PDA

View Full Version : The Tournament Selection Committee is on a Fool's Errand



sagegrouse
01-06-2012, 06:20 PM
Def: Fool’s errand. A task or activity with no hope of success. Or, a fruitless or thankless undertaking.

The Tournament Selection Committee is on a fool’s errand. It is charged with the selecting the 37 at-large teams in the tournament and then seeding all 68 teams. It has no hope of success in either undertaking.

Here’s why, after a digression. Social science researchers, who only rarely operate under controlled laboratory conditions, are always looking for useful data sets to test their hypotheses or conjectures about social and economic phenomena. More than occasionally, a researcher comes up with a seemingly good data set, measuring all of the right variables, and finds it is useless because there is not enough independent variation among the different variables. Thus, the desired effects cannot be measured.

So it is with the social science researchers on the TSC: thousands and thousands of games but little usable data. Most of the action with selection is in the major conferences. Last year, 31 of the 37 at-large selections were from the six so-called BCS conferences: ACC (4), Big 12 (5), Big East (11!), Big Ten (7), (now) PAC 12 (4), and SEC (5). Unhappily there are few games to use to establish inter-conference rankings and s. The 73 teams in the BCS last year played each other only 126 times, averaging from 2.8 for the Big East teams to 4.3 for each of the ACC teams. (The incongruity in the numbers is because each game involves two teams.) In contrast, there are 621 conference games, each BCS team playing between 16 and 18 games.

Having only three or four inter-conference games as benchmarks may seem thin but not hopeless. I would agree except that all but 11 of these games were in November and December, when teams are just finding their identities. Thus, when teams return from the holidays, almost all games are conference games. But the TSC is expected to establish some rankings and lines of equality (iso-seeds?) between conferences that don’t play each other. The eleven games, involving 22 teams, mean that there are 0.3 interconference games per team in January, February and March on which to try and level the conferences.

I think these early-season games are worthwhile and important, even the ones at exotic and leg-cramping locales like Hawaii and the Bahamas/Caribbean. But I don’t believe they are good indicators of end-of-season strength. As one indication I did a correlation of AP rankings from January 2 and from the end of the regular season. The correlation was 0.48 among the 45-50 teams receiving at least one vote in either poll. But when the top ten teams are excluded – these are the juggernauts sure to be in the tournament at a high seed – the correlation coefficient is only 0.08, one indication that the rankings in early January are poor predictors of rankings in mid-March.

The question of seeding, which I won’t discuss in detail, is the flip side of the same coin as selection. If you can’t tell who should be in the tournament, you certainly can’t tell how they should be seeded.

So, life is hard, especially for the TSC, and sometimes you have to live with far less than optimal circumstances. But really, this isn’t the case. There are two much more attractive options.

1. Recognize the importance of the NCAA tournament by having two weeks of interconference games in January and February, yielding four interconference games per school. This would mean starting conference play in December, but it may be worth the cost, when you consider how important March Madness is to the NCAA and the member schools.

2. The more practical solution would not try to revolutionize basketball schedules. It would give the job to the people in the best position to judge the teams – the conferences themselves. For the BCS conferences, agree in advance that one-half of the schools get NCAA bids, and let the conferences decide which schools are selected. That way, the 16 or 18 conference games plus conference tournaments that each team plays can figure into the decision. Fifty percent seems high, but last year 53 percent (36 of 68) places in the NCAAs went to the BCS schools.
For the other 25 conferences, which received only seven bids last year, the same kind of thing could be put in place, based on historical success in the NCAAs.

I would probably handle seeding on a mechanical basis (e.g., #3 team in the ACC would be a #5 seed), although it would be possible to do something else involving ratings and rankings or even do random seeding from teams in the same echelon.

By the way, I have no problem with the TSC developing an S-curve of the top eight teams. These are the teams that would rise to the top under any measure devised.

These are my thought, advanced with – for once – some humility. I’ve collected and analyzed a lot of data, especially for 2011, and I would like to hear your views.

sagegrouse

OldPhiKap
01-06-2012, 06:30 PM
TCU is in, live with it Jay.

VTech is out, live with it Seth.


In all seriousness, very thoughtful post. From my perspective, I wouldn't mess with what works for the most part. Folks may quibble about who should be 36 and 37 versus left out at 38 and 39, but so be it. And I don't put much stock in seeding, because you have to beat whoever is in front of you. It is rare that the #1 seed comes out of each region anyway.

I'm not sure I would leave it up to the conferences, nor do I think they want that on their shoulders.

I think that, by and large, the committee does a fairly admirable job. The disputes are the exception, not the rule.

$.02

Wander
01-06-2012, 07:12 PM
I appreciate the amount of thought you put into this, but I don't agree with your solution - or even that there exists a problem at all.

If the committee messes up and selects the 39th best team instead of the 37th best team for that last at-large spot... so what? It's not a huge deal in the larger picture. That's part of the point to having so many teams in the playoff field - it eliminates the sensitivity to human error. Better to include some teams that aren't deserving of playing for a national championship than to not include all the teams that are. Any team that gets left out had multiple opportunities to make their resume better - teams from BCS conferences that get left out typically have, what, at least 10 losses? And what Jay Bilas doesn't seem to understand is the difference between the 37th best team and the 42nd best team in a sport that has 345 teams in it is so ridiculously small that you can reasonably make an argument for either of them.

Look at the sport today: why should the Pac-12 get six guaranteed bids and the Missouri Valley only one?

If there's anything that needs changing, it's that we should go back to 64 teams. And if you want something more fundamental... I could live without the conference tournaments. They do sort of devalue the regular season a bit, particularly for the smaller conferences (which, yes, I realize could just choose not to have them like the Ivy League).

jafarr1
01-06-2012, 07:28 PM
If the committee messes up and selects the 39th best team instead of the 37th best team for that last at-large spot... so what? It's not a huge deal in the larger picture. That's part of the point to having so many teams in the playoff field - it eliminates the sensitivity to human error. Better to include some teams that aren't deserving of playing for a national championship than to not include all the teams that are. Any team that gets left out had multiple opportunities to make their resume better - teams from BCS conferences that get left out typically have, what, at least 10 losses? And what Jay Bilas doesn't seem to understand is the difference between the 37th best team and the 42nd best team in a sport that has 345 teams in it is so ridiculously small that you can reasonably make an argument for either of them.

This has been my argument for years. If a team puts itself into the position of being on the bubble, they have nobody but themselves to blame if their bubble bursts.

Olympic Fan
01-07-2012, 01:32 AM
Count me among those who thinks that this is not a big problem. We're arguing about the last few teams in the field. Any team with a real chance to win the tourament is going to be in the field.

That's the problem with the BCS in football -- it's a system that has to pick two teams to determine a champion. It's easy to get that wrong and to deny a chance to a deserving contender. But when has a deserving conteder been denied a chance to play in the NCAA Tournament (since 1980)? Sure, you might argue that last year's Virginia Tech team was more deserving of being in te field than Clemson or Cincinnati ... but no rational person would argue that they were a real national championship contender.

Now, there are also flaws in the seeding process, but it's hard to argue that a championship-worthy team was denied a title by seeding ... are you suggesting that the only way to win a championship is to get a favorable path? Sure, some paths are easier than others, but if you are the best team, how can seeding beat you? This sounds like all the Kentucky fans moaning that Duke had an easy path to the 2010 national title (when Duke had to beat the team that beat Kentucky to get to the finals).

Edouble
01-07-2012, 02:37 AM
Count me among those who thinks that this is not a big problem. We're arguing about the last few teams in the field. Any team with a real chance to win the tourament is going to be in the field.


VCU played in the First Four as an 11 seed and ended up making it to the Final Four just last year. On Selection Sunday, some of the talking heads had them out of their own tournament fields.

mgtr
01-07-2012, 08:14 AM
No matter how mechanical you make the system, there will still be "last four in" and "first four out." And, some or all of the four out will claim that they are better than some or all of the four in. Now if only you had a 345 team tournament field ...

nocilla
01-07-2012, 08:57 AM
VCU played in the First Four as an 11 seed and ended up making it to the Final Four just last year. On Selection Sunday, some of the talking heads had them out of their own tournament fields.

But I would argue that regardless of how far they made it in the tourney, were they really National Champion worthy? If they had been left out, not many people would have complained. If they had won the tourney, then a lot of people would be questioning the system when a 4th place team from the Colonial with 11 losses is crowned the best team in the nation. Of course on the other side, people (myself included) are already questioning the validity of the tourney after the 9th place team from the Big East with 9 losses is considered the best team from last year.

davekay1971
01-07-2012, 09:43 AM
But I would argue that regardless of how far they made it in the tourney, were they really National Champion worthy? If they had been left out, not many people would have complained. If they had won the tourney, then a lot of people would be questioning the system when a 4th place team from the Colonial with 11 losses is crowned the best team in the nation. Of course on the other side, people (myself included) are already questioning the validity of the tourney after the 9th place team from the Big East with 9 losses is considered the best team from last year.

But the tourney crowns the national champion, not the best team in the nation. These are two very different things. A single elimination tournament is not designed to reward the best team in the field. It is designed to maximize intensity, drama, and variability. If you want a playoff that usually allows the best team to win, you need a series format like the NBA, but without the corrupt officiating. UConn was not the best team last year, but the other was NCSU in 1983 or Villanova in 1985. Does that make the NCAA tourney invalid in selecting the national champ? Same question applies to the ACC Tourney, the NFL playoffs, etc. It's a worthy debate, but off topic for this thread.

As for the OP, I agree with the overall point that a better use of statistics could help improve the accuracy of the selection and seeding process. Of the potential solutions suggested, the only one I really like is the idea of more non conference games in Jan and Feb. Increasing the late season sample size of non conference games, paired with the increased use of higher level metric analysis, such as Kenpom, would significantly improve the committee's ability to identify and seed the best 68 teams.

Ultimately, I'm starting to lean more toward a 128 team field. I hate the current format of selecting 8 small schools for play-in games, even if the NCAA tries to message spin it as the first round. First round, my patootie. Call it what it is. Those are play in games until the tourney moves to either a 96 or 128 team field. I understand the counter-argument that expansion of the tourney waters down the regular season and this is true. But a 128 team field still lets roughly 1/3 of the NCAA teams in the playoffs, which is a lower percentage than the teams eligible for the playoffs in the NHL and NBA, and about equivalent to the NFL. The advantage, other than a huge increase in revenue, would be significant less histrionics about the fate of poor team 129. Play the games at the higher seed's home gym on Tues. Seeding will remain an issue, but, as the OP correctly notes, there are ways to improve that as well.

MarkD83
01-07-2012, 10:01 AM
I am also in the camp that the system is not broken but what may need to be tweaked is expectations.

The reason teams complain about not making the tournament right now is that a group of "experts" tries to convince people who is in and who is not without the TSC telling anyone who they actually consider to be "on the bubble". Last year in mid-Feb., the TSC may have thought that VT had to win the ACC to get in to the tournament. However, experts were saying that the win against Duke got them in. Therefore, VT felt slighted without knowing where they really stood in the TSC's selection process.

To manage expectations, about 1 month before the tournament the TSC should list their bubble teams. These teams would know exactly what they need to do in the last month of the season and who they are competing against.

devildeac
01-07-2012, 10:44 AM
But the tourney crowns the national champion, not the best team in the nation. These are two very different things. A single elimination tournament is not designed to reward the best team in the field. It is designed to maximize intensity, drama, and variability. If you want a playoff that usually allows the best team to win, you need a series format like the NBA, but without the corrupt officiating. UConn was not the best team last year, but the other was NCSU in 1983 or Villanova in 1985. Does that make the NCAA tourney invalid in selecting the national champ? Same question applies to the ACC Tourney, the NFL playoffs, etc. It's a worthy debate, but off topic for this thread.

As for the OP, I agree with the overall point that a better use of statistics could help improve the accuracy of the selection and seeding process. Of the potential solutions suggested, the only one I really like is the idea of more non conference games in Jan and Feb. Increasing the late season sample size of non conference games, paired with the increased use of higher level metric analysis, such as Kenpom, would significantly improve the committee's ability to identify and seed the best 68 teams.

Ultimately, I'm starting to lean more toward a 128 team field. I hate the current format of selecting 8 small schools for play-in games, even if the NCAA tries to message spin it as the first round. First round, my patootie. Call it what it is. Those are play in games until the tourney moves to either a 96 or 128 team field. I understand the counter-argument that expansion of the tourney waters down the regular season and this is true. But a 128 team field still lets roughly 1/3 of the NCAA teams in the playoffs, which is a lower percentage than the teams eligible for the playoffs in the NHL and NBA, and about equivalent to the NFL. The advantage, other than a huge increase in revenue, would be significant less histrionics about the fate of poor team 129. Play the games at the higher seed's home gym on Tues. Seeding will remain an issue, but, as the OP correctly notes, there are ways to improve that as well.

And Seth Greenberg mused, "So there will be a chance for us after all to make the NCAA tournament if davekay is able to convince the committee to expand to 96 or 128 teams.";)

Indoor66
01-07-2012, 10:49 AM
And Seth Greenberg mused, "So there will be a chance for us after all to make the NCAA tournament if davekay is able to convince the committee to expand to 96 or 128 teams.";)

I agree with what I think is your point - that all you do is move the complaining further down the line. Someone is always left out. IMO the committee does an excellent job of selection and seeding. The results over the years, without the occasional outlier (i.e. Ucon), speak for themselves.

davekay1971
01-07-2012, 10:52 AM
And Seth Greenberg mused, "So there will be a chance for us after all to make the NCAA tournament if davekay is able to convince the committee to expand to 96 or 128 teams.";)

I think Seth and Va Tech will always perform to the level of the first team out, no matter how big the field. It's his mojo. If the NCAA expands the field to 96 teams, Seth's will be the 97th. If they go 128, he'll be 129. If the NCAA expands the tournament to include every team, in that very same year Va Tech will go on post-season ban.

To Indoor: I absolutely agree that the first team out will always complain. But the further you move that team down the line, the less everyone else will care about their complaints. When the 11th place team in the ACC whines that they should have gotten in over the 10th place team in the SEC, it'll be like the sound of a tree falling in the forest...

sagegrouse
01-07-2012, 11:12 AM
Thanks for your responses – and patience in reading my post. I have been mulling over this for quite a few months and probably should have put my initial thoughts out earlier to get your comments and reactions. Let me add – oh no! – to my original post and address some of your concerns.

1. Does it matter in terms of the NCAA championship or the Final Four who are the last teams in and the first teams out? Well, no, not usually. It did last year though (Bilas’s favorite, VCU) and in another ten or 20 years it might matter again.

2. Does it matter who is in the NCAA tournament? Hell, yes! It matters to the schools and the coaches, and for some of the latter it is a matter of professional life or death.

3. Does the current system produce bad or skewed results? I think it does. I don’t see any strong reason the Big East and the Big Ten should have gotten the lions’ share of the at-large positions – 16 of the 30 given to BCS teams. Also, I don’t see much sense in favoring nine teams with 0.500 conference records and leaving out BC (9-7), Va. Tech (9-7), Alabama (12-4, including 4-3 against SEC tournament teams!), and Cal (10-8). And no, this is not a vendetta against 9-9 UConn, which was an automatic qualifier after going 5-0 in the Big East tournament.

4. The Big East and Big Ten had inferior records in the NCAAs, despite UConn’s championship, going collectively 20-17 (0.541), compared with the ACC and PAC-10, which went 13-8 (0.619). These two last had the lowest participation rate in the NCAAs. This is not statistically significant, to be sure, but is another stick on the fire.

5. Why did I go off on this tangent of bashing the poor folks assigned to the Tournament Selection Committee? Well, from age 20 to 35 I was intensively involved in statistics and analysis (beginning with Math 135-136 at Dear Old Duke). And the process used by the TSC set off flashing red lights and loud beeps in my tortured brain. Here’s why.


The basketball season consists of two parts: a non-conference schedule almost exclusively occurring in November and December plus a conference schedule occurring almost exclusively in January, February and March.

The analysis consists of two parts: in-conference games can be used to rank teams within conference; inter-conference games are the only way to provide a measure of parity or superiority among conferences.

But I believe that November and December results are a poor measure of the quality of a team at the end of the season. I pointed out in the OP that, after removing the top ten ranked teams, the correlation between rankings in early January and mid-March was a whopping 0.08.

Thus, IMHO (where the H is always silent) there is little basis for comparing teams between conferences. AND IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER YOU POMERIZE, SAGARIZE OR RPI-IZE THE RESULTS. YOU HAVE LOUSY DATA, AND YOU CAN’T MAKE A SILK PURSE OUT OF A SOW’S EAR.

Sagegrouse

Bob Green
01-07-2012, 11:15 AM
I agree with what I think is your point - that all you do is move the complaining further down the line. Someone is always left out. IMO the committee does an excellent job of selection and seeding. The results over the years, without the occasional outlier (i.e. Ucon), speak for themselves.

Isn't the outlier one of the factors which makes the tournament so exciting? I realize UConn isn't the best example on a Duke board but how about N.C. State (26-10) in 1983. Alongside big name schools falling in the 1st round such as Bucknell over Kansas (2005) or Santa Clara over Arizona (1993) or, my apologies in advance, VCU over Duke (2007) and Cinderella runs to the final four such as George Mason (2006) and VCU (2011), I'd say the outlier winning it all is one of the tournaments special characteristics.

Indoor66
01-07-2012, 11:19 AM
Isn't the outlier one of the factors which makes the tournament so exciting? I realize UConn isn't the best example on a Duke board but how about N.C. State (26-10) in 1983. Alongside big name schools falling in the 1st round such as Bucknell over Kansas (2005) or Santa Clara over Arizona (1993) or, my apologies in advance, VCU over Duke (2007) and Cinderella runs to the final four such as George Mason (2006) and VCU (2011), I'd say the outlier winning it all is one of the tournaments special characteristics.

I completely agree with you. My point is that the occasional outlier success does not invalidate the basic success of the selection process. In some ways it validates it because the pure statistical approach is, IMO, a fallacious basis for selection. Teams are comprised of humans with all variables present. Evaluation at the end of a season is not merely the sum of statistics.

Edouble
01-07-2012, 02:30 PM
But I would argue that regardless of how far they made it in the tourney, were they really National Champion worthy? If they had been left out, not many people would have complained. If they had won the tourney, then a lot of people would be questioning the system when a 4th place team from the Colonial with 11 losses is crowned the best team in the nation. Of course on the other side, people (myself included) are already questioning the validity of the tourney after the 9th place team from the Big East with 9 losses is considered the best team from last year.

I do not know what you mean by "worthy", but I was responding to the argument, by Olympic Fan, that any team with a real chance to win the tournament will be in the field no matter what.

It is clear that the Rams had a great shot to win the tournament, as they made the Final Four. Had they won one more game, I can not imagine that they would not have given UConn a better game than Butler did. With 2011 UConn being one of the weakest championship teams I have ever seen, I would say that VCU had a legitimate shot to win the tournament.

Therefore... my counterpoint to Olympic Fan's argument (that any team that has a real shot at winning the tournament will definitely be in the tournament) is that VCU just barely made the tournament, yet had a great shot at winning the whole thing.

Wander
01-07-2012, 02:46 PM
3. Does the current system produce bad or skewed results? I think it does. I don’t see any strong reason the Big East and the Big Ten should have gotten the lions’ share of the at-large positions – 16 of the 30 given to BCS teams. Also, I don’t see much sense in favoring nine teams with 0.500 conference records and leaving out BC (9-7), Va. Tech (9-7), Alabama (12-4, including 4-3 against SEC tournament teams!), and Cal (10-8). And no, this is not a vendetta against 9-9 UConn, which was an automatic qualifier after going 5-0 in the Big East tournament


Let's say you have two conferences, each with 12 teams, and you were to rate each team on a scale of 1-10. The scale somehow reflects how good each team actually is - it's not a direct RPI rating or conference record.

Conference A: 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 ,1
Conference B: 10, 10, 9, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4

You have ten bids to the tournament to hand out for these two conferences.

Which conference gets more tournament bids?
Which conference is better?

You can have the ACC be better than the Big 10 and still deserve less bids. It's perfectly consistent.

sagegrouse
01-07-2012, 06:23 PM
Let's say you have two conferences, each with 12 teams, and you were to rate each team on a scale of 1-10. The scale somehow reflects how good each team actually is - it's not a direct RPI rating or conference record.

Conference A: 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 ,1
Conference B: 10, 10, 9, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4

You have ten bids to the tournament to hand out for these two conferences.

Which conference gets more tournament bids?
Which conference is better?

You can have the ACC be better than the Big 10 and still deserve less bids. It's perfectly consistent.

I don't disagree with what you say, but I don't know what I'd do. Under the current system you don't how the ACC compares to the Big Ten, even with the Challenge. Games in November and December are not good predictors of the strengths of teams or conferences in March. Therefore, since all inter-conference games (with very few exceptions) are in November and December, there is no method that would provide a valid ranking of conferences in March. And while Pomeroy, Sagarin, RPI, and polls give different results, they are all guesses, given the basic problem with the data.

I said in the OP that one solution -- fairer than what happened in 2011 -- is to give proportionally the same number of bids to each of the major conferences. In fact, one could go one step further and have the conferences decide which six of 12 teams get to go.

sagegrouse

OldPhiKap
01-07-2012, 06:41 PM
Taking a step back -- what team has been left out of the tourney the last ten years who had a realistic chance to win it all? I know "everyone has a chance," etc. but I am having trouble thinking of a team that didn't get in and it really matters to anyone other than that team. And, if they had taken care of business (at least as a team in a major conference), they'd be in.

Kedsy
01-08-2012, 03:17 PM
Does it matter in terms of the NCAA championship or the Final Four who are the last teams in and the first teams out? Well, no, not usually. It did last year though (Bilas’s favorite, VCU) and in another ten or 20 years it might matter again.

Don't know why you think it'll take 10 or 20 years. It happened with George Mason in 2006 (with Billy Packer playing the part of Jay Bilas). That's twice in 6 years, and there have been other low seeds who have been at-large teams (and thus probably almost didn't make it) that have made the Final Four, as well.


Taking a step back -- what team has been left out of the tourney the last ten years who had a realistic chance to win it all?

I don't think there's any way of knowing that. In 1983 (and, yes, I know that was more than 10 years ago), NC State doesn't make the field if they don't win the ACC tournament. Yet clearly they had a realistic chance to win it all. Who knows how many teams in recent years had just as good a chance as State that year, but fell short in their league tournament?

UConn almost lost to Pitt in the Big East quarterfinals last year. If they lose that game, they're 22-10 with a 9-9 league record and 7 wins against teams worse than 200 in the RPI. Do they make the NCAAT? Probably, but they would have been on the bubble, meaning there was at least some chance they wouldn't make it. Was UConn's resume really much better than Virginia Tech's resume in 2008? A little, probably, but not that much.

That said, I don't think it's the selection committee's job to pick every team that has a realistic chance to win it all. You sould have to play your way in. Personally, I'd prefer going back to 64 (and eliminating a few at-large spots) rather than expanding further.

OldPhiKap
01-08-2012, 03:27 PM
Who knows how many teams in recent years had just as good a chance as State that year, but fell short in their league tournament?

UConn almost lost to Pitt in the Big East quarterfinals last year. If they lose that game, they're 22-10 with a 9-9 league record and 7 wins against teams worse than 200 in the RPI. Do they make the NCAAT? Probably, but they would have been on the bubble, meaning there was at least some chance they wouldn't make it. Was UConn's resume really much better than Virginia Tech's resume in 2008? A little, probably, but not that much.

That said, I don't think it's the selection committee's job to pick every team that has a realistic chance to win it all. You sould have to play your way in. Personally, I'd prefer going back to 64 (and eliminating a few at-large spots) rather than expanding further.

That's kind of my point in a way. Unless they are going to expand even more (please, no!) there are always teams left out. Right now, if you play your way in at the end or if you put up a good body of work you qualify. If you are on the bubble, you're on the bubble whether the ultimate decision is made by the committee, by the conference, by who was healthy and who was injured during a February non-conference game, etc.

I would also just go back to 64, but if there are going to be two Tuesday games I'll probably not see so be it.

Wander
01-08-2012, 03:44 PM
I said in the OP that one solution -- fairer than what happened in 2011 -- is to give proportionally the same number of bids to each of the major conferences. In fact, one could go one step further and have the conferences decide which six of 12 teams get to go.


I just don't understand what you think was so unfair in 2011. There may be individual teams like VCU or Alabama that could be argued about, but proportionally giving the same number of bids to each of the major conferences strikes me as far more unfair - by a wide margin - than anything that's ever been done in 64 team era. Why should the Pac-12 get six guaranteed bids this year and the Missouri Valley or Mountain West only one?

sagegrouse
01-08-2012, 05:59 PM
I just don't understand what you think was so unfair in 2011. There may be individual teams like VCU or Alabama that could be argued about, but proportionally giving the same number of bids to each of the major conferences strikes me as far more unfair - by a wide margin - than anything that's ever been done in 64 team era. Why should the Pac-12 get six guaranteed bids this year and the Missouri Valley or Mountain West only one?

Well, for one -- 11 tournament selections for the Big East, which -- except for UConn and Marquette -- were awful in the NCAAs. The Big East had the worst-performing 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds, which would be Pitt, Notre Dame, Syracuse and Louisville.

Why the heck should the BE get 60 percent of its teams in the tournament? On the basis of winning 75 percent of its interconference games in November?? As you know, I don't think early-season games mean very much.

The Big Ten is even worse. It received seven bids for 11 teams; yet it had the worst record in the NCAAs. None of its teams went past the Sweet Sixteen. And even worse, the Big Ten had a losing record in inter-conference games, despite edging the ACC in the Challenge. Now what is the TSC's basis for that?

So, we have this process that aligns the conferences based almost exclusively on early-season games. So, do we salute and say, "That's the way it is." "Nonsense," the Grouse clucks gutterally, "it's poppycock! We should play meaningful interconference games in January and February by blocking a couple of weeks for exactly that purpose, or we should admit we are operating a system that has no meaning and do something totally different."

I think it is sorta silly to give each of the six major conferences the same proportion of NCAA bids, but -- last year, at least -- that would have been far superior to the actual outcome.

Anyway, that's my story and I am sticking to it.

sagegrouse
'Now to be fair, the Big East did win all five of its January interconference matchups (remember St. John's?). But its teams were only 6-8 in November'

throatybeard
01-09-2012, 01:07 AM
No matter how mechanical you make the system, there will still be "last four in" and "first four out." And, some or all of the four out will claim that they are better than some or all of the four in. Now if only you had a 345 team tournament field ...

Arguably, that already exists; win your conference tournament. Then you're in the 64 or 68.


I just don't understand what you think was so unfair in 2011. There may be individual teams like VCU or Alabama that could be argued about, but proportionally giving the same number of bids to each of the major conferences strikes me as far more unfair - by a wide margin - than anything that's ever been done in 64 team era. Why should the Pac-12 get six guaranteed bids this year and the Missouri Valley or Mountain West only one?

This is, indirectly, also a criticism of the bowl system in general, I just realized. Surely ACC3 vs SEC5 (or whatever) doesn't match the same strength every single year.