As the NCAA Tournament is about to get started in earnest, it’s worth reflecting on teams that did not get into the NCAA Tournament. Since Sunday, there has been a lot of heated debate from a lot of corners on the field of 68, much of it focusing on who’s in vs. who’s out.
Before getting into this at all, it is worth noting that any team that did not make the NCAA Tournament certainly had their chances, some more than others. A team like Oklahoma State or USC had many more chances than Middle Tennessee or Saint Mary’s.
The most maddening thing about the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee and the criteria for selecting teams is that there does not appear to be much consistency from year to year. There are a number of different criteria that should come into play based on what committee members and chairs have said, from quality wins (especially in non-conference) to bad losses and an overall strength of schedule, which is often reflected in RPI numbers. The quadrant system is merely another way to package the same information; whether or not you like it (I am indifferent), it is not really a new metric. While RPI is not irrelevant, by itself it is not useful. Its usefulness comes in the context of other numbers and facts.
The first team to look at is Oklahoma State, who many have cried foul for in light of Oklahoma making the field. There is some irony in this, because many who are arguing for Oklahoma State to be included also don’t like a power conference team playing no one in non-conference. Guess what? The Cowboys’ non-conference strength of schedule is in the 300s. Do we want to reward that?
The Cowboys may have beat Kansas twice and, more important to many, Oklahoma twice. But head-to-head only matters if the resumes are equal, or close to it. Considering Oklahoma State was not even one of the first four out – and thus a No. 1 seed in the NIT – it seems the Cowboys were a little ways off by virtue of the easy non-conference schedule translating into an RPI around 90.
Next up is Notre Dame, and this is new ground. We have seen many cases where a team loses a player for the season and might see their seed get affected because they will be short-handed. The most prominent example of this was in 2000, when Cincinnati was on top of the polls and appeared to be well on their way to a No. 1 seed, but lost Kenyon Martin to a broken leg in the Conference USA Tournament. Instead, they were the No. 2 seed in the South Region and lost to Tulsa in the second round as part of the Golden Hurricane’s run to the Elite Eight.
In Notre Dame’s case, we had to wonder how the committee would evaluate them considering they went the bulk of ACC play without Bonzie Colson, a national Player of the Year candidate had he been healthy all along. Colson returned before the ACC Tournament and played well, showing no ill effects, but ultimately the Fighting Irish did not make it. They also went 1-4 in five games that all-ACC guard Matt Farrell missed due to injury. Notre Dame beat Wichita State, NC State and Virginia Tech, along with bubble teams Florida State and Syracuse, but also had three sub-100 losses (Ball State and Indiana with a healthy Colson and Farrell, and Georgia Tech without Colson). When you have those losses, you need more quality wins to make up for those losses.
What was still unknown, though, was if the committee would rate them as better with Colson and decide that with him, this team wins another game or two against a good team and thus belongs in the field. Since they are in the NIT, we have our answer.
USC has also been at the center of much discussion, with Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott weighing in as well as Trojan head coach Andy Enfield. Scott talked about the eye test, which is irrelevant because it is 100 percent subjective. While even the stated method of how teams are chosen is not 100 percent objective, the eye test is 0 percent objective, and no one should be shocked that a conference commissioner thinks one of his members belongs in the field.
Let’s note right out of the gate that USC’s best win, period, was against either Middle Tennessee or New Mexico State, both in the Diamond Head Classic, but neither of who would get an NCAA at-large bid. The only teams they defeated that are in the field of 68 are automatic qualifiers Cal State Fullerton and New Mexico State. They also had two sub-100 losses, including one to Princeton, whose RPI is in the 200s.
Enfield took issue with the notion that a team needs a significant win or two, especially in non-conference. His quote: “If all that matters is the quality of your best win or two on your schedule, then we should set the field in December after the out-of-conference is complete. It basically discredited our entire league schedule and no matter what we or some of the other teams did during the Pac-12 or the conference tournament did not, obviously, matter.”
I can imagine a mid-major coach or fan reading that quote and wanting to say, “Welcome to our reality, Coach.” (Of course, Enfield was at a mid-major when he was at Florida Gulf Coast.)
With all due respect, the coach misunderstood that. Quality wins in non-conference serve two purposes: they elevate a team if they also get those wins in conference play, and they help make up for any bad losses. They also tell the committee that the team didn’t just beat up on bad teams. USC didn’t coast, to be sure, but they had missed opportunities. In non-conference play, they lost to Texas A&M, Oklahoma (neutral, but in LA) and at SMU. And in light of the Pac-12 not being good this year – largely because of a bad non-conference showing overall – the Trojans needed a win or two there even more, because opportunities for such wins were scarce in Pac-12 play. And they went 0-5 against Arizona, Arizona State and UCLA, two of who were in the play-in games.
USC finishing second and seeing two teams behind them in the standings make the NCAA Tournament should be one more reminder that conference record doesn’t matter. If the Trojans’ case doesn’t drive that home, that of Nebraska hopefully will. Not many have talked about the Cornhuskers, but it isn’t every day you see a team go 13-5 in a Power 5 conference and not get in – and for that matter, get a middle seed in the NIT. But Nebraska had one win over a team that was a lock to make the field, which was Michigan. Like USC, they didn’t lack opportunity – they played seven games against at-large teams – but they lacked wins. And they had a loss at Illinois, whose RPI is closer to 200 than 100, along with a non-conference strength of schedule around 300. As with Oklahoma State, should we reward teams playing such a weak non-conference schedule?
Speaking of a lack of wins, Louisville is another one that is not in for that reason despite having some nice numbers. The Cardinals had the distraction of the FBI investigation and a coaching change to adjust to, but the reality is that they did not beat a solid at-large team all year aside from Virginia Tech – and the Hokies didn’t attain lock status until very late in the game. Their top 40 RPI tells you they won a lot more than they lost, but a closer look at their resume shows they went 0-11 against RPI top 50 teams. Not having a bad loss is good – the Cardinals did not lose to a team whose RPI has three digits all year – but when quality wins are lacking, that is a problem.
Finally, we’ll talk about the two mid-majors together, Saint Mary’s and Middle Tennessee. For mid-majors, quality win opportunities are rare, so they have less margin for error in the current setup. Should the committee start to judge them by different measures, this will change, but suffice it to say it is understandable why both were left out.
First, past seasons do not matter – or at least, that is what has been stated, and it is how teams should be judged. Every season is different, so the success Middle Tennessee has had the last two years is irrelevant as to whether or not this team belonged. I don’t imagine many who are taking up for Saint Mary’s or Middle Tennessee would want the committee to take into account the fact that Louisville has made Final Fours and won national titles and thus put the Cardinals into the field. (Set aside the fact that the NCAA has vacated their most recent Final Four and national title, as that is another discussion for another time.)
Saint Mary’s went 2-1 against the top 50, including a split with Gonzaga. They had a missed opportunity with Georgia in the Wooden Legacy, but the real killer there was losing to Washington State, whose RPI is closer to 200 than 100 (yes, the Cougars were undefeated at the time, but that does not matter). The Gaels also lost at San Francisco, another sub-100 loss. But the biggest knock of all is the overall schedule: the Gaels had 16 wins against teams with RPIs of 150 or greater, including five against teams in the 300s and another seven against teams in the 200s. Their best non-conference win – and the only one in the top 100 – came against New Mexico State at home. Fans of mid-majors don’t like to see high-majors rewarded for playing a non-conference schedule full of bad teams, but a mid-major should not be held to a lower standard. The Gaels’ non-conference schedule strength is around 200 – not as bad as Oklahoma State or Nebraska, but not that much better, either.
Last, but not least, we have Middle Tennessee, who might have the best reason to gripe but still has warts. The Blue Raiders at least went 3-3 against top 50 teams – a win over Auburn, who they lost a close one to, might have changed this a bit – and their non-conference strength of schedule is one of the best in the country. They whiffed on opportunities with USC and Miami in the Diamond Head Classic, which hurt. But thanks largely to playing in a diminished Conference USA, the Blue Raiders had 17 wins over teams with an RPI of 150 or greater, with nine of those wins coming over teams whose RPI was 200 or greater. Only four of those came outside of conference. And with that, a loss to Southern Miss – with an RPI in the 200s – of the Conference USA Tournament may have sunk them.
With all of that said, the games have already begun, but now they begin in earnest. And with this being a wild season all along, we should now sit back and enjoy this as much as possible.
