College basketball selection process has serious flaws

The object of every sport is to win. The contestants that win the most, should be the contenders that are competing for a title. In the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, MLB, MLS, the Premier League, high school sports, etc, it is. College Football has its own problems in selecting teams to compete for a title, but at least teams get rewarded for winning(for the most part). In Mens College Basketball, the same can not be said. 

The NCAA Tournament concluded last Monday Night in San Antonio. The field of 68 that contested this tournament was selected by a 10 person committee back on March 11. In that field were the 32 conference tournament champions (or auto-bids), from all 32 Division 1 conferences, and 36 at-large invitations. The problem lies with the 36 at-large bids, the 36 teams that the selection committee personally selects. Selection Sunday ended up being a great example as to why a change needs to be made in the selection process.  

Team A went 13-6 in their conference, and won 22 basketball games overall. Team B went 8-11 in their conference, and won 18 games overall. Team C went 16-2 in their conference, and won 28 games overall. Team D went 13-7 in their conference, and won 23 games. Team B was the only team in this group that made the NCAA Tournament. That would be Oklahoma. Team A was Nebraska, Team C was St. Mary’s, and Team D was USC. That makes utterly no since at all. The only reason is because of RPI, a system that is clearly flawed and should not be used to select teams that play for a national title.  

The Ratings Percentage Index(RPI), a given team has is not used directly in the selection process, the committee personally acknowledged the system has serious flaws. Take Nebraska as an example. If the Huskers would have played a Division II school, instead of Delaware State (who has an RPI of 350 out of 351 schools), their RPI would have been 10-15 spots higher. This is because Division II schools do not count in a RPI calculation. It is also because, only 25% of the RPI Calculation is a teams actual record, 75% is their schedules record. Basically 75% of this number, any given team has absolutely no control over. It makes since the committee seems to hate it. What they do not hate and love is the quadrant system, something strictly based off this flawed system.  

Quadrant 1 are the opponents any given team plays at home that have an RPI of 1-30, on a neutral court 1-50, and on the road 1-75. In the committee’s eyes, the more Q1 wins the better, that is why Oklahoma got in, and Nebraska, USC, and St. Mary’s did not. The Sooners had 6 such wins, while the others in this group had no more than 3. So, a system that is clearly flawed is still is being used to determine who makes the dance, something that must change.  

College Basketball needs to figure out a way to reward teams for actually winning basketball games. Result based selections should take place, in all leagues, not only should a conference tournament title be an auto-bid, a regular season title should amount to more than a bottom three seed in the NIT. The field should also be cut to 64, because the First Four does more harm than good. Until changes like this can be made, things like the committee’s gross obsession with RPI fueled quadrants will continue to not fully reward teams that actually win basketball games, and hurt the great game that is College Basketball.