selection committee, writers and coaches are doing a great job

[brian_sun]

3 #1 seeds in the FF and KU is favored to make it the first time 4 #1 all advance to the FF. And your AP preseason ranking? 1. UNC, 2. UCLA, 3. Memphis, 4. Kansas. Coaches poll? Same 4 teams and same order. These top 4 teams lost a combined 9 games all year.

I think it's safe to say that these 4 teams have distinguished themselves heads and shoulders above the 2nd tier team. And the only really close game these 4 teams played in the tourney was the UCLA vs. Texas A&M game. Good job, committee and good job to the writers and coaches who voted in the pool.

[Butler Guy]

It's safe to say

It's safe to say playing home games until the final four is useful.

[brian_sun]

Well, when you are the #1 seed, you kind of deserve to play close to home. That has been the selection rule since day 1. You suppose to make the road to the FF the easiest for the #1 seed, not more difficult. It's a reward for what you've accomplished in the regular season. I am not sure what the gripe is here.

[CDC84]

Butler

The only glaring mistake of the committee this year was having Butler as a 7 seed (badly underseeded), and having Vandy as a 4 seed (overseeded). Butler this year was so much better than several teams ahead of them seeding wise that it was ridiculous. Any team that wins that many games, regardless of its conference affiliation, is a great team. There are so few teams that win that many games during the regular season...you just can't fake being really good when you win that many games, regardless of the opponents you faced. Tennessee shouldn't have been forced to face a team of that quality in the 2nd round, and the Bulldogs shouldn't have had to face a team like the Vols.

But other than that, the committee just keeps getting better and better with the selection and seeding process. There are going to be a few slips along the way, but it's better than it has ever been. And I really think the pod system is also helping the process out by keeping the protected teams closer to home instead of shipping a #2 seed back east to play their first 2 games in Idaho or something.

BTW....the state of North Carolina shouldn't have been able to host both 1st weekend AND 2nd weekend games this March. North Carolina is not the only state back east. And yet they're going to get 1st weekend games again next March in Greensboro. While I like the idea of high seeds getting to play close to home, Duke and/or North Carolina almost always land a #1 seed most years. It's kind of an unfair advantage, if you ask me, for North Carolina to get all of these tournament games.

[MickMick]

I can't complain about the Zag seed. I understand that the committee must take into account the whole season. But after watching UConn and Georgetown down the stretch, you had to believe that they would not live up to a seed that they earned on paper.

[Zagpower]

CDC: Did you think Davidson deserved a 10?

[zag67]

Imo

I have trouble seeing Davidson as a 10. When they come in ranked 23rd in the nation, are on over a 20 game win streak, and an RPI of 19 to 35 depending on where you look. they also played 3 or 4 major powers in close games. That to me is not a team that is between 36 and 40 in the tournament. There were 3 or 4 others like that. Also you have the reverse where you have Arizona and Oregon (as examples).

[CDC84]

CDC: Did you think Davidson deserved a 10?

They probably deserved a bit better, but if you consider that they got to play their first two games in North Carolina, they got a bit of a break there.

Butler was not only grossly underseeded, but they had to travel to Birmingham as well.

[brian_sun]

Well, we have history tonight: all 4 number 1 seeds advanced to the FF. Curry didn't shoot well in the 2nd half, but the better team won. A fantastic FF. I am sure a lot of people's brackets are doing well: just pick the #1 seed in each region. I had 3 of the 4 right, with Texas being my other pick. I have a UCLA vs. UNC final and Roy Williams repeats what the Red Sox did, which was winning his 2nd title in 4 years.

[stan]

The committee doesn't play the games. And the seeds are not a prediction.

I don't understand the logic underlying this thread.

If Richards hits the 3, is that a reflection on the committee? Would that mean Davidson should have been a 1 seed?

This is nuts.

[Rubbadub]

All the one seeds advancing to the final four isn't a reason to claim the selection committee did a great job..they didn't. The coaches poll is a laughing stock every year as well.

I don't understand the logic behind this thread either.

[CDC84]

The committee doesn't play the games. And the seeds are not a prediction.

Actually, they are....in a way. Otherwise, the committee would just throw the names into a hat and pick at random.

The committee ranks the entire field, 1-64, along an s-curve with the best team in the whole field receiving the easiest path to the national title game. It naturally follows that the best 2 seed is grouped with the worst 1 seed, etc., on down the line. The main charge of the committee is to do everything possible to protect the protected seeds (1-4 in each region) from being upset the first weekend, and to do everything they can to keep the one seeds from getting whacked before the final 4. In this sense, the seeding is a “prediction” in that the higher up you are along the chain, the greater your odds for advancing, because your obstacles will be easier to overcome than the guy below you.

Of course, as with all predictions, not all of them pan out. Major upsets do occur. But if they occur, it should never be the result of misseeding, which means giving a higher ranked seed (especially number one and two seeds) an opponent that’s way better than what other teams on their same seed line got.

That all being said, the reason why these teams all made the final 4 this year is because they are just powerful teams that separated themselves from the rest of the pack. If the committee had screwed over Memphis by giving them a bunch of teams in their region that were misseeded, they still might have blown right thru to the final 4. However, in most years, we don't see 4 number one seeds like this, and if the committee misseeds several teams in a region, they could really be putting a number one seed in that region in jeopardy of losing before they're supposed to (in theory).

[surfmonkey89]

The main charge of the committee is to do everything possible to protect the protected seeds (1-4 in each region) from being upset the first weekend, and to do everything they can to keep the one seeds from getting whacked before the final 4.

Which I'm beginning to think kinda sucks. Why should the priority be to have the best teams have the easiest route? I could maybe understand the argument that they deserve it due to their strong play during the season, but when you get things like UNC/Duke playing basically home games for two weeks if they get a #1, or Texas playing in friggin' Houston in the second round, I think things deserve another look.

Seems too skewed to the 1-4 seeds is all I'm sayin'....

[CDC84]

I did not agree with the NCAA's decision to have 1st AND 2nd weekend games played at sites in North Carolina this postseason. That's wrong. Allowing UNC to play their first weekend games in Raleigh, that's okay with me, but they shouldn't be able to just drive up the road to Charlotte the following weekend. The east regional should have been held in New York or something.

But I love the pod system. The protected seeds should be able to play closer to home...especially the first weekend. The way they used to do it was insane....you would literally have one and two seeds from the east coast playing in Idaho against low seeded teams that were located 250 miles from the site. It wasn't fair to the fans of the highly seeded teams from a travel perspective, and it wasn't fair to force those highly seeded teams to play in hostile environments far away from home.