In the bracket simulation my computer produced, it had Iowa State and Oklahoma State "in" and DePaul and Texas A&M "out." Here's how they came out in terms of meeting "in" and "out" standards. (If you don't know what I mean by "standards," read the second preceding post about Princeton where I give an explanation.) Here's how these four teams came out on the standards in general:
Iowa State: met 4 "yes" standards; and no "no" standards
Oklahoma State: met 5 "yes" standards; and 5 "no" standards
DePaul: met 2 "yes" standards; and 11 "no" standards
Texas A&M: met no "yes" standards; and 3 "no" standards
Based on this, the obvious computer choice was Iowa State "in" and Texas A&M "out." This left a decision between Oklahoma State and DePaul, when looking at these four teams. Both of these teams, with some "yes" and some "no" standards, presented profiles the Committee hasn't seen over the last 9 years. My approach with teams like this is that the team with best "yes" to "no" comparison gets the selection, so as between Oklahoma State and DePaul, the decision went to Oklahoma State. But, what underlies those numbers?
Here are the teams' "profiles." For a description of what the non-obvious factor titles are referring to, again go to the second preceding post about Princeton.
| Factor | Iowa State | Oklahoma State | DePaul | Texas A&M |
| ARPI | 0.5789 | 0.5709 | 0.5721 | 0.5702 |
| ARPI Rank | 48 | 56 | 54 | 57 |
| ANCRPI | 0.5899 | 0.5897 | 0.5156 | 0.6085 |
| ANCRPI Rank | 46 | 47 | 130 | 29 |
| Top 60 Results Score | 548 | 144 | 7200 | 365 |
| Top 60 Results Rank | 35 | 41 | 23 | 40 |
| Conference Standing | 6 | 6 | 2.5 | 6.75 |
| Conference ARPI | 0.6010 | 0.6010 | 0.5492 | 0.5754 |
| Conference ARPI Rank | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Top 60 Head to Head Results Score | -1.00 | -0.60 | -0.60 | -0.71 |
| Common Opponent Results Score | -3.68 | -4.70 | -3.32 | -4.35 |
| Common Opponent Results Rank | 55 | 59 | 51 | 57 |
| Last 8 Games (Season Poor Results) Score | -8 | -8 | -12 | -17 |
With those team profiles in mind, here are the "yes" and "no" standards the teams met:
Iowa State. 4 "yes" standards; and no "no" standards:
"Yes" standards:
Conference Standing <=6, together with Conference ARPI >=.5868
Conference Standing <=6.25, together with Conference ARPI >=.5930
Conference Standing <=6.75, together with Conference ARPI >=.5971
Conference Standing <= 6.75, together with Conference ARPI rank = 1
You'll note that the first three "yes" standards involve the same two factors. What this means is that Iowa State met this paired factor "yes" standard by a significant margin.
Essentially, over the last 9 years, every team that had Iowa State's conference standing, conference ARPI, and conference rank profile has gotten an at large position in the Tournament. Since Iowa State meets no "no" standards, the Committee's decision not to give Iowa State an at large selection was a break from past precedent. It's possible that the Committee considered the size of the Big 12 conference -- 9 teams -- and felt that a 6th place finish was not sufficient to justify an at large selection, even if a 6.75 place finish would be sufficient for a team from a larger conference. But see Oklahoma State.
And, it's worth noting that during Big 12 conference play, Iowa State beat Oklahoma State @ Oklahoma State.
Oklahoma State. 5 "yes" standards; and 5 "no" standards:
"Yes" standards:
Conference Standing <=6, together with Conference ARPI >=.5868
Conference Standing <=6.25, together with Conference ARPI >=.5930
Conference Standing <=6.75, together with Conference ARPI >=.5971
Conference Standing <= 6.75, together with Conference ARPI rank = 1
Conference ARPI rank = 1, together with Head to Head Results score >=-0.77
The first four of these match the four "yes" standards for Iowa State. Iowa State and Oklahoma State were tied for 6th in the conference standings. (For conference standings, my system averages the regular season standings with the conference tournament finishing position standings.) With the two teams being tied, the Committee conceivably could have decided it would treat one team as the 5th in the 9-team Big 12 and the other as the 6th (they split the 5 and 6 positions in the regular season and went out in the Big 12 tournament quarterfinals). And, whereas they may have felt the 6th place team was too far down in the ranks of a 9 teams conference for an at large selection, they might also have felt the 5th place team was high enough.
On the last of the "yes" standards, Oklahoma State's head to head results against Top 60 teams were better than Iowa State's. The difference, however, was only slight: Oklahoma State was 2-6-2 and Iowa State was 2-6-1. This could have given the Committee a very slight basis for preferring Oklahoma State over Iowa State.
"No" standards:
ARPI Rank >=55, ANCRPI Rank >=31
ARPI Rank >=48, Top 50 Results score <=172
ARPI Rank >=55, Top 50 Results score <=380
ARPI Rank >=51, Top 50 Results Rank >=41
ARPI Rank >=55, Head to Head Results score <=-0.43
All of these standards indicate that given Oklahoma State's ARPI rank of #56, its team profile (apart from conference standing, conference rank, and Head to Head Results score combined with conference rank) historically would have been insufficient for an at large selection.
DePaul. 2 "yes" standards; and 11 "no" standards:
"Yes" standards:
Conference Standing <=2.5, Conference ARPI >=.5486
Conference Standing <=2.75, Conference Rank <=6
It's important to note that DePaul played #7 ARPI ranked and NCAA Tournament #2 seed Georgetown twice, winning the first time and tieing the second. Before last year, the value of these results under the Top 60 Results factor might have been enough to secure DePaul an at large position. Last year, however, the Committee's decisions on some teams meant that I had to eliminate some of the standards for "yes" decisions based on Top 60 Results. In any event, based on the current standards (consistent with all decisions over the last 9 years), DePaul's results over Georgetown were not sufficient to meet any Top 60 Results standard for a "yes" at large selection decision.
"No" standards:
ANCRPI Rank >=129
ARPI Rank >=47, ANCRPI Rank >=115
ARPI Rank >=48, ANCRPI Rank >=87
ARPI Rank >=50, ANCRPI Rank >=78
ARPI Rank >=54, ANCRPI Rank >=76
ANCRPI Rank >=105, Top 60 Results Rank >=20
ANCRPI Rank >=102, Conference Standing >=2.5
ANCRPI Rank >=113, Conference Standing >=2.25
ANCRPI Rank >=102, Conference Rank >=6
ANCRPI Rank >=105, Conference Rank >=5
ANCRPI Rank >=91, Head to Head Results Score <=-0.40
With DePaul's Non-Conference ARPI Rank of 130, DePaul did not come close to having an ANCRPI Rank sufficient to meet the historic standards for an at large selection. What this suggests, pretty clearly to me, is that from the Committee's perspective DePaul was done in by its poor non-conference results, notwithstanding its good results with Georgetown and its standing within the Big East.
Texas A&M. 0 "yes" standards; and 3 "no standards":
"No" standards:
ARPI <=0.5704
ARPI Rank >=55, Top 60 Results Score <=380
ARPI Rank >=55, Head to Head Results Score <=-0.43
It's important to note here that Texas A&M was close to avoiding these "no" standards, with its ARPI of 0.5702, its Top 60 Results Score of 365, and its Head to Head Results Score of -0.71. Since Texas A&M got an at large selection, what this means is that once the dust clears I'll need to adjust my system's standards so that the above 0.5704 is reduced below 0.5702; the 380 is reduced below 365; and the -0.43 is reduced below -0.71. Based on my experience, none of these is a significant adjustment. Thus another way to look at Texas A&M would be as a team that meets no "yes" standards and likewise meets no "no" standards. If that were the case, I would have had them in the same boat as Oklahoma State, with its 5 "yes" standards and 5 "no" standards (i.e., "yes" and "no" balancing out). And, in that circumstance, one could consider that Texas A&M's 6.75 (top half) finish in the SEC with its 14 teams was a better finish than Oklahoma State's 6 (bottom half) finish in the Big 12 with its 9 teams. This would be particularly true if the Committee relied on the Non-Conference Adjusted RPI in evaluating conference strength:
1 Pac 12 0.6077
2 Big 12 0.6051
3 ACC 0.6026
4 SEC 0.6005
This is part of the information the Committee receives. They well might have referred to it, as the NCAA staff has suggested that the rationale for having the ANCRPI is that it gives a better picture of conference strength. Based on my experience, these four average conference ANCRPIs are quite close, enough so to say that they indicate the four conferences are pretty much equal in average strength. The Committee certainly may have felt that way.
My Opinion. Based on all of the above, I think it's pretty clear that the Committee left DePaul "out" because of its very poor Adjusted Non-Conference RPI rank, which was far below the ANCRPI ranks of teams getting at large selections over the last 9 years. People may disagree on that decision, but I believe it was a decision well within the Committee's discretion.
I also believe the Committee's decision on Texas A&M is defensible, with the Committee concluding (1) although it had no significant positives, it also had no significant negatives and (2) its finishing position in the SEC was better than the finishing positions of Iowa State and Oklahoma State in the Big 12, in relation to conference size.
As between Iowa State and Oklahoma State, however, I find it hard to find a good Committee rationale for selecting Oklahoma State. Yes, the two were very close, but Iowa State looks like the choice more consistent with the criteria, to me. I wouldn't say, however, that this was a major error by the Committee, rather a minor error and not something to be outraged about (unless you're Iowa State).
DePaul. 2 "yes" standards; and 11 "no" standards:
"Yes" standards:
Conference Standing <=2.5, Conference ARPI >=.5486
Conference Standing <=2.75, Conference Rank <=6
It's important to note that DePaul played #7 ARPI ranked and NCAA Tournament #2 seed Georgetown twice, winning the first time and tieing the second. Before last year, the value of these results under the Top 60 Results factor might have been enough to secure DePaul an at large position. Last year, however, the Committee's decisions on some teams meant that I had to eliminate some of the standards for "yes" decisions based on Top 60 Results. In any event, based on the current standards (consistent with all decisions over the last 9 years), DePaul's results over Georgetown were not sufficient to meet any Top 60 Results standard for a "yes" at large selection decision.
"No" standards:
ANCRPI Rank >=129
ARPI Rank >=47, ANCRPI Rank >=115
ARPI Rank >=48, ANCRPI Rank >=87
ARPI Rank >=50, ANCRPI Rank >=78
ARPI Rank >=54, ANCRPI Rank >=76
ANCRPI Rank >=105, Top 60 Results Rank >=20
ANCRPI Rank >=102, Conference Standing >=2.5
ANCRPI Rank >=113, Conference Standing >=2.25
ANCRPI Rank >=102, Conference Rank >=6
ANCRPI Rank >=105, Conference Rank >=5
ANCRPI Rank >=91, Head to Head Results Score <=-0.40
With DePaul's Non-Conference ARPI Rank of 130, DePaul did not come close to having an ANCRPI Rank sufficient to meet the historic standards for an at large selection. What this suggests, pretty clearly to me, is that from the Committee's perspective DePaul was done in by its poor non-conference results, notwithstanding its good results with Georgetown and its standing within the Big East.
Texas A&M. 0 "yes" standards; and 3 "no standards":
"No" standards:
ARPI <=0.5704
ARPI Rank >=55, Top 60 Results Score <=380
ARPI Rank >=55, Head to Head Results Score <=-0.43
It's important to note here that Texas A&M was close to avoiding these "no" standards, with its ARPI of 0.5702, its Top 60 Results Score of 365, and its Head to Head Results Score of -0.71. Since Texas A&M got an at large selection, what this means is that once the dust clears I'll need to adjust my system's standards so that the above 0.5704 is reduced below 0.5702; the 380 is reduced below 365; and the -0.43 is reduced below -0.71. Based on my experience, none of these is a significant adjustment. Thus another way to look at Texas A&M would be as a team that meets no "yes" standards and likewise meets no "no" standards. If that were the case, I would have had them in the same boat as Oklahoma State, with its 5 "yes" standards and 5 "no" standards (i.e., "yes" and "no" balancing out). And, in that circumstance, one could consider that Texas A&M's 6.75 (top half) finish in the SEC with its 14 teams was a better finish than Oklahoma State's 6 (bottom half) finish in the Big 12 with its 9 teams. This would be particularly true if the Committee relied on the Non-Conference Adjusted RPI in evaluating conference strength:
1 Pac 12 0.6077
2 Big 12 0.6051
3 ACC 0.6026
4 SEC 0.6005
This is part of the information the Committee receives. They well might have referred to it, as the NCAA staff has suggested that the rationale for having the ANCRPI is that it gives a better picture of conference strength. Based on my experience, these four average conference ANCRPIs are quite close, enough so to say that they indicate the four conferences are pretty much equal in average strength. The Committee certainly may have felt that way.
My Opinion. Based on all of the above, I think it's pretty clear that the Committee left DePaul "out" because of its very poor Adjusted Non-Conference RPI rank, which was far below the ANCRPI ranks of teams getting at large selections over the last 9 years. People may disagree on that decision, but I believe it was a decision well within the Committee's discretion.
I also believe the Committee's decision on Texas A&M is defensible, with the Committee concluding (1) although it had no significant positives, it also had no significant negatives and (2) its finishing position in the SEC was better than the finishing positions of Iowa State and Oklahoma State in the Big 12, in relation to conference size.
As between Iowa State and Oklahoma State, however, I find it hard to find a good Committee rationale for selecting Oklahoma State. Yes, the two were very close, but Iowa State looks like the choice more consistent with the criteria, to me. I wouldn't say, however, that this was a major error by the Committee, rather a minor error and not something to be outraged about (unless you're Iowa State).
No comments:
Post a Comment