Anyone think it's time to do away with the selection committee and do it all by computer.

[cliftonparksufan]

I'll preface this by saying that I love bracketology as much as anyone but think about how antiquated the process is to come up with 68 teams. 10 people sit in a hotel room and discuss all these teams and then make some backroom deals that rewards some teams and screws others. Is it fair to come up with some formulas that will determine who to the top 68 teams are.

 

[Halo]

Stats can be manipulated too...(cough BCS SEC bias)

 

[JohnCuse44]

Yay BSC 2.0

(n)

 

[Alsacs]

It's too subjective IMO and I have learned that lesson this week. I think the NCAA should hire people to be on the committee and make it a professional job. I would want people who understand basketball, but could use the eye test, numbers, and not have a connection to any of the teams as I find it easy for any of the committee members to lobby for teams from their conference, region, schools with a previous relationship. I don't think a computer would be best because it wouldn't factor in the eye test, but I hate margin of win since some teams will run up the score if it mattered.

 

[Delmar]

No. But what do I know? I rooted for Kasparov to beat Deep Blue.

 

[anomander]

The process needs more transparency. Just telling us the guidelines doesn't do any good. After they announce the field the committee should take at least a half hour to address any questions. I'd want to know exactly why a school like Syracuse is a 3 seed when 2 losses came without Jerami Grant, yet Kansas maintains a 1 because Embiid was injured. Just a hypothetical, but more transparency is needed

 

[cliftonparksufan]

It's too subjective IMO and I have learned that lesson this week. I think the NCAA should hire people to be on the committee and make it a professional job. I would want people who understand basketball, but could use the eye test, numbers, and not have a connection to any of the teams as I find it easy for any of the committee members to lobby for teams from their conference, region, schools with a previous relationship. I don't think a computer would be best because it wouldn't factor in the eye test, but I hate margin of win since some teams will run up the score if it mattered.

It's extremely subjective which usually gets validated by some team that no one thought should get in makes it to the Elite Eight. I just think there is a lot of time and energy put in by this selection committee which could be easily handled by computers. I don't think people can look at Football for a comparison.

 

[CusefanATL]

I'll preface this by saying that I love bracketology as much as anyone but think about how antiquated the process is to come up with 68 teams. 10 people sit in a hotel room and discuss all these teams and then make some backroom deals that rewards some teams and screws others. Is it fair to come up with some formulas that will determine who to the top 68 teams are.

WE LITERALLY JUST DID AWAY WITH THE BCS.

There is no right way... but computers (only) are ALWAYS the wrong way.

 

[Cusefan0307]

It's extremely subjective which usually gets validated by some team that no one thought should get in makes it to the Elite Eight. I just think there is a lot of time and energy put in by this selection committee which could be easily handled by computers. I don't think people can look at Football for a comparison.

Need to take it out of the AD's hands. For example Creightons AD is on the committee this year. That for one tells me they will get a favorable draw.

 

[jncuse]

Yay BSC 2.0

(n)

Nope. . The BCS is more manipulated by human voters and is more biased by human voters who make up 2/3 of the score.

 

[jncuse]

I would have no problem with the following.

Field (About 20 of the At-Larges Selected by Poll, the Rest by Objective Formula))
.
1. Conference Tourney Winners
2. Top 30 as selected by a Poll (but not the AP - let's get people who know what they are doing, and enough to remove bias)
3. Rest of the Field Selected by an Objective Formula (not the RPI)

By doing #2, this ensures anybody that is really high on the "eye test" is not left out. But the "eye test" or any other subjective discussion will no longer select the last teams on the bubble.

Seeding /Bracketing(All Computer Ranking Based except one seeds)
1) One Seeds determined by a small committee.
2) The rest of the tourney seeds determined by the ranking formula
3) Committee then puts the generated seeds into a bracket following the same principles as now.

By having Top 30 and Conference Tourney Winners, there should be nobody crying about an omission from an objective formula. It's better than the subjectivity now used to separate the bubble. If you don't like it... simple answer... get in the top 30. If you can't get in the top 30 in a poll through the regular season, don't whine that you did not get a chance to win the national championship.

 

[OrangeCrush22]

The committee's deliberations should be televised.

 

[shermstheman]

Half the fun is screaming at the committee for their bad decisions. It's not so fun to yell at computers (believe me, I know).

 

[UnderHisOwnPower]

I'll preface this by saying that I love bracketology as much as anyone but think about how antiquated the process is to come up with 68 teams. 10 people sit in a hotel room and discuss all these teams and then make some backroom deals that rewards some teams and screws others. Is it fair to come up with some formulas that will determine who to the top 68 teams are.

Yes. Keep the AQs, the rest can be done by computer. This is so unlike the BCS that you can't compare. What is there 34 at large bids? There is not much drop off in team ability from 1-10 in college football, which makes choosing only 2 out of all the contenders to play for a "national championship" criminal, but the drop off in ability from 1-34 is enormous in college basketball, there is no similar injustice. How long would anyone listen to the whining of a bubble team trying to be selected as the last at large if it is done mathematically? You eliminate the concept of a "snub."

 

[jncuse]

The committee's deliberations should be televised.

Even if they are televised, there will be people watching who are either
a) biased and won't want to listen to what they say. They will purely want to focus on the positives for their teams without looking at the overall picture or diminishing negatives.
b) or people with simply different view, both of which are acceptable.

Many times when you get to the bubble there is no 100% perfect answer.

 

[BuffOrange]

Yes. Eye tests suck. The algorithm has to be good obv ie better than the RPI.

 

[Marsh01]

Ugh no computers

 

[jncuse]

It's too subjective IMO and I have learned that lesson this week. I think the NCAA should hire people to be on the committee and make it a professional job. I would want people who understand basketball, but could use the eye test, numbers, and not have a connection to any of the teams as I find it easy for any of the committee members to lobby for teams from their conference, region, schools with a previous relationship. I don't think a computer would be best because it wouldn't factor in the eye test, but I hate margin of win since some teams will run up the score if it mattered.

I think they can certainly find an acceptable formula that caps margin of victory at 20 (or something like that) -- and distinguished between a close W and a close L. Not pure efficiency based like KP.

If a team is concerned because it has many opponents they can beat by 20 - tough. It should be obvious that you need to schedule a little harder.

 

[jncuse]

Half the fun is screaming at the committee for their bad decisions. It's not so fun to yell at computers (believe me, I know).

True
1. Lots of fun in criticizing the committee, or
2. Listening to biased fans whine about their teams being omitted not knowing what they are talking about.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Ugh no computers

What, you don't think the committee is already looking at the RPI, BPI and SOS rankings.

Here are the selections based on BPI. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament

Face it Marsh, you and at least 50% of the posters here watch and know more about basketball than 100% of the committee. You think they know anything about the MEAC, the SWAC, the MAAC and the American East. You think they know the difference between Colorado's season and Missouri's. It's a big multi-million dollar sham right now.

 

[jncuse]

WE LITERALLY JUST DID AWAY WITH THE BCS.

There is no right way... but computers (only) are ALWAYS the wrong way.

Not sure how you can blame computer rankings, when
a) they were not the reason only 2 teams were in the "playoffs"
b) The top 2 in the human polls always made the title game anyway. (IIRC), due to the 2/3 formula being HUMAN.

 

[Madbiker]

It's extremely subjective which usually gets validated by some team that no one thought should get in makes it to the Elite Eight. I just think there is a lot of time and energy put in by this selection committee which could be easily handled by computers. I don't think people can look at Football for a comparison.

Then you're likely to get an S curve based on RPI. That would be worse.

 

[jncuse]

Then you're likely to get an S curve based on RPI. That would be worse.

If its the RPI or selection committee, then yes the committee.

But I trust at some point in this multi million dollar tournament, with all the costs they spend on the committee, they can invest in a better formula.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

Given how awful some picks are and how many NBA busts there are, how about a computer for NBA drafting haha.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

I would have no problem with the following.

Field (About 20 of the At-Larges Selected by Poll, the Rest by Objective Formula))
.
1. Conference Tourney Winners
2. Top 30 as selected by a Poll (but not the AP - let's get people who know what they are doing, and enough to remove bias)
3. Rest of the Field Selected by an Objective Formula (not the RPI)

By doing #2, this ensures anybody that is really high on the "eye test" is not left out. But the "eye test" or any other subjective discussion will no longer select the last teams on the bubble.

Seeding /Bracketing(All Computer Ranking Based except one seeds)
1) One Seeds determined by a small committee.
2) The rest of the tourney seeds determined by the ranking formula
3) Committee then puts the generated seeds into a bracket following the same principles as now.

By having Top 30 and Conference Tourney Winners, there should be nobody crying about an omission from an objective formula. It's better than the subjectivity now used to separate the bubble. If you don't like it... simple answer... get in the top 30. If you can't get in the top 30 in a poll through the regular season, don't whine that you did not get a chance to win the national championship.

I like this except I would make the One Seed committee a large one, no need to restrict the opinions on that to a few. More voters means greater room for error, that would help reduce bad personal decisions.