Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Want to help support PFN?

In lieu of ads you can help me to offset PFN operating costs by making any of your Amazon.com purchases through this link at no additional cost to you.

Should we do away with NCAA selection committee?

Barring a miracle, it doesn’t matter this year, but there’s a small, but growing movement to do away with the committee that selects the field for the NCAA invitational tournament. The criteria is murky and quite frankly, the selection criteria actually results in the average fan watching less basketball. The current process encourages back room bargaining, politicking, the flawed ‘eye test” and tuning into the selection show on Sunday.

But the bottom line is, if you want to screw someone over - what better way to do it than have heavily subjective criteria.

On the other hand, a good analytical model - like the NET or Kenpom would have you watching as much basketball as possible and turn the journey to the tournament and associated seeding into something closer to the stock market. Fans of all teams would have reasons to watch lotsa basketball and we would add transparency to a process built to hide it.

Better article here:

https://johngasaway.com/2019/12/18/replace-the-committee-with-basketball-games/#more-40206

Comments

  • Vawolf82Vawolf82 Posts: 1,033PFN Referee
    edited February 19

    The problem with the selection process is that it will always be difficult to evaluate the tallest midget in a mid-major with the middle of the conference team in a power conference. As expected, they don't prove that their "numbers" produce a better field than the current selection process.

    They also speculate that a numbers-based selection would generate more interest in college basketball. This conclusion is questionable and they certainly offer no proof or parallel from another sport.

    They finally get to the point of their gripe later in the article. Their preferred method favors teams at the top of mid-majors over the teams in the middle of the power conferences. I suspect that this outcome is actually what the authors desire and the point of the entire article.

    Note that State gets a 9-seed in their NCAA tournament field instead of a 2-seed in the NIT in the real world. State played the easiest OOC schedule in all of Div 1 in 2019 and had one of the easiest ACC schedules (IIRC). In other words....State was essentially a mid-major team that year that beat no one of note (and no team that made the NCAAT).

    I'm doubtful that a numbers only approach would produce a better tournament. But I'm positive that the author's preferred approach would have many teams from power conferences following State's lead from 2019 and only playing OOC teams from the bottom of Div 1.

  • ryebreadryebread Posts: 2,675PFN Referee

    Ehhh. With so many teams in the tournament, I am not sure that it matters all that much anyway. Part of the madness is in the wacky seeding and last 4 in and out. There’s no way they’re giving up that sort of drama.

Sign In or Register to comment.