Selection Committee’s Decisions: A Mixed Bag of Consistency and Confusion
Every year, as the NCAA men’s basketball tournament approaches, the familiar ritual of scrutinizing the selection committee’s choices begins. This year, however, the process has left many, including myself, scratching their heads. Despite the era of the NET rankings bringing a semblance of consistency, this year’s selections have thrown a curveball that is hard to ignore.
Consistency is the holy grail for coaches, administrators, and bracketologists alike when it comes to the committee’s decisions. Yet, this year, one particular selection stands out as a glaring inconsistency. Let’s dive into the details.
Take the case of the Texas Longhorns. With seven Quad 1 wins under their belt, their inclusion is understandable, even with 15 losses, a 6-12 league record, and a No. 287 nonconference schedule. But then, how do we justify the inclusion of the North Carolina Tar Heels? Their No. 5 nonconference schedule yielded just one Quad 1 win out of 13 attempts, which, in my opinion, should be disqualifying in an era that rightly emphasizes winning high-level games.
Some might argue that the combined records in Quad 1 and Quad 2 games for both teams are similar, and that’s why they were chosen. But this seems like a convenient answer to the wrong question. Both North Carolina and Texas have 10 combined Q1/Q2 wins. But does that really justify their selection over teams like West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio State, and Boise State? West Virginia also boasts 10 combined Q1/Q2 wins, while Indiana and Ohio State have nine, and Boise State has eight. From where I sit, that’s not enough of a difference.
The real question should be: What message is the committee sending to schools for future tournaments? Does it matter if a team matches the record for most losses for an at-large team, as long as it wins big games like Texas? Or can teams afford not to worry about winning games if their schedule is tough enough, like UNC? I’m not thrilled about rewarding either path, but rewarding both is perplexing. It’s a mixed message of the worst kind, suggesting that winning doesn’t matter, except when it does—much like telling yourself not to drink while reaching for another beer.
For the record, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories or the side-eye directed at committee chair and North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham. A supermajority of committee members made these selections, and no one has more than one vote. I’m questioning their logic, not their integrity.
I’d like to think I have a decent appreciation for the complexities of this process. Often, I look back and say, “Hey, I get what they were thinking on that one. Could have gone either way.” This committee could have gone either way, too. North Carolina or Texas, but not both.
Other Notable Observations
-
West Virginia’s Exclusion: The Mountaineers were robbed of a spot. They defeated Gonzaga and Arizona in Maui and also beat Kansas and Iowa, finishing 10-10 in the Big 12. That’s more than enough compared to many other teams in this field.
-
Louisville’s Seeding: Louisville as an 8-seed? Again, inconsistency from the committee. The Cardinals had a combined 15 Q1/Q2 wins and went 18-2 in the ACC. If North Carolina had done that, the Tar Heels might have been a 1-seed (wink, wink).
-
Top Teams: The top eight teams—Auburn, Duke, Houston, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Michigan State, St. John’s—are as strong as any group of 1- and 2-seeds I can remember. Collectively, this top eight has won 148 Q1/Q2 games. All could have been standalone 1-seeds in other seasons.
As we gear up for the tournament, let the madness begin!
Originally Written by: Joe Lunardi
