CSNbbs

Committee chair discusses process
February, 15, 2012

By Andy Katz

South Florida has eight Big East wins heading into Wednesday night’s game against Villanova. At 8-4, the Bulls are in fifth place and one spot ahead of Louisville in the Big East standings.

If USF stays in that position and reaches double-figure league wins, that’ll mean an at-large invite to the NCAA tournament, right?

Not so fast.

NCAA tournament selection committee chair Jeff Hathaway reiterated during a conference call Wednesday that the committee doesn’t look at conference standings or a conference record.


AP Photo/Jessica Hill
"We don't look at conference RPI. We don't look at what conference teams are affiliated with. We're looking at the team's individual merit,'' said Jeff Hathaway.

“The bottom line is we review each individual team sheet and each team is an independent,’’ Hathaway said. “We don’t look at conference RPI. We don’t look at what conference teams are affiliated with. We’re looking at the team’s individual merit.’’

That doesn’t bode well for South Florida unless the Bulls get some work done going forward. USF has one win against the top 50 (Seton Hall) and three against the top 100 (Cleveland State and Villanova). That means six of the Bulls’ eight Big East wins so far came against conference teams ranked outside the top 100.

South Florida, which is No. 63 in the NCAA’s official RPI, has plenty of upcoming opportunities to improve its top 100 win total at Pitt (76), at Syracuse (1), Cincinnati (92), at Louisville (20) and West Virginia (41).

“There is no magic number on conference wins, no magic number in any way, shape or form,’’ Hathaway said. “We sit down and evaluate each team sheet and see if they pass the eye-ball test.’’

When asked for his version of the eye-ball test, Hathaway said, “I watch how good teams are and how they compare to another team and look at the statistical indicators and how well they played and execute. The question is, are they a quality team and are they one of the 37 best teams.’’

Hathaway also hit on a number of other issues:

*He will have to leave the room when Big East teams are discussed because he’s now a Big East consultant after being fired as Connecticut's athletic director.

*Injuries, suspensions and illnesses will all be taken into consideration, but “it’s pretty cut and dry. We look at how [the teams] performed.’’ That means Alabama, Connecticut and others will be judged by the wins and losses and will not be given special consideration due to suspended players.

*Wins in November mean as much as wins in February. “A big win is a big win. It’s the total body of work. We’re looking at the entire body of work. The season starts in November and goes all way through the conference tournaments.’’

*Hathaway said the Saint Mary’s-Murray State BracketBuster game Saturday is important for both squads. It could be a big win on the road for the Gaels or a quality win for the Racers. “Murray State beating Saint Mary’s isn’t weighted more than Murray State beating Memphis. It’s the full body of work.’’

*Hathaway said that the committee continues to be transparent in the process by putting the team sheets online at the NCAA website.

*Hathaway said the pool of teams is strong for at-large candidates: “There are more better teams than ever before. It doesn’t mean there is more parity. Frankly, there are a lot of very good basketball teams. And that’s a challenge for the 10 committee members.’’

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal..._Columnist

Interesting. Fans of Victory Parkway College have been counting on the committee giving their team a pass on their losses (Oral Roberts, Hawaii, Long Beach) during the post-brawl suspensions but based on what Hathaway says the suspensions won't matter. It's whether you won or lost.

"*Injuries, suspensions and illnesses will all be taken into consideration, but “it’s pretty cut and dry. We look at how [the teams] performed.’’ That means Alabama, Connecticut and others will be judged by the wins and losses and will not be given special consideration due to suspended players."

I do think injuries and illnesses should be given some consideration by the Commitee if the player that was out is back playing… but suspensions are self-inflicted so the team that loses players due to suspensions shouldn't get a pass.

These guys remind me of the BCS gang.

Suspensions should never carry any weight. Injuries should IMO, especially when you have a guy(s) returning for the 2nd half of the season and you're a different basketball team.

I agree with them.

2 columns:

What good teams did you beat?
What bad teams did you lose to?

Don't care if you lost to good teams. Don't care if players were out.

Whatever the heck they look at... the next 4 games will mark the first time all year weve played 4 consecutive games against RPI top 100 teams . Time to pad that Top100 w-L record.

02-18 Seton Hall 18-8 (7-7) RPI :30
02-23 Louisville 20-6 (8-5) RPI :23
02-26 at South Florida 15-10 (9-4) RPI :57
02-29 Marquette 21-5 (10-3) RPI :11

http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_217_Men.html

2 columns:

What good teams did you beat? : Notre Dame, @Gtown , @UConn
What bad teams did you lose to? : Presbyterian, St. Johns, @Rutgers

we need a couple more in the good column .

If I was on the committee, I would look at three different things.

1. Record versus the top 100 hundred in the RPI, Sagarin, Kenpom rating systems.
2. Conference Record. I do believe where you finish in your conference matters. Yes schedules are not balanced; however, its still does a solid job of sorting teams.
3. Multiple computer ratings. RPI, Sagarin, and Kempom ratings. Using only one system allows schools to game the system producing outliers.

UC, RPI 93, Sagarin 45. Colorado State RPI 33, Sagarin 97.

(02-16-2012 03:22 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote: [ -> ]If I was on the committee, I would look at three different things.

1. Record versus the top 100 hundred in the RPI, Sagarin, Kenpom rating systems.
2. Conference Record. I do believe where you finish in your conference matters. Yes schedules are not balanced; however, its still does a solid job of sorting teams.
3. Multiple computer ratings. RPI, Sagarin, and Kempom ratings. Using only one system allows schools to game the system producing outliers.

UC, RPI 93, Sagarin 45. Colorado State RPI 33, Sagarin 97.

Only the RPI can be gamed.

Quote:@Todd_Jones
NCAA reps making certain everyone knows the RPI is used as a tool and is not the final answer. Other computer rankings are used too. #mock

http://twitter.com/#!/Todd_Jones/status/...4981316608

This is good to hear as our other computer rankings are much more favorable and realistic. Get to 11-7 and I could see our rankings in both the Sagarin and KenPom creep closer to the top 30-35.

well one way or another it will be fair for UC...why do i say that?

We have a PLENTY of good games left...if we win, we deserve to be in....that's fair

If we lose, we deserve to be out....that's fair


either way, it's up to us and it's fair

Unfortunately, rarely does fair enter the equation where money and peoples (selection committee) opinion collide.

(02-17-2012 02:00 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:@Todd_Jones
NCAA reps making certain everyone knows the RPI is used as a tool and is not the final answer. Other computer rankings are used too. #mock

http://twitter.com/#!/Todd_Jones/status/...4981316608

This is good to hear as our other computer rankings are much more favorable and realistic. Get to 11-7 and I could see our rankings in both the Sagarin and KenPom creep closer to the top 30-35.

I think they understand the current RPI is less and less relevant as years go by. Collecting good win scalps is the deal. BTE, why do people still talk about SOS and OOC rankings? SOS by its very nature already takes OOC into consideration. Why does OOC get considered twice? It would be like crearing a new measurement for ranking teams just by their Conference SOS. Silly.

UC is almost exactly where I thought they'd be before the season tipped off. Being able to control their destiny in the last couple weeks puts them right where they need to be. Not a bad thing.

)

(02-17-2012 10:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2012 02:00 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:@Todd_Jones
NCAA reps making certain everyone knows the RPI is used as a tool and is not the final answer. Other computer rankings are used too. #mock

http://twitter.com/#!/Todd_Jones/status/...4981316608

This is good to hear as our other computer rankings are much more favorable and realistic. Get to 11-7 and I could see our rankings in both the Sagarin and KenPom creep closer to the top 30-35.

I think they understand the current RPI is less and less relevant as years go by. Collecting good win scalps is the deal. BTE, why do people still talk about SOS and OOC rankings? SOS by its very nature already takes OOC into consideration. Why does OOC get considered twice? It would be like crearing a new measurement for ranking teams just by their Conference SOS. Silly.

UC is almost exactly where I thought the'd be before the seadon tipped off. If

I know i still talk about it because historically it has been important. last year it really was the only thing separating Bama, Colorado and VT from the teams selected ahead of them (VCU, UAB, UGA). I thought the former three had a better collection of scalps, but their Non-conference SOS got them left out. The committee has been consistent in penalizing poor scheduling out of conference.

According to the Mock committee...Xavier is first team OUT, followed by Cincinnati, MTSU and NC St...luckily UC still has time to take care of some business and get into the real Tournament.

(02-17-2012 10:55 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ])

(02-17-2012 10:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2012 02:00 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:@Todd_Jones
NCAA reps making certain everyone knows the RPI is used as a tool and is not the final answer. Other computer rankings are used too. #mock

http://twitter.com/#!/Todd_Jones/status/...4981316608

This is good to hear as our other computer rankings are much more favorable and realistic. Get to 11-7 and I could see our rankings in both the Sagarin and KenPom creep closer to the top 30-35.

I think they understand the current RPI is less and less relevant as years go by. Collecting good win scalps is the deal. BTE, why do people still talk about SOS and OOC rankings? SOS by its very nature already takes OOC into consideration. Why does OOC get considered twice? It would be like crearing a new measurement for ranking teams just by their Conference SOS. Silly.

UC is almost exactly where I thought the'd be before the seadon tipped off. If

I know i still talk about it because historically it has been important. last year it really was the only thing separating Bama, Colorado and VT from the teams selected ahead of them (VCU, UAB, UGA). I thought the former three had a better collection of scalps, but their Non-conference SOS got them left out. The committee has been consistent in penalizing poor scheduling out of conference.

Non Conference SOS on its own has nothing to do with how good a basketball team is. You are right that the committee puts a lot of emphasis on it. It just doesn't make any sense.

There is no reason to separate non-conference schedule from the overall strength of schedule. The overall SOS should be measured and then how a team preformed against said SOS.

And the measurement of SOS should come from a legitimate ratings system. Not RPI, which is a joke.

(02-17-2012 10:57 AM)Nellie Wrote: [ -> ]According to the Mock committee...Xavier is first team OUT, followed by Cincinnati, MTSU and NC St...luckily UC still has time to take care of some business and get into the real Tournament.

If Xavier ends up the last team in and Cincinnati is the first team out I may have to kill myself.

(02-17-2012 10:59 AM)Overrated Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2012 10:55 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ])

(02-17-2012 10:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2012 02:00 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:@Todd_Jones
NCAA reps making certain everyone knows the RPI is used as a tool and is not the final answer. Other computer rankings are used too. #mock

http://twitter.com/#!/Todd_Jones/status/...4981316608

This is good to hear as our other computer rankings are much more favorable and realistic. Get to 11-7 and I could see our rankings in both the Sagarin and KenPom creep closer to the top 30-35.

I think they understand the current RPI is less and less relevant as years go by. Collecting good win scalps is the deal. BTE, why do people still talk about SOS and OOC rankings? SOS by its very nature already takes OOC into consideration. Why does OOC get considered twice? It would be like crearing a new measurement for ranking teams just by their Conference SOS. Silly.

UC is almost exactly where I thought the'd be before the seadon tipped off. If

I know i still talk about it because historically it has been important. last year it really was the only thing separating Bama, Colorado and VT from the teams selected ahead of them (VCU, UAB, UGA). I thought the former three had a better collection of scalps, but their Non-conference SOS got them left out. The committee has been consistent in penalizing poor scheduling out of conference.

Non Conference SOS on its own has nothing to do with how good a basketball team is. You are right that the committee puts a lot of emphasis on it. It just doesn't make any sense.

There is no reason to separate non-conference schedule from the overall strength of schedule. The overall SOS should be measured and then how a team preformed against said SOS.

And the measurement of SOS should come from a legitimate ratings system. Not RPI, which is a joke.

It muddies the water a little more to create confusion.

What we should really be asking is what is the best way for the committee to keep expanding the tournament and tv revenue?

The thing that also bugs the crap out if me is they reward losing to teams. WTF?

Replace the three OOC loses to Marshall, Presb. and X with 30 point losses at UK, Duke and Michigan State (#2,3, and 4 in RPI) and UC's RPI and SOS shoots way the heck up. Who the hell cares who you lose to unless they suck? Who did you beat?

Lose to good teams on the road or at neutral sites (because of the .6 and 1.4 home/away factoring). Beat all the bad teams at home. Game the RPI. Its become a garbage metric.

(02-17-2012 10:59 AM)Overrated Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2012 10:55 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ])

(02-17-2012 10:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-17-2012 02:00 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:@Todd_Jones
NCAA reps making certain everyone knows the RPI is used as a tool and is not the final answer. Other computer rankings are used too. #mock

http://twitter.com/#!/Todd_Jones/status/...4981316608

This is good to hear as our other computer rankings are much more favorable and realistic. Get to 11-7 and I could see our rankings in both the Sagarin and KenPom creep closer to the top 30-35.

I think they understand the current RPI is less and less relevant as years go by. Collecting good win scalps is the deal. BTE, why do people still talk about SOS and OOC rankings? SOS by its very nature already takes OOC into consideration. Why does OOC get considered twice? It would be like crearing a new measurement for ranking teams just by their Conference SOS. Silly.

UC is almost exactly where I thought the'd be before the seadon tipped off. If

I know i still talk about it because historically it has been important. last year it really was the only thing separating Bama, Colorado and VT from the teams selected ahead of them (VCU, UAB, UGA). I thought the former three had a better collection of scalps, but their Non-conference SOS got them left out. The committee has been consistent in penalizing poor scheduling out of conference.

Non Conference SOS on its own has nothing to do with how good a basketball team is. You are right that the committee puts a lot of emphasis on it. It just doesn't make any sense.

There is no reason to separate non-conference schedule from the overall strength of schedule. The overall SOS should be measured and then how a team preformed against said SOS.

And the measurement of SOS should come from a legitimate ratings system. Not RPI, which is a joke.

I'm not as much concerned with how teams should be evaluated as with how they are evaluated. Every team understands going into the season how teams are generally evaluated. We have not done a good job in the non-conference RPI strength of schedule front. That is our own fault.

If the committee wants to change their evaluation so be it. I would not object. But I do like that in general the committee has been consistent in how they evaluate teams. I hope we do enough to earn a bid (and not as one of the last 4 in), but I would not have a problem with the committee if based on our current resume we would be left out.