The problem is, the only way that UConn and Villanova will make the tournament is if the committee weighs those games from November and December more heavily than recent performance.
You're not even trying to make the argument that Villanova's 5-9 record in recent games is tournament worthy. You're saying that the committee will simply ignore the recent lack of performance because they had a good stretch in November and December--and that was good enough to get them in the tournament.
Based on that argument, wouldn't you argue that Minnesota deserves to be a tournament team? Up until the end of January, Minnesota was a lock with a 16-4 record and good wins over West Virginia, Purdue and North Carolina.
And they have an identical 5-9 record as Villanova over their last 14 games.
So if the committee gives early season play equal consideration, then Minnesota is also a lock, right? Right?
Sorry, but I'm not making that argument. I think the committee is smart enough to see that when a team starts out strong, but collapses late in the year, the later play may get just a bit more consideration. As it is already with Minnesota, and may well still happen with Villanova and UConn--especially if those teams lose to USF and DePaul.
So it doesn't matter at all who they played in those 14 games to go 5-9?
And Minnesota didn't just go 5-9, they went 1-9 to close the year out. In that 10 game stretch they played (and lost to) 3 top 25/35 Pomeroy teams. The rest of the teams they lost to were bubble teams or clearly out. They also have a key player injured and gone for the season, so that performance trend is likely to continue. Meanwhile, 7 of Villanova's 9 losses you reference as evidence of a "collapse" came against surefire stone cold lock tournament teams and none of their key players are injured.
Minnesota "collapsed." Villanova just played a brutal schedule.
Poll
