Bubble question
- Thread starter BillyC80
- Start date
...said every Rutgers fan
So then you agree it makes sense. If a team’s record against the field is one criteria used by the committee, what better way to use it than as a filter for who makes the final cut?
No single metric should be used.
Thats not how it works
You are just picking a random metric
They could say lets take the top 4 remaining schools by net ranking
You are just picking a random metric
They could say lets take the top 4 remaining schools by net ranking
Even though the NET, by your own reckoning, is very flawed? Record against the known 64 participants should carry some weight at the end of the process.
Schools in the smaller leagues may have played none or very few tournament teams. They're gonna say: You can't take a sample of 2 games and ignore that we won 22 games. Objectively it should be the Net, but fortunately there is also the sniff test. I think RU better win on Friday. Plenty of voters think the B1G and ACC are over represented year-in, year-out and won't have an open mind on RU's unique argument.
Let’s say one team played many of their games against the top of the bracket, while the other played a bunch of middling seeds, and a few AQs sprinkled in. No metric is good if a win against Gonzaga is the exact same as a win against Nicholls.
Even bad losses could be a bad lone metric. What if one team had three "bad game" opponents and another had 16? Quite likely, the team with 16 is going to have more, just like "good wins" isn't fair as a lone metric if not all teams get the same chances to earn them.
I totally get that point, but the smaller leagues would have already had the benefit of getting AQ, even though there are better teams on the bubble. Also, my question only relates to the very last step of selecting the last 4 bubble teams to get in. By that time the NET would have already been applied “as a sorting tool,” as some on this board like to say.
North Texas lost to Kansas and Miami (FL), but they are 23-5 with two games Covid cancelled. Recently they won 15 in a row. They're Conference USA (headed for the American). A lot of voters will pick them over RU. If we play them any month except November, RU wins 10 out of 10 times. Still a lot of voters have their own opinion of who deserves what.
Why isn’t a what have you done for me lately analysis? This whole body of work thing I get but the tourney is closer to the end of the year than the beginning. Teams get better. Teams get worse etc. don’t you want the best teams in the tournament from the tail end of their year?
thats not how it works, they actually dont say here are the last 4...its the process they go through and then they start seeding schools, when they get to 68 thats it, those other schools are out
the process is done through groups of schools and the group through seedings.
its on the ncaa site
bac, I understand there’s a system in place. I was posing the question as a potential way for the committee to make the final cuts. I was using 64 in and 8 bubbles remaining as a hypothetical only.
At some point after all conference tournaments are played, a certain number of teams will be locks. I was presenting one way to deal with the remainder of teams, as a last step for the committee to determine which of the remaining bubble teams should get in.
What do you think of that idea, as posed? For all we know that may in fact be what the committee discusses to finalize the field. If that’s the case then Rutgers will have a leg up.
there are no locks even after conference tournament, the committee does not lock any team, they do groups of teams and vote them in, there is no last 4 per se, its the last group of teams and how they decide to seed them, those that do not make it are out.
its somewhat dated in that the rpi no longer exists but the basic seeding principle remains....pick 8, rank 8, elect 4 and repeat the process
For instance, do you assume that the decision on what teams will be the "Last Four In" is excruciating? Nope. Turns out, the decision-making process doesn't change at all at that stage. No extra debate over two or three teams for the final spot, just the exact same method right down to the bitter end: pick eight, rank eight, elect four.
• From there, here's the selection process for the rest of the teams: Each committee member selects eight teams from the "under consideration" board, in no particular order. The eight teams with the most votes are then ranked from top to bottom by each committee member. The top four vote-getters are moved into the field, while the other four are placed in holding while the committee goes back to the "under consideration" board to vote for what it feels are the eight best teams on the list. The top four from that round of voting join the four that were in holding, and then it ranks from top to bottom again.
• Then the committee does it again. And again. And again. And again. It's like Groundhog Day on steroids. There are more than 100 formal voting rounds—and plenty of informal ones during the "scrubbing process" (more on that shortly). Seeding the field is the same idea, except the top four vote-getters are placed into the field in order of votes received.
For instance, do you assume that the decision on what teams will be the "Last Four In" is excruciating? Nope. Turns out, the decision-making process doesn't change at all at that stage. No extra debate over two or three teams for the final spot, just the exact same method right down to the bitter end: pick eight, rank eight, elect four.
• From there, here's the selection process for the rest of the teams: Each committee member selects eight teams from the "under consideration" board, in no particular order. The eight teams with the most votes are then ranked from top to bottom by each committee member. The top four vote-getters are moved into the field, while the other four are placed in holding while the committee goes back to the "under consideration" board to vote for what it feels are the eight best teams on the list. The top four from that round of voting join the four that were in holding, and then it ranks from top to bottom again.
• Then the committee does it again. And again. And again. And again. It's like Groundhog Day on steroids. There are more than 100 formal voting rounds—and plenty of informal ones during the "scrubbing process" (more on that shortly). Seeding the field is the same idea, except the top four vote-getters are placed into the field in order of votes received.
I was not actually agreeing. Just pointing out that your suggestion happened to benefit RU at this particular time
I followed the explanation of groups and how they pick but eventually you get down to the last group. Eventually there will be a last group of teams to choose from.
If teams resumes are all very even at that point the members will each be using some type of metric to finally decide who gets the last spots and who doesn't. There will likely be a deciding factor that makes each member give their vote or a blemish that prevents them from voting. It will either be a stat they point to or their "eye test" / "gut" opinion on who deserves it.
For me, if resumes are all very even and close, show me who you beat. It's a tournament filled with good and great teams. Can you beat them?
"Well they didn't lose to anyone really bad" shouldn't be the deciding factor most important selling point that gets a team in when it comes down to final cuts
Obviously this helps Rutgers but I've always thought this way. There are no Q4 scrub teams in the tournament so it's just much more relevant how you did against the best teams
Read the article, and in it it says generally a team with 2 great wins and 4 bad losses would be favored over a team with 0 great wins and 0 bad losses. Do you think this sentiment still exists?
This is why I wrote that post the other day about how exactly you can make a selection of the "best" 64 teams from a field of 300+ playing against wildly different competition with little/no objective criteria. I get that it's nice that everyone has a chance to win the national title. But, on the football side of things, this part of the problem has been eliminated by reducing the number of candidates to 130 (FBS) schools. Only those schools can play for the (FBS) national title. And - at that, only the 60-something Power 5 schools really have an opportunity to make the Playoff (until Cincy this year). Now, if I was Southeast Missouri State or Bumf%ck Technical College, I would have a real problem with that because I wasn't even given the opportunity. But, that's why FCS has their own Playoff (and D2 and D3). So, everyone has an opportunity for something.
I cannot imagine that the same thing for Football does not hold true for Basketball: the big schools are generating all of the revenue and are entitled (by way of opportunity) to reaping the rewards more often. I'm not saying it's fair or that everyone will like it but it's just true. Thus, it's easier to win a national title if you just eliminate a whole pool of candidates from contention. I was watching a high school game last night .. cough cough .. I'm sorry - I mean Wagner vs. Bryant, which was being played in what looked like my old high school gymnasium, and I thought -- who is paying for this? I mean that in a literal sense.
In a wonderfully utopian sense, it's great that anyone can play (in the Tournament) so long as you have a team and there are a group of folks (using god-knows-what as their selection criteria) that chooses you to play. But, I have no idea how/why the big schools go along with this. In much the same way that the Power 5 schools threatened to break away from the NCAA on the football side, why aren't they doing the same with basketball? Do they want to be shut out of a chance to play in the title game by VCU or Murray State or St. Mary's?
Ok, my rant is done. Please be gentle with your responses. I haven't been following basketball for as long as you guys have, I'm sure. So, some of this is just not understanding the culture or history or whatever. But, I keep on trying to figure out why this doesn't line up with something I understand/have gotten used to a lot better: college football.
I cannot imagine that the same thing for Football does not hold true for Basketball: the big schools are generating all of the revenue and are entitled (by way of opportunity) to reaping the rewards more often. I'm not saying it's fair or that everyone will like it but it's just true. Thus, it's easier to win a national title if you just eliminate a whole pool of candidates from contention. I was watching a high school game last night .. cough cough .. I'm sorry - I mean Wagner vs. Bryant, which was being played in what looked like my old high school gymnasium, and I thought -- who is paying for this? I mean that in a literal sense.
In a wonderfully utopian sense, it's great that anyone can play (in the Tournament) so long as you have a team and there are a group of folks (using god-knows-what as their selection criteria) that chooses you to play. But, I have no idea how/why the big schools go along with this. In much the same way that the Power 5 schools threatened to break away from the NCAA on the football side, why aren't they doing the same with basketball? Do they want to be shut out of a chance to play in the title game by VCU or Murray State or St. Mary's?
Ok, my rant is done. Please be gentle with your responses. I haven't been following basketball for as long as you guys have, I'm sure. So, some of this is just not understanding the culture or history or whatever. But, I keep on trying to figure out why this doesn't line up with something I understand/have gotten used to a lot better: college football.
Last edited:
The Cinderella is the charm in the ncaa tournament. Thats why college football is somewhat boring to me
Giant post-season playoff brackets full of probably too many teams that don’t deserve to be the single champion, is actually more the norm in American sports than the outlier you make it sound with CBB. College football is actually the outlier with the 4-team only playoff
As I said to my son in seventh grade when he was in the last cuts for the middle school basketball team “It does sound unfair that (another player) was picked because the coach asked the 8th graders for a recommendation (true story), but you could have practiced more and this wouldn’t be an issue. You should have avoided being on the bubble.”
No point in complaining about the current system. It’s not perfect and Rutgers put themselves in this position. Coulda shoulda woulda.
Win on Friday and I don’t think there will be as much handwringing.
No point in complaining about the current system. It’s not perfect and Rutgers put themselves in this position. Coulda shoulda woulda.
Win on Friday and I don’t think there will be as much handwringing.
Yes - and that's where you and I agree! The College Football Playoff could learn something from Basketball and expand the playoff system. There's nothing about cherry-picking only 4 teams to compete for the championship that makes sense.
Regardless, nothing about the system will change because I don't like it or understand it. This is the way the system works. I just hope RU is selected and that they're given a good seed!
Scarlet1984 - I hope you told your son that Michael Jordan was cut in his freshman team try-out...and he brought it up in his Hall of Fame speech...so this seventh grade cut will probably sting and fester for the rest of your life...but you probably won't have a Hall of Fame speech to air it out in.