Using Gonzaga, Memphis as test case for NCAA Tournament selection committee's process

The NCAA Tournament selection committee looks at a mountain of information from across college basketball each season, ultimately whittling it down to a 68-team field by mid-March. Bound to create controversy no matter the decision, this group faces a near-impossible task.

However, the process has evolved over recent years, providing more clear criteria. The NCAA has also created more analytic tools and acknowledged others in the process.

The issue now is the overload of data, all telling a different story. All convincing individual fanbases of their case over others, regardless of what other numbers say. It is the job of the selection committee to funnel all the information into one seeding list.

Check out On3’s latest 2025 bracketology projections here.

With criticism over the process reaching a new height last season, with some head-scratching bubble decisions among the reasons for backlash, there is a less hotly-debated storyline unfolding in the middle of the bracket with big impact. The seeding of Gonzaga and Memphis set the tone for the entire field.

Dueling resumes in play

Gonzaga is an analytic darling, dominating in all the predictive metrics this season, but suffering from a severe lack of standout wins on the resume. Memphis, quite the opposite, has a number of massive non-conference wins but poor predictive metrics harmed by close games against the poor competition within the conference.

“It’s cliché to say it, but I’ll go ahead and say it again,” NCAA Tournament selection committee chair Bubba Cunningham said on a Wednesday teleconference. “It’s who did you play, where did you play, how did you do?”

“And then ultimately, really good advice that I received from some of the other committee members over the years, is when you get down toward the end of those last couple of teams, kind of take a step back from the metrics. Say ‘who is the better team?’”

Further, Cunningham broke down his personal opinion on the different resumes which Gonzaga and Memphis bring to the table. While it does not end debate, it is a glimpse into what the conversation will center around inside the room.

“Both of those examples demonstrate the metrics that we do use,” said Cunningham. “When I looked at it – this is my opinion, not of the committee – I see that Gonzaga had played and beaten a lot of teams by a lot, so that’s going to mean their efficiency is going to be really, really good.

“But when I look at Memphis, they played a really hard schedule and they won a lot of their games, but not by a strong margin. And even when they played the kind of weaker parts of their schedule, they didn’t win by a lot. So their efficiencies weren’t that good. So I think that’s why you see the divergence of the metrics. As a committee, we’re going to have to try to balance that and say ‘ok, how do we evaluate close wins against good teams or close wins against teams that we think you should be a little bit better than.”

Lack of clear criteria

The issue which has plagued the selection committee throughout history is a difficult balance between transparency and secrecy. Understandably, the NCAA does not want to publicly explain, or put strict parameters on the selection process which could limit the ability to adapt or create controversy based on a subjective decision.

But the selection process is just that – subjective. The group of 12 members represents the population, but to what degree.

“That’s the work of the committee, we’ve got 12 of us, and we’ll have 12 different opinions,” said Cunningham.

The addition of the NET rankings and quadrant system, historical ties to KenPom data, the Torvik model and WAB replacement of SOR all help the committee do its job. However, it can provide an overload of datapoints when attempting to explain a simple A vs. B comparison.

“All of the games matter,” said Cunningham. “All of the metrics matter. We’re trying to define something that we really can’t put our finger on and say ‘if this, then that.’ It’s going to a consensus of our group, and all of the factors that we talked about whether it’s a Quad win, the NET, or Torvik, or any of those.

“And one of those might be the point of emphasis by an individual member of this committee. So I think getting too locked in on one specific metric, I don’t think is the right thing to do.”

What it all means

Without a clear data point to use when discussing the NCAA Tournament field and potential snubs, the use of comparison is the best case for or against any decision. That highlights the importance of where the selection committee seeds Gonzaga and Memphis, with two completely different resumes.

If Gonzaga receives a high seed, but a team like Ohio State is left out for a team ranked more than 20 spots lower than them in the NET rankings and other predictive models, it will raise eyebrows. Likewise, if Memphis gets a high seed but the likes of West Virginia miss the field, there will be discussion.

At the end of the day, to create the perfect NCAA Tournament, the selection committee must battle an imperfect process to get there. They know that.

“They’ve all earned the right to be considered and all of the metrics have put them in that position to be considered, but ultimately we’re trying to get the 37 best at-large to put in,” said Cunningham.

Selection Sunday is now just four days away, and all the answers to these questions and more will become national talking points in the days leading up to the action. Then, it’s all March Madness.