How much emphasis does the committee give these...

[orangecuse]

Post season conference tournaments compared to the regular season? If you're in a P5 conference as the ACC, etc., and you're considered a tournament team at the regular season's end, does one game really bump you out, especially if you lose to another projected NCAA tourney team? And, if you're a team that is not projected in at the commencement of your conference tourney, does one or two more wins against a comparable opposition tilt the scale in your favor? Or perhaps, unless along the way you manage to beat a team(s) that is ranked considerably higher than you (though this would still be a team in your own conference) I wonder if the committee's view is that you'll need to win your conference tourney to get in?

 

[MGP]

Yeah, I think some people see it as how hot or cold is this team or "what have you done for me lately". I disagree. I think now that they have done away with the "last 10 games" criteria, the only relevance these conference tourney games have is adding "good wins" or "bad losses" to the team's resumes...

 

[kirbivore]

Their stated criteria says they don't use the last 10 games a separate metric, but they are still human and some recency bias will creep in. Best example is SU's 2006 team. They entered the 8/9 game at the BET as a bubble team at best, and after four victories ended up a 5 seed, which is top 20 overall. There's no way that SU goes from bubble to top 20 in four days if the committee really stuck to the body of work mantra they preach. The committee got caught up in the Gmac frenzy and grossly overseeded SU while at the same time grossly underseeding TAMU, which is why the Aggies were 1 point favorites at tip off.