How the Selection Committee SHOULD Look at Resumes

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Here’s an example of how I think the committee should evaluate teams.

	Avg of RPI 40-60	2016 Syracuse	2016 St. Mary's	Conclusion
vs top 25	30%	29% (2-5)	0% (0-1)	Syracuse was very average in 7 tries. St. Mary's had no real opportunity to prove anything.
vs 26-50	54%	75% (3-1)	67% (2-1)	Both teams are above average. Slight advantage to Syracuse.
vs 51-100	59%	42% (3-4)	80% (4-1)	Huge advantage to St. Mary's.
Expected record vs top 100	N/A	8.4 - 9.6	4.9 - 4.1
Actual record vs top 100	N/A	8 - 10	6 - 3	Syracuse met expectations vs top 100. St. Mary's exceeded expectations.
Bad losses	N/A	246, 131, 106	129, 129	Both had 2 mediocre losses. Syracuse added a terrible loss to 246.
KenPom Rank	N/A	40	34	Tiny advantage St. Mary's.

Expected wins are calculated by multiplying the avg winning % vs a certain group times the number of games played.
For Syracuse, this means (0.30 x 7) + (0.54 x 4) + (0.59 x 7) = 8.4
I've done this rather crudely. The NCAA could easily calculate an expected winning % against groups of 10, or even vs every team 1-351, and take my method to an even greater level of precision. However, for the purposes of this thread, my crude numbers are plenty good for use as an example.

Conclusions:
I don't see how any reasonable human being could see this data and conclude that Syracuse should be ahead of St. Mary's. Clearly, Syracuse won more top 25 games, but they played 7 such games and only performed equal to the average of what the rest of the RPI 40-60 group obtained. I don't see why 2-5 should be a huge advantage over 0-1. Sure, maybe a small amount of credit is due for at least having proven they could beat top 25 teams on occasion, but this is the ONLY possible area where Syracuse outperformed St. Mary's.

St. Mary's exceeded expectations (as compared to avg bubble team) vs the top 100. Syracuse didn't.
St. Mary's played many more games against 101+ teams, yet had fewer bad losses, and nothing close to Syracuse's loss to 246.
St. Mary's had the tiniest edge in KenPom.
Syracuse's 5-6 vs the top 50 DOES NOT make up the deficit of the 3 lines above.

This comparison should have been easy. The committee really screwed up.

[im4wsu]

Could or should a refinement for home.away/neutral be included in the analysis, or is the sample just too small?

Do you know what the 30%, 54% and 59% would be for teams in the 20-40 RPI range and also the 1-20 range?

[giskard]

Here’s an example of how I think the committee should evaluate teams.

	Avg of RPI 40-60	2016 Syracuse	2016 St. Mary's	Conclusion
vs top 25	30%	29% (2-5)	0% (0-1)	Syracuse was very average in 7 tries. St. Mary's had no real opportunity to prove anything.
vs 26-50	54%	75% (3-1)	67% (2-1)	Both teams are above average. Slight advantage to Syracuse.
vs 51-100	59%	42% (3-4)	80% (4-1)	Huge advantage to St. Mary's.
Expected record vs top 100	N/A	8.4 - 9.6	4.9 - 4.1
Actual record vs top 100	N/A	8 - 10	6 - 3	Syracuse met expectations vs top 100. St. Mary's exceeded expectations.
Bad losses	N/A	246, 131, 106	129, 129	Both had 2 mediocre losses. Syracuse added a terrible loss to 246.
KenPom Rank	N/A	40	34	Tiny advantage St. Mary's.

Expected wins are calculated by multiplying the avg winning % vs a certain group times the number of games played.
For Syracuse, this means (0.30 x 7) + (0.54 x 4) + (0.59 x 7) = 8.4
I've done this rather crudely. The NCAA could easily calculate an expected winning % against groups of 10, or even vs every team 1-351, and take my method to an even greater level of precision. However, for the purposes of this thread, my crude numbers are plenty good for use as an example.

Conclusions:
I don't see how any reasonable human being could see this data and conclude that Syracuse should be ahead of St. Mary's. Clearly, Syracuse won more top 25 games, but they played 7 such games and only performed equal to the average of what the rest of the RPI 40-60 group obtained. I don't see why 2-5 should be a huge advantage over 0-1. Sure, maybe a small amount of credit is due for at least having proven they could beat top 25 teams on occasion, but this is the ONLY possible area where Syracuse outperformed St. Mary's.

St. Mary's exceeded expectations (as compared to avg bubble team) vs the top 100. Syracuse didn't.
St. Mary's played many more games against 101+ teams, yet had fewer bad losses, and nothing close to Syracuse's loss to 246.
St. Mary's had the tiniest edge in KenPom.
Syracuse's 5-6 vs the top 50 DOES NOT make up the deficit of the 3 lines above.

This comparison should have been easy. The committee really screwed up.

Keep in mind that the loss to a 246 was when they were "without their coach". Remember that the committee took that into account, even though it was a suspension for violating NCAA rules.

[WuShock16]

Keep in mind that the loss to a 246 was when they were "without their coach". Remember that the committee took that into account, even though it was a suspension for violating NCAA rules.

How many here think that WSU would have received the same break if Gregg was suspended for the Loyola game?

I know that you know that. Just another part of my continued hatred for the NCAA... :ranting2:

[Cdizzle]

How many here think that WSU would have received the same break if Gregg was suspended for the Loyola game?

I know that you know that. Just another part of my continued hatred for the NCAA... :ranting2:

We certainly didn't get to discount the loss while Clevin Hannah was out or while Frankamp was sitting out due to rules. I've never been more mad at the NCAA than this case. You're literally giving someone who cheated a break because they were sitting out for cheating. It's the best case of NCAA logic I've ever seen.

[giskard]

We certainly didn't get to discount the loss while Clevin Hannah was out or while Frankamp was sitting out due to rules. I've never been more mad at the NCAA than this case. You're literally giving someone who cheated a break because they were sitting out for cheating. It's the best case of NCAA logic I've ever seen.

In some ways, they might have had a better resume with him being suspended and the committee taking into account him not being with the team. If him being there only converts one of two losses into a win, blotting out the losses during the suspension would improve their resume.

Gotta love the hypocrisy of the National Corrupt Athletic Association!

Although I think things with Syracuse were bad, sweeping everything at North Carolina under the rug is worse.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Could or should a refinement for home.away/neutral be included in the analysis, or is the sample just too small?

Do you know what the 30%, 54% and 59% would be for teams in the 20-40 RPI range and also the 1-20 range?

Yes. The committee could AND should adjust for home and road. A simple category called "adjusted top 50" would work well IMO.

Adjusted top 50 = top 30 home games, top 50 neutral games, top 70 road games.
Adjusted 51-100 = 31-81 home games, 51-100 neutral games, 71-121 road games.
and so on...

That would effectively mean a home win over 31 = neutral win over 51 = road win over 71. It would be super easy to calculate for every team and then the analysis I used in my original post could be followed using the adjusted records vs each category.

[WSUwatcher]

Gotta love the hypocrisy of the National Corrupt Athletic Association!

Although I think things with Syracuse were bad, sweeping everything at North Carolina under the rug is worse.

Yes -- as someone proposed a while back when Louisville opted out of the tournament, the "Meanwhile, in Chapel Hill..." theme is still out there waiting for action by someone (anyone!) in charge of something. But I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: As for Jamar's suggestion, I have a simpler one: throw out the bogus "resumes" altogether. Turn the ranking over to a computer using an agreed upon and publicly disclosed formula; then, when the top 68 (still a ridiculous number, by the way) pop up at the end of the season, let the committee do its one job of arranging them so as to follow the established rules regarding protected seeds, geography, avoiding conference foes, etc. That may necessitate a bit of moving seeds around, but it should be limited to one or two lines at most; and no one should be allowed to be dropped into or pulled out of the silly First Four welfare program for the Dayton economy, regardless of what the rules for the field would otherwise mandate -- moved around within the First Four, yes; added or removed, no.

[Onegreatracer]

Blind resumes. Period. Eliminates the chance of storylines and P5 bias.

[WuShock16]

Blind resumes. Period. Eliminates the chance of storylines and P5 bias.

Problem is that when a person looks at "blind resumes" and sees a 5-6 Top 50 record versus a 2-2, the person can guess which is the P5 and which is not.

[shockmonster]

Problem is that when a person looks at "blind resumes" and sees a 5-6 Top 50 record versus a 2-2, the person can guess which is the P5 and which is not.

Yes. There no such thing as a blind resume

[DwShock]

Just let Gregg Marshall pick the field. Simple.

[choida]

Blind resumes. Period. Eliminates the chance of storylines and P5 bias.

This would be real cool and show the pundits the fair way of selecting teams

[Shockers5150]

I'm still too pissed about what they did to WSU. Shox should have been playing OU in Ok City to go to the sweet 16. Eff the committee.

[MadaboutWu]

Yes. The committee could AND should adjust for home and road. A simple category called "adjusted top 50" would work well IMO.

Adjusted top 50 = top 30 home games, top 50 neutral games, top 70 road games.
Adjusted 51-100 = 31-81 home games, 51-100 neutral games, 71-121 road games.
and so on...

That would effectively mean a home win over 31 = neutral win over 51 = road win over 71. It would be super easy to calculate for every team and then the analysis I used in my original post could be followed using the adjusted records vs each category.

This is a crucial adjustment. Well put. Do you know the actual discrepency in difficulty? I think it might be even more dramatic than your off the cuff example.