Part 6 of our year-by-year deep dives looking at the NCAA Tournament bubbles past brings us to the years 2010-14. The 68-team tourney arrives, TV commentators go ballistic about VCU’s selection in its Final Four year, and inspired picks in 2012 and 2013 are followed by a decided shift in philosophy the next year.

Previous:

Introduction

Part 1: 1985-89

Part 2: 1990-94

Part 3: 1995-99

Part 4: 2000-04

Part 5: 2005-09

2010

Last at-large in by seed: 10 Florida (21-12 record), 10 Georgia Tech (22-12), 10 Missouri (22-10), 11 Minnesota (21-13), 12 Texas-El Paso (26-6), 12 Utah State (27-7)

Left out: Arizona State (22-10), Dayton (20-12), Illinois (19-14), Memphis (23-9), Mississippi State (23-11), Rhode Island (23-9), Seton Hall (19-12), VCU (22-9), Virginia Tech (23-8), Wichita State (25-9), William & Mary (21-10)

Multi-bid conferences: 11

The continued accommodation of double-digit loss teams from major conferences remained in full effect in the 2010 NCAA Tournament selections. Even as the two lowest-seeded at-larges came from outside that sphere, the at-large choices were dominated by the most prominent leagues again, a factor in the total of 11 multi-bid conferences.

Was that a good thing? ESPN’s Jay Bilas called the at-large field “the weakest in the history of the NCAA Tournament.” CBS’s Seth Davis said of his believing that an on-the-fence Florida would get a bid, “I had them in but I had to hold my nose a little bit while I put them in.” Some might say that’s what happens when the tourney includes 12 at-large teams with at least 10 losses. Resume-wise, all of those teams had some strengths, namely in the quality win category that the committee continued to emphasize much more than losses were penalized. Increasingly it had to be asked, though, if those quality wins were signs of excellence, or merely products of increasing collusion in scheduling between the top leagues giving those teams ever-more opportunities in such games?

Among those last two in, UTEP got in with a 16-game winning streak before falling to Houston in the Conference USA final. The Miners won the regular season title in C-USA by two games, and though playing just three top 50 games (winning two), they finished 8-4 against the top 100 and 8-2 in road games. Similarly, Utah State won 17 straight before losing to New Mexico State in the WAC tourney final. The Aggies were 2-1 against the top 50 but 10-5 overall vs. the top 100. A home win over state rival and eventual NCAA 7 seed BYU was gold for the Aggies, who otherwise were 2-3 against the NCAA field including losing two of three to WAC rival and automatic bid winner New Mexico State.

Florida was regarded by many as the most questionable selection, and with good reason. The Gators were just 3-8 against the top 50. The folly of the selection committee’s increasing disregard for when games were played also was shown again; Florida got off to an 8-0 start with back-to-back wins over Florida State and Michigan State in November, then was 1-8 against top 50 teams the rest of the year. Minnesota made the tourney largely thanks to five top 50 wins, four inside the top 25; otherwise, the Golden Gophers’ 6-9 mark against the top 100, four sub-100 losses and 3-7 road record could’ve been big trouble.

Georgia Tech essentially followed what was becoming a tried-and-true major conference formula to a bid: get off to a good start against a mostly friendly schedule, then pick off one or two top teams while finishing around .500 in league play. The Yellow Jackets weren’t even the latter, going 7-9 in the ACC, and their lone win over a top 75 team out of conference was over RPI 31 Siena. GT defeated future NCAA 1 seed Duke at home early in January, though, added home wins over NCAA tourney teams Clemson and Wake Forest, and then edged NCAA 4 seed Maryland in the ACC tourney in a run to the tourney final. Even a 3-8 road record wasn’t an impediment to Tech making the Big Dance.

Among the spurned, the legend of Virginia Tech becoming an almost annual snub began to grow, with the Hokies left out with a 23-8 record. It really shouldn’t have been hard to understand why: Tech played the 338th-ranked non-conference schedule in Division I. Eleven of its wins came against teams ranked 182 or worse in the RPI. Did the committee go too far in its nearly annual making an example of a team or two who played essentially no one out of conference? Perhaps. The Hokies were 3-4 against the top 50 and 8-7 vs. the top 100. But penalizing weak non-league schedules by teams with full leverage to play better teams is one of the best tools the committee can wield to protect competitive balance in the sport. A 59 RPI combined with such a weak non-league schedule frequently spelled doom for teams over the years, and it was little surprise it did again in this case.

Rhode Island had the highest RPI of any team left out but was just 1-5 against the top 50. UAB was 23-8 but with just one top 50 win and was just 4-6 against the top 100. Memphis, Mississippi State and Wichita State all were poor in the top 50 win department (five between the three of them) and all three had at least four sub-100 losses, which the committee clearly believed outweighed their combined 18-2 mark against teams ranked 51-100. The Bulldogs in particular came thisclose to making the tourney, as they were poised to knock off second-ranked Kentucky in the SEC final but Demarcus Cousins scored on a putback at the buzzer to send the game to overtime, where UK went on to win by a point. Memphis and Wichita State both won a lot of games (23 and 25, respectively), but the Tigers came up just short too many times in pursuit of signature wins, while the Shockers’ non-conference schedule graded out poorly at No. 284 nationally with seven sub-200 opponents (even a win over Iowa fell in that category).

Arizona State’s 22 wins included just two vs. the top 50 and four against the top 100 (the Sun Devils were 4-7 against the top 100). Seton Hall was 4-9 against the top 50 and a poor 6-12 vs. the top 100. VCU was 3-2 against the top 50, including wins over rivals Richmond and Old Dominion plus another over bubble team Rhode Island. The Rams also lost in overtime to ODU in the CAA semifinals, but their candidacy was probably derailed by back-to-back losses at George Mason and James Madison in February.

William & Mary also was a legitimate at-large contender out of the Colonial this year, with RPI top 25 non-conference wins on the road at Maryland and Wake Forest part of a 3-3 record vs. the top 50. The Tribe was even 6-7 against the top 100 and 12-7 vs. the top 200, but was hurt badly by three sub-200 losses, two at home. Tony Shaver’s team tied for third in the CAA, and that alone probably kept the Tribe out, but for a program that had just one postseason bid in its history before this year, most figured even the NIT for this program was a major award. And the fact two Colonial teams weren’t far from at-large bids may have foreshadowed what was to come the next year.

2011

Last in: 10 Florida State (21-10), 10 Georgia (21-11), 10 Michigan State (19-14), 10 Penn State (19-14), 11 Marquette (20-14), 11 Missouri (23-10), 11 USC (19-14)/VCU (23-11), 12 Clemson (21-11)/UAB (22-8)

Left out: Alabama (21-11), Boston College (20-12), Colorado (21-13), Harvard (23-6), Missouri State (25-8), Saint Mary’s (23-8), UTEP (24-9), Virginia Tech (21-11)

Multi-bid conferences: 10

The 2011 NCAA Tournament was another milestone for the event, as this was the first year of a 68-team bracket. After NCAA saber-rattling the year before about possibly expanding the field to 96 teams-and lest this be lost as time has gone by, that discussion was very real, and 96 in fact appeared likely in 2010-the NCAA and TV networks settled on 68 teams with three extra at-larges.

The belief from some was that the extra bids would benefit those from outside the richest conferences. So much for that; this year there were just 10 multi-bid leagues, tied for the second-lowest in the 64+ team era. Nine of those conferences put at least three teams in the field, including the Colonial Athletic Association, which notched three bids for the first time in its history. The latter nugget showed another fact: after four years of a decided tilt towards the Big Football conferences, this year’s selection committee made some against-the-grain picks.

Of course, the most divisive of the teams to get into the expanded tourney was the third team from the CAA. VCU was selected despite having a 23-11 record that even looked more like one of those mid-pack teams from a major conference than a standout from an occasional multi-bid league. By the numbers, the Rams were a perfectly reasonable pick: they held two top 25 wins, were a fair if not overwhelming 3-6 vs. the top 50, 8-8 vs. the top 100, made a late impression advancing to the CAA tourney final, and even were 4-6 against the NCAA field. Their selection was a statement in one way: the Rams finished fourth in the CAA regular season against an unbalanced schedule, well behind regular season champion George Mason but also two games behind both NCAA automatic qualifier Old Dominion and Hofstra tied for second. The committee at times had been hesitant in the past to ‘jump’ teams in leagues like the CAA (see: Drexel, 2007) but willingly did so here. Make no mistake: it took guts by the selection committee to select VCU.

The beef about VCU from pundits was probably related to its name as much as anything, but also two losses in particular. Virginia Commonwealth lost at Georgia State in early January, taking a defeat at a team that would finish 223rd in the RPI. The Rams also almost a month later lost at Northeastern, falling to what would finish as the No. 178 RPI team. Never mind wins over Wake Forest and UCLA in November. Along with the selection of UAB for a play-in game, ESPN’s analysts lost it.

Jay Bilas in particular ripped the Rams, saying “everyone talks about the ‘eye test.’ The committee clearly used the ‘closed eye test.’” He also questioned if committee members knew that a basketball was round, and for the second straight year dubbed it “the weakest field we’ve ever had.” Bilas later added that there are “no excuses” for those decisions, tweeting that a Big East officiating crew that came under heavy fire for controversial calls during the St. John’s-Rutgers Big East tournament game a few days earlier “made better calls.” Dick Vitale colorfully called a comparison of VCU or UAB to Colorado’s resume “a mismatch. It would be like a beauty contest with Roseanne Barr walking in vs. Scarlett Johansson. No shot. None whatsoever.” Of course, VCU proved that it had plenty of shots, marching all the way to the Final Four while running through teams from the Pac-10, Big Ten, Big East, ACC and Big 12.

Even the criticism of UAB was mostly unwarranted; the Blazers were 1-4 vs the top 50, but also went 9-3 vs. teams 51-100. If TV heads wanted to be outraged over a pick, they could’ve grumped about Clemson, which was 0-5 against the top 50, and though the Tigers were 9-3 against teams 51-100 they also held three sub-100 losses. If that were the resume of a CAA team, it’s a mortal lock that it would’ve been headed to the NIT. Or how about USC, which was a very respectable 5-5 against the top 50, but also had three sub-100 losses AND three sub-200 losses. Or Florida State, which was 1-5 vs. the top 50 and just 6-9 vs. the top 100. Or Georgia, which was 3-9 against the top 50, had one less top 25 win than VCU, and was an almost unsightly 5-11 vs. the top 100. There were plenty of teams with resumes equal to or worse than the Rams’ who could’ve been criticized; commentators just looked small, uninformed and blinded by their brand-name bias when they picked on VCU.

The most noted aggrieved teams this year included Alabama, Colorado and Virginia Tech, but as is so often the case with such teams from major conferences, the cases against them were pretty obvious. Alabama had a real argument in that it swept a Georgia team that got in with a shaky resume, but the Crimson Tide also were a lowly 80 in the RPI, just 5-7 against the RPI top 100 with four sub-100 losses, and played the 284th-ranked non-conference schedule. Virginia Tech missed yet again, for the fourth year in a row and this time after beefing up its schedule, except the ACC let it down this time. The Hokies were just 2-5 against the top 50 (even VCU had two more top 50 chances) and also held three sub-100 losses. Of all of Seth Greenberg’s VT teams, this one had the most reason to be disappointed, considering the Gobblers defeated Florida State twice, had better marks against the top 50 and top 100 than FSU and even a slightly stronger non-conference schedule. The Seminoles’ one major advantage was an 8-5 road record to Tech’s 4-6.

Colorado was probably the most surprising omission; besides Dick Vitale’s stumping for them, CBS analysts also expressed surprise at the Buffaloes not being in. Colorado’s non-conference SOS was even worse than Alabama’s, though, one of the worst in the country at 325th. That and a 3-9 road record almost certainly knocked out a team that was otherwise deserving with four top 25 wins and a 6-7 mark against the top 50.

Given some of the teams that got in, Harvard also had a fair case. The Crimson were the highest RPI team left out (35) and were 1-4 against the top 50, 3-5 vs. the top 100, but also 9-5 on the road and with an average RPI win of 197 that, though weak, wasn’t far from Florida State’s (174). Saint Mary’s also missed out once again with a bunch of wins, the 23-8 Gaels having the same top 50 and top 100 numbers as Harvard.

UTEP at 24-9 also just missed despite a November win over right-side-of-the-bubble Michigan and a home win in Conference USA over NCAA 12 seed Memphis. The Miners lost to Memphis by a point in the C-USA tourney final, and a deciding result also may have been a loss to UAB in a triple-overtime classic in early January. Missouri State also was the MVC regular season champion, but the Bears had no top 50 wins, were just 3-6 vs. the top 100 and even lost to Horizon fourth-place finisher Valparaiso in Bracket Busters.

2012

Last in: 11 Colorado State (20-11), 11 N.C. State (22-12), 11 Texas (20-13), 12 California (24-9)/South Florida (20-13), 14 BYU (25-8)/Iona (25-7)

Left out: Drexel (27-6), Miami (Fla.) (19-12), Middle Tennessee State (24-6), Mississippi State (21-11), Nevada (24-6), Northwestern (18-13), Oral Roberts (27-6), Seton Hall (20-12), Washington (21-10)

Multi-bid conferences: 12

Seed list last teams in (at-larges seeded 10 or lower): Purdue, West Virginia, Virginia, Xavier, Colorado State, N.C. State, Texas, California, South Florida, BYU, Iona

First teams left out: Oral Roberts, Drexel, Miami (Fla.), Mississippi State, Nevada, Seton Hall

As Joe Lunardi with his work first helped shed light on it over the years and then the number of bracketologists multiplied, the NCAA Tournament selection process has been scrutinized so much that there aren’t many surprises anymore. Even so, the 2012 tourney selections brought a potpourri of them, including for the second straight year a couple of the teams selected for play-in games.

Iona snagged an at-large bid, just the second-ever for the Metro Atlantic and the first since Manhattan’s in 1995. It was an eye-opener, though a blowout win over Maryland early in the season and a one-point loss to Purdue in the same Puerto Rico Tip-Off clearly had Tim Cluess’s entertaining team on the radar. The Gaels did not finish with a top 50 win, but were 5-3 against the top 100. They also supposedly weren’t even the last team in the field, per committee chair and former Connecticut athletic director Jeff Hathaway, though their rank on the overall seed list suggested exactly that. (Wait, what?)

South Florida was a somewhat surprising choice with a 20-13 record that included just a 2-9 mark vs. the RPI top 50. Apparently a win at NCAA tourney 4 seed and Big East tourney champion Louisville, plus a 12-6 mark against a favorable unbalanced schedule to tie for third in the extra-large (16-team) Big East, helped the Bulls sneak in. Frankly, a 6-10 record against the top 100 plus three sub-100 losses should’ve kept USF out, but the Bulls did take advantage with a pair of wins in the NCAAs that year.

Texas was not a surprising pick, but it should have been. The Longhorns were 4-11 against the top 50 (one top 25 win in nine tries)…and also 4-11 against the top 100. Going even into the top 150, Texas was 9-13. Seems like a lot of weight was given a home win over RPI No. 20 Temple in December and three wins combined over Iowa State and Kansas State teams that nabbed NCAA tourney 8 seeds, and perhaps seven losses to RPI top 10 teams (including three to Missouri and two each to Baylor and Kansas) were essentially written off.

Somewhat similarly, North Carolina State was just 1-8 against the top 50, though at least went 5-2 vs. teams 51-100. The lone top 50 win came in under the wire by a sliver, as it was against RPI No. 50 Texas. Again, the selling point was in the high end-the Wolfpack also had an ACC Tournament win over NCAA 10 seed Virginia and defeated bubble team Miami twice-because looking at it another way, 13 of State’s 22 wins came against teams outside the top 150, including 11 vs. teams 182 and below.

Also getting over the fence and into the field was Colorado State, which finished fourth in the Mountain West and just 8-6 in conference and 19-11 overall, but had a lofty 29 RPI and was 3-6 against the top 50. The Rams definitely could’ve been on the wrong side, with just a 3-9 road record, but the Mountain West’s strength that year (5th in conference RPI) was acknowledged by the committee in the form of four bids.

California made the tourney without a top 50 win in just three tries. The Golden Bears were 8-4 vs. the next tier, though, and won 24 games. BYU also had a resume built more on quantity of wins than meat. The Cougars had just one top 50 win, but it came against Gonzaga. Still, a 1-6 record against the top 50 and 1-6 vs. the tournament field weren’t great, and a 5-6 mark vs. the top 100 could’ve easily been judged a little light.

As noteworthy as who made it were those not in the field, especially Drexel being left out despite 27 wins, a CAA regular season title (one year after VCU’s Final Four run) and a 19-game winning streak from January into March, as well as Washington not making the field despite winning the Pac-12 regular season crown. The Dragons’ overall profile wasn’t a slam dunk, not with one top 50 win and a 4-3 mark vs. the top 100 plus three sub-100 losses. Still, winning their league and a 19-game winning streak until a three-point loss in the CAA final to VCU, as well as 11 road wins, deserved to be rewarded. The Huskies, meanwhile, despite a Pac-12 title (against an unbalanced schedule, it should be noted) had an even lesser profile than Drexel, without a single top 50 win and a 4-8 mark vs. the top 100. It wasn’t even a non-conference schedule issue; the Pac-12 was just that far down, 10th in the conference RPI that year.

The biggest ‘wow’ of all, though, was Hathaway admitting that Oral Roberts was the first team out, for there was little talk about the Summit League champion Golden Eagles’ at-large hopes after they lost to Western Illinois in their league tourney semifinals. A 22-point non-conference win at Xavier apparently was a significant chip for ORU, which it was revealed was in the tourney until St. Bonaventure completed a surprising run in the Atlantic 10 Tournament and toppled Xavier in the title game on Selection Sunday to play its way into the bracket. ORU did have two top 50 wins, was 3-3 vs. the top 100 and had a whopping 27 wins overall; still, few saw Scott Sutton’s team being so close to breaking through.

The NCAA even released the list of the first six teams out of the field this year. Notably, it did not include Washington, though it did have Drexel, Oral Roberts and Seton Hall, which had three top 50 wins, was 7-9 vs. the top 100 and a bubble team in every way. The Pirates had a poor RPI (68), poor road record (4-7) and were just 9-11 in the Big East, and maybe most importantly fell apart late after a 15-2 start. Miami (Fla.) also was on the list, but the Hurricanes were just 3-11 against the RPI top 100. Mississippi State had some quality wins (two vs. the top 50 and 7-7 overall against the top 100) but also four sub-100 losses. Nevada also wasn’t far out with a 24-6 record, but the Wolf Pack also did not have a top 50 win and perhaps just as importantly lost head-to-head games against BYU and Iona, though they did beat Washington.

Northwestern was watched closely this year as it pursued a first-ever NCAA bid, but a 1-10 record against the top 50 made the Wildcats an easy call. Middle Tennessee State had a gaudy 25-6 record, blew out UCLA early in the season on the road and also defeated fellow bubble team Mississippi. The Blue Raiders were 3-3 against the top 100, but then lost to sub-200 Arkansas State in their Sun Belt tourney opener. That plus a loss at RPI 189 Western Kentucky in its regular season finale were devastating for an MTSU team that otherwise probably deserved a bid for its season-long excellence.

2013

Last in: 10 Cincinnati (22-11), 10 Colorado (21-11), 10 Iowa State (22-11), 10 Oklahoma (20-11), 11 Minnesota (20-12), 12 California (20-11), 11 Middle Tennessee State (28-5)/Saint Mary’s (28-6), 13 Boise State (21-10)/La Salle (21-9)

Left out: Alabama (21-12), Iowa (21-12), Kentucky (21-11), Louisiana Tech (25-6), Maryland (22-12), Southern Mississippi (25-9), Stephen F. Austin (27-4), Tennessee (20-12), Virginia (21-11)

Multi-bid conferences: 11

Seed list last in: Iowa State, Oklahoma, Minnesota, California, Boise State, St. Mary’s, La Salle, Middle Tennessee State

The 2013 NCAA Tournament selection committee did one of the best jobs of any committee in the 64+ team era, a performance that to this date has not been matched since. The teams that got in almost across the board deserved it. The ones that didn’t, for the most part did not. The committee was not seduced by name brands and-from this view-gave the benefit of the doubt in the right spots.

Nowhere was that displayed better than in the teams who were in the First Four. In were Boise State, La Salle, Middle Tennessee State and Saint Mary’s. Among those missing the cut were Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland and Tennessee. Committees in the following years almost without question would’ve likely found a way to shoehorn two or three of the latter teams in, but this was a committee that obviously was looking at teams outside the Big Football tier favorably. And with good reason, considering the success of VCU two years earlier, Butler’s back-to-back national title game appearances among other recent achievements by them.

The committee showed its grasp of nuance with the selection of Middle Tennessee State. By the power numbers, most would’ve thought the Blue Raiders had no shot at a bid, what with a 1-3 record against the RPI top 100. MTSU won 28 games, though, defeated a pair of SEC teams (including its tourney champion Mississippi) and played the ninth-rated non-conference strength of schedule in the country. Clearly Kermit Davis was trying to beef up his team’s schedule, as much as possible at a time when the multi-team events weren’t as plentiful as they are today. The Sun Belt was the 15th-ranked conference that year; the committee made the right call recognizing its regular season champion and rewarding winning.

Saint Mary’s got in by being red-hot against everyone but Gonzaga from late December on; the Gaels won 19 of their last 22, including a victory over Creighton led by Doug McDermott, and their three losses in that time were to a 30-2 Gonzaga team that was the West Regional No. 1 seed. Boise State also won at Creighton in November, drilled LSU at home, gave Michigan State all it could handle on the road, and then tied for fourth in a Mountain West that was the No. 1-ranked conference in the RPI (no kidding). La Salle may have cut it close, but the Explorers defeated fellow bubble team Villanova in November, and also topped Butler and won at VCU in back-to-back games in late January for a pair of top 25 wins.

Outside of those teams, one could’ve argued against some others getting in. Illinois was probably the most bubbly, finishing 9-12 after a 12-0 start to the season, but a 6-9 mark against the top 50 helped and winning at Gonzaga in early December was gold. Iowa State and Oklahoma’s numbers weren’t spectacular (ISU was 3-8 vs. the top 50, 7-9 against the top 100 and 4-8 on the road; OU 3-7 vs. the top 50, 8-9 against the top 100). Boise State probably should’ve been seeded above both, but both teams were passable selections. California had a funky ledger with five top 50 wins in 10 tries, but also a 2-5 record against teams 51-100, but the quality of wins was enough to make the Golden Bears a fair choice.

Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee all missed in a bad year for the SEC. It was the first time in 39 years that all three of those schools missed the NCAAs. Just three teams got in from the SEC, and it might have been only two if Ole Miss hadn’t upended Florida in the SEC tourney final. (Volunteers coach Cuonzo Martin called the SEC getting three teams “an embarrassment.”) There wasn’t a lot to argue, not when it was the eighth-ranked league in the RPI per the NCAA’s computers. All three teams were primarily home court heroes and poor on the road-in fact, none of them had a single top 100 road win. Kentucky and Tennessee’s resumes actually had some fair points, as both had three top 50 wins, and Tennessee was probably the closest of the three with a not-horrendous 8-10 record against the top 100. Both also had their share of sub-100 losses, though, and left lousy final impressions in the SEC Tournament.

Southern Mississippi had the highest RPI (31) by far of any team left out (the next lowest eligible team was Louisiana Tech at 53). The Golden Eagles had an argument, but one would’ve had to look deep to find it, what with no top 50 wins and a 3-7 record against the top 100. Extending further, Southern Miss did have 13 wins (13-8 record) against the top 150, including ones at Georgia and Tulsa; by comparison, Middle Tennessee State was 9-4. Louisiana Tech may have had the best case of any team that didn’t get in, with 26 wins, a win in their only top 50 opportunity and a 3-3 record vs. the top 100, but the Bulldogs also had two sub-200 losses.

Virginia had a bizarre up-and-down season with four top 50 wins but almost twice as many sub-100 losses (seven). Iowa was 4-9 against the top 50, but just 5-9 vs. the top 100. Both the Cavaliers (300) and Hawkeyes (314) also had non-conference strength of schedule ranks that stuck out like a scarlet letter on the NCAA’s Nitty-Gritty report. Stephen F. Austin also did not get in despite a monster 27-4 record, though that win total included four non-Division I opponents. The Lumberjacks actually had a top 50 win at Oklahoma and were 2-2 against the top 100, but even wins at Long Beach State and Tulsa wound up outside the top 100. A 307th-ranked overall strength of schedule weighed down by the Southland Conference, coupled with so many non D-I opponents made their case thin.

2014

Last in: 10 Arizona State (21-11), 10 BYU (23-11), 10 Stanford (21-12), 11 Dayton (23-10), 11 Nebraska (19-12), 11 Iowa (20-12)/Tennessee (21-12), 12 N.C. State (21-13)/Xavier (21-12)

Left out: Arkansas (21-11), Belmont (24-9), California (19-13), Florida State (19-13), Georgetown (17-14), Louisiana Tech (27-7), Minnesota (20-13), St. John’s (20-12), SMU (23-9), Toledo (26-6), Wisconsin-Green Bay (24-6)

Multi-bid conferences: 10

Seed list last in: Stanford, BYU, Arizona State, Dayton, Nebraska, Tennessee, Iowa, Xavier, N.C. State

After the success of Butler in 2010, VCU’s First Four-to-Final Four dash in 2011, and then Wichita State making the Final Four from a 9 seed and La Salle advancing all the way to the Sweet 16 from a play-in game, one would’ve thought there was absolutely no reason for the selection committee to change its behaviors of recent years. Its trend of selecting teams such as those and their conference brethren was clearly being rewarded-why not continue to give them the benefit of the doubt?

Instead, for reasons only those inside the room will know, the selection committee in 2014 took a hard turn in the other direction. The at-large teams seeded 10th or lower this year included two from the Big Ten and Pac-12 each, one each from the ACC, Big East and SEC, as well as Dayton from the Atlantic 10 and BYU from the WCC. This time, there was no Iona, no Middle Tennessee State, no VCU.

Sometimes the ball bounces in one direction, sometimes in another, but it’s not as if there weren’t candidates. The committee could’ve easily selected a team like Toledo with a 26-6 record in the No. 12-ranked conference, no top 50 wins (in one chance) but a 6-4 record vs. teams 51-100. Belmont was the best team in the Ohio Valley all year, went 4-6 against the top 100 including a top 25 win at North Carolina, and was 9-8 against the top 150. Louisiana Tech was 2-2 against the top 50, 5-5 vs. the top 100 and won 26 NCAA Division I games, including at NCAA 5 seed Oklahoma. Wisconsin-Green Bay with a 4-2 mark against the top 100 and a win over an eventual NCAA tourney 1 seed Virginia in December was clearly considered, as it was mentioned as one of the first teams left out.

The bottom line is, this committee decided it wanted to emphasize something else. Thus, in was a team like North Carolina State, just 3-9 against the top 50 and even 6-11 against the top 100. A late four-game winning streak including victories over NCAA 9 seed Pittsburgh on the road and then in the ACC Tournament over NCAA 3 seed Syracuse apparently were clinchers for the Wolfpack. Similarly, Tennessee was 3-7 against the top 50, also had four sub-100 losses and even lost at home to N.C. State, but the Volunteers won five straight late before falling to Florida in the SEC tourney and got in.

Iowa fell apart down the stretch, losing six of its last seven games, including sub-100 losses to Indiana and Northwestern. In all, the Hawkeyes were 5-9 against the top 50 (2-8 vs. the top 25), and almost certainly that is what got Iowa in considering it was overall just 6-9 vs. the top 100. Xavier-the fourth First Four team-was at least 4-6 vs. the top 50 and 9-9 against the top 100, but the Musketeers also had three sub-100 losses and lost eight of their last 14 entering the tourney, hardly the mark of a team that had to be taken.

Nebraska made its first NCAA tourney appearance as a member of the Big Ten. It was a great story (and who could root against a guy as likable as Tim Miles?) but was the Cornhuskers’ case built almost as much on sentimentality as facts? Nebraska was 4-7 against the top 50 but also just 6-9 vs. the top 100 and still with three sub-100 losses. The Huskers did finish hot, winning eight of their last 10, but the committee had supposedly de-emphasized that criteria by this point. Three top 25 wins included a home March victory over eventual NCAA 2 seed Wisconsin, and a mid-February win at NCAA 4 seed Michigan State was unquestionably strong. An overall 3-8 road record and 4-11 total at road/neutral sites was not. Finishing fourth in the Big Ten regular season probably wrapped it up, but it also came against an unbalanced schedule.

Oklahoma State and Pittsburgh were two more who could’ve fallen on the wrong side of the fence despite their in-safely 9 seeds. OSU was 4-10 against the top 50; Pitt 2-7, and the two had one top 25 win. The Cowboys at least were 7-1 against teams 51-100; the Panthers also had two sub-100 losses and played their typical soft non-conference schedule of the time, with eight teams ranked 179 or lower in the RPI. The story for Okie State, Pitt and so many like them was similar: all seven of those teams had a few quality wins, but in general did not even come close to breaking even against at-large caliber opponents.

The most talked-about snub this year was actually closer to college sports hierarchy than a Belmont or Wisconsin-Green Bay. SMU was the one many were shocked to see left out on Selection Sunday, a team with three top 25 victories, one on the road at Connecticut late in the season. The truth is the Mustangs’ resume was not perfect; they were just 4-6 against the top 100, but what really hurt was their November and December slate. SMU was yet another in a long line of teams made an example of for its non-conference schedule, which ranked 302nd nationally. Six of their non-league opponents ranked 264th or worse in the RPI. Should that have offset also scheduling the likes of Arkansas, Rhode Island, Texas A&M, TCU, Virginia and Wyoming? This committee said yes.

Among others left out, Arkansas was a compelling case with three top 50 wins, including a sweep of a Kentucky team underseeded in the NCAAs (9 seed) seemingly just to put a hit on undefeated Wichita State. The Razorbacks also defeated fellow bubble teams Minnesota and SMU, the former on a neutral court, and had a respectable 9-8 mark vs. the top 100. The Hogs played six sub-270 opponents out of conference, though, were just 3-6 on the road and didn’t distinguish themselves in the SEC

Florida State was 3-9 against the top 50 and 6-12 overall against the top 100. The non-conference schedule also included seven sub-200 opponents. Minnesota played a highly rated non-conference schedule (34th-best per the NCAA) but had similar numbers to FSU against the top (2-8 vs. top 50, 5-11 against the top 100) plus two sub-100 losses. The Golden Gophers also were just 3-7 on the road, the same as Missouri, which had just two top 50 wins (in six tries) and also did not stand out in a down SEC that ranked seventh among D-I conferences that year.

California held four top 50 wins-including one over NCAA 1 seed Arizona-but they came in 14 chances, and the Golden Bears also were just 6-11 against the top 100. Georgetown was a classic example of a team that could’ve played its way in, but didn’t. Five top 50 wins, including three against the top 20, were offset by a 7-10 mark vs. the top 100, three sub-100 losses, a lousy road mark (2-8) and an overall mediocre record. The Hoyas also stumbled down the stretch, losing five of their last seven and were just 6-10 in their last 16 games.

Coming tomorrow: Part 7 looks at the 2015-19 NCAA tourneys

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

WhatsApp

Pocket

Print

More

Email

Pinterest



Tumblr



Like this: Like Loading...