NCAA TOURNAMENT: HOW IN THE WORLD IS THE COMMITTEE GOING TO MAKE AT LARGE SELECTIONS? PART 3 - THE REMAINING AT LARGE TEAMS

Step 2:  Once the tentative Top 16 are set, there will be additional at large positions to fill to get to 19.

Although we know the Committee’s Top 16 each year, the Committee does not tell us how it ranked the remaining at large teams in the bracket.  There is one set of decisions the Committee makes, however, that gives some insight into how it ranks teams: awards of first round home games.  While it may not always be true that the Committee gives home games to the teams it considers #17 through #32, for purposes of figuring out an appropriate baseline distribution of the additional at large selections among conferences and regions, treating the historic unseeded first round home teams as #17 through #32 is as good an approach as I can find.  

Using that approach, the following tables show the conference distribution of unseeded teams that have had home field advantage in the Tournament first round.  The first table is for automatic qualifiers, the second for at large teams, and the third for the two combined.

Of these three tables, the middle one for the unseeded home field at large teams is the most useful.  It shows that historically all of the unseeded home field at large teams have come from the highlighted conferences.

Building on the above conference tables and those from the Part 2 article, one final conference table shows the historic distribution among conferences of both seeded teams and unseeded home field teams (including both automatic qualifiers and at large teams):

(Note:  The numbers do not always come out to 32 teams per year due to the tables not including the Ivy League and the Big West.)

Based on this table, here are tentative numbers of teams for conferences, covering both seeds and additional teams in the Top 32 (rounding off the averages from the above table).  Plus I am including the historic maximum and minimum for each conference:

ACC:  7 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 5 and 9

American: 2 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 0 and 3

Atlantic Sun: 0 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of 1

Big East: 1 team as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 0 and 3

Big 10:  4 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 1 and 8

Big 12:  4 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 2 and 6

Colonial: 0 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of 1

Mountain West: 0 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of 1

Pac 12:  5 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 3 and 7

Patriot: 0 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of 1

SEC:  5 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 4 and 8

Summit: 0 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of 1

Sun Belt: 0 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of 1

West Coast:  2 teams as the tentative number, but with the possibility of the number ranging between 1 and 3

In the selection system I am describing, as a first step in its process of adding at large teams to those seeded, the Committee would use the above numbers to create lists of teams based on where they stand within their conferences.

In the preceding article, I described the method I am using for ranking teams within their conferences.  That method results in the following table of teams, based on the actual results of games played through March 21 and simulated of games not yet played (including conference tournaments).  The tentative seeded teams are Tier 1; the tentative teams ranked #17 through #32 are Tier 2; and the possible additional candidates based on the maximum each conference has had historically are Tier 3:

In the table, the yellow highlighted teams are conference automatic qualifiers or teams my simulation currently says will be automatic qualifiers.

With this list, I do a check to see that the distribution of teams among regional playing pools is appropriate.  The following table is similar to the last conference table above:

This table says that the list of seeds and unseeded candidates should include, on average, no Middle, 2 Northeast, 22 South and 7 West teams.  The above list, based on the last conferences table, includes these numbers for the South and West regions but has only 1 team from the Northeast.  Because of this, I can consider elevating a Northeast region team from Tier 3 to Tier 2.  This team would come from the Big East, Colonial, or Patriot conference.

With the list set, I first, starting with the Tier 1 teams, must decide on the actual 16 seeds.  To do this, I focus my attention on the Tier 1 teams’ actual game results as well as the game results of the Tier 2 teams.  My primary emphasis is on head-to-head results among the teams in these Tiers and especially very good head-to-head results, with perhaps secondary consideration of results of teams in these Tiers against common opponents and of poor results.

Once I have set the actual 16 seeds, there will be 14 (or 15) teams from Tiers 1 and 2 that did not get seeds.  This is likely to be more teams than there will be remaining at large positions to fill.  I again use actual game results to decide on a tentative list of teams from this group to fill the remaining at large positions, again with a primary emphasis on head-to-head results and especially very good head-to-head results and perhaps secondary consideration of results against common opponents and poor results.

With final decisions on seeds and tentative decisions on the remaining at large teams in place, I now look at the Tier 3 teams to see if any of them that are not automatic qualifiers should replace any of the tentative at large selections.  Again, I use actual game results to do this with an emphasis on head to head results and especially very good head-to-head results and perhaps with consideration of results against common opponents and poor results.

At the end of this process, I have completed the at large selections.  And, I have produced a credible group of participants for the NCAA Tournament.