Bracketology (USATSI)
How the NCAA builds the bracket is a complicated process. (USATSI)

I thought it would be helpful to have a place to get answers to some of the questions I get most frequently. To accomplish this, I will use the tried-and-true Q&A format, wherein I pose a question as if it came from someone else, and then answer it.  I'll update this page as needed.

Q: What is the RPI?

A: The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is a relatively simple power rating formula developed by the NCAA in 1981. The formula has undergone a few changes over the years, most recently in 2005. The current formula is 25 percent a team's winning percentage, 50 percent opponents' winning percentage, and 25 percent opponents' opponents' winning percentage. The team's winning percentage is weighted, with more credit given for wins on the road and less for wins at home, and vice versa for losses.

Q: How important is the RPI?

A: It is never a decisive factor. If you are arguing the case for your team, and all you have is RPI, you have nothing. A good RPI is a strong indicator of a good season, but it can be fooled. The RPI is used more as an aggregator.

The committee looks at how teams have performed against the top 25 in the RPI, top 50, top 100, etc. As an individual number, strength of schedule is much more important than RPI, especially non-conference strength of schedule.

Q: Why is your RPI different that the one at some other site?

A: I don't know.  There is only one RPI formula.  I make sure mine matches the official ratings.  If others don't, then you need to ask them.

Q: Why is the RPI different than KenPom, Sagarin, etc?

A: They are different formulas measuring different things.  The biggest difference is almost always that RPI does not include margin of victory and/or games against teams outside of Division I.  There are other significant differences as well.

Q: How are those other metrics used by the committee?

Q: Why don't you look at any of these other metrics?

A: The consideration other metrics receive varies from committee member to committee member.  Some like to look at them, some don't.  Those that do are not blindly using them to make decisions, and almost always look at more than one.  In group discussions, there is no significant discussion of them.  They are no more decisive than the RPI, and if all you have is a good RPI ranking, you have nothing.  If all you have is a good KenPom or Sagarin rating (or both...or more than those two), you also have nothing, maybe even less. 

And that's why I don't look at them.  They don't inform my process.  The selection process is still driven by RPI, and as such, the RPI is the most important metric.  Regardless, metrics do not make decisions for the committee.

Q: Is your bracket what you think it will look like at the end of the season?

A: No. My bracket is always based on what I think it would look like if the season ended today.

Q: Is your bracket what you think the bracket should look like?

A: No. My bracket is always an attempt to predict the bracket the selection committee would produce.  My own ranking of teams, if I were on the committee, would likely be different.

Q: How do you determine the automatic qualifiers in your bracket?

A: Since my bracket is always based on as if the season ended today, I use the current conference leader.  Note that does not mean I am predicting that team will eventually win the bid.

I determine the conference leader as the team with the fewest conference losses and break ties by RPI.  Once a top seed for a conference tournament is decided, I use that team.  During the conference tournament, I use the highest seeded team remaining until a champion is determined.

Q: Why do you have my team so much higher (or lower) than everyone else?

A: I don't know.  I have no idea what anyone else might be thinking.  I never look at any other brackets, but even if I did, I still couldn't answer this question.  However, if I have your team lower than everyone else, it's because I hate them. (see below)

Q: Why did my team drop even though it didn't lose?

A: Seeding is relative, which means it's not always about what your team did.  It's possible one or more of your team's opponents don't look as good as they did before because they lost.  It's possible some team that was behind yours picked up a big win and jumped ahead.  This isn't a poll, where you keep your spot until you lose.  Your team's profile can be affected by more than the game or two they played since the last bracket.

Q: How many more wins will it take for my team to get into the tournament?

Q: How many conference wins will it take for my team to get into the tournament?

Q: If my team wins some number of our final games, will they get in/what seed will they be?

A: I get asked one of these questions or some other version of them more than any other and they are both the easiest and the toughest to answer. The easy answer for bubble teams is one - the one that wins the conference championship. Other than that, it depends on how other teams that are fighting for the same spot in the tournament perform.

Teams on the bubble don't really control their own destinies. That's why I am typically vague when I do attempt to answer this question. And if your team isn't on the bubble, you shouldn't even be asking this question. Also, there's no bubble until at least the beginning of February, so it's pointless to ask this question before then.

The same is true with seeds.  Seeding is relative.  It’s not simply about what your team does.  It’s about what other teams in that part of the bracket do as well.

Also, these questions always act on the assumption that the season ends when those games are played, which is incorrect.  That brings me to…

Q: If my team wins some number of games in the conference tournament, are we in/what seed will we get?

A: How far a team gets into its conference tournament is irrelevant unless it wins the tournament. Conference tournament games are just like any other game on your schedule – a small portion of the 30+ that were played. It matters who you beat, who ultimately beats you, and where the games were played, but not how many games were played. It's possible to make the finals in some tournaments without playing a team that helps your cause.  You might think your team has done enough, and then a bid gets stolen somewhere, and then it's no longer enough.

The same concepts apply to seeding.  It's all relative, and it's not just about your team.

Q: How does the committee decide where teams play in the tournament?

A: That decision process is very much driven by geography. The committee wants teams to play as close to home as possible, and the higher the seed, the higher the priority when it comes to that. However, there are rules that come before that.

1. A team cannot play on its home floor in the tournament or at a site where it is the host school. Obviously, the First Four (Dayton) and Final Four are exceptions to this rule.

2. The committee looks for relative balance among the top four seeds in each region, but no effort is made to "snake" the bracket. However, they will most likely not put the top No. 1 and No. 2 seeds together.

3. The top four teams from a conference will be in separate regions as long as all four are seeded fourth or better in a region.  Beyond that, teams from the same conference can be bracketed to meet in the second round if they only played each other once during the regular season.  They can be scheduled to meet as early as the sweet 16 if they played each other twice and not until the elite eight if they played each other three times.

4. The committee tries to avoid non-conference rematches as well as rematches from the previous two tournaments in the first round and First Four, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule.

5. BYU can't be scheduled to play on a Sunday.

6. The Tuesday PIG winners (one game from the 65-68 group, and one game from the at-large group) are usually played at Thursday-Saturday sites and the Wednesday winners at Friday-Sunday sites.

A "home floor" is defined as any place a team has played more than three regular season home games, excluding conference tournaments. A home game is any game where the team serves as game management, or if the game is part of a season ticket package. The determination of home or neutral isn't always obvious. The NCAA has the final say. Some teams have more than one home floor.

The committee checks for balance by adding the true ranking (1-16) of the top four teams in each region, and comparing the totals. Ideally, the difference between the highest sum and the lowest will be five or less, however we have seen brackets with greater imbalance than that.

Q: What does the committee consider when selecting and seeding teams?

A: It's easier to answer what they don't consider…

1. Having a great coach.

2. What a team has done in the past.

3. The name on the front of the jersey. Or the back.

4. Fan support/potential ticket sales/potential TV ratings. This isn't the bowls.

5. "Friends" on the committee.

6. Number of teams from a conference. If every team from a conference is deserving of selection, they'll all get in.

7. Conference standings. Teams are judged on their entire seasons, not just the conference part.   Conference standings are pretty meaningless anyway because of imbalanced schedules in almost every league.

8. Number of wins. It's much more about quality than quantity.

9. How a team finishes. This is a relatively recent change in the committee's thinking. Teams can help or hurt themselves as much in November as they can in March. The games count the same.

10. Sagarin, KenPom, and other ratings. They aren't important on their own.  See above.

Q: OK, wise guy, answer the original question. What does get considered?

A: It comes down to three questions: Who did you beat? Who beat you? Where did you play them? With that in mind, the things that do matter are:

1. Quality wins. This is typically wins against teams in the top 50 of the RPI, but also wins over anyone selected as at-large quality or under consideration for an at-large spot.

2. Record against better teams. How did a team do vs. the top 25, top 50, top 100 in the RPI?

3. Bad losses. Usually a loss to a team ranked below 100. Obviously, this is a negative. Losses to teams below 200 are especially bad.  Teams rarely get at-large bids with more than four bad losses.

4. Strength of schedule, especially non-conference strength of schedule. At least one team gets left out of the tournament almost every year primarily because of a very poor non-conference schedule.

5. Good record away from home. The tournament isn't played on home courts, so the committee wants to see teams perform well away from home.

6. Injuries and other roster issues. In general, this seems to matter less than it used to. Even then, the impact has been on seeding, not selection.  The roster a team will be taking into the tournament gets weighed a little more heavily. To be clear -- the committee will not disregard or discount a loss that occurred with a key player missing, or because of a bad call at the end of a game, or whatever other circumstance may arise. Losses are losses.

Q: What about head-to-head?

A: Head-to-head results are not nothing, but they're not as decisive as they are in football.  One team can lose two or three times to another team and still be selected or seeded ahead of it.  Even if both teams on the bubble, it's not necessarily decisive.  Teams are judged on their entire body of work, not two or three games.

Q: Does the committee consider "good losses"?

A: A good loss is a close loss to a high quality team. Yes, that's better than getting creamed, but if all you have is good losses, you have nothing.

Q: You have my team ranked too low!  You must hate them, you biased SOB!!

A: That's not really a question, but yes, I hate your team.  I'm not really biased though because I hate all teams, including my own. I'm an equal opportunity hater.