Now that the selection committee has done their job and set the field of 65, it’s time to take an objective look at what they messed up.  All of this analysis is based on our bracket, which is based strictly on the data and our proprietary algorithm, and can be found at RPIBracket.com.  While we have always prided ourselves on the fact that our bracket was significantly different than the bracketologists, our algorithm got 61 out of 65 teams correct.  What that means to us is that our algorithm is good enough to serve as the basis for any arguments we are about to make in this post.

First of all, let’s look at the snubs and gifts, in terms of who got in and who did not get in.  The 4 teams that we have different than the selection committee:  Creighton, St. Mary’s, San Diego State, and Niagara.  The 4 teams that the selection committee put in the tournament instead:  Boston College, Maryland, Michigan, and Arizona.  Hmmmm – I think it’s time to start the “Money Grubbing” argument.  Do you notice anything about the 4 teams on those lists?  All 4 teams that we “missed on” are not from the BCS conferences, and all 4 teams the selection committee put in there are from the BCS conferences.  Don’t worry – the argument will get even stronger when we look at the seedings in our bracket (once again, based on the DATA and nothing else) vs. the bracket that the selection committee came up with.

Here is a list of teams that are seeded at least 2 seeds too low, based on the DATA regarding their performance over a 4-month season.

• Utah State
• LSU
• BYU
• Siena
• Dayton
• Wisconsin
• American
• Binghamton

And here is the list of teams that are seeded at least 2 seeds too high, once again, based on the DATA.

• USC
• Tennessee
• Texas
• California
• West Virginia
• Syracuse
• Xavier

Wow – let’s first look at the overall picture, where we see that 75% of the teams seeded at least 2 seeds too low are from outside the BCS conferences…and 86% of the teams seeded at least 2 seeds too high are from the BCS conferences.  I knew that these numbers would be skewed toward the money grubbing option, but those percentages are pretty ridiculous.

Now, let’s look at the biggest screw job.  Utah State is a 5 seed in our bracket, and an 11 seed in the selection committee’s bracket.  Is that right?  Did they really take a team that worked their ass off for 4 months to EARN a 5 seed and put them at an 11 seed?  Of course, it should come as no surprise that Utah State does not play in one of the BCS conferences.

So who got the biggest completely unwarranted boost?  Syracuse.  Based on the objective DATA about their performance over the course of 4 months, they are a 7 seed in our bracket.  The selection committee, presumably based on the 6 OT game against UConn and the performance of Syracuse in the Big East tournament, has them as a 3 seed.  By the way, our algorithm has a weighted average of month-by-month performance that took Syracuse from a 9 seed last week to a 7 seed now, based on their performance in March.  The fact that the committee put them all they way up to a 3 seed is unconscionable.

In conclusion, let me just say that I am not surprised in the least.  The selection committee has a long history of doing everything they can to make as much money as possible for the NCAA and the sponsors.  I guess you can’t really blame this year’s selection committee in particular for that, but someone has to call a foul here.  The only way that we can keep this kind of thing from happening year after year is by a groundswell of complaints.  The only problem with doing that is that it would be a legit argument for the NCAA to say “we are going to select the 34 at-large teams that will make us the most money – this is a big business and we are big businessmen – and it is our responsibility to all of our member schools and the sponsors to make as much money as possible.” 

Seriously, that argument would satisfy just about everyone, right?  Couldn’t the selection committee say to San Diego State, St. Mary’s, Creighton, or Niagara: “Sorry, but our loyalty to you and to putting on the fairest tournament possible is overshadowed by our loyalty to the other 342 schools that have Division I basketball.  By ensuring that the tournament makes the most money possible, it is our opinion that we are performing our duties in the best manner possible.”

Could you imagine that, someone just telling the truth?  What a revolutionary concept.

One final point regarding Louisville being the top overall seed.  Teams that lose by 33 points at home to the 10th-place team in the conference, with a final RPI of 78, should not EVER get a 1 seed, much less the top seed overall.  That is one of the reasons why we came up with our algorithm in the first place, to provide something objective that could take into account all of the data about a team over 4 months and spit out a metric that quantifies their worthiness to take part in the tournament and ranks them against the other 64 tournament teams in a fair and objective manner. 

Incidentally, Louisville’s performance in March, winning the Big East regular season and tournament, based on the objective data about the teams they beat to accomplish those feats, vaulted them from a 4 seed to a 2 seed in our bracket, which is more than fair, considering they had the hands-down easiest conference schedule of any of the top 8 teams in the Big East and did not have to face UConn or Pitt in the conference tournament.  To be fair to the selection committee, it would have taken a high level of testicular fortitude to give UConn and Pitt #1 seeds and put Louisville as a 2 seed, and no one has ever accused the selection committee in any year of something that could be considered ballsy in any way, unless you could call bullying the non-BCS conferences a ballsy move.  But make no mistake, a 2 seed is what Louisville earned, based on the data about their performance over the entire 4-month season.

Popularity: 32% [?]