I’m mostly spent on being pissed about the seeding. After a certain point it gets whiny. So unless I find a really good story, I’m mostly done with the issue.
Best article on the job done by the selection committee is from John Hollinger.
This year was no exception, as it inexplicably seeded Tennessee as a no. 2 ahead of North Carolina, and gift-wrapped a no. 5 seed for Nevada based largely, if not entirely, on its RPI ranking.
If it had followed that pattern consistently, I’d at least be somewhat okay with it. No, it’s not a great way to decide how to put 64 teams into the tournament field or rank them, but if everybody knows those are the rules when the season starts, there’s at least a sense of fairness about the whole thing.
What happened instead is that the committee used the RPI – except when it wasn’t convenient, in which case it ignored it. For instance, the committee had no problem putting everybody in the RPI top 35 into the tournament – unless that team was named Missouri State or Hofstra. In those cases, the RPI was dismissed as a fluke and other criteria were found.
Another columnist thinks the seeding issue was because they rewarded the mid-majors this year.
As the little teams made it, something had to suffer and it might have been the seeding. George Washington was pounded to an eight seed for its just-one-level-above-NAIA schedule, but let the head-scratching begin with Tennessee as a two.
Indiana as a six? The Hoosiers were called a bubble team entering the Big Ten Tournament. Big East strongmen Pitt and West Virginia grabbing a five and a six respectively? Surviving that conference schedule with the national reputation intact should have merited better seeds.
Mike DeCourcy at the Sporting News thinks that the controversy over teams left out managed to provide more cover to the selection committee for their seeding decision-making.
Tennessee at No. 2? Inexplicable. Pittsburgh had more wins against the field and better records against the top 25, top 50 and top 100 – and was seeded three spots lower.
Syracuse at No. 5? The Orange spent four months demonstrating they’re just OK, then four days showing you something different. Which do you believe?
Indiana at No. 6? The Hoosiers are there with an 18-11 record — basically the same numbers that couldn’t get Cincinnati into the field.
Montana at No. 12? Ask Gonzaga if it would rather play Xavier or Montana.
Davidson at No. 15? The Wildcats beat Massachusetts, Saint Joseph’s and Missouri, the kinds of games others low seeds are happy to lose close. If Montana can be a 12, why not Davidson?
George Washington at No. 8? The Colonials won 93 percent of their games. If you’re No. 1 seed Duke, would you prefer a potential second-round game against a team that has that solid a formula over one against an underachiever?
I’m not seeing anyone predict Pitt to take the 5-12 gas pipe (yet), but there aren’t many picking Pitt to make it past Kansas to the Sweet 16 either. I did find a couple exceptions, including one that is sending Pitt to Indy.
Most underseeded: Pittsburgh is a No. 5, but the Panthers could make a case that they should be a No. 4 and maybe even a No. 3. They made a nice run to the Big East tourney final and finished 11th in the RPI. And Bradley can make a case that it should be an 11 or a 12 rather than a 13.
…
1st-round winners: Memphis, UCLA, Gonzaga, Kansas, Pitt, Marquette, Arkansas and San Diego State.2nd round-winners: Memphis, UCLA, Gonzaga and Pitt.
Sweet 16 winners: Gonzaga and Pitt.
Advancing to the Final Four: Pitt. (Sentinel staffer Dave Curtis says Memphis and staffer Alan Schmadtke says Kansas.)
I think this columnist picked Pitt to the Elite 8 just for the storyline.
Memphis is going to get some traction in its first two games, but Pitt’s guards are too good for a young team. The Panthers, by the way, get by Kansas in the second round and take down No. 1 seed Memphis in the Sweet 16.
That is going to set up UCLA’s Ben Howland vs. his old team, Pitt, in the regional final.
UCLA is set-up rather sweetly to get to the Elite 8.
