Aaron McFarling stated the NCAA doesn't need to change, Virginia Tech does.

The NCAA changes the criteria every year. The Hokies have been on the bubble for the last three years. They had strength of schedule of 30 two years ago but were left out. They were one of the few ACC teams with nine wins left out.

This year, they are the first ACC team with 10 wins left out. They beat Clemson and Wake Forest and won more ACC games than they did but were left out.

Aaron is entitled to his opinion but is short-sighted when he approves without question the changing criteria of the NCAA while directing all of the fault at VT's schedule. I suspect if they had won one, two or 3 more games in the ACC, that the NCAA would still use strength of schedule or some other changing criteria to keep them out in favor of a team like Minnesota who was blown out by Ohio State.

Other than winning the ACC title, which is an automatic bid, I don't think there is any sure way the Hokies can get an invitation because the NCAA keeps raising the bar on what VT needs to do to get in.

Roger Bradley Nashville, Tenn.

Commentary on Duke's seeding unfair

I am writing in reference to the March Madness commentary [The chosen ones?, March 16].

There on the front page is an article so negative about Duke that it is ridiculous. The article indicates that Duke has an easy road to the Final Four, whereas all other top seeds in other regions do not.

The article might have some creditability were it not written by a sports writer for one of the other teams, specifically Kansas. I am surprised that you would print such a biased article knowing that writer probably eats, sleeps, breathes Kansas basketball.

The article is so negative, biased and sour-grapes that it is pitiful. It is rather strange that the race card was again played against a team that has more white players than blacks. I wonder if the writer has the same bias about other teams that perhaps have the same ratio. I thought the issue for the tournament was the quality of the players, not the color of their skin.

Then there is the tacky suggestion that Duke has a more popular image because the players do not sport so many tattoos. That is irrelevant also. Duke's popularity with the media and the fans has to do with the quality of the basketball program at Duke, the quality of Coach K and the quality of the players, who happen to attend school and most of whom graduate.

Perhaps Duke does have a squeaky-clean image and program, and that should not be held up as a negative. Sports is so riddled with negative acts and corruption that we ought to applaud programs where there is none or little.

I have never seen a sports writer in Virginia write with such a biased, sour-grapes attitude as did Jason Whitlock. Perhaps that is they way they handle sportsmanship in Kansas.

"Poor Mouth" is not pleasant to hear or read. I am sure that Whitlock would have done things differently were he on the NCAA selection committee.

The question for Kansas is why they would not want to play in the strongest region if they are supposedly the strongest team in the nation? To do otherwise would only leave them open to the same criticism.

I hope you will not carry such biased articles in the future. It does not do much for your image in reporting sports. It might also be worthy of your newspaper to carry positive articles about all the top seeded teams.

Edward Leonard Roanoke

Please send letters to:

Sports Mailbag

P.O. Box 2491

Roanoke, Va. 24010

E-mail: sports@roanoke.com

Letters should include signature, full address and, for verification only, phone number. All letters are edited. Letters of 200 words or less are given preference.