The NCAA Committee is charged with filling only the 36 at-large berths for the tournament, seeding all 68 teams and placing teams into the four regional brackets. Members of the 10-member committee are actively engaged during the season as they receive weekly updates on RPI, ESPN’s BPI, Ken Pom and Sagarin info. Additionally, one coach from each conference is asked to submit to the committee on the first day of each month during the season his ranking of the conference teams.The Committee meets for first time on Wednesday leading up to selection Sunday. Here’s their process:

1. Each member selects the teams it feels should merit at-large bids without ranking them. Not more than 36 teams may be identified. These selections are made independent of who may be the automatic qualifier for conferences whose conference tournaments are still being conducted. Teams that appear on the lists of 7 or more committee members are designated as at-large bid recipients. Teams that recieve 4 or more votes go into the “teams for further consideration” group with the teams that had already been assigned there. All conference regular season champions are placed in that group.

2. Committee members then consider those in the “teams for further consideration” group. Each committee member selects, in no particular order, 8 teams they feel should be included in the at-large selections when there are at least 20 teams in that group. If there are between 14 and 19 teams in that group only 6 or fewer teams are selected by each committee member. If there are fewer than 14 teams in that group only 4 or fewer teams are selected by each committee member. From that list a vote is conducted. The eight teams that receive the most votes are then ranked by each committee member. The top four vote getters are then moved into the field. The remaining four teams go into a “holding bin” seperate from the “teams for further consideration” group.

3. The process continues with eight more teams from the “teams for further consideration” group being identified by each committee member with the top 8 vote getters being ranked. The four teams receiving the most votes are then grouped with the four teams from the “holding bin” and they are ranked by each committee member from top to bottom again. The top four vote getters are moved into the field. If a team fails for two consecutive votes to advance to the field, it is placed back into the “teams for further consideration” group.

4. The process continues until all 36 at-large slots are filled. If at any time there is a tie after three rounds of voting, the committee chair shall break the tie. No special rules govern what to do about the last four in or last for out teams. The same process is followed throughout. A team may removed from the at-large field by the vote of at least 7 committee members, in which case the team is once again placed into the “teams for further consideration” group.

5. Once the field has been selected the seeding process starts. Each committee member selects 8 teams, in no particular order, he deems to be the best of the field of 68 that has already been selected. From that group of teams each committee member votes for his top eight. The top eight vote getters are then considered for seeding and voting on those occurs with the top four vote getters being seeded thusly. The four teams not in the top four are carried over to the next seeding vote. Each committee member then selects 8 teams, in no particular order, from the remaining pool of teams. Of those teams identified each committee member ranks his top 8. The top four vote getters are combined on a list with the four teams that were carried over. Those eight teams are then ranked with the top vote getters receiving the next seeds. Ties are broken by the committee chair if, after three rounds of voting, there is a tie. The process continues until all teams are seeded and ranked 1 through 68. By majority vote a team may be scrubbed from its current seeding and returned to the pool for further seeding consideration.

6. The last four at-large teams from the seeding list are paired with the teams ranked 65 through 68 for the “First Four” games.

Special Provisions:
* a team will remain as close to its area of natural interest as possible
* teams may not be assigned to a venue where they have played more than three games during the regular season
* a team cannot play at a venue where it is hosting games
* teams may be moved up to two seed lines to meet the above principles

Other:
* the overall #1 seed may select the preferred region it wishes to play in
* the committee will work to see that the overall strength of each region is comparable re: the top 16 teams in the tournament
* for First Four, first and second round games the committee will avoid rematches between teams that played each other in nonconference games
* rematches of games from the previous year’s tournament will be avoided in the First Four and first round

It’s interesting to note that past committee members indicate that who you beat is more important than who you lose to. As well non-D1 games, whether won or lost, are not considered at all in the selection process — contrary to the conviction of at least one person on this board.

Who is the coach that submits the MWC list?

aggies1 wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 2:50 pm

Who is the coach that submits the MWC list?

I have no idea. It’s also probably an assistant coach who does so.

aggies1 wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 2:50 pm

Who is the coach that submits the MWC list?

Probably Leon

Hopefully the committee doesn’t pay too much attention to BPI, though the Aggies did jump from 60 to 49 after the Boise win. It has been an outlier metric all year but it looks a little better now.

Have to admit the last sentence made me laugh. I tend to agree with him more than most, but I’m not sure where he got that bit of (mis)information.

MarioWest wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 4:08 pm

Hopefully the committee doesn’t pay too much attention to BPI, though the Aggies did jump from 60 to 49 after the Boise win. It has been an outlier metric all year but it looks a little better now.

Have to admit the last sentence made me laugh. I tend to agree with him more than most, but I’m not sure where he got that bit of (mis)information.

I didn’t name names.

utaggies wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 5:32 pm

MarioWest wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 4:08 pm

Hopefully the committee doesn’t pay too much attention to BPI, though the Aggies did jump from 60 to 49 after the Boise win. It has been an outlier metric all year but it looks a little better now.

Have to admit the last sentence made me laugh. I tend to agree with him more than most, but I’m not sure where he got that bit of (mis)information.

I didn’t name names.

Joe Lunardi has said on several occasions that while the official guidelines say that non-D1 games are not considered, in practice the committee takes a very dim view of them. They see them as a team trying to pad their record and avoid a loss, and it can hurt you if you are one of the final teams on the bubble (as USU is this year). I hope Odom never schedules one of those games again, because that was a huge self-inflicted wound that we don't need this year. I am operating on the assumption that Lunardi knows what he is talking about, because that is where I got this information.

Lets hope its Leon

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zUaGfGOn4QU

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 6:47 pm

Joe Lunardi has said on several occasions that while the official guidelines say that non-D1 games are not considered, in practice the committee takes a very dim view of them. They see them as a team trying to pad their record and avoid a loss, and it can hurt you if you are one of the final teams on the bubble (as USU is this year). I hope Odom never schedules one of those games again, because that was a huge self-inflicted wound that we don't need this year. I am operating on the assumption that Lunardi knows what he is talking about, because that is where I got this information.

At this time, on this board, validating your statement by quoting Lunardi is not a very good look.

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 6:47 pm

utaggies wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 5:32 pm

MarioWest wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 4:08 pm

Hopefully the committee doesn’t pay too much attention to BPI, though the Aggies did jump from 60 to 49 after the Boise win. It has been an outlier metric all year but it looks a little better now.

Have to admit the last sentence made me laugh. I tend to agree with him more than most, but I’m not sure where he got that bit of (mis)information.

I didn’t name names.

Joe Lunardi has said on several occasions that while the official guidelines say that non-D1 games are not considered, in practice the committee takes a very dim view of them. They see them as a team trying to pad their record and avoid a loss, and it can hurt you if you are one of the final teams on the bubble (as USU is this year). I hope Odom never schedules one of those games again, because that was a huge self-inflicted wound that we don't need this year. I am operating on the assumption that Lunardi knows what he is talking about, because that is where I got this information.

And you trust Lunardi’s comments on the process more than members who have sat on the committee? Non-D1 games, either won or lost, are not considered at all in the record of D1 teams as they are considered in the selection process. It’s as if the game never took place and has as much meaning to the selection committee as an intersquad game does. The NET ranking website has USU’s record as 23-7, which doesn’t include our non-D1 game against Westminster.

SectionBAggie wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 9:34 pm

At this time, on this board, validating your statement by quoting Lunardi is not a very good look.

utaggies wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 9:38 pm

And you trust Lunardi’s comments on the process more than members who have sat on the committee? Non-D1 games, either won or lost, are not considered at all in the record of D1 teams as they are considered in the selection process. It’s as if the game never took place and has as much meaning to the selection committee as an intersquad game does. The NET ranking website has USU’s record as 23-7, which doesn’t include our non-D1 game against Westminster.

I remember Lunardi wrote several columns about this in reference to USU in the early 2000's. He said Stew Morrill's practice of playing non-D1 opponents was hurting our chances at an at-large bid. He said the committee tended to view playing non-D1 games as ducking a potential loss. They treated it as a bad loss because the assumption was that you would have played a D1 opponent if you thought you could beat them. Or something like that. This was almost 20 years ago. One way or another he has said on many occasions that if you are on the bubble, you really don't want to have any non-D1 games on your resume. Take it for what it's worth. Regardless I hope USU does not schedule non-D1 games in the future. Even if the committee truly does completely ignore those games, I would rather have a chance to build our resume.

SectionBAggie wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 9:34 pm

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑

March 6th, 2023, 6:47 pm

Joe Lunardi has said on several occasions that while the official guidelines say that non-D1 games are not considered, in practice the committee takes a very dim view of them. They see them as a team trying to pad their record and avoid a loss, and it can hurt you if you are one of the final teams on the bubble (as USU is this year). I hope Odom never schedules one of those games again, because that was a huge self-inflicted wound that we don't need this year. I am operating on the assumption that Lunardi knows what he is talking about, because that is where I got this information.

At this time, on this board, validating your statement by quoting Lunardi is not a very good look.

Lunardi works for ESPN. ESPN pays the NCAAs bills. When ESPN says jump the NCAA jumps.