Local Teams in the Dance: The Committee Got It Wrong

Headed into Selection Sunday, I had a pretty good idea of what the local NCAA teams could expect when seedings were announced – or so I thought. Villanova, at 24-7, despite losing a Big East quarterfinal to Marquette, were coming off an impressive campaign. On the other hand, the Wildcats had won only 4 of their final 10 games. With there grueling in-conference schedule however, I expected a well-deserved seeding of 3. After all, the Nova played the 22-nd toughest schedule in the nation and finished the year 11th in RPI. Temple, 29-5, winners of 10 straight, and conference champions both in the regular and postseasons seemed destined to be a 4. Going into Sunday, the Owls ranked in the top 15 in RPI (now 8th), and were ranked 17th in the AP Poll (now 12th). Temple also had 11 wins against top 100 teams and many experts had the Cherry and White pegged as a 3-seed.

Much to everyone’s surprise, Villanova received a 2-seed from the Selection Committee, while Temple was given what many consider to be a slap in the face, a 5 seed. To make things worse for the Owls, they will have to face a Cornell squad that is easily the best Ivy League champion in over a decade. In fact, the Big Red themselves appear to be misseeded, too.

But rather than sit around and stir over the results, I decided to do some objective research, looking at factors such as strength of schedule, RPI, conference RPI, poll rankings, etc. What I found was that there appear to be misseedings and ‘slights’ all over this year’s bracket. All 4 number-4 seeds are at-large selections from BCS conferences, yet none have an RPI higher than 16th. Did the Committee feel obligated to reward Ohio State a 2-seed? Yes, they won the Big Ten Conference, but so too did West Virginia win a tougher Big East, and they also received “just” a 2. Northern Iowa won 28 of 32 contests, and captured the Missouri Valley Championship. Sure, the MVC might not be a BCS conference, but experts had them penciled in as a 7-seed, yet they receive a 9? Then there’s Florida, Maryland and well, many other examples, but lets just stick to the Big 5 for now.

The NCAA Selection Committee is made up of 10 high-ranking officials from NCAA-member universities. Half are from BCS schools, the other half from non-BCS institutions. Reportedly this time around, the Committee did not factor in the performance of a team over its final 10 contests. Rather, they chose to look at a team’s full body of work as a whole. This may explain why Temple ended up a 5 and how Villanova managed to bow out early at Madison Square Garden and still claimed a 2-seed.

Google the term “bracket matrix” and one finds a site that tracks the mock brackets of 83 of the most well known bracket prognosticators on the internet, let alone the blogosphere. And of those 83 final mock brackets, 74% had Nova as a 3-seed while 66% felt the Owls were worthy of not just a 4 but in fact, a 3.

Personally, as a Temple sports fan, I would have been fine with a 4-seed. One can certainly argue that the only difference between a 4 and a 5 is simply the color of the jersey a team will wear in the round of 32. Regardless, I find the 5 to be unjust based on the body of work which Temple put together. Look at the graphic carefully. NOTE: It’s not meant to be an argument of which school is better, but simply to provide some objectivity. So now I pose the question. If all Temple had to do was win 29 games, go 14-2 in conference, beat Rhody 3 times, defeat Villanova, Xavier, sweep Atlantic city (again), oh, and win 10 straight overall – then what exactly did they have to do to wear those home whites one more time (assuming the Owls beat Cornell)?

Additionally, the A10 was a much-improved league this season; teams handled themselves well out of conference as they often do, but especially against the big conferences. I would hate to think the Committee slighted an A10 school because of the past few seasons where things weren’t this good, or simply because it is not BCS. It is and has consistently been the best mid-major men’s basketball conference for a long time running.

I happen to still believe in the idea of looking at a teams ‘last 10’ as a separate indicator of strength. As far as Nova goes, they are certainly a storied program and are having another stellar season. Coming off a Final Four appearance, perhaps, has glamorized the Cats in the eyes of the Committee, who also try and evaluate how they think a team can or will perform in the Tournament. But even fans up on the Main Line will tell you, Nova has struggled to a degree lately; they sure don’t look like the 9th best team in the country, (VU’s final AP ranking). Therefore, I simply ask: Would a 3-seed have been such an insult? For the Owls, winning 10 straight to this point helped them secure another conference banner to hang from the rafters of the Liacouras Center. No, not all 10 wins were against elite competition, but it is an indication that the Owls are a team that is handling business down the stretch when they need to. How Temple will ‘do’ in the coming weeks remains to be seen of course, but the fellas from North Broad deserved better, all things considered.

In conclusion, though both of these area schools are for all intents and purposes misseeded, the players and coaches involved have bigger obstacles to worry about than dumb numbers – that’s where I come in. But it is I, and many Big 5 fans who are likely to keep harping on these seeds, justly I believe. Year in and year out, the Selection Committee has an arduous task of trying to properly place 65 teams together. This season, however, their mistakes have hit very close to home.

-John Shoemaker