Future changes to NCAA selection committee criteria?

[skianth16]

Pat Forde wrote an interesting piece on Yahoo sports about the tournament selection process, noting that if Loyola would have lost in the MVC tournament, they probably wouldn't have gotten an at-large bid this year. The selection process has changed in recent years in ways that now exclude good mid-major teams, largely due to a focus on SOS. A former NCAA exec offered some ideas to encourage bigger programs to add more mid-majors to their schedules in an attempt to give the little guys some leverage in scheduling. His ideas are summarized in the quote below"

"...he has some radical ideas: home games against a team in the 300s in the RPI would nullify that program’s top-ranked home game; an RPI bonus for flipping a contracted home game to make it on the road against a low-major opponent; requiring every FBS team to play at least one non-conference game on the road against the defending champion of a non-FBS opponent."

Personally, I like the idea of giving a good MVC or MAAC school some leverage in scheduling. Plus, a more balanced non-con could be more entertaining for power 6 fans than a schedule featuring a handful of good competitors and a steady diet of cupcakes. Given the money involved, though, some of these changes will be hard to implement. Such is the business of amateur athletics.

https://sports.yahoo.com/loyola-chicagos-final-four-run-reveals-flaws-ncaa-tournaments-selection-process-034007234.html

[GGGG]

"Think about this epic March Madness story that would never have been told if the Ramblers had lost on that tense Friday afternoon in St. Louis. Sister Jean would be an unknown. Nobody would be hearing about the pioneering 1963 Loyola team. And a deserving squad never would have had its chance to beat the big boys and compete for the national title."


The role of the committee is to determine who the best teams are as proven throughout the season.  Regardless of the sappy sentimentality in the above paragraph, Loyola may not have deserved an at-large bid by the objectives used by Committee.  Those are just the facts.

And manipulating the data to encourage high major teams to play more road games (and have both parties lose money in the process) seems more about determining some concept of "fairness" versus objectively determining who the best teams are.

I mean if there are common-sense ways to change the metrics that are defensible in terms of determining how good a team actually is, I am all for it.  But to do so just to give mid-major teams a better chance...well I don't think that's a great idea.

[#UnleashSean]

so 18ish teams would have to play around 60?. Suddenly those Non Con schedules for those teams are loaded. Good idea but really not practical is it?

[skianth16]

The current process does seem to punish little guys for being little guys. Bigger schools have all the leverage in scheduling, which means smaller schools have an uphill task in reshaping their schedule and SOS, ultimately making it harder for them to make the tournament. Trying to find a way to even the playing field in some way, whether it be through changing schedules or tweaking the assessment criteria, could help improve the game, IMO.

One reason March is as much fun as it is, is that small schools prove, year after year, that when given an opportunity, they are often able to compete with the big guys. I don't think a major shift is needed by any means, but reversing the recent trends that have resulted in mediocre power 6 teams getting at-large bids over talented mid-majors doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

[GGGG]

Not to mention, those 300+ RPI teams now are going to find it harder to go on the road and earn money for their program.  Those buy games are a significant source of income for those programs.

[GGGG]

The current process does seem to punish little guys for being little guys. Bigger schools have all the leverage in scheduling, which means smaller schools have an uphill task in reshaping their schedule and SOS, ultimately making it harder for them to make the tournament. Trying to find a way to even the playing field in some way, whether it be through changing schedules or tweaking the assessment criteria, could help improve the game, IMO.

One reason March is as much fun as it is, is that small schools prove, year after year, that when given an opportunity, they are often able to compete with the big guys. I don't think a major shift is needed by any means, but reversing the recent trends that have resulted in mediocre power 6 teams getting at-large bids over talented mid-majors doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

I think your whole premise could be misguided.  How do we know that a P6 team is "mediocre" while a mid-major is "talented?"  Are we even having this discussion if Loyola misses that shot v. Miami in the first round?

[GooooMarquette]

I'm not sure any changes are necessary.

While we certainly see solid runs by teams like Loyola, it may very well be that momentum played a big part. Watch any mid-major conference tournament, and the winning players look like they just won powerball. Contrast that emotion with a team that was solid all year but just saw their conference tourney end in front of 1500 fans in Peoria.

If they change anything, I'd like them to go back to emphasizing the last 10 games.

[muwarrior69]

25 to 30 percent of the teams in the pros make the playoff. Just expand the NCAA to 128 (one extra weekend) and be done with it. Any team under 500 (except conf champ) would not qualify. That would leave no high major bubble teams and leave a few slots for high performing mid majors. Maybe a bad idea; just thought I throw that out there.

[GGGG]

25 to 30 percent of the teams in the pros make the playoff. Just expand the NCAA to 128 (one extra weekend) and be done with it. Any team under 500 (except conf champ) would not qualify. That would leave no high major bubble teams and leave a few slots for high performing mid majors. Maybe a bad idea; just thought I throw that out there.

You would actually only be expanding it one extra game. 

[skianth16]

I think your whole premise could be misguided.  How do we know that a P6 team is "mediocre" while a mid-major is "talented?"  Are we even having this discussion if Loyola misses that shot v. Miami in the first round?

It's not just about Loyola this year, but they're a good example of a team that is good enough on the court but maybe not on paper. For me, the drop off in the number of mid-majors getting at large bids was very telling of the way things have changed recently. Telling solid mid-majors like St. Mary's, St. Bonaventure, Middle Tennessee, etc that their SOS needs to improve without giving some kind avenue to actually being able to do so doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

[Spotcheck Billy]

You would actually only be expanding it one extra game. 

Every team should be in the tourney.

[GGGG]

It's not just about Loyola this year, but they're a good example of a team that is good enough on the court but maybe not on paper. For me, the drop off in the number of mid-majors getting at large bids was very telling of the way things have changed recently. Telling solid mid-majors like St. Mary's, St. Bonaventure, Middle Tennessee, etc that their SOS needs to improve without giving some kind avenue to actually being able to do so doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

I think a lot of the reason for this is due to conference expansion and the fact that there is another "major" conference - AAC.  Former "mid-majors" like Creighton, Butler, Xavier and Wichita are now moved up in conferences.

[GGGG]

Every team should be in the tourney.

They basically are.

[skianth16]

I think a lot of the reason for this is due to conference expansion and the fact that there is another "major" conference - AAC.  Former "mid-majors" like Creighton, Butler, Xavier and Wichita are now moved up in conferences.

That's true. That could account for a big part of the change in who's getting selected.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

It's not just about Loyola this year, but they're a good example of a team that is good enough on the court but maybe not on paper. For me, the drop off in the number of mid-majors getting at large bids was very telling of the way things have changed recently. Telling solid mid-majors like St. Mary's, St. Bonaventure, Middle Tennessee, etc that their SOS needs to improve without giving some kind avenue to actually being able to do so doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

St. Mary's dodged Rhode Island and Nevada. Both wanted to schedule St. Mary's but were turned down.

Middle Tennessee scheduled well but lost every game of note.

I have no problem with leaving both of them out.

[CreightonWarrior]

St. Mary's dodged Rhode Island and Nevada. Both wanted to schedule St. Mary's but were turned down.

add Creighton to the list

[GGGG]

That's true. That could account for a big part of the change in who's getting selected.

For instance, I looked at the non-P6 schools that got selected at-large in 2018 and 2008.

2018:  Nevada, Houston, Wichita, St. Bonnies, Rhode Island.  Two of these were replaced by "bid stealers" who won their conference tourneys: San Diego State and Davidson.

2008:  South Alabama, St. Joes, Xavier, BYU, Gonzaga, St. Marys.  Two of these were replaced by "bid stealers":  Temple and San Diego.

So the 2008 tournament had six non-P6 teams receive at large bids.  Two of them likely took spots from P6 schools because they failed to win their conference tournament.  In 2018 it was five non-P6 schools, two of which likely took spots from P6 schools.

I think part of the issue is...what exactly is the American Athletic Conference?  Is it "mid-major," "high-major" or some sort of hybrid?  In 2008, a number of those schools were in the CUSA, which was a one-bid league back then.  (As was the MVC.)

So I'm not sure we are seeing a real problem here.  It seems like this is more about conference expansion and a hybrid new conference of old football playing BE schools who have added top schools from the CUSA and MVC.

[muwarrior69]

You would actually only be expanding it one extra game.

True, but you would need 4 days to play 64 first round games; especially if they were all televised.

[chapman]

If they change anything, I'd like them to go back to emphasizing the last 10 games.

Or even if it's not quantified in terms of X games, consideration for how a team finished the season, or maybe just their play once they got into conference play should mean something.  It seems they're now very over-committed to this "games in November mean just as much as games in March" mindset.  I don't care to see teams like Oklahoma and Arizona State that stop being good in January milking that to its fullest and essentially earning a tournament berth in mid-December while a Loyola could have played very well for three months and lost their chance on one game in March.

[GooooMarquette]

They basically are.

Yep. As long as conference tournament winners get automatic bids, every team that isn't on probation has a shot.

[Jay Bee]

Briefly read the OP. Stupid - most of that stuff already exists.

[skianth16]

So the 2008 tournament had six non-P6 teams receive at large bids.  Two of them likely took spots from P6 schools because they failed to win their conference tournament.  In 2018 it was five non-P6 schools, two of which likely took spots from P6 schools.

I think part of the issue is...what exactly is the American Athletic Conference?  Is it "mid-major," "high-major" or some sort of hybrid?  In 2008, a number of those schools were in the CUSA, which was a one-bid league back then.  (As was the MVC.)

Good info here. The classification of the AAC and the expansion of the P6 conferences does seem to have changed the landscape quite a bit. Moving some of the better mid-majors like Xavier and Butler into a P6 conference definitely adds to the number of 1-bid leagues, but I think most people would agree that seeing successful programs move into strong conferences is a good thing for college basketball.

In general, I think the heart of what the article and the former NCAA exec were getting at is that a focus on improving SOS and scheduling sounds good in theory but can be a hard thing to execute for most schools. We're not too far off from 25 1-bid leagues, for a number of reasons, but that will end up regularly leaving out 25+ win teams that could probably compete with so-so P6 schools that have a strong SOS. Striking a balance between rewarding a high winning percentage and a strong SOS could give the Loyolas and George Masons of the world a better chance at getting an at large bid.

In years like this, when the Pac-12 and Big Ten are way down, you would think we would see fewer one-bid leagues, but it seems like the at-larges just piled up in the high major conferences. Personally, I would rather see Middle Tennessee get an at large than a mediocre Oklahoma or Syracuse who were both under .500 in conference play. Those high majors will have plenty of opportunities to play in March in coming years, but MTSU may have to wait another 10 years to have a shot.

[GGGG]

Good info here. The classification of the AAC and the expansion of the P6 conferences does seem to have changed the landscape quite a bit. Moving some of the better mid-majors like Xavier and Butler into a P6 conference definitely adds to the number of 1-bid leagues, but I think most people would agree that seeing successful programs move into strong conferences is a good thing for college basketball.

In general, I think the heart of what the article and the former NCAA exec were getting at is that a focus on improving SOS and scheduling sounds good in theory but can be a hard thing to execute for most schools. We're not too far off from 25 1-bid leagues, for a number of reasons, but that will end up regularly leaving out 25+ win teams that could probably compete with so-so P6 schools that have a strong SOS. Striking a balance between rewarding a high winning percentage and a strong SOS could give the Loyolas and George Masons of the world a better chance at getting an at large bid.

In years like this, when the Pac-12 and Big Ten are way down, you would think we would see fewer one-bid leagues, but it seems like the at-larges just piled up in the high major conferences. Personally, I would rather see Middle Tennessee get an at large than a mediocre Oklahoma or Syracuse who were both under .500 in conference play. Those high majors will have plenty of opportunities to play in March in coming years, but MTSU may have to wait another 10 years to have a shot.

You had me until the last sentence, which I realize is just an opinion.

I think there is way too much sentimentality around this discussion.  For every Loyola, there are a handful of South Dakota States - a conference champion that lost to a mediocre Ohio State team who lost in their conference tournament quarterfinals.  It's just that we remember the Loyolas and not the SDSUs.

I'm all for changing the metrics to determine who a better team is.  But the solutions recommended seem more about incentivizing certain scheduling behavior versus determining what the best teams are.  And IMO that is a poor use of metrics.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Good info here. The classification of the AAC and the expansion of the P6 conferences does seem to have changed the landscape quite a bit. Moving some of the better mid-majors like Xavier and Butler into a P6 conference definitely adds to the number of 1-bid leagues, but I think most people would agree that seeing successful programs move into strong conferences is a good thing for college basketball.

In general, I think the heart of what the article and the former NCAA exec were getting at is that a focus on improving SOS and scheduling sounds good in theory but can be a hard thing to execute for most schools. We're not too far off from 25 1-bid leagues, for a number of reasons, but that will end up regularly leaving out 25+ win teams that could probably compete with so-so P6 schools that have a strong SOS. Striking a balance between rewarding a high winning percentage and a strong SOS could give the Loyolas and George Masons of the world a better chance at getting an at large bid.

In years like this, when the Pac-12 and Big Ten are way down, you would think we would see fewer one-bid leagues, but it seems like the at-larges just piled up in the high major conferences. Personally, I would rather see Middle Tennessee get an at large than a mediocre Oklahoma or Syracuse who were both under .500 in conference play. Those high majors will have plenty of opportunities to play in March in coming years, but MTSU may have to wait another 10 years to have a shot.

...George Mason got an at-large bid the year they made their run. Seems the system worked there, right?

[Benny B]

Pat Forde goes into the same bucket with Jay Bilas... when it comes to basketball, they're among the best in the business.  But when it comes to the business of basketball, they're clickbait.

[SaveOD238]

I saw a chart earlier this year that depicted this perfectly depicted this problem with mid-majors, but I cant find it.  The media will moan and groan that the NCAA is keeping out mid-majors, but it really has everything to do with the growth of conferences.  The number of "major" teams has increased sharply in the last 15 years or so, dating back to the Big East expansion in 2005 that included Marquette. 

Prior to 2005, there were 63 "Power Conference" teams

Big 10- 11
Big 12- 12
Big East- 11
ACC- 9
Pac10- 10
SEC- 10

Now, there are 88. 

Big 10- 14
Big 12- 10
Big East- 10
ACC- 16
Pac12- 12
SEC- 14
AAC- 12

That's an increase of 25, and many of those 25 went from being mid-majors that semi-regularly made the Dance to high-majors that semi-regularly make it (Louisville, Marquette, Wichita, Cincinnati, Xavier, Butler, etc).  In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

[GooooMarquette]

I saw a chart earlier this year that depicted this perfectly depicted this problem with mid-majors, but I cant find it.  The media will moan and groan that the NCAA is keeping out mid-majors, but it really has everything to do with the growth of conferences.  The number of "major" teams has increased sharply in the last 15 years or so, dating back to the Big East expansion in 2005 that included Marquette. 

Prior to 2005, there were 63 "Power Conference" teams

Big 10- 11
Big 12- 12
Big East- 11
ACC- 9
Pac10- 10
SEC- 10

Now, there are 88. 

Big 10- 14
Big 12- 10
Big East- 10
ACC- 16
Pac12- 12
SEC- 14
AAC- 12

That's an increase of 25, and many of those 25 went from being mid-majors that semi-regularly made the Dance to high-majors that semi-regularly make it (Louisville, Marquette, Wichita, Cincinnati, Xavier, Butler, etc).  In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

That's a good point. It was only five years ago that Xavier, Butler, Creighton and Wichita would all have been considered mid-majors based on conference affiliation.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I saw a chart earlier this year that depicted this perfectly depicted this problem with mid-majors, but I cant find it.  The media will moan and groan that the NCAA is keeping out mid-majors, but it really has everything to do with the growth of conferences.  The number of "major" teams has increased sharply in the last 15 years or so, dating back to the Big East expansion in 2005 that included Marquette. 

Prior to 2005, there were 63 "Power Conference" teams

Big 10- 11
Big 12- 12
Big East- 11
ACC- 9
Pac10- 10
SEC- 10

Now, there are 88. 

Big 10- 14
Big 12- 10
Big East- 10
ACC- 16
Pac12- 12
SEC- 14
AAC- 12

That's an increase of 25, and many of those 25 went from being mid-majors that semi-regularly made the Dance to high-majors that semi-regularly make it (Louisville, Marquette, Wichita, Cincinnati, Xavier, Butler, etc).  In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

Subtract these 12. AAC has never been rated higher than 7th among conferences since its creation. They have a lot more in common with the A10, WCC, and MWC then they do with the P6.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Subtract these 12. AAC has never been rated higher than 7th among conferences since its creation. They have a lot more in common with the A10, WCC, and MWC then they do with the P6.

Was just thinking the same thing.  Basically the same as the old C-USA.

[SaveOD238]

In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

Quoted myself and did my own brief research.  I did a little research and compared a few eras.  From 2000 to 2004 (everything prior to the Big East expansion) there were 88 unique at-large teams (or automatic bids to #1 seeds that would have been at-larges).  From 2014-2018, there were 89 unique at large teams.  So, really, what's changed?  The conference name next to the team name?  Big deal.

[SaveOD238]

Subtract these 12. AAC has never been rated higher than 7th among conferences since its creation. They have a lot more in common with the A10, WCC, and MWC then they do with the P6.

How about I subtract half the conference instead of the whole thing?  I don't buy the idea that UConn, Cincinnati, Wichita, Memphis, and SMU are truly mid-majors, but I also don't think that East Carolina and Tulane should be considered "high majors."

Still 80+ "high major" teams, compared to 63 a decade and a half ago.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

How about I subtract half the conference instead of the whole thing?  I don't buy the idea that UConn, Cincinnati, Wichita, Memphis, and SMU are truly mid-majors, but I also don't think that East Carolina and Tulane should be considered "high majors."

Still 80+ "high major" teams, compared to 63 a decade and a half ago.

The AAC is pretty much the equivalent of the old C-USA. Swap out Louisville, add UConn.

So if you're including Cincy, UConn, and Memphis now you have to include Cincy, Louisville, and Memphis then.

[Herman Cain]

Pat Forde wrote an interesting piece on Yahoo sports about the tournament selection process, noting that if Loyola would have lost in the MVC tournament, they probably wouldn't have gotten an at-large bid this year. The selection process has changed in recent years in ways that now exclude good mid-major teams, largely due to a focus on SOS. A former NCAA exec offered some ideas to encourage bigger programs to add more mid-majors to their schedules in an attempt to give the little guys some leverage in scheduling. His ideas are summarized in the quote below"

"...he has some radical ideas: home games against a team in the 300s in the RPI would nullify that program’s top-ranked home game; an RPI bonus for flipping a contracted home game to make it on the road against a low-major opponent; requiring every FBS team to play at least one non-conference game on the road against the defending champion of a non-FBS opponent."

Personally, I like the idea of giving a good MVC or MAAC school some leverage in scheduling. Plus, a more balanced non-con could be more entertaining for power 6 fans than a schedule featuring a handful of good competitors and a steady diet of cupcakes. Given the money involved, though, some of these changes will be hard to implement. Such is the business of amateur athletics.

https://sports.yahoo.com/loyola-chicagos-final-four-run-reveals-flaws-ncaa-tournaments-selection-process-034007234.html

The PGA tour did something like this a while back forcing all the players to play certain tournaments that they did not historically play . It really did not change things that much. The weaker tournaments still get weaker fields, just slightly less weak.

I think the changes noted may change one or two games a year. However, for the most part the system as presently constituted works well. A small school can up their schedule by doing most of their non con games as road by games against tougher opponents. Similarly, A Big School like Michigan State in the past has loaded up on tough non conference with only a couple of cupcakes.
 
The beauty of the tournament as currently structured is not just the tournament itself, but also the conference tournaments leading up to it especially for the one bid leagues. Even the last 3 or 4 games for the bubble teams in bigger conferences are great for the basketball fan.

TV is willing to pay big dollars for the tournament precisely because it is so well structured.