NCAA Tourney field expanded to 68, Thoughts

The NCAA Tournament will not be expanding to 96 teams as previously thought and feared. Instead, it will move to a 68 team field, with 4 play-in games being played before the regular first round.

Compared to the 96 team proposal, this is wonderful. It’s really not too bad when looked at on its own as well.

Obviously there is still going to be teams that are upset; the 69th team will be the new version of this year’s 65th team.

Rumors are that the play in games will be between the last bubble teams. For example, this year one of the games may have been between Illinois and Virginia Tech for the right for a #12 or #13 seed.

My first reaction is that the play-in games are going to be very interesting. Vegas wins, since these games will be highly bet. College basketball fans win, because they will be watching exciting play-in games with high implications, as opposed to the right to lose to the #1 overall seed. Coaches and players win, as they have a better chance of getting into the tournament.

My biggest worry/concern/issue, is how this affects the brackets. If the play-in games are going to be between the last bubble teams rather than the #15/#16 seeds, it is going to be tough to fill out a bracket before the play-in games are complete.

For example, last year, if Temple was a #5 seed, and the game I brought up between Illinois and VT was a reality, fans filling out their brackets would not know who they want to pick in the Temple/#12 seed game, until that #12 seed is known.

The Selection Show is on Sunday evening. Normally, brackets are filled out right away. The play-in game was not a factor since the team winning it had virtually no chance to beat the #1 seed.

There are 2 options; either people are going to have to wait until after the play-in games to fill out their brackets, or the play-in games will become part of the brackets.

Regarding option 1, here are the issues.

- The games would likely all have to be played on Tuesday. As far as CBS is concerned, this takes away some of the point of adding the games, since they would all not be able to be televised nationally. It would not be logistically possible to play the games Monday, with very limited preparation and travel time after the Selection Show on Sunday evening

Regarding option 2

-If you make the play in games part of the official bracket, then people are going to be starting the “official” tournament on Thursday already with losses. That is not ideal.

It may seem trivial to be talking about brackets being the main issue here, but it really is. Gambling is a huge part of March Madness, both on individual games and brackets. Individual betting will go up and benefit, while some kinks will have to be worked out bracket-wise.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

At the very least, college basketball fans can take solace in the fact that the regular season will not become completely irrelevant as was feared with a 96 team tourney. Also, the fact that this new arrangement is getting so much publicity is a good sign that it will not be expanded to 96 in the next few years.

That’s good news in my view, and I have a feeling most college basketball fans would feel the same way.

Thoughts on Selection Sunday

It’s that time of the year again. The 2010 NCAA Tournament Brackets have been announced.

We have had the annual Dick Vitale blow up, and the coaches on the wrong side of the bubble have called into ESPN’s Bracketology and voiced their opinions.

I will be talking more about MD’s draw (4 seed in the “Bracket of Death”, facing #13 seed Houston) later, but for now, here are some random thoughts I have on the bracket, and some of the main issues being talked about.

-The Dick Vitale blow up was over VT (23-8, 10-6 in the ACC) not getting in, while Wake (19-10, 9-7 in ACC was in)

VT’s head coach Seth Greenberg also called in and gave his opinion.

Greenberg has been criticized for having a non conference RPI in the low 300′s. No doubt, VT played one of the weakest OOC schedules of all major teams.

I know there are many Maryland fans who will be mocking Seth Greenberg for his scheduling and Selection Sunday rant but he did make a great point.

He said that there needs to be consistent criteria used for selecting these teams.

Some years, the independent committee, which is different every season, values teams playing tougher games OOC even if they result in losses, as well as playing in a major conference, and winning big games in the conference.

Other years, such as this year, the committee rewards mid majors for having a 24-25 win season, even if the “big wins” for some of these mid majors, would be a “bad loss” for of the major teams on the bubble.

Why is California rewarded for their performance in the Pac-10, as an 8 seed, yet VT is not in at 10-6 in the ACC?

Now, I will say that unlike some, I am not going to make the blanket statement that any team that goes 10-6 in the ACC should get in.

That should not be the case. No one should think in generalities. It is a case by case basis.

Clearly, VT’s OOC schedule cost them, as well as their unbalanced schedule.

VT only played 2 games against Duke and MD combined, and they were 0-2. Now, they do not control their schedule, but the point is, they likely do not have that 10-6 mark, if they play 4 games against Duke and MD, as opposed to 4.

Maryland, on the other hand, played 2 games each against the 1st place team, and the 3rd place team. Replace their away Duke game with a date at Miami, and Maryland is likely 14-2.

I am glad that the committee closely analyzes different situations, and do not just rely on the surface stats.

I think VT should have been in, not over some of the major bubble teams, but over some of the mid major at large teams, such as Utah State. On a neutral floor, VT would be heavily favored against Utah State. In fact, anyone in the ACC would likely be favored against Utah State.

Utah State is a team who should have the opportunity to get in if they have a sensational year, but they did not have that.

In other years, to Greenberg’s point, Utah State would be out, and VT, Illinois, or Miss St would be in.

Put Utah State in the ACC, and they are the #12 seed in the ACC Tournament.

So to round out the VT situation, I feel that both VT and Wake should be in. I see the logic that the committee used with keeping VT out, but do not agree with it, compared to some of the teams that made it over them.

-How does the committee take their job seriously, and come out with the Midwest bracket on a day other than April 1st?

Kansas is the #1 overall seed, and yet they are in with Ohio State as the #2 seed, and Georgetown as the #3? Not to mention, each of Maryland at #4, MSU at #5, and Tenn at #6 are on the better side of their respective seeds compared to the rest of the field.

-California is dramatically over-seeded, and personally, do not feel they should even be in. Everyone knows the Pac-10 is down, but image and name recognition, conference-wise, is still getting in the way. If this same Cal team with the same resume played in a similar conference with a similar RPI as the Pac-10, without it being called the Pac-10, they likely do not get in, and certainly are not a #8 seed.

-Miss St did not do much during the season, but they made a late season run. In some years, that run would have earned them one of the final spots. Again, as VT’s coach alluded to, there has to be consistently established.

-Illinois was left out. Of their 19 wins, they defeated Wisconsin 2 times, Michigan State, Clemson, and Vanderbilt.

Compare that to #8 seed California, who only defeated 1 team all season who is in the NCAA Tournament: Washington.

Compare that to #12 seed Utah State, whose 2 best wins were BYU, and NMST.

If anyone can defend that “logic,” I would love to hear from them.

Overall, I feel this is one of the more disappointing Selection Sunday’s in recent memory. The lack of quality bubble/at large teams, combined with the questionable decisions made by the committee, really has sparked debate which will be talked about throughout the week.

Thoughts on the ACC

I have repeatedly maintained that the ACC was not having as much of a down year this year, as most of the local chatter, and national media, would lead one to believe.

The results in the ACC Tournament thus far have can be taken one of two ways regarding that opinion.

One can look at it as the top seeds not being as strong and dominant as most years.

#2 seed MD lost to 7-9 GT.

The 2 lowest seeds, #11 NC State, and #12 Miami, are both in the semifinals.

#1 Duke was tied with Virginia mid-way through the second half.

Is this a sign of a higher-tier weakness, or does it show that the bottom teams in the ACC, still are very talented teams?

While I do not think the ACC is as down as advertised, I will say that the #2-#4 teams are not as dominant as they would be in most years.

But the main reason for my thinking that the league is not as down, was/is because I feel it is a very good, solid, and competitive league top to bottom.

In my opinion, the ACC Tournament has supported this.

It is a credit to the league that the #11 and #12 seeds have the talent and ability to beat the upper echelon teams in the league.

GT was the #7 seed. They are showing that they do in fact have the talent to go deep into the NCAA’s. Miami is showing why they were a preseason top 25 team.

The strength of the top teams are down. There are very good teams at the top; Duke and Maryland are legitimate Elite 8 contenders. Once you are in the Elite 8, anything can happen. GT has the talent to make a run.

Florida State, Clemson, and Wake all have the talent and potential to make a Sweet 16 run. Now, these teams could also lose in the first round without much surprise.

But this league is talented, there is no doubt about that, and it is talented 1-12.

Instead of the talking heads assuming that this was such a down year for the ACC, perhaps they should have been giving more respect to the NC State’s, Miami’s, GT’s, and Virginia’s of the world, rather than assuming that these teams were just easy W’s on the schedule for the top teams.

Clearly, that was not the case, and has not been the case in the ACC Tournament.

Not many leagues can say that their #11 and #12 teams can make a run in their conference tournament.

The ACC can, and that says more about the depth of the league, and the quality of the league, rather than the weaknesses of the top teams.

Taking a deeper look at MD’s #19 ranking

The Terps are ranked 19th in both the AP Top 25, and the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll.

I do not usually put much stock in these rankings. While it is nice to see that number to the left of your favorite schools’ name, it is not exactly a mathematical formula. Also, I do not really think the NCAA tournament selection committee really cares about the national rankings either, as many years, a team in the Top 25 gets a lower seed than a team who wasn’t even ranked. So clearly, these rankings are pretty much all for discussions sake, as opposed to declaring who the best team is, compared for example to the BCS rankings in college football.

That being said, I’d like to believe that there is at least some merit, accuracy, and logic to these rankings. In the case of Maryland being ranked #19, however, I really do not see any of those.

While there are going to be some flaws with any system, and I have been a critic of RPI myself, at least there is some basis of formula with regards to some of the systems out there.

One of these systems is the Pomeroy rankings. A detailed description of how the Pomeroy rankings are decided can be found here.

Here is an excerpt from that description..

The purpose of this system is to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. Since nobody can see every team play all (or even most) of their games, this system is designed to give you a snapshot of a team’s current level of play.

This season, I scrapped the old A-B=C power ratings and went to something that appears a little more complex. It is a little more complex, but it also has the advantage of being based on basketball things. The old system I used wasn’t special for hoops. It could be applied to any sport where a score is kept. Be it the NHL, college lacrosse, or grandma’s bridge league. But now we have the technology to do better. Besides, there are plenty of other power ratings of the old style out there, if that’s what you really prefer. I don’t really do this to imitate what everyone else does.

I would describe the philosophy of the system as this: it looks at who a team has beaten and how they have beaten them. Same thing on the losses, also. Yes, it values a 20 point win more than a 5 point win. It likes a team that loses a lot of close games against strong opposition more than one that wins a lot of close games against weak opposition.

The core of the system is the pythagorean calculation for expected winning percentage. In previous experiments, I found the best exponent for college basketball was between 8 and 9. But for whatever reason, when using adjusted efficiencies, the best exponent is between 11 and 12, probably because previous experiments only included conference games. I am using 11.5 as the exponent.

Maryland is currently ranked 8th using the Pomeroy rankings

Jeff Sagarin of USA Today has developed his own system of ranking college basketball teams. He has been doing so since 1985, and is very well-respected nationally for his work in ranking teams in a logical, formula based way. A description of what all goes into these rankings can be found by clicking going to his rankings .

Sagarin takes into account factors such as home venue advantage, winning margin, etc. Also, Sagarin rewards teams for wins that can be considered “comfortable,” such as a team winning by 30, but does not give teams any added benefits for running up the score. For example, Maryland defeating Duke by 80, would be counted the same as defeating Duke by 40.

Maryland is ranked #13 in the Sagarin rankings.

RPI is another system that is widely used and recognized nationally. I am not a big fan of RPI, simply because the RPI rankings do not really pass the eye test for me. For example, Northern Iowa is currently ahead of Maryland in RPI (Maryland is 19, Northern Iowa is 18) while Maryland has a SOS (strength of schedule) of 20, and Northern Iowa has a SOS of 106.

That being said, RPI is said to be a factor in whether a team gets into the NCAA”s, and how high or low a team is seeded, so it does carry some meaning and weight, how much is debatable.

As I said, Maryland is ranked 19th in the RPI rankings. (behind Temple (SOS of 61), Butler (SOS of 86), and Northern Iowa, so draw your own conclusions)

Also, some quick stats when looking at those teams ahead of Maryland in RPI.

Temple plays in the Atlantic 10 Conference, which is rated 7th in the Sagarin Conference Ratings .

Butler plays in the Horizon League, ranked 14th in the Sagarin Conference Ratings.

Northern Iowa plays in the Missouri Valley Conference, ranked 9th in the Sagarin Ratings.

The Maryland Terps, with their SOS of 20, play in the ACC, ranked 2nd in the Sagarin Rankings, yet are ranked behind those 3 teams in the RPI.

Looking at all of this information, it is quite obvious why I value the other two systems a bit higher than the RPI.

However, RPI is considered and respected, so their rankings need to be included in this analysis.

Final verdict?

Sagarin -13th
Pomeroy – 8th
RPI- 19th

Does that = a national ranking of 19?

I would say that the logic does not add up to Maryland being ranked 19th, nor does logic support that the ACC is having some huge down year.

Luckily for Terps fans, these national rankings do not hold too much weight as far as a teams ultimate performance.

Still, it is unfortunate that the rankings that most average sports fans associate with and recognize, which are undoubtedly the AP and USA Today rankings which are consistently featured on ESPN and that are talked about so often on the airwaves, are very illogical, inaccurate, and just not a good representation of how good a team really is.

When taking an in-depth look at Maryland’s ranking of 19, while considering the other more in-depth systems of rating teams, it is clear that Maryland is better than the 19th team in the country.

My issues with NCAA Tournament selection process

1. Purdue lost Robbie Hummel. I was watching Washington Post Live last night, and they were arguing that Purdue’s seed will not be as good, since they lost Hummel.

Now, it wasn’t because of the games they lost without him, but because they aren’t projected to do as well in the tournament, without Hummel.

I understand the logic, but it should not play a role in selecting teams and seeding those teams. Your overall body of work should come into play, not projections. Projections are opinions; wins/losses are not.

If Vasquez got hurt in the VA game and was out for the year, obviously, Maryland would not be as expected to do as well in the NCAA’s. However, that should not nullify what Maryland has done throughout the year.

2. How a team finishes a season should not impact getting in, or seeding. Again, it is all about projection. The committee is projecting how a team will do, rather than acknowledging what a team has done throughout the course of a year.

Should a coach really have to stress to his players, that a game in February is more important than a game in November? This is even more of an issue in college football, but it is there in basketball as well.

The Yankees do not get penalized in the playoffs if their ace gets hurt at the end of September. 100-62 for NY is still better than 98-64 for Boston, even if Boston is undefeated in September, and the Yankees lose every game in September. New York is still the higher seed in the playoffs.

I do not see why it should be different for collegiate sports and collegiate postseason.

Certainly, March Madness is a magnificent system compared to its “brother,’ the BCS. It is a good system in its own right.

That being said, the projection that is involved by the human element is something that I wish could be eliminated from the process.

Agree, or disagree?