Wooo! We're in the tournament! Or, at least we're on the bubble!
March is here, and for many of us, that can mean only one thing. No, not St. Patrick’s Day, and no, not my wife’s birthday (sorry, honey), but the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship. Yes, March Madness is upon us. The tournament itself doesn’t start until March 16, so until that time, we’ll have to content ourselves with endless speculation about which teams will and will not make it into the field. 31 teams are guaranteed berths by winning their conference tournaments (or, in the case of the Ivy League, winning the regular season championship), leaving 34 at-large spots open. Some teams are obvious choices, like Kansas, Kentucky, and Syracuse, provided they don’t win automatic spots. Others are less obvious, though. Utah State is 23-6, but play in the appalling WAC. If they don’t win their conference tournament, should they still make it into the Big Dance?
As much flak as the selection committee takes over where they seed teams in the tournament, they take even more when they decide which teams on the bubble to even allow into the tournament. To be fair, it’s hardly a simple process. There are a lot of ways to measure a team’s strength, and all of them do so differently. For instance, Gonzaga has a record of 24-5 this year, and plays in the equally reprehensible WCC, yet no one is questioning whether the Bulldogs will make an appearance in the tournament. Why then, the lack of love for the 23-6 Aggies?
Let’s consider each of the tools the selection committee uses and see. One major tool they use is RPI (Ratings Percentage Index). RPI essentially measures a team’s winning percentage against its strength of schedule. No one is going to argue that a win over, say, Duke, is more valuable than a win over 1-28 Marist. RPI weights those wins differently. It also takes into consideration a team’s opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. A win over Robert Morris (20-11) or Quinnipiac (21-8) might seem solid considering their winning percentages, but if you look at their strengths of schedule, you’ll find that they reached those gaudy records by pounding on teams like Wagner (5-26). RPI helps to provide a clearer picture. Teams with an RPI of 30 or above have a solid chance at an at-large spot; any lower, and you might be sweating on Selection Sunday.
The selection committee also considers how many quality wins a team has, usually determined by RPI. If your team beats an RPI top-50 opponent, that’s a quality win. A top-25 win is even better. The committee will look at how a team performed against high quality opponents to get an idea of how they would perform in the tournament. (They also take bad losses into account, so be careful if you lost to, say, Cal State Bakersfield this year.) If you’re on the bubble, you’d better have a few quality wins to hang your hat on, or you might be watching from home.
Finally, even if you have a solid RPI and some quality wins, you’d better have 20 or more wins, especially if you’re a mid-major team. The selection committee has been willing to give teams with as few as 17 wins at-large bids (2004 Alabama, I’m looking at you here), but those are nearly always power conferences. Mid-majors usually need 20-25 wins to secure an at-large spot. If you’re hovering around 18 or 19, you stand an excellent chance of being passed over.
So once the committee uses these tools to create a list of the top 40 or so teams in the nation other than those with auto bids, they discuss which should and which should not be in the tournament. Like it or not, prestige plays a factor here. If you’re a team like North Carolina, Arizona, or Kentucky that has a rich tradition in the tournament and you’re on the bubble, you might find yourself included in the tournament even if there are other, slightly more deserving, teams.
So the teams that find themselves on the bubble are usually the 30th-40th best teams, after removing automatic qualifiers. These are teams that are frantically scrambling for wins at the end of the season, desperate for one last chance to impress the selection committee before they make their decision. This year, that’s teams like Illinois, Florida, San Diego State, and Dayton, who have been good, but hardly great. That also includes teams like Utah State, who have made a name for themselves by pummeling atrocious teams but have hardly been tested against power teams. The Aggies have an RPI of 32 (solid), a strength of schedule that is the 102nd toughest in the nation (not so solid), and only one win over a top-25 RPI team (vs. no. 22 BYU in December). Put that together and their 24-6 record doesn’t look quite as impressive.
Utah State still stands a fair chance of making the tournament, even as an at-large team, but it’s nothing that I’d bet my house on. (I don’t even own a house, so I’d definitely think twice here.)
RPI, strength of schedule, and quality wins, are also great tools to use when filling out your bracket. I don’t want to give away all of my secrets here, because I’m writing an article about that in a couple of weeks, but suffice it to say that there’s one major factor the selection committee doesn’t take into account that is a major predictor of future success.
In the meantime, you can impress your friends that are fans of bubble teams by scoffing at them with disdain, saying things like, “You think your team can make the Dance with an RPI of 74? Please.”
reprehensible WCC? appalling WAC? How about appalling and irresponsible writing?