Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Granted, the Hockey Pairwise Comparison system isn't perfect but at least you know where your team stands on a week to week basis and the outcome isn't entrusted in a bias selection committee. The teams are selected by several computerized factors and not by 'the eye test', who is currently hot, etc. Does anyone else feel like this would work well for the NCAA to select it's 68 teams. You could do a pairwise system for at large teams. When the conference championship (31 conferences) is crowned it takes away on of the those 68 bids, unless that team was already in the top 68. I just feel like this is a much more accurate system. Any thoughts.

I would prefer it.

I would also prefer it go back to 64 teams, the "playin" thing is stupid, IMO.

It will never happen though. The big boys only like computer systems when they can use it as a justification to put a mediocre team in over a better record lesser conference team. When the computer systems (RPI) benefit the mid-majors they're thrown out the window entirely.

I like the pairwise system...not sure if it would translate from the smaller universe of college hockey to D1 hoops . There's @60 hockey teams and over 300 basketball teams. I agree with hammb that the last thing the NCAA wants in basketball is a clear methodology for deciding who's in or out. It benefits them to not have that level of clarity

Flipper wrote:I like the pairwise system...not sure if it would translate from the smaller universe of college hockey to D1 hoops . There's @60 hockey teams and over 300 basketball teams. I agree with hammb that the last thing the NCAA wants in basketball is a clear methodology for deciding who's in or out. It benefits them to not have that level of clarity

What would the talking heads discuss? Selection Sunday would be gone. The only unknowns would be seeds and playing locations. Everybody would know if they were in or out.

There's no perfect answer, I'm fine with the selection committee. How about the NCAA just release a set criteria for a committee to use. If the RPI doesn't matter, say that. If you're basing everything on strength of schedule, say that. This year for example there was no justifying UCLA being in or making Dayton the last team in. Other than we wanted a power conference team from LA for eyeballs and the money that came with Dayton playing in the First 4 and then in Columbus.

The NCAA doesn't care they made Boise play a true road game and then not protect a 6 seed like Providence. All they were thinking was, "Give us dat $$$$$$."

It would make more sense to me to put actual basketball people on the committee, instead of administrators. Who knows basketball better, Denny Crum or Scott Barnes? Dan Dakich or Judy MacLeod?