From drothman1@juno.com Subject: College Basketball Commentary of 10 March 2002 Today the bids have been issued to the college basket- ball playoffs, and once again we sally forth with com- puter rankings to smite the incomputerate. After all, is getting invited to championships considered by NCAA officials as a charitable donation? They are certain- ly in a giving mood. The seven worst teams, according to FACT's provisional standings, are 195 Florida Atlantic 206 Montana 224 Boston University 248 Holy Cross 274 Siena 284 Winthrop 334 Alcorn State They "earned" bids by means of automatic qualification (in other words, they were champions of conferences at the bottom of a deep barrel). Perhaps NCAA management wishes to entertain us with some truly lopsided games. The first round, for example, gives us Alcorn State or Siena against Maryland, rated 13 or 14 baskets higher. Why would fans watch such a game unless they want some humor? Of course charity isn't so evil, but those teams above crowded out seven others which could have been invited instead, 36 South Carolina 41 Memphis 42 Georgetown (DC) 44 Villanova 45 Virginia 47 Arkansas 50 Louisville These seven were about 7 baskets higher in FACT's list (a very significant difference). The next time you're feeling good about letting weak conferences send their champs to March Madness, just think about how Peter is being robbed to pay Paul. From drothman1@juno.com Subject: Commentary of 12 March 2001 I have many criticisms of the March Madness in the sport of college basketball, including an inflated field, con- ferences with too many representatives, teams (like Ala- bama) left out for no good reason, and an index which is nothing more than a guess (at the best linear approxima- tion, which is unnecessary anyway in this computer age). But the grossest error is the automatic qualification of certain conference champions. The following are invited this year: Alabama State 16th seed, South #233 Northwestern State 16th seed, Midwest #216 Winthrop 17th seed, Midwest #210 UNC-Greensboro 16th seed, West #206 Monmouth (NJ) 16th seed, East #200 Princeton 15th seed, South #176 Hampton 15th seed, West #165 Holy Cross 15th seed, East #139 Iona 14th seed, Midwest #132 Eastern Illinois 15th seed, Midwest #129 George Mason 14th seed, West #121 From drothman1@juno.com Subject: College Basketball Commentary of 13 March 2002 Some readers have worried that the resources available to NCAA Division I basketball teams are highly unequal in nature, and therefore that should be (and is) taken into account when legislating automatic qualification. But my response is that when resources are unequal, we should split the field into different subdivisions, as in I-A and I-AA football. Then the I-AA teams can run a separate championship. Meanwhile, nothing in FACT's methodology prevents a great team in a weak conference from going to the top of the standings, if the results in the present season are good enough. Another criticism seen after my previous commentary is that March Madness has great excitement because people don't know who will emerge. My claim is that we could get that kind of excitement from a lottery. The point of a championship is to find the best team. We should not pick this kind of design after the lengthy seasons in college basketball. At one end of this spectrum is the situation in Division III football, where hundreds of teams play very few games. The best tournament for this situation is single elimination. But the extreme opposite is the situation in major league baseball, in which very few teams play a great many games. Here we specify a multiple elimination tournament of a certain kind appropriate for baseball. My claim is that the college basketball season is more like the situation in professional baseball than Divi- sion III football. We need a multiple elimination de- sign with just a few teams. But there are better ways than the "series" approach required in baseball due to the centrality of pitching. My best guess now is that we should have only four teams in a triple elimination tournament. That would generate nine or more games on national television, so the income would still be big, comparable to the six rounds of the present method. Finally, I'm against subjectivity in the choice of the teams. No committee is needed to take the top schools from FACT's standings (a public method, not secret and proprietary). Teams in professional baseball and pro- fessional football know exactly how standings are done before the season begins, and we owe the same courtesy to amateur players. Dave, 310-676-4032 David Rothman 14125 Doty Avenue, #23 Hawthorne, CA 90250-8042