NCAA Mock Selection
Wow. The NCAA actually did something reasonable and good, instead of their normal policy of committing only illogical and evil acts. They got 20 college basketball journalists together and had them run through a mock selection process in the same room with the same equipment and information as the committee has. You can read Pat Forde's and Andy Katz's takes yourself.
It seems that what ESPN.com's Bracketologist Joe Lunardi has been preaching is true. The process really is as scientific as the committee tries to convice the public it is. There is just not enough time to consider anything but the criterea they say they consider. Still, the one or two glaring omissions the committee does make each year can be explained by the speed with which they have to work.
If I may second-guess the selection of the mock selection committee, how was Lunardi not invited to the gang? Pat Forde is more of a basketball and football guy. Lunardi has to be the biggest name bracketologist. He should have made the cut.
It seems that what ESPN.com's Bracketologist Joe Lunardi has been preaching is true. The process really is as scientific as the committee tries to convice the public it is. There is just not enough time to consider anything but the criterea they say they consider. Still, the one or two glaring omissions the committee does make each year can be explained by the speed with which they have to work.
If I may second-guess the selection of the mock selection committee, how was Lunardi not invited to the gang? Pat Forde is more of a basketball and football guy. Lunardi has to be the biggest name bracketologist. He should have made the cut.
posted by Prof. A at 11:27 AM
2 Comments:
Great catch, Paul. I didn't see these stories. But, frankly, this doesn't pass my smell test.
It's intriguing, and fun, but I don't think it is necessarily instructive.
My first instinct is not "Golly! These commissioners have a tough job and never discuss conference numbers or RPI!" like Forde and Katz have concluded. Instead, I run immediately to "Journalists and commissioners make decisions differently."
If the NCAA wanted to persuade me of its position, let the journalists watch the NCAA's process — that's what journalists do best. What harm is done?
I'm not satisfied with what I've written: Basically, I think political considerations probably enter into a commissioner's decision making process. The journalist's lack of self-interest decreases political lobbying.
Also, quality of play seems less important to a commissioner than to a journalist. The commissioners don't have full-time jobs watching the sport.
The time crunch probably lessened the importance of statistical analysis — RPI, conference schools, etc.
Anyway. I don't see the NCAA Selection process as evil. But, it is pretty much impossible for me to imagine that the journalists had the same discussions as the commissioners would have.
Post a Comment
<< Home