At-Large Average Criteria (2022)

With the season over, it’s time to revisit one of my annual columns. This is on how did the at-large teams compare, on average, with the previous years when it comes to the selection criteria. Specifically, I look at record, Strength of Schedule (SOS) and ranked results. Head-to-head and common opponent don’t really come into play here because these vary between the two teams being compared. Ranked results is a bit of a problem when I do this because I’m only looking at ranked record, which is not how the criterion is specified. To be clear, I’m not looking at the quality of wins and losses when I do this comparison. With that said, I do believe record is incorrectly used in the selection process so why not add it to this comparison. My data goes back to 2017.

In 2017, the average for all of the at-large teams for record was 0.776. For SOS it was 0.603 and for ranked record it was 0.554. In 2018, the averages were 0.744 (record), 0.612 (SOS) and 0.526 (ranked record). In 2019, the averages were 0.778 (record), 0.610 (SOS) and .532 (ranked record). In 2021, the averages were 0.788 (record), 0.603 (SOS) and 0.579 (ranked record). Remember, there was no NCAA Tournament in 2020. The data remains pretty consistent. Win ¾ of your matches, get your SOS to 0.600 and win over half of your matches against ranked opponents.

Here are the 2022 numbers:

Record  0.744 SOS  0.620 Ranked Record  0.537

These numbers are really close to the 2018 numbers although the SOS number this year was the highest ever. It’s interesting to note that as the SOS number gets higher, the record percentage goes lower in our data. Makes sense because the teams are playing tougher opponents so it’s harder to get the win. The SOS number this year isn’t surprising as I’ve done one Case Study that has shown SOS played an even bigger role in selection. I’ve got another Case Study not yet published that also shows SOS was more important than ever this year.

This past season, we once again had 4 teams that met or exceeded all three of these criteria averages. They were NYU, Trinity, UW-Stevens Point and Wesleyan. I have yet to see a team get bypassed when they meet all three criteria or even two of the three for that matter. We only had four teams that met or exceeded two of the criteria averages. They were Stevenson, UC Santa Cruz, UW-Oshkosh and WashU and all four missed out on the SOS average number. The 8 teams are down by 2 on the number of teams that met or exceeded 2 or more criteria averages from 2019 and 2021 (there were 10 each year).

Every year when I do this article, I remind myself that I really need to take a first cut on my tournament projection and see which teams are meeting the average of two or more of the criteria. These are locks to be at-large teams. Every year, when I do my projections, I forget about this work. Maybe one of you will remind me next year!

Most of the at-large teams meet at least one of the criteria averages but there are one or two teams each year that fail to meet any that get selected. We had three this year, which is an increase. They were Babson, Millikin and Salisbury. When this happens, the teams are typically very close to at least one of the averages if not two or even three.

For the teams that met just one criterion, it was often the SOS number that they achieved. Of the eight  teams meeting only one average, six met the SOS number. One (Hope) met only Record while Williams met only Ranked Record. Last year, 5 of the 9 teams meeting only one average, met the SOS number. So, again, another data point that shows how SOS is generally favored within the Selection Committee even though no priority is publicly given to the criteria.

Some tidbits about our at-large teams:

• Chicago had the worst record at 0.613. They did have the second highest SOS. Looking at the teams that were on the bubble based on the regional rankings, nine of the ten had a better record than Chicago.

• Stevenson had the worst SOS at 0.581. Seven of the ten bubble teams had a better number.

• Swarthmore had the worst Ranked Record at 0.300. Seven of the ten bubble teams had a better percentage.

Looking at the bubble teams, and I define these as the teams next up in their regions, we see that half of the teams met only one average while the other half met none. With the reduction in regionally ranked teams, I had to guess on Region V and Region VIII and used Susquehanna and UW-Platteville for this study. In truth, there were only 9 bubble teams but since we don’t know the team that was last selected, I use all 10.

Here were the bubble team’s averages:

Record  0.673 (-0.071) SOS  0.590 (-0.030) Ranked record  0.409 (-0.128)

In a reversal from last year, the bubble teams moved further away in SOS but closer in the other two numbers. Again, another indication that SOS was king this year. (The bigger gap was due to the larger SOS number teams being selected as at-large teams.)

Tidbits for the bubble teams:

• No teams exceeded more than one criterion.

• Only one team (Susquehanna) exceeded the SOS number.

• Susquehanna had the lowest record at 0.500.

• Brockport had the lowest SOS at 0.553.

• Susquehanna had the lowest ranked record at 0.250.

• The teams exceeding one average were Susquehanna, Emerson, Stockton, Washington & Lee and Case Western Reserve.

Until I start remembering that I have these averages, the data isn’t too useful. (I swear I’ll use this information next year.) I think it does show how important SOS is but there are numerous examples of that. One team that I though should have been an at-large selection was Case Western Reserve. Their Record was there and while their Ranked Record didn’t meet the average, it still played in the selection game. What killed them was their SOS of 0.561 (and the incorrect application of the criteria by the Selection Committee). What I would tell coaches is that you just never know when you get that team that could be special. They are good enough to make the NCAA Tournament but maybe you didn’t know that a year prior when putting together schedule. Case Western Reserve was probably one changed up weekend in their schedule to making the tournament. One trip to Chris Newport or up to New England probably would have given them the boost in SOS and the one or two regionally ranked wins to get them over the line. I could say the same for a few other teams on the bubble, as well. Bottom line, coaches need to schedule as if they have an at-large team, if they can. That way, the only reason why you don’t make the tournament is if you don’t win the matches.

Here is the raw data used above: