NCAA Tournament: Why the Selection Committee Needs To Explain Their Decisions

A crime has been waged against the American public, and it's up to the NCAA tournament selection committee to explain themselves accordingly.

2010 is the year of transparency and accountability, yet the selection committee remains hidden away behind locked doors, making unfathomable decisions that they'll never have to explain.

ESPN's Joe Lunardi does a great job explaining the NCAA Tournament selection process in detail; long story short, the selection committee (theoretically) ranks all the NCAA Tournament teams, 1-65, in something called the "S-Curve."  

The selection committee then uses the S-Curve to start seeding the teams in their respective regions, relying on a few bracketing principles (no two teams from the same conference are allowed to meet before the Elite 8, if possible, no teams are allowed to play NCAA games in their home arenas, etc.).

I don't know what S-Curve the selection committee was working off of this weekend, but the bracket they came up with poses some major questions.  

What factors did the committee weigh most heavily?  (From the looks of it, out-of-conference record and overall body of work played a more significant role than usual.) And more importantly...were they consistent?  (Short answer: No.)

After the bracket was released on Sunday night, ESPN's Andy Katz spoke with the head of the selection committee , Dan Guerrero, the athletic director from UCLA.

Unfortunately, while Katz had a one-man audience with the brain trust behind the most imbalanced bracket in recent memory, he didn't get definitive answers about some of the biggest bracket surprises.

Here are some of the questions I'd be asking the selection committee, if they ever had to answer to the public about their seeding decisions:

How In God's Name Did Duke Jump Syracuse as the No. 3 Overall Seed in the NCAA Tournament?

Syracuse was ranked No. 1 overall back in February, but lost the final game of the regular season (at Louisville, in the last game of Freedom Hall's history) and their first game of the Big East Tournament (against Georgetown in the quarterfinals).  'Cuse still finished 16-2 in the Big East, in what is unquestionably the best conference in college basketball yet again.

Duke has never been ranked No. 1 overall this season, but emerged as the regular season and tournament champion of the "crap-tastic" ACC.  Make no mistake—besides the Pac-10, the ACC was the weakest of the six major conferences, yet the selection committee greatly rewarded Duke for their year-long cupcake feast by giving them the No. 1 seed with the easiest region.  (Much , much more on this later.)

The selection committee even had the chance to pull out a trick from their BCS friends and compare 'Cuse/Duke's side-by-side performance against a common opponent: Georgetown.  

In three meetings with the Hoyas this year, 'Cuse spanked Georgetown at home (after falling behind 14-0), opened up a 23-point lead on Georgetown on the road (Georgetown did cut the lead to one point late in the second half, but lost), and lost to the Hoyas in the opening round of the Big East Tournament.  In Duke's only meeting with Georgetown, the Hoyas pounded the Blue Devils, handing them their most lopsided defeat of the season.

So let's get this straight: Georgetown gets hammered by 'Cuse the first two times they play the Orange.  Georgetown destroys Duke on CBS, in front of President Obama.  And Duke gets a higher seed than Syracuse.  Right.

How Are Kansas State and Villanova Higher Two-Seeds Than Ohio State and West Virginia?

This one really grinds my gears.  In theory, the committee creates the 1-65 ranking S-Curve, and much like a good fantasy draft, the S-Curve theoretically snakes around so that the lowest No. 1 seed would draw the highest No. 2 seed in their region.

Forget that Duke leapt over Syracuse for that third No. 1 seed for a second.  Instead, riddle me how there's any objective measure that puts Kansas State and Villanova as higher two seeds than Ohio State and West Virginia?  

Somehow, OSU and WVU ended up in Kansas and Kentucky's regions, respectively, while 'Cuse and Duke got a No. 2 seed cakewalk in comparison.  

OSU and WVU both won their conference tournaments; contrastingly, Villanova was knocked out in their first game of the Big East Tournament that WVU eventually won, and Kansas State lost for the third time this season to Kansas in the finals of the Big 12 Tournament.

WVU had been in the discussion for a No. 1 overall seed; instead they're slotted seventh on the S-Curve?  Behind a Villanova team that's only won two games (against University of South Florida and Cincinnati) in the past 30 days?  Come again?

In reality, the major, underlying question about the bracket boils down to...

Why Did Duke Get a Much Easier Road to the Final Four Than Overall No. 1 seed Kansas?

If I'm Kansas coach Bill Self this morning, I'm fielding a call into the NCAA investigations department, asking them to examine the selection committee's bracket madness.

Kansas finished as the unanimous No. 1 in the Coaches' poll, won the Big 12 regular season and tournament championships, and was "rewarded" by having by far the toughest of the four regions.  Their No. 2 through No. 6 seeds read like a murderer's row of coaches with Final Four experience and NBA lottery picks.

Ohio State had been a darkhorse for a No. 1 seed, Georgetown was a Da'Sean Butler floater away from a Big East Tournament championship, Maryland and Tennessee have combined to beat three of the four No. 1 seeds this year, and Michigan State played in the NCAA championship game last season.

"It will be a good recruiting mailout this week," coach Bill Self said of the No. 1 overall seed. "After you look at the bracket, you say, 'Well, I don't think we had a lot of favors done for us.'"

Meanwhile, Duke won the ACC regular season and tournament championships, but it's hard to imagine the ACC having much more of a "down" year.  

Maryland, the second best team in the conference, is an early favorite for a 4-13 upset at the hands of Houston in the first round.  Georgia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, and Wake Forest, the ACC's other four tourney entrants, are seeded 10th, ninth, seventh, and ninth in their respective NCAA regions.

If Duke survives their second-round matchup (likely Louisville), they've got a cakewalk to the Final Four compared to Kansas and Kentucky.  They get the weakest No. 2 seed (Villanova, who again, hasn't won an important game in a month ), the weakest No. 3 in Baylor, and the weakest No. 4 in the Robbie Hummel-less Purdue.  

Let the conspiracy theories begin.  (Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star already floated out the idea that Duke's seeding/painfully easy region was a result of TV contract negotiations. )

Why Doesn't the Selection Committee Project Out?

Andy Katz summarized the committee's feelings about projecting NCAA Tournament wins in his article where he interviews the chairman of the selection committee:

"The committee doesn't project out, so that means any potential advantage Texas A&M could have as a 6-seed in Houston playing No. 1 Duke in the Sweet 16, or any potential advantage No. 7 BYU could have playing a virtual home game in Salt Lake City in the Sweet 16, is moot. The committee doesn't even project if these teams get out of the first round."

Now, seeing as the committee had this "don't project out" policy in place already, this argument doesn't nearly take precedent over the "why did you give Duke a free Final Four berth?" question.  

But it's still worth asking.

If you're trying to avoid a home court advantage for any team in the NCAA tournament (which they are, by banning teams from playing in their home arenas), then why allow a low seed to potentially gain a home court advantage?

If BYU advances to the Sweet 16 (which would mean getting past a likely second round matchup with No. 2 seed Kansas State), they'd travel back to Salt Lake City for a de facto home court advantage in the next two rounds.  If Texas A&M can survive until the Sweet 16, they'd likely get a date with Kentucky—in Houston.

Personally, I've been scarred for life when it comes to geographical advantages in NCAA Tournaments.  Two years ago, Davidson's magical Elite 8 run in the NCAA tournament began right in Raleigh, North Carolina, where they beat Gonzaga and Georgetown.  Davidson's about a two-hour drive from Raleigh. 

(As if that weren't enough, UNC fans were still salty about Georgetown knocking them out of the Elite 8 the year before, so they banded together with Davidson fans in Raleigh to cheer the Wildcats over the Hoyas in the second round.  If you couldn't tell, I'm still mad about that one.)

Why give lower seeded teams a possible geographic advantage, just because you don't want to project out?  Would it really be so hard to switch BYU with another one of the No. 7 seeds?  (What prevented them from switching BYU with Oklahoma State in the Midwest, or Richmond in the South?)

Long story short, with this bracket, the NCAA selection committee owes basketball fans an explanation.

We'd like to understand the reasoning behind these decisions.  It's up to the NCAA selection committee to show some accountability.

Sadly, I wouldn't hold my breath.

And thus, "March Madness" has officially begun, with the selection committee giving the Madness a whole new meaning.