Lunacy Before the Madness

A final note before the tournament commences. Every year the Committee makes a handful of questionable decisions that makes good water-cooler conversation for about 48 hours. Then people fill out their brackets and the Madness tips off and all is forgotten. This year, however, the decisions seemed particularly perplexing. Without delving into great detail, here is a final response to Committee Chair Gary Walters, and his Bush-like inability to form a coherent sentence in defense of his selections.

Here are two team Profiles:

Team A
Conference Elite
Record 19-10
Conf Record 11-5
Home vs. Tourney 6-1
Road vs. Tourney 1-4
Overall vs. Tourney 7-5
Best Win (by RPI) 14
Losses vs. Non-Tourney 5
RPI 55
vs. RPI top 50 Home 5-0
vs. RPI top 50 Road 1-4
vs. RPI Top 50 Overall 6-4
Last 10 6-4
Conf Tournament 0-1

Team B
Conference Elite
Record 22-10
Conf Record 10-6
Home vs. Tourney 4-1
Road vs. Tourney 1-4
Overall vs. Tourney 5-5
Best Win (by RPI) 9
Losses vs. Non-Tourney 5
RPI 50
vs. RPI top 50 Home 2-2
vs. RPI top 50 Road 1-3
vs. RPI Top 50 Overall 3-5
Last 10 7-3
Conf Tournament 1-1

Let's compare Team A to one more team for reasons that will become clear shortly.

Team C
Conference High Major
Record 20-10
Conf Record 11-7
Home vs. Tourney 5-5
Road vs. Tourney 3-5
Overall vs. Tourney 8-10
Best Win (by RPI) 8
Losses vs. Non-Tourney 0
RPI 14
vs. RPI top 50 Home 3-5
vs. RPI top 50 Road 2-4
vs. RPI Top 50 Overall 5-9
Last 10 6-4
Conf Tournament 0-1

Walters tells us that the numbers can be manipulated in any way, or as he puts it, they can be “tortured” to “confess to anything.” Torturing numbers? Sounds like accounting jargon. But if you listen carefully, you will then hear Walters declare that they examine the “full body of work.” So which is it? Are certain statistics emphasized in particular cases and ignored in others? Are they dunked under water until they reveal the truth? Or does the Committee actually examine the full body of work (as it has been in years past)?

The above comparisons are statistically comprehensive; they factor fourteen categories to paint a picture of the “full body of work,” including how they finished (Last 10, Conference Tournament), what their computer rankings were (RPI), record in conference, how they did on the road, and their record against quality competition (vs. RPI Top 50, Overall vs. Tournament teams). All three teams are injury free, and have good coaches. One team is considered an overachiever, another is regarded as solid, and the third as underachieving.

Care to guess who went where?

Team A - Virginia, a four seed.
Team B - Syracuse, an NIT team.
Team C - Arizona, a nine seed.

To put it nicely, the placement of those teams is arbitrary and befuddling. In fact, Isaiah Thomas could have made better decisions. (Now that's something you thought you'd never hear.)

Maybe if I knew how to water-board numbers it might all make sense.