Indiana Basketball: What the selection committee told the Big Ten about scheduling

A couple days removed from Selection Sunday, and a couple Big Ten teams are still slighted that they were not included in the field of 68, including Indiana basketball.

Before I get started, no this is not me giving my argument why the Hoosiers should have been included in the NCAA Tournament strictly because they are Indiana basketball.

It’s more about what the selection committee told us about non-conference scheduling and the importance of winning games.

We are all well aware of where Indiana finished in the ‘rankings’, landing in the “first four out” list, but with some of the teams that got in ahead of them, and the quality of teams that made it, says a lot about the committee and what they really hold to a higher standard.

The Hoosiers, who finished 17-15 this season, were passed on by teams such as Belmont, VCU, Washington, St Johns, and Arizona State, to name a few. Belmont deserved it, but the rest? Not so much.

First is VCU. A team that finished 25-7 this season, yes that’s a record that should be good enough to get in the big dance, but what quality wins did they have?

Their three best wins include, Texas (current NIT team) with a net ranking of 38, Temple (last four in and lost in the play-in game) with a net ranking of 56, and a sweep of Dayton (current NIT team) and a net ranking of 69. Even more confusing is their three quad three losses.

Losing in the quarterfinals – their first game – in the A10 tournament, they not only received an at-large bid but got an eight seed. The only thing saving them, a 34 NET ranking and a 37 ranking in KenPom.

For Washington, and the Pac-12, I don’t even know where to start. They have exactly one win over a tournament team. One. Actually they only played five teams that are in the field of 68 this season, getting blown out by 20 against Oregon (a 12 seed) in the Pac-12 Conference Championship game. What’s their case?

As a nine seed, they come in with a 26-8 record. They have losses against Gonzaga, Auburn, Virginia Tech, all tournament teams, and then a 1-2 record against Oregon.

What else? They have one of the worst power five losses on the season in all of college basketball, losing to Cal who went 8-23 including a 16 game losing streak, finishing with just three conference wins, their first coming against Washington.

Ranked 45 in the NET and 53 in KenPom, it is still a little surprising that with their resume they were a “no-brainer” in the field.

Obviously there are some other cases, including St. Johns and Arizona State, but both of those teams did have some quality wins and are actually playing each other in a play-in game, so you can’t really compare them with the teams above.

So what does all of this mean?

This was the first season that the Big Ten had 20 conference games, and in Indiana’s case, it hurt them. With two non-conference losses and a few quality non-conference wins, they were looking good heading into conference play.

Losing 12 games in conference though was too much to overcome, according to the selection committee. Even though they finished with eight Big Ten wins, the losses outweighed them. Even though eight Big Ten teams made it in the tournament field, and nine losses came against those tournament teams, the losses outweighed them.

If more opportunities to get quality wins in conference play was supposed to help teams like Indiana, why didn’t it? Does non-conference scheduling not matter as much moving forward. If Indiana entered Big Ten play with just one loss, or even zero, would they be in?

Take it for what it’s worth, but if teams such as VCU and Washington are in the field, with decent seedings, and very little to no quality wins, but 25+ wins overall, does it really matter what you do in the non-conference anymore?