NCAA Selection Committee

[Goose85]

I like Feinstein's take on the selection committee, and his suggestion that there should be some people that know the mens college baksetball game on the committee (like John Thompson, Calhoun, Bennett, Howland).

http://feinstein.radio.cbssports.com/2014/03/19/john-feinstein-blog-ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-needs-to-be-selected-differently/

[IWB]

Digger Phelps went off on that a few years ago. Said the guys in his business watch games 24/7, then the decisions are made by ADs & Presidents that usually watch their teams and their teams only.

[IrwinFletcher]

That is all well and good, but that assumes that former coaches/players and journalists don't have biases.

What if Digger was on the selection committee? Would people here like that? What about Dick Vitale? Andy Katz? People would hate that as much if not more so.

Not sure what the answer is. Maybe it is some of those guys in an advisory position as opposed to being on the committee itself.

[CaribouJim]

Jay Bilas was calling for as many as 10 "Basketball Guys" during selection Sunday. Bobby Knight called for the same years ago as well, but I don't agree. All in all, I think the selection committee does very well. They follow the formula very closely and the process seems pretty objective to me, not perfect, but nothing is.

IMO, inserting the "basketball guys" are going to use the eye test way too much and consciously or unconsciously will lean towards their old guard coaches or programs. I would not feel comfortable letting those guys into the process at all. Not so sure they are watching games 24/7 as well - at least not sober - probably on the dinner circuit being sucked up to.

One thing that I could see them doing is expanding beyond the RPI measurable - could they use a kind of blended method that would include Sagarin, Pomeroy and even BPI in addition to RPI - something like the BCS although I pretty much hate anything to do with the BCS.

[CaribouJim]

That is all well and good, but that assumes that former coaches/players and journalists don't have biases.

What if Digger was on the selection committee? Would people here like that? What about Dick Vitale? Andy Katz? People would hate that as much if not more so.

Not sure what the answer is. Maybe it is some of those guys in an advisory position as opposed to being on the committee itself.

I guess we are pretty much on the same page Fletch.

[Goose85]

I think it would be helpful to have some basketball guys on the committee. Doesn't have to be the entire committee, but there should be a few people that have actual experience.

People on the committee currently do have biases as they are all from schools / conferences. You really think the AD of Wake doesn't have a Wake or ACC bias when he (like all ADs) fully understand the amount of money one additional school from their conference like NC State means to ACC and Wake revenues?

[IWB]

My issue is that these people follow the RPI to the letter of the law because they aren't experienced. And as pointed out above, they are biased as all get out. Just ask Zuch about the year they analyzed the schools that were left out and those that barely got in. They tied every damn one of them to a person on the committee who either "was hired by this AD" or "Worked with that AD at a previous school".

When they follow the RPI to the letter of the law it shows that they don't know what they are doing.

As I said the other day.....
MU plays Kentucky and loses by 1 in 2OT. Grambling plays Kentucky and loses by 50.......MU & Grambling have the identical RPI. That is not right.
MU plays #2 RPI team and loses by 1 in 2OT. Grambling plays #1 RPI team and loses by 50...... Grambling has a BETTER RPI than MU. That is not right.

[CaribouJim]

My issue is that these people follow the RPI to the letter of the law because they aren't experienced. And as pointed out above, they are biased as all get out. Just ask Zuch about the year they analyzed the schools that were left out and those that barely got in. They tied every damn one of them to a person on the committee who either "was hired by this AD" or "Worked with that AD at a previous school".

When they follow the RPI to the letter of the law it shows that they don't know what they are doing.

As I said the other day.....
MU plays Kentucky and loses by 1 in 2OT. Grambling plays Kentucky and loses by 50.......MU & Grambling have the identical RPI. That is not right.
MU plays #2 RPI team and loses by 1 in 2OT. Grambling plays #1 RPI team and loses by 50...... Grambling has a BETTER RPI than MU. That is not right.

That's why I'm in favor of them revisiting RPI as the only measurable and if there has been bias with the AD's I can't help but think it would be even worse with the "basketball guys" and pressuring folks on the committee to see it their way using various methods of "coach speak" - it's in their nature.

Overall, I think the system is A-OK as is with the exception of some tweaking.

[unclejohn]

I do not know how much the RPI controls. The NCAA says it has been de-emphasized in recent years. When the NCAA has a bunch of sports writers try a mock selection, they came up with results that looked a whole lot like the final result. ESPN or Grantland or someone did an article a couple weeks ago about how the guys on the committee travel around alot, see lots of games, and try to see as many games in person as possible. The AD's typically watch lots of games in their conference and see non-conference games against major teams. I am not convinced that the "basketball guys" are going to make much of a difference.

We are talking about the margins here anyway. Take the automatic qualifiers. That is half the field. Now take the the remaining 32 or so. At least 20 and probably more are pretty obvious. That leaves maybe ten that are really in question. By Selection Sunday, most of those are pretty obvious. In most years, there are maybe five or six teams you can argue about. As for the seeding, there are other factors that come in, like keeping conference teams apart and letting BYU go to church on Sunday. There are always a few disputes, like Louisville getting seedef 4 this year, but if you look at the second weekend, mostly the chalk talks. I think for the most part, the committee does a pretty good job.

[Goose85]

Yet sometimes when it comes to non BCS conference teams they just throw the RPI out, like Southern Miss with a 33 and Toledo with 38. Yet North Carolina State with a 55 and Iowa with a 56 do get in, and a guy like Coach K complains they have a play in game.

So then which is it, the RPI is important or not?
Winning your league is important or not?
Finishing the season strong is important or not?

Iowa loses 6 of the last 7 and 9 of last 14 but they get in.
North Carolina State wasn't great shakes down the stretch either, but they beat Syracuse in the conference tourney to improve their RPI to 55 so they are in.

Southern Miss is 12-2 down the stretch, ties for the league championship but loses to the team they tied with in the conference tourney so they are out.
Toledo ties for best record in their league, but loses to the team they tied with in the conference tourney so they are out.

On one hand you are told you need a good RPI and need to win games. Yet somehow winning your league and having a good RPI is not enough if the BCS conferences need another team in the dance.

[IWB]

Then look at the seeding. That is where the RPI takes over. UW should not be a 2, Louisville should not be a 4. There are obviously more.

[unclejohn]

I suppose. There are a few every year. This year, Louisville is the one everyone is talking about. They do seem to be pretty low, considering that some people have picked them to win it all. Then again, after the first weekend, it does not matter.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

Look at Louisville's resume... I disagree, I think a 4 is right... The teams on the 2 and 3 line just have better resumes

[IWB]

I know their resume is not great, but that has a lot to do with the conference they are in. They are ranked #3 and #5 in the polls, yet a 4 seed puts them at 13-16.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

You can't seed teams based off of potential, you have to do it based off of their resume, unfortunately for them their resume wasn't as good as the others... I'm all for rewarding teams that performed better, I think people are making a big deal out of nothing with Louisvilles seed.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Is Louisville underseeded based on quality? Absolutely. But they did it to themselves. 7 sub-200 RPI teams in their non-con schedule. 4 more in the conference slate, and they had to know teams like USF and UCF would be terrible. I've got Louisville winning it all and do feel that a 3-seed or even a 2 would have been more accurate, especially after Virginia got bumped up to a 1 with their win on Sunday (no way they were a 1-seed going into the ACC Tourney), but if you look at the RPI and who Louisville played, I get it. Also only 5-5 versus the top-50 RPI. Virginia was 6-4 (though UL had no losses outside the top-50, UVA did).