The NCAA Selection Process

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Rick Pitino and Tom Izzo made it pretty clear how they feel.
Clemson's coach Brad Brownell went public in February with accusations that the Big 12 was gaming the NET by scheduling weak opponents in order to blow them out.
His team then dominated puffed-up NET darling Baylor in the NCAA tournament.
Major props to Brownell who 100% exposed the silliness and then backed it up on the court.
And of course NET darlings Mountain West, SEC and Big 12 have generally gotten their clocks cleaned in postseason play,
while NET deadbeats ACC, Big East and Pac 12 are pummeling teams the "experts" thought were good.

The NCAA needs to look at itself in the mirror. They clearly have no handle on things - and the metrics they rely upon are just a smokescreen with no genuine added value.
Somebody needs to intervene!

As I suggested long before the tournament started, a little common sense would help. Take the Top 3 teams from each of the major conferences automatically. If there is a tie, let the conferences themselves set the tiebreakers. The regular season has to count for something. Keep the conference tournaments. If the 6th place team wins it, then the 3rd place team loses its automatic bid. The penalty is confined to the conference, not used as an excuse to kick out a quality mid-major like Indiana State.

If some conferences deserve at least 4 teams, okay. Just spell out before the season begins that the Big Ten, ACC, Big East and SEC get 4 teams automatically.
The Mountain West gets 3. The Pac 12 gets 3. The Atlantic 10, West Coast and the American get 2.
Just spell it out - based on the previous season. Be transparent! Reward conference wins and losses. Make the conference games matter a lot!
Do not incentivize teams to schedule weak opponents and blow them out. Do not penalize teams severely for losses in the non-conference.

So thats 32 conference tournament winners plus 3 more from the 4 top conferences, plus 2 more from 2 conferences, plus 1 more from 3 conferences.
Total of 51 automatic bids. Every automatic qualifier deserves their bid. No whining about "bid-stealers."
Then (and only then) does the NCAA get to start selecting 17 at-large teams, with their flawed metrics.
Give them something to do... but stop the charade.

Using this approach, Houston, Iowa State, Tennessee, Alabama, Duke, UConn, Marquette, Creighton, Purdue, Illinois, NC State, Arizona, Gonzaga would have all automatically qualified.
Thats 13 of the Sweet 16.
Alabama would have been in a tiebreaker with South Carolina for the 4th SEC spot, but an obvious "at-large" candidate.
Clemson would not have qualified automatically, having finished 11-9, in a 3 way tie for 5th in the ACC.
San Diego State would not have automatically qualified, having finished 5th in the Mountain West.

Seton Hall would have received an automatic bid. Pitt's automatic bid for finishing 4th would have gone to NC State.

Thanks for reading. If the NCAA adopts this approach the world will be a happier place.

 

[CatManTrue]

This is the definition of a TL;DR post.

Can anyone provide a cliff notes version? TIA!

 

[Hungry Jack]

Rick Pitino and Tom Izzo made it pretty clear how they feel.
Clemson's coach Brad Brownell went public in February with accusations that the Big 12 was gaming the NET by scheduling weak opponents in order to blow them out.
His team then dominated puffed-up NET darling Baylor in the NCAA tournament.
Major props to Brownell who 100% exposed the silliness and then backed it up on the court.
And of course NET darlings Mountain West, SEC and Big 12 have generally gotten their clocks cleaned in postseason play,
while NET deadbeats ACC, Big East and Pac 12 are pummeling teams the "experts" thought were good.

The NCAA needs to look at itself in the mirror. They clearly have no handle on things - and the metrics they rely upon are just a smokescreen with no genuine added value.
Somebody needs to intervene!

As I suggested long before the tournament started, a little common sense would help. Take the Top 3 teams from each of the major conferences automatically. If there is a tie, let the conferences themselves set the tiebreakers. The regular season has to count for something. Keep the conference tournaments. If the 6th place team wins it, then the 3rd place team loses its automatic bid. The penalty is confined to the conference, not used as an excuse to kick out a quality mid-major like Indiana State.

If some conferences deserve at least 4 teams, okay. Just spell out before the season begins that the Big Ten, ACC, Big East and SEC get 4 teams automatically.
The Mountain West gets 3. The Pac 12 gets 3. The Atlantic 10, West Coast and the American get 2.
Just spell it out - based on the previous season. Be transparent! Reward conference wins and losses. Make the conference games matter a lot!
Do not incentivize teams to schedule weak opponents and blow them out. Do not penalize teams severely for losses in the non-conference.

So thats 32 conference tournament winners plus 3 more from the 4 top conferences, plus 2 more from 2 conferences, plus 1 more from 3 conferences.
Total of 51 automatic bids. Every automatic qualifier deserves their bid. No whining about "bid-stealers."
Then (and only then) does the NCAA get to start selecting 17 at-large teams, with their flawed metrics.
Give them something to do... but stop the charade.

Using this approach, Houston, Iowa State, Tennessee, Alabama, Duke, UConn, Marquette, Creighton, Purdue, Illinois, NC State, Arizona, Gonzaga would have all automatically qualified.
Thats 13 of the Sweet 16.
Alabama would have been in a tiebreaker with South Carolina for the 4th SEC spot, but an obvious "at-large" candidate.
Clemson would not have qualified automatically, having finished 11-9, in a 3 way tie for 5th in the ACC.
San Diego State would not have automatically qualified, having finished 5th in the Mountain West.

Seton Hall would have received an automatic bid. Pitt's automatic bid for finishing 4th would have gone to NC State.

Thanks for reading. If the NCAA adopts this approach the world will be a happier place.

You should start a blog on college hoops.

Seriously. I love your commentaries.

 

[macarthur31]

I dig the idea of making the regular season matter - however, with the B1G going to 18 teams, and staying at 20 games there's even a higher likelihood of inequitable schedules. (It already happened this year where NEB got the higher seed in BTT even though we were tied with them only because they had a better record against Purdue, 1-0 from a win at Pinnacle Bank vs us that split home and home). Perhaps if the B1G went to a "Swiss Model" like they're trying with UEFA Champions League in '25, but I don't see that happening.

Sticking to European soccer - for determining Champions League, they utilize a formula that allots slots for each League based on how their teams have performed in the competition. So in essence, for each game your conference team wins in the tournament, they earn points for the league to earn more bids in the future. Perhaps implementing something like that would help with the transparency in that everyone would know how many bids were available ahead of time.

Finally, it'd be great if the mid-majors had more access to quality games in the non-con. Over 10 years ago, ESPN had the "Bracket Busters" series which set up mid-majors with games towards the end of the season. Perhaps bringing something like that back?

If tournament expansion is inevitable, I liked Fran Fraschilla's proposal: 72 Teams, Expand the NCAA Tournament to 72 team with 32 automatic qualifiers, 24 seeded at-large teams and 16 at-large teams that play in First 8 on Tuesday/Wednesday. No auto qualifier will play in First 8.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I dig the idea of making the regular season matter - however, with the B1G going to 18 teams, and staying at 20 games there's even a higher likelihood of inequitable schedules. (It already happened this year where NEB got the higher seed in BTT even though we were tied with them only because they had a better record against Purdue, 1-0 from a win at Pinnacle Bank vs us that split home and home). Perhaps if the B1G went to a "Swiss Model" like they're trying with UEFA Champions League in '25, but I don't see that happening.

Sticking to European soccer - for determining Champions League, they utilize a formula that allots slots for each League based on how their teams have performed in the competition. So in essence, for each game your conference team wins in the tournament, they earn points for the league to earn more bids in the future. Perhaps implementing something like that would help with the transparency in that everyone would know how many bids were available ahead of time.

Finally, it'd be great if the mid-majors had more access to quality games in the non-con. Over 10 years ago, ESPN had the "Bracket Busters" series which set up mid-majors with games towards the end of the season. Perhaps bringing something like that back?

If tournament expansion is inevitable, I liked Fran Fraschilla's proposal: 72 Teams, Expand the NCAA Tournament to 72 team with 32 automatic qualifiers, 24 seeded at-large teams and 16 at-large teams that play in First 8 on Tuesday/Wednesday. No auto qualifier will play in First 8.

Something like your Euro formula makes sense. All I ask is that the NCAA allots a certain number of guaranteed bids to each conference before the season.

The conferences who play unbalanced schedules will have tiebreakers for conference tournament seeds. It should be pretty easy to include conference tournament games in each teams conference record (for determining who gts the auto bids to the NCAA).

Transparency is key. What they are doing now is just bad.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Rick Pitino and Tom Izzo made it pretty clear how they feel.
Clemson's coach Brad Brownell went public in February with accusations that the Big 12 was gaming the NET by scheduling weak opponents in order to blow them out.
His team then dominated puffed-up NET darling Baylor in the NCAA tournament.
Major props to Brownell who 100% exposed the silliness and then backed it up on the court.
And of course NET darlings Mountain West, SEC and Big 12 have generally gotten their clocks cleaned in postseason play,
while NET deadbeats ACC, Big East and Pac 12 are pummeling teams the "experts" thought were good.

The NCAA needs to look at itself in the mirror. They clearly have no handle on things - and the metrics they rely upon are just a smokescreen with no genuine added value.
Somebody needs to intervene!

As I suggested long before the tournament started, a little common sense would help. Take the Top 3 teams from each of the major conferences automatically. If there is a tie, let the conferences themselves set the tiebreakers. The regular season has to count for something. Keep the conference tournaments. If the 6th place team wins it, then the 3rd place team loses its automatic bid. The penalty is confined to the conference, not used as an excuse to kick out a quality mid-major like Indiana State.

If some conferences deserve at least 4 teams, okay. Just spell out before the season begins that the Big Ten, ACC, Big East and SEC get 4 teams automatically.
The Mountain West gets 3. The Pac 12 gets 3. The Atlantic 10, West Coast and the American get 2.
Just spell it out - based on the previous season. Be transparent! Reward conference wins and losses. Make the conference games matter a lot!
Do not incentivize teams to schedule weak opponents and blow them out. Do not penalize teams severely for losses in the non-conference.

So thats 32 conference tournament winners plus 3 more from the 4 top conferences, plus 2 more from 2 conferences, plus 1 more from 3 conferences.
Total of 51 automatic bids. Every automatic qualifier deserves their bid. No whining about "bid-stealers."
Then (and only then) does the NCAA get to start selecting 17 at-large teams, with their flawed metrics.
Give them something to do... but stop the charade.

Using this approach, Houston, Iowa State, Tennessee, Alabama, Duke, UConn, Marquette, Creighton, Purdue, Illinois, NC State, Arizona, Gonzaga would have all automatically qualified.
Thats 13 of the Sweet 16.
Alabama would have been in a tiebreaker with South Carolina for the 4th SEC spot, but an obvious "at-large" candidate.
Clemson would not have qualified automatically, having finished 11-9, in a 3 way tie for 5th in the ACC.
San Diego State would not have automatically qualified, having finished 5th in the Mountain West.

Seton Hall would have received an automatic bid. Pitt's automatic bid for finishing 4th would have gone to NC State.

Thanks for reading. If the NCAA adopts this approach the world will be a happier place.

I'm not a fan of quotas, much less if they're based on the previous season. Each conference gets one automatic bid, and the at-large bids are going to the P6 conferences anyway. I don't see how guaranteeing more bids to the P6 conferences fixes anything.

The NET is a flawed metric, so fix the NET. What was wrong with the RPI?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I'm not a fan of quotas, much less if they're based on the previous season. Each conference gets one automatic bid, and the at-large bids are going to the P6 conferences anyway. I don't see how guaranteeing more bids to the P6 conferences fixes anything.

The NET is a flawed metric, so fix the NET. What was wrong with the RPI?

I don't look at is as "quotas" - I look at it as protection.
The NCAA really has no idea which conferences are better in a given year, but they make a gigantic mistake in thinking they have a tool that enables them to make an honest evaluation. They don't.

In fact, they make randomly bad decisions because of their (NET) tool. Sometimes they pick a team because of their NET rating, other times they totally ignore the NET rating and leave a team out. Thats what you do when your toolset sucks. So to protect the conferences from these random bad decisions, I'd assign a minimum number of bids to each conference. With 15 or so at-large bids, there's plenty of slots for teams that don't earn an automatic bid via conference play.

I'm much more confident in saying the top 3 finishers are better than the teams in slots 4-6 - as opposed to thinking the 6th place team is really the 3rd best team because they blew out some random nonconference opponents.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I don't look at is as "quotas" - I look at it as protection.
The NCAA really has no idea which conferences are better in a given year, but they make a gigantic mistake in thinking they have a tool that enables them to make an honest evaluation. They don't.

In fact, they make randomly bad decisions because of their (NET) tool. Sometimes they pick a team because of their NET rating, other times they totally ignore the NET rating and leave a team out. Thats what you do when your toolset sucks. So to protect the conferences from these random bad decisions, I'd assign a minimum number of bids to each conference. With 15 or so at-large bids, there's plenty of slots for teams that don't earn an automatic bid via conference play.

I'm much more confident in saying the top 3 finishers are better than the teams in slots 4-6 - as opposed to thinking the 6th place team is really the 3rd best team because they blew out some random nonconference opponents.

I have always, always heard that the committee doesn't pick a team due to its computer ranking, but it uses the computer ranking to determine the quality wins / bad losses on their resume. So the 'Cats were solidly in the field, despite their low NET, because when judging NU's resume, they saw the quality wins over Dayton, Purdue, and Illinois.