(02-26-2015 08:53 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: (02-25-2015 07:05 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote: (02-25-2015 06:54 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: In this conference they will care.
I tend to agree.
For instance, say UC loses against Memphis and Tulsa. Somehow they end the season in 6th place of the AAC and do nothing of significance (either way) in the conference tournament.
Putting them in the NCAA Tournament would be a hard thing to stomach for the committee members IMO.
I won't say you're wrong, because maybe you are right. Who really knows? But if that is the case it would be going against the last decade of history and selection criteria. The committee does not care about conference standings and really never has (especially in the era of unbalanced schedules).
Outside of a first place finish getting a team automatically submitted for consideration, the standings don't mean that much by themselves. But, no one thing does. They have the standings, and because of the unbalanced schedules they actually run what's basically a strength of schedule for your conference games, but they're not going to disregard the out of conference games, which basically amounts to over one-third of your season, because of conference standings.
The thing about committees is that they're just that. Everyone reading this has probably been on some kind of a committee in their lives, whether it was a planning committee, or a hiring committee, or a rules committee, or whatever. Everyone values different things for different reasons, so the selection committee's tendencies are always changing somewhat.
I think a lot of people in the media get caught up in categorical things, such as conference standings, or top fifty wins, or sub 100 losses, and don't realize that the committee does not just meet up, look at team sheets, and select the teams based on such limited data. They each have three conferences that they monitor closely for the entire season, and seven secondary conferences. There are weekly meetings all season long that start in November where they report on their conferences and answer questions from other members. There is a daily list of notable games. They have every internet password and a maxed out DirecTV package. It's pretty extensive.
For example, Oregon State is barely a top 100 team, so most "bracketologists" wouldn't think too much of Utah's win there. The thing is, Utah is the only team that's won at Oregon State, and the person monitoring the Pac Twelve (who I believe is the chair this year) knows that. So, the committee will give them far more credit for that win than what most bracketologists would. Same with Oregon, who is a top fifty team, but is lousy on the road. So, even if the teams have beaten them at home and it's a top fifty win, they probably will get far less credit from the committee than what most bracketologists would speculate.
I love what Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm do. I think it makes the game a lot more interesting to a lot of people. But, what they do and how they do it isn't really how the committee does it.
This is from last year, so it's not really relevant to now, but the first thirty minutes talk about how the selection process works (not so much the seeding). They do that later on. About fifteen minutes in you see what the actual documents and layouts look like in regards to the tournament board.
http://hoopshd.com/2014/03/14/conference...-march-14/
/
Official NCAA Rpi sheets used by committee
