Jeff Sagarin NCAA basketball ratings

These are the rating that the committee must have followed to a "T"! Now I realize that most of the decisions the NCAA selection committee are based on these computer ratings.

For example, the top four teams on the Sagarin (computer based, non-biased, haha) ratings look:
1. Kansas
2. Duke
3. Syracuse
4. Kentucky
These were the top four seeds in the tourney.

Now lets look at the next four:
5.West Virginia
6.Kansas State
7.Villanova
8.Baylor

This shows how the committee picked each region's number one and two seeds. The exception is Baylor, who was replaced by Ohio State, probably one of the few moves the comittee must have made on the "eye" test.

Now not all picks were based on these ratings, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that these computer rankings were used to make the top 1 and 2 seeds in this tourney.

I disagree with using these ratings over the eye test. A basketball fan can tell that Ohio State is playing better than Villanova right now, that West Virginia played better than Kansas State down the stretch, and that Mississippi State ranked 49 in these ratings was clearly more deserving of an NCAA birth than the 47 ranked team: Florida.

Next year, lets put more emphasis on the "eye" test and take a look more at what teams can do on the court rather than their top 50 wins in December.

Look back at a previous blog I posted on my problems with the NCAA tourney selections for this year. Then look at these ratings at USATODAY.com....just simply type in the title of this blog in the search box.

Decide for yourself if these ratings should be a reflection of the tourney, or should we put more emphasis on knowledge of basketball, the brass-tax, can you play, or can't you. That is certainly what I want to see: The best 65 teams, with all conference tourney winners and top at-large teams, based on can you play, or can't you.....is this too much to ask? This year obviously it is, because the computer must be smarter than the human eye.

Until next time, Adios!