How did the media’s NCAA tournament bracket look?

0 Comments

Ever since 2007, the NCAA’s been giving the college basketball media a chance to seed the tournament field (Ken Davis took part in the first one), using the same process as the actual seeding committee – everyone hunkers down in a room for days at a time, rates teams and tries to produce a field every one won’t hate.

The media members involved get a better idea of how the entire process on Selection Sunday works.

That’s the goal at least.

You’ll see many of the people involved from SI, CBS, ESPN and other sites showcase their work in the upcoming days, but Ryan Feldman over the hoops report has a sneak peak in this detail rundown of events.

This year’s came out about as you’d expect, with a few surprises. Ohio State, Texas, Pitt and Kansas took the one seeds, while Florida State, Butler, Gonzaga and Georgia were the last four in. Michigan State – which was simulated to have lost its first Big Ten tournament game, didn’t make the cut. (Click here for the full bracket and S-curve.)

But that’s all stuff for the mock. The most interesting thing, according to Feldman, is how crucial the RPI is to the process. From his blog:

… despite what some people think, the RPI is extremely important. It is how teams are grouped. It is how information is displayed on resumes. Whether it’s comparing teams’ actual RPIs, their record vs. the RPI top 50, their record vs. the RPI top 100, their SOS, or their non-conference SOS, that all centers around RPI. Don’t believe the hype: RPI is essential in the selection process. Of course, everyone can evaluate the quality of a win or loss differently, but nobody complete ignores RPI and everything associated with it.

So. For anyone who hates the RPI and wishes other metrics would take its place, good luck. That day probably isn’t coming anytime soon.

Want more? I’m also on Twitter @MikeMillerNBC.