PDA

View Full Version : My Problems with the NCAA Tournament



SoCalDukeFan
03-22-2009, 11:28 PM
I love the NCAA Tournament and think it is by far the best thing in sports in America.

However there are things I would like to change.

Somehow I would like to see the refs be more consistent. Don't know how to accomplish it.

Secondly, I would limit the number of teams from a conference to 50% of the number of teams in a conference. We all know that the tournament is not the best 64 or 65 teams anyhow. If you limited the field to the conference 50% then:

Teams would have to earn their way in. Arizona could win it all this year. In my opinion they did not deserve a chance. They had a mediocre conference year and did not do much in the Pac 10 Tournament. In my system they would not be in and the Big East and ACC would have less teams.

If you limited to 50% then the regular season would mean more. The Mid Majors would have more teams in the tournament. The Committee would not have to decide if the 7th team in the ACC was better than the 2nd team in say the WCC but instead which team is the 6th team in the ACC and then which of the Mid Majors are the best.

The Big Televen might have to add a team or be limited to 5 entries.

If you are in say the ACC then you would need to be the 5th team to assure you way in. If you were number 6 and say the 8th won the ACC Tournament then you would get bumped.

Basically I think the Tournament Field should be those teams that earned their way in. Winning your conference earns your way in. Finishing as one of the top half of your conference earns you consideration by the Committee. If you do neither, can not win your conference and are not in the top half of your conference, then you do not deserve a chance.

SoCal

Kedsy
03-22-2009, 11:45 PM
Secondly, I would limit the number of teams from a conference to 50% of the number of teams in a conference.

* * *

In my system [Arizona] would not be in and the Big East and ACC would have less teams.

The Big East, which has 16 teams, would not have fewer teams under your system. If you limited conference participation to 50% the Big East probably would have added one, at the expense of Arizona or Wisconsin or Maryland (all of which won their first round games, and thus can argue they belong).

So, not sure this is an improvement; it would just incent the big conferences to add more teams.

Acymetric
03-23-2009, 12:35 AM
The Big East, which has 16 teams, would not have fewer teams under your system. If you limited conference participation to 50% the Big East probably would have added one, at the expense of Arizona or Wisconsin or Maryland (all of which won their first round games, and thus can argue they belong).

So, not sure this is an improvement; it would just incent the big conferences to add more teams.

Not that I'm getting behind this idea, but if I was, the solution might be a set cap per conference. For example, 4 max per conference. Or 5 Or 6. That said I'm not sure I like this idea, but its certainly worth talking about.

FireOgilvie
03-23-2009, 12:43 AM
There are too many problems with the 50% of the conference max. Besides the ones that have been mentioned, another one would be the effect of an unbalanced conference schedule. The bigger conferences don't play every team twice, and this would give an unfair advantage to those with easier schedules. I actually like the current set-up, even though it's not a perfect system.

zingit
03-23-2009, 01:01 AM
I don't see why conference play is more worthy of reward than non-conference play (except that conference play is more recent). For example, Maryland was 7th in the ACC, IIRC, but was helped partly by some nice non-conference wins (Michigan St, Michigan). Maybe they are not the best example, because they had some nice in-conference wins too, but you get my point: a team could be in the middle of the pack in their conference, and do well out of conference, and they would be shafted under your system.

Also, I don't think having a set number of bids per conference like Acymetric suggested is a solution either. That would penalize larger leagues.

mgtr
03-23-2009, 01:31 AM
Also, I don't think having a set number of bids per conference like Acymetric suggested is a solution either. That would penalize larger leagues.

I doubt it. The Big East, for example, could just cut itself into two parts, and have a Big East with 8 teams and a Little East with 8 teams. If each could get 4 bids, then a total of 8 bids would go to what is now the Big East. You can't just impose arbitrary limits, people will get around them.
The answer is -- there is no easy answer.

zingit
03-23-2009, 01:56 AM
I doubt it. The Big East, for example, could just cut itself into two parts, and have a Big East with 8 teams and a Little East with 8 teams. If each could get 4 bids, then a total of 8 bids would go to what is now the Big East. You can't just impose arbitrary limits, people will get around them.
The answer is -- there is no easy answer.

Exactly, we're actually in agreement: having a set number of bids per conference would create a disadvantage for large leagues. 16-team leagues would have a disadvantage compared with 8-team leagues, and so surely big leagues would respond to incentives by splitting up as you argue. And I don't think a conference should have to reorganize itself like that. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, and I don't really see anything "broke" with the Big East right now.
And I don't think the general set-up we have now is "broke" either. I agree with FireOgilvie: the current system isn't perfect but I'm pretty much okay with it.

ice-9
03-23-2009, 02:17 AM
Teams would have to earn their way in. Arizona could win it all this year. In my opinion they did not deserve a chance. They had a mediocre conference year and did not do much in the Pac 10 Tournament.

...

Basically I think the Tournament Field should be those teams that earned their way in.


I disagree with your statement, especially the example you used in Arizona.

The purpose of the selection committee is to identify 34 teams that have already not received automatic bids that have the best chance of winning the NCAA touranment. If the committee believes Arizona has a better chance of winning the NCAA tournament than its bubble brethren -- even if Arizona appears less deserving given season records -- then Arizona should be selected.

The NCAA tournament is meant to crown a championship team, not the most deserving team.

Arizona's wins over Utah and Cleveland State tell me that they deserve to be in. They may not have "earned" it, but they are clearly one of the nation's best 34 teams post automatic bids.

tbyers11
03-23-2009, 09:57 AM
I disagree with your statement, especially the example you used in Arizona.

The purpose of the selection committee is to identify 34 teams that have already not received automatic bids that have the best chance of winning the NCAA touranment. If the committee believes Arizona has a better chance of winning the NCAA tournament than its bubble brethren -- even if Arizona appears less deserving given season records -- then Arizona should be selected.

The NCAA tournament is meant to crown a championship team, not the most deserving team.

Arizona's wins over Utah and Cleveland State tell me that they deserve to be in. They may not have "earned" it, but they are clearly one of the nation's best 34 teams post automatic bids.

IMO. Arizona's wins in the tournament do not justify their inclusion in the tournament at all. I don't think their resume before the tournament justified their inclusion. Did I think that St. Mary's or Creighton (the team(s) whose spot most people think Arizona took) were overall more talented teams than Arizona? No, I did not. But that is not the point. Up to Selection Sunday, Arizona did not have the profile to date that warranted inclusion in the field. I don't think potential for greater results should be judged over what a team did during the season. Wouldn't that render the regular season largely meaningless? If you think that is the case, then why shouldn't Notre Dame, who was in everyone's preseason top 10 and has a wealth of potential, be included in the field?

Because they got to play a horribly overseeded Utah team (Utah should have been a 7 or 8 in my opinion) that they matched up very well with and a Cleveland State team that was seeded lower than them to begin with doesn't tell me anything about Arizona deserving to be in.

GoingFor#5
03-23-2009, 09:59 AM
I would like to add that in order to get a 1 seed, you need to meet the following criteria:

1. You won your conference championship

OR

2. Your conference champion received a #1 seed

Under this scenario, The Toe and Co. would not get a #1 seed and Duke or Memphis would be the 4th #1. This is not meant to favor Duke, but to punish Roy and his ilk for diminishing the value of conference tournaments.

pamtar
03-23-2009, 10:06 AM
Not that it would work, but for the sake of argument, what about having a set number of teams from all BCS conferences combined? This would allow more mid-majors in the field, correcting what I see as the major flaw of the tournament.

dukie8
03-23-2009, 10:31 AM
IMO. Arizona's wins in the tournament do not justify their inclusion in the tournament at all. I don't think their resume before the tournament justified their inclusion. Did I think that St. Mary's or Creighton (the team(s) whose spot most people think Arizona took) were overall more talented teams than Arizona? No, I did not. But that is not the point. Up to Selection Sunday, Arizona did not have the profile to date that warranted inclusion in the field. I don't think potential for greater results should be judged over what a team did during the season. Wouldn't that render the regular season largely meaningless? If you think that is the case, then why shouldn't Notre Dame, who was in everyone's preseason top 10 and has a wealth of potential, be included in the field?

What is this based on besides just your own random opinion? You are aware that Arizona beat the following teams this year:

SD St
Gonzaga
Kansas
Washington
USC
UCLA

That's wins not only against 5 teams that made the NCAAT but 5 teams that won their first round games and 2 that won their 2nd round games. How many other bubble teams had wins over 5 teams like that? St Mary's beat 1 NCAAT team all year -- Utah St -- and Creighton beat 2 -- Dayton and N Iowa. All 3 of those teams are long gone. It's pretty convincing to me that Arizona had a much stronger profile and much greater chance of winning games in the NCAAT than any of the bubble teams left out. Moreover, Arizona beat good teams not only in conference but OOC as well.

bdh21
03-23-2009, 10:36 AM
Not that it would work, but for the sake of argument, what about having a set number of teams from all BCS conferences combined? This would allow more mid-majors in the field, correcting what I see as the major flaw of the tournament.

What about the years (e.g. this year) in which there just aren't that many good mid-major teams. I just don't see what's wrong with the system as it is. Putting 10 people that know basketball and take their job seriously into a room together and tasking them to pick THEIR 34 best at large teams seems to be the best option. There will always be difficult decisions, and thus controversy, but it also is the most equitable process of selection. Definitely better than establishing inflexible and draconian conference quotas.

InSpades
03-23-2009, 10:43 AM
I would like to add that in order to get a 1 seed, you need to meet the following criteria:

1. You won your conference championship

OR

2. Your conference champion received a #1 seed

Under this scenario, The Toe and Co. would not get a #1 seed and Duke or Memphis would be the 4th #1. This is not meant to favor Duke, but to punish Roy and his ilk for diminishing the value of conference tournaments.

So if Syracuse had won the Big East Tournament and gotten a #2 seed then your #1 seeds would be... UNC, Duke, Memphis and... um, uh... Missouri? Seems rather awkward.

crimsonandblue
03-23-2009, 11:06 AM
So if Syracuse had won the Big East Tournament and gotten a #2 seed then your #1 seeds would be... UNC, Duke, Memphis and... um, uh... Missouri? Seems rather awkward.

I'm with you and bdh21. Seems to me all the contemplated "fixes" in this thread are way worse than the "problems." The tournament is as good as it can get at the moment. You've got unbalanced schedules and rotating conference tourney sites. When it all comes down to it, having the committee sort through the trite expression, the "whole body of work" is the best means of setting up the tournament.

Now, you can gripe about some of the decisions (putting Ohio State as an 8 in Dayton or having Texas A&M play its now annual first round matchup with BYU), but the setup is fine. Some of the execution could use a little work.

Reddevil
03-23-2009, 11:16 AM
These annual arguments are one of the best things about the current system. It is good that the committee looks at each team individually, without considering conference affiliation. It is good to discuss the merits and deficiencies of the last few in and out of the dance. Unlike the BCS, a real champion will emerge, and the discussions of fairness will dissolve. All of these discussions, and of course the games are the ultimate distraction from the burdens of real life. Then we grind through tax season, exams, papers, etc., and enjoy the summer while keeping an eye on recruiting and the front page countdown. March Madness includes the process, not just the results.

dukelifer
03-23-2009, 11:25 AM
What is this based on besides just your own random opinion? You are aware that Arizona beat the following teams this year:

SD St
Gonzaga
Kansas
Washington
USC
UCLA

That's wins not only against 5 teams that made the NCAAT but 5 teams that won their first round games and 2 that won their 2nd round games. How many other bubble teams had wins over 5 teams like that? St Mary's beat 1 NCAAT team all year -- Utah St -- and Creighton beat 2 -- Dayton and N Iowa. All 3 of those teams are long gone. It's pretty convincing to me that Arizona had a much stronger profile and much greater chance of winning games in the NCAAT than any of the bubble teams left out. Moreover, Arizona beat good teams not only in conference but OOC as well.

Arizona is a very scary 12 seed. They had a bad stretch at the end of the season- but this team has three outstanding players that include an NBA caliber big man and forward. That is the makings of a dangerous tourney team. I would not be shocked at all if they beat Louisville or even got to the final four. As noted above- they got in because teams they beat also got in. They were right on the bubble- but now that they are in they are playing with house money.

SoCalDukeFan
03-23-2009, 11:33 AM
What about the years (e.g. this year) in which there just aren't that many good mid-major teams. I just don't see what's wrong with the system as it is. Putting 10 people that know basketball and take their job seriously into a room together and tasking them to pick THEIR 34 best at large teams seems to be the best option. There will always be difficult decisions, and thus controversy, but it also is the most equitable process of selection. Definitely better than establishing inflexible and draconian conference quotas.

What I think is wrong:
1. Teams that have mediocre seasons in major conferences get in. See Arizona.
2. Difficult to compare teams from major conferences and mid-majors as the mid-majors have a hard time getting games with the majors. (A much bigger problem then the unbalanced league schedules.)
3. Regular season is diminished.
4. Conference tournaments are diminished.

I like it that a team from a small conference can win its tournament and qualify for the "Big Dance" even though everyone knows that they have no chance of winning it. They earned their way in and are rewarded. In this system everyone would at least have to earn consideration.

SoCal

tbyers11
03-23-2009, 12:11 PM
What is this based on besides just your own random opinion? You are aware that Arizona beat the following teams this year:

SD St
Gonzaga
Kansas
Washington
USC
UCLA

That's wins not only against 5 teams that made the NCAAT but 5 teams that won their first round games and 2 that won their 2nd round games. How many other bubble teams had wins over 5 teams like that? St Mary's beat 1 NCAAT team all year -- Utah St -- and Creighton beat 2 -- Dayton and N Iowa. All 3 of those teams are long gone. It's pretty convincing to me that Arizona had a much stronger profile and much greater chance of winning games in the NCAAT than any of the bubble teams left out. Moreover, Arizona beat good teams not only in conference but OOC as well.

You are correct that Arizona has more quality wins than either St. Mary's or Creighton by a long shot. They also have a lot more losses against quality teams as well because they had a lot more chances. Arizona was 6-10 against RPI top 50 and 8-12 against RPI top 100. Creighton was 2-2 against RPI top 50 and 9-5 against RPI top 100.

Arizona also finished the season 7-5 in their last 12 games (including 1-5 in their last 6) something the committee looks at. Creighton was 11-1 in their last 12.

I disagree that Arizona had a much stronger profile. It was pretty close, in my opinion. Arizona may have gotten in because the committee thought their potential was better than other bubble teams. It is, I can't argue with that. But I do think that that when the committee starts forecasting potential instead of looking at what actually happened during the season they are walking a slippery slope.

I also think that validating teams inclusion into the field based on the results in the tourney is not of much value. The one-and-done nature and particular matchups between individual teams make this very dicey. Is Cleveland State or Dayton "better" than Wake or WVU because they beat them on a given night? Also, how does the fact that USC beat BC or that Northern Iowa lost to Purdue in one game really say anything about which team, Arizona or Creighton, is better?

dukie8
03-23-2009, 01:00 PM
You are correct that Arizona has more quality wins than either St. Mary's or Creighton by a long shot. They also have a lot more losses against quality teams as well because they had a lot more chances. Arizona was 6-10 against RPI top 50 and 8-12 against RPI top 100. Creighton was 2-2 against RPI top 50 and 9-5 against RPI top 100.

Arizona also finished the season 7-5 in their last 12 games (including 1-5 in their last 6) something the committee looks at. Creighton was 11-1 in their last 12.

I disagree that Arizona had a much stronger profile. It was pretty close, in my opinion. Arizona may have gotten in because the committee thought their potential was better than other bubble teams. It is, I can't argue with that. But I do think that that when the committee starts forecasting potential instead of looking at what actually happened during the season they are walking a slippery slope.

I also think that validating teams inclusion into the field based on the results in the tourney is not of much value. The one-and-done nature and particular matchups between individual teams make this very dicey. Is Cleveland State or Dayton "better" than Wake or WVU because they beat them on a given night? Also, how does the fact that USC beat BC or that Northern Iowa lost to Purdue in one game really say anything about which team, Arizona or Creighton, is better?

The 1-5 part was way over-blown by all the talking heads last week. They also completely ignored the fact that those 5 losses were (1) to 4 tournament teams, (2) on the road for 3 of them, (3) against the top 2 Pac-10 teams for 3 of them (AZ St and Wash) and (4) preceded by 7 straight wins. It just so happened that Arizona's schedule was completely backloaded with its hardest games. I believe that the what-have-you-done lately factor was de-emphasized this year because it really doesn't mean much if you ignore who the team was playing. Yes, Creighton won a lot of games in February, but they also were playing terrible teams.

I completely disagree that tournament results don't matter in terms of validating inclusion in the field. If the Committee screwed up and took a team that should not have been invited (say, NCCU), then that team would get blown-up and not win 2 games. By winning not 1 but 2 games, Arizona clearly has validated its inclusion.

Yes, Cleveland St is a better team than Wake. I go by what happens on the court not by what some talking head thinks should have happened. That game was 9-0 at the start and Wake never even made an effort to close the gap. Cleveland St also beat Syracuse at Syracuse so it's not like this was just some complete fluke of a game. Cleveland St was much better than Wake. USC also was much better than BC. Did you watch these games? USC has multiple NBA players on its team and completely over-whelmed BC. It's not even close who was a better team.

CDu
03-23-2009, 01:11 PM
I would like to add that in order to get a 1 seed, you need to meet the following criteria:

1. You won your conference championship

OR

2. Your conference champion received a #1 seed

Under this scenario, The Toe and Co. would not get a #1 seed and Duke or Memphis would be the 4th #1. This is not meant to favor Duke, but to punish Roy and his ilk for diminishing the value of conference tournaments.

I don't think this makes much sense. Take, for example, a major-conference team that goes undefeated all season, but then manages to lose a heartbreaker in the final of their conference tournament to a team that deserves a #3/4 seed. Since that conference winner isn't a #1 seed, the presumable #1 team in the nation wouldn't be a #1 seed. That makes no sense.

Essentially, what you're arguing for goes too far in overvaluing the conference tournaments. A team that goes 32-0 shouldn't be so severely penalized for losing their 33rd game.

That's an extreme example, but it's just an illustration of many problems. Who gets a #1 seed if all of the top-6 teams in the nation lose in their conference final to teams that are not top-10 teams? In your scenario, you could wind up forcing a team that should be a #3/4 seed to be a #1 seed, simply to penalize the top teams for one loss.

dukie8
03-23-2009, 01:19 PM
I don't think this makes much sense. Take, for example, a major-conference team that goes undefeated all season, but then manages to lose a heartbreaker in the final of their conference tournament to a team that deserves a #3/4 seed. Since that conference winner isn't a #1 seed, the presumable #1 team in the nation wouldn't be a #1 seed. That makes no sense.

Essentially, what you're arguing for goes too far in overvaluing the conference tournaments. A team that goes 32-0 shouldn't be so severely penalized for losing their 33rd game.

That's an extreme example, but it's just an illustration of many problems. Who gets a #1 seed if all of the top-6 teams in the nation lose in their conference final to teams that are not top-10 teams? In your scenario, you could wind up forcing a team that should be a #3/4 seed to be a #1 seed, simply to penalize the top teams for one loss.

St Joe's a few years ago did just that.