...said every Rutgers fan
So then you agree it makes sense. If a team’s record against the field is one criteria used by the committee, what better way to use it than as a filter for who makes the final cut?
Even though the NET, by your own reckoning, is very flawed? Record against the known 64 participants should carry some weight at the end of the process.
Let’s say one team played many of their games against the top of the bracket, while the other played a bunch of middling seeds, and a few AQs sprinkled in. No metric is good if a win against Gonzaga is the exact same as a win against Nicholls.
I totally get that point, but the smaller leagues would have already had the benefit of getting AQ, even though there are better teams on the bubble. Also, my question only relates to the very last step of selecting the last 4 bubble teams to get in. By that time the NET would have already been applied “as a sorting tool,” as some on this board like to say.
thats not how it works, they actually dont say here are the last 4...its the process they go through and then they start seeding schools, when they get to 68 thats it, those other schools are out
bac, I understand there’s a system in place. I was posing the question as a potential way for the committee to make the final cuts. I was using 64 in and 8 bubbles remaining as a hypothetical only.
bleacherreport.com
www.ncaa.com
I was not actually agreeing. Just pointing out that your suggestion happened to benefit RU at this particular time
I followed the explanation of groups and how they pick but eventually you get down to the last group. Eventually there will be a last group of teams to choose from.
Read the article, and in it it says generally a team with 2 great wins and 4 bad losses would be favored over a team with 0 great wins and 0 bad losses. Do you think this sentiment still exists?its somewhat dated in that the rpi no longer exists but the basic seeding principle remains....pick 8, rank 8, elect 4 and repeat the process
Behind the Scenes: How the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee Really Works
INDIANAPOLIS — How much do you know about how the NCAA tournament field comes together? You know how to fill out a bracket. You might even know how to build a projected bracket...
For instance, do you assume that the decision on what teams will be the "Last Four In" is excruciating? Nope. Turns out, the decision-making process doesn't change at all at that stage. No extra debate over two or three teams for the final spot, just the exact same method right down to the bitter end: pick eight, rank eight, elect four.
• From there, here's the selection process for the rest of the teams: Each committee member selects eight teams from the "under consideration" board, in no particular order. The eight teams with the most votes are then ranked from top to bottom by each committee member. The top four vote-getters are moved into the field, while the other four are placed in holding while the committee goes back to the "under consideration" board to vote for what it feels are the eight best teams on the list. The top four from that round of voting join the four that were in holding, and then it ranks from top to bottom again.
• Then the committee does it again. And again. And again. And again. It's like Groundhog Day on steroids. There are more than 100 formal voting rounds—and plenty of informal ones during the "scrubbing process" (more on that shortly). Seeding the field is the same idea, except the top four vote-getters are placed into the field in order of votes received.
Giant post-season playoff brackets full of probably too many teams that don’t deserve to be the single champion, is actually more the norm in American sports than the outlier you make it sound with CBB. College football is actually the outlier with the 4-team only playoff
