As Hoopville’s resident bracketologist, I can assure you that the NCAA Tournament selection committee has one of the toughest jobs out there — a job at which they paradoxically can’t win and can’t lose.
Selection committee members will never avoid criticism about their final picks for at-large teams. The committee chairman/chairwoman will face hysterical fan bases who are convinced that their favorite team got screwed in seeding. But at the end of the day — or more specifically at the end of a month from Selection Sunday — everyone will have moved on from that angst to celebrate another great tournament.
I’m nowhere near an unbiased commentator on this opinion, but here I go: The NCAA Tournament is the perfect postseason event. Every single possession counts. Tension and intensity are ever-present. Underdogs inspire hope, with a handful finding a way to beat highly favored foes every year. I challenge you to watch 12 hours of first-round NCAA Tournament and not go to sleep utterly exhausted.
And in the end, the championship usually features at least one or two of the best teams in the entire sport.
But before we get to the championship, we have to get through Selection Sunday. For the committee members charged with orchestrating perfection, the process must be something akin to giving birth. I have never been near a selection committee or a maternity ward, but I have labored to produce projected brackets that follow the NCAA Tournament seeding guidelines as closely as possible. It’s simultaneously a boatload of fun and utterly aggravating.
Let me show you what I mean. Here are the blind résumés of three very good teams. I need to pick two of these teams to join Kentucky and Syracuse as No. 1 seeds. Who would you pick?
Team A (25-4, 12-2 in No. 5 conference)
RPI: 2
Strength of schedule: 3
Non-conference strength of schedule: 2
Record vs. top 25: 5-3
Record vs. top 26-50: 2-0
Losses outside top 50: 1 (vs. 51)
Best 3 wins: vs. 4 (neutral court), at 5 vs. 6 (neutral court).
Worst loss: vs. 51
Team B (23-5, 13-3 in No. 1 conference)
RPI: 4
Strength of schedule: 2
Non-conference strength of schedule: 13
Record vs. top 25: 7-3
Record vs. top 26-50: 2-1
Losses outside top 50: 1 (at 74)
Best 3 wins: at 7, vs. 13, vs. 17
Worst loss: at 74
Team C (24-5, 14-2 in No. 2 conference)
RPI: 6
Strength of schedule: 11
Non-conference strength of schedule: 43
Record vs. top 25: 5-3
Record vs. top 26-50: 5-1
Losses outside top 50: 1 (vs. 69)
Best 3 wins: vs. 7, vs. 9, at 9
Worst loss: vs. 69
That’s about as tough as it gets. I picked Team A first because it beat has the three best wins, including two wins against Team B and Team C. Yes, that team is from a weaker conference, but it just keeps winning and earning its No. 1 spot. Team B narrowly sneaks past Team C, mostly on the strength of its great record versus the top 25. Team B also has a better strength of schedule overall and in non-conference play. Yes, Team B’s worst loss is a little worse, but it’s on the road compared to Team C, which lost at home.
Keep reading to find out the identities of these three teams.
And if you think that exercise was tough, try this one. All three of those teams are legitimate championship contenders, worthy of a No. 1 seed. The problem is that I only have four No. 1 seeds to hand out to five teams. In this next exercise, you need to pick two teams to receive an invite to the Big Dance. All these teams have some work to do to look more like legitimate NCAA Tournament teams. On some days, I don’t want any of them near the field of 68.
Team D (20-8, 13-3 in No. 8 conference)
RPI: 52
Strength of schedule: 80
Non-conference strength of schedule: 73
Record vs. top 25: 0-2
Record vs. top 26-50: 0-2
Record vs. top 51-100: 3-4
Losses outside top 100: 0
Best 3 wins: vs. 55, at 71, vs. 71
Worst loss: at 83
Team E (19-10, 6-8 in No. 4 conference)
RPI: 63
Strength of schedule: 66
Non-conference strength of schedule: 187
Record vs. top 25: 2-4
Record vs. top 26-50: 1-0
Record vs. top 51-100: 4-4
Losses outside top 100: 2 (vs. 107, at 142)
Best 3 wins: at 22, vs. 24, vs. 46
Worst loss: at 142
Team F (18-10, 9-5 in No. 7 conference)
RPI: 53
Strength of schedule: 52
Non-conference strength of schedule: 52
Record vs. top 25: 1-3
Record vs. top 26-50: 2-3
Record vs. top 51-100: 3-3
Losses outside top 100: 1 (at 194)
Best 3 wins: at 22, vs. 42, vs. 49
Worst loss: at 194
Team G (17-11, 11-5 in No. 3 conference)
RPI: 50
Strength of schedule: 39
Non-conference strength of schedule: 57
Record vs. top 25: 0-5
Record vs. top 26-50: 1-2
Record vs. top 51-100: 4-1
Losses outside top 100: 3 (vs. 115 neutral court, at 142, vs. 148 neutral court)
Best 3 wins: vs. 43, vs. 72, vs. 78
Worst loss: vs. 148 neutral court
Team H (21-6, 9-4 in No. 17 conference)
RPI: 76
Strength of schedule: 246
Non-conference strength of schedule: 268
Record vs. top 25: 0-1
Record vs. top 26-50: 0-0
Record vs. top 51-100: 4-1
Losses outside top 100: 4 (vs. 120, at 143, at 227, at 245)
Best 3 wins: at 58, at 64, at 88
Worst loss: at 245
Team I (18-8, 9-5 in No. 10 conference)
RPI: 61
Strength of schedule: 115
Non-conference strength of schedule: 190
Record vs. top 25: 1-3
Record vs. top 26-50: 1-1
Record vs. top 51-100: 1-2
Losses outside top 100: 2 (at 161, at 185)
Best 3 wins: vs. 23, vs. 29 neutral court
Worst loss: at 185
This one was no fun. I picked Team F and Team I, primarily because all the teams have similar bad losses, but those two have the best wins of the bunch. Team E came really, really close. In fact, in all fairness, my selection of Team F over Team E came down to the eye test. Team E just isn’t playing like a team that deserves to be in the field based on the games I’ve seen. That’s a little outside the stats, but it’s instructional for this exercise — numbers and stats can’t possibly tell the whole story. They tell a rather voluminous story, but a chunk of the book for each team is written on actual observation. And the selection committee operates the same way.
So here’s the results key, starting with our No. 1 seeds.
- Team A: Duke
- Team B: Michigan State
- Team C: Kansas
Kansas is so close to a No. 1 seed. If Duke or Michigan State loses a single game, I’m moving Kansas up to No. 1 as long as the Jayhawks keep winning.
And now, here are the results of the bubble teams.
- Team D: Washington
- Team E: Mississippi State
- Team F: Xavier
- Team G: South Florida
- Team H: Ohio
- Team I: UCF
Washington and Mississippi State are two of the toughest teams to leave out, for different reasons.
The Bulldogs have a few quality wins, including similar ones to Xavier. However, Mississippi State just doesn’t look like an NCAA Tournament team. I haven’t seen this team play a full 40 minutes of quality basketball this season.
The Huskies have the opposite problem. Washington often looks quite impressive, but the Huskies don’t have any quality wins to back it up. They don’t have any bad losses either. But in my opinion. you have to earn your trip to the Big Dance, and Washington just hasn’t done that — yet. If Washington finds a way in, watch out. This team can do some damage out of a No. 12 or 13 seed spot just like they did a couple of years ago as a No. 11 seed.
