UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums > LATEST ARTICLES > UDPride Articles

UDPride Articles Published content from your UDPride staff

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
Comment
 
Article Tools Display Modes
NCAA Mock Selection Recap: Part II: How the Sausage Gets Made
NCAA Mock Selection Recap: Part II: How the Sausage Gets Made
Christopher Rieman
Published by Chris R
02-17-2015
Smile NCAA Mock Selection Recap: Part II: How the Sausage Gets Made

With preliminary coursework complete, participants arrived in blustery Indianapolis on Thursday February 12th for a 2pm roll call. Located on the western edge of downtown, the NCAA Headquarters lies adjacent to the NCAA Hall of Champions. Known more for the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Indianapolis pulled off a recruiting coup in 1999 by luring the NCAA from its home in suburban Overland Park, KS. Not since 1951 had the NCAA been anywhere but the Kansas City area. It’s also one of the reasons Indianapolis is now a common rotational host of the Final Four.

After checking in at the hotel across the street, we booked it to the headquarters building where Stu Jackson was also fighting with locked doors to find a way in. Security personnel pointed us in the right direction and within moments were checking in with NCAA officials inside their impressive compound.



Chaperoned to a large conference area we called ‘the war room’, seats were assigned alongside your media pair. Each pair enjoyed several flat-screen monitors hog-tied to a computer system running the NCAA’s proprietary bracketology software. It is this software interface that would ultimately steer the direction of the events over the next two days.

To understand the NCAA tournament selection process, one must first understand the software package utilized by committee members that help select the Field of 68. This is where and how the sausage effectively gets made and our first impressions were exceedingly positive. It’s a hell of a piece of kit and no expense was spared in developing the software to take a massive amount of data points and shrinking it to a size and scale that even first-time test drivers like ourselves could absorb.

Beyond just number-crunching however, the process of choosing teams and taking votes proved no less impressive.

CORE TENETS OF THE SYSTEM

The NCAA made it profoundly clear that selection committee members are put in charge to get things right. While everything is ultimately subjective, there are numerous checks and balances in place to avert any artificial tipping of the scales. The outline of the NCAA’s objective demands it, and the bracketology software has built-in safeguards to assure it.

The three main steps of the NCAA Tournament selection process consist of:
  • Picking the best 36 at-large teams for the NCAA Tournament. This number fluctuates depending on the number of automatic bids taken by teams that also win their conference tournament.
  • Accurately seeding the teams 1 through 68.
  • Placing the teams in the bracket with an emphasis on geography and competitive balance throughout each region.
All voting is done by secret ballot. Because the NCAA paired us with another participant, each pair voted once to represent the Committee member they represented. In other words, pairs digested the data and reached a voting consensus as a tandem, then placed anonymous votes for the software to tabulate.

During the actual NCAA selection process in March, voting members must leave the room when they represent an institution being considered for inclusion in the bracket. In most cases, this is a Conference Commissioner or Athletic Director from that league or institution. In our case, we were not allowed to comment or vote on Big South-related schools because we sat in the seat occupied by UNC-Asheville Athletic Director Janet Cone. Therefore, we were allowed to discuss and vote on Dayton as well as other A10 programs; it was the same situation with SoCon and Ivy League schools.

IN THE BEGINNING

Prior to fileting the data, participants were asked to provide a conference report based on the assigned leagues of each member of the media.
Starting alphabetically, the A10 was one of the first to get their name called. It was our job to provide a condensed recap of the league’s stronger teams, regular season standings, favorites, dark horses, and any additional insight worth consideration. We spent the prior week preparing our notes only to see the A10 self-implode the night prior to the MSP. We told the room we had some notes, but tossed them in the trash after we walked in the door.

“There’s a four-way tie for first place, a two-way tie for second place, and a three-way tie for third place. Nine teams are within two games of first place with seven conference games to play. VCU has suffered recent injuries and Dayton has a short bench. Any questions?”

The only certainties we provided: the A10 was a complete free-for-all with no heavy favorite. There’s also no better place to look for a bid-stealing conference tournament champion.

The rest of the participants provided their own reports of the remaining conferences as the room took extensive notes to help with the pending work at hand.

The NCAA threw the participants a curve ball however: they already determined some of the automatic qualifiers and went a step further by determining the tournament champion of the A10 and SoCon – two of our three league responsibilities. The NCAA chose Wofford (RPI #43) as the SoCon tournament champ, eliminating the need to consider them for an at-large tournament berth. The NCAA felt the second-best team in the SoCon (Chattanooga #131) would not upset the heavy league favorites and the SoCon would remain a one-bid league.

In addition, Gonzaga was given similar accommodation in the West Coast Conference as the tourney champ, freeing up an at-large berth elsewhere in the bracket because of the Bulldogs’ obvious at-large resume’. Last but not least, the NCAA chose Davidson as the A10 tournament champion, leveraging the A10’s recent chaos as a bid-stealer somewhere else. This decision would prove relevant later in the bracketology for one specific A10 member.

THE VOTING PROCESS

Despite the wild imaginations of conspiracy theorists, there’s little we found in “the system” that rubbed us the wrong way. The interrogation and voting process devised by the NCAA and leveraged by its clever but easy-to-use software program that does an excellent job of keeping participants on-task. It was one of the most impressive take-aways from our two-day exercise and left us feeling far more confident about the job the NCAA does every year – and the level of care and responsibility they exert to ensure as much fairness into a subjective process as they can.

The software package is based primarily on RPI data. With just a few clicks, participants can bring up any team in the system and identify quality wins, bad losses, non-con and conference strength of schedule (SOS), home/road/neutral records, conference position, boxscores, team and player stats, and other pertinent data. The volume of data is almost limitless, all of it color-coded for easy reference. Each program also has a Nitty Gritty report that gets even more granular in detail. At any point in time, teams (more than two) can be placed side-by-side to compare resumes’ simultaneously. It will even break down the common opponents and head-to-head records and display their round-robin results. There’s no piece of information that’s been left to chance, and that’s one of the few concerns of the overall process: there’s so much available data to sort through that – at times -- becomes overwhelming.



It’s tedious work and after a while the data starts running together. There were moments when we felt the game of basketball was being encapsulated by George Orwell and lacked the hands-on approach of reaching conclusions based on personal observation of players and teams. That delicate balance between subjective and objective analysis is a line every participant had to draw for themselves.

If you can get beyond the wealth of data, the system functions like a well-oiled machine. Because every pair represented a committee seat, the computer already knew when and where to lock specific voters out of the voting process based on your conference or team affiliation. Because Janet Cone was from the SoCon – a one-bid league – it never shut us down. Other members however that represented multi-bid leagues such as the ACC and Big10 were often locked out of voting. In some cases they even had to leave the room when discussion of specific teams came up. This became rather interesting when multiple teams from the same conferences were fighting for the same bids – reducing the eligible voting pairs significantly.

Initial votes are taken to pick “Locks” and those “Under Consideration” for at-large berths. Participants can pick as many as 36 Locks (the entire baseline at-large field) and an unlimited number of teams for Under Consideration. In most cases, voting is generous for Under Consideration as a matter of inclusion; it’s better to rule a team out after allowing them in the room rather than never providing consideration at all.

The votes get counted and teams with at least 80% of the ballots ( 8 of 10 votes) are considered Locks and immediately move into the at-large field. Teams appearing on 30% of the combined Lock/Under Consideration ballots get pooled into the Under Consideration group. Teams that also win their regular season conference title are guaranteed a spot in the Under Consideration group – pre-determined by the NCAA to expedite our duties.

With an initial list of Locks and Under Consideration in the system, the process of scrutinizing the potential at-large field begins. This is where the rubber meets the pavement.

The software divides the screen into thirds. One third comprises teams already in the bracket, one third features those Under Consideration, and the final third consists of “The Bullpen” – our term for teams that graduated from Under Consideration and are currently “on the clock” for a vote into the at-large field.

The process is simple, but works amazingly well.
  • When 20 or more teams comprise the Under Consideration group, participants vote on the eight best teams from that crowd. Those initial eight teams with the highest number of votes graduate to the Bullpen.
  • Once in the Bullpen, greater scrutiny commences on those eight teams only. Adequate time is given to discuss the merits of each team and evaluate their portfolio. Participants rank the eight teams in the Bullpen by voting 1 to 8. The four teams with the lowest overall scores enter the at-large field, while the four holdovers remain in the Bullpen. In the interest of time for the MSP, teams entering the at-large field get stacked in the order of total votes received to create an initial seed line. For instance, if the field comprised an initial 17 Locks, the first four Bullpen graduates would occupy seeds 18-21. This does not necessarily commit these teams to their final seeds however and the actual NCAA Selection Committee may choose to conduct more frequent voting to more appropriately seeds teams as they move into the field.
  • Step #1 repeats itself with 8 more teams voted on from the Under Consideration pool. The Top-4 voter-getters from Under Consideration move on and replenish the Bullpen to eight teams. Another round of intense comparison and scrutiny takes place among Bullpen teams only. The Bullpen is re-ranked 1 to 8 and the lowest four scores enter the at-large field. The circular process more or less continues until the field is full.
Thresholds change as the number of teams Under Consideration diminish, allowing for fewer nominees to move into the Bullpen in order to keep a relatively equal percentage of teams graduating as the field narrows. Teams in the Bullpen that fail to receive enough votes to enter the at-large field on two consecutive Bullpen votes must return to the Under Consideration pool and work their way back up the ladder. In many cases, teams that return to Under Consideration are immediately moved back into the Bullpen because they are among the strongest teams remaining in a progressively weaker Under Consideration field.

The process is nothing more than a three-tiered system to sub-divide the workload and focus on a narrower band of teams with similar resumes’. By comparing similar teams directly to one another in the Bullpen, the process not only fills the bracket but does so in a way that provides an initial order.

Special rules are in place for committee members to raise motions to remove teams from the at-large pool with a required number of votes, along with other tools that allow for flexibility in the bracketology process as the data warrants.

SCRUBBING

Once the field is filled with 68 teams, a final process called “scrubbing” takes place. The committee starts with the highest-seeded team and compares them with the next-highest seeded team. Team profiles are compared and votes are taken if someone seconds a motion to re-seed the pair in a different order. If enough votes affirm, the teams flip positions on the seeding line. The process continues with seed #2 and #3 and so on, so it’s quite possible to see several teams move up or down one or several seed lines as the scrubbing process takes place and similar teams are compared to their neighbor.

Aside from picking the field, this is the most important process of the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee. They recognize the implication of every seed line and how the bracket compounds the importance of getting it right as teams advance deeper into the tournament. David Worlock, NCAA Director of Media Coordination/Statistics, mentioned several times that proper seeding secures the integrity and fairness of the entire bracketing process. Scrubbing the seeds ensures every team was compared and contrasted with the team directly above and below their seed line – and adjusted accordingly.

BUILDING THE BRACKET

The final step is actually placing teams in the bracket. This might seem like the most awkward, convoluted, and complicated step in the process but it’s actually one of the easiest. This is where the NCAA’s supercomputer really shines. Had the NCAA reps not held our hands through the process, they could have bracketed the entire Field of 68 in less than 15 minutes. No joke.

All of the important algorithms are already built into the software. As expected, the committee starts with the highest seed (#1) and the software automatically color-codes every position on the bracket where they are allowed to play. It also red-flags every bracket line where they are either forbidden to play or where conflicts may arise.

Among the rules already taken into account by the software algorithms (not an exhaustive list):
  • Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.
  • Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.
  • Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the third round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.
  • If possible, rematches of non-conference regular-season games should be avoided in the First Four and second round.
  • If possible, after examining the previous two years’ brackets, teams or conferences will not be moved out of its natural region or geographic area an inordinate number of times.
  • Teams unable to play at certain locations due to hosting conflicts – in the First/Second Rounds and Regional sites.
The software also interfaces with Google Maps to display the driving mileage on the bracket seed line to all hosting venues when attempting to seed a specific team. Every intent is made to place teams as close to their fans as possible – all other constraints being equal. Effort is also made to assign teams to the same time zone when available. As the bracket fills in, the software computes the relative strengths of each region based on the sum of overall seed lines to help the committee ensure equal balance. The top four seeds in each region are given special consideration and attempts are made to place them at locations where they are not at a crowd disadvantage.

Rules are generally relaxed for the First Four because the NCAA wants the last four at-large teams to play an additional game to ensure the fairness of the bracket. They would rather send 4 teams from the same conference to the First Four than adjust the seeding and demote other at-large teams with better resumes’ to Dayton. Aside from the First Four, the bracketing rules allow for seed adjustments up or down one (or in extraordinary cases) two seed lines to fit teams into the bracket. The NCAA told us the software is so competent there’s been no need to adjust a seed line for bracket integrity in the last few seasons.

Once bracketing has completed, the finished product gets sent to CBS as quickly as possible. The network typically likes the bracket no fewer than 45 minutes prior to going on-air in order to create the television graphics and provide enough time for the hosts to work up some notes. In some years, the window has been as short as 15 minutes.

The NCAA does not notify any schools about their inclusion in the bracket prior to the unveiling on CBS. For teams that are on the bubble and might play in Dayton on Tuesday or Wednesday, they will notify those schools to “be aware of the circumstances” and have their bags packed in case they get the call. Because the NCAA charters all flights for tournament teams, they work diligently to have planes prepositioned throughout the country in order to get First Four opponents’ wheels-up on Sunday evening.

There’s been unanimous support by coaches and athletic directors not to foretell any bracketology so the players and fans can enjoy the spectacle and suspense like all other teams.

DEBUNKING MYTHS

The following bullet points were provided by the NCAA to Mock Selection Participants:
  • The committee selects teams based upon the RPI. Not true, the RPI is rarely mentioned in the room. Because of the wealth of game and team information available to the committee, they are able to “dig deeper” in analyzing any team. The RPI is one of several components that are available to the committee, but it doesn’t drive the process.
We disagree with this assessment. While RPI is not the only thing discussed in the war room, it is the straw that stirs the drink. You cannot avoid it for even a second. If it wasn’t as important as the committee says, they would be supplying participants with Colley Matrix, Dunkel, Massey Ratings, Sagarin Ratings, and all sorts of other data points. We respect the RPI because the RPI is the NCAA’s self-developed tool. To say its “rarely mentioned in the room” however is like saying nobody talks about Fat Albert’s obesity so he must not be overweight.
  • The committee selects based upon conference affiliation. No. Conference affiliation and the conference’s RPI are not part of the decision making process. In essence, teams are viewed as independents by the committee when it comes time to select teams. In fact, the Nitty Gritty reports and team sheets don’t include the conference RPI for each team.
We never felt an overwhelming urge in the room to keep track of conference bids. It was never mentioned and with so much data absorbed and votes taken, it was difficult to remember the recent past.
  • “Last year, the committee took x teams from the conference, so they’re certain to do so this year.” Not true, past team performance or conference counts are completely irrelevant.
Not once did the 2014 NCAA bracket come up in conversation. The only time it would matter is in bracketing after the seeds are set to avoid potential re-matches from years past.
  • The committee has a sense of humor – look how they assigned Team X to play Team Y. While we love conspiracy theories this simply isn’t possible. Committee members don’t even see matchups until the bracket is done – there isn’t time, nor is it any consideration in the process.
We agree. Matchups are created in the golden hour before CBS receives the bracket. The computer does all the heavy lifting. Dayton and Ohio State met each other in the NCAA First Round for several good reasons: the seeds were correct and the travel distance favored both fan bases.
  • The role of TV. CBS records brief footage of the room during the first day of deliberations, with no selection information visible. Otherwise, no one besides the committee and NCAA staff is present while any of the selection, seeding or bracketing process is taking place.
No one other than NCAA personnel were meandering around our workstations.
  • There are secret handshakes. While the voting process and discussion in the committee room is strictly confidential (so that committee members may speak candidly), there are also specific safeguards to avoid conflicts of interest. At no point in time is a member present for conversation about or vote on a ballot including a team the individual represents as an athletics director or commissioner. An athletics director or commissioner is permitted to answer general, factual questions (i.e. injury dates, player availability) about teams in the conference the individual represents.
-------------



Coming Wednesday:
Part III: Day One of MSP Bracketology
__________________

Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
Make everyone else's "one day" your "day one".
Article Tools
  #1  
By IAFlyer on 02-17-2015, 03:28 PM
Thanks for the information. That program must be something to behold in person. Appreciate the insight.

Fascinating how you disagree about the RPI discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By Figgie123 on 02-17-2015, 04:41 PM
IAFlyer,

I can definately agree with Chris here. If you look through the process, and the stats they show you, they are all based on RPI. Those team sheets have opponents broken down by, what else, the NCAA RPI. The teams are ranked by RPI, so you can see the record against top 25/50/100. Therefore the top 25 is based on RPI rankings.

They may not say, "Hey, Kentucky is RPI #1", but when they show everyone who has played against Kentucky, there is a "#1" next to Kentucky's name. That #1 is RPI. It's not AP ranking, or Coach ranking, kenpom ranking, or fling-crap-on-a-wall ranking. It's RPI.

So, as Chris eloquently puts it, "it's the straw that stirs the drink."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
By UD90 on 02-17-2015, 11:06 PM
This mock bracket has been going on for a few years now and I've read several reviews of it. Now I may be biased, but this is one of the most detailed educational accounts of the process. Nice work Chris.
Reply With Quote
Comment

Article Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

Article powered by GARS 2.1.8m ©2005-2006

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.