Power 5 Power Play

[Bay Area Billiken]

We thought the RPI was a tool to aid and abet the Power 5.  It was.  But the newer NET, which replaced the RPI a few years ago, is diabolical.

Via the NET, no less than 7 NCAA bids were transferred to the Power 5.  Under the RPI, the Power 5 would have 22 NCAA bids.  Under the NET that number is 29.

The A10 would have 5 NCAA bids per the RPI, 82 Richmond (Automatic), and 4 At Larges:  28 VCU, 34 Davidson, 46 SLU, and 47 St. Bona.  Under the newer NET system, the A10 actually received 2 NCAA Bids, 81 Richmond (Automatic) and 41 Davidson.  

The conference breakdown, RPI vs. NET were:  Big XII +2, Big Ten +3, ACC +2;  A10 -3, AAC -1, WCC -1, C-USA -1, MAAC -1.

And then there is the case of Rutgers, the 9th Big Ten NCAA team.  Rutgers, NET 77, RPI 92, not only did not have the metric for an NCAA at large bid, by eons, but also didn't have an NIT qualifying NET or RPI, after the 8 NIT below the line Automatic Bids are accounted for in the NET, 6 in the RPI.

Rutgers may well have been bestowed with the most outrageous gift bid of all time.  You see the NET is followed, except for the Power 5 +1 Exceptions, when the NET is evidently disregarded, especially in the case of the All Hallowed Big Ten.  The Big Ten received 9 NCAA bids, 3 more than the next 2 highest, the Big XII (which is the #1 ranked conference) and the SEC, which each received 6 NCAA bids.

On another note, there were a whopping 6 variances between a pure following of the NET and the actual NCAA field.  The below the cutoff line of 48 beneficiaries were:  49 Iowa State, 50 Wyoming, 53 Notre Dame, 55 Creighton, 62 Miami-FL, and 77 Rutgers.  The above the line teams, relegated to the NIT were:  39 Oklahoma (18-15), 40 Xavier, 43 Texas A&M, 45 SMU, 47 North Texas, and 48 Wake Forest.  I do not consider Oklahoma and Xavier to be relegations because neither belonged in the NCAA field.

[Deutschkind]

So there were 4 Power teams below 48 who made the field and 4 better than 48 who missed it. There were 2 non-power teams worse than 48 who made the field and 2 better than 48 who missed it. I'm not saying your overall point isn't accurate. But the way it played out this year doesn't support your argument that the "NET is followed, except for the Power 5+1 exceptions."

[BilliesBy40]

@Bay Area BillikenThe NCAA never strictly followed RPI. It was used as a tool, just as NET is used now. VCU probably would have gotten in under the RPI system, but no guarantee. I suspect SLU and SBU would have still been left out.

[The Wiz]

 @Bay Area Billiken Here is a good article on the selection process... The part I have highlighted is the "eye test" This is what I refer to in my posts as the Twilight Zone...the unknown factor...it is the place the Committee goes ...to "fix " things.  Things need to be fixed because there are flaws in the model.  One of the biggest flaws is the NET efficiency...which essentially is scoring margin. I call it the "Colgate effect" ...where a few years ago , Colgate played a weak OOC schedule followed up with games in a weak conference...not just winning games but in most cases blowing teams out. Colgate had figured out how to game the system and wound up with a 9th  ITN  NET ranking.  Colgate got their bid (auto) but the Committee "fixed " things by lowering their seed considerably.  Other factors affecting the selection process could be TV markets, a favorite Coach retiring, a certain conference needing another bid,  etc.   This "fixing" is also why some  teams you mentioned got in and some "more deserving" were snubbed.  Once the Committee enters the Twilight Zone the NET at that point is moot.  I have tried to analyze the Twilight Zone by matching teams that were deserving  vs the ones the Committee selects.  Generally there is about a 15-25%% error due to the subjectivity.  And the NCAA likes the "cloud"...A cloud makes it easier to "fix things" and make them "right". 

 

Selection Committee Process

The selection committee must first decide which teams will compete in the tournament. As of the 2016–17 season, thirty-two teams receive automatic bids to the tournament by winning their conference tournament.^[a]

The selection committee only selects the teams (36 for men and women) who receive at-large bids. Though each conference receives only one automatic bid, the selection committee may select any number of at-large teams from each conference. The at-large teams generally come from college basketball's top conferences, including the ACC, The American, A-10, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Mountain West, Pac-12, and SEC. Many of these at-large teams, however, are "on the bubble", meaning that their chances of gaining a tournament berth are borderline, and they will not know if they have gained entry until the Selection Sunday bracket announcements.

Through the 2018 men's tournament and 2019 women's tournament,^[b] the RPI rating was often considered a factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field. However, the NCAA selection committee in 2015 said the RPI was only utilized for grouping the teams into groups such as top 50 and top 100 teams, to value the wins and losses, and not as a factor for selection.^[3] Additionally, the committee officially considers predictive computer rankings, such as ESPN's BPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy Ratings, which use additional factors considered by the committee, such as injured players in the case of the BPI. Additionally, committee members consider how teams do on the road and at neutral courts, strength of conference and schedule, non-conference strength of schedule, record against other selected tournament teams, and other extenuating factors. Finally, the "eye test" is often quoted by pundits as something the committee uses, however ncaa.org's sparse description of the selection process doesn't officially mention the "eye test".^[4] For instance, in 2016 Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione, the NCAA selection committee's chair, said that the stark contrast in Syracuse's performance in 2015-2016 with Jim Boeheim present versus absent was considered the same as missing a key player during the slump.^[5]

A number of teams essentially know that they are assured of an at-large berth no matter their performance in their conference tournament. Most teams in the Top 25 in the national polls or RPI are essentially guaranteed at-large berths even if they do not win their respective conference tournaments. However, teams that have been ranked heading into Selection Sunday but didn't win a weaker conference's tournament have been essentially penalized (or "snubbed") by the selection committee despite computer rankings or public opinion. One example was Utah State in 2004, when Utah State completed the regular season with a record of 25-2 but was snubbed after losing in their conference tournament, even though they were ranked in the polls.^[6] The factors in their snub were the soft non-conference schedule which included Mountain West Conference foes BYU (close home win) and Utah (road loss) as well as the road loss to Pacific on February 14, 2004. Pacific went on to earn the Big West Conference's automatic berth and advanced to the 2nd round of the 2004 tournament.^[7]The committee also selects four additional teams, the "First Four Out," who do not qualify for the tournament. Since 2015, the NCAA has placed the "First Four Out" as the top seeds in the National Invitation Tournament.^[8]

During the 2018 offseason, the NCAA announced that the RPI would no longer be used in the selection process for the Division I men's tournament. The RPI has been replaced by the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET), a new metric that includes the following input data:^[9][10]

• Game results
• Strength of schedule
• Location (home, away, or neutral site)
• Scoring margin — Teams receive no added credit for victory margins above 10 points. Additionally, overtime games will be assigned a scoring margin of 1 point, regardless of the actual score.^[11]
• Net offensive and defensive efficiency
• All games will be evaluated equally; there is no bonus or penalty for when a game is played within the season.
• Quality of wins and losses — The NCAA continues to use its "quadrant" system, introduced for the 2018 tournament selection process, to classify individual wins and losses. Quadrants are classified as follows, based on the location of the game with respect to the team under consideration and the ranking of its opponent in the NET as follows:

Quadrant	Home	Neutral site	Away
1	1–30	1–50	1–75
2	31–75	51–100	76–135
3	76–160	101–200	136–240
4	161–353	201–353	241–353

[Bay Area Billiken]

In the past, there have been about 3 variances per season between the RPI-NET and the actual NCAA field.  If anyone doesn't believe me, they can look it up.  But it's better not to waste your time.  That number is 6 this season.  That is my Point 1.  What this shows to me is the NCAA is not following the NET in picking the NCAA field as closely as it used to follow the NET and its predecessor, the RPI.

The other Point, call it Point 2, is the comparison between the NCAA field per the NET vs. the NCAA field per the RPI, and the resultant 7 extra NCAA bids the NET would transfer to the Power 5, 3 alone to the Big Ten, 2 to the Big XII, 2 to the ACC.  I never said the NCAA only follows the NET or RPI.  That is extrapolation that wasn't there.  My point is valid, and it is not original thought;  I originally read it from a Bona interest.

Points 1 and 2 are two different concepts.

The biggest travesty is granting an NCAA at large bid to Rutgers, NET 77.  NET 77 is out of both the NCAA and NIT fields, per a pure following of the NET.  (Again, I know the Committees do not just follow the NET in picking these fields.)  I've heard all the defenses of that Rutgers pick and am not buying them.  If you are going to have the metric, you have to follow it at least to some extent.  There should not be a Big Ten Exception to get the Big Ten a 9th NCAA team.  NET 77 by their own Power 5 skewed NET metric is just too far below the cutoff line of 48 to bestow an NCAA at large bid and the resultant NCAA Unit ($$$), Big Ten membership notwithstanding.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Another point, in the aid the Power 5 scheme, once the NCAA is forced to take the Mid-Major, pair them with another Mid-Major in the First Round.  That quickly gets rid of one of the pests, one of the potential NCAA unit pilferers. 

Case in point this year:  our hometown USF Dons, playing in their first NCAA Tournament since 1998, were matched against Mid-Major Murray State in a 7-10 matchup.  USF, NET 22, is underseeded as a 10 Seed.  Remember USF plays in the same conference, the WCC, with #1 seed overall Gonzaga, and also with 5 Seed St. Mary's (NET 19).  Murray State's NET is 21.  Divide the NET by 4 to get the Seed.  While the NCAA guidelines allow some leeway for seeding purposes, that number is not 4 seeds.  I know the seeding does not exactly match the NET, which allows more gerrymandering, just like this, permits the Power 5 "eye test."

Both USF and Murray State should be 6 seeds.  But the NCAA, in its infinite wisdom, has them facing off against each other Thursday night in Indianapolis.  One of the two will be out quickly.  Murray State, playing close to home, currently is a 1.5 point favorite.  By recollection, that line has moved from USF by 1.5.

By the way, I was invited to the USF Watch Party, but was otherwise engaged, hoped to still be in D.C., but was actually at JFK Airport after visiting the progeny in NYC.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Another name for that "eye test" is wiggle room.  It's always good to have some wiggle room when you need the means to reach a certain end.

[billiken_roy]

just curious who was the lowest "NET" to be passed over for an ncaa spot this season?   back in the RPI days, you could almost count on one hand the number of sub 40 RPI teams than didnt get a spot so we knew that if we had an RPI under 40 you were almost all but certain to get in.   does it appear there is a "safe NET" ranking since they went to the NET?

[Bay Area Billiken]

Wiz, I had to chuckle at the mention of Joe Castiglione citing a key player injured for Syracuse in allowing an NCAA bid.

It's fascinating that the very same "standard" was ignored by the NCAA Committee the year Patty Mills, a major star for St. Mary's and still current NBA player, was injured for a big chunk of games, returned at the end of the season, but the Galloping Gaels nevertheless were snubbed on Selection Sunday and relegated to the NIT.

After all, ultimately the NCAA just follows the Golden Rule, as in he who holds the gold makes the rule.

 

[Bay Area Billiken]

2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

just curious who was the lowest "NET" to be passed over for an ncaa spot this season?   back in the RPI days, you could almost count on one hand the number of sub 40 RPI teams than didnt get a spot so we knew that if we had an RPI under 40 you were almost all but certain to get in.   does it appear there is a "safe NET" ranking since they went to the NET?

39 Oklahoma, but OU was only 18-15, 7-11 Big XII.

After OU, passed over were 40 Xavier (18-13, but 8-11 Big East), 43 Texas A&M (23-12, 9-9 SEC, and reached SEC Championship Game), 45 SMU, 47 North Texas, and 48 Wake Forest (which snub at 23-9, 13-7 ACC, really surprised me).  Per a pure following of the NET, the NCAA would have cut off at 48.

The above were "replaced" by 49 Iowa State (20-12, but 7-11 Big XII), 50 Wyoming, 53 Notre Dame, 55 Creighton, 62 Miami-FL, and the big Rutgers reach (NET 77).

 

[billiken_roy]

16 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

39 Oklahoma, but OU was only 18-15, 7-11 Big XII.

After OU, passed over were 40 Xavier (18-13, but 8-11 Big East), 43 Texas A&M (23-12, 9-9 SEC, and reached SEC Championship Game), 45 SMU, 47 North Texas, and 48 Wake Forest (which snub at 23-9, 13-7 ACC, really surprised me).  Per a pure following of the NET, the NCAA would have cut off at 48.

The above were "replaced" by 49 Iowa State (20-12, but 7-11 Big XII), 50 Wyoming, 53 Notre Dame, 55 Creighton, 62 Miami-FL, and the big Rutgers reach (NET 77).

 

id say 40 is still a pretty good dividing line.

[Bay Area Billiken]

1 minute ago, billiken_roy said:

id say 40 is still a pretty good dividing line.

Agreed.  Anything above NET 40 appears to be fair game for the Committee's "eye test" to come into play.

[almaman]

48 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Another point, in the aid the Power 5 scheme, once the NCAA is forced to take the Mid-Major, pair them with another Mid-Major in the First Round.  That quickly gets rid of one of the pests, one of the potential NCAA unit pilferers. 

Case in point this year:  our hometown USF Dons, playing in their first NCAA Tournament since 1998, were matched against Mid-Major Murray State in a 7-10 matchup.  USF, NET 22, is underseeded as a 10 Seed.  Remember USF plays in the same conference, the WCC, with #1 seed overall Gonzaga, and also with 5 Seed St. Mary's (NET 19).  Murray State's NET is 21.  Divide the NET by 4 to get the Seed.  While the NCAA guidelines allow some leeway for seeding purposes, that number is not 4 seeds.  I know the seeding does not exactly match the NET, which allows more gerrymandering, just like this, permits the Power 5 "eye test."

Both USF and Murray State should be 6 seeds.  But the NCAA, in its infinite wisdom, has them facing off against each other Thursday night in Indianapolis.  One of the two will be out quickly.  Murray State, playing close to home, currently is a 1.5 point favorite.  By recollection, that line has moved from USF by 1.5.

By the way, I was invited to the USF Watch Party, but was otherwise engaged, hoped to still be in D.C., but was actually at JFK Airport after visiting the progeny in NYC.

interesting, depressing   

[The Wiz]

5 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Agreed.  Anything above NET 40 appears to be fair game for the Committee's "eye test" to come into play.

Agreed...Around 40 seems to be the door way  to the Twilight Zone.

[Deutschkind]

I was curious about other mid major parings besides the SF Dons. So here are mid major at large selections and who they'll be playing.

 

Memphis vs AQ Boise State

The aforementioned Dons vs AQ Murray State

St Mary's vs either Indiana or mid-major Wyoming

Wyoming vs Indiana

Davidson vs Michigan State

Colorado State vs Michigan

San Diego State vs Creighton

 

So 2 mid-major only matchups, 4 mid-major vs power and 1 TBD

 

Among mid-major AQs who were seeded well-enough to get an at large:

Boise State gets Memphis

Murray State gets SF

Houston gets UAB

 

Loyola vs OSU

 

So definitely more of those got stuck with other mid majors.

 

So of the 11 at-large mid-majors or at-large-quality mid-majors, 5 got stuck playing each other, 5 get the chance to take on a power team, and St Mary's is still TBD. 

I wasn't sure what the result of this was going to be, it's interesting. Definitely feel bad for SF after such a long drought. Significantly less sympathy for Memphis

 

[Bay Area Billiken]

16 minutes ago, Deutschkind said:

I was curious about other mid major parings besides the SF Dons. So here are mid major at large selections and who they'll be playing.

 

Memphis vs AQ Boise State

The aforementioned Dons vs AQ Murray State

St Mary's vs either Indiana or mid-major Wyoming

Wyoming vs Indiana

Davidson vs Michigan State

Colorado State vs Michigan

San Diego State vs Creighton

 

So 2 mid-major only matchups, 4 mid-major vs power and 1 TBD

 

Among mid-major AQs who were seeded well-enough to get an at large:

Boise State gets Memphis

Murray State gets SF

Houston gets UAB

 

Loyola vs OSU

 

So definitely more of those got stuck with other mid majors.

 

So of the 11 at-large mid-majors or at-large-quality mid-majors, 5 got stuck playing each other, 5 get the chance to take on a power team, and St Mary's is still TBD. 

I wasn't sure what the result of this was going to be, it's interesting. Definitely feel bad for SF after such a long drought. Significantly less sympathy for Memphis

 

We can debate until the cows come home on this point, but the American Athletic (AAC), the Mountain West, and the Atlantic 10 were (are) not considered to be Mid-Majors. When Xavier was in the A10, Xavier turned down a Mid-Major Player of the Week award to be given to its player, Drew Lavender, not wanting to be associated with the term "mid-major." 

These three (AAC, MW, A10) were/are High Major Outside the Power 5 +1 (the +1 being the 4th ranked Big East). The WCC was considered to be a Mid-Major, but that has been skewed with the rise to the very top of Gonzaga.  USF-CA is definitely Mid-Major, however, as is St. Mary's.

I would say that Memphis and Houston are definitely not mid-majors, and the Mountain West football schools, Boise State, Colorado State, Wyoming, and San Diego State probably aren't either.  Creighton now in the Big East, used to be a mid-major in the Missouri Valley, but no longer is.

The real Mid-Major vs. Mid-Major diabolical matchup is USF (CA) vs. Murray State.  The NCAA Committee has been doing that in recent years, and the motivation is all too obvous.

[Deutschkind]

Yes, I suppose I still subscribe to the definition of mid-major as "not big, not small." When we remove AAC, MWC and A10, there are generally only small conferences left in my mind. Conferences that generally are one-bid. What's the 'major' part of that?

[Bay Area Billiken]

15 minutes ago, Deutschkind said:

Yes, I suppose I still subscribe to the definition of mid-major as "not big, not small." When we remove AAC, MWC and A10, there are generally only small conferences left in my mind. Conferences that generally are one-bid. What's the 'major' part of that?

Indeed, that one bid is one of the prIme dividing lines of demarcation between High Major Outside the Power 5 +1 and the Mid-Major. The Missouri Valley has always been considered Mid-Major. Further down the totem pole are the Low Cons.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Those Mizzou Journalism writers at the STL P-D love to churn that narrative that SLU is a mid-major. There’s rarely any rebuttal. In general, I’ve never liked Xavier, but I liked that Xavier approach to this issue. Otherwise, you let them keep saying it unchallenged, and it becomes an accepted fact. 

[Schasz]

With the continuing consolidation of the Power 5 conferences that we've seen in football (the sport that stirs the drink for all sports in those conferences). What they really want is their own basketball championship. Even at my age and I'm pretty sure that I'm older than most people on this website I won't really be surprised if that doesn't happen once all the power 5 marbles are put together.