The annual handwringing over the work of the NCAA men’s basketball selection committee has begun, despite genuinely consistent selections in the NET era.
This year, though: I am stumped.
What coaches, administrators and, yes, bracketologists look for most from the committee is consistency. And at least one of this year’s selections is extremely inconsistent.
You want to include Texas and its seven Quad 1 wins? I can absolutely live with that, despite the 15 losses, the 6-12 league record and the No. 287 non-conference schedule.
But then you simply cannot include North Carolina, as well. The Tar Heels are the opposite of the Longhorns. The No. 5 non-conference schedule produced exactly one Quad 1 win in a whopping 13 attempts. That is disqualifying to me in an era that has, correctly, prioritized winning the highest-level games.
I suspect we’ll hear a lot about the two teams’ combined records in Quad 1 and Quad 2, which are indeed similar. But that feels a little too much like a convenient answer searching for what is ultimately the wrong question.
Yes, North Carolina and Texas each have 10 combined Q1/Q2 wins. Was that really what got them in over the likes of West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio State or Boise State? West Virginia also had 10 combined Q1/Q2 wins, Indiana and Ohio State each had nine combined wins in Q1/Q2 and Boise had eight. Not enough of a difference from my seat.
The question should always be: What message is being sent to schools for future tournaments? Does it matter if a team equals the record of most losses for an at-large team, as long as they win big games (Texas)? Or do teams not even need to worry about winning games if the schedule is hard enough (UNC)?
I’m not wild about rewarding either path, but I’m appalled to reward both. I also can’t imagine it was intentional — neither the process nor the people in the room are about anything other than trying to get it right. And if the job remains getting it right, this committee did not.It’s a mixed message of the worst kind. That winning doesn’t matter, except when it does — kind of like telling yourself not to drink while reaching for another beer.
For the record, I don’t buy the conspiracy theories or the side eye being given to committee chair and North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham. A supermajority of committee members made these selections, and no one has more than one vote. I’m calling their logic into question, not their integrity.
I’d also like to think I have a pretty good appreciation of the complexities of this process. I often look back and say, “Hey, I get what they were thinking on that one. Could have gone either way.”
This committee could have gone either way, too. North Carolina or Texas, but not both.
As for the rest of the bracket, not too much was a surprise after watching these teams all season. But there were a few things that stood out:
-
West Virginia was robbed of a spot. The Mountaineers beat Gonzaga and Arizona in Maui. They also beat Kansas and Iowa on the way to a 10-10 finish in the Big 12. That’s more than enough when compared to many other teams in this field.
-
Louisville as an 8-seed? Again, inconsistency from the committee rears its head. The Cardinals had a combined 15 Q1/Q2 wins and went 18-2 in the ACC. If North Carolina had done that, the Tar Heels might have been a 1-seed (wink, wink…).
-
The top eight teams — Auburn, Duke, Houston, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Michigan State, St. John’s — are as strong as any group of one and two seeds I can remember. Collectively, this top eight has won 148 Q1/Q2 games. All could have been stand-alone 1-seeds in other seasons.
Let the madness begin!
