Originally Posted by Don
I have been tabulating, for the past 4-5 years, whether the RPI rank or the seed numbers are a more accurate predictor of NCAA tournament success. The RPI rank is an objective and understood calculation. The tournament seeding is a subjective "gut feeling" of the selection committee. I have found that it's a tossup between which method is the better predictor. Some years the RPI is more accurate at predicting winners, some years less accurate. They are NEVER very far apart.
What I have noticed however, is that the P5 teams are consistently over-seeded and the non-P5 teams are consistently under-seeded. What this does is bias the results by more frequently pitting a non-P5 team against a higher seed (tougher opponent) while the P5 higher seeded but lower RPI-ranked teams get easier first round opponents. If this bias were eliminated, my guess is that the RPI would be a consistently better predictor of results.
I think the selection committee could be entirely done away with at no loss to tournament integrity and a definite gain in fairness.
|
I think the committee has been transitioning away from which teams "earned" a bid to which teams are the "best." This gives them latitude to include P5 schools with a lot of "talent" that may not have won enough to really earn a spot in the tournament. It's also why you will see discussion of a lot of metrics that have nothing to do with W/L and who you beat/where you played. Stuff like offensive/defensive efficiency shouldn't matter if you aren't winning enough, but the committee can use that to justify a team's inclusion or exclusion.
