NCAA Basketball: NCAA Tournament selection process needs modifications

While it doesn’t get any better than NCAA basketball come March, the country’s most-exhilarating sporting event does possess some defects.

When the NCAA basketball regular season gives way to the annual Big Dance, I can’t think of any more exciting time of the year as far as athletics in the United States are concerned. Sixty-eight squads vie for immortality, with upsets galore, blue bloods flexing their muscles, and mid-major programs hoping to journey on miraculous Cinderella runs.

I’d passionately argue that the NCAA Tournament is the pre-eminent sports competition in America, if not worldwide, although a case can absolutely get made for the Olympics or the World Cup. Regardless, March Madness is sensational, yet it’s far from perfect.

On that topic, CBS Sports Senior Writer Matt Norlander recently published a piece where he and colleague Gary Parrish surveyed numerous collegiate-hoops coaches about the Big Dance selection process. The responses are worth discussing because I believe that the NCAA Tournament must continue to evolve, even if it’s already fantastic.

Among the issues described by coaches are mid-major discrimination, a lack of consistency year by year on the criteria for inclusion, the notion that performance in league play should carry more weight, the utilization of the NET rankings, more transparency from the selection committee, and seeding protocol.

The mid-major debate is a tricky one, and arguments from each side are valid. Mid-majors often feel that they are snubbed in favor of power-conference crews, and that’s a legitimate stance to take.

The Big Dance is a massive television experience that generates substantial revenue and, of course, relies on ratings to draw in advertising, corporate sponsorships and other marketing dollars. From a purist perspective, the NCAA Tournament should invite the top-68 units, plain and simple. I don’t think that always happens. Perhaps, sometimes, a group from a power league, like Syracuse (my alma mater), will receive an at-large berth over a mid-major that amassed 25-plus wins but failed to capture its conference’s post-season tourney.

Should the Orange, with an Atlantic Coast Conference record hovering around .500, or possibly below that, make March Madness? Well, Syracuse brings with it a huge fan base. In 2016 and 2018, despite barely slipping into the Big Dance, the Orange went on to the Final Four and the Sweet 16 as a No. 10 seed and a No. 11 seed, respectively.

That mid-major which got hosed due to Syracuse sneaking in, would it have advanced that deep? Probably not, but you never know. Still, the Orange likely provides stronger ratings, and a logical assertion could get made that this mid-major would fare worse than Syracuse if it suited up in the rugged ACC.

I never want to see the Orange on the wrong side of the bubble, however, part of the NCAA Tournament’s charm is the instances where small schools from mid-major leagues get an opportunity to dazzle us in March and early April. To that end, and this is my own personal opinion, but I’m adamant that automatic entry into the Big Dance should go to those teams which emerge victorious in their conferences’ regular-season races, not their leagues’ post-season tourneys.

A sub-par squad, whether in a power conference or a mid-major league, that gets hot for a few days is not the equivalent of those crews that are a model of excellence for multiple months. I know that this could erase the importance of post-season conference tournaments, and I honestly don’t care. A group that accumulates 25 to 30 conquests is superior to one that only nabs 18 to 20. And, for those leagues which typically secure only one bid, the regular season should have the most pull.

Another gripe in the Norlander article is a lack of consistency and transparency surrounding the NET and other criteria used in the selection process. I get it. There are so many data points under consideration, including those contained within the NET system, the four quadrants, and a handful of other metrics.

There’s the non-conference calendar versus in-league performance and a team’s full body of work as compared to how it plays down the stretch. You can crunch numbers all day and all night, but there remains subjectivity in which groups make it in, and those whose bubbles unfortunately burst. Improved consistency and transparency with all of these factors is ideal, though.

One area that constantly irritates me revolves around the actual seeding. The No. 1 overall seed should have the worst No. 2 seed in its region, and the fourth-best No. 1 seed should get placed in the same bracket with the top No. 2 seed. Why this doesn’t occur boggles my mind. Take the 2019 NCAA Tournament. Duke, the No. 1 overall seed, is in the East Region with Michigan State, a No. 2 seed. But the Spartans aren’t the weakest of the two seeds, and the Blue Devils had to meet them in the Elite Eight. Not a lot of common sense there.

The bottom line is that the Big Dance selection process is just that – a process. Hopefully, as time passes by, it will continue to change and grow for the betterment of the sport.