I’ve had some beer time to think about this.
The seeding is one of the worst. Pitt’s snub got glossed over because there was so much to sort through in the confusion.
The #1 seeds were fine, but there is rarely much confusion over those. Just occasional disputes as to who was more worthy.
At #2, there wasn’t much dispute, except for Tennessee which shocked everyone. About the only thing they had was the #6 RPI and a non-con SOS of 10. Otherwise they were not looking good. They went down early in the SEC Tourney. They had lost 3 of their last 4 and 4 of their last 6. In their final 10 games only 6-4. Splitting with Kentucky and beating Florida. They were only 4-4 against RPI top-50. Plus there is an injury issue to their starting forward.
With the #3 seeds, Iowa is reasonable considering their #7 RPI following their winning of the Big 11 Tournament. Florida got bumped to this line solely for winning the SEC. They finished #15 RPI. A non-con SOS of 253. 7-3 in their last 10 games. They were 6-3 versus the top-50 RPI (2-2 versus top-25). UNC is #12 in RPI and of course they are UNC coached by Roy Williams and the defending National Champs.
Let me pause here. In the top-12 RPI, Pitt (#11) was the only team not to be seeded in the top 3 spots. And they weren’t dropped to the #4 line. They fell to the #5 line.
The only other team in the top-20 RPI to fall more than 2 spots in the seeding was Oklahoma. Oklahoma has a #16 RPI, and finished 6-4. They also lost their opening game to Nebraska. They lost one other game to Colorado. That’s two teams who didn’t even make the NCAA. Pitt also went 6-4, but Pitt’s 4 losses all came to NCAA Tournament qualifiers.
Here’s a game guaranteed to piss off. Compare the numbers:
Team A
RPI: #22
Non-Con SOS: # 282
Non-Con W-L versus NCAA Tournament teams: 0-1
Number of sub-150 RPI non-con played: 8 (8-0)
Number of sub-150 RPI teams played in conference: 2 (1-1)
Last 10: 8-2
Lost Conf. Championship in tight game
Conference RPI Rank: #3
Vs. Top-50 RPI: 3-4
Vs. Top-25 RPI: 2-2
Overall W-L versus NCAA Tournament Teams: 3-4
National Rankings: #11, #11
Team B
RPI #11
Non-Con SOS: # 227
Non-Con W-L versus NCAA Tournament teams: 1-0
Number of sub-150 RPI non-con played: 6 (6-0)
Number of sub-150 RPI teams played in conference: 0
Last 10: 6-4
Lost Conf. Championship in tight game
Conference RPI Rank: #2
Vs. Top-50 RPI: 7-5
Vs. Top-25 RPI: 3-2
Overall W-L versus NCAA Tournament Teams: 6-6
National Rankings: #15, #16
Team C
RPI: #15
Non-con SOS: #253
Non-Con W-L versus NCAA Tournament teams: 1-0
Number of sub-150 RPI non-con played: 7 (7-0)
Number of sub-150 RPI teams played in conference: 1 (1-0)
Last 10: 7-3
Won Conf. Championship in tight game
Conference RPI Rank: #4
Vs. Top-50 RPI: 6-3
Vs. Top-25 RPI: 2-2
Overall W-L versus NCAA Tournament Teams: 5-4
National Rankings: #16, #14
Team A: Boston College.
Team B: Pitt.
Team C: Florida.
BC is considered the hotter team, and has a higher ranking. That’s it.
To briefly address the bogus argument of the committee penalizing Pitt for not succeeding as a higher seed in the past, then the same would have to apply to BC considering their lack of success — especially last year. Not to mention UCLA in recent appearances and even Gonzaga when they are a high seed.
About the only argument I can fathom, is that they bumped Pitt to a #5 from even a #4 for match-up reasons. Keeping them out of potential Sweet 16 games against UConn or Villanova. I think that if South Carolina had pulled the upset over Florida and/or Iowa lost to Ohio State, Pitt would have been a #3 seed.
