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

[690West]

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.

After hearing the committee chair a few minutes ago, does anyone want to amend their answer to Clifton's suggestion? Eye test. Lol

 

[Chris02M]

should have to release all the votes taken place after the bracket is announced and one media guy gets to sit in to make sure there is no funny business

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Great idea.

Sincerely,
Skynet

 

[cuseinseattle]

I think either way you get screwed. I would rather it be by some old crusty dude from North Carolina who gives Duke the easy road than some computer. It gives me something to complain about. I don't think there is anyway to get it right for everyone with a field this big. Having said that the "eye test" as many have pointed out is crap. That is just an excuse to seed a team up with a few impressive wins but more bad loses.

 

[donniesyracuse]

RPI is fine with me. It's a good measurement of what a team has accomplished; not an attempt to measure a team's greatness. People have different opinions, but I believe tournament seating should be based on what a team accomplishes in a season; not some subjective perception of greatness. The RPI right now says Syracuse has had the 16th best season, which means they should be a 4 seed. I have no problem with that.

 

[SWC75]

If you want to take the opinions- and the computers- out of it, take the two 16 conferences based on how many NCAA wins their schools have and have the NCAA tournament be between the conference tournament winners of those 16 conferences. The conference tourneys now become, in effect, the initial round of March Madness and the complaints about their being "meaningless" go away. The seeding would be based on the ranking of the conferences in historical NCAA victories.

I'm not saying that's a better way to do it, just that would take the opinions and the computers out of it.

 

[SWC75]

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.

I miss "The Sportswriters on TV"

Those guys were colleagues and friends, not rivals like the guys you see on the current sportwriters shows. Bentley, Gelasona nd Jauss are gone now. Telander is still with us.

 

[SBU72]

Just read where the NCAA is the only season end tourney is the only one that is completely done so by committee and can't be fully predicted before hand. That makes it so interesting. Gads, no computers, please!! considering they are choosing 68 teams, they do a pretty good job. Yeah there are some questionable choices but heck, that is part of the beauty. To me the best thing they could do is only pay expenses to the schools playing then distribute the entire tourney income to all Division 1 schools. Then it makes the results just for bragging rights.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

I miss "The Sportswriters on TV"

Those guys were colleagues and friends, not rivals like the guys you see on the current sportwriters shows. Bentley, Gelasona nd Jauss are gone now. Telander is still with us.

It was the granddaddy of those type of shows. I think it might have started on PBS and then when cable came it was on Sports Channel for a while if I remember correctly. It was great. Guys sitting around their basement with all of the daily papers in front of them smoking cigars. I'm not sure if Telander could handle the cigar smoke.