We conclude our extensive year-by-year looks at NCAA Tournament and Selection Sunday bubbles over the last 35 years by revisiting recent history, the last five years of tournament selection 2015-19. No matter Final Fours for Butler, VCU and Wichita State earlier in the decade-bids become scarce for those outside a select few conferences, even for teams like Monmouth in 2016.

Being recent as this stretch is, review of these final years also includes the author’s Selection Sunday morning analysis for each of those years of who would be in, who wouldn’t, who should’ve have been, who shouldn’t and why, as well as his analysis of the selections after. Anything not covered in the reviews here may have been already covered in those articles from that period.

Previous:

Introduction

Part 1: 1985-89

Part 2: 1990-94

Part 3: 1995-99

Part 4: 2000-04

Part 5: 2005-09

Part 6: 2010-14

2015

Last at-large in by seed: 10 Davidson (24-7 record), 10 Georgia (21-11), 10 Indiana (20-13), 10 Ohio State (23-10), 11 Texas (20-13), 11 UCLA (20-13), 11 Boise State (25-8)/Dayton (25-8), 11 BYU (25-9)/Mississippi (20-12)

Left out: Colorado State (27-6), Iona (26-8), Miami (Fla.) (21-12), Murray State (27-5), Old Dominion (24-7), Richmond (19-13), Temple (23-10), Wisconsin-Green Bay (24-8)

Multi-bid conferences: 11

Seed list last in: Indiana, Davidson, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas, UCLA, Mississippi, BYU, Boise State, Dayton

First four out: Temple, Colorado State, Old Dominion, Richmond

Author’s Selection Sunday morning projection & analysis

Author’s post-selections analysis

The selection committee’s hard shift back in favor of schools from big name conferences became even more pronounced in 2015. It came in the form of a trio of selections that, from our pre-selection analysis, had no business in the field, yet all three not just made it but didn’t even have to weather a play-in game.

Indiana, Texas and UCLA all entered Selection Sunday with matching 20-13 records, and all had numbers that screamed ‘NIT.’ The Hoosiers were 4-9 against the top 50, 8-12 vs. the top 100 and 5-9 in road/neutral games. Texas had three top 50 wins-in 15 chances. A 5-1 mark against teams 51-100 looked a little better, but four of those were against teams ranked 92nd or higher in the RPI, not near enough to cover for a team that had proven time and again it couldn’t beat at-large caliber competition with any consistency. UCLA was the worst of all, 2-8 against the top 50, 5-10 vs. the top 100, 4-11 in road/neutral games.

Trying to understand the choices, selection committee chair and Utah State athletic director Scott Barnes said Texas got in due to its No. 8 strength of schedule. That’s nice, but at some point doesn’t a team have to win more than an occasional key game against a tough slate? Indiana had four top-50 wins, with three of them at home, two (Maryland and SMU) against teams in the RPI top 25. The Hoosiers had the best resume of the three; still, the top 50 record wasn’t good. The best win away from home was defeating NCAA 7 seed Butler on a neutral court in state; the best true road win was at 73 RPI Illinois, which also was the Hoosiers’ only road win in seven chances against a team inside the top 150.

UCLA had two late January wins at home against top 30 Pac-12 teams Utah and Oregon. After that, the next-best wins were a sweep of NIT Stanford. Barnes said the Bruins “pass the eye test,” something that was referenced way too often this year. We’d also question how the Bruins’ eight top 50 losses (seven against the top 25, it’s fair to note) by an average of 18.8 points per game passed any kind of eye test.

It it were us, Colorado State and Murray State would’ve substituted for Texas and UCLA in a second. The committee ripped off the Rams, who were 2-3 against the top 50, 5-5 vs. the top 100 and 10-5 if one extended to the top 150. The lack of a marquee road win was a fair point against CSU, but they did win at New Mexico State, Colorado and Utah State, victories just outside the top 100. Colorado State also had a short-term injury to star J.J. Avila that kept him out of a Mountain West tourney loss to San Diego State. The Rams won 27 games in a solid conference; how many more did they need?

Murray State’s resume was similar to a Middle Tennessee State two years earlier, and a committee with nuance would’ve understood it. The Racers got off to a slow start that included ugly November losses to Xavier and Valparaiso, who happened to be the two best teams they played all year. Murray took off soon after that and won 25 straight games before falling to Belmont at the buzzer in the OVC Tournament final. A 1-2 mark against the top 100 was an obvious blight, but in their winning streak the Racers beat opponents by an average of more than 15 points per game. Murray State was red-hot for more than three months; there was enough info to give the Racers the benefit of the doubt.

Old Dominion could’ve been in, too. The Monarchs had a sharp 6-2 record against the top 100, including 5-1 vs. the top 65 with a top-15 win over VCU. ODU’s downfall was being just 5-4 against teams ranked 101-200, with all of those losses plus one at RPI 237 Texas-San Antonio away from home. Old Dominion didn’t miss by much; it was a 1 seed in the NIT, but this a case where the bad was accentuated more than the good.

Temple was mentioned by Barnes as the first team out of the field. Indeed, the Owls were the ultimate bubble team, at just 2-8 against the top 50, but with a 25-point win over NCAA 2 seed Kansas, a 5-0 mark against teams 51-100 plus a 10-8 road/neutral record. Miami (Fla.) also was 2-7 against the top 50 but with a victory over NCAA 1 seed Duke, and the Hurricanes were a spunky 11-6 in road/neutral games. None of those were against a team inside the top 65, though, and ten of Miami’s 21 wins came against teams ranked 211 or lower in the RPI.

On top of all that, there was the borderline criminal treatment of Dayton and by proxy Boise State. The consensus on Selection Sunday was the Flyers were a shoo-in for the NCAAs, and while that was perhaps a little bit optimistic for a team with one top 50 win and a 6-6 mark against the top 100, there didn’t seem to be any reason to leave Dayton out considering its competition for a bid. Somehow the committee came up with UD as the very last at-large team in the field, putting the Flyers in a play-in game-on their own home court, against Boise State. The Broncos were punished for the committee’s complete misevaluation of Dayton, having to play a true road game to open the NCAA tourney. It shouldn’t have happened considering Boise was 3-3 against the RPI top 50 (how on earth was UCLA’s resume considered better?) and tied for the Mountain West regular season title.

This also was the first year the NCAA would identify and place the first four teams out as No. 1 seeds in the NIT. Along with Temple, Colorado State and Old Dominion, Richmond was rather surprisingly also named an NIT 1 seed. The Spiders weren’t talked about a ton before Selection Sunday but were 3-6 against the top 50 with two top 25 wins, though a 7-9 mark against the top 100 plus four sub-100 losses were thought by most to have them far from the NCAAs.

Others just missing included Wisconsin-Green Bay for the second year in a row, the Phoenix no doubt weighed down by a struggling Horizon League that played a part in their having 16 of 22 wins against teams outside the top 200. UWGB did win at Miami (Fla.), which was in the ballpark but went just 2-7 against the top 50 and also had four sub-100 losses, including one to Eastern Kentucky by 28 points. Texas A&M even without a top 50 win was in position for a bid until losing four of five to close the season. Iona won 26 games, but not a single one came against a team inside the RPI top 125. Even a win at an ACC team (Wake Forest) only graded as a victory over the 150th-rated team.

2016

Last in: 10 Pittsburgh (21-11), 10 Syracuse (19-13), 10 Temple (21-11), 10 VCU (24-10), 11 Michigan (22-12)/Tulsa (20-11), 11 Vanderbilt (19-13)/Wichita State (24-8)

Left out: Florida (19-14), Monmouth (27-7), St. Bonaventure (22-8), Saint Mary’s (27-5), San Diego State (25-9), South Carolina (24-8), Valparaiso (26-6)

Multi-bid conferences: 9

Seed list last in: Stanford, St. Joseph’s, BYU, Arizona State, Dayton, Nebraska, Providence, Tennessee, Iowa, Xavier, N.C. State

First four out: St. Bonaventure, South Carolina, Monmouth, Valparaiso

Author’s Selection Sunday morning projection & analysis

Author’s post-selections analysis

It is acknowledged that recency bias is a real thing in so much discussion, especially on an internet that itself is little more than 20 years of age in its widespread use. Thus, this is not said lightly: it is opined here that the 2016 NCAA Tournament selections included one of the poorest jobs by a selection committee ever in the history of the tournament.

This was a year that was primed for the committee to select some teams that had outstanding seasons, even if they came outside the ever-more hyped “power” conferences. It should have been easy pickings. Instead, the committee turned down those teams one after another to choose a glut of major conference teams with less-than inspiring resumes. Perhaps it was only fair that someone leaked the bracket out early on Twitter, before CBS could even finish announcing it.

Monmouth was the most-discussed snub of this year and, considering all of the information, one of the most egregious of all-time. The Hawks came out of nowhere to win 27 games, impressing early in the season with a win at UCLA, taking down Notre Dame and USC on neutral courts and also winning at Georgetown and even state foe Rutgers. Monmouth finished winning 27 games, won the Metro Atlantic regular season title, and was a national story all season.

If one didn’t know their story, by the typical numbers maybe one wasn’t so impressed: 1-1 against the top 50, 3-4 vs. the top 100, 16 sub-200 wins. Wins over UCLA and Georgetown didn’t hold up as well as perhaps expected (both slipped just outside the top 100), and Rutgers at this point was awful (294 in the RPI). Still, the Hawks posted 13 road wins and 17 road/neutral wins total while playing a schedule that included just 11 of 34 games at home. Monmouth also played one non-conference game at home. One. It is impossible to argue successfully that King Rice didn’t make every effort to play a difficult schedule.

Instead, all of that was overlooked and the Hawks were docked for three sub-200 losses on their resume, per committee chair and Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione. It’s a fair criticism on the surface, except it was leveled with no context whatsoever.

All three games were on the road, where Monmouth actually went 8-3 against sub-200 teams. For context, the few times they played them, teams from the self-anointed ‘power’ conferences that year collectively went 14-4 in non-conference games on the road at sub-200 teams. With the regularly pushed idea that there is a divide between the top few TV Conferences and everyone else, the implication was the Hawks lost too much against the minor leagues of Division I. Yet, their performance in such games was right in line with that of the top conferences. It should’ve been a non-issue; that it was suggested the committee wasn’t doing all its homework, or was just looking for a reason to keep Monmouth out.

As bad of a snub at Monmouth was, St. Bonaventure was almost equally as bad. The Bonnies tied for the title in an Atlantic 10 rated the No. 7 league in the country per the NCAA’s numbers, were 3-2 against the top 50 (including three top-25 wins) and 7-5 vs. the top 100. Moreover, compared to some of the last teams that got in, it is unconscionable that the committee could’ve cited the performance of a team like Tulsa or Vanderbilt as better. Some surmised that St. Bonaventure and Monmouth both were punished for their numbers in the Ken Pomeroy rankings; if so, that was wrong. Those are merely supplemental numbers, and there was too much information available to the contrary to be ignored. Again, it reeked of looking for reasons to leave teams out instead of reasons to put them in.

Besides that, Valparaiso also was a miss by the committee from this view. The Crusaders won on the road convincingly at an Oregon State team that somehow was viewed as good enough for a 7 seed with a whole 18-12 record. Some would argue against based on the initial numbers (1-1 vs. the top 50, 4-2 against the top 100, four sub-100 losses), but Valpo also won 12 true road games and dominated the Horizon League, beating opponents by an average of more than 15 points per game.

Valparaiso lost by six points at an Oregon team that was deemed a 1 seed in the NCAAs. It won at Oregon State. Its six losses included differentials of 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, and by 7 in overtime. If one watched the Crusaders, they looked fully capable of winning in the postseason, something they would show in advancing to the NIT final. Valpo also attempted to schedule tougher (seven non-league road games) only to see teams like Iona and Rhode Island slump some due to injuries. Again, the question has to be asked: how much more is expected of a team like this?

Even Saint Mary’s and South Carolina both had legitimate arguments to get in the field. The Gaels went 27-5, and while their victory total included 18 sub-200 wins (almost all in the West Coast Conference), they also were 6-3 vs. the top 100 and had two wins over Gonzaga. The Gamecocks won 24 games, were 8-5 against the top 100 (admittedly, only one win in two tries vs. the top 50) and held a neutral floor win over a Tulsa team that was a surprise pick. In their case, a 296th-ranked strength of schedule may have been the dagger, and an SEC team on the bubble isn’t likely to be anyone’s sentimental favorite, but Frank Martin’s team probably deserved better.

Instead of those worthy clubs, the selection committee chose teams like Pittsburgh and Syracuse (10 seeds) and Michigan, Tulsa and Vanderbilt (11 seeds in play-in games). Pitt and Vandy both were just 2-7 against the top 50, the Panthers at least 7-2 against teams 51-100 while the Commodores were 5-3 in such games. Pittsburgh played yet another typical soft non-conference schedule (not a single road game, nine at home and only two outside of the city) that deserved to be punished. Vanderbilt was an enigma that never lived up to expectations and was just 9-12 against the top 150. Both also were notably poor on the road (a combined 6-15). There should’ve been no surprise when both fell out of the NCAA tourney in their first games.

Syracuse-which notably matchup-zoned its way to the Final Four this year-received a berth in part because of a Jim Boeheim suspension, where the committee somehow decided to write off a 4-5 mark in nine games he missed as part of NCAA sanctions for probation. Some punishment. The Cuse did have a bad RPI (70) but also were 5-6 against the top 50, though also just 9-12 against the top 150. Syracuse did have the best resume of this bunch, and a bid would’ve been fair it if came in a play-in game.

Tulsa was a pick that stunned many, in part because the Golden Hurricane lost to RPI 139 Memphis twice in the two weeks before Selection Sunday, the second time by 22 points in the American Athletic Conference tourney. Its selection should not have been as unthinkable as many seemed to think, for Tulsa did have a better high-end profile that most gave it credit for: 4-5 against the top 50, 8-8 vs. the top 100. Some of the outrage over the Golden Hurricane was simply because they were ‘Tulsa’ and not a bigger name; at the same time they couldn’t even win consistently in their chances against teams in the 101-200 range (a 2-3 record) and thus were just 10-11 against the top 200.

Michigan was nothing less than one of the worst at-large picks of all-time, from this view. The Wolverines were rewarded for four top-30 wins, ignoring the fact they went 4-11 in all against the top 50. High end wins, fine. But Michigan also was just 4-12 against the top 100, and if it wasn’t squeaking out a win against those top 50 teams (the four came by a combined 17 points), it usually lost handily with an average margin of defeat of 13.9 points, and just one game closer than 10 points. And again, four top-100 wins. Michigan could’ve scheduled better. It could’ve played some MAC or Missouri Valley or American teams out of conference for some games in that 51-100 range. Instead, it chose the likes of Bryant, Elon, Houston Baptist, Northern Kentucky and Youngstown State.

On top of all that, there were Oregon State & Wisconsin both getting 7 seeds, when a 10 seed for each would’ve been plenty generous. (The Beavers had a whole 18-12 record; Wisconsin was 5-6 vs. the top 50 and 10-6 against the top 100, but also had a whopping five sub-100 losses.) Just nine conferences received more than one bid this year, in a year that was tailor-fit for more. Castiglione declared before the tourney that “this year I could make a case for 14 leagues to get multiple bids if a team doesn’t win the automatic berth.” It was nothing more than a tease.

2017

Last in: 10 Marquette (19-12), 10 Oklahoma State (20-12), 10 VCU (26-8), 11 Xavier (21-13), 11 Kansas State (20-13)/Wake Forest (19-13), 11 Providence (20-12)/USC (24-9)

Left out: Akron (26-8), BYU (21-10), California (21-12), Georgia (19-14), Illinois State (27-6), Iowa (18-14), Monmouth (27-6), Syracuse (18-14), Texas-Arlington (25-8)

Multi-bid conferences: 9

Seed list last in: Oklahoma State, Marquette, VCU, Xavier, Providence, Wake Forest, USC, Kansas State

First four out: Syracuse, California, Illinois State, Iowa

Author’s Selection Sunday morning projection & analysis

Author’s post-selections analysis

After three years of selections indicated an undeniable trend, many had become resigned to the way the winds were blowing and it was little surprise that the 2017 NCAA Tournament field again had a heaping helping of teams with 12, 13, even 15 losses.

Once again, this was a year that begged for a return to a 64-team tourney. A number of at-large teams had records of 4-9 or 3-10 against the top 50, hardly encouraging numbers but ones the selection committee chose regularly, and truly there weren’t a ton of better options. By this time, major conferences also were getting so proficient at scheduling collusion that the number of glossy wins for teams outside their ranks were declining to almost zero. A decade or so earlier, a Detroit or Southern Illinois might get an occasional home game against an Indiana or Michigan State. Now, there was essentially no chance, and little shot to play them even on the road.

Among the last in were Oklahoma State, Xavier, Kansas State, Wake Forest and USC, teams with a combined 16-43 record against top 50 teams. Oklahoma State was 3-10 against such teams and even 6-11 vs. the top 100, but the margin of victory metrics loved the Cowboys, who also were a sentimental story as a bit of a surprise in the Big 12. Xavier was 4-9 against the top 50 and 8-13 vs. the top 100. The Musketeers even lost seven of 10 to close the season, but by this time the Last 10 Games critieria had been eliminated, yet another bone thrown to teams like this.

Kansas State was 4-9 against the top 50, Wake Forest 3-9. The Wildcats were just 6-11 against the top 100 and even played a soft non-conference schedule (236th ranked nationally) with the idea of building some confidence, yet still squeezed in thanks in part to two wins over NCAA 3 seed Baylor. Wake at least played a strong non-league schedule (15th best, including an almost unthinkable for a major conference five non-league road games) but was just 8-13 against the top 100. USC’s resume rested more on quantity of wins (24) than quality. A 2-6 record against the top 50 included all eight of those games against RPI top 16 teams, a 6-8 record against the top 100 was OK, but a full 11 wins came against sub-200 opponents. By one measure, Southern Cal had few ‘bad’ losses, with a 21-1 record against teams 93 or better in the RPI. By another, the Trojans were 3-8 against the RPI top 85.

Illinois State was easily the biggest miss from this view. The Redbirds tied Wichita State for the Missouri Valley regular season title, won 26 games and had far and away the best RPI (33) of any team missing the field. Injuries, not playing the margin of victory game to pump up those metrics and bad luck scheduling hurt ISU, which was 1-2 against the top 50 and 2-4 vs. the top 100, with a boatload (13) of RPI 101-200 wins and almost as many sub-200 (10). At full strength, the Redbirds lost twice all season, but they also were hurt by their schedule as games against 2016 NCAA Tournament teams Hawaii, Saint Joseph’s and Tulsa wound up well outside the top 100 and in the case of the first two teams, outside the top 200.

Syracuse carried the popular vote of a high-profile cable network, hardly a surprise given said network’s heavy base of Cuse alums and ex-ACCers among its on-air talent. The Orange did have a 6-8 record against the top 50, but also possessed five sub-100 losses, a terrible road/neutral mark (2-11) and a wimpy RPI (84) that would’ve shattered the record for worst by an at-large selection. Similarly, Iowa was 5-7 against the top 50 but just 7-11 vs. the top 100, had three sub-100 losses and was 4-10 away from home.

California won a lot of games, but was just 2-8 against the top 50 and 6-12 vs. the top 100. Georgia had a similar record to Iowa and Syracuse but was just 1-9 against the top 50. BYU was 2-5 against the top 50, 6-6 vs. the top 100, but also lost three times to sub-200 teams.

Among candidates outside the tier the committee was clearly looking at most, Monmouth again won the MAAC but lost in its three biggest swings against name competition (including convincingly at North Carolina and Syracuse). The Hawks did defeat Princeton for a top 50 win, won at Memphis and were 14-5 away from home in posting another 27 wins. Another committee, and Monmouth might’ve had a chance; with this committee, it wasn’t even on the board per chair and Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis. Texas-Arlington had non-league wins at NCAA 7 seed Saint Mary’s and Texas, though the latter didn’t even grade inside the RPI top 150. The Mavericks did battle some injuries to star Kevin Hervey early in the season but won 23 games despite playing 20 of their 31 contests away from home, including 18 on the road where they posted an 11-7 record. UTA also won a Sun Belt that was the 13th-ranked conference per the NCAA, but five sub-100 losses certainly hurt in a slate that was loaded with 17 games against teams ranked 101-200. Akron had 26 wins, but not a single one so much as inside the top 100.

2018

Last in: 10 Butler (20-13), 10 Oklahoma (18-13), 10 Providence (21-13), 10 Texas (19-14), 11 Arizona State (20-11)/Syracuse (20-13), 11 St. Bonaventure (25-7)/UCLA (21-11)

Left out: Baylor (17-14), Boise State (23-8), Louisville (20-13), Marquette (19-13), Middle Tennessee State (24-7), Nebraska (22-10), Notre Dame (20-14), Oklahoma State (19-14), Penn State (21-13), Saint Mary’s (28-5), USC (23-11)

Multi-bid conferences: 9

Seed list last in: N.C. State, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA, St. Bonaventure, Arizona State, Syracuse

First four out: Notre Dame, USC, St. Mary’s, Baylor

Author’s Selection Sunday morning projection & analysis

Author’s post-selections analysis

Selection for the 2018 tournament saw at least one change, with the move to a quadrant system that was intended to give more or less credit for games depending on where they’re played. It was a needless change from this view, it isn’t hard at all to ask committee members to look at a record against a group of teams and then dig deeper and see if games were played at home, away or on a neutral court. But in true college basketball spirit, the quadrants-like Turner’s massively ill-advised change to the tournament selection show this year-marked more unnecessary tinkering while ignoring real issues.

Far more than how results were being grouped on a nitty gritty or team sheet, the real problem was that something very simple was being lost in the selection process: the importance of winning games. Six teams made the tourney this year with at least 13 losses, and two of the top four left out had 14 losses each. The at-large teams seeded 10th or worse were littered with five of the eight having at least 13 losses; not surprisingly, those teams hailed from a tight group that included two from the Big East, two more from the Big 12 and another from the ACC. Other late selections included two from the Pac-12 and one from the Atlantic 10.

Quadrant 1 wins-particularly at the high end-appeared to be the be-all, end-all, regardless of number of losses in such games. Oklahoma had six Quad 1 wins, but in 15 chances. Providence was 5-8 against Quad 1. Texas was 6-11 against the same. Also, the extinguishing of the Last 10 Games criteria was a lifesaver for Oklahoma and Arizona State, with the Sooners stumbling into the NCAAs losing eight of their last 10 and ASU 4-6 in its last 10 and in all 8-11 since the end of December and finishing eighth in the Pac-12. The Sun Devils’ resume wasn’t even that strong with a 3-4 mark against Quad 1 and 8-9 against the top two quads, but very early season wins over RPI No. 3 Xavier and RPI 5 Kansas clearly carried them.

Two years after being snubbed, St. Bonaventure made it in this year, though the Bonnies were hardly given the red carpet treatment. Somehow a 3-4 record against Quad 1 and 9-4 against the top two quadrants was only good for a play-in game, while Butler at 4-9 against the top quadrant and 8-12 vs. Quadrants 1 & 2 was a 10 seed. The Bonnies at least got in, but deserved much better.

UCLA joined Arizona State as in from the Pac-12, the Bruins making it despite a 3-7 mark against Quadrant 1 and being 8-9 against the top two quadrants with two Quad 3 losses. Somehow not making it was rival USC, which was 4-6 against Quadrant 1, 9-10 against the top two quadrants and even had a superior road record (6-5 to UCLA’s 3-7). Leaving out the Trojans made little sense; the only slight argument might’ve been a lack of highest-end wins (its best was over Middle Tennessee State) and the fact UCLA defeated USC twice.

Joining USC among the biggest snubs was Middle Tennessee State, which the committee clearly went out of its way to ignore considering it wouldn’t even put the Blue Raiders among their first four out. It almost smacked of a vendetta, considering MTSU was ripped off with a 12 seed for a 30-win season the year before and this time had 24 wins, rolled through Conference USA and even entered the national rankings late in the year. The Blue Raiders had a 33 RPI, won 12 road games and played the 11th-ranked non-conference strength of schedule in the country. They did lose close games to NCAA tourney teams Auburn and Miami (Fla.) plus to USC, the three games by a combined 14 points, but still finished 2-3 against Quadrant 1 and 5-4 vs. the top two quadrants despite playing just one of those nine games at home. Clearly Kermit Davis had built a national-caliber program; instead, the committee heavily punished Middle Tennessee after a loss to Southern Mississippi in the C-USA tourney.

Also left out was Saint Mary’s with a 28-5 record, the Gaels dinged for being 2-1 against Quad 1 and 4-3 against the top two groupings and also for the weakness of the West Coast Conference. SMC defeated Gonzaga and BYU both on the road and also topped RPI No. 35 New Mexico State, but lost twice early in the season to middling majors Georgia and Washington State and then saw its 10 Quadrant 3 wins essentially ignored. Saint Mary’s was 12-4 against teams in the RPI top 150, including 8-1 against teams in the 101-150 range, an illustration of how quadrants essentially penalize a team like the Gaels for wins over teams still well in the top half of 350+ Division I teams.

If those teams’ omissions were frustrating, the real stunner of this Selection Sunday was when committee chair and Creighton athletic director Bruce Rasmussen indicated that Notre Dame was the first team out of the field, and would’ve been in had not Davidson pulled an upset in the Atlantic 10 final that day. That would be the same Notre Dame team with a 70 RPI that was 2-9 against Quadrant 1, 7-11 vs. Quadrants 1 & 2, and was even 12-14 against the top three quadrants. It also was the same Notre Dame that ESPN analysts campaigned for endlessly the week before the selections, with much of their case based on the idea of excusing 15 games missed by star Bonzie Colson due to injury. That the committee apparently fell for it was a terrible precedent, showing either 1) losses could be essentially written off due to injury and/or 2) too much time was being spent listening to TV heads.

Also just missing was Baylor, two spots above the Irish in the RPI at 68 and with a 4-12 mark against Quadrant 1, 7-13 vs. the top two quadrants and with a whole 17-14 overall record. The Bears’ resume frankly had no business even being close to a bid. Others left out came for what should’ve been obvious reasons. Louisville was 3-10 against the top quadrant and 5-13 vs. the top two quads. Nebraska and Penn State both received popular support from the popularly supported Big Ten, but neither had much of a case. The Cornhuskers had just one Quadrant 1 win and were 3-9 against the top two quads, while the Nittany Lions were 3-8 vs. Quadrant 1, but all three wins against the same team-Ohio State. Penn State also had eight Quad 1 losses, was just 5-10 against the top two quadrants and played a bad non-conference schedule evidenced in a 77 RPI.

2019

Last in: 10 Florida (19-15), 10 Iowa (22-11), 10 Minnesota (21-13), 10 Seton Hall (20-13), 11 Ohio State (19-14), 11 Arizona State (22-10)/St. John’s (21-12), 11 Belmont (26-5)/Temple (23-9)

Left out: Alabama (18-15), Furman (25-7), Indiana (17-15), Lipscomb (25-7), UNC Greensboro (28-6), N.C. State (22-11), TCU (20-13), Texas (16-16)

Multi-bid conferences: 11

First four out (in order): UNC Greensboro, Alabama, TCU, Indiana

Seed list last in: Iowa, Seton Hall, Minnesota, Florida, Ohio State, Belmont, Temple, Arizona State, St. John’s

Author’s Selection Sunday morning projection & analysis

Author’s post-selections analysis

One of the takeaways from reviewing the history of the NCAA Tournament bubble is that, over time, committees have periodically gone through noticeable changes in emphasis points or what they have collectively looked for or rewarded, whether those changes were explicitly stated or noticeable by analysis.

The future will determine this in more detail, but it appeared there was another at least subtle shift by the committee in 2019. After five years of distinctly favoring teams from the richest conferences, the selection committee was noticeably friendlier to teams outside that sphere. Whether that continues or if it was just a one-year blip will be one of the storylines of the 2020 tourney’s selections.

Selection for the 2019 NCAA Tournament saw yet another new wrinkle thrown into the mix as the selection process continued to be tweaked regularly. (Compare team sheets from even 6-7 years ago with today’s, and you’ll get an idea just how much this is happening) The NCAA listened to coaches and regular social media overreaction about the RPI (sadly, the overreaction also frequently came from the sport’s national media, who one should’ve expected better, more reasoned thought from) and replaced it with the NET, a ranking taking into account margin of victory and a number of other factors.

Though the NCAA refused to release the full formula of the NET, it became clear that blowing out low-rated teams was rewarded, as a North Carolina State team that would’ve ranked in the 80s in the RPI was all the way up at No. 33 on Selection Sunday, and 14-18 Penn State in the 90s in the RPI somehow also ranked in the NET top 50. Whether the NET had a significant effect on resumes and as a result selection would’ve been a fascinating case study-and if it wasn’t tracked it should’ve been, given how long the RPI was used and how much people complained about it. But as people like ESPN color analyst Mark Adams researched, it was a fact that the richest conferences generally benefitted with increases in their ranks, not a surprise at all if one had tracked efficiency ratings in recent years.

Selection-wise, though, the committee made some incremental gains for teams outside the TV Conferences, namely by choosing Belmont for a spot. The Bruins’ resume wasn’t out-of-this-world: 2-2 against Quadrant 1 and 5-3 vs. the top two quadrants. A full 17 of its wins were against Quadrant 4. There really was only one name-brand win, coming at the NET’s 120th-ranked team UCLA. Belmont played strong Lipscomb and Murray State teams twice, though, played at NCAA 3 seed Purdue, and otherwise just kept winning and winning. The Bruins received their first-ever at-large bid, and the committee putting in a team with a full 11 sub-300 wins was a win for teams outside the money conferences.

Seeds for teams like Buffalo (a 6 seed), Wofford (7 seed) and VCU (8) gave more of an indication of a committee being a bit more accommodating of teams like them, but the real eye-opener was a team that just missed the field. NCAA director of media coordination and statistics David Worlock confirmed after the selections that UNC Greensboro was the first team out, and was in until Oregon knocked off Washington in the Pac-12 final the night before. The Spartans were 2-6 against Quadrant 1, 4-6 vs. the top two quads and ranked 60th in the NET, but did play both NCAA 2 seed Kentucky and NCAA 3 LSU tough on the road.

We would’ve had UNCG and Furman both in for their dominance outside the top quadrant. The argument against both would’ve been their combined 3-11 record in Quadrant 1 games, but the two combined to play just two of those 14 games at home with 10 of them on the road. The two also were an incredible 45-2 against teams in quads 2, 3 and 4, and Furman did have a signature win at Villanova. Still, after the way the previous five years had gone for teams like them, it was a stunner to hear UNCG was so close to its first-ever at-large bid. And a welcome one at that.

All was not perfect. The committee still gave a lot of respect to some teams with a lot of losses, and it’s still an unnerving trend to watch in the future. Florida made it in and as a 10 seed with 15 losses, including just a 4-12 mark against Quadrant 1. Ohio State was 19-14, including 4-10 against quad 1. The Buckeyes also were another team that stumbled badly after a hot start, losing 13 of their last 20 games. Ohio State benefitted from the committee’s continued insistence that “every game counts the same,” a noble goal but not a practical one as evidenced by OSU’s top win coming in its season opener against a then-inexperienced Cincinnati team that struggled out of the chute.

While UNCG was a major surprise being the first team out, the committee also came to close to putting in Indiana, having the Hoosiers even the fourth team out with just a 17-15 record. IU was a team of much discussion coming down the season’s homestretch, but a record two games above .500 and a non-conference strength of schedule of 209 should’ve had the Hoosiers far away from the bubble.

Arizona State and St. John’s were two choose-your-flavor teams as at-large options. The Sun Devils’ top numbers weren’t bad (3-3 vs. quad 1 plus 8-3 against quad 2), but they also had two quad 3 and two more quad 4 losses. Moreover, ASU was just a different team after a 9-2 start to the season, going 13-8 the rest of the way and piling up a bunch of bad losses. St. John’s also had a terrible NET (73) but was 5-7 against Quadrant 1 and 10-10 against the top two quadrants. Once again, though, this was a team that cratered late, going 9-12 after a 12-0 start against a cushy schedule, and the Johnnies bumbled into the NCAAs losing four of their last five.

Frankly, most of the candidates beyond the teams that got in were less than inspiring, at least by the typical Quadrant 1 & 2 standards. Xavier was 4-9 against Quadrant 1. TCU was 3-9. So was North Carolina State, which played a horrendous non-conference schedule that was overly rewarded by margin of victory rankings including the NET-a major concern about the NET going forward-but was rightly rebuked by the committee.

Alabama was 3-10 against Quadrant 1. So was Creighton. Clemson was 1-10. Texas was 5-10 against quad 1, but just 16-16 overall. Other than NC State’s puff pastry slate, every one of those games also had at least 13 losses. It would’ve been nice to see more consideration given to a team like Lipscomb (49 in the NET, 2-3 vs. quads 1 and 2) or Hofstra (26 wins, Colonial Athletic Association regular season title). Collusion non-conference scheduling by the top teams, though, plus a quadrant system ranking a disproportionate number of games in quadrants 3 and 4 (even a home win over a team ranked 76th in the NET ranks as just a quad 3 win) have made it harder and harder for these teams to build the numbers needed to get heavy consideration.

Coming tomorrow: A look at 16 of the most heartbreaking, nearest NCAA tourney misses, teams losing at the wire in their conference tournaments and then also passed over by the committee.

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

WhatsApp

Pocket

Print

More

Email

Pinterest



Tumblr



Like this: Like Loading...