Triple Option

1/28/19 @2:00 PM

For the first one, I’d like to outline the methods I use in making my selections. The selection committee doesn’t do a great job of telling the people how they make their selections, and I realized I haven’t really either. Here is some of my main criteria, starting with the more important factors:

• Conference Performance.  This is the biggest thing I pay attention to because 1.) It is the largest portion of the season, 2.) There is a balanced amount of home and away games, and 3.) The games tend to be rivalries or meaningful, so most games are competitive unless you’re Gonzaga, but we get to see teams get hot and struggle. I’m looking for the 68 most consistent teams, and this is the best way to find that.
• Strength of Conference. This branches right off conference performance, but not all conferences are treated alike. For example, this year the Big Ten and Big 12 are very deep, while the Pac 12 is not. So if I’m picking between Indiana or Baylor and Arizona State, I’m more inclined to pick the former two because they’ve faced competitive teams more often. The committee values this too, as last year they put in Oklahoma and Syracuse–both teams sub-.500 in conference play–over Nebraska who was 13-5 in the Big Ten, because the Big Ten wasn’t as good.
• True Road Wins. I define a true road win as basically beating a relevant team on the road. For example, I value Purdue beating Wisconsin on the road or Louisville beating UNC. Road wins in tough environment are the best test of resiliency teams need in March.
• Neutral/Non-conference wins: The committee really values the non-conference. Because Arizona State beat two would-be 1-seeds Kansas and Xavier, the committee overlooked them finishing 9th in the Pac 12. I don’t necessarily agree with this–I had USC in last year over Arizona State. But there is still value to early season tests. For example this year, Gonzaga over Duke, Tennessee and North Carolina over Gonzaga, Louisville over Michigan State, or Michigan over Villanova and North Carolina. For this reason (the committee valuing non-conference), I believe teams like Seton Hall, Indiana, Arizona State, and Florida look good for Selection Sunday.
• Rankings metrics. The committee used the RPI and now moves to the NET. We don’t know how much the committee uses this, we just know it’s a tool they have. I’ve used three: NET, KenPom, and Haslemetrics, not for determining everything but more for just getting different opinions as to who are the best teams. The two latter also contain information to determine offensive and defensive efficiency.
• Strength of Schedule. This is a very vague term I don’t love to use. It’s a generalized phrase to incorporate all the above factors.
• Conference tournament performance/recent trend. This isn’t really relevant yet, but the conference tournaments represent a time for locks to make their case for higher seeds, bubble teams make their losing argument to get a spot, and mid-majors to get in. For the time being, I do value what teams are hot and cold. Tennessee, Purdue, and Marquette are current benefactors, Oklahoma, Indiana, St. John’s, and Texas are some teams declining.
• Head-to-Head. This is harder to use in college basketball than college football because there are so many more games and other factors. While I said I valued Louisville beating North Carolina, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have a higher seed, even though they blew them out on the road. Even though Temple beat Davidson, I still have Davidson getting a bye and Temple playing in Dayton. That was a 2-point win on a neutral court in November, otherwise a small part of the season that shouldn’t be an ultimate determining factor. The committee doesn’t put a ton of importance on this either. Looking back to last year, Oklahoma State beat Oklahoma 2/3 times but the Sooners made it and the Cowboys didn’t. Auburn beat Tennessee on the road and Kentucky won the SEC tournament, but the seeding went Tennessee (3), Auburn (4), and Kentucky (5). There will be cases I use it if I’m differentiating two very similar teams. Like this week Wisconsin is seeded higher than Iowa. But for the most part, it is only a last resort tiebreaker.
• Eye Test. Finally, there is a human element that goes into the bracket selecting process. Some teams just look better in person on TV than they do on paper, and vice versa. Marquette and Kansas State are teams as such so far. There is a reason the process is not looking down a list and choosing teams, and it’s because numbers don’t tell the whole story in sports.

That’s what I got for this week. Next week I’ll start going into depth and evaluating individual teams. For now, here’s some of the more important games of the week.

1/28: TCU @ Texas Tech, Baylor @ Oklahoma

1/29: Tennessee @ South Carolina, Virginia @ NC State, North Carolina @ Georgia Tech, Kansas @ Texas, Lipscomb @ Liberty, Wisconsin @ Nebraska, Mississippi State @ Alabama, Ohio State @ Michigan, Nevada @ UNLV

1/30: Marquette @ Butler, Ole Miss @ Florida, Providence @ Seton Hall, Villanova @ DePaul, Syracuse @ Boston College, St. John’s @ Creighton

1/31: Temple @ Houston, North Texas @ Old Dominion, Arizona @ Arizona State

2/1: Michigan @ Iowa, Buffalo @ Bowling Green, Maryland @ Wisconsin