Making fun of people that put together brackets in January is a lot like shooting fish in a barrel. But that shouldn’t stop us from pointing out the mistakes and faulty logic displayed by Joe Lunardi of ESPN when he took a shot at teams with weak OOC schedules this week:
The NCAA Tournament committee has demonstrated time and time again that “whom you choose to play” in nonconference games is a significant factor in terms of both selection and seeding.
Then he probably has a really good example to demonstrate this…
Who can forget 2004 committee chair Bob Bowlsby answering a question about how Pittsburgh — No. 5 in the RPI, No. 6 in the polls and 29-3 overall — could fall to the lowest No. 3 seed position?
|
2004 top-three seeds |
||
|
|
NONCONF |
NONCONF |
|
SOS |
SUB-150s |
|
|
|
No. 71 |
3 |
|
Duke |
No. 22 |
3 |
|
Stanford |
No. 156 |
5 |
|
|
No. 1 |
0 |
|
|
No. 204 |
7 |
|
|
No. 103 |
7 |
|
|
No. 186 |
6 |
|
Gonzaga |
No. 25 |
4 |
|
Georgia Tech |
No. 111 |
5 |
|
NC State |
No. 87 |
4 |
|
Pitt |
No. 247 |
12 |
The first problem with Lunardi’s example is that Pitt was ranked #8…not #5…according to both kenpom.com and collegerpi.com. The second is that he only managed to list 11 teams in the top three seeds.
As we’ve already seen, the average RPI value for a three-seed is #11…with the actual range going from #1 – #20. So at most, Pitt was moved from a 2-seed to a 3-seed…which is often an insignificant change in the difficulty of teams to be faced in the early rounds.
Let’s redo Joe’s table and add a few pieces of info that he “forgot� to include:
|
|
OOC |
OOC |
RPI |
NCAA |
Conf |
|
|
SOS |
150+ |
Rank |
Seed |
Rank |
|
|
71 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
Duke |
22 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Stanford |
156 |
5 |
7 |
1 |
9 |
|
|
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
8 |
|
|
204 |
7 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
103 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
186 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
Gonzaga |
25 |
4 |
9 |
2 |
12 |
|
Georgia Tech |
111 |
5 |
16 |
3 |
1 |
|
NC State |
87 |
4 |
17 |
3 |
1 |
|
Pitt |
247 |
12 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
Conference Champion
In fact, only Gonzaga (a conference tournament champion) was moved ahead of Pitt based on the RPI calculations…who didn’t win their conference tournament. State, GT, and Texas (forgotten by Lunardi) were given three-seeds along with Pitt. Does this small “slight� justify the following conclusion?
… the NCAA sent the Panthers, and others, one sledgehammer of a scheduling message.
He then drones on about this year’s cup-cake gluttons, including NC State. While I can’t imagine many State fans being happy or proud of State’s OOC schedule, a lot of us have gotten used to it…since we see it nearly every year.
I don’t have a problem with penalizing teams that schedule a steady diet of cupcakes. However, it is important to remember that the RPI calculation already includes a penalty for scheduling weak teams…since 50% of the RPI value is based on the overall SOS. The question is whether or not the Selection Committee places an additional penalty on teams like Lunardi (and the NCAAT spokesman) claim.
Let’s use NC State as an example to determine whether or not the NCAA actually holds teams accountable for playing a weak OOC schedule:
|
|
OOC |
Conf |
|
NCAA |
Worse Seed to |
|
Year |
SOS |
Rank |
RPI |
Seed |
at-large bid |
|
2002 |
207 |
2 |
37 |
7 |
12 |
|
2003 |
238 |
3 |
53 |
9 |
12 |
|
2004 |
82 |
1 |
17 |
3 |
13 |
|
2005 |
259 |
1 |
65 |
10 |
11 |
Lowest RPI to receive an at-large bid
I may have overlooked a lower seed than the ones I recorded, but these are sufficient to prove my point. Here are several interesting things that I get from this table:
1) The four-year average RPI ranking for a seven seed was 30…substantially lower than State’s RPI in 2002…even though State’s OOC SOS was 207.
2) In State’s two worse years:
– State’s OOC SOS was 200+.
– State had the lowest RPI ranking to receive an at-large bid.
– State didn’t receive the lowest seed given to an at-large team.
3) In 2003, along with a weak OOC schedule and a “poor� RPI ranking, State played in the third-ranked conference that year…and still received a seeding that was better than some other at-large bids.
If Lunardi is right….then how can this be?
In addition to the wonderful example provided by our own school, the authors of the Dance Card have shown fairly dramatically that OOC SOS is not one of the criteria used to evaluate bubble teams for inclusion or exclusion from the NCAA tourney.
You don’t have to believe me, of course. But ignore the facts at your own risk .
Would it be OK if we ignore you until you FIND some facts?
