What we learned from selection Committee

[SteelBowl70]

- head to head is meaningless (Clemson)
- non conference SOS is important
- quad one wins are good but the losses and winning percentage matter (Ok St)
- bad losses coupled with a weak SOS is fatal
- having a “reasonable” number of combined Q1/2 wins and winning percentage coupled with no bad losses and solid SOS can get you a bid (Nevada)
- road record and Q1/2 road record can get a team in (Pitt)
- while a team with a high NET can make the field, they will likely go to Dayton
- injuries matter (Rutgers)
- ACC has work to do to ensure a third place 15 win doesn’t get sent to the NIT

I’m still not sure how NC state pulled off a bye except they didn’t have any bad losses and Q1/2 record was 8-10 and their metrics were decent. They really rode the early 24 point Duke win for all it was worth.

 

[UPitt '89]

Clemson was doomed by two things:

- 323rd best non-conference schedule. That's pathetic and Brownell has no excuse for it.

- *FOUR* Quad 3/4 losses. Including Louisville. By definition almost, any team that lost to Louisville in 2023 should be barred from the tournament.

 

[MTkeeper23]

I still can't figure out NC State.

I guess good net + no bad losses = bid? But UNC has an almost identical resume, except 1-9 in Q1 and it didn't work for them.

1-6 Q1.

3 wins against tourney teams, all at home, 1 of which is Furman. 2 home losses to bubble teams (Pitt, Clemson).

This team just didn't beat many NCAA tourney caliber teams and 0 away from home. Surely the committee wants teams that can actually beat good teams?

Clemson has as many double digit wins over NC State as NC State has total good wins. Clemson also beat Pitt away, Penn State, and Duke. They have some bad losses but can actually beat teams.

It's like they got a bid because they scheduled Kansas in non conference and only lost by 6.

 

[SteelBowl70]

I still can't figure out NC State.

I guess good net + no bad losses = bid? But UNC has an almost identical resume, except 1-9 in Q1 and it didn't work for them.

1-6 Q1.

3 wins against tourney teams, all at home, 1 of which is Furman. 2 home losses to bubble teams (Pitt, Clemson).

This team just didn't beat many NCAA tourney caliber teams and 0 away from home. Surely the committee wants teams that can actually beat good teams?

Clemson has as many double digit wins over NC State as NC State has total good wins. Clemson also beat Pitt away, Penn State, and Duke. They have some bad losses but can actually beat teams.

It's like they got a bid because they scheduled Kansas in non conference and only lost by 6.

Usually a check the committee does with bubble teams is record against the 64 teams in the field. Pitt was 5-5. Not sure about the other bubble teams.

Losing close to Kansas certainly helped their metrics and SOS. UNC benefitted a lot from their 103-101 loss to Bama in November.

 

[UPitt '89]

I still can't figure out NC State.

I guess good net + no bad losses = bid? But UNC has an almost identical resume, except 1-9 in Q1 and it didn't work for them.

1-6 Q1.

3 wins against tourney teams, all at home, 1 of which is Furman. 2 home losses to bubble teams (Pitt, Clemson).

This team just didn't beat many NCAA tourney caliber teams and 0 away from home. Surely the committee wants teams that can actually beat good teams?

Clemson has as many double digit wins over NC State as NC State has total good wins. Clemson also beat Pitt away, Penn State, and Duke. They have some bad losses but can actually beat teams.

It's like they got a bid because they scheduled Kansas in non conference and only lost by 6.

Clemson and Vanderbilt were punished because of awful OOC scheduling.

Clemson especially.

You simply can't defend playing the 323rd OOC schedule. The OOC schedule is within your control. Brownell was punished by the NCAA for that.

I guarantee you that Clemson is going to "schedule up" next season.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

- head to head is meaningless (Clemson)
- non conference SOS is important
- quad one wins are good but the losses and winning percentage matter (Ok St)
- bad losses coupled with a weak SOS is fatal
- having a “reasonable” number of combined Q1/2 wins and winning percentage coupled with no bad losses and solid SOS can get you a bid (Nevada)
- road record and Q1/2 road record can get a team in (Pitt)
- while a team with a high NET can make the field, they will likely go to Dayton
- injuries matter (Rutgers)
- ACC has work to do to ensure a third place 15 win doesn’t get sent to the NIT

I’m still not sure how NC state pulled off a bye except they didn’t have any bad losses and Q1/2 record was 8-10 and their metrics were decent. They really rode the early 24 point Duke win for all it was worth.

- Limiting Q3/4 losses matters a great deal, perhaps more important than winning Q1s, which is stupid. Look at NC State and Nevada. Look at Rutgers not getting in despite 11 Q1/2. 3 Q3 losses. Clemson beats NC State 3 times, Duke, Pitt, PSU but has 4 Q3/4 losses. I always thought for bubble teams, it should be about who you beat.

- Have to keep reduce blowout losses and run up the score when possible. Every possession counts the same. This is a new era. It sucks, but you cant take out your top players until there's maybe 1:00 left. A 20 point lead being cut to 10 instead of going to 30 is worth a seed line and could be the difference between making or missing. College basketball programs with 10 assistants and support staff have to figure out a way to manage blowout games better. Like you are down 30 with 10 minutes left, call TO and say its 0-0, we need to win these last 10 minutes by 10 points. Start fouling their walk-ons at the end to get the ball back and extend the game. Call TOs and press when there's 1:00 left. Its terrible but this is what you need to do.

- Dont schedule Q4 home games. The MWC doesnt and that's why they are sending 36% of their teams to the NCAAT while the ACC is sending 33%.

 

[MTkeeper23]

Clemson was doomed by two things:

- 323rd best non-conference schedule. That's pathetic and Brownell has no excuse for it.

- *FOUR* Quad 3/4 losses. Including Louisville. By definition almost, any team that lost to Louisville in 2023 should be barred from the tournament.

The NCAA committee should not be excluding teams for non conference schedule.

If you have a weak OOC, you lose the opportunity for good wins and have lots of opportunities for bad losses. So even if you go undefeated, you get no good wins. That’s punishment enough. The exercise is to pick the most deserving teams; not the ones that picked the most strategic schedule.

You’ll never convince me NC State should be ahead of Clemson. As I said earlier, Clemson has more blowout wins of NC State than NC state has total good wins. If the teams are close at all, that should be a deciding factor and mean more than a loss to Louisville.

 

[Fredact]

It looks like only one bracket on Bracketmatrix got them all right. Though the Bracketmatrix average did too. This Butler site is the correct one: https://fromtheraftersblog.wordpress.com/

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The NCAA committee should not be excluding teams for non conference schedule.

If you have a weak OOC, you lose the opportunity for good wins and have lots of opportunities for bad losses. So even if you go undefeated, you get no good wins. That’s punishment enough.

You’ll never convince me NC State should be ahead of Clemson. As I said earlier, Clemson has more blowout wins of NC State than NC state has total good wins. If the teams are close at all, that should be a deciding factor and mean more than a loss to Louisville.

Yes but we learned that losing Q3/4 games is weighted HEAVILY. I have said that a Q4 loss should basically take away a Q1 win
A Q3 loss should take away a Q2 win. Clemson's takes away wins vs Pitt, Duke, home vs NC State, and neutral vs NC State. But they'd still have 2 really good wins at NC State and PSU. NC State only has 2 good wins: Duke and Miami. But these AD's are morons.

 

[Chairman Moe]

I watched the ESPN Bracketology show (Rece Davis, et al) after the selections, and it was interesting that Chris Bradley from the NCAAT Committee commented about the injured Rutgers star player and the impact it had on choosing them. When the ESPN guys started discussing NC State, they said that one of their starters is injured, and may not play in the first round game. Seems somewhat contradictory on the Committee's part. Maybe the Committee should've slated NC St into the play-in game and gave Pitt the 11 seed "bye" ...

 

[pittchagg]

Clemson was doomed by two things:

- 323rd best non-conference schedule. That's pathetic and Brownell has no excuse for it.

- *FOUR* Quad 3/4 losses. Including Louisville. By definition almost, any team that lost to Louisville in 2023 should be barred from the tournament.

The excuse is that Brownell built his OOC schedule to stack wins and get off the hot seat. Keatts did the same thing, but just a little bit better. It eliminates your margin of error - as it should!

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

I watched the ESPN Bracketology show (Rece Davis, et al) after the selections, and it was interesting that Chris Bradley from the NCAAT Committee commented about the injured Rutgers star player and the impact it had on choosing them. When the ESPN guys started discussing NC State, they said that one of their starters is injured, and may not play in the first round game. Seems somewhat contradictory on the Committee's part. Maybe the Committee should've slated NC St into the play-in game and gave Pitt the 11 seed "bye" ...

Yeah no offense to the original poster but the only thing I think we truly "know" now (though we can infer much else) is that they take injuries into consideration, because they said so.

I don't love this, because I prefer ranking resumes rather than the current status of a team, but fair enough, we know injuries will be held against you.

 

[NCanton Panther]

- Limiting Q3/4 losses matters a great deal, perhaps more important than winning Q1s, which is stupid. Look at NC State and Nevada. Look at Rutgers not getting in despite 11 Q1/2. 3 Q3 losses. Clemson beats NC State 3 times, Duke, Pitt, PSU but has 4 Q3/4 losses. I always thought for bubble teams, it should be about who you beat.

- Have to keep reduce blowout losses and run up the score when possible. Every possession counts the same. This is a new era. It sucks, but you cant take out your top players until there's maybe 1:00 left. A 20 point lead being cut to 10 instead of going to 30 is worth a seed line and could be the difference between making or missing. College basketball programs with 10 assistants and support staff have to figure out a way to manage blowout games better. Like you are down 30 with 10 minutes left, call TO and say its 0-0, we need to win these last 10 minutes by 10 points. Start fouling their walk-ons at the end to get the ball back and extend the game. Call TOs and press when there's 1:00 left. Its terrible but this is what you need to do.

- Dont schedule Q4 home games. The MWC doesnt and that's why they are sending 36% of their teams to the NCAAT while the ACC is sending 33%.

Please tell me you have a typo in your last bullet because you can’t possibly be making a point over 1 conference getting 36% of their teams in and another 33%.

 

[NCanton Panther]

In

Yeah no offense to the original poster but the only thing I think we truly "know" now (though we can infer much else) is that they take injuries into consideration, because they said so.

I don't love this, because I prefer ranking resumes rather than the current status of a team, but fair enough, we know injuries will be held against you.

Injuries should maybe impact seeding but it sure should never be a factor in making or not making the tourney. You can’t deprive a school, coach, fans and most importantly players that had a good season worthy of the tourney because a player got hurt late in the season.

 

[UPitt '89]

In

Injuries should maybe impact seeding but it sure should never be a factor in making or not making the tourney. You can’t deprive a school, coach, fans and most importantly players that had a good season worthy of the tourney because a player got hurt late in the season.

Rutgers didn't have a "good season" though. They went 19-14/10-10. They lost 7 of their final 10 games, including to one of the worst P6 teams in the country - Minnesota. That's equivalent to a Louisville loss.

And even with that.... they *JUST* missed. 2nd team out.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

In

Injuries should maybe impact seeding but it sure should never be a factor in making or not making the tourney. You can’t deprive a school, coach, fans and most importantly players that had a good season worthy of the tourney because a player got hurt late in the season.

I think that's reasonable. I'd be mad if I was a Rutgers fan. #35 in Pomeroy, #39 in Sagarin, #40 in NET, 5th strongest defensive efficiency in the country and miss.

I can't take it too personally because I've never liked Rutgers at all but just objectively it seems like a bad decision

 

[UPitt '89]

And by the way..... if Zach Edey or Brandon Miller had a season-ending injury in the past week, neither team would be a #1 seed - and that would be correct.

You have to seed teams based on who they are - not who they used to be.

 

[NCanton Panther]

Rutgers didn't have a "good season" though. They went 19-14/10-10. They lost 7 of their final 10 games, including to one of the worst P6 teams in the country - Minnesota. That's equivalent to a Louisville loss.

And even with that.... they *JUST* missed. 2nd team out.

My comment was more in general w/r to injuries, not specific to Rutgers.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

And by the way..... if Zach Edey or Brandon Miller has a season-ending injury in the past week, neither team would be a #1 seed - and that would be correct.

You have to seed teams based on who they are - not who they used to be.

You don't "have to", but the NCAA has decided to do it this way. Fine, at least we know now.
I asked our AP voter in football about this before (Johnny McGonigal) and he said he didn't really have an opinion about which thing he was voting for (overall resume or current status of team.) At least think about the damn question if you're a voter!

 

[Fredact]

And by the way..... if Zach Edey or Brandon Miller has a season-ending injury in the past week, neither team would be a #1 seed - and that would be correct.

You have to seed teams based on who they are - not who they used to be.

By that argument, games in November, shouldn't count as much as games in March.

 

[FireballZ]

I watched the ESPN Bracketology show (Rece Davis, et al) after the selections, and it was interesting that Chris Bradley from the NCAAT Committee commented about the injured Rutgers star player and the impact it had on choosing them. When the ESPN guys started discussing NC State, they said that one of their starters is injured, and may not play in the first round game. Seems somewhat contradictory on the Committee's part. Maybe the Committee should've slated NC St into the play-in game and gave Pitt the 11 seed "bye" ...

Probably so, but I'd rather get MSU and ISU than Creighton...

 

[UPitt '89]

By that argument, games in November, shouldn't count as much as games in March.

Apples to oranges.

You make the tournament (or not) based on the season you had. All of it.

But seeding needs to be at least somewhat based on who a team is NOW. If Zach Edey had blown out his knee in the Big Ten Tournament, it would be malpractice for the committee to give Purdue a #1 seed. That would be extremely beneficial to the 8/9 and 4/5 seeds in their bracket to the point of being unfair.

 

[Chairman Moe]

Probably so, but I'd rather get MSU and ISU than Creighton...

And the Midwest Region seems easier than the South if a team gets lucky throughout the Tournament

 

[Fredact]

Apples to oranges.

You make the tournament (or not) based on the season you had. All of it.

But seeding needs to be at least somewhat based on who a team is NOW. If Zach Edey had blown out his knee in the Big Ten Tournament, it would be malpractice for the committee to give Purdue a #1 seed. That would be extremely beneficial to the 8/9 and 4/5 seeds in their bracket to the point of being unfair.

So you are saying Duke should be seeded based on how they are playing now. Or Pitt should’ve avoided the play-in because they are only on the bubble because of their non-con play.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Please tell me you have a typo in your last bullet because you can’t possibly be making a point over 1 conference getting 36% of their teams in and another 33%.

No typo. One is the ACC. The other is the MW. The ACC is supposed to be an elite conference but doing worse than the MW, which some consider to be mid-major.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You don't "have to", but the NCAA has decided to do it this way. Fine, at least we know now.

But it's been that way for literally decades. In 2000 Cincinnati was the number one team in the country. And then Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament. And they not only did not get the overall number one seed, they didn't get any number one seed. They got a two seed.

 

[UPitt '89]

So you are saying Duke should be seeded based on how they are playing now. Or Pitt should’ve avoided the play-in because they are only on the bubble because of their non-con play.

I think Duke should've been a 4-seed, sure. But the way Pitt finished, it is hard to say we should be seeded any higher.

 

[bayardstreet]

if Clemson played NC State tomorrow at the north park basketball court ( weather permitting ) they would win by 12 points and improve their head to head record to 4-0 They are the better team and more deserving of a bid.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

if Clemson played NC State tomorrow at the north park basketball court ( weather permitting )

If they really want it they can play in the snow.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

if Clemson played NC State tomorrow at the north park basketball court ( weather permitting ) they would win by 12 points and improve their head to head record to 4-0 They are the better team and more deserving of a bid.

I dont see how anyone would think NC State is better than Clemson. But if write that off as having to look at the full body of work, Clemson won at Pitt and beat Duke and Penn State. NC State has wins at home over Miami and Duke. Clemson's 3 Q3/4 losses should be offset by their 3 NC St wins. I will never understand this