A lot of people have complained about the seeding or how the brackets are balanced this year. I've heard/read people complaining mainly about how certain brackets seem stacked, or wondering how Ohio State ended up as the fourth #2 seed and how West Virginia ended up at the third #2 seed when they were seemingly in the discussion for a #1 seed.

Anyone who has ever listed to an explanation about how the committee selects and seeds teams and sets the brackets wouldn't have any problem with this. The selection committee only ranks the four one seeds. After that, they make no distinction between anyone on a particular line. They don't rank the four one seeds, then rank the four two seeds and match them accordingly (#1-1 vs #4-2, #2-1 vs #3-2, etc). There is no snaking in the bracketing process. They simply decide what four teams are on the two line and don't bother ranking them.

Their primary concern at this point is placing teams as close as possible to home, giving preference to the higher seeds. They don't go back over the bracket once everyone is seeded and try to balance out the regions or anything like that. Proximity is the primary concern.

So, stop complaining about the bracket and seeding because your complaining about things that the selection committee doesn't even consider. They simply wouldn't have the time to take all of these things into consideration in order to create a balanced and fair bracket.

Haha we discussed this today. Every analyst I heard yesterday talked about how OSU and WVU had to have been ranked 8-9 to get who they did. After I found this out to be false I wasn't as upset about OSU's placing. Don't get me wrong I'd rather OSU be in the South or the West only because I think they are a little weaker. But the Buckeyes were not screwed over if they do not rank the two seeds and snake them like I was under the impression that they did.

All seed lines are even outside of the (1)s. Even this wasnt the case until a few years ago. The ones have only recently been ranked.

It is pretty clear to me that they really give the top 4 seeds (maybe 5s as well) special homecourt treatment.

You also cant say Nova, ND, Baylor, whoever, etc. are overseeded so they should put the #1 overall there. Well obviously the committee seeded them as such because they believe it to be true. We may disagree, but it isnt like they stack the brackets. The obviously see them as pretty even.

So it's ok that they don't worry about making fair and balanced brackets?

se-alum wrote: So it's ok that they don't worry about making fair and balanced brackets?

That statement just carries no weight. In their eyes they did make it fair and balanced. Just because we disagree doesnt mean they tried to fuck people over and give others an easy road.

se-alum wrote: So it's ok that they don't worry about making fair and balanced brackets?

If you think they aren't fair and balanced I think you're just nit-picking. Every bracket has one 1 seed, one 2 seed, one 3 seed, . . . one 15 seed, and one 16 seed. Since there are only four of each seed, there really isn't a huge discernible difference between them. Yes, Ohio State and West Virginia may both be better than Villanova, but as far as the committee is concerned, they are all equal because they are all on the 2 line. Again, after the 1 seeds, their primary concern is geography, not fairness. If the bracket is supposed to be fair and balanced, then they shouldn't bother with four sixteen team brackets, but rather they should seed the whole field 1-65.

I'm not saying that it's ok that the selection committee doesn't worry about making fair and balanced brackets. We can complain about that not being a concern of the selection committee, but we can't complain about the committee intentionally stacking a certain bracket or Ohio State being considered the fourth 2 seed when they aren't because the committee didn't consider that.

What I'm saying is, they should basically rank each set of seeds, and make the brackets accordingly. I don't think they intentionally tried to make one bracket tougher than the other, but they took the easy way out by basing it mostly on geography. When you do that, you're guaranteed to have uneven brackets. It's obvious that the whole geography thing is to maximize revenue, but they aren't giving us the best possible tournament. I would rather my favorite team play in Anchorage, Alaska if it means they are in a bracket that they should be in based on their season, not where their school is located.

Then blame all the schools for bitching about travel every year. The NCAA installed the pod system a few years ago because of schools bitching all the time about traveling.

there are some schools with some long hauls in the first round....

San Diego St. flying cross country to play in Providence comes to mind...

darbypitcher22 wrote: there are some schools with some long hauls in the first round....

San Diego St. flying cross country to play in Providence comes to mind...

Yeah, they dont worry about helping out the shitty seeds, lol. I mean, if it works out they will...but they arent going to mess around to much.

Where if a 2 and 3 can flip seeds and stay closer to home the whole way, they will do it. It was been confirmed in years past.

yeah I knew they didn't care about anybody below a 4 seed with the whole playing close to home thing, just though there were some teams with some lengthy trips across the bracket. Lehigh is another one having to go out to Oklahoma City

there are some schools with some long hauls in the first round....

There are a lot of schools with long hauls. Most coaches would prefer a better matchup as opposed to a better location. Matta said as much on his radio show today.

Cal having to go to Jacksonville and play Louisville in an 8-9 game will be tough. Thankfully for the bears the game is starting at 9:55 pm EST. Should be interesting to see how Louisville handles playing that late of an hour.

I'll bet Cal is leaving today.... isn't that a Friday game? if it isn't I'll bet they left earlier