News: NCAA announces that https://t.co/0DCmckQpb3 will now be included on official team sheets for NCAA Tournament discussion. Not just that, but Wins Above Bubble is also going to be a metric included. Resume-based and a big win for the process. https://t.co/pmigEvFTXW

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) July 11, 2024

" Resume-based and a big win for the process."

What process?

Sounds like they are being advanced and proactive, but sadly all it really means is it just offers one more avenue for a committee member to push for the team they've already decided by "the eye test" should be in.

"Well sure their XYZ rating is low, but their ABC ranking is high!".

They don't want too much transparency…have to use cigar-smoke filled rooms at the end of the "process."

you will get rewarded for beating a team above the bubble, however that loss likely pushes them below the bubble negating the value

WAB is all about how many wins an average bubble team would have against your given schedule. It is a fairly good metric for measuring teams and as far as I'm concerned, the more high quality metrics the better.

Also good that they're adding Torvik in general. Last year without Sagarin it was impossible to throw out outliers from KenPom and BPI. The average "quality" metric could be majorly skewed if one of the numbers was way out of left field.

I wish they would just get rid of the selection committee and use some software to generate the teams and the bracket. Honestly it wouldn't be that difficult. Year after year tournament committee can recommend modifications to the algorithm for the next year.

They gonna do what they gonna do, and justify it however they need to to justify it.

When teams are selected by opinion, that's what you get.

Yeah I don't think it's nearly as subjective/conspiratory as many of you seem to think. Guess it depends on your view of what metrics are, at a philosophical level.

If you think people use metrics to justify what they want to do, then yeah, you probably think this just makes it murkier.

But I think the committee has, for the most part, used the data & context they've said they care about to inform their decisions.

I think the thing that it's hard to keep in mind is that the committee, along with trying to pick the best 30-whatever teams, has decided that it's their job to reward (or punish) the intent of team's schedules.

Teams that went out and scheduled tough are going to get the benefit of the doubt over teams that didn't. That's a little hard to quantify sometimes but it's been pretty consistent for a while now. It's why a few of us didn't think we'd be all that close to the cut line last year once we beat Kentucky.

I think you've said it a number of times here and I agree with it, have a huge "committee" of people who we know are watching the sport regularly and understand the numbers. Have them all submit their 68 teams on Sunday afternoon and let an algorithm set the bracket based on the various bracketing rules. It could be done in under an hour and there's no need for a committee to meet for a week or more in Dallas other than ADs wanting a free trip and free booze.

There is almost always a consensus around the cut line, this year was just abnormal due to the number of bid stealers. The bigger issue I tend to have the last few years is with seeding as that is where I think it really shows when a committee has watched the sport or not in a given year and what day of championship week they set the bracket.

Process? Most of the NCAA's revenue (roughly 85%) comes from the TV right to the NCAA Basketball Championship.

Just let that sink in for a bit…

Not football, not baseball, not anything else just basketball and it is over a 3-4 week period.

So what is the process? What conferences will bring in the largest viewership. What matchups will make for the highest ratings.

If anyone thinks the tournament is about finding the very best 64 (well 68) teams, please put down the drink and listen.

The NCAA Basketball Tournament drives 85% of their revenue. The committee will put those teams and potential matchups that will maximize revenue. If they say anything else, they are lying.

And for those who don't believe me…
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/031516/how-much-does-ncaa-make-march-madness.asp

Yeah, if you did it this way you'd still have their precious "who's in" drama of Selection Sunday (could make it a rule that if you're part of the committee you can't release your rankings until after the selection show) but it would be a much better process. More people, less debating, less room for a group of people locked in a room together to convince themselves of something stupid, etc., but you'd still have that human factor that some people think is important.

You could even sort of outlier-proof it by throwing out say the two highest and lowest rankings for each team or you could get really fancy and just throw out any results that are too far outside the norm for every team.

Yeah, this is why money making powerhouses Boise State and Colorado State got in this year over poors like Oklahoma, Seton Hall and Pitt and last year they took Mississippi State, Pitt, Arizona State and Nevada over Oklahoma State, Rutgers, Clemson and freakin' North Carolina.

bobinator said:

---

Yeah, this is why money making powerhouses Boise State and Colorado State got in this year over poors like Oklahoma, Seton Hall and Pitt and last year they took Mississippi State, Pitt, Arizona State and Nevada over Oklahoma State, Rutgers, Clemson and freakin' North Carolina.

---

Well you got me Bobinator. Despite making 85% of their money from a single tournament over the course of a 3-4 week period, the criteria for selection is based on merit.

Yeah, you got me good…

My point is if it's that much of a conspiracy then a team like North Carolina would practically never get left out if it was even close.

Of course the system is set up to favor the big schools. They play in more high profile games with tougher schedules, and for smaller conference teams there's just no margin for error unless you happen to get a good schedule together. But there's plenty of smaller teams that make the field every year.

As for the money thing, the vast majority of the money you're talking about is already committed because the TV rights and sponsorships are sold years in advance. For that part of the pot, which is most of it, it doesn't make any difference whether Kentucky or North Texas makes the field, that money is already guaranteed.

bobinator said:

---

My point is if it's that much of a conspiracy then a team like North Carolina would practically never get left out if it was even close.

Of course the system is set up to favor the big schools. They play in more high profile games with tougher schedules, and for smaller conference teams there's just no margin for error unless you happen to get a good schedule together. But there's plenty of smaller teams that make the field every year.

As for the money thing, the vast majority of the money you're talking about is already committed because the TV rights and sponsorships are sold years in advance. For that part of the pot, which is most of it, it doesn't make any difference whether Kentucky or North Texas makes the field, that money is already guaranteed.

---

UNC seldom misses the tournament…

The outlay of cash is already done you are exactly right! These are multi year deals. So this is me and I could be wrong won't be the first time. I'm guessing there are guys in the selection room that are from the networks that are encouraging who gets in or not. The ad sales guys that are chasing the sponsorship $$.

I believe they are incentivized to participate in the selection process, they are working their tails off to make back the money on their investment.

Is money the only variable? No. Is it the main variable? Yes.

Adding Torvik is a huge win. KenPom is interesting, but it his model is 100% efficiency based and gives no credit to luck, streaks, and wins above replacement (or whatever you'd call teams that slay giants but are mediocre the rest of their season). Torvik's model is much closer to the models that English and Euro premiere soccer leagues use, and I think are much better metrics of a teams season instead of just a metric of their game by game machinations

Edit to expand - prime Kawhi was brutally efficient on both ends and would probably be near #1 on KenPom. Torvik would include information about his injury history in its projections, so even though he might be the most efficient he wouldn't necessarily be the #1 ranked [team]

Their models are very similar though if we're talking about T-rank vs AdjEM. There's some differences in how margin of victory is capped (or not) and the dropoff of games further in the past is steeper, but I don't think there's a luck or injury component of T-rank either.

I am interesting in how they formulate the Wins Above Bubble though. The NCAA says it's going to derive from the NET which is... potentially dubious.

Where they both fall short, and this is why I'm generally more for keeping the votes in the hands of humans instead of strictly relying on effeciency metrics, is teams that lose a lot of close games against good opponents and then annihilate all of their bad opponents.

Those teams are good, but when it's close on the seed line there has to be some value added to actually winning basketball games.

You think CBS/Turner sports actually has someone in the room actively participating in the selection process?

If there is a place for shenanigans, it'd be with seeding moreso than the bubble.

Ornithopter said:

---

If there is a place for shenanigans, it'd be with seeding moreso than the bubble.

---

Like with A&M the last two seasons?!!

I don't think was entirely random and based on seeding that both our men's and women's teams played Nebraska right after their AD came here.