ESPN Bubble Watch

[classof2014]

And so is life...

Many of the best mid-majors don't have a chance this year at making some noise. It's disappointing; especially that mediocre to sub-par power conference teams make it in because they won a game or two in their conference tournament. Perhaps the NCAA should just do away with the conference tournament. It puts an unfair weight on the season. For the first 30 games you are by far the best team in your respectable conference; maybe even one of the best mid-majors in the country. You have a bad outing coupled with having a team drill everything from outside and you lose. Your season is over because of one game.

The selection committee is without a doubt biased. It's all about the money. Who will bring in more money Michigan and Syracuse or Valpo and Monmouth. Valpo and Monmouth are without a doubt more deserving but Michigan and Syracuse will fatten the wallets a bit more.

[a3uge]

And so is life...

Many of the best mid-majors don't have a chance this year at making some noise. It's disappointing; especially that mediocre to sub-par power conference teams make it in because they won a game or two in their conference tournament. Perhaps the NCAA should just do away with the conference tournament. It puts an unfair weight on the season. For the first 30 games you are by far the best team in your respectable conference; maybe even one of the best mid-majors in the country. You have a bad outing coupled with having a team drill everything from outside and you lose. Your season is over because of one game.

The selection committee is without a doubt biased. It's all about the money. Who will bring in more money Michigan and Syracuse or Valpo and Monmouth. Valpo and Monmouth are without a doubt more deserving but Michigan and Syracuse will fatten the wallets a bit more.

The NCAA allows mid major conferences to select their representative however they want. Perhaps a good solution would be for smaller conferences to reward their top seed with home court... OH WAIT

[VULB#62]

I think this is the link to the USA article about Mid-Majors being Snubbed http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/03/13/ncaa-tournament-bubble-teams-snubbed-selection-sunday-mid-major-monmouth/81736400/

Thanks.  I fixed my post link. Those things happen when fat fingers meet iPad touch screens.

[VULB#62]

John Calipari, love him or hate him, had a great post-selection quote:  In criticizing their seed, the Kentucky coach complained that the selection committee functioned using a "moving target" of criteria each year, ranging from factors like road wins, RPI, top 50 wins.

This is an accurate link this time   :
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/03/john-calipari-alaska-bush-people-kentucky-march-madness

He has a great point.  The selection process is:

(a) held behind closed doors --> no transparency,
(b) without locked-down baseline qualifying criteria (beyond winners of conference tournaments) to ensure minimal compliance --> subject to whims and politics
(c) different every year --> basketball programs have to schedule years in advance while the committee arbitrarily changes things on an annual basis
(d) subject to totally subjective (and many times flawed) views/interpretations of concrete things like SOS, Road Wins, RPI, top 50 wins, etc., etc. --> data which, by their nature, should be used objectively. 

If the committee had used Matt's "Be the Selection Committee" blind comparison, once past the AQs, the outcome would have been fair(er) and (IMO just as important) documentable and justifiable.  Immediately after the final selection was made, Castiglione was stammering to poorly justify some of the mind boggling decisions.  If a blind process was in place, mid-majors (and Power 5 for that matter) could schedule opponents with those solid criteria in mind.  Power 5 schools are not as affected, but for mid-majors, they can't do that now because 2016 selection reasons may not carry any weight in 2017.

If I were the NCAA, I'd change the selection process to the following:

1 - Establish the baseline selection pool via conference qualifying criteria (tournament or season champ per conference rules)
2 - Compile a list of remaining at-large  qualifiers using a set of firm, objective, statical data from vetted sources (RPI, KenPom, Gagarin, etc. etc.) to create an at-large pool.  Then, from that pool select the remaining XX-number of at-larges using  a blind analysis to complete the field.
3 - At this point, and only at this point, the committee should be permitted to do the seeding from the eligible pool on a more subjective basis that would enhance competitive match-ups, leverage geography, etc.

At least the debate of who should be in vs. who got jobbed, would be mitigated to a large extent.  Of course, guys like Calipari will still bitch over what seed they got, but pretty much everyone would feel that the best 68 were chosen and programs could set up their schedules to meet a consistent set of standards.

[mj]

We've heard how the power conference teams refuse to play mid majors. Some light needs to be shed on those refusals.  Bryce (and other coaches in a similar situation) should log every call, email, conversation, etc regarding these games and then release them to the media. Show the world what's really going on. 

Would it work? Probably not. But it's not as though we're getting to play these teams now anyways. And of course, any coach that would do this would probably be blacklisted. So it goes I suppose... 

[valpo64]

This is just like major conference football...they call the shots and the little guys get screwed - period.  The NCAA plants a kiss where they need to and let the little guys watch.  It is time to go back to the old Division 2 tourney and let the smaller schools have their own National tourney.  The NCAA will never change..money call the shots.  Just look at the top Division  with football, extra $$ for scholarships, etc.  The smaller schools will never be able to compete.  It is time for the smaller schools to get some backbone and grab the bull by the horns, and that includes getting rid of LaCrone... if you can catch up with him running after money.  Let's move on!

[Vale O. Paradise]

We've heard so much about the double bind of, on the one hand, being told we need to schedule a stronger OOC schedule and, on the other, being turned down by 95% of those we call due to the perception of a low upside/high downside of playing strong mid-majors.

Is there anything preventing the Athletic Department from publishing a list of every school they contacted, along with dates and any details of proposals? At the very least, if would be cathartic (in a Giving the Finger kind of way) to have that info available. At most, it might sway some people who don't understand just how much the decks are stacked.

There would, of course, be some social downsides (schools might be wary of negotiating with a team who openly publicizes things). But is there anything actually barring this from happening? What if mid-majors banded together and all committed to doing this? If the system isn't going to be transparent, let's bring our own sunlight. If the system bends its own rules and traditions to perpetuate the closed party that is the Power 5, let's consider bending things ourselves.

[VULB#62]

If I were the NCAA, I'd change the selection process to the following:

1 - Establish the baseline selection pool via conference qualifying criteria (tournament or season champ per conference rules)
2 - Compile a list of remaining at-large  qualifiers using a set of firm, objective, statical data from vetted sources (RPI, KenPom, Gagarin, etc. etc.) to create an at-large pool.  Then, from that pool select the remaining XX-number of at-larges using  a blind analysis to complete the field.
3 - At this point, and only at this point, the committee should be permitted to do the seeding from the eligible pool on a more subjective basis that would enhance competitive match-ups, leverage geography, etc.

I neglectted to qualify my statement.  Please add: "... and if I had the best interests of all member schools and if I were fair minded and if I was dedicated to doing the right thing."  Sorry about that omission. 

[covufan]

I'm looking at the Massey averages of all the ranking systems and I just don't get Tulsa, Temple, Michigan and Syracuse over Valpo, St. Mary's and San Diego St.

[justducky]

I'm looking at the Massey averages of all the ranking systems and I just don't get Tulsa, Temple, Michigan and Syracuse over Valpo, St. Mary's and San Diego St.

In the Massey Composite San Diego St #40, Valpo #39, and especially #28 St Mary's stand out like soar thumbs.

I was totally convinced that St Mary's would be in with only 5 losses and I consider them to be a more difficult team for us to beat than the Zags. With their 1 true OOC road game and weak OOC/SOS they appeared to try gaming the RPI just like the big boys do but to no avail. It would be interesting to hear what they are saying on their board.

[agibson]

We've heard how the power conference teams refuse to play mid majors. Some light needs to be shed on those refusals.  Bryce (and other coaches in a similar situation) should log every call, email, conversation, etc regarding these games and then release them to the media. Show the world what's really going on. 

Would it work? Probably not. But it's not as though we're getting to play these teams now anyways. And of course, any coach that would do this would probably be blacklisted. So it goes I suppose... 

They've come closer to that this year than any in my memory. I've not listened to the Bryce radio spots last week, but Paul Oren's been trumpeting the fact, for sure.

[agibson]

I think this is the link to the USA article about Mid-Majors being Snubbed http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/03/13/ncaa-tournament-bubble-teams-snubbed-selection-sunday-mid-major-monmouth/81736400/

Interesting to see Bryce's proposal there

How about we put the best mid-majors in the NCAA tournament. Put us in a play-in game in Dayton against a power school. Just give us a chance."

Maybe something like this is legitimate. Some kind of way to recognize the difficulties that mid-majors have in scheduling the kinds of top-50 games that the committee so relishes. (Or find some way for top mids to get one more of those on their regular season schedule... oh, wait.) Some kind of way to more adequately balance home vs. road vs. neutral opportunities.

Heck, it would be insulting, but I bet we'd have been willing to take a mid-on-mid play-in, even in order to get to the 11 seed play-in against a "power" conference team. Add a mid-specific play-in opportunity to the existing bracket.  (OK - maybe the schedule's impossible; but maybe a mid-major eligibility advantage to one of the other last at-large seeds, maybe making four of the at-larges play-ins.)

[covufan]

The Michigan/Tulsa play in game should have been Valpo, with winner playing the team that won't schedule Valpo (ND).

[agibson]

He has a great point.  The selection process is:

(a) held behind closed doors --> no transparency,
(b) without locked-down baseline qualifying criteria (beyond winners of conference tournaments) to ensure minimal compliance --> subject to whims and politics
(c) different every year --> basketball programs have to schedule years in advance while the committee arbitrarily changes things on an annual basis
(d) subject to totally subjective (and many times flawed) views/interpretations of concrete things like SOS, Road Wins, RPI, top 50 wins, etc., etc. --> data which, by their nature, should be used objectively. 

The critique here seems to be, in large part, that the criteria aren't quantitative enough. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Would it be fairer (or better?) to take the top-30 or so teams in the RPI? The KenPom? The Sagarin? Maybe leave a few teams for a human committee to select, maybe not.

The football world seems to have experimented with this, and thought better of it.

It seems reasonable to keep humans with some kind of an active role in the process. To help establish the criteria. To apply the eye test. To consider special circumstances. But, ask women and minorities how that's gone for them in the workplace - it's going to have its challenges, its tendencies toward bias.

Do the mids, or the "other 25" conferences as Whelliston used to call the, have enough say in the process? They're represented on the committee, but is their perspective respected? I guess noone's going to argue that we should implement affirmative action for mids because it's harder for them to recruit. But, are we doing the best job we can do of selecting the best teams for at-large bids, those with the best chance of winning games in the NCAA tournament?

The guidelines given to the selection committee are public, and clear. But they're (deliberately, surely) vague. "Pick the best teams", that sort of thing. I don't suspect that there are active conspiracies involved, but it's entirely possible for a system, even made up of fair-minded individuals, to result in systemic biases.

It's not an easy problem to solve.

[agibson]

Make it to the national title after some descent years in the tourney and an undefeated horizon season. I quite frankly dont know why we didnt think of it sooner. Afterwards they got a preseason tournament Duke and Louisville.

I really do wonder about these pre-season and in-season tournaments. Are there still good ones, where you can get cracks at good power conference teams, preferably on a neutral court? How do you get into them? What's Valpo missing?

The Oregon/Oregon State trip was a great start, for sure. But it seems like we need another, and ideally neutral.

[agibson]

Wow. _One_ bracket of the blizzard included at bracketmatrix.com (144 for their final snapshot) included Tulsa.

Going through the last teams included, and who beat them out on bracketmatrix:

Michigan included less often than St. Bonaventure, the most "snubbed" by bracketmatrix "number of ballots listed" standards. Temple included less often than St. Mary's and San Diego State too. Syracuse included less often than Monmouth (Monmouth maybe overrated because of PR; but Syracuse does make it seem an awful lot like an old boys' club). Vanderbilt included less often than South Carolina.

And Florida, Valpo, and two others included more often than Tulsa. Akron showed up as often as Tulsa.

Valpo did comparatively well, in NIT seeding, by bracketmatrix standards (very imperfect standards, admittedly). This simple analysis would have made us a middling two seed.

What was the site that collected analytics, as well as (better?) expert rankings?

[VULB#62]

I don't think this helps Valpo in keeping Bryce any given year.  HL is a one bid league and leaves no room for error or a bad game.

Here's a really good match  (private, tons of bucks, high academic standards) -- Stanford just opened up.  Dawkins was fired today.

[valpopal]

I don't think this helps Valpo in keeping Bryce any given year.  HL is a one bid league and leaves no room for error or a bad game.

Here's a really good match  (private, tons of bucks, high academic standards) -- Stanford just opened up.  Dawkins was fired today.

Stanford gets a two-for-one if assistant coach Matt Lottich (a Stanford star) joins Bryce. 

[usc4valpo]

This is scary stuff and an ideal opportunity. After what happened this year and the challenges of being a mid-major, I wonder if Bryce has had enough with the Horizon league.

[usc4valpo]

The NCAA screws over the big schools too, and no school got more punishment for the crime than USC and the Reggie Bush situation.

[VULB#62]

2016 D-I Coaching Carousel:

Stanford
Tulane
TCU
James Madison
Denver
Central Florida
Rutgers
UTSA
U of San Francisco
Drexel
Santa Clara

..... so far........

[agibson]

Maybe this stuff belongs in a separate thread... which I'll try not to read!

[a3uge]

Another good article explaining why mid majors are essentially not eligible for at large bids:

http://basketballpredictions.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-well-did-computers-predict-field.html?m=1

[agibson]

Another good article explaining why mid majors are essentially not eligible for at large bids:

http://basketballpredictions.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-well-did-computers-predict-field.html?m=1

This sounds pretty spot on. The committee needs a way to account for different numbers of top-50 and sub-200 games played (actually, maybe he under-emphasize this point). And properly accounting for home vs. road. Power conferences never play sub-200 on the road. Small conference teams never play top-50 at home.

[a3uge]

Another good article explaining why mid majors are essentially not eligible for at large bids:

http://basketballpredictions.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-well-did-computers-predict-field.html?m=1

This sounds pretty spot on. The committee needs a way to account for different numbers of top-50 and sub-200 games played (actually, maybe he under-emphasize this point). And properly accounting for home vs. road. Power conferences never play sub-200 on the road. Small conference teams never play top-50 at home.

They need to stop gating "top 50" and "top 100" altogether because it implies the #1 team is equal to the #50 team - in Tulsa's case, their UConn win from early in the season became top 50 after they LOST.