Discuss as:

Thoughts for future brackets

As you sift through the results from Saturday's games and wonder how things will fall in March, give some thought to how the NCAA selection committee chooses its field of 65.

All done? OK, now forget what you know for a bit and sift through some reading from some of the best and most original college basketball minds out there. It sounds like a random assignment from freshman psych, I know, but trust me. It'll be worth your while.

Start with Dan Hanner's post on some of the things the committee considers, and what makes them important. He hits on RPI, last 12 games and closes with a section on margin of victory – which the NCAA doesn't use as a consideration.

Then turn to John Gasaway. He hits on a few of the same ideas, and warns against relying too much on any one formula to determine the nation's best teams (and thus most worthy of at-large tourney bids). BUT! For those unsatisfied with the status quo, a change is needed from the current criteria the committee uses.

That prompted a post from KJ at the Only Colors, who has two main points which make one thought: Tempo-free stats are useful evaluation tools because it's still all about wins and losses.

End with Ken Pomeroy. He actually started a lot of this discourse because of an earlier question and answer, but follows it all with some excellent points about what should frame future bracketing decisions.

Will the NCAA read it all and take notes? Possibly. We can only hope.

Mike Miller's also on Twitter, usually talkin' hoops. Click here for more.