NCAA Tournament selection always carries with it high drama and intrigue, especially in the days as we get closer to Selection Sunday. Even so, speaking from the experience of following this process on some level for over 30 years, it’s not an exaggeration to say this year’s selections may have more mystery than ever.
The 2019 tourney field selection’s variables include a new sorting metric that many are curious to see just how the NCAA uses. There’s the ever-increasing divide in schedules that gives us 14, 15, even 16-loss teams considered on the bubble due to their quality wins, while also making it harder and harder to evaluate teams like Belmont, Furman and UNC Greensboro.
This year also will feature a committee with a 30% turnover from last year’s, with three new members of the ten who are meeting right now. Of course, there also is the FBI investigation into college basketball, and how that might affect things, if at all. And how will the committee handle one of the top teams in the country entering the postseason without its coach?
Among the things we’ll be watching as the selection and seeding of the field is announced on Sunday:
What is impact of NET?
The NCAA has maintained steadfastly that its new ratings metric is being used as a grouping tool and nothing more. If that’s the case, then little will change about the selection process as we’ve known it. Some, though, have theorized that the selection committee might be looking to make a statement of the importance of its new tool, and that it didn’t pay Google good money just to craft a grouping tool. If that’s the case, and teams like Clemson get in comfortably with resumes thin on much of anything, then we’ve entered a whole new world.
Does a new committee balance make a difference?
The selection committee has had a noted learning towards the major football conferences/Big East the last five years, after notably having shown a more balanced approach the previous several years. (And being rewarded for it with VCU getting to the Final Four in 2011 and La Salle going to the Sweet 16 two years later.) Last year included five members of the committee from the six conferences who have essentially dominated the bids the last couple years, the self-titled “Power 5” (we prefer Collusion 5) plus the Big East. This year’s committee has three new members, though, and one less member from that group of six conferences. Will this make a difference? Some believe it will (good research here from Alan Bykowski of the Marquette-based blog Cracked Sidewalks). We’re skeptical, perhaps from being beaten down by five years of the committee wholeheartedly embracing mediocrity, but it is a fact that different committee makeups sometimes have different preferences than those before them.
Will losses matter?
This is becoming a question that unfortunately needs to be asked every year. Sadly. Of course, the specific cases to watch this year are Indiana and Texas, and to a slightly lesser extent Creighton and Florida too. The Hoosiers have a whole 17-15 record; the Longhorns only broke even at 16-16. Never has a team with a .500 record been selected as an at-large (and rightfully so, we would say). Teams have been selected with records two games above .500 twice in the past, but the Georgia team to do so in 2001 played the third-strongest schedule in the country, and the Villanova squad picked in 1991 had the second-best strength of schedule. Indiana’s is not close to that; 52nd as of Friday. Also, Creighton is just three games over .500 with a very middling 17-14 record vs. Division I teams, while Florida will be 19-15 and with still a dearth of quality wins if it loses to Auburn on Saturday. With respect to the participants on their teams, these schools are not sympathetic figures. Not when they dodge, dodge, dodge away the opportunity to play even occasionally on the road at teams like Belmont and UNC Greensboro, the ones they are supposedly superior to and have nothing to gain from beating, yet could (and many would argue should) get aced out for bids by.
What will committee do with LSU? And other programs in or near the FBI scandal?
LSU is going to be an extremely fascinating case for the selection committee. The Tigers won the SEC regular season title, but they also do not have their coach. They didn’t exactly wow anyone with their SEC Tournament performance, either, falling to a desperate-but-mediocre Florida team in the quarterfinals. LSU could be anywhere from a 2 to a 5 seed and it wouldn’t be a surprise from here. Also, one has to question what might happen to other programs who have come up in the FBI’s investigation. Some have suggested that Louisville, Oklahoma State and USC were left out of the NCAA Tournament last year because of their involvement in the FBI story. Far more likely is the first two had resumes with gaping holes in them, and the committee clearly not being high on the Pac-12 last year explains the Trojans’ absence. It certainly won’t look good by the NCAA, though, if it puts in, say, a TCU or Creighton-both of who reportedly have assistant coaches involved in the scandal-at the expense of a Belmont, a model program which leads the country in Academic All-Americans this century.
Loyola effect?
The selection committee took a fair amount of heat last year, and probably deserved even more for its evaluation of Loyola Chicago, a team whose No. 11 seed despite a 28-5 record indicated it would not have been selected for the tourney had it lost in the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament final. The committee would’ve left out a team that was nothing less than a Final Four squad, and in its place would’ve included a Notre Dame team that likely would’ve done what most all middling majors like them do (Syracuse and its quirky 2-3 zone aside): pose little real threat of going deep in the tournament. With yet another example of these teams going deep in the tourney-the Ramblers were the fourth school from outside major conferences to get to the Final Four from a 9 seed or lower since 2006-will the committee finally start giving them the benefit of the doubt? It’s not likely the committee will be swayed by it, but we can always hope.
Who might be the surprises?
Almost every year there is a surprise team either selected or that got far deeper in the consideration process than most expected. Notre Dame and Baylor were two teams last year that, though not selected, were closer to getting in than frankly either deserved. Among the teams to watch this year include Georgetown and perhaps Lipscomb. The Hoyas have kind of lurked just outside the spotlight this year (and also looked bad in end-of-season games against DePaul and in the Big East tourney vs. Seton Hall). Still, their records against the top two quadrants are a lot better than many are giving them credit for, aren’t a whole lot different from a team like St. John’s that many think is in, and are far better than some others being bandied for bids. Lipscomb is a team many have written off, yet the Bisons did win at TCU and SMU, also played at Louisville and Clemson, and clearly made an effort to play a tough non-conference schedule. Most likely Lipscomb missed its chance, and there’s not a lot to argue if they don’t get in. But if the committee starts discussing how it’s going to take TCU when the Bisons won head-to-head on the road in Fort Worth? The committee regularly says head-to-head results don’t matter, but when two similar teams have played and one wins-especially on the road-it’s hard to see why it shouldn’t.
Twitter: @HoopvilleAdam
