Read the latest from NCAA intern Michael Fly on the state of college basketball.
“Grand Valley State knocks off Michigan State.” “Ohio State goes down to Findlay.” “Gardner-Webb shocks Kentucky in Rupp Arena.” Since these headlines have dominated the college hoops scene in this young season, I have heard the word parity more times than I can count and care to remember. It seems to me that it has become a good way of excusing a lackluster performance by a favored team or something that people hear on television and sports radio so much that it becomes part of their regular vocabulary.

I am not arguing that parity in college sports does not exist (see Appalachian State over Michigan and the crazy college football season that ensued), but I believe that there is an explanation behind the word that seems to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue from Dick Vitale to my office co-workers.
It’s not that Tom Izzo, Thad Matta, and Billy Gillispie have lost their edge and are therefore losing to much smaller programs. Nor is it that DII and mid-major programs have caught up to larger schools in recruiting, game preparation, and overall talent. If these “excuses” for the parity in college basketball were not enough, some try to explain the success of George Mason and now Gardner-Webb, Findlay, and Grand Valley State by pointing to the fact that powerhouse programs have trouble “getting up” or staying interested enough to play their best against lesser opponents.