Which is more imporant?

[MYkinTJ]

Following the S-Curve or putting the top teams closest to their area. I don't think there is an exact answer because of the mixed messages over the last few years. Does anyone know the committee's official stance on this issue?

 

[Bob in Houston]

The answer, to the best of my knowledge, is, "Yes." They consider both to varying degrees. You really can't gauge it ahead of time, and if we find out, it won't be until well down the road (like, years).

 

[hudsonhorn]

Committee doesn't have an official stance, and if they did, they wouldn't tell. It's the secret mumbo-jumbo that keeps them going.

 

[SL Xpress]

The other thing is that different committees value different things. They're human beings, with human dynamics.

For example, for several years conference tournament performance didn't seem to get valued at all. The last two years there's been a huge premium placed on it. I can see both sides. On the one hand, if value is placed on tournament performance, they're emphasizing one or two games over the much greater body of work built up over the course of an entire season.

On the other hand, if they don't value conference tournament performance, what is the point in playing them? The easy solution would be not to have them, but it doesn't take much to figure out that's not the way college basketball has trended, so my opinion is, if we're going to play them, there ought to be some significant reasons for performing well for the teams that have already locked up an at large bid, other than just competitive spirit and garnering a trophy.

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[SL Xpress]

I'm talking about the major conference teams that have a bid locked up.

If they're not rewarded for conference tournament performance with seeding in the NCAA tournament, they're better off losing the first game, incentive wise. They may not, for other intangible reasons, but there's no real incentive for performance.

I do understand it brings in revenue for the conferences, which is the main reason they exist at this point, but that's a conference priority, not a specific team priority.

I just think the new emphasis on tournament performance by the selection committee the last two years has been in response to the lack of emphasis in the few years prior to that.

My main point on this thread, is that selection committees change in makeup and emphasis, which is a factor to consider as fans when we're trying to project what they'll value and what they won't before the brackets are actually announced.