ESPN.com - NCB - Emptying the Bracketology mailbag

RPI & Other Musings
I would like for you to clarify something for me: What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the NCAA basketball tournament? If it is a tournament of the best teams to determine the "true" national title, then there is every reason for the power conferences to get the benefit of the doubt (regardless of a sub .500 conference record). Is there any doubt in your mind that if Tennessee, Virginia or Wake Forest played in one of the mid-major conferences that they would have at least a .500 conference record? To disregard their out-of-conference schedule because they did not finish even in the conference gives teams no reason to play tough out-of-conference games, since they have no effect on entry into the tournament. The fact that out-of-conference schedule does matter gives the mid-majors a chance to prove themselves (because they cannot do so by beating up the cream puffs inside their conference).
If you want to make the NCAA Tournament a reward for a successful season, then that is fine. Find another way to determine the national champ. If not, then the 64 best teams should be in the tournament, based on their entire schedule and record, not just part of it.

Raymond Snyder

The reply is in response to my proposal that Division I teams be required to play .500 or better in conference games (including conference tournament games) in order to be eligible for an at-large bid. Here are a few more thoughts on the idea, some in reaction to Raymond:

1. The NCAA Tournament does, in fact, determine a "true" national champion. Let's not forget that pretty much EVERY SINGLE TEAM is eligible for the national tourney through their own league playoffs. In that sense, sub-.500 conference teams have the same opportunity to advance as VMI or Western Carolina.

2. No one is suggesting the NCAA Tournament always determines the best team. We all know the consensus "best team" frequently is not the one cutting down the nets at the Final Four. What the tournament does determine quite well is a national champion, because, via the annual automatic qualifiers, it is an open and national event.

3. To suggest inviting only the 64 very best teams is simplistic and unrealistic, given the association of disparate institutions that compose NCAA membership. Think of it this way: Since Alaska only has three electoral votes, and since the margin of victory in any presidential election has never been fewer than four, why should Alaska ever vote? The answer, of course, is that Alaskans are as equal as Californians or New Yorkers in the eyes of the republic.

4. What I really think is that if one of your cited teams (say Wake Forest) was suddenly shifted to the CAA, it would eventually become a mid-major program. After a few years -- with significantly less TV exposure, diminished recruiting, a weaker schedule, etc. -- Wake would be much closer to Richmond than Duke on the national stage. This is exactly my point in saying power conferences ALREADY get every benefit of the doubt.

I'm not losing any sleep over the idea of leaving a 6-8 SEC team at home so that a Southwest Missouri State can get a second bid from the Missouri Valley Conference. It says here that an SMS would have an equally good chance (or better, if recent tourney results are any indication) of reaching the Sweet 16 as a diminished Tennessee.

I am writing to recommend the computer rankings of a friend, a Ph.D. economics student whose system is far, far superior to the RPI. His site is http://www.stanford.edu/~damiller/difcr/index.html and his FAQ (http://www.stanford.edu/~damiller/difcr/FAQ.html) explains his system and why it is more credible than the RPI.

Jeff Hauser

We'll let the readers respond on this one.

Around the Bracket
You have taken a lot of flak about your Virginia statements after the Duke game, and also about your lack of respect for the ACC. Even as a UVa student and super-fan, I agreed with your statement after the Duke game about Virginia not being a lock. If they had lost the rest of their games, they would certainly not have deserved a bid.
But Virginia just stomped a UNC team that is supposed to be one of the best. When does UVa begin to earn respect? They have underachieved at times, but I can't imagine them being less than a two or three seed barring an ACC tourney collapse. What do the Cavs have to do to create a buzz?

David Kushner

The Cavs certainly have plenty of "buzz" right now -- all of it deserved. I also do not think they have underachieved at any point this year. All I thought was that Virginia needed to win one more league game to be a "lock." Mission accomplished.

I have lived near East Lansing for pretty much my entire life, and for all these years I've always been a fan of the Michigan State Spartans. I am just wondering about your thoughts on how good a chance they have of earning a No. 1 seed in the Midwest Region. I know that Illinois beat them in their only matchup this season, but the game was tight for the most part. Not to mention, over 80 percent of Big Ten games are won by the home team as the Big Ten is most likely the toughest place to play away from home.
Anyway, if it turns out that the Illini and Spartans share the Big Ten crown, do you think that if the Spartans win the Big Ten Tournament, that the Selection Committee will select them over the Illini? Or do you think that the committee may still stick with Illinois based on the fact that they beat MSU in the lone showdown this season? With that point aside, I think that the Big Ten Tournament will be more exciting than ever, and I think the NCAA Tournament, with so much parity this season, will be a heck of an event.

Tokhieguy

Hard to argue with either of your last assertions. We where differ is in our interpretation of the results of the Big Ten tourney. You think it may muddy the waters for selecting the Midwest No. 1 seed; I think it will clarify the situation.

My question is about the ultimate bubble team, the Richmond Spiders. With an end of season record of 21-6 (everyone knows that they are not allowed to play in the CAA Tournament) and being regular-season champs, will it be enough? They have won 10 of their last 11, beating American by 41, George Mason by 20 and VCU by 18 in their final three games. There road record is 10-4 and they beat Mississippi State at their home stadium. Their current RPI is 45, not too bad. How does it look in your eyes?

Simon Paola

I currently have the Spiders "in" the projected field. I also think they will receive extra consideration because of the CAA political situation. It is not unlike the first time Charleston went to the tourney in the early 90s. The Cougars were not yet eligible for their league tournament (TAAC), but posted an impressive enough season to catch the eye of the committee. Having said that, Richmond's overall profile is not as strong as Charleston's that year AND they do not have similar signature wins. However, I believe it will go right down to the wire for the Spiders.

South Florida is a strong team in Conference USA, which is barely mentioned on television and the ESPN web site. They have both a solid conference record as well as overall. What do you think their chances are of making the NCAA Tournament and, if they do make it, how far do you think they can really go?

Jordan Klein

South Florida has underachieved for the second year in a row. And the weakness of Conference USA, compared to prior years at least, makes their NCAA at-large chances virtually nil. USF has better win the conference tournament if it has any real aspirations beyond next week.

I just wanted to take a little time to respond to some of your recent points of view on the ACC. Since I am a huge Virginia fan, you are not one of my favorite people. Frankly, I believe you do not know what in the heck you are talking about. First of all, the ACC is the best conference in the nation and the rest of the nation just does not stack up with them. I think you have something against the ACC and, for some strange reason, you have something against Virginia.
What have they done to you? Did they beat one of your favorite teams? Ha! Ha! Virginia's record speaks for itself. I think 18-6 is pretty good considering they have beaten Duke, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland and Wake Forest. I also think North Carolina is going to be added to that list pretty soon. They got the shaft last year and that will not happen this year no matter what you say. I think your whole opinion on things comes from you being jealous of the ACC. They have always been the best and they always will be.
Well, back to Virginia now. They are currently ranked ninth in the AP poll and eleventh in the coaches poll, and you are going to tell me that they are on the bubble? I think it's time for you to retire. I wished I got paid to give stupid opinions like you. I know more about college basketball than you could ever dream of.
Well, Joe, I could waste my precious time and dispute with you, but I am not going to. When the dust all clears, the ACC will shine like always and they will cause guys like you to choke on your pathetic words. I cannot say that it has been good talking to you.

Jason Smith

Jason, you are a credit to your school, the nation and the entire free world. For the record, I never said Virginia was "on the bubble." I did suggest, prior to the North Carolina game, that UVa was not yet a lock (one game over .500 at the time in the ACC, an RPI in the 40s and a non-conference schedule ranked No. 197). The number of individuals from such a fine institution who did not make that simple distinction continues to boggle my mind.

Play-In Confusion
I know that everyone is concerned about the bubble teams and conference champions, but I still think there is some interest (confusion?) regarding the 64-65 game on Tuesday night, March 13. Will this strictly be a matchup of the lowest-rated RPI teams who get automatic bids as conference champions or will the overall conference RPI have an impact, too?
For example, say James Madison (which has been playing well of late) sweeps the Colonial tournament to get the automatic conference bid. Their record will be about .500 with a very low RPI (in the 175 range). Would the higher RPI of the Colonial keep JMU out of the play-in game, as compared to, say, the RPI of the SWAC or Big South conference? Or, in this specific example, does JMU get out of the play-in game since they beat potential Big South champion Radford earlier in the season? This is definitely looking at the bracket from a true bottoms-up perspective.

John Munster

When the play-in game(s) were first necessary in the early 1990s, its participants were determined one year prior by Conference RPI. In other words, the tournament committee knew that the champions of League X and League Y would be pre-slotted into whichever play-in game(s) were necessary. For this year, the committee has amended its procedures to have team Nos. 64 and 65 "play in" (regardless of conference affiliation). So, hypothetically, Rhode Island and Northwestern could be in the play in teams if both posted near-miraculous conference tournament victories.

PS: How's Herman? And I'll bet you really got tired of that as a kid.

I've kept silent on this issue, but now I really must ask a silly question. Is this play-in game going to be a permanent addition to the tournament? In my opinion, it is patently ridiculous to ruin the tournament simply to have a 17-12 (7-9 in conference) at-large team in the field. Please tell me this is a one-year aberration.

Jeremy Scott

I cannot grant your wish, Jeremy. The number of at-large teams in the field is mandated by the NCAA at 34. So there will be play-in game(s) as long as the number of automatic qualifiers is greater than 30.

Every week, you tell us that "the best teams, regardless of conference" should be selected to the Dance. But then you tell us that the 34 at-large bid rule is unfair to the little guys, two of which get stuck playing the play in game. Aren't these two positions contradictory? It seems to me that if the best teams, regardless of conference, are to play in the championship, then there should be 64 at-large teams. Let the reward of a conference championship be just that?a conference championship.
I'm not advocating this, mind you. However, it's pretty tough to get all worked up over the poor, poor teams which will play in the play-in game when these teams will probably be the two annual teams that get in with losing records by virtue of beating the other bad teams which comprise their conference.

Matthew Ryan

The fly in this ointment is that the "poor, poor teams" you mention are equal members of an association called the NCAA, as are their conferences. Once NCAA membership recognizes those schools and conferences according to established criteria, they have a right to participate in the national championship. Now I'll grant you that a No. 16 seed has never won an NCAA tournament game, but I doubt that was going through John Thompson's mind against Princeton or Gene Keady's mind against Western Carolina or Jud Heathcote's mind against Murray State or Nolan Richardson's mind against Texas Southern. And then there are those No. 15 seeds?Coppin State, Santa Clara, Richmond, etc.?which HAVE advanced. To me, the real question you should be asking is: Why should one of those teams be left out of the main bracket so that the Big Ten can get seven teams instead of six.

Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com and ESPN Radio (Mondays, 9:20 p.m., EST and Saturdays, 2:25 p.m. EST). He is also the editor of www.bracketology.net. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.

Send this story to a friend | Most sent stories

ALSO SEE

Lunardi: NCAA Tournament Bracketology

Chat wrap: Joe Lunardi