INDIANAPOLIS — Following a considerable break, the NCAA reinstated its simulated selection panel activity this season. In mid-February, chosen journalists were invited to the organization’s main office to participate in a swift and condensed rendition of the process the actual selection panel will undertake on Selection Sunday.
The proceedings were directed by NCAA committee chair Keith Gill and NCAA director of media coordination David Worlock, with NCAA vice president of basketball Dan Gavitt offering insights during the entire procedure.
Operating under the premise that the collegiate basketball season had concluded by Wednesday, Feb. 18, the simulated committee chose all at-large contenders. This included ranking the leading 20 squads and then pitting them directly against teams positioned both ahead and behind them. Primarily due to temporal restrictions, the NCAA managed the guaranteed entries, oversaw the ranking of the subsequent half of at-large teams, and guided the participants through the complete tournament structuring procedure, providing a detailed analysis of the assessment criteria employed.
Extensive deliberation occurred throughout the day, yet a few distinct points provoked significant disquiet among those present. These are anticipated to remain pivotal matters deliberated by the actual panel in under three weeks.
These are the insights gleaned from the activity.
Perhaps the most prominent subject was the panel’s methodology concerning multiple player ailments affecting squads this season. Consider Texas Tech, which began the weekend ranked as a 3rd seed in ESPN’s Bracketology but dropped significantly to the 21st position globally in the simulated activity—an especially flagrant judgment for some members. However, the contention was that the Red Raiders would be competing absent Toppin, the All-American forward who sustained a ruptured anterior cruciate ligament in last Tuesday’s defeat to Arizona State. While the actual committee will possess data compiled over three weeks on how Tech fares in Toppin’s absence, the simulated panel had to render its verdict without the squad having participated in any such matches. The Red Raiders will need to bolster prior victories over Houston, Duke, and Arizona—their most impressive assortment of elite triumphs in college basketball—by maintaining competitiveness without Toppin.
Concurrently, the dialogue concerning Kansas’ Peterson—who missed eleven matches throughout the season due to a range of lower limb ailments, muscle spasms, or sickness—proved less significant than anticipated. Big 12 vice president of men’s basketball Brian Thornton highlighted the fact that the Jayhawks hold a 10-3 record in games Peterson was absent from or departed prematurely, mirroring their 10-3 record when he was in good health.
Louisville’s performance metrics both with and in the absence of Mikel Brown Jr.—a 4-4 record without him versus 15-3 with him—also received a mention. Similarly, the fact that Illinois’ two defeats before the simulated activity occurred in the absence of Kylan Boswell was noted, although the Illini’s two most significant victories of the season also happened without him. Braden Huff’s prospective condition and whether he would rejoin the team for Gonzaga was also discussed, though, in the context of this simulation, the Zags were assumed to have won the WCC tournament championship, which likely lessened the effect on their ranking.
Further significant player setbacks considered included those of BYU’s Richie Saunders, Vanderbilt’s Duke Miles, and UConn’s Tarris Reed Jr. and Braylon Mullins.
2. Miami (Ohio) as a prospective at-large squad – and additional queries regarding at-large selections
Miami (Ohio) was the most extensively discussed squad, specifically concerning the management of the RedHawks as a prospective at-large contender. The simulated panel explored a particular situation where Travis Steele’s team suffered defeat in the MAC tournament final against Akron by a solitary point, owing to a disputed officiating decision. In this assumed circumstance, it also represented their sole defeat of the campaign. They eventually gained entry into the bracket as an initial four competitor and advanced to Dayton.
A broad agreement also existed that if Miami achieved a 31-0 record in the regular season, it would likely secure an invitation irrespective of its league tournament results.
However, the more captivating discussion revolved around a second situation involving two defeats—one in the regular season, one in the conference tournament. Miami commenced the activity with a flawless standing, yet lacked a Quadrant 1 victory and secured just a solitary Quad 2 triumph. Its credential-based statistics warrant at-large consideration, notably its 22nd record strength (SOR) and 35th victories beyond the bubble (WAB). Conversely, its forecast-based statistics fall into the 80s range, trailing teams such as Notre Dame and George Washington, and its schedule difficulty (SOS) ranks 347th, with its out-of-conference schedule difficulty (SOS) at 364th.
What then of Steele’s endeavor to arrange a more challenging fixture list, only to find himself incapable of securing strong opponents for the RedHawks? Responses to this varied: some on the simulated panel deemed that a legitimate factor, while others demurred, asserting that such an argument wasn’t presented for anyone else being evaluated. A delegate from one conference proposed that the RedHawks could have still enhanced their fixture list, which currently includes three teams outside Division I and four squads positioned 300th or lower in specific evaluation criteria.
The circumstances of Miami prompted a distinct conversation among some attendees concerning other teams boasting compelling credentials, such as TCU. This season, the Horned Frogs have experienced genuinely poor defeats: at home against New Orleans, at home against Notre Dame, and away at Utah. Nevertheless, they have also vanquished Iowa State, Florida, and Wisconsin.
Therefore, when Selection Sunday arrives, will panel members ultimately favor erratic squads that have demonstrated the capacity to defeat other qualified teams, like TCU, or squads that have displayed consistent winning capabilities over four consecutive months while sidestepping defeats, like Miami?
3. Prioritizing Credential-Based Statistics Against Forecast-Based Data
Presently, seven evaluation criteria are presented on a squad summary sheet for the selection panel’s review on Selection Sunday. Three are regarded as credential-focused: KPI, ESPN’s record strength (SOR), and victories beyond the bubble (WAB). Three are deemed forecast-oriented: ESPN’s BPI, KenPom, and BartTorvik. The seventh constitutes the NCAA’s NET standings.
Determining which collection of criteria holds greater influence over a team’s prospects was a prominent aspect of the preliminary discussion for the ultimate second seed between Purdue and Florida. The Boilermakers possess the more impressive credential-based statistics, whereas the Gators hold an advantage
in the forecasting measurements.
Gavitt stated that the panel often favors curriculum vitae-based data when choosing participants, whereas forecasting data becomes more significant in discussions about placement. He further emphasized WAB’s increasing relevance, particularly concerning its role in securing entry into the competition.
Ultimately, Purdue secured the last 2-seed, while Florida, in fact, fell behind Kansas for a primary 3-seed; the Boilermakers’ victories against Nebraska, Texas Tech, and their away game at Alabama proved exceptionally robust.
However, Worlock pointed out that the panel has consistently granted respect to squads that claim both their regular season and conference championship titles. Currently, Florida appears likely to triumph in the SEC regular season and is favored to win its conference tournament; conversely, Purdue holds a shared third position in the Big Ten. Such a discussion could readily reverse course on Selection Sunday.
4. Houston Versus Iowa State: The Significance of Direct Confrontations
Following UConn’s defeat by Creighton just prior to the simulated committee meeting, the fourth 1-seed unexpectedly became available. The contention ultimately centered on either Houston or Iowa State. The Cougars are positioned above the Cyclones in six out of seven team performance indicators, possessing an extra Quad 1 victory. However, Iowa State prevailed in their direct contest held in Ames on Monday, boasting at least three victories—at Purdue, against Kansas, and versus Houston—that surpass Houston’s most impressive win. Houston secured the ultimate 1-seed, largely owing to the potency of its statistical measures and the circumstance that its defeats were exclusively against well-regarded teams, with a total margin of 10 points.
1:18
Number 6 Iowa State overcomes Number 2 Houston in an exhilarating contest
Iowa State defeats Houston in a captivating match, spearheaded by Joshua Jefferson and Nate Heise.
Yet, what is the true weight of direct confrontations? This question frequently surfaced amidst discussions regarding seeding: UConn against Illinois for the 2-spot (UConn triumphed in November); Illinois versus Purdue for the 2-spot (Illinois secured victory in West Lafayette); Nebraska against Michigan State contending for a 3-seed (Nebraska prevailed in January); Alabama versus Arkansas for the 4-spot (Alabama clinched it in double overtime on Wednesday), and so forth. Ultimately, it became evident that although a direct encounter’s outcome holds significance, it represents merely a single piece of information, necessitating the consideration of additional elements like the venue of the contest.
The contention between Houston and Iowa State also brought to light a possible placement dilemma due to the Big 12’s formidable nature. During the simulated scenario, three of the top five squads belonged to the Big 12. However, owing to established placement guidelines, Iowa State, being the leading 2-seed, was compelled to compete within Duke’s region instead of Arizona’s or Houston’s, in order to keep the top four Big 12 teams apart. Furthermore, it was impossible to place them with Michigan, given that the highest-ranked 1-seed cannot occupy the same regional bracket as the highest-ranked 2-seed.
5. Addressing the Situation of Charles Bediako
For a period of three weeks spanning late January and early February, the foremost topic in the athletic world revolved around Charles Bediako of Alabama, who had inked a two-way NBA agreement following the 2022-23 season. Having been declared ineligible upon his attempt to rejoin collegiate play this season, he initiated legal action against the NCAA and secured a provisional restraining order, which permitted him to compete. He participated in five contests prior to his appeal for an initial injunction being rejected, thereby concluding his university tenure (once more).
Across his five appearances, Bediako maintained averages of 10.0 points, 4.6 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks, contributing to Alabama’s 3-2 record.
What approach would the panel take concerning the Crimson Tide’s utilization of an athlete who was formerly deemed ineligible?
“Those contests are indeed valid,” Gill stated. “It falls upon you to determine their enumeration. The panel will implement our standard procedure for player eligibility.”
Predictably, it is likewise evident that the panel would make no effort to penalize Alabama in a punitive manner.
“That is not within the panel’s purview,” Gavitt affirmed.
6. Local Venue Benefit
The selection panel strives to position every squad in the nearest proximity to its home base—provided this does not conflict with existing placement regulations and processes. Specifically for three particular teams, the concept of being “closest to home” might signify exceptionally well-known ground. Rice assumed Houston’s role in September as the hosting establishment for this year’s South Regional, implying that Houston has permission to compete in Houston during the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight stages should the Cougars progress.
For a considerable period, Villanova has contested multiple home matches annually at Xfinity Mobile Arena in Philadelphia; however, the Wildcats competed in merely three contests at that venue this season, and Saint Joseph’s serves as the hosting entity for that site this year—a circumstance that could potentially enable Kevin Willard’s squad to participate in its initial and subsequent round games in Philadelphia.
Subsequently, Saint Louis presents itself as a contender, potentially gaining an advantage despite seemingly being destined for a seeding in the 6 to 8 bracket. The Missouri Valley Conference acts as the organizer for the initial and subsequent round matches in St. Louis, consequently allowing the Billikens to ultimately compete merely three miles from their university grounds.