Post Season Seeding, Numbers by Conference, etc.

[Adriacus]

Historically, the NCAA Tour year Selection Committee has done a less than stellar job of creating a balanced and fair “true S curve”. Some conferences were over represented, some under represented. Some teams over seeded, some under seeded. Some quadrants cake walks, some quadrants death marches. And, notably to some programs, some #1 seeds basically playing an “away” game in the backyard of #2 seeds.

Yes, there were reasons: economics, attendance, etc. But, in all fairness there were also unqualified members on the Committee and poor decisions made.

COVID is making everything difficult. With the tiny sample size of OOC games to gauge the comparative strength of teams and conferences, to compare the merits [and weaknesses] of the top teams, and to balance out one time “oddball” game outcomes, what will the impact be on the Committee?

Will their job be easier with less data to crunch? Will they submit their standard D- to C+ bracket? How heavily will historical reputations be a fallback decider? If the top teams from the ACC, BE, B10, and B12 play one another but the top teams from the PAC-12 do not play top OOC competition, how does/should that failure get factored into the decision making?

 

[Alydar]

Historically, the NCAA Tour year Selection Committee has done a less than stellar job of creating a balanced and fair “true S curve”. Some conferences were over represented, some under represented. Some teams over seeded, some under seeded. Some quadrants cake walks, some quadrants death marches. And, notably to some programs, some #1 seeds basically playing an “away” game in the backyard of #2 seeds.

Yes, there were reasons: economics, attendance, etc. But, in all fairness there were also unqualified members on the Committee and poor decisions made.

COVID is making everything difficult. With the tiny sample size of OOC games to gauge the comparative strength of teams and conferences, to compare the merits [and weaknesses] of the top teams, and to balance out one time “oddball” game outcomes, what will the impact be on the Committee?

Will their job be easier with less data to crunch? Will they submit their standard D- to C+ bracket? How heavily will historical reputations be a fallback decider? If the top teams from the ACC, BE, B10, and B12 play one another but the top teams from the PAC-12 do not play top OOC competition, how does/should that failure get factored into the decision making?

Good post. I disagree that some committee members are unqualified. The problem isn't the committee, it's their "Policies and Procedures". Does anyone know who is responsible for those? I don't but someone or a small group of someones sets those policies and they are what most complaints are about. I am sick of hearing "we are bound by our policies and procedures" as an answer to obvious unfairness. OK, so if they bound by the rules then who makes the rules because that's where the real power lies. Who is it? Or is it a matter of national security that we don't know.

 

[Adriacus]

A current example of unqualified would be Lisa Peterson. She replaced Ceal Berry [who was immensely qualified]. Peterson is a long term athletic administrator. Was a track & field athlete in college. Served as a member of the Track & Field Committee [qualified], then the Volleyball Committee [unqualified], and now Basketball Committee [unqualified]. Given the large number of potential committee members, it isn’t unreasonable to expect that each member has some direct basketball background as player, coach, etc. and not simply being an athletic administrator. Unfortunately, too often the “athletic administrator” members are “carrying water” for their conference rather than serving as unbiased and qualified selection arbiters.

Agree that each specific rule & procedure should be clearly spelled out, the adoption process made public, etc. Nothing good is done in dark corners. If rules/decisions/etc. can’t stand on their own in the light of day, they shouldn’t be followed.

 

[bennyskid]

I don't get the assumption that it takes basketball experience to pick teams for a basketball tournament, and I definitely don't buy the idea that it's only administrators that "carry water" for their conference. Buried in those questionable premises is a valid point - there is a lot of politicking in these committees, to the detriment of the tournament. The solution isn't putting "basketball people" in charge. I never heard the name "Lisa Peterson" before, but I am quite sure that replacing her with a former player or coach is not going to make a bit of difference.

The root of the problem is that a lot of money moves around depending on the decisions of the committee. Of course, every school and conference is going to do what it can to influence it. If you want a better tournament, the selection process has to be completely insulated from the economics. There are several ways to do it - use computers; develop a straight formula like an improved RPI; or find completely disinterested people. Of course, the people in control will never allow any of these to be tried.

 

[Adriacus]

The problem of conferences politicking to maximize their spots is expected and difficult to solve as long as they remain part of the selection process. The problems of unbalanced brackets, disproportionate location impact, etc. are somewhat more easily addressed. The “assumption“ re basketball experience relates to middle of the pack seedlings and balanced brackets. Every year we see one quadrant that is the cakewalk and another that is a death march.....every year. Some of that failure is not understanding the “upside/downside“ of major conference 6-10 loss teams. Some of that failure is not understanding high quality mid-major teams versus mid-major teams with super records against poor competition. I think that the non-basketball people are the core of those two problems/failures. They sometimes rely on “brand” over reality. They sometimes simply listen to the basketball people on the committee [how many times to we hear “we really value the insights of former coaches on the committee”] creating oversized impact by a few voices. The purpose of any committee is balanced input.

Personally, in EVERY sport I would like to see committees peopled by legendary coaches and players from lower divisions. The quality of play and coaching is surprisingly high in some instances. Many would jump at the opportunity. It would be easy to avoid bias and politicking, create geographic diversity, and insure that voices from varying styles of play are part of the process.