Last June the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) empaneled an ad hoc committee whose stated purpose was to provide the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Selection Committee a perspective from men’s basketball coaches and their teams regarding selection, seeding and bracketing for the NCAA Tournament. The NCAA has in recent years become increasingly receptive to considering and making changes, and as this year’s event reaches its climax, we decided to offer some specific recommendations to bolster the best three weeks in sports. Let’s focus today on improvements to the selection and seeding process.

John Calipari is one of the members of the recently created NABC ad hoc committee formed to make recommendations to the NCAA Selection Committee. (Kevin Jairaj/USA TODAY Sports)

Bye Bye, RPI

Whenever the subject arises of improving the primary metric that the Selection Committee uses, there is one recurring response: Either dump the RPI altogether, or dramatically limit its influence. The good news is that we may finally be headed in that direction. A month after the NABC formed its committee and began communicating with the NCAA, the following statement was made as part of an update on the current NCAA Selection Committee:

The basketball committee supported in concept revising the current ranking system utilized in the selection and seeding process, and will work collaboratively with select members of the NABC ad hoc group to study a potentially more effective composite ranking system for possible implementation no earlier than the 2017-18 season.

Moving away from the RPI as the primary method for sorting teams into composite tiers would be a huge step toward improving the balance of the field. We have heard committee members for years make the point that a school’s RPI ranking is just one factor of many on its resume. But then the same committee members turn right around and cite that team’s record against the top-50 or top-100 — or its strength of schedule rating — all of which, of course, are derivative of the RPI. That means that the outdated metric is still, even now in an environment of Big Data, a highly significant influence on how teams are judged. The real harm occurs when the RPI results in entire conferences being overrated, which leads to those member institutions likewise being over-seeded. Placing five to seven teams well above their proper seed lines can have a substantial negative impact on the overall balance and corresponding fairness of the entire NCAA Tournament. Here are three recent examples.

Read the rest of this entry »

In June the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) empaneled an ad hoc committee whose stated purpose was to provide the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Selection Committee the perspective of men’s basketball coaches and their teams regarding selection, seeding and bracketing for the NCAA Tournament. With that in mind, we decided to give some specific recommendations of our own that would enhance an already great event. Let’s first focus on some improvements for the selection and seeding process.

John Calipari is one of the members of the recently created NABC ad hoc committee formed to make recommendations to the NCAA Selection Committee. (Kevin Jairaj/USA TODAY Sports)

Bye Bye, RPI

Whenever the subject arises of improving the ratings system that the Selection Committee uses, there is one recurring response: either dump the RPI, or, at a minimum, dramatically limit its influence. The good news is that we may finally be headed in that direction. About a month after the NABC formed its committee and began communicating with the NCAA, the following statement was made as part of an update regarding the current NCAA Selection Committee: Read the rest of this entry »

Evan Jacoby is a regular contributor for RTC. You can find him @evanjacoby on Twitter. Night Line will run on weeknights during the season, highlighting a major storyline development from that day’s games.

Just when we thought the Big Ten pecking order was clearly established, Tuesday night’s action had to throw us all off a bit. Michigan State, already having clinched at least a share of the Big Ten regular season title, was dominated from the start and dropped a road game at Indiana, 70-55, in front of another raucous Bloomington crowd. The win gave Tom Crean and the Hoosiers their third win over a top five opponent this season, just the fourth time a team has done that in the past decade. With wins over No. 1 Kentucky, then-No. 2 Ohio State, and now No. 5 Michigan State, the Hoosiers have proven that their balanced attack can lead to elite results. But Tuesday’s win reverberated all the way to Columbus and Ann Arbor as well in that the Big Ten race now gets very interesting.

Indiana Soared to a Big Victory on Tuesday Night (Getty Images/A. Lyons)

Before touching on what this win means for IU, it’s necessary to look at the impact Tuesday’s result could have for the Big Ten as a whole. A Michigan State win would have clinched the conference regular season title and enhanced their chance for a #1 seed, but the Spartans got thumped and dropped to 13-4 in conference. Now, Ohio State and Michigan both again sit just one game back of first place. Both teams play their remaining two games away from home, but if they do in fact handle business on the road then we will be looking at a three-way tie for the Big Ten title. If the Buckeyes can defeat Northwestern on Wednesday night, then Sunday afternoon’s game between OSU and MSU looms especially large. A win by Ohio State would give them a share of the Big Ten title, and it would be difficult for the Selection Committee to have Michigan State ranked higher on the NCAA Tournament S-Curve having lost two straight games and carrying a worse overall record. The game will be played in East Lansing, so Michigan State can end all such speculation by notching a win, a Big Ten title, and a great opportunity at a #1 seed. Of course, nothing has been going as planned this season, so you’ll just have to stay tuned in to see what happens the rest of the way.

Read the rest of this entry »