the pick was announced. Even ten minutes later (when he had presumably found his voice), Jackson was saying "it's a question whether he will ever play at all."

Mel Kiper Jr. blasted the pick on a talent basis, saying in effect, that even though he may be a great kid, the skill level is not high enough, and his (flawed) throwing motion will mean an unsuccessful NFL career.

Whether Tebow can be a Pro Bowl quarterback in the NFL is an open question. But it's pretty safe bet that Tebow will never be in an Associated Press story that contains the words: "Member of the Denver Broncos arrested early Sunday morning..."

Here's what Denver gets: a good all-around athlete (who, by the way, dominated the best football conference in the country in college), who is now playing with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove to every scout, GM, and fan who doubted him. There are worse combinations.

And there is this Inconvenient Truth: drafting a QB in the first round is clearly a crap-shoot. And if you don't believe that, here are the names of a few of the QBs selected in just the top three picks in the first round in the last dozen years:

Tim Couch
JaMarcus Russell
Ryan Leaf
Akili Smith
Joey Harrington

Ummm....oh, and the jury is still out on Vince Young, who was also a "top 3".

Could Tebow be a bust a #24?

Undoubtedly.

But will he be a worse choice than Leaf (#3 overall) or Russell (#1 overall) or the others in the List of Shame?

No.

The "best and the brightest" in the NFL came up with those choices. Generally, the experts (like Kiper) looooooooooved those picks when they were made. And all of them were busts that handicapped their respective franchises for years, if not close to a decade.

Which brings us to our point for all the so-called experts (which, ironically, involves another professional sports franchise):

If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.

Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Feed Me...When I'm 68?

The NCAA expanded its Men's Basketball field to...68 teams today.

The surprising news comes after a winter when it seemed almost sure that the expansion would be all the way to 96, allowing the top eight seeds in each region a Bye in the first round, adding a full round for seeds 9-24, and meaning wall-to-wall college basketball for six straight nights.

As part of the new deal, CBS will share coverage with Turner, meaning that every single game will be available somewhere on the dial. Or, perhaps more appropriate, at some triple-digit number on your cable box.

As Deadspin's Dashiell Bennett points out, it seems that -- shockingly -- the NCAA listened to the criticism that was levelled in the month of March: the tournament worked as-is, the expansion would water down the regular season, and so forth. Three more at-large bids will (almost surely) be awarded, but the tournament will have the same look-and-feel, albeit with four "play-in" games on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.

But Bennett is wrong in one respect when he writes the following:

The field will expand to 68 teams, which means (presumably) that all four 16-seeds will now be determined by play-in game, making the possibility of a 16-over-1 upset even more improbable than it already is...

The expansion of the play-in games means that the worst eight automatic qualifiers will play the 16A/16B games for the right to play the #1-seeds. But assuming that the Tournament Committee seeds teams correctly(*), that means that the #16A teams will be advancing; in years past those teams were also known as "#15 seeds."

(*)-The seeding this year was especially problematic, as was widely observed, especially regard to eventual champion Duke's path to the Final Four, and games such as Temple (5)/Cornell (12).

For example, here are the "weakest" four teams in the 2009(**) bracket, together with actual (post-season) KenPom rating:

Chattanoga (16), 226
Alabama State (16B), 209
Radford (16), 188
Binghampton (15), 165 (***)

Average Rating: 197, or slightly below the median of 344 Division I teams

Here are the next four weakest:

Morehead State (16A - play-in winner) 150
Morgan State (15) 148
Robert Morris (15), 118
East Tenn St (16), 111

Average Rating: 132, or close to top one-third of all D-I teams

(**) - Using the 2009 to avoid the seeding problems in this year's tournament.
(***) - Of course, the Committee still mis-seeded Morehead State. (For the record, the other 2009 15-seed was Cal St Northridge (99 KenPom), who played tough against #2 Memphis, before falling 81-70.)

Thus, the #1-seeds will be playing a team that is -- on average -- sixty places higher on the rankings than they would in the traditional 64-team field.

Slicing the data another way (and perhaps accounting for mis-seeds), here are the averages for the five #16- and four #15-seeds:

#16-seeds: 177
#15-seeds: 132

Closer, but still a material improvement, assuming that the better teams wins the play-in game(s).

Some will counter that the short rest will make the #16's road even tougher. (The play-in game winners will have to play the #1 seeds two days after the opening round games, while the #1 seeds have a week to prepare.) But conference tournaments are rife with low-seeded teams who play on consecutive nights and beat higher-ranked opponents who have had a bye. For instance, in the Big East just this year, #8 Georgetown beat #1 Syracuse; #5 Marquette beat #4 Villanova, #7 ND beat #2 Pitt, and #11 Cincy beat #6 Louisville; in each of those games, the lower ranked team played back-to-back against a rested opponent.

The bottom line: the #1 seeds will be playing materially better teams.

And that makes the chances of a #16 beating a #1 much higher, no matter how you slice it.

Book Ends

The national championship won by Duke on Monday had a feel of wistfulness. Once upon a time, Duke was the up-and-coming college basketball program, looking to break through with its first national title. The break-through happened in 1991, when Duke upended a powerful UNLV team in the semis, and beat traditional power Kansas in the Finals.

This time it was a young Butler team that came out of nowhere to reach Monday night's game. In just seven years Bulldog coach Brad Stevens went from representing Eli Lilly to trading (coaching) punches with a Hall-of-Famer.

But in the end, Coach K won his (and the school's) fourth title, although the current Blue Devils -- with no clear-cut NBA prospects -- are a far cry from the first national title team, which featured three NBA first-round draft choices (Bobby Hurley (#7 overall); Christian Laettner (#3); and Grant Hill (also #3 overall.))

In another way, Monday's game harkened back to that 1991-1992 team. After winning in 1991, the Blue Devils returned all the key pieces, and seemed poised to advance to a third consecutive Final Four. But in the regional final, Duke played Kentucky in what many consider the finest college basketball game ever.

The overtime game ended with a baseball pass from Grant Hill to Christian Laettner, and Laettner's turn-around jumper from 15 feet. By double-teaming Laettner, rather than putting a man on the ball, Kentucky coach Rick Pitino became a cautionary tale for coaches: don't leave the in-bounds passer un-bothered.

Almost twenty years later, Coach K almost became his own cautionary tale. By having center Brian Zoubek intentionally miss the second foul shot with a two-point lead with 3.6 seconds remaining, Coach K risked the unthinkable: Butler's Gordon Hayward would have won the title if his half-court heave had been a quarter-of-an-inch lower on the backboard.

This morning, Coach K went on the radio and defended his decision, saying that Duke's foul situation meant that overtime was "not an alternative."

Apparently Duke's Lance Thomas and Zoubek were much more valuable in Coach K's mind than they appeared on the floor: while they both had 4 fouls, no other Blue Devil had more than 3. Butler, in contrast, had both of its centers with four fouls, with C Matt Howard being hampered by foul trouble all night.

A better test: see how many college coaches instruct their players to miss foul shots intentionally next year.

The guess here: about as many as will allow a passer to be un-guarded.

Sweet Nothings

It's taken 31 years, but an Ivy League team plays tonight in the NCAA's Sweet 16 round for the first time since a Chuck-Daly-recruited (yes, that Chuck Daly) UPenn class crashed (albeit briefly) the Magic-Bird Final Four party in 1979.

A few thoughts:

* Domes: Tough shooting background? Cornell and Kentucky will play tonight at the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, one of the few "true" domes used regularly in the college game (UNC's Dean-Dome, while a large facility, is not a true "dome" with a pressurized roof.)

We'll probably hear the CBS announcers claim more than once that the Dome hurts outside shooters, because of the lack of a 'shooting background' and/or different wind currents in the building. And such a difficult shooting environment is thought to hurt Cornell, with its three-point specialists, much more than slashing Kentucky.

Unfortunately (or for Cornell, fortunately), the facts don't seem to support this theory. The NCAA Final Fours have regularly been held in domes, beginning in 1982 with the historic UNC-Georgetown final. Between 1982 and 2000(*), seven national title games were held in non-dome stadiums, and eleven inside domes.

(*-With increased interest in attending the Final Four games, the NCAA has moved all Final Fours to domes, or in the case of Dallas in 2013, ginormous stadiums that might as well be domes.)

The difference in shooting percentage between the two environments?

00.2% (47.1% in non-dome; 46.9% in domes)

Cornell may have a tough time shooting the ball tonight, but that will have to do with the Kentucky pressure, not the shooting environment.

* Expanding the pool. The NCAA seems likely to expand the pool to 96 teams starting next year, which will mean the demise of the NCAA-owned National Invitational Tournament (NIT) after 72 years. (Presumably the women's tournament will also have to expand to 96; although after watching the UConn women hang 50+ point losses on the #16 and #8 seeds in the last week, one wonders why a #24 seed would fair any better.)

Yes, there is parity in college basketball. Unlike the NBA, where the best, healthiest, teams generally prevail over an 82-game regular season and best-of-seven playoff format, college basketball is famously quirky. Indeed, the NBA's size and strength requires a materially different set of skills than college basketball. Some of these skills do translate -- Davidson's Stephen Curry easily stepped back to the NBA three-point line -- while others, like last year's college-player-of-the-year Tyler Hansbrough has (unsurprisingly) had difficultly getting his power game to earn him minutes in the pros. (Although in Hansbrough's defense, when he has played, he's been reasonably effective, scoring at 17 ppg for every 36 minutes played.)

While having first-round NBA draft picks on your college team undoubtedly helps, it is far from a sure thing. And the charm of the NCAA tournament remains the mid-majors showing the "big boys" how to play. Northern Iowa will have no players in the Green Room in New York in June, but you won't get Kansas to tell you that.

So on to expansion: would more Tournament games be good for college basketball? Perhaps, if the result would more more Mid-Major/BCS matchups like Northern Iowa vs. Kansas. (Or, Ohio-Georgetown or Purdue-Siena.)

So if the expansion of the pool means more mid-major teams getting a chance in the Big Dance, AP is all for it. But it also requires a future Tournament Committee to give us Mid-Major/BCS matchups.

Instead, this year's Committee gave us swing games that pitted BCS vs. BCS and Mid-Major vs. Mid-Major. Here are the #8/#9 games: Texas vs. Wake Forest (BCS vs. BCS); UNLV vs. Northern Iowa (MM vs. MM); Louisville vs. Cal (BCS vs. BCS); and Gonzaga (MM) vs. Florida State (BCS conference, but basketball is a distant third at FSU to football and spring football in fan interest.) The Committee could have easily juggled the regions to give us three or four compelling games in that group, instead of one (UNLV vs. NIU was an exciting game, and one that Bill Self might have thought about before waiting 36 minutes to press NIU for 94 feet.)

Expansion could mean rewarding all the Mid-major teams that win their regular season title, but get bumped out of their conference tournaments, like Memphis. But the reality will be more marginal BCS teams getting in; and with expansion, what we'll probably get is more of the same: #8 in the Big Ten vs. #10 in the Big East (by the way, that match-up this year would have been Michigan vs. Seton Hall, in the midst of a basketball meltdown. That's a game that barely has any interest (outside of Ann Arbor and West Orange) in December, before we know that both teams are mediocre.)

Finally, we have been using the term "BCS" in this section even though in college basketball, there is no a "Bowl Championship Series"; it's a proxy for big-time, big-budget, big-TV conferences and their schools. But it raises the question of a Division I college football playoff.

College Presidents and Athletic Directors have resisted instituting a D-I football playoff for various reasons, including upsetting the current bowl structure, and (most unconvincingly) not disrupting academic schedules. And yet bowl season occurs at the tail-end of first semester for an overwhelming majority of colleges and universities. March Madness, in contrast, spills well over the single week of Spring Break, and the 96-team expansion means that the NCAA Tournament will cover another weekend, and effect an additional 500 student-athletes (32 teams x 15 players per team).

In a world where athletic budgets are being stretch both by the economy and non-revenue sports, it makes all the sense in the world why the Tournament is expanding.

But why is college football different? And why is that decision (not to institute a plus-one playoff system) driven by academics rather than dollars?

* Dis-R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Speaking of mid-major teams, Cornell's Big Red has represented the Ivy League well in this tournament, knocking off A-10 champ Temple, and humiliating the Big 10 by hanging 87 points and emptying the bench on defensive-minded Wisconsin.

But the untold story about Cornell is just that -- the untold story. Despite returning six seniors from a two-time defending champ team, Cornell was an also-ran in the national media to the Harvard basketball story. Sports Illustrated and ESPN Magazine both ran full-length features on the Crimson. Former Harvard hooper Arne Duncan also made a splash in his new gig as Secretary of Education. Cornell was lucky to get front-page mention in the Daily Sun despite playing then-No. 1 Kansas to the final minute in Phog Allen.

Do Ivy League teams generally expect national media coverage?

Of course not. But if you think the Big Red didn't notice, check out the score the first time that Harvard played Cornell this year.

Hurt