The NCAA Selection Committee changes their last 12 games rule

There has been a lot of talk over the last day or so regarding the NCAA's decision to change their selection criteria regarding the last 12 games a team plays. Specifically, they will no longer factor it in. From the NCAA's website:

The Division I Men’s Basketball Committee has decided to no longer consider the results of a team’s last 12 games as one of the tools available in the selection criteria for the 2009-10 season.

While the basketball committee uses several variables when it comes to selecting the 34 at-large teams that are placed into the bracket each March, its members concluded that college basketball stakeholders were confused by the last 12 games being part of the process.

“As the committee continues to hone its message regarding how it views the season, parsing a particular segment of games and implying it had greater weight than others seemed misleading and inconsistent,” said committee chair and Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive. “The removal of this reference avoids confusion in the room and brings our reporting in line with our process.”

The Sporting Blog likes the change. Rush the Court doesn't. The Dagger does, or doesn't, depending on the day.

My reaction: is it even going to matter?

Both sides of this argument are correct when it comes down to it. When judging an entire season's body of work, every game should have the same value. Just because you beat North Carolina in November, or lost to Morgan State, shouldn't make that outcome any less pertinent.

The other side would argue college basketball teams are constantly changing. Freshman develop and gain confidence; opponents figure out how to stop a one-dimensional team; players get hurt; coaches figure out to most effectively use everyone on their roster. The name on the jersey may be the same, but it doesn't mean that it is the "same team" playing in March that took the floor in November. It makes sense to want the 65 best teams in March to go dancing.

As I said, both sides are right.

But think for a second about why teams have such a drastic change during the course of a season. 9 out of 10 times, it is for one of two reasons:

1. A team from a major conference plays a fairly cupcake schedule, knocking off teams that cannot compete with them athletically, building up a gaudy early season record. But once they get into conference play, where the competition is much better, they have their flaws exposed and struggle down the stretch. Think Clemson from 2006-2008.
   
2. A team from a mid-major conference plays a loaded non-conference schedule trying to land some notable early season victories, whiffing on every chance they get. But once they get back into conference lay, they roll through the competition. Think Davidson 2008.
   

It isn't that often that you see a situation like we had with Kentucky in '07-'08 (without some mitigating factor i.e. an injured star player returns), where the Wildcats struggled to a 6-7 start (including losses to Gardner-Webb and San Diego) before finishing the season 12-4 in the SEC to earn an #11 seed.

For the most part, I think that this is going to affect seeding much more than it will effect who actually gets into the tournament. If a team like Butler rolls through the non-conference wins a bunch of marquee games in November and December, clinches their conference early, and then loses a few games down the stretch and gets knocked off early in the Horizon League tourney, where do they get seeded? What about a team from a power conference that has a few embarrassing losses early in the season, but beats a couple ranked teams late in the season and make a run to their tourney finals?

More than the last 12 games, I think the bigger issue is how the committee factors in a middle-of-the-pack power conference team that makes a run in their conference tournament, picking up RPI boosting wins along the way.