NCAA Selection Committee Stopping “Finishing Strong” Emphasis

The NCAA is changing the rules for the criteria used to select at-large teams for the NCAA Tournament.  Until now, the Committee has placed an emphasis on how a team finished the year moreso than how it started — which effectively dimished the value of the bulk of the out-of-conference slates for most teams.  From the NCAA News:

The Division I Men’s Basketball Committee has decided to no longer consider the results of a team’s last 12 games as one of the tools available in the selection criteria for the 2009-10 season.

While the basketball committee uses several variables when it comes to selecting the 34 at-large teams that are placed into the bracket each March, its members concluded that college basketball stakeholders were confused by the last 12 games being part of the process.

“As the committee continues to hone its message regarding how it views the season, parsing a particular segment of games and implying it had greater weight than others seemed misleading and inconsistent,” said committee chair and Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive. “The removal of this reference avoids confusion in the room and brings our reporting in line with our process.”

This is probably one case where the NCAA has gotten things right with a selection criteria change. Now teams will need to come out of the gate strong, knowing that each and every contest they play — whether it is November or in March — will have equal value at the end of the year when tournament teams are selected.  That in an of itself should sharpen pre-season practices and the late Fall games.

Another way it is in improvement  is that sometimes, some of the best games of the year are in November and December even in the venerable ACC.  In particular, that’s when you have your best chance of seeing a major-conference – mid-major matchup, and as the Big Dance itself has repeatedly shown, these games can and are between two Tournament-worthy squads and produces some exceptional basketball.  It’s also usually when inter-sectional matchups happen, say a Kansas – NC State game.  In the past, the results of those games have not mattered as much due to the Final 12 emphasis, which for the most part are exclusively in-conference affairs.

From an NC State hoops perspective, however, this may be something that hurts more than helps in the short-haul.  The Pack will be a very young team this year, and it is more likely than not that they will not be as good a team in December that they are in February.  While this is true of most teams, it is more true of teams like the one that State will put on the floor this season.  An old saw is that a freshman is no longer a freshman come February or March, and that’s really what State will have -raw talent working itself into a team in the beginning with hopefully a cohesive and highly functional unit towrds the end of the year.  With the new selection criteria in place, State will be forced to grow up faster than they may be able to do — that is, if they plan to be an NCAA team this March.

General NCS Basketball

33 Responses to NCAA Selection Committee Stopping “Finishing Strong” Emphasis

  1. howlie 07/02/2009 at 9:18 AM #

    The ’83 team seemed to be ‘living proof’ that the last dozen games matter greatly. So… I’m afraid I don’t agree with their thinking to remove the late season emphasis.

    I’m wondering what precipitated the change. There must have been complaints by particular teams…. or complaints from (teams like Clemson/Wake?) who started strong and wilted in the end.

    Do we know?

    SFN: I disagree. The 1983 team was an example of the impact of a key injury to your best player; NOT playing well at the end. It just so happened that Dereck Whittenburg returned at the end of the year.

  2. Sam92 07/02/2009 at 9:43 AM #

    I can see the reasoning that eliminating this rule may get teams to focus more on earlier games, thus improving their quality, but the counterpoint to this is that picking teams that finish strong improves the quality of the tournament games.

    it’s a mistake to eliminate this criteria because it will put weaker teams into the tournament, reducing the quality of the tournament games

  3. Noah 07/02/2009 at 10:12 AM #

    Being a young team no longer means anything in college basketball. With the NBA’s idiotic rules and retarded drafting system, college basketball loses 150-200 guys a year that ought to be playing the following year and have absolutely NO business going pro.

    As a result, college basketball coaching is coal into a furnace. You basically start from scratch every year.

    There isn’t any reason why college basketball can’t be one the most lucrative sports out there. But every year, it gets a little bit worse and the ratings drop a little bit more.

  4. packof81 07/02/2009 at 11:12 AM #

    This kinda puts the quietus on Cinderella teams.

  5. ryebread 07/02/2009 at 11:36 AM #

    Hmm.. I guess I’m in the minority, but I think this helps the big conference teams (like ACC teams). In the past I’ve felt mid-major teams were helped because they had a chance to go 12-0 or 11-1 down the stretch because they were playing against weaker competition. When they stepped outside of their leagues early in the year though, they couldn’t even get to .500. At the end you’d have a team with a 24-6 type of record who would get the nod over a team who beat up on them in the non-conference schedule yet who didn’t “finish strong down the stretch” because they were playing in a major conference against tougher competition.

    Having said that, with each passing year, the chance for a Cinderella winning it all becomes less and less. With the pod system and the fact that the high seeds basically play home games (or as close to a home game as possible) up until the Final Four, it is becoming increasingly hard for a lower seed to score that big upset. Look at the brackets since the pods have gone in and you’ll see a staggering number of #1 and #2 seeds in the Final Four.

    I guess my point is that arguing over the last 5-6 at large bids (which is really what this discussion and decision are about) is pretty much irrelevant when talking about the determination of the champion. Those teams will not be there at the end and there’s little likelihood that they’ll knock off one of the teams that might be. It’s really more important to the fans, to the TV ratings (the first two days of the NCAA tourney are the best days in American sports IMHO), the gamblers (those upsets bring in massive money in Vegas), the conferences (prize money and prestige) and the players (for many just playing in the tournament is a dream). I applaud the NCAA for trying to get it right for those reasons.

    As for NC State next year, the big four games in the non-conference slate (Az, Florida, Marquette and Northwestern) will determine our postseason hopes. The strength of the ACC won’t be there to pull us along. We’re going to have to win those games and prove that we’re better than middle of the road teams in the Pac 10, SEC, Big East and Big 10 respectively. We need to go 3-1 in these games (IMHO) to have any kind of shot. As Alpha pointed out, this will be a monumental challenge given how young the team is.

  6. waxhaw 07/02/2009 at 12:01 PM #

    I like it. It will help our teams.

    I never thought it was fair that the ACC’s bubble teams were playing each other in the ACC tournament needing a win and the CUSA/Big East teams were playing gimme first round games. If a 4/5 team loses to a top 40 RPI team by 2 is that less impressive than a 4/12 matchup where the 4 beats an RPI 200 team by 20?

    I agree that how you finish is important to how you play in the tournament but it should not be a factor on getting a bid.

    Now if they will just remove the dumb ass Non Conference/Conference significance and look at games played.

  7. Oldwolf 07/02/2009 at 12:58 PM #

    It doesn’t state explicitly, but how will this affect the seeding once the selection is made? Do they no longer look at the last 12 games? Is it based on the whole seasns body of work, now? This could be a bigger factor.

  8. VaWolf82 07/02/2009 at 1:01 PM #

    “The removal of this reference avoids confusion in the room and brings our reporting in line with our process.”

    This tells me that the NCAAT Selection Committee is changing words…not the basic selection process. I know of no evidence that going 12-0 down the stretch in a weak conference had any positive effect on getting a team into the NCAAT.

    Finishing strong in the ACC and the ACCT means that a team will have beaten several good teams…which is what you need to get an at-large bid. So I’ll be surprised if this changes anything for the ACC.

  9. VaWolf82 07/02/2009 at 1:04 PM #

    Now if they will just remove the dumb ass Non Conference/Conference significance and look at games played.

    What do you mean?

  10. bradleyb123 07/02/2009 at 1:26 PM #

    I don’t like this change. A team can lose a star player or two, stumble greatly in the last 12 games, and still limp into the dance, even though they probably have no chance of doing much when they get there. That could take a spot from a team that has gotten some players back from injury and is playing very well down the stretch.

    Something is to be said for teams that are hot late in the year. Maybe it took a while for them to find the right combination and chemistry, but since they found it, they should be rewarded (at least a little) for that.

    Maybe they could have lessened the importance of the last 12 games without completely throwing that out.

    Clemson will probably LOVE this rule change, though. 🙂

  11. phunisher 07/02/2009 at 1:36 PM #

    Off topic, but how much thinner can our defensive backs go…”O’Brien also announced that sophomore cornerback Dominique Ellis has decided to transfer to another school. Ellis played in all 13 games last season, seeing action mainly on special teams while tallying 13 tackles.” along with the expected amount of recruit who didn’t academically qualify

    http://www.gopack.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9200&ATCLID=3759093

  12. Zen Wolf 07/02/2009 at 1:38 PM #

    I just read the N&O. Are there any insights on the Ellis and the three highly ranked freshmen not coming in????? Can we start a threat on this.

    If no one starts another thread, put FB comments on the Irving thread….not on a basketball thread.
    VaWolf82

  13. 61Packer 07/02/2009 at 2:33 PM #

    This new rule should be named the Jed Clampett Rule; it’s made for Wolfpack basketball. Suddenly, those last dozen (ACC) games, which we almost always lose badly, won’t automatically doom our season. Hopefully, Jed can schedule more games against the likes of New Orleans, ECU, Lipscomb, and NC Central, maybe even home and home in the same season! Herb was right- a win is a win. Right, Jed? Pile on the cupcakes!!

  14. VaWolf82 07/02/2009 at 2:49 PM #

    Suddenly, those last dozen (ACC) games, which we almost always lose badly, won’t automatically doom our season.

    Yes they will. Just because a strong finish isn’t given extra meaning, doesn’t mean that the converse is also true. A bubble team that stumbles down the stretch will still hurt their chances at making the NCAAT.

  15. Wulfpack 07/02/2009 at 2:59 PM #

    I like the new rule and am guessing some pretty heavy statistical analysis went into it. A lot of those teams that fight their way in with strong finishes in the regular season and conference tourneys flame out in the early rounds. Syracuse, Georgia and Miss State come to mind.

    I think a game in December is just as important as a game in March. If there’s a star player absence/injury situation, I think it should still be taken into consideration. But good teams often find a way to win enough games regardless of who is on the floor.

  16. bradleyb123 07/02/2009 at 3:37 PM #

    I posted previously that I don’t like this rule. That’s not entirely true. I like one aspect of it, that early games are important, too. But I think if two teams have similar win totals, similar RPI rankings, similar wins over ranked opponents, etc., but one has performed poorly over the last 12 games, and the other has not, the one that has done better “lately” should get the nod (if it comes down to picking one or the other). That’s where I’d like to see this “rule” just diluted a little, and not completely tossed out.

  17. highstick 07/02/2009 at 6:52 PM #

    I like the term “the Clemson rule”. Come out of the gate strong, beat a bunch of cupcakes, then fold. But, then we could call it the Herb Rule too!

  18. waxhaw 07/03/2009 at 8:07 PM #

    VaWolf — What I am referring to is the practice of looking at a team’s non conference strength of schedule and non conference wins as an indicator of a team’s strength (seperately from their conference strenght and wins).

    If you beat 5 top ten teams in conference and play a bunch of nobodies out of conference, that should be equal to beating 5 top ten teams out of conference and a bunch of nobodies in conference.

    IMO, this is one of the primary reasons you see borderline conferences getting multiple bids over middle tier ACC schools.

  19. VaWolf82 07/03/2009 at 9:46 PM #

    ^ I still don’t follow.

    Herb and State went to the NCAAT five straight years…with four of those years being on the bubble. State cleared the bubble those four years based solely on wins against ACC teams. In ’02 and ’03, State beat a grand total of 3 teams that made the NCAAT (UMD in ’02 and Duke/WF in ’03). I know of no evidence that suggests OOC games are more important than conference games.

    We’ve looked at the bubble the last several years here. I don’t remember an ACC team having a legitimate beef about being left out. Who did you have in mind?

  20. howlie 07/04/2009 at 10:52 AM #

    “As for NC State next year, the big four games in the non-conference slate (Az, Florida, Marquette and Northwestern) will determine our postseason hopes. The strength of the ACC won’t be there to pull us along. We’re going to have to win those games and prove that we’re better than middle of the road teams in the Pac 10, SEC, Big East and Big 10 respectively. We need to go 3-1 in these games (IMHO) to have any kind of shot…”

    ^Great observation by Rye’.^

    Any early success will come down to any new on-court leadership. With so many new pups, the chemistry COULD be radically improved, if one of our PG’s will step up. I believe Javi has good leadership potential (but had it squelched by last years graduating class who–I’m grossly speculating–didn’t want to be directed by a struggling newbie PG). Mays does too. I’m hoping, also, that Howell has those capabilities

  21. Greywolf 07/04/2009 at 2:13 PM #

    In ’74 the emphasis was on who got in the NCAAT. Now the emphasis is on who didn’t get in the tournament. Which of these 2 emphases makes the most sense?

    It’s the direction of education: Dumb it down to where anybody and every body can get a degree. It’s EVERYTHING/NOTHING. If everything is white, nothing is white because you can’t tell what is what. Everybody get a degree, nobody has a degree. But the value of a Masters goes up and to really be out in front, you have to have a PhD. Except of course computer programing and then all you need is to be 15 with a face full of pimples and be able to knock out code for games.

  22. waxhaw 07/05/2009 at 10:42 PM #

    VaWolf — It would be hard to argue that any bubble team deserves a bid. They are all on the bubble for a reason. However, it seems like mid major bubble teams often get bids over big conference bubble teams. i.e. (MVAC several years ago got 4 bids. Butler last year only had one quality win but got a bid. BYU didn’t beat anyone last year but somehow had an RPI in the twenties and got a bid.

    I’m not sure if it’s solely due to the RPI formula or not but the RPI is obviously used heavily. The RPI is based on your record and the record of the teams you play and while I’m not sure exactly how it’s calculated the strength of your out of conference schedule is HUGE in this calculation. If I understand it correctly, the conference records would basically cancel each other out. Therefore, if you can win 25 games in a crap conference, play a tough non conference schedule, even if you lose them, you’ll probably get a bid. In the ACC, you’ve got to win enough games to make the bubble so your non conference scheduling becomes a science. If you don’t schedule them hard enough, you’ll be on the bubble and based on the way the RPI calculates the rankings you’ll probably be on the outside looking in.

  23. VaWolf82 07/06/2009 at 8:05 AM #

    Therefore, if you can win 25 games in a crap conference, play a tough non-conference schedule, even if you lose them, you’ll probably get a bid.

    I don’t think that this is correct. From my memory, most of the whining about bubble teams that get left comes from mid-majors and their fans. The year that the MVC got four bids, the highest RPI=ranked team left home was also from the MVC….with an RPI ranking of around 25.

    BYU was 2-2 against the RPI-top 25 and 2-2 against 26-50; with their worst loss against #67. In other words, they had more quality wins and far fewer “bad” losses than several State teams that made the NCAAT with Herb.

  24. waxhaw 07/06/2009 at 9:18 AM #

    True, BYU was 2-2 against the top 25 RPI and 2-2 against 26-50 RPI. This is where any comparison against big conference teams ends and actually makes my point about the RPI very well.

    They beat Utah State, San Diego State twice and Utah once. They lost to Arizona State, Wake, Utah and San Diego State.

    If you think that’s an NCAA resume and deserving of a top 30 RPI then I guess we’ll have to disagree.

  25. VaWolf82 07/06/2009 at 9:50 AM #

    They beat Utah State, San Diego State twice and Utah once. They lost to Arizona State, Wake, Utah and San Diego State.

    If you think that’s an NCAA resume and deserving of a top 30 RPI then I guess we’ll have to disagree.

    Then I would guess that State’s 2002 resume wasn’t good enough for you either. That year State was 3-7 against the RPI Top 50 with only one win against teams selected for the NCAAT.

Leave a Reply