The Committee versus Bracketologists

[Orangemen]

Every year there seem to be a few big disconnects between the committee and the bracketologists, where all the bracketologists are up in arms about some terrible committee oversight. And it got me thinking about the difference between the 2 groups.

Bracketologists spend 6 months a year focused no less than 50% of their time on who will make the tourney based on statistical and historical data. They spend the other 6 months thinking about the new information they got from the most recent tourney. They also do this every single year.

Committee members have real jobs (save Jeff Hathaway, I guess), and focus maybe (total guess) 20% of their time on who will make the tourney, and they base it on whatever judgements they deem relevant. They also do this for a period of a few years before rotating off the committee.

I think it's clear that we've reached a point where the committee members know less about the teams and their relative strengths than the bracketologists do.

I'm not sure that there is a real point here, but it's something worth remembering when considering bubble teams and their potential fates. Bracketologists have taken what is basically an art, and essentially tried to turn it into a science. In large measure, that can be done pretty accurately, but on the fringes, where all the bubble teams live, the science is not going to be accurate.

I think it would be interesting, and maybe smart, to take 5 of these bracketologists have them be the committee, instead of all of the college sports executives who they currently have on the committee. At least we'd have a clearly defined criteria.

 

[Marsh01]

Jay Bilas has said for years that we need "baskeball people" on the commitee and notAthletic directors, etc

 

[jdubs30]

Jay Bilas has said for years that we need "baskeball people" on the commitee and notAthletic directors, etc

Basketball people as in people who would use the eye test?

 

[HakAttack]

Basketball people as in people who would use the eye test?

Basketball people as in people who have more sense with what's going on.

I liken this to a "Moneyball" type scenario. I would think that the people who make up the selection committee NOW are closer to the scouts in Moneyball then Brad Pitt's character.

 

[Madbiker]

Maybe Lunardi and Palm should just jointly develop it and then give it to the committee...who can bless it and claim it as their own. Sure would save a lot of time, travel, and expense and be just as good if not better. I always laugh about all the bubble team buzz that goes on for 3 weeks like its important. (except in the rare year SU is on the bubble its not). All of these teams are out the first weekend...the only exception being VCU last year.

 

[Marsh01]

Basketball people as in people who would use the eye test?

Basketball people as in former coaches, maybe Bilas himself.

 

[stuckinbig11]

I hope you are not suggesting that Lunardi knows anything about basketball (beyond 7th grade gym class).

 

[jncuse]

It depends on what you want :

A committee of former coaches /basketball exec's are going to lean to game observations rather then results. Basically "Who cares about their Top 50 record, they are a better team, I watched them play last week, they are a good team".

You don't have to be a brilliant basketball mind to interpret results and match them up with what is deemed to be important. A bracketologist will let results and whatever metrics are important dictate who is selected. It will be much more objective selection. And if it has to be totally objective based on history, they are probably going to do it better then the committee.

At the end of the day you may want some subjectivity in the process, but if its all basketball minds (with limited prevailing metrics) if would be way too subjective.

 

[pfister1]

We should worry less about the last 4 in and last 4 out, while it will be lots of fun arguing about the how the committee screwed NCState in favor of USF other than the few fans of those two schools who really cares.....those teams are in that position because they have played an entire season and haven't been able to establish a track record that makes them clearly tournament worthy.

 

[jdubs30]

Judging by the eye test would be an extremely difficult and long process. What they're using now is raw data where everyone is judged on the same scale.