NCAA Tournament Selection

O

overseasbbfan1

1,000+ Posts
Since there have been three of four threads that have discussed the NCAA selection process, I thought I would do a little synopsis here.

I liked Outlook's post about the potential bubble-teams, and how many openings there were for those fighting to get in. Assuming he's right and there are three spots, and one of those goes to Houston as another poster indicated would happen, we're left with 8 squads and 2 openings. Houston is interesting because they're ranked 22nd in both polls and finished undefeated in the Conference USA regular season standings. Their current RPI is 25th, but their SOS is 93rd and they could very well fall out of the polls given their loss in the semis of the conf tourney. I'm going to assume they still get an invite, and leave the open spots at two.

The only squad I've added that wasn't on Outlook's original list is BYU because they finished first in the Mountain West, although I still have a hard time seeing them or TCU make the field based on their respective RPI/SOS rankings. It's unfortunate for both that lowly Utah won the conf tourney, but I just don't see how you reward more than one team in a conference that doesn't have a single sqaud in the top 50.

The lists below look strictly at RPI and SOS. Records, quality wins vs. bad losses, stength/weakness of schedule - all of this has been factored into the RPI so there's no need to list those things IMO. It really does seem that looking at the RPI is the fairest thing to do in this situation, and removes any potential for bias. Not that I think that's a big factor; the committee has a tough job to do, and no doubt tries their best. But members still represent various regions of the country, and conferences both big and small, and their respective identities must have some influence on their decisions...in particular when you have a significant number competing for very few spots.

RPI
38 Texas
55 BYU
57 Purdue
59 Charlotte
60 Michigan
63 Syracuse
66 Northwestern
71 TCU

SOS
14 Texas
31 Michigan
36 Northwestern
49 Purdue
84 Syracuse
89 Charlotte
98 TCU
105 BYU

I would like to hear what others think about the above squads and their respective chances. For instance BYU is closest to the Horns in the RPI at #55, but dead last of the eight in SOS. I realize none of this means the Horns are going to get in; the committee can and will do whatever they want. But it certainly seems like Texas ought to be the most likely of this group to secure a bid.
 
All I have to say is (short and sweet), if we don't get in then screw the tough OOC scheduling if we aren't rewarded for it. Just play some cupcake teams to make sure we get 23+ in the W column.
 
The mark against Texas that may keep them out is that they didnt beat any of the elite teams on their schedule. And you can't really say the tough schedule prepared them for Big 12 play as they finished under .500

if you only look at RPI, Texas is comfortably in
 
They will get in the NCAA. 1st they beat Tex Tech twice, who upset Baylor and Oklahoma. 2nd they beat Kansas St. on their home floor, and they upset AM.
 
Sometimes the committee "rewards" non-BCS schools by "punishing" the big conference schools which didn't have winning records in their conference matches.

Seems like BYU gets into every tournament, regardless of the sport. If they are the regular season conference champions, that might be seen as enough to warrant an at-large bid; dont think both BYU and TCU will get in, though.
 
Don't assume anything when it comes to these selection committee's. After all, the men's team got hosed and they won against a difficult out of conference schedule and at Kansas.
hookem.gif
 
From what we've seen, there are always some "surprises" in the bracket which don't coincide with the mock brackets of the so-called "experts". Let's hope that applies (in a good way) to us tonight.

Here is one team who I question "belonging" over us:

RPI
38 Texas
53 LSU (19-13)

SOS
14 Texas
27 LSU

Identical overall records, but our numbers are much better. Guessing LSU did not have a losing record in the SEC, so perhaps that plays in their favor.
 
Having a good RPI or SOS does not mean alot if you do not demonstrate you can perform against that level of competition. When your only claim to something resembling a signature win is beating someone who beat one of the good teams, the cause is NOT helped with the selection process.

Also, as we saw with the men's bracketing, there is an element of 'what have you done lately.' One school saw their seeding hurt by the loss of a key player to injury. Texas was hurt by the fact they lost to two teams they had no business losing to as well as the fact that the game against KU for the Championship showed that shuting one player out (Tristan) pretty much closes out the team.

The WBB squad needed to show something in the game against aggy...if they would have at least kept it close then a case might have been made to bring them in at a 13/14 seed. But getting blown out and failing to put up a signature win not only keeps them out but SHOULD have kept them out of any bubble discussion.

And without making the NCAA, I am not sure they should even accept a WNIT bid. I simply have not seen the level of consistency that is suggestive of them being able to show that they were the best of the rest...and a first or second round loss in the WNIT would NOT be conducive to recruiting efforts.
 
One other thing I'm wondering about after watching the ESPN coverage of the men's selection last night is if the women's committee looks at the same criteria? Does anyone know if the same standards apply? If so, this would seem to favor the Horns to a much greater extent that we've discussed thus far.

There seemed to be alot of complaints from the talking heads about UAB, and VCU in particular being selected over Virginia Tech and Colorado, with almost everyone saying it was a big injustice to have VCU invited over the Buffs. The reasoning being Colorado had 6 wins over top 50 RPI squads incuding big upsets over Texas and NU, and most importantly three victories over #5 seed K-State. But when they interviewd the committee head from Ohio State he refuted these concerns and said the enitre season was looked at and that CU's OOC schedule was ranked something like 325th. And all of this was reflected in the RPI - UAB was 31st and VCU 49th (even though they finished 4th in Colonial Conference), whereas VA Tech had an RPI of 62nd and Colorado 65th.

It seems like all programs knew in advance that scheduling, in particular OOC, was a primary factor and so those left out shouldn't have been surprised. If the women's committee employs the same criteria then the Horns should be in for sure, but again, I don't know if the standards are the same or not.
 
My 'what have you done lately' comment spoke more to the seedings than who got in versus who did not, and even to the extent that it involved who got snubbed, it would have been far beyond Colorado. Quite frankly, I would have taken Harvard over Colorado...

The simple fact on seeding though is that some schools (besides Texas) got killed on seeding because they finished flat or had key injuries in the past week or two (and where the injured player was instrumental to the team's overall success).

And again, as to the women's team, it matters not how strong the schedule is if you cannot put up some meaningful results against the top squads. Texas didn't and that negates much of the bump they might otherwise have gotten as a sub-20 win team. Bids should not be the NCAA equivalent to the six-degrees-of-separation game...
 
I hadn't even thought about seeding and really don't have a clue as to how that might work out, other than for the top seeds that is. I was really just commenting about the rationale used by the men's committee for filling out the field, and whether or not the women's committee used the same criteria.
 
My previous comments about criteria notwithstanding, I notice that Charlie Creme has LSU, Purdue, Michigan and Syracuse all making the field (as pointed out earlier the Horns aren't in his final bracket). That's nos. 53, 57, 60 & 63 all in over #38/14 Texas. And while he doesn't have BYU (RPI 55/SOS 105) in his bracket either, he sees them slipping in ahead of the Horns should there be a surprise or two. I don't know if he's usually on target with his projections, but if he's right the women's committee is indeed looking at much different standards than the men. Oh well....only 6 hours until we know for certain.
 
In February of 2010 Jerry Palm went through a mock Women’s selection process with the committee. This is what he had to say about that process….

This year, I had the opportunity to sit through the mock selection process put on by the NCAA women's basketball staff. It was particularly interesting for me because I was curious as to how it was different than the men's process.
The women's committee views data differently than the men's committee does. The team sheets the committee looks at break down each team's season performance. Opponents are grouped by top 25 RPI, 26-50, 51-100 and 101+. There is also strength of schedule information, both for non-conference and conference, and how teams have performed at the end of the season.
Ultimately, though, this is a subjective process. There were times in the meeting where one of us might say, "I see what the numbers say, but this team is not as good as the numbers." Or vice versa.
There are also regional coaches' rankings that are sometimes referred to, and we sometimes found that the coaches of a particular region felt better or worse about a team than we did.
The actual process used to create the bracket is three-fold: select the at-large teams, rank them 1-64, and then put them in the bracket. Sometimes, the committee may go back and forth between the first two steps, but the bracketing step doesn't start until the first two steps are finished.
Selecting and ranking is done through a series of votes on computer. A seemingly never-ending series of votes. And we didn't do all the voting. We picked about 2/3 of the at-large teams, and then to speed up the process, the staff filled in the rest by RPI. We seeded about 24 teams, and then the staff filled in the rest.
Bracketing is different than I thought it would be. I thought there would be an emphasis on making sure teams play close to home to help sell tickets.
However, an attempt is made to keep teams close to home. Teams hosting the first two rounds get to play at home. Old Dominion is a 13-seed in this bracket, but is playing at home because they are a host. Regional hosts are not allowed to play at home though, so Dayton had to be shipped somewhere else.
Teams from the same conference are not supposed to be bracketed so they could meet before a regional final, unless it is unavoidable. That is very important in the men's bracketing process because of how revenue is distributed. It's not as big a deal in the women's bracketing, but they do still try to maintain that.
All in all, the meeting was very informative and hopefully, will help me do a better job of projecting the women's field.

……I am not concerned about the losses to OSU and Missouri. Other teams on the bubble have worse losses. You get that with bubble teams. What hurts Texas is that they never quite managed to pull off a big win. They were competitive for most of the game with Stanford, Tennessee, and Michigan State, but let a few bad minutes make the score look worse. They lost to OU and ISU in overtime. They lost a three point game to aTm. In fact they had a nine-point lead against aTm in the second half of their first meeting only to let a few bad minutes make it appear it wasn’t close. If they win any of those games the OSUMU losses hardly matter. They would be in. But, they didn’t.

I think they did enough to show they deserve to be in the tournament. But, I have no idea if it will look that way to the committee.
 
Thanks, Outlook, that's really great information. It looks like there are differences in what the committees look at, but that a lot of the primary considerations are the same. The RPI groupings really favor the Horns, both in terms of opponents and where they stand themselves (they're the only squad of the nine discussed on this thread in the 25-50 group). And certainly the SOS (OOC and conference) really works in their favor as they are way ahead of everyone else in that category. Of course you have the caveat, "Ultimately, though, this is a subjective process," which I guess means these are all the things that are considered, but don't be surpirsed if the committee does something completely different!
 
Syracuse would make sense...more than 20 wins, had a winning conference record at 9-7 and at least beat a team ranked in the top 10.

LSU is marginal at best with a .500 record in a conference that only had two teams in the top-25, although they did beat two squads that were in the top-25 at the time of the win. The fact that they apparently kept their final tourney game (and one that was to a ranked opponent) close would at least work in their favor.

Purdue is a squad I can make very few arguments for other than they at least were over .500 in their conference and won more than 20 games.

Michigan at least posted a few 'quality' wins by having beaten people in the top-25 but again, is hardly a squad I would be inclined to put in the tourney if I were on the committee.

Balance that against the fact that, looking at our full schedule as it shows on Yahoo, every squad on there that is presently ranked was someone we lost to. Texas just did not produce results against competition this year that makes them bracket-worthy; they lost to schools they had no business losing to and they tended to get killed by squads that were at least ranked.
 
I may have missed someone because I looked at the bracket quickly, but if I read correctly Texas and Purdue are the only teams of the nine discussed above that made the tourney. BYU, Charlotte, Michigan, Syracuse, Northwestern, TCU and LSU got left out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top