Committee chariman Mike Slive continues to fine-tune a system that will never please everybody.
In case you missed it, last week, the NCAA officially announced it would no longer give extra emphasis to how a team finished its season when considering who to select as at-larges for The Tournament.
Should how a team finishes down the final third of its season be taken into account? The flow of the five-month season is one that often sees hot, Top-25 teams in December fizzle into a shell of themselves come conference postseason time.
There are arguments, good ones, for both sides.
If you weren’t sick of the term “body of work” last season, prepare to have it heaped on and in nearly every broadcast or column come next March.
“As the committee continues to hone its message regarding how it views the season, parsing a particular segment of games and implying it had greater weight than others seemed misleading and inconsistent,” said committee chair and Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive. “The removal of this reference avoids confusion in the room and brings our reporting in line with our process.”
When you really look at what teams have been selected and what teams have been left out, the issue is clearly overblown. Rare is the case where a stumbling team has been left out in favor of a team that finishes 10-2; usually the latter has the better wins, anyway.
The best effect this will likely have is to curb the Committee’s penchant to overseed teams that get hot in conference tournaments. (Though, it should be noted that with sleepers like Georgia in 2008 and Mississippi State in 2009, the Committee seeded rationally.) Still, there have been some cases — like Syracuse as a 5-seed in 2006 — where overreaction and emotion took hold due to a lot of national exposure in light of what transpired in four, five or six games.
DI Men’s Basketball Committee Removes Last 12 Games from Selection Toolbox {NCAA.org}
