July 4, 2009

Rivals.com
Rivals.com College Basketball Staff

TODAY'S QUESTION: The Division I Men's Basketball Committee decided this week to no longer consider the results of a team's last 12 games as one of the tools available in the NCAA tournament selection criteria for the 2009-10 season. How do you feel about this decision?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What is the intended result? To say a team deserves equal credit for the first 12 games of the season as the last 12 just isn't true. The first 12 games are more important for teams like Gonzaga, Butler and Siena. The last 12 are more important for teams like Louisville, Clemson and Florida. Plus, I'm not sure what kind of effect this will have on selection committee members. I mean, aren't they already supposed to be considering the entire "body of work?" They already have access to all the schedules. A committee member who wants to give extra emphasis to how a team finishes will be able to do so anyway. Committee chair Mike Slive says this omission of the last 12 games is supposed to clear up confusion. The whole premise of picking the 34 at-large teams is confusion. Attempting to organize a group of imperfect teams in a logical way is going to cause confusion whether the last 12 games get more weight or not.

? DAVID FOX

I think it's a good move. Selection committee members often speak of considering a team's "body of work." Well, if that's the case, why was one of the criteria specifically how a team fared in its last 12 games (until a few seasons ago, it was the final 10)? Removing the final 12 games criterion from the mix means the committee will get back to focusing on the season as a whole. Still, frankly, I'd be willing to bet that selection committee members will note when a team is hot -- or not hot -- down the stretch. But at least it's not an official criterion anymore.

-MIKE HUGUENIN

I agree with the decision. A team should be included or excluded from the NCAA tournament based on its body of work ? not on how it performs during the last month of the season. Every game should be important. Wins against strong competition in November and December should mean as much as they do in January and February. The NCAA tournament shouldn't focus on selecting the hottest teams. It should strive to select the ones that have the best overall r?m?The committee took a step in that direction by amending the criteria.

? JASON KING

I have mixed feelings on this. Giving special attention to a team's last 12 games always seemed odd to me because 12 seemed like such an arbitrary number. For example, Arizona headed into the 2009 NCAA tournament with a 7-5 record in its last 12 games, but the Wildcats also had dropped five of their last six. This wasn't exactly a team that proved it deserved an NCAA bid with its late-season performance (though Arizona later would show it belonged by advancing to the Sweet 16). But I do think it's important to give special weight to how someone performs down the stretch because it provides a better indicator of how that team might fare in the tournament. Should more credence be given to the last eight games? The last 10 games? The last 12 games? Frankly, I don't know what number would work the best. I just know some sort of priority should be given to a team's late-season performance.

? STEVE MEGARGEE