|
... because the committee is also not watching the games, lol. They're just looking at resume sheets. I mean, everyone in the media talked about how the Big East was a consensus top two conference this season, and the committee gave them 3 bids-- fewer bids than they gave the oft-denigrated ACC.
And even with the amount of bids the MWC received, they got absolutely fucked on relative seeding. The committee stated New Mexico wouldn't have even been on the next four out if they hadn't won their conference tournament, which is *insane* given they were nearly Top 20 in KenPom-- so they presumably only said that because they were prioritizing strength of resume, right? Well, Utah State had a better strength of resume than Kentucky, BYU, Texas, etc-- why were they only an 8 seed? Colorado State had a better strength of resume than St. Mary's and were clearly above teams like FAU, TCU, Washington State, and Northwestern in KenPom-- how were they only a *play-in*? It felt like, while they got a number of teams in, the MWC got the mid-major treatment from the committee based on what their relative seeding should've been based on the combination of their predictive metrics and resume metrics.
While them being so relatively detached from the sport is bad for a number of reasons, it does make them fairly impervious to media narrative. I don't think their bracket formation sucks due to media influence. I think it sucks because it's twelve ADs and commissioners, six of whom come from the respective high-majors, who barely ever watch the games and have no consistency of selection beyond "well, wouldn't it be cool if these teams played?" and, in all likelihood, "hey, I know the guy who's the AD over there, he's a good dude."
If I were the CBB God, I'd put together some sort of computer ranking that factors in predictive, strength of resume, wins over bubble, etc. A transparently constructed formula, where everyone knows how it's put together. (You could cap the margin of victory once a game goes analytically final too, if that's a concern.) We'd look at that master ranking, 1 through 68, based on whatever number that algorithm generates.
And then, after the conference tournaments, we'd have a committee of people-- commissioners, former coaches, independent journalists, whoever-- that has to *actually watch the basketball over the course of the season.* Guys who have outspokenly committed to following the sport, to watching the big games, to catching up on old games if need be, to tracking what happens with resumes and analytics over the course of a year. And that committee could look at that 1 through 68 list and decide if it needs adjustment based on things such as injury, such as geographical advantages, such as consistent improvement over a large sample, etc.
Maybe the committee would change things, maybe they wouldn't. But they'd be starting with a list based on gameplay over the course of a full season, and they could then use eye test and human knowledge to make potential adjustments from there. That'd still be a system open to personal bias and outside influence, obviously, but it'd be a huge step in the right direction compared to the current system, "no transparency of formula, no consistency in how brackets are constructed, no committee members who watch the game."
There's no fixing sports media, but more transparency in the selection process would at least *begin* to alleviate concerns the public has about media influence on selection and on the construction of the formulas that are crucially important at present to selection. More Christmas movies coming in 2025...
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
