Mock Selection

[BFieldHusky]

Inside the committee room: What it's like to pick, seed and build the NCAA Tournament bracket

Our Matt Norlander and David Cobb got a behind-the-scenes experience at the selection, seeding and bracketing process

www.cbssports.com

The NCAA took a 10-year break from inviting media to participate in mock NCAA Tournament selection exercises because, by the mid-2010s, the operation had run its course.

The RPI is long since dead (hallelujah), replaced by the NET. Other metrics — like KenPom.com, BartTorvik.com, Strength of Record and Wins Above Bubble — have officially been implemented into the process, bringing more concise analytics to the conversation and making for a smarter approach with more empirical data to assist the committees in fielding their 68-team tournaments.

The most important metric to pay attention to: WAB​

I won't go long here — read Cobb's primer on Wins Above Bubble here — but it was brought up multiple times on Thursday just how key WAB is when it comes to inclusion into the field. It doesn't always win out, but WAB and the similarly structured Strength of Record are fair evaluation tools that don't put mid-majors at a disadvantage.

And they'll be leaned on more than Quad 1 and Quad 2 records, or nonconference strength of schedule, things like that. We know it can feel like an information overload, but whereas predictive metrics can slightly tilt the scales with seeding, WAB should prove pivotal for at-large teams vying to get those final four, five, six bids.

Also noticeable: NET ranking remains a useful tool for the NCAA in assigning outcomes into quadrants and in formulating WAB "scores." But it was striking just how little any team's NET ranking was referenced or discussed during the mock exercise. It's presence and influence just is not as significant as the general public think. — Norlander, Cobb