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?

March Madness: Curmudgeonly "Top Four" Rule Works

A few days ago, before the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament began, we suggested the NCAA selection committee should adopt a guideline--which we called the "Top Four" rule--that would normally prevent a team from competing if it didn't finish in either the top four of it's conference regular season standings or the top four of the conference season-ending championship.

The rationale for the rule is to get in more mid-major teams and less mediocre teams from so-called "power" conferences, while also making the regular season count for something and reducing "bubble" speculation.

Turns out the rule works quite well.

In this year's March Madness field, there were six teams that would have failed the Top 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 and the only one to advance--Michigan State--did so by beating Marquette in a match-up that ensured at least one of the Top Four losers would go to the next round. We'll see if Michigan State gets any further today.

(It's particularly egregious that the selection committee would put two middlin' "power" teams like Marquette and Michigan State in a first round match-up. Why not let them go against some good mid-major schools to see if the power conferences really are all that deep.)

Our take: the Top Four rule would effectively bar from the tournament teams that the regular season showed really have no business being there in the first place, while opening up a few at-large slots for deserving mid-major teams that make the tournament more interesting and fun.

UPDATE (Sunday March 18):

Two things to say here, both of which support our guideline (we say guideline because it should be a general rule, subject to exceptional circumstances):

1. The only remaining team that would've flunked our Top Four guideline, Michigan State, handily lost to North Carolina in the second round. Indeed, Michigan State was the only team not to take a game down to the wire in yesterday's (Saturday) second round.

2. One reader raised a good point: how'd the at-large teams from mid-majors fare? After all, if they all lost in the first round, there wouldn't be such a great case for inviting more of them, at the expense of power conferences.

Here's the answer: there were six mid-major at-large berths awarded this year--Butler, Old Dominion, Nevada, Brigham Young, Xavier and Southern Illinois. Four of them advanced to the second round: Butler, Nevada, Xavier and So. Ill. Moreover, the two that didn't advance--ODU and BYU--lost to other mid-major at-large teams.

In the second round, Butler advanced to the Sweet Sixteen by defeating Maryland, and So. Illinois handily beat power conference team Virginia Tech.

Pretty clearly, the mid-majors outplayed the power conference Top Four flunkers, although, unfortunately, we have no head-to-head test.

We ought to also note that none of the Top Four flunkers had to play a particularly tough first round opponent. Georgia Tech played the highest seed, a #7, while the rest played opponents seeded between 8-11. And while Mich. State lost to a #1 seed in the second round, it was nowhere as thrilling as Xavier's loss to #1 seed Ohio State.

Again, the data points in favor of our Top Four guideline.

Make March Madness More Mid-Major

We don't usually comment on sports topics since there is an entire separate blogosphere devoted to all sports all the time. But every now and then we get a thought we just have to get off our chest.

With March Madness (Go Hoyas!) upon us, we're struck by the annual controversy over a few teams that feel they shouldn't have been left out, as well as the perennial debate over whether more teams from the "mid-major" conferences should get a shot at the title.

The NCAA should adopt a couple guidelines to help tame some of the controversy. First, no team should qualify for the tournament unles it finishes either (a) in the top four of its conference's regular season standings, or (b) in the top four in its conference season ending championship tournament. We'll call this the Top Four rule. After all, the measure of true success in the NCAA Tournament is whether you finish in the Final Four. If you can't even make your own conference final four, why be invited to the Big Dance? Such a rule would also give "bubble" teams clear guidance on what they need to do to get in: not in your conference's top four at the end of the season? Then you'd darn well get into the semi-finals of the conference tournament.

Second, no more than six teams should be taken from any conference. (Theoretically, under rule one, above, eight teams could qualify, although that's not too likely.) Honestly, how can you say that a team no better than 7th or 8th in its conference belongs in the NCAA Tournament? (Sorry, Georgia Tech.)

These restrictions would somewhat limit the number of teams from the "major" conferences, thereby opening up a handful of additional slots for good teams from the mid-major conferences. At the same time, so-called "bubble" schools that don't meet the standards could hardly complain--they knew what they needed to do, but didn't do it.

For example, there'd be no debate this year about Syracuse, because it finished fifth in the Big East and failed to make it to the Big East tournament semi-finals. (Also, in the ACC, neither Georgia Tech nor Duke would qualify, knocking the ACC down to five teams, instead of seven.) By the same token, Drexel--which did get a raw deal--would be in.

The other thing our Curmudgeonly Top Four rule would do is make the major conference regular season standings and championship tournaments much more meaningful--and fun.

But then, what would all those sports blogs have to talk about now?

UPDATE NUMBER ONE:

So far, our "Top Four" rule works. In the first round Thursday games, three teams, Duke, Marquette and Michigan State would not have qualified for the tournament based on our Top Four rule. Duke lost to mid-major VCU, while Marquette lost to Michigan State. Obviously, the Marquette v. Michigan State match-up ensured one would lose and one would advance.

For the Friday first round games, Georgia Tech, Arizona and Villanova would fail our Top Four rule. We'll see how they do today.

UPDATE NUMBER TWO
No big surprise: Georgia Tech, Arizona and Villanova all lost. None was playing a particularly highly-seeded team--instead, the regular season told us they were mediocre.

The only team left that would've been disqualified by our Top Four rule is Michigan State. We'll see if they survive today.