Instead of the annual bickering over which teams got shafted by the selection committee, I suggest a different way of picking the field of 64 teams.

My proposal gives the P5 conferences 34 bids, determined as follows.

Step 1. List every P5 school that finishes in the top half of its conference regular season and has an RPI rank of 80 or better. That will always be fewer than 34 teams.

Step 2. Fill the remaining spots with the highest ranked teams by RPI without regard to conference.

Step 3. If a P5 school not already in the field of 34 wins its conference tournament, it bumps the team from its own conference with the worst regular season conference record.

The rest of the field of 64 is determined as follows.

Step 1. List all non-P5 schools that finished in the top half of their conference in order of RPI rank.

Step 2. Identify all conference tournament winners (or regular season champ if the conference does not have a tournament). These are automatic qualifiers.

Step 3. From the list in step 1, fill out a play-in field of 60 teams by selecting teams in order of their RPI rank, without regard to conference.

Step 4. The 30 teams with the best RPI host the 30 teams with the worst RPI. The NCAA committee matches these up in the normal manner (#1 plays #60, #2 plays #59, etc.), with discretion to pair teams slightly out of order to facilitate travel or to avoid matching teams from the same conference in the play-in round. These games would be played during the week of the P5 conference tournaments. Play-in winners advance to the field of 64.

Once the field of 64 is determined, the committee would seed them in the normal manner. The 30 play-in losers are eligible for other post season tournaments like the NIT.

At no point in this process does the tournament committee get to pick who is in or who is out. Teams play their way in by performing well in their conference schedule. Most of the time, the list of eligible teams from each conference won't be determined until the last week of the regular season. And even conference bottom feeders still retain hope of making the field through their conference tournament.

Based on RPI rankings and conference standings as of today, the above proposal would result in P5 conference bids as follows (shown as #bids/#teams in conference with RPI rank of worst team in parentheses):

ACC...8/15 (65)
B1G...8/14 (63)
B12...7/10 (39)
SEC...6/14 (55)
PAC...5/12 (56)

The remaining conferences (the G27 if you will) get play-in bids as follows (number of host teams in parentheses):

A10...7 (4)
AAC...6 (4)
Big East...5 (5)
MAC...5 (1)
MWC...4 (3)
WCC...3 (3)
MVC...3 (2)
USA...3 (2)
Southern...2 (1)
Ivy...2 (1)
Horizon...2 (1)
Big West...2 (0)
Colonial...2 (0)
Metro Atl...1 (1)
Southland...1 (1)
Ohio Valley...1 (1)

Conferences with one bid and no host teams:
Sunbelt
Big South
Summit
Big Sky
America East
MEAC
WAC
Atlantic Sun
Patriot
Southwestern
Northeast

And what are you trying to accomplish?

(03-05-2015 04:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And what are you trying to accomplish?

Take selection bias out of the equation, make the regular conference season more important, and make games in the round of 64 more challenging.

(03-05-2015 04:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 04:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And what are you trying to accomplish?

Take selection bias out of the equation, make the regular conference season more important, and make games in the round of 64 more challenging.

So you are just going to skew it to the P5. Games in the round of 64 are already challenging. I don't see anything that needs fixing.

(03-05-2015 04:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 04:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 04:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And what are you trying to accomplish?

Take selection bias out of the equation, make the regular conference season more important, and make games in the round of 64 more challenging.

So you are just going to skew it to the P5. Games in the round of 64 are already challenging. I don't see anything that needs fixing.

This isn't skewing it to the P5. They are already getting their spots in the field. It's skewing it to the G5 (plus the Big East and A10). They are the ones who get more teams with a shot at advancing. And it's doing that without taking away the guaranteed spot for every other conference.

**** the P5! This is basketball man. So GA and OK ST just cruise on in and Villanova and Gonzaga would be playing a play-in game if they didn't win their tournament?

If I could throw my stapler right now and hit you with it, I'd do it.

Edit: BTW CUSA isn't listed.

(03-05-2015 04:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  **** the P5! This is basketball man. So GA and OK ST just cruise on in and Villanova and Gonzaga would be playing a play-in game if they didn't win their tournament?

If I could throw my stapler right now and hit you with it, I'd do it.

Edit: BTW CUSA isn't listed.

Actually, CUSA is listed with three bids, two of which are hosts. BTW, UGa and Ok St are ranked #36 and #39 respectively. Why shouldn't they be invited?

Point 1:

RPI sucks. It's a lousy metric. (Sadly, it's now also a tool used by the NCAA baseball selection committee. SMH.) Replace it with something that is a better measure of the teams.

Point 2:

I think most of the commenters are misunderstanding the effect of Ken's proposal. He wants to give the non-P5 more bids in the NCAA field at the expense of teams from the P5 conferences, but the commenters seem to think he's doing the opposite. His third step, in particular, works against the P5. Making "undeserving" conference tournament winners bump out another team from their own conference is an interesting idea if applied to all multi-bid conferences, but it's a skewed idea if applied only to the five P5 conferences.

The only aspect that potentially works against some non-P5 teams is the huge play-in bracket, because it makes teams play extra games. It's not so bad to make marginal non-P5 teams try to play in. But it doesn't make sense to make consensus top-25 teams (e.g., Gonzaga and Wichita State, both in this week's top 10) have to play an extra game, when in the current system they will be safely in the main bracket of 64 even if they don't win their conference tournament.

(03-05-2015 05:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Point 1:

RPI sucks. It's a lousy metric. (Sadly, it's now also a tool used by the NCAA baseball selection committee. SMH.) Replace it with something that is a better measure of the teams.

Point 2:

I think most of the commenters are misunderstanding the effect of Ken's proposal. He wants to give the non-P5 more bids in the NCAA field at the expense of teams from the P5 conferences, but the commenters seem to think he's doing the opposite. His third step, in particular, works against the P5. Making "undeserving" conference tournament winners bump out another team from their own conference is an interesting idea if applied to all multi-bid conferences, but it's a skewed idea if applied only to the five P5 conferences.

The only aspect that potentially works against some non-P5 teams is the huge play-in bracket, because it makes teams play extra games. It's not so bad to make marginal non-P5 teams try to play in. But it doesn't make sense to make consensus top-25 teams (e.g., Gonzaga and Wichita State, both in this week's top 10) have to play an extra game, when in the current system they will be safely in the main bracket of 64 even if they don't win their conference tournament.

I counted 28 teams from the P5 in last year, he proposes to give them 34 based on conference affiliation alone.

(03-05-2015 05:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 04:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  **** the P5! This is basketball man. So GA and OK ST just cruise on in and Villanova and Gonzaga would be playing a play-in game if they didn't win their tournament?

If I could throw my stapler right now and hit you with it, I'd do it.

Edit: BTW CUSA isn't listed.

Actually, CUSA is listed with three bids, two of which are hosts. BTW, UGa and Ok St are ranked #36 and #39 respectively. Why shouldn't they be invited?

Why should Villanova have to play a play in game?

(03-05-2015 05:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 05:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Point 1:

RPI sucks. It's a lousy metric. (Sadly, it's now also a tool used by the NCAA baseball selection committee. SMH.) Replace it with something that is a better measure of the teams.

Point 2:

I think most of the commenters are misunderstanding the effect of Ken's proposal. He wants to give the non-P5 more bids in the NCAA field at the expense of teams from the P5 conferences, but the commenters seem to think he's doing the opposite. His third step, in particular, works against the P5. Making "undeserving" conference tournament winners bump out another team from their own conference is an interesting idea if applied to all multi-bid conferences, but it's a skewed idea if applied only to the five P5 conferences.

The only aspect that potentially works against some non-P5 teams is the huge play-in bracket, because it makes teams play extra games. It's not so bad to make marginal non-P5 teams try to play in. But it doesn't make sense to make consensus top-25 teams (e.g., Gonzaga and Wichita State, both in this week's top 10) have to play an extra game, when in the current system they will be safely in the main bracket of 64 even if they don't win their conference tournament.

I counted 28 teams from the P5 in last year, he proposes to give them 34 based on conference affiliation alone.

Ok, you're right. I eyeballed the bracket and thought it looked like the P5 had more than that, plus I mistakenly included the Big East teams.

P5 don't deserve 34 autobids in the NCAA tournament. Simple as that. Glad it was pointed out that the so called P5 only got in 28 teams last year.

I think the systems fine if you win your tournament - you're in, if you're clearly one of the better teams in the country - you're in. If you're on the bubble - they'll be winners and losers. It's always entertaining.

(03-05-2015 05:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I think the systems fine if you win your tournament - you're in, if you're clearly one of the better teams in the country - you're in. If you're on the bubble - they'll be winners and losers. It's always entertaining.

There are 10-15 conferences where the winner is always a deserving team, and every year there are a few teams outside those 10-15 conferences that are also clearly deserving. The reason people are skeptical about the large number of autobids (34 total) is because of the 10 or so weakest autobids, which usually go to teams that wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the regular season standings in any of the top 10-15 conferences.

(03-05-2015 05:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Point 1:

RPI sucks. It's a lousy metric. (Sadly, it's now also a tool used by the NCAA baseball selection committee. SMH.) Replace it with something that is a better measure of the teams.

Point 2:

I think most of the commenters are misunderstanding the effect of Ken's proposal. He wants to give the non-P5 more bids in the NCAA field at the expense of teams from the P5 conferences, but the commenters seem to think he's doing the opposite. His third step, in particular, works against the P5. Making "undeserving" conference tournament winners bump out another team from their own conference is an interesting idea if applied to all multi-bid conferences, but it's a skewed idea if applied only to the five P5 conferences.

The only aspect that potentially works against some non-P5 teams is the huge play-in bracket, because it makes teams play extra games. It's not so bad to make marginal non-P5 teams try to play in. But it doesn't make sense to make consensus top-25 teams (e.g., Gonzaga and Wichita State, both in this week's top 10) have to play an extra game, when in the current system they will be safely in the main bracket of 64 even if they don't win their conference tournament.

I agree about the RPI. It sucks. Basically, I used that as a generic term for "some ranking other than the selection committee's personal biases". I would be happy with any other metric. But I don't think it would matter much if you used a different one, since for the conferences with multiple bids their conference standings will pretty much determine whether they get in or not, not their ranking.

I did deliberately only apply the "bumping" to the P5. If a conference like the Horizon, which would normally be a one-bid league, has a high ranked regular season champ that gets upset in its conference tourney, I didn't want to give the shaft to the team that performed at a high level throughout the season. The P5 does not have that problem. Any team that gets bumped would be a bubble team at best in the current system.

And I did try several scenarios in which high ranked G27 teams like Villanova, Gonzaga and Wichita State went straight through to the round of 64. The problem is there is no way to predict which year there will be high ranked mid-majors before the season starts. And in every scenario I tried, the imperative to give every conference a chance to earn its way into the round of 64 meant fewer of the more deserving mid-major teams getting that chance.

At the end of the day, I kind of figured that if Villanova couldn't beat St Francis (Brooklyn) on its home court, the blame is on them and not the system. No system is perfect, or will prevent unfortunate upsets.

(03-05-2015 05:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 05:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I think the systems fine if you win your tournament - you're in, if you're clearly one of the better teams in the country - you're in. If you're on the bubble - they'll be winners and losers. It's always entertaining.

There are 10-15 conferences where the winner is always a deserving team, and every year there are a few teams outside those 10-15 conferences that are also clearly deserving. The reason people are skeptical about the large number of autobids (34 total) is because of the 10 or so weakest autobids, which usually go to teams that wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the regular season standings in any of the top 10-15 conferences.

Like the Atlantic Sun? Home of FGCU (AKA Dunk City). I know what you're saying but If you took those 10-15 out and replaced them with better teams the tournament might be more competitive overall but not more entertaining. It's Madness. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

P.S. - ken, I'm sorry I said I'd throw my stapler at you. I didn't mean it. There's certainly flaws in the system and you obviously took some time thinking about this.

Finishing in the top half of any conference should not qualify you for anything.

One other problem is it penalizes teams playing in conferences with more depth, while making it easier for teams playing in top heavy conferences with weak basketball at the bottom. For example Xavier with an RPI of 44 is shut out, while Memphis with an RPI of 91 is in. And Memphis is in easily since the 7th place team in the AAC is Tulane with an RPI of 200. Doesn't seem fair to penalize a team playing a more difficult schedule, just because they play in a deeper league.

I don't believe that whoever finishes in the first four out this year will have been "screwed". They all had their opportunity and simply didn't capitalize when they had the chance. I think the system, while not perfect, is pretty good the way it is.

(03-05-2015 05:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 05:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I think the systems fine if you win your tournament - you're in, if you're clearly one of the better teams in the country - you're in. If you're on the bubble - they'll be winners and losers. It's always entertaining.

There are 10-15 conferences where the winner is always a deserving team, and every year there are a few teams outside those 10-15 conferences that are also clearly deserving. The reason people are skeptical about the large number of autobids (34 total) is because of the 10 or so weakest autobids, which usually go to teams that wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the regular season standings in any of the top 10-15 conferences.

The 34 bids to the P5 wasn't arbitrary, or pandering to those leagues. I admit I am a little surprised at the hostility posters seem to have for them. The reality, though, is that their best teams are always good, year in and year out. The fact that they only got 28 bids last year didn't mean that's all they "deserved". It just means that more bids went to teams that were demonstrably not as good. One could view that as political correctness run amok.

If I had picked a smaller number, that would invariably have resulted in dropping some teams that are among the 64 best in favor of adding teams that are not among the top 100. I believe that isn't just true this year. I think it would be true every year. The only P5 team with an RPI outside the top 64 included this year was Miami (#65) which gets the spot ahead of Pitt (#60) because they have the better conference record. I don't think any system will do much better than that.