Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Bracketology FAIL: How The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee Botched The Field

I really hate the word FAIL. It epitomizes exactly the sort of annoying, self-referential snark that makes ordinary, sensible people loathe the internet.

Like, when someone doesn't like the Oscars, rather than explain why or actually craft a joke, they'll just say "EPIC Oscars FAIL." Or, "The Suns didn't trade Amare Stoudemire? That's a Trade Deadline FAIL." You see, the problem is, THOSE ARE NOT SENTENCES. And those people just sound like idiots. Sort of like using "tweeps" as a noun to describe Twitter followers, you just have to tune out when people start down that road, otherwise you might strangle someone.

All of which is to say... Don't hold it against me, but there's no other way to describe this year's NCAA Tournament Bracket. At least not without invoking profanity. I mean, seriously. You've got people that are supposedly working on this all year long, and they spend the entire weekend putting the brackets together. How could they possibly screw things up this badly? They had ONE JOB.

Truckoffail_medium

It's unfortunate that it mattered in 2010, but it did. A paucity of talent in this year's tourney field meant that spreading out the talent would be more important than ever before. It meant that for the first time in a few years, the selection committee would have to do a good job to ensure that we'd get a compelling tournament across all regions. In other words, we should have known we were doomed from the start.

The East and West brackets are fine; Syracuse got screwed having to head all the way out West, and they should have been the third number one seed instead of the fourth, but that's okay. They were penalized for losing to Georgetown, and because of an injury to one of their best players (Anize Onuaku). And in any case, with upstarts like Kansas State and BYU, not to mention March mainstays like Pittsburgh, Gonzaga, and Butler, that bracket should be pretty entertaining.

In the East, Kentucky and West Virginia are on a collision course, but both could have some pretty intriguing matchups beforehand—Kentucky's high octane offense vs. Wisconsin's deliberate pace, and West Virginia vs. a plucky New Mexico team, eager to prove they deserved their 3-seed. Marquette-Washington should be a war, as well. All thing's considered, there figures to be some pretty good games coming from this region, and most everybody got a fair shake, with the possible exception of Cornell.

As for the rest of the tournament... Let's start with Duke as the third-highest number one seed. The lunacy of ranking this Duke team ahead Syracuse is truly breathtaking. Forget the tournament resumes that factored into the decision. Imagine if Syracuse and Duke played a seven game series. Would Duke win one game? 

The Blue Devils earned a number one seed by default—on paper, they look like a good team, and they won all the games they're supposed to win—but even so, LOOK AT THIS TEAM. It may not be politically correct for some of the more prominent college basketball analysts to openly guffaw at this Duke team, so I'll do it for them. Duke's most impressive win on the season came against an average Gonzaga team that had just traveled cross-country. Duke won by 30 points in Madison Square Garden.

Either that, or you point to "signature" wins over Georgia Tech and Maryland ... both coming at home. But are we really supposed to pretend that either of those wins are benchmarks for an elite team? Oh, and Duke lost to both teams when they faced 'em on the road. There's that, too.

Jonscheyer_medium

For the love of Corey Haim, the best player on Duke's team looks like Lucas all-grown-up. And we're supposed to take this team seriously?

Jokes aside though, this isn't just typical Duke-bashing hyperbole. The Blue Devils are a fatally flawed team, and a mortal lock to get exposed by the first athletic team they face in the Tournament. They've also got the easiest draw of any number one seed in the field. How many years does this have to happen before Duke stops getting inflated seeds?

The number two seed in Duke's region is Villanova, a team that's lost five of its final seven games, and almost certainly should have been a three seed. And then there's Purdue as the four seed a perfect foil for Duke—unathletic and reeling from the Robbie Hummel injury. On paper, the biggest challenger to the Blue Devils will likely be Baylor, but that won't happen until the Elite Eight, if at all. Giving any number one this easy a draw would be pretty shady, but giving it to Duke, the weakest number one seed in recent memory, just reeks of favoritism.

And while the committee inexplicably paved a yellow brick road to the regional finals for Duke, on the opposite side of the bracket, they went the other direction, making the Midwest regional into a minefield for Kansas, and screwing over a couple good teams in the process. But here's the thing: Duke's cupcake road to the Final Four at least follows some logic—the Blue Devils have been NCAA beneficiaries for years. The Midwest honestly leaves me speechless. It makes you wonder. Is the committee just comprised of drunk, senile old men, sidled up to a tumbler of Scotch and picking schools at random? ... Actually, don't answer that.

To understand how incomprehensibly stupid the Midwest is... You have to look at the big picture with seeding. All seeds are not created equal. In the eyes of the selection committee, Kansas is a stronger one seed than Syracuse. With each seed, there's supposed to be a pecking order, where a strong two seed (i.e., the two seed that has the best case to be a one seed) would be paired with the weakest one seed. Ideally, this is how it's supposed to work, with the committee making occasional exceptions to keep colleges close to home.

Still, the whole point of having a selection committee is to pair teams fairly and evenly, rewarding strong one seeds for their great year, and penalizing the more vulnerable seeds with difficult draws. Without explaining any further, here are my rankings for each seed:

1.* Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, Syracuse

2. Ohio State, West Virginia, Kansas State, Villanova

3. Georgetown, Baylor, New Mexico, Pittsburgh

4. Maryland, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Purdue

5. Michigan State, Butler, Texas A&M, Temple

6. Tennessee, Marquette, Xavier, Notre Dame

*The committee ranked the one seeds.

The bolded teams, as you've probably figured out, are all in the Midwest Regional. In other words, the best team on each seeding line are all in the same bracket. Not to sound like an internet hipster, but... FAIL FAIL FAIL. The best one seed has to play the best four or five, the best two plays the best three, and so on. It should make for some spectacular games early on, but again, this is one year where we couldn't afford to have all the talent in one place.

Any of the top six seeds would be threats to win Duke's bracket, and together they've got more NCAA Tournament experience than any other region in the field. By a lot. If you had to pick the handful of middle seed capable of deep tourney runs, the Midwest bracket is practically the entire list, while the the rest of the field is littered with stumbling teams like Vanderbilt, Villanova, Pittsburgh, and Purdue. It flies in the face of any and all logic.

97682856_medium

Kansas' reward for having the best season in college basketball? Having to face Ohio State, one of the hottest teams in the country, featuring the National Player of the Year. Georgetown's reward for nearly running the table in the Big East Tournament? Getting Villanova's two seed a nightmare matchup with Tennessee in the second round, and maybe a game with the aforementioned Buckeyes, a one-seed in two's clothing. With the exception of Kansas and maybe Maryland, every team in the region has an argument for a higher seed.

How many different ways can we call this bracket idiotic? It'll never be enough.

Again, in other years, it'd be less reprehensible to group a bunch of the best teams together, but 2010 might be the weakest field we've seen since 2006. The Florida Gators finished the regular season by losing three games in a row, and then lost on the second day of the SEC Tournament. And then... The Florida Gators made the NCAA Tournament. You can find countless other examples of teams who backed their way into this year's 65, and really, some of the only teams who didn't can all be found in the Midwest Region.

It won't ruin March Madness, because that's impossible, but the committee just did a terrible job. Just figure out the seeding and make all the regions competitive. It's not that difficult. We live in 24-hour sports cycle, where we've got smart people (like Chris Dobbertean at Blogging the Bracket) who work on this stuff all year long. You'd think that, if someone like Chris can get this down to a science in his spare time, the NCAA could take two hours to get it right on Selection Sunday. Don't give the weakest one seed a free pass to the Final Four, and don't make the strongest two seed play the strongest one. Simple concepts, like those.

It's their only job, and they failed miserably. It isn't worth complaining or rehashing it once the games begin later this week, because this is March, and no matter what, it'll be fantastic. I've already complained too much. But just for the record, they couldn't have botched this any worse. For the sake of brevity, not snark:

Bracketology FAIL.

Do you like this post?

Comments

Display:

Great aricle

With the 18th pick of the 2010 NFL Draft the Pittsburgh Steelers select Florida QB Tim Tebow. (not a RB!)

by John Stephens on Mar 15, 2010 2:10 PM EDT reply actions  

KU Has Been Called

The Duke of the West more than once, so don’t shed many tears for them. They’ve gotten more than their fair share of breaks over the years. Even so, they got shafted here.

I’d say the team that got hammered in this is West Virginia. They deserved better and in my book, should be in Syracuse’s slot.

It really seems like the historically elite programs get taken care of at the end. The committee evidently feels that Duke is more historically elite than Kansas. Syracuse is more historically elite than West Virginia. Kentucky was certainly more historically elite than Ole Miss Sunday, at least in the official’s eyes.

by ArkieCat on Mar 15, 2010 2:27 PM EDT reply actions  

I think you meant Miss State.

Ole Miss wasn’t anywhere near the SEC final. And if you wanna argue WVU deserving a one seed it probably should have been over Duke in reality. Syracuse locked up that 1 seed with their season (just as Kansas and Kentucky did), regardless of league tournament outcome.

by NOLACuse on Mar 15, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thank you

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

by goodnight_vol on Mar 15, 2010 2:58 PM EDT reply actions  

The reason why people dislike the use of FAIL

is that it summarily cuts off conversation without actually creating any grounds for debate.

Sort of like this article. Have you presented any actual evidence to back up your claims? Well, no, actually. We have some arbitrary rankings based on your say-so and some vaguely prejudiced comments about Duke (We get it— some of their players are white. Therefore they must be unable to jump/play defense/whatever. Glad you pointed this out!). I’m searching in vain for a shred of objective support for your claims.

Let’s take an objective measure: the Pomeroy rankings. By their standard, the the top six seeds in that bracket rank, relative to their counterparts on the same seed line:

Second
First
First
Second
Third
Fourth

Compare the Duke bracket:

First
Fourth
Second
Third
Second
Fourth

If not a textbook S-curve, it’s certainly reasonably close to one. By this measure it is in fact Syracuse that has gotten a break:

Third
Third
Third
Fourth
Fourth
First

This is extremely simplistic (for instance, it doesn’t measure the magnitude of differences at all— Butler is minimally if at all different from the other 5 seeds, whereas New Mexico was— if you take Pomeroy seriously— grossly overseeded) but it makes the point. If any team should be jumping for joy, it’s Syracuse, whose only serious competitor appears to be seventh-seeded BYU. Duke’s bracket is on the “easy-ish” side of things, but as the team that’s actually played the best all season, that seems to be the correct outcome!

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Mar 15, 2010 3:12 PM EDT reply actions  

Whoa whoa whoa

Since when are the Ken Pomeroy rankings an objective measure? That’s a whole other discussion, but I think those are complete BS, and certainly not objective. Duke rates very well there, but if you actually watch the games, even a team like Miami can give them trouble, simply by being athletic. What happens when they play a team that’s skilled and athletic? They get waxed by a team like Georgetown.

If you want to argue that Duke’s an elite team, then that’s fine. But relying on computerized rankings undermines your argument. The same is true for arguing that Syracuse has the easiest bracket, or that I embellished the Midwest region. Why? Because KenPom said so?

(And at what point did I make any mention of Duke’s players being white? That’s unrelated; Andy Rautins is white, but that doesn’t mean he sucks.)

by Andrew Sharp on Mar 15, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Apparently you need a brush-up on terminology:
Objective: 1 b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

Pomeroy rankings (calculated by computer based on inputs determined without knowing what teams would score well on them; not manipulated to suit preconceived notions): objective.

This: not objective.

Why should I believe anything you say, basically? To the extent that I’ve seen the teams (and I admit I haven’t watched as much hoops as usual this season, though I’ve probably seen every team in the field for at least a half a game or so), I can draw my own conclusions. Your experience of watching them is essentially worthless to me, because it’s a black box. I have no idea what inputs go into it or whether any of those inputs make any sense.

Duke is a good team because they score tons of points on a per-possession basis, give up very few points, and have done so against one of the better schedules in the country. This is what good teams do.

If you want to say that teams should not get credit for margin of victory and seeding should be done strictly on win-loss records and strength of schedule, that’s fine. It’s a coherent position, even one I would favor. But your bullshit eye test is nothing of the sort— it’s just a really terrible, subjective way of doing the sort of thing that a computer is much better at than you are.

As for the race thing, let’s just say this— if you don’t think darker skin and athleticism are routinely conflated by people talking about basketball teams, you’re remarkably naive. Race-coded language is everywhere in the sports-commentary world (Latino baseball players are quick-tempered and undisciplined; white guys are scrappy and play with “hustle,” black guys are athletic specimens, etc.) and sure enough, plenty of it shows up here when you talk about Duke. It’s one more species of the basic fallacy of this entire post: the notion that teams have to look a certain way for them to possibly be any good.

Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."

by PaulThomas on Mar 16, 2010 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

KenPom

KenPom’s rankings are the ultimate objective ranking. They use statistics from the games to compare all the teams on an equal stage.

Wake Forest '12

Mother So Dear

by RAJohnston on Mar 15, 2010 5:38 PM EDT reply actions  

I love KenPom too, but you can't say they're the ultimate objective rankings

Because they don’t necessarily adjust for schedule strength (yes, I know there’s an SOS component, but it’s not perfect) or other external factors. In other words, they’re a tool among the larger set of tools used to opine on teams. If it was really completely objective, then there’s be no reason to discuss college basketball.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Mar 15, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I love kenpom too.

In fact, I hit the site every day, often poring over statistics for an hour or more. However, I don’t know that it’s any better a predictor or overall ranking tool than something like Sagarin, who uses only margin and home court to arrive at his rankings. I’d love to see someone do a study of the predictive value of the leading computer ranking systems. Add in the RPI (somehow) and whatever other system is respected (Massey???).

by The Splintah on Mar 16, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think it would be possible for me to agree with you more

You hit the nail on the head by saying that the best of each seed is in the Midwest bracket.

The only possible explanation I can come up for this is that it will make for great TV. And isn’t that what its all about anyway?! UMD vs MSU, that game’s winner vs KU, and OSU vs GTown will definitely be marquee games. Put any one of those top 5 teams in Duke’s regional and I would put them in the Final 4.

by Martin Shatzer on Mar 15, 2010 6:33 PM EDT reply actions  

this is the first time I can ever remember

the two best teams from any power conference being in the same bracket, which is the case for the BigTen this year.

I was shocked to see ohio State in the Kansas bracket. To have a team being considered for a 1 seed to en up facing the top 1 seed does not comport with my expectations. I was actually thinking we would end up out west to avoid Kansas.

This bracket fails because one of the two best options for one of the major conferences WILL NOT make the final 4 now, no way it can happen. Didn’t it used to be they made sure to separate them as far as reasonable?

"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man

by PDXBuckeye on Mar 16, 2010 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

this is stupid...

people look into these brackets way too much. The difference between the 1 and 2 seeds is minimal at best. You never can tell who is going to win any game outside of the 1v16 and 2v15. There is so much parity in the NCAA this year seeds are almost pointless.
I’m tired of people hating on Duke because it’s the easy thing to do. I understand Duke hasn’t beaten a Syracuse or Kansas type team but their SOS and RPI are among the best. You don’t get those rankings by having a crap team. Duke probably deserved a 2 seed but still that means they’re still going to be a favorite through the first 3 or 4 rounds anyways. I’d say Louisville (beat SYR twice) is probably the toughest 9 seed out there and could very well beat Duke (assuming they beat Cal), so to say their path is easy is dumb.

Anyways, the real screw job is Wake getting a bid instead of VT. There’s no way you can say Wake is a better team at this point in the season than Tech. They should have either given bids to both or neither.

by rskinz22 on Mar 15, 2010 6:36 PM EDT reply actions  

This clown contradicted his whole spiel on Duke

by putting them ahead of Syracuse in his “own rankings”.

by pre10d on Mar 15, 2010 8:29 PM EDT reply actions  

No I didn't

Those were the actual rankings of the number ones, as released by the committee.

by Andrew Sharp on Mar 15, 2010 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Another reason why I hate Duke

Right in that article.

In one game as a freshman at Miami, Wieters hit a two-run homer in the top of the ninth to put the Yellow Jackets ahead, then pitched the bottom of the ninth for the save. On that day, the God nickname was bestowed. - Sports Illustrated

by BaltimoreSportsFan on Mar 15, 2010 8:30 PM EDT reply actions  

I agree

And then there’s things like New Mexico being in the East bracket…

"Left hand, right hand, it doesn't matter. I'm amphibious." - Charles Shackleford
""He’s a stiff." - The Legendary Doug Moe
"We have a great bunch of outside shooters. Unfortunately, all our games are played indoors." - Weldon Drew
"I really didn't want it, but now that I've won it, it's nice. It's an honor. It's nice to know people don't think you're a total idiot. ... It must have been a poor year for coaches." - Doug Moe...talking about winning 1987-88 Coach of the Year award.
"We're just tough, man" - Chauncey Billups

by LACK on Mar 15, 2010 11:28 PM EDT reply actions  

I love listening to Duke haters complain about all the "favoritism" receive.

I have been a Duke fan since I watched my first college basketball with my Dad in 1992. In 1995 also went with my Dad to see them win the Great Alaska Shootout.

Mile High Hockey: A Colorado Avalanche Fan Community
Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Derek B on Mar 16, 2010 2:29 AM EDT reply actions  

Congrats on being a fan.

Glad to see you don’t dispute the favoritism. Or wait, do you? What was the point of your post again?

Duke getting a 1 seed is within reason. WVU being a 2 seed is also reasonable. But where the logic fails there is the Chairman himself said that WVU was considered for a 1 seed and that only 5 teams were considered. Does this mean that they were honestly debating who gets the fourth #1: Syracuse vs. WVU?!? Hell no they weren’t! It was Duke vs. WVU when they debated and everyone knows it.

Only after the fact they had established the four #1s did they do the Duke Syracuse shuffle. Honestly I believe they placed the four #1s in region based on the mythical Duke > Syracuse, then placed the #2s in the best geography without regard to strength. Otherwise you’d see OSU or WVU in the South with Duke.

Lastly, I really believe they picked the at-large teams, then just randomly assigned values. ND a 6? Tennessee a 6? Seems like an awfully big difference in those two teams to end up at the same ranking.

by Remote Cardinal on Mar 16, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

How about a team that got plain shafted?

Temple. How does a team that wins a legitimate conference (for the third straight time, first time a team has won the A-10 three times in a row since Maryland in the ‘90s), wins 29 games (3 short of tying the school record) and finishes 12th in the nation get a 5 seed? Basically, you’re telling teams that the last ten games of the season don’t matter (Villanova goes 4-6, bounces in its first Big East tournament game and gets a 2nd seed) and that winning a tournament/playing hard in conference tournaments don’t matter, if Temple gets a 5 seed. At worst it should get a 4 seed, making it a top 16 team in the tournament. It is a complete travesty that not only does Temple receive a 5 seed, but it is also paired against Cornell which is one of the strongest 12 seeds in the tournament. Instead of Cornell, Temple should be versing the likes of Wofford, Huston, Murray State or Siena. FAIL on the part of the tournament committee for not only screwing up the seedings within the regions themselves, as pointed out in the article, but for also shafting Temple. I really hope Temple makes it past the Sweet Sixteen to prove a point.

"College is only 4 years. The Eagles are a lifetime pursuit." - IronHank

by RyanGiggs11 on Mar 16, 2010 5:10 PM EDT reply actions  

But…the last 10 games do matter….well for some teams…..see Illinois who all but sealed there NCAA bid until falling apart during the last 10-12 games of the season. This is where it seems some rules apply in some circumstances, but not in others. I thought Temple should have gotten a higher seed, and Illinois should have gotten in (however being a badger fan, I’m glad that didn’t happen).

by wisco87 on Mar 19, 2010 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

my problem

is that the committee didnt seem able to make up its mind about what their criteria were. last 12 games was supposed to have been eliminated as an official criteria, yet when asked about why duke was put ahead of syracuse, one of the things the chairman mentioned was that duke had a strong finish to the season.

by joshp on Mar 16, 2010 6:03 PM EDT reply actions  

How can you eliminate the last 12 games if conference tournaments are part of the end of the season? That in itself is a stupid criteria to use.

"College is only 4 years. The Eagles are a lifetime pursuit." - IronHank

by RyanGiggs11 on Mar 16, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Enjoyed your posts

Just a word about DOOK! I think they got a 1 by mistake. But the good thing that comes from this is. They will finally have to leave North Carolina to play some games. They usually play at or near home.

Happy Days are here again The sky is all ways BLUE again Happy days are here again !

by oldcat73 on Mar 16, 2010 9:49 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

memorial day memories

Hugs, High-Fives, And Tears: Veterans Share Their Favorite Sports Memories

ryan clark cos

'Give It Your Heart, Give It Your All': Ryan Clark Exemplifies Marine Corps' Honor

145370615_extra_large_small

Spurctacular Start: San Antonio Takes Game 1