Why did Rutgers miss the tournament?

[armenius]

As one of over 95% of bracketologists who selected Rutgers in their projection, I've been mulling over this question for the past few hours. This committee seemed to value bad losses more than good wins (a complete 180 from last year), the NCSOS, but most importantly, it seems that they valued SOR the most of any metric, especially amongst bubble teams.

SOR - Strength of Record - is calculated by computing the difference in a team's win total and the number of wins the average top 25 would be expected to earn had they played the same schedule. The one big issue with SOR is that it is a very unforgiving statistic that does not take any circumstance, such as injuries or days of rest, into consideration.

Of the six bubble 11-seeds chosen as well as Rutgers, the Scarlet Knights had the worst SOR of the bunch. In addition, Rutgers was the only team of the group with an NCSOS of over 300.

SOR:
Mississippi State - 40
NC State - 41
Providence - 46
Arizona State - 47
Pittsburgh - 52
Nevada - 54
Rutgers - 56

Why was Rutgers' SOR so bad?

Expected to win:
Temple - L
Seton Hall - L
Nebraska - L
Michigan - L
at Minnesota - L
Northwestern - L

Expected to lose:
Indiana - W
at Purdue - W

The average top 25 team is expected to win at Wisconsin, at Penn St and against Michigan at the BTT. Rutgers should have been 23-10 with this schedule, but instead finished 19-14.

As Rutgers fans, we look at those losses and know that two starters didn't play against Temple. The players didn't show up against Seton Hall given the way the previous game at Ohio State ended. The final four games on that list we played without Mawot Mag, and the committee punished us for losing them. Though there is nothing you can do about injuries, the blame for those four should fall squarely on the coaching staff for not identifying Derek Simpson as a potential starter until the Big Ten Tournament. Had they gone to Simpson earlier, some of those late L's may have flipped to W's.

That being said, I love Coach Pikiell and am very excited for the returning players, incoming recruits and especially the future of this program. Let's go out there and schedule some tougher non-conference games and show everyone what RU basketball is made of!

Keep your heads up Rutgers nation, the fun is only beginning.

 

[bac2therac]

Good stuff. I know we shared similar thoughts on where RU should have landed in the field

I know ooc sos can be a red flag but it seems like every year the committee is flipping criteria. This year was strength of record. Losing home games hurt. 5 is alot. Last year quality wins were valued and it seems like the overall q1/2 is mattering less and less and the q1/2/3 mark mattering more

 

[armenius]

That's what makes picking teams so difficult and it's amazing the accuracy with which most of these amateur bracketologists can replicate the field. Nice work as always sir!

 

[NotInRHouse]

Because they didn't want another B1G team in.

That's it. Not the Mag injury, not SOS, not anything else.

It would be so much more of an honest process if they just put out caps for conferences.

There isn't a person outside of Reno who believes Nevada is more qualified than us.

 

[bac2therac]

That's what makes picking teams so difficult and it's amazing the accuracy with which most of these amateur bracketologists can replicate the field. Nice work as always sir!

I know we all have certain biases whether its predictive metrics or wins vs field or sos or clinging to the quads but the committee actually using an eye test to throw out the postives on the Rutgers resume and run with the negatives is infuriating to me. Tgey decided it didnt matter at all who they beat. 7 wins vs tournament teams doesn't matter compared to NC State

 

[armenius]

I know we all have certain biases whether its predictive metrics or wins vs field or sos or clinging to the quads but the committee actually using an eye test to throw out the postives on the Rutgers resume and run with the negatives is infuriating to me. Tgey decided it didnt matter at all who they beat. 7 wins vs tournament teams doesn't matter compared to NC State

I agree with this, but I also understand where they're coming from. 4 Q3 losses was a bad look. I was hopeful that we did enough good on the resume to outweigh the bad but the truth is last year we cancelled our 2Q3 and 1Q4 loss with 5 Quad 1A wins. This year we had 1.

 

[bac2therac]

I agree with this, but I also understand where they're coming from. 4 Q3 losses was a bad look. I was hopeful that we did enough good on the resume to outweigh the bad but the truth is last year we cancelled our 2Q3 and 1Q4 loss with 5 Quad 1A wins. This year we had 1.

It hurt that Northwestern and Indiana fell back a bit at the season ended. Tge Big 10 lacked that true high end 2nd and 3rd place teams that the Big East and SEC had. I mean Rutgers had a better NET than Northwestern

 

[armenius]

It hurt that Northwestern and Indiana fell back a bit at the season ended. Tge Big 10 lacked that true high end 2nd and 3rd place teams that the Big East and SEC had. I mean Rutgers had a better NET than Northwestern

Exactly, Not only them but Maryland to 31 cost us our 5th Q1, Michigan State garden debacle #6 and of course we all know Ohio State was #7.

 

[essexknight]

The Minn loss specifically gave them an opportunity to keep RU out and take one less B1G team. Also, PSU finished strongly after their loss to RU and cemented the eighth bid from the B1G. If RU beats Minn, they have 20 wins and one less Q3 loss, I can’t see them keeping RU out with that resume.

 

[RedTeam1994]

Because they didn't want another B1G team in.

That's it. Not the Mag injury, not SOS, not anything else.

It would be so much more of an honest process if they just put out caps for conferences.

There isn't a person outside of Reno who believes Nevada is more qualified than us.

^ THIS!! ^

nothing else makes sense

 

[Joey Bags]

Now that I think about it more the tournament committee should come out and tacitly state the only way a conference tournament can advance you to the NCAAs is if you win the tournament. I think the majority of us felt we played our way out of the tournament after NW and would not have balked too much if we knew then and there the only way to advance would be to win the conference tourney.

The whole thinking we did enough by beating michigan and playing purdue well is what spurred all the outrage, but in hindsight “only losing by 5 to a good team” should never be used for locking in a team.

 

[goru7]

With all due respect you cherry picking what you think they did is just that a cherry picking reason. What is maddening is the hypocrisy and inconsistency on everything they previously said or did and what they did to Rutgers.
The Committee chair’s second interview on ESPN with Rece Davis not the CBS one , clearly said about Rutgers , something like “ Rutgers had the unfortunate issue with an injury to a key player ,,never mentioned name, and they did not look like the same team they were before the injury , and we had enough games post injury to evaluate it. “.
So clearly they made up new rules this year and applied them inconsistently to different teams. They ignored body of work , wins against teams in the field , road wins , road wins against teams in the field , . They would have excused early season games like Temple andMiami and Seton Hall losses because we were clearly an NCAA team pre Mag injury.

Now analyzing the statement , most Rutgers fans and even some with Scarlet Colored glasses would agree with the first part of his statement that if the season ended with the Northwestern loss last game of regular season and we got left out , there would have been some moaning but he makes a valid point that we were 2-6 , lost to Minnesota and maybe just as important lost to Nebraska , Michigan and NW at home at the RAC. We hardly lose 1-2 games a year there and losing 3 , losing by double digits , is a definite sign of a struggling not worthy team. It would still ignored body of work but indirectly telling us last 8 games matter which at least most would understand.

But But the season didn’t end with NW. They first met on Wednesday and they came into the meeting with that mindset.
Then Pike makes a necessary change to. Upstart the offense puts Derek in the starting lineup and the team is energized , offense flows better and we beat a bubble team in Michigan that absolutely needed that win , by double digits while defensively holding them to 1 fg in first 19 minutes of second half , a record? Rutgers had their swagger back and it was obvious that the pre MAG injury team could resurface. Then Rutgers took a lead against Purdue , which very few teams do and was down 1 at half and went toe to toe with Purdue losing by 5 , to a team they seeded #1 despite their struggling down the stretch losing 4of 6 games , and they never punished them moving them down to a 2 or 3 seed but kept at 1 ( inconsistency ) . It was clear after Purdue to anyone watching that Rutgers was back , their offense was functional and their defense elite again . All they had to do was listen to Matt painter who said “ Rutgers is a dangerous NCAA team that can win a couple of games “.

Instead what did they do. They never watched the tournaments to see how the lineup changed , the team changed and everyone at the Big 10 network who watched us over those 2 days admitted we were back and dangerous . They just didn’t do their job. They had 1 job to do to seed the teams properly and make sure the last 5-10 teams on the field were the proper deserving ones. But what they couldn’t do is ignore the tourneys altogether without telling all of us beforehand. They changed the rules mid stream.
So you start this thread saying strength of record ( Sor) was a factor and non conference SOS but it was basically irrelevant if you listen to the statements made. Now while we struggled Purdue did , Iowa State did , Nevada lost its last 3 to Quad 3 teams , NC State got blown out by Clemson by 25 and 26 points and beat them 3 times but is taken over them and the team opposite of us , Vanderbilt wins 8 of 9 to end the regular season and 10-12 overall beating Kentucky , a 6 seed 2x and Tennessee a 4 seed but is also left out. The maddening inconsistency is everywhere.
They also didn’t do proper analysis during the post MAG injury games and didn’t even value road wins during this struggling 2-6 stretch that they doomed us with. We happen to beat Wisconsin on the road , a team that was supposedly still in the field when we beat them but still on the bubble and desparate, and we did it without Caleb and MAG , another sign of a good team , and followed that up with a win at Penn State , where the first sign of Derek emerging occurred , and Penn State who was on the bubble maybe just outside the tourney when the game happened and another desperate team proceeds to win 5 in a row and loses to Purdue by 2 points and is a 10 seed. How did the Committee value those wins compared to the losses at home and at Minnesota ( other 2 losses were on the road to # 4 seeded Indiana by 6 points and at # 9 seeded Illinois by 9 points after leading for 25 minutes. ). They didn’t give them more value like they should of and did in the past. Road wins used to be golden chips but I guess not for Rutgers .
The bottom line they didn’t do their job , ignored the tourney games , screwed not just Rutgers but Vanderbilt and took NC State and PITT over Clemson all being illogical. Not counting 25/26 point blowouts as bad losses because they happen in conference or to another Power 6 team is just stupid and illogical. None of what they did made sense when it came to Rutgers .

 

[Mr Magoo]

As one of over 95% of bracketologists who selected Rutgers in their projection, I've been mulling over this question for the past few hours. This committee seemed to value bad losses more than good wins (a complete 180 from last year), the NCSOS, but most importantly, it seems that they valued SOR the most of any metric, especially amongst bubble teams.

SOR - Strength of Record - is calculated by computing the difference in a team's win total and the number of wins the average top 25 would be expected to earn had they played the same schedule. The one big issue with SOR is that it is a very unforgiving statistic that does not take any circumstance, such as injuries or days of rest, into consideration.

Of the six bubble 11-seeds chosen as well as Rutgers, the Scarlet Knights had the worst SOR of the bunch. In addition, Rutgers was the only team of the group with an NCSOS of over 300.

SOR:
Mississippi State - 40
NC State - 41
Providence - 46
Arizona State - 47
Pittsburgh - 52
Nevada - 54
Rutgers - 56

Why was Rutgers' SOR so bad?

Expected to win:
Temple - L
Seton Hall - L
Nebraska - L
Michigan - L
at Minnesota - L
Northwestern - L

Expected to lose:
Indiana - W
at Purdue - W

The average top 25 team is expected to win at Wisconsin, at Penn St and against Michigan at the BTT. Rutgers should have been 23-10 with this schedule, but instead finished 19-14.

As Rutgers fans, we look at those losses and know that two starters didn't play against Temple. The players didn't show up against Seton Hall given the way the previous game at Ohio State ended. The final four games on that list we played without Mawot Mag, and the committee punished us for losing them. Though there is nothing you can do about injuries, the blame for those four should fall squarely on the coaching staff for not identifying Derek Simpson as a potential starter until the Big Ten Tournament. Had they gone to Simpson earlier, some of those late L's may have flipped to W's.

That being said, I love Coach Pikiell and am very excited for the returning players, incoming recruits and especially the future of this program. Let's go out there and schedule some tougher non-conference games and show everyone what RU basketball is made of!

Keep your heads up Rutgers nation, the fun is only beginning.

This is telling and another reason why I think this team slightly under-achieved rather than the take of others who think Pike performed miracles with this roster. Granted, we had injuries and that’s certainly part of it. However, only one player on the roster noticeably improved out of many returning players, and unfortunately, that player sustained a season ending injury.

You would have thought that one or more of Cliff, Hyatt, Mulcahy, Caleb, Reiber, and Miller would have taken a step up and improved.

Unlike many others, I expected more this year…minimally a return trip to the tournament.

Looking forward to what next season’s roster will look like.

 

[SBP]

Because they didn't want another B1G team in.

That's it. Not the Mag injury, not SOS, not anything else.

It would be so much more of an honest process if they just put out caps for conferences.

There isn't a person outside of Reno who believes Nevada is more qualified than us.

Which brings us to Penn State...Played their asses of, played IN...Period. If you are not top 8 you will NOT make it from now on. Period.

 

[bac2therac]

yup the committee did not even consider or factor in the third beatdown that Clemson gave NC State...selections were done before tourney team. I cannot find one example where it mattered in seeding besides Marquette nudging ahead of Baylor but I think that was a tossup going in. Pitt was whacked by Duke and it didnt matter one thing.

 

[RedTeam1994]

Which brings us to Penn State...Played their asses of, played IN...Period. If you are not top 8 you will NOT make it from now on. Period.

I am not sure if the Committee will continue to cap the Big10 at 8 moving forward.

but they certainly seem to have done that this year.

I cant say I blame them due to: (1) under-performance of Big10 in the NCAAs last few years; and (2) the Big10 being comprised of 1 elite team and a whole bunch of mediocre teams this year. This gave them reason to cap the Big10 at 8 this year AND Rutgers gave them reasons to make us #9.

sucks since we deserved a bid per the #s and per side-by-side comparisons to teams that did make it.

oh well

 

[Tango Two]

NCAA Tournament Selection committee chairman explains why Rutgers was left out of March Madness​

NCAA Tournament Selection committee chairman explains why Rutgers was left out of March Madness

Rutgers did not receive an at-large bid to the 2023 NCAA Tournament on Sunday. NCAA Tournament selection committee chairman Chris Reynolds explained why.

www.nj.com

 

[Kbee3]

Because they didn't want another B1G team in.

That's it. Not the Mag injury, not SOS, not anything else.

It would be so much more of an honest process if they just put out caps for conferences.

There isn't a person outside of Reno who believes Nevada is more qualified than us.

So true.

 

[knight82]

It's just the inconsistency of the committee. Last year we survived losses to Lafayette, Depaul, UMass, Minnesota and a bad Northwestern team. You can make an argument that this year's bad losses werent as bad as that. It would just be nice to know where you stand. Is there anyway one of these years the committee can tell everyone ahead of time, "this is what we're looking at and given the most importance to"?

 

[RedTeam1994]

thanks for posting but nothing new in there.

they didnt want a 9th Big10 team and are giving reasons (which contradict their choice to includes others like Nevada) to support their decision.

Im not saying I disagree (the Big10 has underperformed in the NCAA and had lots of mediocrity this year). we were odd man out by finishing as 9th in the Big10 in their eyes.

the rest of this "searching for reasons" is a waste of time IMHO since they dont add up when looked at objectively.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Which brings us to Penn State...Played their asses of, played IN...Period. If you are not top 8 you will NOT make it from now on. Period.

I detest them like any red blooded RU fan, but they probably are underseeded.

The committee just ignored what they did in the B1G tourney, and the fact we beat them twice.

They wanted the MWC to have 4 teams and the ACC to have an extra team.

 

[NotInRHouse]

It's just the inconsistency of the committee. Last year we survived losses to Lafayette, Depaul, UMass, Minnesota and a bad Northwestern team. You can make an argument that this year's bad losses werent as bad as that. It would just be nice to know where you stand. Is there anyway one of these years the committee can tell everyone ahead of time, "this is what we're looking at and given the most importance to"?

That's the problem. It's the deceptive nature of the selection.

There needs to be real, cemented criteria. They just switch it up on the fly to get the results they want.

 

[dconifer]

I think a case could definitely be made for your team to get in. I certainly think they are an upper-level team that belongs in that tournament. Sometimes things suck.

Definitely, give NOrth Carolina the Rutgers resume and they are 100% in.

I can't get behind the idea of blaming the Seton Hall loss on the Ohio State result. That's a bit much for me...

 

[dconifer]

the rest of this "searching for reasons" is a waste of time IMHO since they dont add up when looked at objectively.

Perfectly stated in my opinion...

 

[RUsojo]

As one of over 95% of bracketologists who selected Rutgers in their projection, I've been mulling over this question for the past few hours. This committee seemed to value bad losses more than good wins (a complete 180 from last year), the NCSOS, but most importantly, it seems that they valued SOR the most of any metric, especially amongst bubble teams.

SOR - Strength of Record - is calculated by computing the difference in a team's win total and the number of wins the average top 25 would be expected to earn had they played the same schedule. The one big issue with SOR is that it is a very unforgiving statistic that does not take any circumstance, such as injuries or days of rest, into consideration.

Of the six bubble 11-seeds chosen as well as Rutgers, the Scarlet Knights had the worst SOR of the bunch. In addition, Rutgers was the only team of the group with an NCSOS of over 300.

SOR:
Mississippi State - 40
NC State - 41
Providence - 46
Arizona State - 47
Pittsburgh - 52
Nevada - 54
Rutgers - 56

Why was Rutgers' SOR so bad?

Expected to win:
Temple - L
Seton Hall - L
Nebraska - L
Michigan - L
at Minnesota - L
Northwestern - L

Expected to lose:
Indiana - W
at Purdue - W

The average top 25 team is expected to win at Wisconsin, at Penn St and against Michigan at the BTT. Rutgers should have been 23-10 with this schedule, but instead finished 19-14.

As Rutgers fans, we look at those losses and know that two starters didn't play against Temple. The players didn't show up against Seton Hall given the way the previous game at Ohio State ended. The final four games on that list we played without Mawot Mag, and the committee punished us for losing them. Though there is nothing you can do about injuries, the blame for those four should fall squarely on the coaching staff for not identifying Derek Simpson as a potential starter until the Big Ten Tournament. Had they gone to Simpson earlier, some of those late L's may have flipped to W's.

That being said, I love Coach Pikiell and am very excited for the returning players, incoming recruits and especially the future of this program. Let's go out there and schedule some tougher non-conference games and show everyone what RU basketball is made of!

Keep your heads up Rutgers nation, the fun is only beginning.

Did they value bad losses over good wins or did they recalibrate what a good win is?

It’s really tough to look at the games you laid out and make excuses. We lost to temple with guys injured. But we beat Indiana without hood-shafino. You can go up and down the roster for every team like this.

 

[bac2therac]

Did they value bad losses over good wins or did they recalibrate what a good win is?

It’s really tough to look at the games you laid out and make excuses. We lost to temple with guys injured. But we beat Indiana without hood-shafino. You can go up and down the roster for every team like this.

they valued equity...making sure conferences were taken care of

 

[Nycrusupporter]

I am not sure if the Committee will continue to cap the Big10 at 8 moving forward.

but they certainly seem to have done that this year.

I cant say I blame them due to: (1) under-performance of Big10 in the NCAAs last few years; and (2) the Big10 being comprised of 1 elite team and a whole bunch of mediocre teams this year. This gave them reason to cap the Big10 at 8 this year AND Rutgers gave them reasons to make us #9.

sucks since we deserved a bid per the #s and per side-by-side comparisons to teams that did make it.

oh well

I think you are making a very good point. I don‘t think the committee has any firm caps on how many teams they will take from one conference, but to start taking teams from the lower half of the standings, the conference and those bottom half teams need to be clearly superior to the alternatives. Other than Purdue, the league didn’t really stand out and had a lot of parity, and they were only going to take so many teams that finished 11-9 or 10-10 in conference, and our end of season collapse played into that decision.

 

[ru66]

stop giving the process some integrity --there was none when evaluating the close ones--best 68 teams in country?? not really when auto bids given to the lowest conferences--this should be a tourney of only the top conferences and in my opinion only power conferences

 

[RUsojo]

they valued equity...making sure conferences were taken care of

Was looking for the bracketologists opinion that’s why I quoted him and ask him the question.

 

[ru66]

Was looking for the bracketologists opinion that’s why I quoted him and ask him the question.

equity /equality ? here we go

 

[ru66]

Since when is equity a part of competing for a title as best in country ?

 

[RUJMM78]

Because they didn't want another B1G team in.

That's it. Not the Mag injury, not SOS, not anything else.

It would be so much more of an honest process if they just put out caps for conferences.

There isn't a person outside of Reno who believes Nevada is more qualified than us.

Spot on comment,NCAA wasn't giving B1G Ten more selections than the Big 12 which was the best conference this season.

 

[armenius]

Did they value bad losses over good wins or did they recalibrate what a good win is?

It’s really tough to look at the games you laid out and make excuses. We lost to temple with guys injured. But we beat Indiana without hood-shafino. You can go up and down the roster for every team like this.

This year, across the board it seemed that bad losses were penalized more than good wins were rewarded. Many bracketologists had Texas A&M as a 5, I had them as a 6, they ended up with a 7 because of two Q4 losses. They had so many great wins, especially in conference play so I thought at least a 6 was warranted, really surprised they were given that 7.

To be clear, I'm not making excuses, just pointing out the gripes that many fans have with the decision. Rutgers should have won a few of those games, Seton Hall and Minnesota especially, and their SOR would have been much better.

I'm seeing a lot of Ohio State being mentioned, but would another Q1 win against a non-tournament team really made the difference between making it or being left out? I'm not so sure. We were also behind OK State in the committee's eyes and they had 6Q1 wins.

SOR was the main reason.

 

[BillyC80]

As one of over 95% of bracketologists who selected Rutgers in their projection, I've been mulling over this question for the past few hours. This committee seemed to value bad losses more than good wins (a complete 180 from last year), the NCSOS, but most importantly, it seems that they valued SOR the most of any metric, especially amongst bubble teams.

SOR - Strength of Record - is calculated by computing the difference in a team's win total and the number of wins the average top 25 would be expected to earn had they played the same schedule. The one big issue with SOR is that it is a very unforgiving statistic that does not take any circumstance, such as injuries or days of rest, into consideration.

Of the six bubble 11-seeds chosen as well as Rutgers, the Scarlet Knights had the worst SOR of the bunch. In addition, Rutgers was the only team of the group with an NCSOS of over 300.

SOR:
Mississippi State - 40
NC State - 41
Providence - 46
Arizona State - 47
Pittsburgh - 52
Nevada - 54
Rutgers - 56

Why was Rutgers' SOR so bad?

Expected to win:
Temple - L
Seton Hall - L
Nebraska - L
Michigan - L
at Minnesota - L
Northwestern - L

Expected to lose:
Indiana - W
at Purdue - W

The average top 25 team is expected to win at Wisconsin, at Penn St and against Michigan at the BTT. Rutgers should have been 23-10 with this schedule, but instead finished 19-14.

As Rutgers fans, we look at those losses and know that two starters didn't play against Temple. The players didn't show up against Seton Hall given the way the previous game at Ohio State ended. The final four games on that list we played without Mawot Mag, and the committee punished us for losing them. Though there is nothing you can do about injuries, the blame for those four should fall squarely on the coaching staff for not identifying Derek Simpson as a potential starter until the Big Ten Tournament. Had they gone to Simpson earlier, some of those late L's may have flipped to W's.

That being said, I love Coach Pikiell and am very excited for the returning players, incoming recruits and especially the future of this program. Let's go out there and schedule some tougher non-conference games and show everyone what RU basketball is made of!

Keep your heads up Rutgers nation, the fun is only beginning.

Well done. A few questions, for clarity:

1. Is top 25 (for SOR calculation) referring to NET?
2. Should a top 25 team be “expected” to beat Northwestern (NET 41) on the road, like we did?
3. Why would a top 25 team playing at home be expected to lose to Indiana (NET 30)?
4. Our SOR (56) was very close to both Nevada (54) and Pittsburgh (52). Wouldn’t that mean other factors had to be considered by the committee, when comparing those three teams?
5. How would our SOR compare to NV and Pitt if the refs correctly overturned the ending of the OSU game?

Thanks

 

[BillyC80]

Exactly, Not only them but Maryland to 31 cost us our 5th Q1, Michigan State garden debacle #6 and of course we all know Ohio State was #7.

And also Seton Hall losing to DePaul in the first round of the BET dropping them to 77 NET, giving us our 4th Quad3 loss.

Along with Maryland’s BTT loss dropping them to 31 NET and a Quad2 win for us, it goes to show conference tournaments likely made a difference in which bubble teams got selected.

 

[RUnTime]

Take humans out of the selection process entirely and replace with AI:

An AI program could potentially improve and make the selections for the NCAA March Madness tournament in the following ways:

1. Data analysis: An AI program could analyze large amounts of data on each team's performance throughout the season, including their record, strength of schedule, and other key factors. This data analysis could help identify patterns and trends that might be missed by human analysts.
2. Predictive modeling: An AI program could use predictive modeling to forecast the outcomes of potential matchups between teams. This could help the selection committee create a bracket that maximizes the likelihood of exciting and competitive games.
3. Objectivity: An AI program would be objective and impartial in its decision-making process, which could help eliminate any potential biases that may exist in the current selection process.
4. Speed and efficiency: An AI program could process vast amounts of data quickly and efficiently, which could potentially speed up the selection process and reduce the time and resources needed to make the selections.
5. Continuous learning: An AI program could continuously learn and adapt to new information as the selection process progresses, which could help it make more accurate and informed decisions as the competition unfolds.

Overall, an AI program could potentially bring significant benefits to the selection process for the NCAA March Madness tournament, including improved objectivity, efficiency, and accuracy.

 

[bac2therac]

Since when is equity a part of competing for a title as best in country ?

posted this in another thread

The more I try to find answers and while everything brought up is all part of it. I think there are many reasons why they could point to Rutgers being left out. Some here have brought up the cap on conference tourney bids. I have been doing bracketology for years and have always bristled at this notion because Ive never found it to have much evidence. However starting to thing that equity or whatever you want to call it may be a new thing. Its a very small sample size BUT

last year the ACC only got 4 bids and would have had only 3 if Notre Dame didnt get the nod over a 7th SEC school in Texas A&M. Big 10 got 9 for the 2nd straight year and did not fare well. Mountain West got 4, Pac 12 only 3 but the WCC got 3 so still got 10 from those 3.

Now this year....The ACC only had 3 definites, and 4 bubbles. The Big 10 had 8 schools in and one bubble. The Big 12 had 7 of 10 schools in and one bubble. The Mountain West the 5th rated conference had 3 schools and 1 bubble. The Pac 12 had 3 schools and 1 bubble.

Were they going to take a 9th team from the Big 10 for a third straight year despite 2 years of underperforming or a 8th Big 12 school at the expense of only 4 from the ACC and 3 from the Pac 12 or 3 from the Mountain West. Surely equity would say spread it out, ACC is a powerhouse conference deserving of 5 given what they did last year. We are going to reward conference records even though we say its not criteria. Lets balance out the field with 4 from MW and 4 from Pac 12 so we keep the 10 bids from those 3 conferences.

I have been following this for a while so I do not make these proclamations out of hand or just because my school would have appeared to be screwed. The committee is starting to lose control of their narrative and you can spot it out in the open now. They are going to try to shoehorn a set number of schools from each league. Obviously some years its not going to work but there are always going to be borderline schools from the Big 10. Last year there were 3 that all got in. We find out that Wisconsin wasnt even close to be looked at. Ditto for Vanderbilt who would have been an 8th team from the SEC. There was no way SEC is getting 8 schools.

The committee did give RU a chance I believe up to the Northwestern game. Once they saw RU play like ass in that game they shut the door and the field of 68 was picked. Conference tournament results across the board were closed. You see it with Penn State. In the field and they simply adjusted their seed for the final metrics which improved substantially. They lashed out and got back at Texas A&M for Buzz attacking them this year.

This is where I stand now. I will now be considering stuff like conference record and conference affiliation when things are close on the cut line going forward.