Bruce Dowd, CSN columnist

Well it is that time of the year again, two weeks left and everyone is talking playoffs. So I thought I would take this time to review the process and give you my thoughts on how the CAA teams are positioned for the playoffs.

I was also fortunate enough to be granted an interview with John McCutcheon, the head of the Playoff Selection Committee as I went one-on-one with him for almost 20 minutes. I think you will find some of his answers very informative.

SOME BASIC FACTS

First let’s list some basic facts that are important to the selection of the teams. Most of these you probably already know, but a little review can’t hurt. While these facts are what I consider to be the key elements, you can read about all the rules and regulations on all areas by going to this link Championship Rules and Regulations. This link will also give you the names of all the members of the selection committee.

Here are some of the key criteria to consider; First of all there are eight conferences with automatic bids. The committee will only seed the first four teams. The committee must follow some preset rules as to how they match up teams like for example; there can never be a first round match-up with teams from same conference.

In the link above, the main four principles that the committee must follow are the heart of the matter and here they are;

1. The committee shall select the best teams available on a national at-large basis to complete the bracket;
2. There is no limit to the number of teams the committee may select from one conference;
3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected;
4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents;

Again, I suggest you view the link above when you get a chance. That way you will see all the rules and requirements put on the committee. So, without further ado, here is the interview;

THE INTERVIEW

Question #1: I started out with a simple question and just wanted to confirm how many members were on the committee. A question that I thought was very basic and probably didn’t even need to be asked. But then maybe the question wasn’t so bad after all as here was his surprise response, at least a surprise to me; “Actually it has expanded this year. We have two more, one representative from each one of the conferences; even the conferences that don’t have automatic qualifications. I believe our number is up to ten now.”

After the interview I referred back to the Championship Rules and Regulations and found that I had missed that change when I recently reviewed the rules. So there are now 10 members. The two added conferences without the automatic bids that he was referring to are the Big South and the Northeast.

I then went on to confirm that they do still have the regional advisory committee and that has stayed the same. Those regions are the East, West, South, and Central. And here is how he explained that; “We have four regional advisory committees that have representation from all the various conferences and some independent representation as well . . . and those sub-committees have weekly conference calls talking about the games and the teams within their regions, how they have done, who looks strong, who the national committee should be considering when we get to Indianapolis on that final day [of selections]. Those committees generally have their conference calls on Monday and the national committee has their call on Tuesday. We discuss what came out of the advisory groups and any other pertinent information we may have. We have been doing that now for about five weeks.”

Question #2: I wanted to make sure that what they did each week was to come up with their own national ranking and here was his reply; “The national committee will take the regional advisory lists from their area and each national committee member kind of puts them together in a national ranking and we discuss that in the Tuesday call.” This thereby confirms that they do have their own “secret” ranking if you will, which is great news considering the insanity of the current polls, but more about that later.

Question #3: I have heard many people say that the committee would resist putting two or three teams from the same conference in the top four seeds. So I asked John this question point blank and got a very direct answer; “It would be whatever the top four may be with no relevance to whatever conference they may be from.” So, end of that myth.

Question #4: I had to ask him about last year and if he got any flack at all about putting five teams in from the CAA. He responded with; “I wouldn’t say we got a lot of flack from it. Certainly there were some questions as there are every year.” He went on to say that many teams who are on the bubble always want to know why they did or didn’t get in. He continued with this; “To tell you the truth, there were also some additional teams in the CAA [Villanova for example] that thought they had a pretty good chance . . . and didn’t get included. So it [the complaints] wasn’t anything that was linked to any one conference it was teams that thought they had a case and many of them did. But when it comes down to the committee’s final deliberations we have to weigh it on the criteria that we have.”

Question #5: I asked him if when they are considering rankings if they look at how teams from the same conference, like the CAA using Richmond, James Madison and Nova as an example, have only lost to each other. His reply was; “The phenomenon of teams beating each other up and knocking each other off, that’s probably something that is not unique to just the CAA. I think you could see that in any of the competitive conferences . . . when they get to their better conference rivals they tend to knock each other off.” So that answer I got should make many of you non-CAA fans chuckle. He did go on to mention that those types of conversations, which conference is stronger, etc., occur more in the spring when they are determining automatic bids. While he did admit that it is somewhat considered, this was not exactly the answer I was looking for.

Question #6: I read an article about a month ago in the USA Today newspaper that had me very concerned. It was titled “NCAA alters policies to reduce travel costs.” Yes, the economy has hit us too down at the FCS level. In case you want to look it up, it was on page 11C on October 10, 2008. The opening statement in the article is the one that had me the most concerned; “Faced with transportation costs that have spiraled upward at a dizzying rate, the NCAA is taking steps to hold down travel expenses for schools that participate in its championships.”

When I asked John about this he said that the one significant thing that came out of that meeting was the change in mileage that the committee can now consider for bus travel before having to arrange flights, which he said was expanded from 300 miles to 400 miles. The paper had it expanded to 350 miles, but either way it is more miles now which might actually help the committee set up a more fair approach to who plays where.

I also asked if they considered geography at all in setting up the brackets past the first round, like concentrating one entire bracket out West and another one out East. He said that wasn’t really done because after setting the first round, and with the restrictions of not allowing two teams from the same conference to play each other in the first round, the number of permeations after that doesn’t permit much of a regional bracket arrangement.

Question #7: Understanding that they don’t rank past the first four seeds, I asked about the scheduling of which team is home. I asked if any consideration is given to ranking, even though they don’t seed past four, or was it all based on bids and facilities, etc. Here was his reply; “We look at the facility and attendance figures, quality of the place and things like that and the bid. There is the financial aspect of it. The committee doesn’t get that information [financial bids] until after the field of 16 is selected. Then when we get into the pairing process is when we are privy to that information.” To further clarify, I asked a hypothetical that they might have a team that was just out of the top four but their facilities where not as good so therefore they might be traveling in the first round to which he replied; “That is correct.”

Question #8: Continuing in that direction, I decided to ask the main question, the thing that really bugs me about how the teams are matched up, and the one that has most of you folks upset as well. It is the forced geographical matchups instead of a true 16 team ranked bracket. While our system is far, far superior to that stupid BCS system, I do feel that rule hurts the integrity of the entire tournament to a degree.

While my mind was put to rest that the latest NCAA mandates might not make this situation any worse than it already is, due to that bus mileage increase, I did express my displeasure with this part of the selection criteria and I think you will find his response very interesting; “Well what you are saying is true. The committee has not had the authority to make those kinds of adjustments [ignoring geography and matching up teams and home games based on rankings]. We would LOVE to be able to seed the teams in brackets in all honesty, from 1 to 16.” Now that answer surprised me. He went on to say “We are simply not in a position to do that. We have to follow the guidelines that are handed to us. If all things being equal, we can take a look at things that if we have a particular matchup that has bus rides and doesn’t involve air travel, we can look at the quality of facilities . . . and make the pairings that make the most sense and try to do that. A lot of times we are not able to do that because of situations like the fact that two teams of the same conference can’t play each other in the first round. So that doesn’t give us too many pieces to move around the chess board when you get through with some of those things.”

To confirm this and make sure I heard him right, I asked the following question; “You would prefer being able to seed the 16 in order and just do it that way, but you are handed a guideline that you have to go by that would prohibit you from doing that. Is that correct?” To which he replied; “That’s correct.”

Question #9: I asked him if he would consider the rankings the committee does to be significantly different then the current rankings that are out. He replied with; “I think our ranking at times vary from some of the polls that are out there just like some of the polls will vary from each other depending on how they are done. Some polls are weighted to just won lost records and don’t have the ability to look at strength of schedule [Really? Imagine that!] Others [people who vote] are on regional committees and some of the people who are voting may not have a good handle on what is going on in the other regions of the country because of the lack of inter-conference play for the most part. That is why we think the way we do it, having input from people from various regions who get to see some of those teams play is the best way for us to go.”

Continuing along these same lines of questioning and trying to understand how the committee might handle their rankings I told him how I agreed with his assessment of the polls that are out there and how some of the people vote in those polls. I explained to him that while I write for the CAA, I do discuss the rankings each week and that at times I see teams who have lost a head-to-head battle ranked significantly higher than the team they lost too. Now obviously, he cannot comment on specific teams so he made some general statements that I found interesting and made me feel better about how the committee ranks the teams. Here was his reply; “That’s true, and any time we have the luxury of head-to-head competition that is obviously as clear an indicator as you are going to get because those two teams would have participated on the field against each other. But then you get into second generations of this team beat that team and that team beat this team and that is where it gets harder to deal with. And then you have to look at overall strength of schedule and things like that.”

Just to clarify, I explained that it is possible to have a team with four losses that beat a team with just that one loss. Then you can’t therefore state that the team with the head-to-head win is probably the better team, so I asked; “If all things being considered, like strength of schedule, same conference, similar records then the head-to-head competition would mean more to you when determining one team better than the other?” To which he replied; “Yes I would say so. That is a fair statement, whenever we have that luxury, sure.”

INTERVIEW SUMMARY:

So, there you have it and many thanks to John McCutcheon for taking the time out of his busy schedule to give us the straight scoop and perhaps ease a few fears out there. I know I am feeling better about the selection process but I just wish they would seed all the teams and give the best teams the home games. Perhaps that will be a change in 2010 as they need to make some adjustments anyway in order to figure out who the bottom eight will be. But for now, we are stuck with the current rules; however I do feel better about how they rank the teams and how it really is not so dependent on the current polls.

I don’t envy their job though with all the things they have to consider. First just figuring out the top 16, then who is the top four, then who gets to travel while they are not allowed to match teams from the same conference in the first round and then trying to get some semblance of balanced brackets, considering bids and facilities. Here is what John had to say in closing; “The committee does have a hard job. There are only eight at large bids and there are a lot of fine teams out there that are deserving of consideration. Our job is to, once the automatic qualifiers are selected, to get the next best teams that are out there. We try to do that as fair as we can. I now that some folks think we just go in there and fight for our region but I can tell you that the spirit among the committee is to try and get the best teams. Not everyone is always going to be in agreement with that, but we give it our best shot.”

Hope you enjoyed this one-on-one with the head of the Playoff Selection Committee. Don’t forget to go to the link and get all the rules and regulations. That, coupled with the info in this interview should help you try to figure how the brackets may play out.

PLAYOFF PREVIEW (CAA STYLE)

Well, I am not going to go into all the different conferences and the “what ifs", etc. That is Chuck Burton’s job and he is far more qualified to analyze them on a national scale than I am. You can figure it out too by doing a little research. But before I get into the CAA possibilities I am going to make a general statement about the number of spots available for CAA teams. And to do that, I do need to discuss the SoCon a little too.

After reviewing the different conferences and teams, I am convinced that there will be seven spots available for CAA and SoCon teams. Again, don’t ask how I got there or the details, because it is very subjective and just an opinion. After you examine everything you might have a different view and when Chuck does his review it might shed some more light on things. But for now, let’s just assume I am right and there are just seven spots to work with for the CAA and SoCon.

So then, who goes from the CAA? For the moment, let’s say that the CAA gets four and the SoCon gets three. I am very sure that there are three teams going to the playoffs from the CAA South. With games remaining for William & Mary against JMU and then Richmond, and barring any major upsets, it will be JMU, Nova, and the winner of the William & Mary vs. Richmond game at the end of the year.

And now we venture into the chaos in the CAA North. Coach Brown still feels his team has a shot. I am not so sure and it is definitely a numbers game for the Minutemen. I think the only way UMass gets in is if five CAA teams get in and if my calculations are correct, that only happens if just two SoCon teams get in. So now you see why it is necessary to bring the SoCon into the mix. The best UMass can do is finish 8-4 and that isn’t bad considering their schedule. The problem with that is that either New Hampshire or Maine is going to finish with only three losses. If Maine beats UNH at the end of the year, then they have three losses, UMass has four and lost to Maine so Maine is team number four going to the dance. If UNH beats Maine, then they have three losses and UMass has to hope that the committee selects them over UNH with one more loss. UMass’s best hope is they win out and UNH beats Maine, or that SoCon gets only sends two teams to the dance.

It is possible that the SoCon might only get two teams in as the three in contention right now are Appalachian State, Wofford and Elon. Some might argue that Furman has an outside shot, but they already have three losses and have games remaining against Georgia Southern and at Wofford. So their chances are not very good.

App State will run the table and definitely get in. I think Wofford wins out too and gets in. That means that Elon is probably the SoCon team on the bubble and after their loss to App they will have three losses. If they get beat by Liberty at the end of the year they are definitely out. Even at 9-3, they may find themselves losing out to a fifth CAA team. They have no games against FBS schools and they have a big opening day loss at home to Richmond. So, for example, if the Tribe beats Richmond on the last day, then William & Mary gets to go to the dance. When you compare Richmond with four losses to Elon with three and the schedules of both, and the head-to-head win by Richmond, then I think Richmond goes instead of Elon. Stating the very obvious, it all depends on these next two weeks.

Here are the key games to watch this week, assuming we don’t have any other games ending in major upsets;

William & Mary at James Madison
Massachusetts at New Hampshire
Elon at Appalachian State
Wofford at Samford

I think in the final analysis, if Richmond beats William & Mary at the end of the year, then Elon probably gets in instead of William & Mary. That gives the SoCon three teams and the CAA North only gets one, and I think that will be New Hampshire. However, if either Elon loses at Liberty at the end of the year, or if William & Mary beats Richmond, then I think the CAA gets a fifth team and the SoCon only gets two. Only time will tell.

As always, please e-mail me your thoughts and comments. Hope you enjoyed this special playoff article, see you next week.