I don't know if you guys can see this due to potential firewall....let me know
http://208.115.47.50/directv/article_images/SBJ_Seatselection_DIRECTVmention_030711_.pdf
Loads up just fine. Very interesting article.
Chicos
What do you make of the criticism that these are the wrong type to be on the committee? It should not be administrators like ADs or commissioners but basketball people. Say Bobby Knight types and other former HCs, maybe even a Pomeroy or Sagarin type as well.
Thanks for sharin'. Here I was certain the committe was comprised of Larry, Moe, Curly, and Clarabell.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 07, 2011, 01:58:04 PM
Chicos
What do you make of the criticism that these are the wrong type to be on the committee? It should not be administrators like ADs or commissioners but basketball people. Say Bobby Knight types and other former HCs, maybe even a Pomeroy or Sagarin type as well.
I think it's valid criticism, but don't ever see it changing because of the way the NCAA works.
Bump, thought it was great article, thanks for sharing CBB.
With sixty-eight spots, anyone who deserves to be there, and more than a couple who don't, get in. The problem will always be that those who barely miss will compare themselves to the last couple of teams to get in and bitch. That'll never change no matter how big the tournament gets. I'm skeptical that the committee has to watch that many games. It's impressive that they do, but stats provide a more complete picture. If I were on the committee, I'd watch most of my games from DVDs provided by the conferences and concentrate on those games that were anomalies. In other words, when a game had a surprising result that was greatly in variance from what was predicted, I'd want to watch that game to see what the heck happened.
Its interesting to me that the committee members have to personally be responsible for following at least one and maybe two conferences each that have virtually no chance of placing a team except through their automatic qualifier.
Also interesting was that the article didn't seem to say that there were any criteria provided by the NCAA that the committee was obligated to take into consideration. Given all that I've heard in the past about how crucial the NCAA's RPI was in the past, I was surprised to see that its use doesn't appear to be mandated. It's probably a big time saver for the committee though.
All in all, I was very impressed by the amount of work that each committee member does. I think that I'm done bitching about their decisions.
How much any selection committee is mandated by the NCAA is a hot topic. In DIII football last year, the committee sent consensus #1 whitewater on the road for two games because the had a worse strength of opponent even though they passed the eyeball test as the top team in its region by almost everyone who follows DIII football. The committee should be giv en flexibility to determine how it selects and seeds.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 08, 2011, 11:47:20 AM
How much any selection committee is mandated by the NCAA is a hot topic. In DIII football last year, the committee sent consensus #1 whitewater on the road for two games because the had a worse strength of opponent even though they passed the eyeball test as the top team in its region by almost everyone who follows DIII football. The committee should be given flexibility to determine how it selects and seeds.
And, if I understand your post correctly, the committee is given that flexibility. I agree that's a good thing. Especially when they have put in all that time.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 08, 2011, 11:13:55 AM
Also interesting was that the article didn't seem to say that there were any criteria provided by the NCAA that the committee was obligated to take into consideration. Given all that I've heard in the past about how crucial the NCAA's RPI was in the past, I was surprised to see that its use doesn't appear to be mandated. It's probably a big time saver for the committee though.
All in all, I was very impressed by the amount of work that each committee member does. I think that I'm done bitching about their decisions.
That is correct, but works both ways. That's why when I read things here that say the RPI is "greatly diminished" I'd love to know where people get this nonsense. It's neither greatly diminished or greatly enforced. It's up to each committee member to decide what they want to use. Some committee members (and chairmen) say it's important to them, some even say VERY important to them. Other committee members (and chairmen) have said it's not that important. From this, some people decide it's greatly diminished. That's a flawed conclusion.
This article is exactly how Doug Elgin has described the process to me in the past which is why I posted it. At the end of the day, we can all be pundits and say we're a lock or easily in or whatever, but none of us knows what each member is using as their criteria. If there was a simply formula, this stuff would be easy. But there is no simple formula deciding who's in and who's out, especially for that last handful of teams.
Go Marquette tonight!
Even though I'm pretty adament about MU deserving to be in the tournament, I won't be mad at the committee if they aren't - I will just be crushed.
They are not following a set rule. If a committee decided this year that they really wanted to get back to weighting selections heavily toward RPI for example, then MU would be very vulnerable.
They are doing a subjective job so there are no guaranteed results.
Let's just do what we can and get a couple of wins together to take the decision away from them!