The Weak in Review: NCAA Selection Committee

But forget the who got in/who got left out qualms.  How about the seeding choices?  Villanova, who finished cooler than a polar bear's toenail losing five of their last seven games including a drubbing to eventual 1-seed Syracuse, as a 2?  If I were a hiring manager and Villanova were a perspective employee, I'd look right past their shining GPA (11 in the RPI) and focus on their immediate job performance.  Weak.

Jay Wright, upon hearing the news that Villanova was a 2-seed.

How about Tennessee dropping all the way to a 6-seed after getting drubbed by Kentucky?  Sure, that was an embarrassing loss, but Tennessee is 14 in the RPI, boasts wins over two no. 1 seeds (Kentucky and Kansas), and finished the season hot.  If not for an unfortunate draw in the SEC Championship (due to their shitacular bracketing method), they likely would have played in the finals.  But forget speaking in hypotheticals, Tennessee's resume alone deserved higher than a 6-seed.  Weak.

I'm sorry you got screwed Mr. Pearl, but that is one ugly ass jacket.

Then you have Purdue.  Purdue was an extremely solid choice for a 4-seed...two weeks ago, when their best player, Robbie Hummel, wasn't hurt.  Obviously it seems unfair to penalize a team just because they lose a player, but Purdue has taken an enormous dip without Hummel.  They were knocked out of the Big 10 Tournament by Minnesota in an ass-kicking that would make Brian Mills jealous.  Their scoring averaged dipped from 73.4 ppg to an astounding 58.6, and Hummel won't be back.  I smell a Siena upset.  Weak.

Hummel-less Purdue is about as inspiring as sober Mel Gibson.

Really there appears to be little rhyme or reason to the Selection Committee's mania.  They choose who they want at their own discretion with little regards to statistical (or any other method) reasoning.  The Selection Committee is comprised of athletic directors from across the country.  Does this strike anyone else as inherently flawed?  Why not have a panel of unbiased arbitrators consisting of statisticians and experts who actually take the time to watch the games? 

No, we cannot expect every panel member to watch every game.  But I sure as hell bet Fran Fraschilla watched more basketball than Mike Slive this year.  The NCAA's elusive selection process only leads to more wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.  And what's their solution?  Expansion!  How exciting. Nevermind that the lowest seeded team to every win it all is an 8-seeded Villanova squad over 20 years ago.  And never once has a 16-seed beaten a 1-seed. 

Yes, it will happen someday.  But expansion would only add more average teams to the pool and make for an even less interesting regular season.  As much as it upsets me that a team like Mississippi State didn't get a fair shake after taking a 1-seed to the max, they had no chance at winning the tournament. 

The real issue is that the NCAA Selection committee spends their time speaking in vague uncertainties, double-talking about their methods, cloaking and daggering and never really giving the fans or schools a definitive idea of what it takes to get in.  At least with the BCS you know how you're getting screwed.