5 Questions: Selection Chair Gary Podesta
Selection Sunday is the most suspenseful day of the year, and Gary Podesta -- the chair of both divisional selection committees -- is at the center of it all. He's seen all sorts of changes in the way the process is handled, and it's never an easy process.
As we get ready to light the 2016 candle, Podesta took a couple of minutes for a "5 Questions" sleigh ride.
MCLA: Everyone understands the concept of an automatic qualifier, but for those who might be new to the process of selecting at-large teams to the MCLA tournament, what are the criteria that the committee looks at? What are the fine points that separate those that get in and those that stay home?
GP: First of all, in order to be initially considered tournament eligible for the MCLA National Tournament, a team must fulfill certain scheduling/playing requirements. They are: 8 total MCLA games in either division and 6 MLCA intra-divisional games (either Div 1 or Div 2). In addition, to be eligible for at-large bid consideration, a team must have three out-of-conference divisional games scheduled/played.
With successful completion of the game requirements out of the way, the committees look at numerous criteria to separate the cream of the crop: the overall body of a team’s work, total wins/losses against Top 25, wins/losses against Top 5 teams, wins/losses against Top 6-15 ranked teams, losses outside of the Top 25 rankings and out-of-conference wins/losses.
In addition, the committees looks to see whether the team in consideration has qualified for their conference championship tournament and which teams have extended themselves with out-of-conference and out-of-region travel.
Use of the weekly MCLA Top 25 poll is solely a reference guide at this point for the committees. In recent years, the selection committees have preferred to use their own committee poll and even toyed with a blind ranking poll last year.
MCLA: What advice would give to a new coach in the MCLA to maximize his schedule?
GP: My initial advice prior to developing their schedule would be to decide with the team if they are scheduling to prepare for a potential at-large bid or if their focus is winning their conference automatic qualifier, if applicable. If the goal is to earn one of the seven at-large bids, they need to make sure they meet the three game out-of-conference requirement first. There are no exceptions to that rule.
My next piece of advice is to schedule games against the best competition available in which your team has a better than 50 percent chance of winning. The concept of a “good Loss” has lost its favor with the committee in the last two selection cycles. It’s all about the wins, along with avoiding bad losses (i.e.: for a ranked team to lose to an unranked opponent).
MCLA: The NCAA selection committees have to deal with one or two regions. In the MCLA, there are essentially 10. Is trying to weigh the strength of each region one of the more difficult aspects of the process? What are some other challenges?
GP: Not really, but that may change in 2016, especially in Division II with the UMLC adding several former Division I teams to an already top heavy division.
In 2015, the committees took several stabs at a blind ranking poll in order to limit any perceived regional bias from the committee voters. We developed an algorithm based on wins/losses within the Top 5, 15 and 25 rankings among the 15-20 teams in consideration during the last two conference calls. We then compared the blind ranking to the individual committee polls. The results were fairly consistent between the two as well as to the final seeding of both the 16-team fields.
MCLA: Several years ago, a sub-.500 Colorado team earned an at-large berth to the MCLA tournament seemingly based on a miraculous win over a juggernaut Michigan team. If you play a tough enough schedule, can one big win change everything, or has the association matured to a point where you need to be consistent for the entire season?
GP: As mentioned above, I think the committees have matured where they not only want to see the best teams challenge the best teams, but a greater focus has been on winning games the past two years. Since the situation you mentioned, there have been several sub-.500 teams which remained in consideration for at-large bids to the end, so I can’t say that situation may not occur again.
MCLA: What's your favorite part about the selection process? What's the most challenging?
GP: Since my collegiate coaching career has ended and work challenges have changed, I found myself drifting further away from what was happening on a week to week basis. Chairing both the MCLA selection/seeding committees and running the MCLA weekly polls has allowed me to keep abreast of what is going on in the MCLA from a competition point of view.
My favorite part of the selection committee process is preparing the working spreadsheets of the teams under consideration during the season for the committees to reference during their conference calls.
Whenever 11 people get together on a conference call, the challenge to the moderator is to avoid allowing one or two dominant personalities from taking over the conversation and skewing the results. This is always the most challenging aspect of my job during the selection/seeding process.