It's that time of year again. Time to address the machinations of the hallowed "Tournament Selection Committee." You know, the committee that tries to pose as expert at something other than putting their heels on the neck of the purity of sport. The committee that plays toadish "sycophantic simpleton" to the whims and deep pockets of the "Brotherhood of Evil Brand Names." The committee that. . . oh, hell, I could write Magneto references all day, but to no good purpose.
My "Smoking the Seeds" series has sought, for more than a decade, to unveil the corrupt hypocrisy of the college basketball tournament committee. I feel like Shatner's Kirk telling Stewart's Picard that he's been saving the universe since Picard was in diapers.
Fortunately, the universe has gone pretty much to hell, but now everybody knows how psychotically rapacious brand name athletic departments have become. The whispers about that very questionable priesthood have become full-blown high-def porn viewing. These screwings are blatant, hideous to watch, and usually involve some collection of former or current family members defecating on each other. But I digress. As I said, the whole sordid gestalt is now in plain view, and many authors better and more widely read than me have tackled the subject with gusto.
All these many years, I've wondered what "The Committee" has been doing behind closed doors. Now everyone can see the trays left outside the boudoir, trays stacked with empty peanut butter jars, Mastercard receipts from something called "The NCAA Escort Service," and numerous befouled dollar bills. I am no longer alone, to echo Fox Mulder, and everyone now believes.
I'll skip the generalized horror I usually explicate. Instead, I'll first recommend a couple of fine summaries by other writers. Please check out Ricky O'Donnell's March 18 "March Madness men's basketball makes no sense thanks to selection committee" and Yahoo Sports' Jeff Eisenberg's March 17 "March Madness: What the NCAA men's tournament selection committee got right and wrong."
Specific Screw-Jobs
Well, whatever the committee was smoking, it had its usual predictable and year-to-year consistent effects. The Big 10 is over-represented and over-seeded. The Mountain West is under-seeded across the board. The Big East probably got hosed, which is what happens when you have all those non-football schools. Every non-brand-name conference got screwed either via teams left out or seedings.
All of this is par for the annual course.
No Indiana State, no Richmond, no Sam Houston State, all of which fits the annual hosing pattern. No Oklahoma, which frankly does not.
The committee shoe-horned Virginia into the field, even though no computer rating had the Cavaliers rated as worthy. Virginia, flying the committee's vassal-state flag, proudly played a truly terrible first half versus Colorado State last night, limping into halftime on the wrong end of 27-14. They then promptly came out and played a worse second half. Remarkable, really, that the committee could kick things off by being so wrong with their first charity entry.
The Committee Versus Las Vegas Oddsmakers
Historically, this is as consistent and one-sided as a Rocky Marciano fight. The Tournament Selection Committee is fine except that (A) the committee has no entrance exams requiring basketball team evaluation skills and (B) the main expertise of committee members is making money for athletic departments. It's pretty funny. A bunch of career academics deciding they have basketball handicapping expertise.
This is opposed to Las Vegas oddsmakers, whose job it is, night after night and season after season, to predict which basketball teams can do what to whom, all with millions of dollars at stake. So what you have, in summary, are two-week moonlighting college administrators versus years-long, career-anchored professionals. Gee, in the long run, I wonder who grades out right more often.
In 2024, we have more disagreements between oddsmaker favorites and seeding favorites than ever, and some of the disagreements are drastic. I'll walk you through them:
1) First, Drake (#10 seed) is a -1 1/2 fave versus Washington State (#7 seed).
2) Michigan State (#9 seed) is a one-point favorite versus Mississippi State (#8).
3) New Mexico (#11 seed) is startlingly a 2 1/2 point favorite versus Clemson (a #6).
4) Nevada (#10) is a 1 1/2 favorite versus Dayton (#7)
5) TCU (#9) is a four-point favorite versus Utah State (#8)
Nevada and Dayton really got screwed, paired in an opening cage match versus each other with Arizona on deck. More on poor Dayton later. If this were 2000, their seed would be a tad bit different.
I also wanted to mention that in last night's alleged toss-up 10-seed clash, Colorado State was actually a -2 1/2 versus Virginia. That translates into Colorado State as a -145 to -150 moneyline favorite. Thus, an alleged committee toss-up actually, according to oddsmakers, featured a 3-2 favorite that won convincingly.
History and Computer Ratings
The NCAA has rotated through RPI to BPI to NET, ignoring whatever system was in place whenever required to get the proper runways for the proper teams. I'm old enough to remember when RPI was king, and Missouri State became the highest RPI team (at 30 or thereabouts) to be told to take a hike. Their brand just wasn't up to NCAA snuff.
In 2024, Virginia was jammed into the tournament despite no computer rating placing them high enough. The committee just squeezed them in for funsies.
If you're wondering what became of the RPI, well, it outlived its usefulness. I checked two sites that reported marginally different 2024 season-complete RPI results.
Drake at #5 (overall, not a #5 seed) at RealTime, and #9 overall at TeamRankings
Dayton at #7 (overall) at RealTime and #5 at TeamRankings
and San Diego State at #9 (yes, overall) at RealTime and an eye-popping #4 overall at TeamRankings.
The tournament committee, in 2024, simply cannot use a ratings system that spits out those kinds of results.
My Contribution
It's not much of a contribution since it's obvious as hell, but I'll spell it out. All of the 2024 critiques of the committee that I have read have failed to mention the idea that the committee can play the seeding game backwards, and almost certainly does.
Clearly, all of the recent committees have had the ability to plug various teams into different seedings and run simulations. The seedings (and tournament exclusions) are then tailored to get what the brand names want. Using simulations to optimize preferred results is probably something that's been done for years. Why wouldn't it be? USA Today's been running tournament sims for years. Half a dozen writers reported their 2024 sims results today. Obviously, sims are a tool the committee can use to mold reality to something they prefer.
Conclusion
The good thing about 2024 is that the heavy-handed venality of the NCAA Tournament Committee has gone from hushed conspiracy to front-and-center obviousness. Kind of like the Covid-19 lab leak theory.
Can you imagine if the committee had been forced to stick with their initial methodology, the RPI rating system? That would certainly be worth the price of admission in 2024.
Bob Dietz
March 20, 2024
