With the NCAA selection show exactly 100 hours away, the most intriguing question right now — supplanting the whole Missouri Valley vs. power conferences debate — is what the selection committee will decide to do with George Mason.

Heading into the Colonial Athletic Association tournament, the Patriots, regular-season co-champs in the CAA, were widely considered a “lock” to receive an at-large bid, if they needed it, to the NCAAs. Losing in the semifinals to Hofstra, another quality CAA team with significant at-large hopes of its own, shouldn’t have changed that. After all, a lock is a lock, right?

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Big Dance… or perhaps not so funny. Mason guard Tony Skinn punched a guy in the groin with 55 seconds left in the Hofstra loss, and was suspended for one game — potentially, a first-round NCAA Tournament game. Skinn is Mason’s second-leading scorer, so this is not an insignificant loss for the Patriots.

Suddenly, everybody and his brother is suggesting that the combination of GMU’s semifinal loss and Skinn’s one-game suspension might cause the committee to look elsewhere to fill that at-large spot. Basketball blogger extraordinaire Yoni Cohen thinks George Mason could be “the surprise club left out.” Fox Sports’s Michael Lazarus has taken Mason out of his projected field, writing, “The Patriots’ loss of guard Tony Skinn to a one-game suspension is enough to knock a bubble team out when there’s a worthy replacement — which means Missouri State grabs the last spot for now.” Likewise, bracketologist-to-the-stars Joe Lunardi is projecting the Patriots as one of the first teams out. He explained the reason point-blank on SportsCenter Monday: Skinn’s suspension could give the committee an “excuse” (I believe that’s the word he used) to bypass George Mason and pick somebody else.

Andy Glockner, author of ESPN’s Bubble Watch, disagrees. In his latest update, he reluctantly removed Mason from his “locks” list, but he placed them in the “should be in” category, not the “work left to do” category that includes the truly at-risk bubble teams. (This for a team that Lunardi has missing the tournament altogether! Such a significant disagreement among knowledgeable bracketologists is rare this late in the season.) Glockner writes:

With George Mason suspending stalwart Tony Skinn for a game for his “onion shot” on Hofstra’s Loren Stokes late in their Colonial semifinal, some folks are openly questioning now whether it could cause George Mason to be excluded from the field.

It’s just one man’s opinion, but I think that would be completely wrong. George Mason’s overall profile definitely is at-large worthy. Adjustments due to available personnel should be made to seeding, not to inclusion.

Later in the same column, Glockner reiterates: “I have heard several people say Skinn’s absence could cost GMU an NCAA bid — and I think that is ridiculous. The Patriots’ overall profile is bid-worthy. Player absence should be a seeding issue, not a bid issue.”

Significantly, that “overall profile” includes a win at Wichita State, the regular season champion of the much-ballyhooed MVC and a likely #7 or #8 seed. (On the other hand, it also includes a 20-point loss at home against Creighton, an MVC team that may be NIT-bound.) The Patriots are 23-7 (15-3 in their well-respected conference) with an RPI of 29. No team with an RPI that good has ever been left out of the tournament. So if they are excluded, it seems very likely that Skinn’s suspension will have had something to do with it.

Personally, I’m with Glockner on this. Needless to say, Skinn’s action was very unsportsmanlike, but the whole team should not be punished so harshly for one player’s mistake (for which he has apologized). Suspending him is clearly the right decision, but effectively “suspending” the team from the tournament would not be. I don’t even think Mason’s seed should be reduced, considering it’s only a one-game suspension. Reducing a team’s seed because of a star player’s season-ending injury is one thing, but doing so because he’s going to miss one game? Would UConn’s seed be lowered if the committee knew that Rudy Gay was going to miss one game — but only one — due to injury? Would Gonzaga fall from a #2 to a #3 or #4 if Adam Morrison were suspended for one game under a new NCAA policy against ridiculous facial hair? I think not. So, how can they penalize George Mason on the same basis?

Granted, as a team that would likely be in the #10-12 seed range, George Mason is less likely than UConn or Gonzaga to reach the second round, especially without Skinn. For the Patriots, it is statistically more likely to be a one-game tournament. But it’s still a blatantly unfair double-standard to treat them differently just because they would have a lower seed. I believe that all NCAA teams should be judged on the basis that they are participating in a six-game tournament, and seeded accordingly. The committee should not assume, for seeding or selection purposes, that any team will be one-and-done, no matter what the percentages might say.

Bottom line, this team has earned a trip to the NCAAs, and they have earned a seed befitting their accomplishments. The fact that one player’s one-game suspension might make a first-round win by the Patriots somewhat less likely shouldn’t reduce their seed, and it certainly shouldn’t keep them out of the Dance altogether. Let the kids play it out on the court. If they do make it in, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see them “win one for Tony” and play inspired basketball in the first round… and perhaps beyond, once he returns. They certainly deserve the chance to prove me right or wrong.

I’d also like to point that Lazarus’s reasoning — that the suspension is “enough to knock a bubble team out when there’s a worthy replacement” — is complete bull. There’s always going to be a “worthy replacement.” It’s the nature of the bubble that there are always teams who just barely miss the cut. The “first four out” can always make an argument that they should have been included. So the question isn’t whether there’s somebody good enough to take George Mason’s place, the question is whether the committee will — and whether it should — take the suspension into account at all. I say no.