Originally Posted by
gumbomoop
Latest issue in ESPN's "Change the Game" series is the committee's selection process.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...ting-selection
Among Eamonn Brennan's arguments and suggestions:
- "Despite its protests to the contrary, the NCAA organizes the committee’s information almost exclusively by RPI."
- "RPI defenders are increasingly the exception."
- "If the committee is going to use a statistical construct to organize teams, it should be given the best, most updated statistical construct available."
- "Replace the RPI with a weighted average of all of the best and most accurate rankings systems in the sport. Include RPI in the formula if you really want to."
- "The process needs to be more transparent."
- "The only way we can really understand it is if we’re allowed in the room with the committee members while they’re doing their job."
- "In the process, you could hammer home to everyone just how difficult and harried the selection process can be. The conflicts with travel, the different exemptions, the logistical tangles. That’s the real benefit: Letting the audience in on the unique challenge of building a 68-team tournament to be ready just a few hours after the season’s final games have been decided."
I think there are improvements to be made in the statistical system used for NCAA selection. However, as I have said before, there is no statistical system on earth that can correct for HAVING NO GOOD DATA WHATSOEVER.
Let me explain. Here are some assumptions that make this point:
1. Many college teams change in capability throughout the course of the season. Usually they improve -- some dramatically.
2. Accordingly, the record for teams in the six weeks between mid- November and January 1 are not representativie of the capabilities of the teams at tournament time.
3. Unhappily, almost all interconference games that provide a basis of comparison occur in November and December (a few are in the first week of January). Therefore, it is almost impossible to rank teams correctly BETWEEN conferences.
4. At the same time, between conference schedules and conference tournaments, there is a huge amount of data of how teams rank WITHIN a conference.
Therefore, there is no statistic under the sun that can rank conferences when there is no meaningful interleague play, if, as I posited (is this a word?), teams change dramatically between the first one-third of the season and the end.
[I did look at how teams were ranked at the end of December vs. the final per-tournament ranking. In 2011, once one removed the dominant ten teams, there was virtually no correlation among top 25 rankings among the rest of the major conference teams. In 2012 the degree of upheaval was less, but still significant.]
Consequently, I would totally upend the applecart. If you turn it over to the right, you leave the schedules unchanged, but you totally change the way teams are selected. For example:
1. Give each conference a given number of teams to make the conference.
a. I would give the major conferences one-half of their total membership, invoking the rule that if you aren't in the top one-half, you don't deserve to be in the NCAA's.
b. WRT to other conferences, I would let past performance affect the number of teams selected. Use a relegation system to give conferences more or fewer selections.)
2. Let the goldarned conferences decide who represents them.
3. I would probably use a formula for seeding teams, although this is a job that can be given to the TSC -- especially for the top 8-12 seeds.
Alternatively, turning the applecart over to the left, I would change the way college basketball games are scheduled.
1. Set aside two weeks in February for inter-conference matches (not just Big ten vs. ACC). 3-4 interconference games per team would provide 120 to 160 games results to help in ranking teams across conferences.
2. Start the conference schedules two weeks earlier.
3. Use statistical models (improved ones, please) to select and rank the teams.
BTW, an interconference interlude in February would add to the appeal of college basketball.
Just my two cents (puffed up to represent $ millions).
sagegrouse