BigOrangeBasketball.comTennessee Basketball

With the recent hirings of John Calipari at Kentucky and Anthony Grant at Alabama, the bar for success in the Southeastern Conference has been raised considerably.

The SEC’s first $4 million-per-year basketball coach, Calipari, will certainly up the ante in the SEC East and the conference in total, for that matter.

Not since the days that Joe B. Hall roamed the sidelines at Kentucky will the Wildcats be so formidable in personnel.  Hall may not have been the best bench coach, but he was one of the best recruiting head coaches of his day, and the Wildcats were loaded with All-Americans under Hall.

With Calipari now at the helm at Kentucky, he will no doubt begin to recruit the kind of players to Kentucky that the Bluegrass faithful haven’t seen since the Hall years.

In less than two months on the job, Calipari has already elevated Kentucky’s 2009 recruiting class to fourth-best in the nation with two April signees, including 6-9, five-star center DeMarcus Cousins.

There’s no disputing the fact that Calipari can recruit.  In three of his last four seasons at Memphis, Calipari’s recruiting classes each ranked in the top six in the country.  And had Calipari not bolted for Kentucky, it would have been four out of five.  But now it’s four out of five with the last class coming at Kentucky.

And you can say what you want about Calipari’s ability to coach, but you can’t deny the fact that he and Billy Donovan are the only coaches in the SEC to coach in a national championship game.

Perhaps the best hire of the season was one that garnered virtually no national attention, but Anthony Grant’s hiring at Alabama will jump-start the Tide basketball program into the national limelight in a hurry.

My inner coaching circle all tell me that Grant is the real deal, and that again is bad news for the rest of the SEC. 

Grant was a long-time assistant to Donovan at Florida, but left three years ago to become the head coach at Virginia Commonwealth, where he led the Rams to a 76-25 record in three seasons, including two NCAA Tournament appearances.

A go0d coach at Alabama can have a great program and can do so by recruiting successfully in a 150-mile radius of Tuscaloosa.  Many may be too young to remember the great C.M. Newton teams at Alabama in the 70s or the Wimp Sanderson teams in the 80s and early 90s, but Alabama had some great basketball teams back then with nary a player outside the state of Alabama.

Alabama will not be on the national radar to start the next college basketball season, but the Tide will win the SEC West next year and will be ranked in the nation’s Top 20 by no later than late February.

Two of the SEC’s most storied basketball programs are on their way back in a hurry.  What’s the rest of the SEC to do?

(This is the final part of a three-part series on the current state of  Tennessee’s men’s basketball program.)

In its fourth season under Bruce Pearl, the Tennessee men’s basketball team won the SEC East and advanced to the NCAA Tournament for the fourth consecutive year.

But it wasn’t a typical season for a Pearl team at Tennessee in 2008-09.

The Vols lost a double-digit number of games (13) overall and six in the SEC, the most conference losses ever for a Pearl-coached team at Tennessee.

It was said by Pearl on several occasions during the course of this past season that his team wasn’t tough enough…and Pearl was right.

The Vols were beaten up several times, most notably by Kansas in the pre-conference season, and by Kentucky twice during the regular season.  Even Gonzaga, a team not typically known for its physicality, took it to Tennessee twice this season with its aggressive play.

What was clearly missing from the Tennessee team this season was a noticeable advantage in terms of physical strength versus its opponents.

Not only is Tennessee losing the battle of physical toughness in its own conference, it is losing it to many of the nation’s Top 25 teams as well.

Just look at the most recent Final Four.  North Carolina, Michigan State, UConn and Villanova were all big, strong, athletic teams.  Tennessee was not in the same league with these teams, either on the court or in the weight room.

Even in the SEC, I would have to rank the Vols no better than fifth in terms of physical strength this past season behind LSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss and Vanderbilt.  And, oh by the way, the Vols were 2-4 against those teams this year.

By now, Pearl’s early morning weight-room sessions with his team are well-documented, but looking at the physical stature of most of the guys on the team, I think you have to ask yourself what are they truly getting done during those sessions?

If you believe the official height and weight measurements of the team provided by the sports information department, you have to wonder.

At 6-7 and 215 pounds, Tyler Smith is no bigger now than he was when he joined the team as a sophomore when he was also listed at 215 pounds.

Wayne Chism has actually lost three pounds since he came to UT as a freshman.  Josh Tabb has added three pounds.  J.P. Prince hasn’t added a pound.  Cameron Tatum is 6-6, but weighs under 200 pounds.

When he first arrived at Tennessee, Pearl said fans would quickly notice a difference in the physical appearance of his players.  He said they would be cut, strong and well-defined.

If you look at the players who have been in the program for at least two years, it’s clear that it’s not the case.

I found it interesting, enlightening even, when Lane Kiffin was hired as the new football coach that one of the first things he did was hire a new strength coach.  Hmmm.

If Pearl and the Vols want to return to Top 25 program status in college basketball, they must begin to get it done in the weight room.

A complete re-evaluation of the strength program for Tennessee basketball is in order.  The Vols must get stronger to get better.

In Part One of this series, a close examination of Bruce Pearl’s signees and their contributions to the program were discussed.  But that is only one side of the recruiting equation.

Perhaps equally as important or damaging as the case may be, are the players that get away that contribute significantly at other schools.

This is particularly significant in Tennessee’s situation, and Pearl’s case specifically. 

As was documented in Part 1 of this series, while the Vols have signed too many players in Pearl’s first four years that have missed, Pearl and the Vols have also missed on several players, most notably in-state players, who at least in hindsight, could have helped the Vols immeasurably, particularly this past season.

 The following is my list of the top 5 in-state players who Tennessee passed on during the recruiting process who have gone on to have significant careers at competing Division I programs:

Terrico White, Memphis (Ole Miss) – SEC Freshman of the Year and second-team All-SEC. Fourth leading scorer in conference play with 18.4 ppg average.

Terrence Oglesby, Cleveland (Clemson) - Started 31-32 games for the Tigers this season as a sophomore. Third leading scorer with 13.2 ppg average. Third in ACC with 92 three-point field goals made this season. Shot 38.8% from three.

Alex Renfroe, Hermitage, TN (Belmont) – Averaged 16.7 points, 6.7 rebounds and 4.9 assists per game this past season.  Was named  Atlantic Sun Conference Player of the Year.  Shredded Tennessee for 30 points in a game in Knoxville back in December, and singlehandedly led the Bruins to near upset of Duke in last year’s NCAA Tournament.

Barry Stewart, Shelbyville (Mississippi State) - Started all 36 games this season, averaging 13.4 points per game. Shot 38.8% from three in conference play.

Gerald Robinson, Nashville (TSU) – Fifth-leading scorer in the Ohio Valley Conference this past season averaging 17.8 points per game.  Has scored more than 1,000 career points in just two seasons for the Tigers.

Note that Elliott Williams (Duke), Maurice Miller (Georgia Tech) and Willie Kemp (Memphis) did not make the list.  Pearl and his staff recruited each of these players hard.  They just chose to go elsewhere.  I can’t fault Pearl for that.

But the failed recruitment of Williams, Miller and Kemp does point to one strategic miscalculation on Pearl and his staff’s part when it has come to recruiting.

Often, Pearl and his staff have focused so heavily on a few key recruits that they didn’t have a backup plan when these players selected other schools.

Terrico White at Ole Miss is a perfect case in point.  White was offered a scholarship by Arkansas, Georgia State, Middle Tennessee and Ole Miss.  The Vols didn’t  recruit White, and they certainly didn’t offer.  You tell me. Do you think Terrico White could have helped Tennessee this year?  Next year?

Same with Terrence Oglesby at Clemson.  Grew up in Cleveland, Tenn., less than 100 miles from Knoxville, core Big Orange country.  Phenomenal three-point shooter. Made 92 three’s this past season.  Not recruited by Tennessee.

Admittedly, Pearl has succeeded beyond even the most optimistic of Vol baskeball fans in the aggregate during his first four seasons at Tennessee.

No one could have imagined the Vols winning the SEC East in three of Pearl’s four years.  No one could have imagined the Vols would be a No. 2 seed in the NCAA Tournament in two of those four seasons.  No one could have imagined that Thompson-Boling Arena would be virtually sold out for every game the past two seasons.

However, there’s no denying the program took a step backward this year.  The Vols lost 13 games, dropped out of the Top 25 for most of the season, and were a No. 9 seed in the NCAA Tournament, the lowest seed ever for the Vols under Pearl.

Pearl even had to change the way his team played this year.  He called off the press, slowed the game down, and the Vols became a much more methodical half-court offensive team.

There are reasons these things happened this year. It wasn’t a fluke or simple aberration.  These things happened this year largely because Pearl and his staff have missed badly, for the most part, in recruiting the last four years.

So how does Pearl fix the recruiting problems?  He must address two issues.

First, he must cast a broader net and have contingency plans in place when or if any of his top recruiting targets choose other schools.

Secondly, he has to recruit the state of Tennessee much more seriously, at least the eastern two-thirds of the state.  During his tenure thus far, Pearl has only signed two players from Tennessee…Wayne Chism and Philip Jurick.

It’s hard to justify how you let Oglesby and Stewart get away.  And the Vols appear to be ignoring rising Knox Fulton senior Jalen Steele this year.

When the recruiting improves, the Vols will improve.  And it needs to improve.

(This is the first of a three-part series on the current state of Tennessee’s men’s basketball program.  Part One is today.  Part 2 will come out Friday,  April 3.  Please note that since this article was written, Tennessee has received a new commitment from a junior college point guard for next season.)

In his first three-plus seasons as head basketball coach at Tennessee, Bruce Pearl resisted the temptation of calling his program a top 25 program in men’s college basketball.

Prior to this season, Pearl could resist the temptation no longer, proclaiming for the first time that he finally felt comfortable in saying that the program had reached Top 25 status and that it could remain so for years to come.

Clearly, the Vols were not a Top 25 program this season.  They slipped out of the Top 25 rankings for most of the season and managed only a No. 9 seed in the NCAA Tournament.  If you do the math, according to the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee this year at least, Tennessee was somewhere between a top 33 and top 36 program this season.

Why the slippage this season, you ask?  Did Pearl all of a sudden become a bad coach in just one season.  The answer to this question is “no.”

But what did happen this season has been three years in the making.  What commonly ails many programs currently ails Tennessee.  And I’m talking about recruiting. 

In short, Pearl must recruit better to make the Vols a perennial Top 25 basketball program.

Pearl and his staff have underperformed on two fronts in recruiting, the first of which I will cover today.

Under close examination, many of Pearl’s signees during his first four years have not panned out. They have not or did not contribute significantly to the program. Several, in fact, left the program early and never completed their eligibility.

Below is a list of Pearl’s signees since he arrived at Tennessee and a brief statement about their overall contribution to the basketball program.  Note that the list only includes signees, not transfers.

2005

Ryan Childress, Cincinnati, OH – Was most productive in his first two seasons in a reserve role.  Injury hampered most of his junior season and missed virtually all of senior season with injury.  Minor contributor.

2006

Wayne Chism, Bolivar, TN – Second-leading scorer and team’s leading rebounder in junior season.  Part-time starter first two seasons. Major contributor.

Marques Johnson, Fort Wayne, IN – Played in four games in freshman season before transferring.  No contributor.

Josh Tabb, Carbondale, IL – Just-completed junior season was most productive, yet only averaged 3.4 points per game.  Minor contributor.

Ramar Smith, Detroit, MI – Signficant contributor and part-time starter in two seasons.  Left program after sophomore season. Minor contributor. 

Duke Crews, Hampton, VA – Part-time starter for two seasons.  Medical and off-court issues.  Left program after sophomore season. Minor contributor.

2007

Brian Williams – Averaged five points and 5.6 rebounds as a sophomore in a reserve role.  Minor contributor.

Cameron Tatum – Redshirt freshman averaged 7.6 ppg in a reserve role. Minor contributor. 

2008

Renaldo Woolridge, North Hollywood, CA – Played sparingly this season as a true freshman.  Minor contributor.

Daniel West, Saginaw, MI – Was ruled academically ineligible prior to freshman season. Expected to rejoin team for 2009-10 season. No contributor.

Bobby Maze, Hutchinson, KS – Juco transfer averaged 8.2 ppg and started most of the season at the point.  Major contributor.

Emmanuel Negedu – Brewster, N.H. -  Saw limited playing time as a freshman in a reserve role.  Minor contributor.

Scotty Hopson, Hopkinsville, KY – Most heralded incoming freshman of the Pearl era.  Up-and-down season, but more up in the second half of the season.  Major contributor.

Philip Jurick, Chattanooga, TN – Redshirted as a freshman. No contributor.

To summarize, Pearl’s first four recruiting classes at Tennessee resulted in 14 signees, three of whom have made a major contribution to the program. That’s a 21% success rate.  Not very good.

Yes, you can argue that Tyler Smith and J.P. Prince came into the program under Pearl’s watch, but they were transfers, not players you invest nearly as much time and energy recruiting as a coaching staff as you do high school or junior college players.  And most coaches don’t rely on transfers to build their programs.

When you look at Pearl’s recruiting objectively, you have to wonder how he  has been as successful as he has.

I’m not one of these people who discounts Pearl’s success during his first three seasons at Tennessee because he won with Buzz Peterson’s players. On the contrary, I give Pearl immense credit for that.  Buzz couldn’t win with them, but Pearl could and did.

But when you look at Tennessee’s shortcomings this season, you can quickly trace it back to Pearl and his staff’s lack of success on on the recruiting front as a big reason for the slippage this season.

The Vols were not a Top 25 program this season primarily because the Vols’ recruiting has suffered mightily in four seasons under Pearl.

If Tennessee is to re-emerge as a Top 25 program and a perennial contender for the Southeastern Conference championship, Pearl must recruit better.

Fortunately, indications are that is beginning to happen, but we’re probably another season away from seeing it.

In the class of 2009, the Vols are currently bringing in only one player, but he’s reputed to be a good one.  Kenny Hall is a 6-9, 215-pound power forward from Stone Mountain, Ga.   Hall is ranked as the No. 9 power forward in the country and had other offers from Clemson, Georgia and Wake Forest.

For the class of 2010, Pearl and the Vols already have three commitments, albeit verbal.

Leading the list is Josh Selby, a five-star player rated the No. 2 point guard in the country from famed Dematha High in Maryland.  The Vols also have two other commitments including Jordan McRae, rated the No. 11 shooting guard in the country from Hinesville, Ga, and Aaron Craft, a three-star point guard from Ohio.

Selby and McRae, along with Hall coming in next year, are the types of players Pearl must recruit and retain consistently to elevate the Vols back to Top 25 program status.

The Vols can get there, but Pearl must recruit better in order for them to do it.

The Tennessee men’s basketball team heads into the off-season with only one graduating senior, but plenty of uncertainty about the makeup of next year’s roster.

What’s certain is that senior Ryan Childress will not be back.  What’s

Wayne Chism - Will He Be Back?

uncertain is a whole lot more.

Let’s get the Tyler Smith question on the table first, shall we?

If Smith, a junior, decides to leave the program now, it won’t be to play in the NBA.  It might be to enter his name into the NBA draft, but Smith won’t be playing in the NBA, not next year, nor the year after that, nor the year after that.  He can file the NBA evaluation paperwork in the coming weeks, but I can already tell you what it is going to say.  Tyler Smith would not be drafted.

Tyler is a good college player, and that’s nothing to be ashamed of, but he’s not an NBA player.  If he aspires to play in Europe or somewhere else internationally other than Toronto, then he could certainly leave early.

Otherwise, expect Tyler Smith to be back.

Next would be Wayne.  Chism is somewhat of an enigma where professional basketball is concerned.  Of all the Vols on next year’s potential roster, Chism has the best NBA body, and the most athleticism next to Scotty Hopson.

But Chism has nowhere near the skills right now to contribute on an NBA roster.  He could potentially develop the skills, but he will have to work a lot harder than he is currently to do that.  Whether he projects to develop those skills is the question.  I’ll leave that up to the NBA scouts to determine, but with only two rounds in the draft, I would be hard pressed to see Chism drafted this summer.

Next is Hopson.  I would not automatically assume that Hopson will return next season.  Players like Hopson have been told for years that they are destined for the NBA, and after awhile, it’s hard to tell them something different, and even harder sometimes to get them to listen.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Hopson walked onto Tennessee’s campus last fall thinking he would walk right off it following his freshman season.

Hopson had an up-and-down season, mainly down until the SEC season started in January.  It was then that we got a glimpse of what all the fuss was about.

Scotty is destined for the NBA, the only question is when.  I suspect he will file the NBA evaluation paperwork along with Smith and Chism.  Clearly, Hopson would benefit from at least one more season with the Vols, but whether he sees that or not is the question.  I think it’s 50/50 right now as to whether Hopson comes back.

The only other question in my mind is Renaldo Woolridge.  I would anticipate that he and Pearl will have some conversations about his status next season very soon, if they haven’t already.

Woolridge came to Tennessee as a four-star recruit, but saw his playing time reduced significantly once SEC play began.

If you follow the game closely, you watch body language of guys like Woolridge to assess their relative happiness or unhappiness with their situation, and Woolridge always looked happy and engaged in the games from the bench, which is a good sign if you want him to stay.

But this Los Angeles-area native is a long way from home not to play.  This is one situation to watch.

When it’s all said and done, I think Chism is the most likely to leave, but more likely that he stays.  My hunch is that Smith, Hopson and Woolridge will also return.

Whether you view the just-completed 2008-09 Tennessee men’s basketball season as a success or disappointment probably depends on your expectation level for the season going in.

If you were one to subscribe to the expectation level that Bruce Pearl established back in October when he said ”we will compete for the SEC championship. I’m confident this is a basketball team that will have what it takes to defend our championship.”  You were probably disappointed.

Conversely, if you were satisfied that Tennessee made the NCAA Tournament for the fourth-consecutive year, you may be happy with how the season played out.

Whether or not Tennessee actually competed for the SEC championship is debatable, but what is not is that the Vols did not defend it.  LSU won the championship, and had it wrapped up with a week to go in the season.

In hindsight, it’s difficult for me to understand how Pearl could have said that his team had what it took to defend its SEC championship of a year ago.

Did Pearl overestimate how good his team would be based on preseason practice?  It would appear so.  Did he overestimate how much seven newcomers to the roster would contribute this season?  It would appear so.

What strikes me most about this team and this season looking back on it now is that there simply was nothing special about this year’s team, the fourth under Pearl.

This team was not a good three-point or perimeter shooting team.  They were not a particularly good ball-handling team, and they were not a good pressing team.  The Vols have never been a particularly good half-court defensive team under Pearl, but they have been able to overcome it in previous seasons by creating turnovers and dictating tempo.  They were able to do none of that this year.

The Vols did win the SEC East this season, something they’ve done in three of four seasons under Pearl, but they did lose six conference games in a league that was as weak as it has been in years… a league that would have only received two NCAA Tournament bids had Mississippi State not won the conference tournament.

Bottom line, the Vols took a step back in their fourth season under Pearl.  No question about it.

What concerns me more about Tennessee men’s basketball is the trend line and where the state of the program is overall.

I believe that the events of this year, while not catastrophic by any means, were three years in the making in some cases.  In other words, under closer scrutiny, you could have seen this coming, and if Pearl was not the highly capable coach that he is, this season could have been even more disappointing to the fans that found it so.

Beginning next week, I will begin a three-part series examining the state of the men’s basketball program.  I will discuss some of the reasons why the program is where it is today, and what needs to happen to make the program even more competitive in the future.

In the meantime, I’ll be posting on some shorter-term issues that involve the team looking ahead to next season.

When Tennessee leaves Knoxville for play in this year’s NCAA Tournament, they really need only pack their orange uniforms.

For certain against Oklahoma State on Friday and possibly Sunday against Pitt, the Vols will be the lower seeded team, the underdog, and consequently the visiting team outfitted in orange.

If the truth be known, this underdog role the Vols carry with them into the NCAA Tournament is probably a good thing.  They have been much better this season as the underdog than the favorite.

In games this season that Tennessee was arguably the underdog, the Vols were 3-3.  The Vols lost more games this season in which they were favored, i.e., Temple, Kentucky at home, LSU, Auburn, Ole Miss and Mississippi State.

Based on Tennessee’s track record this season, I wouldn’t hesitate to assert that had the Vols played LSU in the finals of the SEC Tournament last Sunday instead of Mississippi State, they likely would have won the tournament.

What I like about Tennessee heading into this year’s NCAA Tournament are the same type matchups the Vols faced in the 2007 event.  In 2007, the Vols faced and beat two up-tempo teams in the first two rounds of the tournament in Long Beach State and Virginia.

In this year’s event, the matchup certainly against Oklahoma State, is very similar stylistically to the matchups in 2007, and Tennessee’s probable second round opponent, should they defeat Oklahoma State, would be another up-tempo team in Pittsburgh.  The only difference, though, is a big one.  Both Oklahoma State and Pitt are much better than Long Beach State or Virginia were.

In reality, these matchups bode well for both teams. 

Oklahoma State, much like Tennessee, stands a much better chance of winning basketball games when it eclipses the 80-point mark.  Ironically, in this first-round matchup, I think both teams will try to outduel the other in a 70-point game.

Make no mistake, the Vols will have their hands full against the Cowboys on Friday.  The Cowboys are well-coached by former Kentucky player Travis Ford, who is about to take his second school to the NCAA Tournament in three stops.  He’s taking Oklahoma State to the tournament in Year 1, which could be his last at the school. (I’ll let you figure it out from there.)

Most 8/9 games in the tournament go down to the wire, and I expect this one to be no different.  The Vols will have to play well to win and hold the Cowboys under 80 points to do so, I suspect.

A potential matchup against No. 1 seed Pitt in the second round is also interesting.  Pitt tries to beat you with strength and overall athleticism, and it has enough of both to defeat Tennessee. 

But Pitt is not a street-smart, grind-you-down team, with whom Bruce Pearl teams usually have the most difficulty.  For that reason, I think Tennessee has a chance to advance to the Sweet 16 for the third straight season.

I wouldn’t say it’s likely, but it is certainly possible.

But the Vols will have to take care of business on Friday before we can even think about Sunday.

In the wake of the Southeastern Conference garnering its fewest number of bids to the NCAA Tournament in years, it’s time that the SEC return to a full round-robin schedule of conference games.

What hurt teams in the SEC this season as much as anything was the horrifically soft non-conference schedules that the majority of the teams played.

The SEC had only three teams – Tennessee, Mississippi State and Ole Miss – with strength of schedules ranked in the Top 50.

No team was victimized more this season for its soft out-of-conference schedule than Vanderbilt. The Dores were hammered for it, finishing 19-12 overall, and not even being invited to the NIT because of an SOS of 122.

It’s apparent that the majority of coaches in the SEC aren’t ready to police themselves when it comes to scheduling, so I’m of the opinion that the athletic directors and the league should take at least part of the schedule out of their hands.

The SEC should give serious consideration to returning to play a full round-robin of conference games every year.  The reasons for it are compelling, but first let’s explain what doing so would mean.

The SEC currently plays a 16-game regular season with each team playing the other five teams in its division twice and playing each team in the oppositive division once.

In going to a full-round robin scheduling format, each team would play every other member school twice.  This would mean the conference would go from the current 16-game conference schedule to a 22-game conference schedule, in essence adding six conference games to the schedule for each school, three more at home and three more on the road.

For LSU, it could mean replacing McNeese State with another game against Kentucky.  For Tennessee, it could mean replacing Appalachian State with another game against Alabama.

While the prevailing argument against it has always been that it would mean more losses for each school, that argument has lost its validity in the wake of the lack of respect from which the league now suffers.

It would certainly help each school’s RPI, and the RPI of the conference as a whole, something the SEC desperately needs after this season.

If you think this idea is so far-fetched, consider that the Pac-10 currently plays a full round-robin schedule.  Granted, the Pac-10 has only 10 members, while the SEC has 12, but it would only mean a difference of four more conference games than the PAC 10 currently plays.  And, oh by the way, the PAC 10 got six NCAA bids this season, while the SEC got only three.

Another compelling factor to consider is money.  And this just in, the SEC cares about money.

Who do you think would draw better.  LSU hosting Prairie View or Kentucky?

Going to a full round-robin schedule would mean each SEC school would get an additional three home games with SEC schools.  These games would certainly draw more at the gate than the current cupcakes being scheduled.

Moreover, the more SEC games being played, would undoubtedly mean more television coverage for the conference, which also means more money.

The time is now for this to happen.  It would create more excitement for fans, bolster the image of the conference around the country, and generate more revenue for each member institution in the process.

What’s not to like about it?…other than a lack of common sense.

I don’t know about you, but I found it interesting to compare the worthiness of this year’s No. 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament with last year’s, especially where Tennessee is concerned.

Last year, if you remember, the Vols were ranked No. 1 in the RPI and had the No. 1 strength of schedule in the country at the end of the regular season.  Tennessee ended up as a No. 2 seed in the NCAA Tournament, if you recall, with the primary reason being that the Vols did not win the SEC Tournament last year.

This season, three of the four No. 1 seeds – Pitt, Connecticut and North Carolina – did not win their conference tournaments, yet still earned No. 1 seeds from the selection committee.

Just found that interesting.

The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee sent a mixed message to Tennessee and the Southeastern Conference following yesterday’s announcement of the field of 65 for the 2009 tournament.

What little hair I have left became even thinner late Sunday afternoon as I found myself scratching my head at the decisions made by this year’s NCAA Tournament Selection Committee as it pertains to this year’s field.

Let’s start with Tennessee.  I must confess I am completely mystified at the Vols’ No. 9 seed.  The Vols have been a consistent top 25 RPI team all season and played the second most difficult schedule in the country, yet they’re given a No. 9 seed?

For those keeping score, the Vols finished the season rated No. 25 in the RPI with the No. 2 strength of schedule remaining intact. Yet 10 at-large teams with rpi’s and strength of schedules higher than Tennessee received higher seeds than the Vols.

Clearly, the message sent to the Vols by the selection committee was to forget about scheduling tough teams and join another conference.  Gonzaga, Temple and Memphis probably cost Tennessee a No. 4 seed.  And, oh by the way, winning the SEC East, will get you a No. 9 seed.

The message sent to the SEC, I guess, is to toughen up its collective schedule (unless you’re Tennessee.) 

For the first time since the conference split into two divisions in 1992, two teams with 10 regular season conference wins (Auburn and South Carolina) didn’t make the field.  In fact, the SEC would have only received two bids had Mississippi State not won the conference tournament.

And even the SEC regular season champion, LSU, with a 13-3 conference record and 26-7 record overall, garnered no better than a No. 8 seed.

What’s clearly apparent following Sunday’s bracket announcement is that the selection committee followed the RPI almost to the letter in slotting the top 16 teams, and then it went completely away from the RPI after that.

In Tennessee’s East Region alone, UCLA (#6) and Texas (#7) received higher seeds than Tennessee with RPI rankings of 33 and 41 respectively.  Both these schools were ranked at least eight spots lower than Tennessee in the RPI, yet they received higher seeds.

The biggest crime in this field is Boston College as a No. 7 seed.  Bruce Pearl’s alma mater got an invitation to the tournament with an RPI ranked No. 60 and a strength of schedule ranked 70th.  The Eagles finished 9-7 in the ACC.

And then there’s Maryland who finished 7-9 in the ACC and No. 55 in the RPI and the Terps get in with a No. 10 seed.

Needless to say, the tournament committee’s seeding rationale and at-large selections were confusing to say the least.

Here are a few other observations I have about the selection process following yesterday’s bracket announcement…

• Mike Slive, chairman of this year’s selection committee and SEC Commissioner, had very little influence on the committee where the SEC is concerned.  I bet Mr. Slive will get at least a couple of phone calls from the athletic directors at South Carolina and Auburn in the coming days.
• The SEC is no longer considered a power conference. The lower echelons of the Big East and the ACC have taken its place.
• The selection committee could not have cared less about the goings-on in Tampa during the SEC Tournament.  Tennessee, in particular, did not help itself one bit by making the tournament finals.
• The NCAA should delay its announcment of the field by at least a day to better determine seeding and its at-large selections.  Clearly, the committee slotted the top 16 teams early in its process, but didn’t give much thought to slotting the field after that. It needs more time.
• The SEC should engage some public relations help improving the image of its men’s basketball league.