Candid Coaches: What is your No. 1 issue with the NCAA Tournament selection process?

[BleedGopher]

per CBS:

What is your No. 1 issue with the NCAA Tournament selection process?

On lack of consistency

"I just want the goalposts to stop moving. The past three years it's been something different. Now it's the NET, now they're tweaking the NET, or are they? No one can schedule or game-plan, because then it's irrelevant within 18 months."

"My biggest complaint is that while your numbers can be great (NET, RPI, etc.), the eye test, and beating a 'big name' school, will ultimately determine if they allow you in."

"From year to year it changes and it's like they want to focus on different things. Are we going with the RPI, the NET, whatever it is. Being at a power-conference school, when I see some of those other schools work their way up there and played an awful conference schedule. Put Gonzaga in the ACC or Big Ten, they ain't going to be that 1 seed, in my opinion. It's easy to get up for one game, but when you're doing it on a nightly basis, it's little tougher."

"Consistency: standards must remain the same year-in and year-out. I understand that new metrics come and go, but they need to be communicated well in advance as to best prepare teams for nonconference scheduling."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...e-with-the-ncaa-tournament-selection-process/

Go Gophers!!

 

[SelectionSunday]

My main issues are 1A & 1B

per CBS:

What is your No. 1 issue with the NCAA Tournament selection process?

On lack of consistency

"I just want the goalposts to stop moving. The past three years it's been something different. Now it's the NET, now they're tweaking the NET, or are they? No one can schedule or game-plan, because then it's irrelevant within 18 months."

"My biggest complaint is that while your numbers can be great (NET, RPI, etc.), the eye test, and beating a 'big name' school, will ultimately determine if they allow you in."

"From year to year it changes and it's like they want to focus on different things. Are we going with the RPI, the NET, whatever it is. Being at a power-conference school, when I see some of those other schools work their way up there and played an awful conference schedule. Put Gonzaga in the ACC or Big Ten, they ain't going to be that 1 seed, in my opinion. It's easy to get up for one game, but when you're doing it on a nightly basis, it's little tougher."

"Consistency: standards must remain the same year-in and year-out. I understand that new metrics come and go, but they need to be communicated well in advance as to best prepare teams for nonconference scheduling."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...e-with-the-ncaa-tournament-selection-process/

Go Gophers!!

1A They need to go to a straight S curve, seed the field 1 to 68. 1 vs. 64, 2 vs. 63, 3 vs. 62, etc. If conference members are paired up in the first round, so be it. And don't be so hung up on geography. Besides, even with an S curve they can still put the top seeds in most desirable locations. For example, if Gophers were #1 seed in next year's tournament, put them in Omaha for the 1st & 2nd rounds, and the Midwest Regional (Indianapolis), then the #2 seed to its most desirable 1st/2nd round site and regional (as much as possible), and so on.

1B Really good mid-majors who dominate their league and have a reasonable NET ranking & resume to go along with it definitely deserve more love. Belmont getting an at-large bid last year was a step in the right direction.

 

[builtbadgers]

1A They need to go to a straight S curve, seed the field 1 to 68. 1 vs. 64, 2 vs. 63, 3 vs. 62, etc. If conference members are paired up in the first round, so be it. And don't be so hung up on geography. Besides, even with an S curve they can still put the top seeds in most desirable locations. For example, if Gophers were #1 seed in next year's tournament, put them in Omaha for the 1st & 2nd rounds, and the Midwest Regional (Indianapolis), then the #2 seed to its most desirable 1st/2nd round site and regional (as much as possible), and so on.

1B Really good mid-majors who dominate their leage and have a reasonable NET ranking & resume to go along with it definitely deserve more love. Belmont getting an at-large bid last year was a step in the right direction.

Spot on. Loved the part about not letting in sub .500 conference teams.

 

[AO54]

1B Really good mid-majors who dominate their league and have a reasonable NET ranking & resume to go along with it definitely deserve more love. Belmont getting an at-large bid last year was a step in the right direction.

Can't say I agree with this one. You shouldn't get a handicap because you play in a bad conference. If you truly do dominate your conference, hopefully an improved NET ranking will give you credit for doing that. But the borderline teams are typically teams who lost every game they played against a top 25 team by 10+ points and have multiple other losses to mediocre teams. The most fair solution for the Belmonts of the world is to eliminate the conference tournament and give the bid to the regular season champ.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I don't like that the Badgers are eligible for the NCAA tournament.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Can't say I agree with this one. You shouldn't get a handicap because you play in a bad conference. If you truly do dominate your conference, hopefully an improved NET ranking will give you credit for doing that. But the borderline teams are typically teams who lost every game they played against a top 25 team by 10+ points and have multiple other losses to mediocre teams. The most fair solution for the Belmonts of the world is to eliminate the conference tournament and give the bid to regular season champ.

Very fair points.

On the other end of Belmont, I would add that the "trendy" national call last March for UNC-Greensboro and Furman to get at-large bids was ridiculous. Neither of those two deserved an at-large largely for the same reasons you pointed out. Belmont, I didn't have a problem with them getting a bid, even though I didn't project them into the field. UNCG or Furman getting a bid would have been a joke.

 

[Holy Man]

1A They need to go to a straight S curve, seed the field 1 to 68. 1 vs. 64, 2 vs. 63, 3 vs. 62, etc. If conference members are paired up in the first round, so be it. And don't be so hung up on geography. Besides, even with an S curve they can still put the top seeds in most desirable locations. For example, if Gophers were #1 seed in next year's tournament, put them in Omaha for the 1st & 2nd rounds, and the Midwest Regional (Indianapolis), then the #2 seed to its most desirable 1st/2nd round site and regional (as much as possible), and so on.

1B Really good mid-majors who dominate their league and have a reasonable NET ranking & resume to go along with it definitely deserve more love. Belmont getting an at-large bid last year was a step in the right direction.

Hodger, I am with you on B. Not so much on A. I just think the 1-68 ranking is fraught with difficulty and asking to separate teams that are nearly indistinguishable from each other. More realistic is what they most likely do in the room is put similar teams into bins and functionally flip a coin and follow various parameters that are set up (if they want to change them, fine). As much griping as there can be about being a number 1 or a number 2, there is no real difference in the seed. You're going to see a really good team in the sweet sixteen if seeds play out no matter what.

In a completely subjective category, I do like that they try to create geographical situations that will fill arenas. Last saeaon in Des Moines was a good example. Ignoring geography could have resulted in a half-empty arena. I think the arenas should be as full as possible in the early rounds. Then again, if they lowered the price of tickets, more locals might actually go.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Hodger, I am with you on B. Not so much on A. I just think the 1-68 ranking is fraught with difficulty and asking to separate teams that are nearly indistinguishable from each other. More realistic is what they most likely do in the room is put similar teams into bins and functionally flip a coin and follow various parameters that are set up (if they want to change them, fine). As much griping as there can be about being a number 1 or a number 2, there is no real difference in the seed. You're going to see a really good team in the sweet sixteen if seeds play out no matter what.

In a completely subjective category, I do like that they try to create geographical situations that will fill arenas. Last saeaon in Des Moines was a good example. Ignoring geography could have resulted in a half-empty arena. I think the arenas should be as full as possible in the early rounds. Then again, if they lowered the price of tickets, more locals might actually go.

Also good points, Holy Man. But I agree with Mike DeCourcy on the S curve thing. The #1 team in the tournament (in theory) should have the "easiest" path to a championship, and the #68 team should have the "toughest" path to it. The geography part still will play a role, just not as much as it does now.

Here's an example, my "Ultimate Field of 68" projection using 2020's NCAA sites. I think you'll see a lot of matchups in geographic areas that make sense, even with the S curve.

S-Curve Seed (NCAA tourney wins since 2000 in parentheses)
1 Duke (51) -- #1 seed in East Region
2 Kansas (50) -- #1 seed in Midwest Region
3 North Carolina (50) -- #1 seed in South Region
4 Michigan State (47) -- #1 seed in West Region

5 Kentucky (45)
6 Florida (38)
7 Wisconsin (33)
8 UConn (33)

9 Gonzaga (31)
10 Syracuse (31)
11 Arizona (30)
12 Louisville (28)

13 Villanova (28)
14 UCLA (27)
15 Xavier (22)
16 Ohio State (22)

17 Butler (22)
18 Maryland (21)
19 Oklahoma (20)
20 Michigan (20)

21 Texas (19)
22 Purdue (19)
23 Oregon (19)
24 West Virginia (18)

25 Illinois (17)
26 Pitt (16)
27 Tennessee (16)
28 Memphis (16)

29 Indiana (14)
30 Virginia (14)
31 Marquette (13)
32 Notre Dame (13)

33 Cincinnati (12)
34 Oklahoma State (11)
35 Iowa State (11)
36 Georgetown (11)

37 Stanford (11)
38 NC State (10)
39 Kansas State (10)
40 VCU (9)

41 Missouri (9)
42 San Diego State (6)
43A Temple (6) – Last 4 In
44A Creighton (4) – Last 4 In
44B Cal (4) – Last 4 In
43B BYU (3) – Last 4 In

45 Northern Iowa (4)
46 Western Kentucky (4)
47 Kent State (4)
48 Milwaukee (3)

49 Florida Gulf Coast (3)
50 Vermont (2)
51 Bucknell (2)
52 Stephen F. Austin (2)

53 Georgia State (2)
54 Winthrop (1)
55 Belmont (1)
56 Montana (1)

57 NC-Wilmington (1)
58 Wofford (1)
59 Texas Southern (1)
60 Hawaii (1)

61 Iona (0)
62 New Mexico State (0)
63A Penn (0) -- First 4
64A South Dakota State (0) – First 4
64B NCCU (0) -- First 4
63B LIU (0) – First 4

2020 S-Curve Ultimate Field of 68 (Since 2000) Projection
*denotes automatic qualifier

EAST REGION (New York)
Greensboro
#1 *Duke vs. #64 *South Dakota State/*NCCU winner
#32 Notre Dame vs. #33 *Cincinnati
Spokane
#17 Butler vs. #48 *Milwaukee
#16 Ohio State vs. #49 *Florida Gulf Coast
Spokane
#9 *Gonzaga vs. #56 *Montana
#24 West Virginia vs. #41 Missouri
Albany
#25 Illinois vs. #40 *VCU
#8 UConn vs. #57 *NC-Wilmington

WEST REGION (Los Angeles)
Cleveland
#4 *Michigan State vs. #61 *Iona
#29 Indiana vs. #36 Georgetown
Tampa
#20 Michigan vs. #45 *Northern Iowa
#13 Villanova vs. #52 *Stephen F. Austin
Saint Louis
#12 Louisville vs. #53 *Georgia State
#21 Texas vs. #44 Creighton/Cal winner
Cleveland
#28 Memphis vs. #37 Stanford
#5 *Kentucky vs. #60 *Hawaii

MIDWEST REGION (Indianapolis)
Omaha
#2 *Kansas vs. #63 *Penn/*LIU winner
#31 Marquette vs. #34 Oklahoma State
Omaha
#18 Maryland vs. #47 *Kent State
#15 *Xavier vs. #50 *Vermont
Albany
#10 Syracuse vs. #55 *Belmont
#23 Oregon vs. #42 *San Diego State
Saint Louis
#26 Pitt vs. #39 Kansas State
#7 Wisconsin vs. #58 *Wofford

SOUTH REGIONAL (Houston)
Greensboro
#3 North Carolina vs. #62 *New Mexico State
#30 Virginia vs. #35 Iowa State
Sacramento
#19 Oklahoma vs. #46 *Western Kentucky
#14 UCLA vs. #51 *Bucknell
Sacramento
#11 *Arizona vs. #54 *Winthrop
#22 Purdue vs. #43 Temple/BYU winner
Tampa
#27 Tennessee vs. #38 NC State
#6 Florida vs. #59 *Texas Southern

 

[leib0039]

I think "don't let in teams with an under .500 conference record in" is an awful argument. So a team in the ACC who happens to have Duke/UVa/UNC 2x on the schedule and goes 2-4 in those games but finishes 9-11 in conference should have no shot to get in but the team that has Duke/UNC/UVa once each and goes 0-3 but goes 5-1 against BC/Wake/Pitt and finishes 10-10 should be ok? Conference records can be really messy for non true round robin leagues. And I think we all agreed the 9-11 record last year for the gophers was good enough in a really tough conference.

On the true seeds, I really do think they should do "true seeds" for the top 4 lines. They made it pretty clear last year Duke was the #1 and MSU was the #5, that really isn't fair to either to be in the same bracket. After 4 its kind of a crap shoot, the difference between the 17th and 20th seeds is small. I don't think it matters if Uva gets Seton hall or UCF in round 2, they are the same team at that point. And you can still help out the 1-4 seeds, their first pods can all be as close to home as possible, but it makes no sense for you to benefit from being the 4th #1 as opposed to the top overall seed, which essentially was the case last year.

 

[SelectionSunday]

I think "don't let in teams with an under .500 conference record in" is an awful argument. So a team in the ACC who happens to have Duke/UVa/UNC 2x on the schedule and goes 2-4 in those games but finishes 9-11 in conference should have no shot to get in but the team that has Duke/UNC/UVa once each and goes 0-3 but goes 5-1 against BC/Wake/Pitt and finishes 10-10 should be ok? Conference records can be really messy for non true round robin leagues. And I think we all agreed the 9-11 record last year for the gophers was good enough in a really tough conference.

On the true seeds, I really do think they should do "true seeds" for the top 4 lines. They made it pretty clear last year Duke was the #1 and MSU was the #5, that really isn't fair to either to be in the same bracket. After 4 its kind of a crap shoot, the difference between the 17th and 20th seeds is small. I don't think it matters if Uva gets Seton hall or UCF in round 2, they are the same team at that point. And you can still help out the 1-4 seeds, their first pods can all be as close to home as possible, but it makes no sense for you to benefit from being the 4th #1 as opposed to the top overall seed, which essentially was the case last year.

Great point about Duke-MSU. That was unfair to both teams. In hindsight, it ended up being more unfair to the Dukies than Sparty.

 

[Ope3]

Great point about Duke-MSU. That was unfair to both teams. In hindsight, it ended up being more unfair to the Dukies than Sparty.

In general, complaints about seeding to me fall on deaf ears. Go out and beat them anyway, excuses are for losers.

I am more accepting of moving teams due to geography when possible. In 2001 I saw Georgetown and Maryland (20 miles apart maybe) fly all the way to Ahaheim and play each other, the week after both had been in Boise, ID. That just did not serve anyone well.

 

[WoodburyTim]

I think "don't let in teams with an under .500 conference record in" is an awful argument. So a team in the ACC who happens to have Duke/UVa/UNC 2x on the schedule and goes 2-4 in those games but finishes 9-11 in conference should have no shot to get in but the team that has Duke/UNC/UVa once each and goes 0-3 but goes 5-1 against BC/Wake/Pitt and finishes 10-10 should be ok? Conference records can be really messy for non true round robin leagues. And I think we all agreed the 9-11 record last year for the gophers was good enough in a really tough conference.

On the true seeds, I really do think they should do "true seeds" for the top 4 lines. They made it pretty clear last year Duke was the #1 and MSU was the #5, that really isn't fair to either to be in the same bracket. After 4 its kind of a crap shoot, the difference between the 17th and 20th seeds is small. I don't think it matters if Uva gets Seton hall or UCF in round 2, they are the same team at that point. And you can still help out the 1-4 seeds, their first pods can all be as close to home as possible, but it makes no sense for you to benefit from being the 4th #1 as opposed to the top overall seed, which essentially was the case last year.

It seems to me that the move to create massive super conferences should have drawbacks and that may mean that sometimes that good teams in your conference don't finish in the top half. And at the end of the day losing a lot of games to good teams only shows that your schedule was strong, not that your team was strong.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Agree wholeheartedly with Hodger on sub .500 conference records.

As for the guy quoted in the initial post about Gonzaga not earning it's one seeds, I hope he coached his team to the last three sweet 16s, 2 of the last three Elite Eights, and a national championship game within the last three years like Gonzaga did. Those tourney wins didnt all come against WCC teams.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Agree wholeheartedly with Hodger on sub .500 conference records.

As for the guy quoted in the initial post about Gonzaga not earning it's one seeds, I hope he coached his team to the last three sweet 16s, 2 of the last three Elite Eights, and a national championship game within the last three years like Gonzaga did. Those tourney wins didnt all come against WCC teams.

For clarity, I didn’t say anything about the sub-.500 records. That was someone else.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

For clarity, I didn’t say anything about the sub-.500 records. That was someone else.

Sorry about that SS, I read the thread late and night and must have merged some of the ideas together. Didnt mean to misattribute that one to you.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Sorry about that SS, I read the thread late and night and must have merged some of the ideas together. Didnt mean to misattribute that one to you.

No problem.

 

[OSUfan]

I for one think they did a great job of picking the field last year. When your job is to pick the best teams, there isnt any one criteria that is going to be consistent from year to year. The tourney selection methodology pales in comparison to the rampant cheating at Duke and UK in terms of fairness problems in college basketball.