Why doesn't the NCAA use a ranking system (RPI?) to determine at-large bids?

[VTDeke]

I know that the RPI isn't perfect, but it is definitely quantifiable. If every team knew the criteria for at-large bids going into the season (or perhaps 2 seasons in advance to schedule appropriately) then there would be absolutely no room for anyone getting left out to complain. The selection committee's sole responsibility would then be to handle seedings. I'm sure there would still be some back-door politics in play in that regard, but at least the deserving teams would be in the dance.

The current selection process is too much of a good ole boys' club for my taste. Why not use a ranking system (without a human component) to determine at-large bids?

[Hokie Ace]

Read some of the Rev's tweets. Pretty interesting! http://twitter.com/#!/search/kiptjam

I know that the RPI isn't perfect, but it is definitely quantifiable. If every team knew the criteria for at-large bids going into the season (or perhaps 2 seasons in advance to schedule appropriately) then there would be absolutely no room for anyone getting left out to complain. The selection committee's sole responsibility would then be to handle seedings. I'm sure there would still be some back-door politics in play in that regard, but at least the deserving teams would be in the dance.

The current selection process is too much of a good ole boys' club for my taste. Why not use a ranking system (without a human component) to determine at-large bids?

[MVIII]

So you don't game the system! They are basically admitting that the RPI is not perfect by not using it as the only criteria. You could lose to every team on your schedule, but if they were all in the Top 20, you would have a very good RPI! Their system is probably the best we can hope for right now. Now it would be nice to change the implementation some, involve some transparency by publishing each persons votes. Maybe ad some non-ADs to the mix, make half of the panel from former coaches or media types...I think that would go a long way in fixing any of the inherent biases that we currently believe we see!

[VTDeke]

Read some of the Rev's tweets. Pretty interesting! http://twitter.com/#!/search/kiptjam

Thanks. I'm now following him. He seems to be saying something similar to me... It just seems so easy and obvious to take the human, subjective element out of the selection process.

[VTDeke]

So you don't game the system! They are basically admitting that the RPI is not perfect by not using it as the only criteria. You could lose to every team on your schedule, but if they were all in the Top 20, you would have a very good RPI! Their system is probably the best we can hope for right now. Now it would be nice to change the implementation some, involve some transparency by publishing each persons votes. Maybe ad some non-ADs to the mix, make half of the panel from former coaches or media types...I think that would go a long way in fixing any of the inherent biases that we currently believe we see!

I know the RPI has issues in its own right, but it seems that could be corrected by either using another ranking system or by tweaking the RPI. My only stipulation would be that whatever ranking is used should not have any human element. Then let the teams "game" the rankings... at least everyone would be on even footing and no one could cry foul play.

[MVIII]

Check out this year's bracket matrix. It seems like the bracketologists have figured out more or less who should be in based on previous year's results and Iona surely is not one of them this year. It is tough to say who actually got jobbed this year though, Seton Hall or Drexel according to the link. Last year there was no contest on who got jobbed, we took the cake big time as all but two of the bracketologists had us dancing:

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm

Iona is really the outlier and the commish or leader selection committee said they were NOT the last team in. I guess BYU was the last one in then and Iona was 2nd to last. Iona never beat a good team, but their RPI was 40. That's why RPI is not the only thing that should be used.

[Gator Hokie]

I'd rather them use a compilation of metrics and pick them from that. No one system is perfect, but 8-12 of these rankings can get a pretty good idea.

I'm really annoyed with this whole thing.

[VTDeke]

... but their RPI was 40. That's why RPI is not the only thing that should be used.

I contend that if the RPI (flawed as it may be) was the only criteria then the selection process would be infinitely more fair and balanced than it is in its current form.

[VTDeke]

I'd rather them use a compilation of metrics and pick them from that. No one system is perfect, but 8-12 of these rankings can get a pretty good idea.

I agree that a compilation would be the best solution. As long as everyone knows the complete formula(s) and the formulas do not use human factors we would be in business.

[Gobbler-100]

Check out this year's bracket matrix. It seems like the bracketologists have figured out more or less who should be in based on previous year's results and Iona surely is not one of them this year. It is tough to say who actually got jobbed this year though, Seton Hall or Drexel according to the link. Last year there was no contest on who got jobbed, we took the cake big time as all but two of the bracketologists had us dancing:

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm

Iona is really the outlier and the commish or leader selection committee said they were NOT the last team in. I guess BYU was the last one in then and Iona was 2nd to last. Iona never beat a good team, but their RPI was 40. That's why RPI is not the only thing that should be used.

Dang, there were some sick performances this year by the bracket matrix participants. I thought I did well with a Paymon of 336, but that would've only tied for 20th among this year's field. That same score would've wiped out everybody in the matrix last year. Which bolsters the argument that last year's tourney committee went pretty far off the reservation.