Blind Résumés: Comparing two NCAA tournament contenders

Eric Prisbell | USA TODAY Sports

When the NCAA tournament selection committee makes decisions on at-large berths and seeds, it sometimes covers the names of the schools on team reports to focus solely on the bodies of work.

It helps committee members make decisions based on who teams played, where they played and how they did, and guarantees that no one is influenced by a school's name.

Let's compare the résumés of two teams that will make the NCAA tournament. These teams have decent, though unspectacular profiles. The issue here is not whether one should receive an at-large berth. The issue is which team should receive the better seed. The committee is aggressively debating the merits of these two schools. The question: Which team has a stronger overall body of work? You decide.

TEAM A RÉSUMÉ

Record vs. Division I: 22-9

Road/Neutral court record: 4-7

Non-league SOS: 232

Vs. top 50 teams: 1-6

Vs. top 100: 7-9

Vs. sub-300: 2-0

Best RPI wins: 9, 57, 58

Worst RPI losses: 86, 58, 57

Analysis: At first glance, there is a lot to cringe at with this profile. The record outside its zip code is poor. The non-league strength of schedule is poor. The record against top 50 RPI teams is poor. But keep scrolling down the team page. The one thing to like about this team is that it has no losses outside of the top 87 in the RPI. That's good. Few other teams competing for a spot on the same seed line in the NCAAs have that going for them. How much weight do you put into the absence of bad losses? Or are you more turned off by the blemishes on the résumé?

TEAM B RÉSUMÉ

Record vs. Division I: 25-5

Road/Neutral court record: 11-4

Non-league SOS: 78

Vs. top 50 teams: 2-2

Vs. top 100: 6-4

Vs. sub-300: 4-0

Best RPI wins: 28, 41, 71

Worst RPI losses: 159, 98, 98

Analysis: At first glance, this team looks solid. The record outside its zip code is certainly impressive, a mark that few teams in contention for similar seeds can boast. The non-league strength of schedule is fine. The record against top 50 teams shows that this team beat half of the elite teams it played. That's pretty good. It also indicates that this team likely does not play in one of the nation's marquee leagues because it played just four games against such opponents. There are a few blemishes on the résumé, as well, with three of the losses coming against teams rated 98 or worse in the RPI.

BOTTOM LINE

This is one of those cases where different committee members look at the same résumé and value different criteria differently. It really boils down to what you personally value most on a specific résumé. Team A is flawed in so many areas … except that it does not have any eye sore of a loss on its profile. That counts for something. The question is how much should it count? Team B looks solid and it can definitely win away from home, which is something the committee values. But it's got a few warts on that resume, as well, specifically those three losses against teams 98 or worse in the RPI. Okay, who are the teams?

TEAM A: Ohio State

TEAM B: Colorado State

Every season there is always a team whose résumé is overrated by the public. And there's always a team whose résumé is underrated by the public. That's that is what this comparison illustrates. On the Web site The Bracket Matrix, which accounts for more than 100 mock brackets comprised by bracketologists nationwide — include our Shelby Mast — you'll see that Ohio State is a No. 8 seed, while Colorado State is a No. 10 seed. Do you agree with that?

Are you going to give Ohio State the edge here largely because it has avoided any losses to teams outside the top 100 in the RPI? The Buckeyes don't have much else to love. This is one of those cases where you wonder if public perception is influenced by the fact that the name of the school is Ohio State and the roster includes one of the top five players in the nation in dynamic freshman D'Angelo Russell. Those things shouldn't matter.

Colorado State has the stronger résumé here, albeit not by much. CSU has more top 50 wins even though it has played fewer games against the top 50. It has performed particularly well on the road. The three losses to teams rated 98 or worse in the RPI are not great and do prevent CSU from being on a better seed line.

So in this exercise, let's give Colorado State a 9 seed, while Ohio State gets a 10. And that's all fine for CSU … except if it draws a No. 1 seed from Lexington in the second round.



