Apply The "Final Four Rule" To March Madness

A year ago we advocated application of what we called the "Final Four" test to selection of teams to the NCAA men's basketball tournament ("Make March Madness More Mid-Major"), and we urge it again, especially after how well our rule worked out in the 2007 tourney. (See "March Madness: Curmudgeonly 'Top Four' Rule Works").

The "Final Four Rule" says that no team can be in the NCAA tournament unless it has finished in EITHER the final four of that team's conference regular season schedule OR that team's conference tournament. The purpose of the rule is to eliminate marginal "bubble" teams from so-called "power" conferences and enable more mid-major teams to compete.

Our rationale is that the true measure of success in March Madness is the Final Four. A team that makes the Final Four is a special team. The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to see which teams merit that distinction (and ultimately to crown a national champion).

By definition, a team that has not even managed, after a season of play and a post-season conference tournament, to crack it's own conference "Final Four" should not be given a pass to the big dance.

Such a rule would take a lot of the subjectivity out of picking lower down teams from power conferences, would make the regular season conference standings count for something more than conference tournament seedings, and would make the conference tournaments in the major conferences even more interesting because some teams would be playing for their lives.

In theory, our rule would allow up to 8 teams in a conference to go to March Madness, but only if none of the top four in the regular season made it into the semifinals of the conference tournament. In practice, that would almost never happen. Generally, no more than 5, or maybe 6, teams would be eligible (they would still be subject to the other tournament criteria, such as RPI).

Last season, our rule worked out very well. There were SIX teams in the field that flunked our Final Four rule (Duke and Georgia Tech from the ACC; Marquette and Villanova from the Big East; Michigan State from the Big Ten; and Arizona from the Pac-10). Of those, FIVE lost in the FIRST round. The only one to advance--Michigan State--did so by beating another Final Four rule violator (Marquette) and then promptly lost in the next round.

In the meantime, a number of at-large mid-major schools did much better. Out of six mid-major at-large teams, four advanced to the second round and two to the sweet sixteen. Furthermore, those at-large mid-majors, schools like Butler and Southern Illinois, add much more spice and interest to the tournament than some also-ran from the Big East or ACC that finished sixth in it's own darn conference.

Our rule would eliminate a lot of the silly whining that occurs every year over whether some patently mediocre team in a "power" conference should nonetheless have had it's ticket to the Big Dance punched.

Tournament Selection Committe, are you listening?