sagarin

Consensus Ranking: Drexel, Murray, San Diego St Overrated

Shawn Siegel — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:24:09 -0800

In the latest Consensus Ranking (CR), Colorado St, Tennessee, Ole Miss, and NC State are the hottest teams over the last 10 days. All four of those squads are on the NCAA Tournament bubble, and rising at the right time. Cincinnati also rose 9 spots to 41st and has to be considered a Tournament lock at this point. The bubble team that fell the most was Seton Hall.

According to the CR, Drexel, San Diego St, and Murray St are extremely overrated vs the AP ranking. This is something to consider when you fill out your brackets next week. On the underrated side, Saint Louis and Memphis remain the most underrated. If these two teams get 6 or 7 seeds, they could be very dangerous to 2 or 3 seeds.

The computers like Ohio St as much as AP #2 Syracuse, and think Indiana is better than their AP ranking suggests. In general, the computers think the Big Ten is even better than people realize, with the lone exception being Michigan.

What Is It?
With the advent of computer rankings & metrics, we have many tools that attempt to overcome historical biases to rank teams fairly. Taking a consensus average of these rankings, we get a good sense of the lay of the land and can see where the human voters differ with the computers. More importantly, we can see whether there is a pattern to the human biases and whether certain teams are consistently mis-valued compared to their peers.

83 teams are ranked, consisting of A) any team with AP votes, B) any team in the RPI Top 60, C) any team in CHN Top 50, D) any team in the KenPom Top 50, and E) any team previously included. The teams are ranked by an average of their RPI, Sagarin, and KenPom ratings. At the right of the chart is the team's current AP ranking and their consensus ranking in the last two updates.

Rank	Team	RPI	KenPom	Sagarin	Avg	Last	2 Weeks	AP
1	Kentucky	2	1	1	1.3	1	1	1
2	Ohio St	7	2	2	3.7	3	4	7
3t	Syracuse	1	6	5	4.0	4	2t	2
3t	UNC	3	5	4	4.0	6	6	4
5	Kansas	6	4	3	4.3	5	5	3
6	Michigan St	5	3	6	4.7	2	2t	8
7t	Duke	4	16	10	10.0	7	8	6
7t	Indiana	11	10	9	10.0	13t	13	15
9	Missouri	16	9	7	10.7	9	7	5
10	Wichita St	14	8	11	11.0	8	14	16
11	Baylor	9	14	12	11.7	11t	12	12
12t	Wisconsin	24	7	8	13.0	13t	9t	14
12t	Marquette	8	17	14	13.0	10	11	9
14	Georgetown	17	13	13	14.3	11t	9t	13
15	Memphis	18	11	15	14.7	15t	23	31
16	Michigan	12	19	20	17.0	18	18	10
17	Saint Louis	30	12	17	19.7	19	16	37t
18	Florida	29	18	16	21.0	15	15	22
19	UNLV	10	32	22	21.3	17	19t	20
20	Louisville	20	26	19	21.7	21	21	27
21	New Mexico	34	15	18	22.3	20	17	29
22t	Vanderbilt	28	20	29	25.7	22t	24	32t
22t	Florida St	23	28	26	25.7	26	19t	17
24	Temple	13	34	34	27.0	27	25	21
25	Creighton	22	36	27	28.3	30	28	19
26t	Kansas St	44	21	21	28.7	29	31t	36
26t	California	35	23	28	28.7	28	22
28t	Purdue	41	22	24	29.0	32	40
28t	Gonzaga	25	31	31	29.0	25	26	24
30	Virginia	42	25	23	30.0	24	27	30
31	Alabama	32	29	30	30.3	22t	29
32t	Texas	43	27	25	31.7	34	31t
32t	Iowa St	33	30	32	31.7	31	35t	25
34	St. Mary's	26	42	35	34.3	35	39	26
35	Murray St	19	44	41	34.7	40	46	11
36	UCONN	31	37	37	35.0	33	33
37	Notre Dame	37	38	39	38.0	36	38	23
38	Belmont	60	24	33	39.0	38	44
39t	Harvard	36	40	44	40.0	37	30	37t
39t	Long Beach St	39	39	42	40.0	39	41	35
41t	Cincinnati	59	33	36	42.7	50	52	34
41t	San Diego St	27	55	46	42.7	46	48	18
43	Miami	52	35	43	43.3	44	45
44t	West Virginia	51	43	38	44.0	45	34
44t	VCU	38	45	49	44.0	51t	57	32t
46	BYU	45	49	40	44.7	41	35t
47	Southern Miss	15	68	54	45.7	42t	37
48	Iona	40	53	52	48.3	47	49
49	NC State	55	48	45	49.3	59	53t
50	Seton Hall	64	47	47	52.7	42t	42
51t	South Dakota St	48	56	60	54.7	55	x
51t	Colorado St	21	72	71	54.7	66	69
53t	Drexel	70	41	56	55.7	58	64	28
53t	MTSU	58	59	50	55.7	48	43
55	Northwestern	57	57	55	56.3	49	47
56	Xavier	54	60	57	57.0	53	53t
57	Arizona	77	50	48	58.3	51t	50
58	South Florida	46	65	67	59.3	62	62
59	St. Joseph's	61	64	58	61.0	54	51
60t	Minnesota	87	54	51	64.0	64t	55
60t	Tennessee	78	52	62	64.0	75	x
60t	Oregon	63	63	66	64.0	63	61
63	Washington	68	66	61	65.0	56	58
64	Dayton	74	62	63	66.3	57	75
65t	Stanford	97	51	53	67.0	70	71
65t	Davidson	65	67	69	67.0	61	68
67	La Salle	80	58	65	67.7	69	56
68	Marshall	56	75	76	69.0	73	63
69	Akron	62	79	73	71.3	67t	60
70	Ole Miss	53	80	82	71.7	80	79
71	Ohio	69	74	74	72.3	72	78
72t	Illinois	91	70	59	73.3	60	59
72t	UCF	50	81	89	73.3	76	70
74	Mississippi St	71	83	68	74.0	67t	66
75	Oral Roberts	47	100	80	75.7	64t	65
76	UCLA	129	46	64	79.7	x	x
77	Northern Iowa	73	96	78	82.3	71	67
78	Cleveland St	84	84	81	83.0	74	73
79	Denver	92	76	84	84.0	77	74
80	Nevada	49	103	101	84.3	79	76
81	Virginia Tech	114	86	79	93.0	78	77
82	Wagner	88	115	102	101.7	81	72
83	Arkansas	110	132	110	117.3	82	80

Most Overrated: AP vs. the computer ranking:

Drexel +25

Murray St +24

San Diego St +23

Notre Dame +14

VCU +12

Saint Mary's +8

Cincinnati +7

Iowa St +7

Creighton +6

Michgan +6

Most Underrated: AP vs. the computer ranking:

Teams w/ votes

Saint Louis -20

Memphis -16

Kansas St -10

Vanderbilt -10

Indiana -8 / UNM -8

Teams w/ no votes

California

Purdue

Alabama

Texas

UCONN

Biggest Changes In Last Week:

Rising

Colorado St +15

Tennessee +10

NC State +10

Ole Miss +10

Cincinnati +9

Falling

Illinois -12

Oral Roberts -11

Alabama -9

Seton Hall -8

What do you think? Post comments below, send a tweet to @collegehoopsnet, or follow facebook.com/collegehoopsnet.

Consensus Ranking: Alabama, Memphis Underrated

Shawn Siegel — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:04:00 -0800

Despite falling to 10th in the AP poll, Ohio St remains strong in the Consensus Ranking (CR). The computers were nonplussed by the Buckeyes loss to Wisconsin. Similarly, Missouri only fell two spots despite a pair of losses. The biggest losers this week were actually La Salle, West Virginia, and Marshall.

On the positive side, Dayton, Memphis, and Purdue made the strongest moves. Interesting that although the computers respected those teams, it was the likes of Iowa St, Drexel, and VCU that the AP voters hyped up.

Making their debut in the CR is South Dakota St and Tennessee. South Dakota St moved into the RPI top 60 and comes in at a very respectable 57th, ahead of many teams getting bubble love. SD St is also 9 spots ahead of Oral Roberts, despite trailing in the Summit standings. Tennessee comes in at a less respectable 75th, the lowest rank of any team getting bubble love.

Also of note, Wichita St moves into the top 10 for the first time. The Shockers are consistently respected across the board, though the AP voters have been slower to jump on the bandwagon. Lastly, Saint Louis is the highest CR team without a single AP vote. The Billikens lost at Rhode Island, which the computers were not as concerned about.

What Is It?

With the advent of computer rankings & metrics, we have many tools that attempt to overcome historical biases to rank teams fairly. Taking a consensus average of these rankings, we get a good sense of the lay of the land and can see where the human voters differ with the computers. More importantly, we can see whether there is a pattern to the human biases and whether certain teams are consistently mis-valued compared to their peers.

82 teams are ranked, consisting of A) any team with AP votes, B) any team in the RPI Top 60, C) any team in CHN Top 50, D) any team in the KenPom Top 50, and E) any team previously included. The teams are ranked by an average of their RPI, Sagarin, and KenPom ratings. At the right of the chart is the team's current AP ranking and their consensus ranking in the last two updates.

Below the ranking, you'll find a list of the most overrated and underrated teams, as well as teams that moved the most since the last update.

Rank	Team	RPI	KenPom	Sagarin	Avg	Last	2 Weeks	AP
1	Kentucky	3	1	1	1.7	1	2t	1
2	Michigan St	4	3	3	3.3	2t	4	5
3	Ohio St	7	2	2	3.7	4	1	10
4	Syracuse	1	6	5	4.0	2t	2t	2
5	Kansas	6	4	4	4.7	5	5	3
6	UNC	5	7	6	6.0	6	6t	6
7	Duke	2	10	9	7.0	8	9	4
8	Wichita St	10	8	10	9.3	14	18	15
9	Missouri	16	9	7	10.7	7	8	7
10	Marquette	8	16	13	12.3	11	15	8
11t	Georgetown	12	13	14	13.0	9t	11	11
11t	Baylor	9	18	12	13.0	12	6t	9
13t	Wisconsin	27	5	8	13.3	9t	13t	14
13t	Indiana	18	11	11	13.3	13	10	18
15	Florida	19	17	15	17.0	15	12	16
15t	Memphis	21	14	16	17.0	23	23	36
17	UNLV	11	30	20	20.3	19t	13t	17
18	Michigan	13	25	24	20.7	18	22	13
19	Saint Louis	34	12	18	21.3	16	19
20	New Mexico	33	15	17	21.7	17	21	29
21	Louisville	20	27	19	22.0	21	24	19
22t	Vanderbilt	22	20	26	22.7	24	31	31
22t	Alabama	24	21	23	22.7	29	26	40
24	Virginia	38	19	22	26.3	27	25	24
25	Gonzaga	17	33	31	27.0	26	27t	26
26	Florida St	25	29	28	27.3	19t	16	22
27	Temple	15	34	34	27.7	25	34	23
28	California	36	24	25	28.3	22	32t	37t
29	Kansas St	45	23	21	29.7	31t	32t	39t
30	Creighton	23	39	30	30.7	28	17	25
31	Iowa St	31	31	33	31.7	35t	35t	27
32	Purdue	40	28	29	32.3	40	44t	37t
33	UCONN	30	36	38	34.7	33	29
34	Texas	55	26	27	36.0	31t	37t
35	St. Mary's	32	41	36	36.3	39	20	28
36	Notre Dame	42	32	37	37.0	38	50	20
37	Harvard	37	35	40	37.3	30	37t	35
38	Belmont	59	22	32	37.7	44	x
39	Long Beach St	35	42	41	39.3	41	39	33
40	Murray St	29	48	43	40.0	46	47	12
41	BYU	49	38	35	40.7	35t	35t	34
42t	Seton Hall	44	43	44	43.7	42	49
42t	Southern Miss	14	66	51	43.7	37	30	39t
44	Miami	48	40	45	44.3	45	46
45	West Virginia	50	45	39	44.7	34	27t
46	San Diego St	28	60	49	45.7	48	41	21
47	Iona	41	49	48	46.0	49	51
48	MTSU	47	50	47	48.0	43	40
49	Northwestern	43	56	53	50.7	47	54
50	Cincinnati	77	37	42	52.0	52	59
51t	Arizona	67	44	46	52.3	50	44t
51t	VCU	60	47	50	52.3	57	x	32
53	Xavier	54	53	56	54.3	53t	53
54	St. Joseph's	51	64	58	57.7	51	55
55	South Dakota St	56	57	62	58.3	x	x
56	Washington	52	68	59	59.7	58	60
57	Dayton	61	59	60	60.0	75	69
58	Drexel	74	46	61	60.3	64	x	30
59	NC State	71	58	54	61.0	53t	x
60	Illinois	72	63	52	62.3	59	42
61	Davidson	65	62	64	63.7	68	62t
62	South Florida	46	69	77	64.0	62	x
63	Oregon	53	72	68	64.3	61	x
64t	Minnesota	82	61	55	66.0	55	43
64t	Oral Roberts	39	89	70	66.0	65	57
66	Colorado St	26	88	91	68.3	69	65
67t	Akron	58	78	72	69.3	60	56
67t	Mississippi St	64	81	63	69.3	66	48
69	La Salle	89	55	65	69.7	56	x
70	Stanford	106	54	57	72.3	71	62t
71	Northern Iowa	63	82	75	73.3	67	58
72	Ohio	78	74	73	75.0	78	68
73	Marshall	62	84	81	75.7	63	64
74	Cleveland St	75	76	78	76.3	73	52
75	Tennessee	92	65	76	77.7	x	x
76	UCF	66	80	89	78.3	70	71
77	Denver	91	73	80	81.3	74	72
78	Virginia Tech	104	77	66	82.3	77	66
79	Nevada	57	105	101	87.7	76	x
80	Ole Miss	69	103	98	90.0	79	70
81	Wagner	80	104	93	92.3	72	67
82	Arkansas	84	111	97	97.3	80	61

Most Overrated: AP vs. the computer ranking:

Drexel +28

Murray St +28

San Diego St +25

VCU +19

Notre Dame +16

BYU +7

Saint Mary's +7

LBSU +6

Most Underrated: AP vs. the computer ranking:

Teams w/ votes

Memphis -21

Alabama -18

Kansas St -10

California -9

New Mexico -9
Vanderbilt -9

Teams w/ no votes

Saint Louis

UCONN

Texas

Belmont

Seton Hall

Biggest Changes In Last Week:

Rising

Dayton +18

Memphis +8

Purdue +8

Alabama +7

Davidson +7

Falling

La Salle -13

West Virginia -11

Marshall -10

Minnesota -9

Akron/Harvard -7

Biggest Changes In Last Two Weeks:

Rising

Notre Dame +14

Purdue +12

Dayton +12

Vanderbilt +9

Wichita St +9

Falling

Arkansas -21

Minnesota -21

Mississippi St -19

Illinois -18

West Virginia -18

What do you think? Post comments below, send a tweet to @collegehoopsnet, or follow facebook.com/collegehoopsnet.

Consensus Ranking: Michigan St Tied For 2nd

Shawn Siegel — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:44:25 -0800

After missing last week's Consensus Ranking due to extensive travel, this week's list grows to include 7 new teams, the highest of which is #44 Belmont.

At the top of the ranking, Kentucky takes over #1, edging Syracuse who has slumped in the Sagarin & KenPom ratings (due to close wins).

Wichita St sits at 14th in the CR. The Shockers have been in the Consensus Top 20 for over a month, while the AP voters have been slow to recognize how good they are. Saint Louis, 16th in the CR, is not getting the AP love either. The Bills are the most underrated team according to the computers. Other underrated teams include Cal and Memphis.

On the overrated side, we find the usual suspects (San Diego St & Murray St) joined by two new CAA teams. While the AP voters are showing the hot CAA teams love, the computers are not impressed. VCU and Drexel sit 57th and 64th in the CR despite getting Top 25 votes. Perhaps simply a holdover from last year's VCU run.

Notre Dame is also considered highly overrated by the computers. Notre Dame is 38th in the CR, and all 3 ratings feel quite similarly about the Irish. The computers feel Notre Dame's extended winning streak has a lot to do with weak opponents.

In the last two weeks, Mississippi St has dropped 18 spots in the CR due to three straight losses. At 66th, the Bulldogs are considered worse than the likes of Marshall, Oregon, and Akron.

What Is It?

80 teams are ranked, consisting of A) any team with AP votes, B) any team in the RPI Top 60, C) any team in CHN Top 50, D) any team in the KenPom Top 50, and E) any team previously included. The teams are ranked by an average of their RPI, Sagarin, and KenPom ratings. At the right of the chart is the team's current AP ranking and their consensus ranking in the last two updates.

Below the ranking, you'll find a list of the most overrated and underrated teams, as well as teams that moved the most since the last update.

Rank	Team	RPI	KenPom	Sagarin	Avg	2 Weeks	3 Weeks	AP
1	Kentucky	4	1	1	2.0	2t	4	1
2t	Michigan St	2	3	5	3.3	4	5	6
2t	Syracuse	1	5	4	3.3	2t	3	2
4	Ohio St	7	2	2	3.7	1	2	8
5	Kansas	6	4	3	4.3	5	1	4
6	UNC	5	7	6	6.0	6t	7	7
7	Missouri	9	8	7	8.0	8	8	3
8	Duke	3	13	9	8.3	9	9	5
9t	Wisconsin	23	6	8	12.3	13t	11	16
9t	Georgetown	13	12	12	12.3	11	12	9
11	Marquette	8	16	15	13.0	15	14	10
12	Baylor	10	17	14	13.7	6t	6	13
13	Indiana	16	15	11	14.0	10	13	23
14	Wichita St	15	10	19	14.7	18	15	19
15	Florida	18	14	13	15.0	12	16	12
16	Saint Louis	22	11	17	16.7	19	21	29
17	New Mexico	26	9	16	17.0	21	28	18
18	Michigan	14	23	22	19.7	22	29	11
19t	Florida St	19	21	21	20.3	16	18	15
19t	UNLV	12	29	20	20.3	13t	10	21
21	Louisville	20	25	18	21.0	24	36	17
22	California	30	18	19	22.3	32t	22	33
23	Memphis	25	19	24	22.7	23	25
24	Vanderbilt	24	24	28	25.3	31	31	31t
25	Temple	17	31	32	26.7	34	32	22
26	Gonzaga	21	33	30	28.0	27t	20	27
27	Virginia	42	20	23	28.3	25	27	25
28	Creighton	28	37	27	30.7	17	17	26
29	Alabama	36	28	29	31.0	26	26
30	Harvard	31	30	37	32.7	37t	41	31t
31t	Texas	51	22	26	33.0	37t	42
31t	Kansas St	49	26	25	33.3	32t	19
33	UCONN	27	39	39	35.0	29	30
34	West Virginia	40	36	33	36.3	27t	24
35t	BYU	48	32	31	37.0	35t	34	28
35t	Iowa St	41	34	36	37.0	35t	48
37	Southern Miss	11	53	48	37.3	30	38
38	Notre Dame	38	38	40	38.7	50	x	20
39	St. Mary's	32	48	38	39.3	20	23	34
40	Purdue	52	35	34	40.3	44t	47
41	Long Beach St	39	44	41	41.3	39	37	35
42	Seton Hall	34	46	45	41.7	49	39
43	MTSU	37	49	43	43.0	40	40
44	Belmont	70	27	35	44.0	x	x
45	Miami	46	42	46	44.7	46	x
46	Murray St	35	57	47	46.3	47	35	14
47	Northwestern	43	50	49	47.3	54	50
48	San Diego St	33	60	53	48.7	41	33	24
49	Iona	44	52	51	49.0	51	51
50	Arizona	67	41	44	50.7	44t	54
51	St. Joseph's	47	59	57	54.3	55	57
52	Cincinnati	82	40	42	54.7	59	58
53t	NC State	60	55	52	55.7	x	x
535	Xavier	53	58	56	55.7	53	49
55	Minnesota	72	51	50	57.7	43	45
56	La Salle	71	45	59	58.3	x	x
57	VCU	80	43	54	59.0	x	x	36
58	Washington	56	65	60	60.3	60	x
59	Illinois	69	63	55	62.3	42	43
60	Akron	64	62	63	63.0	56	x
61	Oregon	55	67	72	64.7	x	x
62	South Florida	50	69	76	65.0	x	x
63	Marshall	57	68	71	65.3	64	63
64	Drexel	86	47	64	65.7	x	x	30
65	Oral Roberts	45	90	65	66.7	57	53
66	Mississippi St	59	81	61	67.0	48	44
67	Northern Iowa	63	80	70	71.0	58	56
68	Davidson	76	66	75	72.3	62t	52
69	Colorado St	29	98	91	72.7	65	65
70	UCF	54	82	85	73.7	71	64
71	Stanford	104	61	58	74.3	62t	59
72	Wagner	68	88	78	78.0	67	68
73	Cleveland St	75	86	77	79.3	52	60
74	Denver	96	70	80	82.0	72	67
75	Dayton	74	92	82	82.7	69	46
76	Nevada	58	101	100	86.3	x	x
77	Virginia Tech	102	85	74	87.0	66	55
78	Ohio	90	100	89	93.0	68	62
79	Ole Miss	62	115	107	94.7	70	66
80	Arkansas	87	112	99	99.3	61	61

Most Overrated: AP vs. the computer ranking:

Drexel +34

Murray St +32

San Diego St +24

VCU +21

Notre Dame +18

BYU +7

Michigan +7

LBSU +6

Most Underrated: AP vs. the computer ranking:

Teams w/ votes

Saint Louis -13

California -11

Indiana -10

Vanderbilt -7

Wisconsin -7

Teams w/ no votes

Memphis

Alabama

Texas

Kansas St

Biggest Changes In Last 2 Weeks:

Rising

Notre Dame +12

California +10

Temple +9

Harvard +7

Seton Hall +7

Vanderbilt +7

Falling

Cleveland St -21

Arkansas -19

Saint Mary's -19

Mississippi St -18

Illinois -17

Minnesota -12

Biggest Changes In Last Three Weeks:

Rising

Louisville +15

Iowa St +13

Northwestern +13

Harvard +11

New Mexico +11

Texas +11

Falling

Dayton -29

Mississippi St -22

Virginia Tech -22

Minnesota -20

Arkansas -19

Davidson/Illinois/SMC -16

What do you think? Post comments below, send a tweet to @collegehoopsnet, or follow facebook.com/collegehoopsnet.

Bracketology Trip: NCAA Mock Selection Committee: Part Three

Shawn Siegel — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:09:09 -0800

Shawn Siegel is taking part in the NCAA's "Mock Selection Committee" in Indianapolis. Each day, he's reporting on the day's events and answering questions on Twitter @collegehoopsnet. Follow the action as the bracket is finalized on Friday.

The NCAA first held the media "Mock Selection" in 2007 as part of an ongoing effort to improve the transparency in what was once a very secretive NCAA Tournament selection process. Of course, with greater transparency comes greater scrutiny. And although the NCAA Selection Committee usually ends up with a pretty darn good field of 68, there is much about the process that deserves to be scrutinized.

What Does "Best" Really Mean?

To me, the largest glaring problem with the selection process is the broad question of: What are they actually selecting? The NCAA's official position is that they select "the 37 best at-large teams." But "best" can mean two very different things. Best can mean a) The 37 teams that had the best results before Selection Sunday, or best can mean b) The 37 teams that the committee thinks will do the best in the days after Selection Sunday. This is a huge distinction, although the committee chair and others from the NCAA didn't seem to understand or care about the distinction.

Let me give you an example: Alabama is under a bit of strife with multiple player suspensions, and it was unknown whether the players would return for remaining games. (In the hypothetical mock selection, the remaining games would only be NCAA Tournament games since the season hypothetically ended today.) Some committee members suggested that the status of those players would hugely alter their seeding, or whether they even made the tournament. This suggests that the seeding/selecting is based on how the team will fare going forward, but yet the committee chair (the real one, not the mock one) Jeff Hathaway said specifically the committee does not "project" the future. Based on the totality of their regular season, Alabama might be considered the 35th best team, but without those players, they might be considered the 100th as of tomorrow. It is unclear how this issue should be resolved because of the NCAA's ambiguity on what the whole purpose of the tournament is. On the one hand, the chairman says its simply about the "totality of the season", but on the other hand, its not.

(This leads to a larger question about the lack of real criteria for the selection process. Although the committee chair spoke of criteria, the committee members can pretty much bring whatever thoughts on a team they feel like to the table, and thus the criteria are not really criteria, but simply vague preferences.)

The RPI Is One of Many Factors.. But Not Really

The second glaring problem is how the NCAA presents their statistics to the committee members. The NCAA says, "The RPI is one of many resources/tools available to the committee." In some sense, this is true, the committee has access to other resources (including but not limited to the human polls, other rankings, and personal perspectives on teams from advisory members). However, the major information interface that the committee members sees is entirely based on the RPI. For example, the "Team Sheet" includes RPI, records vs RPI Top 50, Top 100 etc, Avg RPI win, AVG RPI loss, all the opponents with their RPI next to them, etc. Nowhere on the main interface is any other statistical measure referenced.

Now, I don't have a major bone to pick with the RPI. To me, it is no better or worse than other ratings (Sagarin, Pomeroy, etc), but it is clearly different. It is one perspective amongst many. All one has to do is see the wild computer variations in a team like Cincinnati (buried at 93rd in the RPI, but up at 41st in Pomeroy's rating) to see how different these two computer systems see things.

The committee will say that the RPI is not the "only" or "main" rating they use, but it is by far the most prominent (by a wide, wide, wide margin.) Whether or not committee members solely focus on the RPI, there has to be an unconscious or conscious effect of seeing Cincinnati 93rd over and over (vs 41, 41, 41).

Odd Reasoning

The NCAA's retort for why the RPI is so prominent was two-fold: a) there has to be some underlying statistical analysis to present the information in a clear and easy fashion, and b) we can all agree the top RPI teams are "really" the good ones and the bad ones the bad ones (and the top teams in the RPI are similar to the top one's in other ratings), and since it is only part of the puzzle.. so be it.

To counter the first retort: This is true, one unifying system is preferred. Being presented with 6 team sheets for one team, multiplied by 100 teams, multiplied by the dozens of times each team is looked at, would be unmanageable. So agreed, there should be one set of numbers to organize the information. But the question remains: why the RPI? Or, as some of the media members suggested, why not an aggregate/consensus ranking of the RPI, Sagarin, Pomeroy, etc. As shown by the Cincinnati example (just one of many), there is huge variation amongst the ratings (especially once you get out of the Top 10) and a consensus would help remove the noise.

To counter the second retort: That's just ridiculous.

It's Not All Bad. Though There's Still More Bad.

I don't want to make it seem like the Selection Process is all bad. It's not. (Though I could write a whole article criticizing the shocking focus on the "eye-ball" test and live/tv analysis of teams as opposed to cold, hard numbers. Committee members are encouraged to use subjective feelings about how good teams "look" in their decision-making process. There were echoes of "Moneyball" here. The NCAA Selection Committee is unfortunately the Art Howe of "Moneyball" and not the Peter Brand/Paul DePodesta. If these guys showed up at a fantasy baseball draft, these are the guys who would pick AJ Burnett ahead of CC Sabathia because they saw him throw "nasty" stuff a few times.)

Okay, Finally, The Good

Anyways, back to the good. The good is that the committee cares. A lot. They spend a ton of time dissecting and discussing the pros and cons of each team. They prepare by watching and attending tons of games (whether this should matter or not is besides the point. The point is they put in time.) They are proud of being part of the process. They take precautions to remove personal biases from the process. The shuffle and sort ad nauseum. (Literally, I was a bit nauseous following an ill-chosen dinner break of hot wings.)

And they care a ton about getting things right. The only problem is that what they're getting at is ambiguous at "best".

I'll have more to discuss later tonight and tomorrow once the field is finalized. There are fan questions that remain to be answered, as well as more criticisms to discuss. There are also a few more positives to discuss as well.