If you'll allow me to for a second, I'd like to rationalize. So the words on the street seems to be that since Villanova got a #12 seed, had the Orange defeated the Cats in the BET, that would have been them. Now, all respect is due to Villanova who beat us twice and got into the tournament which is what it's all about. But can I just throw it out there...aren't we better off never having been a 12-seed??? I hate to sound like Colin Cowherd here but should it just wouldn't seem right to look at the bracket and see Syracuse on the wrong side of a 5-12 matchup. Regardless of the euphoria of getting in, wouldn't it be just a tad embarrassing? Big East school aren't supposed to be 12's. #8's and #9's, yeah, I'm cool with that. I'm even cool with a #10 seed. But once you start getting in to #11 and below, that's really not where we're supposed to be showing up, you know? That's for directional schools and schools with the word "Oral" in their name.
I know, I know...the game is changing. College basketball isn't the game is was twenty years ago. Hell, it's not the game it was five years ago. And as more and more mid-majors run up the flagpole and garner higher seeds, more and more mediocre major conference teams are going to seep into lower seedings. That's fine, I have no problem with it. But if it's my team, Syracuse, and we're a double-digit seed that doesn't end in -0, it just looks...weird.
Besides, do we really want to have our first round win be considered an upset? Do we really want to be the business of playing the first-round Cinderella? And against an ACC team of all things? Talk about taking your rep down a notch.
Again, I give Villanova all the credit in the world for doing what we couldn't. We're sitting here in the NIT mulling over how much we should care about our next game instead of getting psyched for an NCAA tourney game. But if the alternative really was a 12-seed, well, I think that makes me feel slightly better about not being there.
Slightly.