So, I have the benefit of hind-sight as I write this, so it is a little unfair. For Part 1 of this, I am going to try to remember back to my feelings before many of the games started. But since we have the benefit of hindsight, I have to include a little about how the tournament went. I will try to be fair and mention some things I was wrong on as well.

The process is amazing

The thing I loved the most is something they really didn’t do, but I have to give the NCAA credit. The tournament is fool-proof. And a large part of that is because of the selection committee procedures. But the part that I love the most is how each conference’s top 3 teams must be placed in different regions if they are in the protected top 4 seeds. Then, they try to avoid these teams playing a conference opponent until the regional final. It sometimes can’t happen (such as when a conference like the Big 10 has 9 teams), but they do their best.

Lets remember what this gives us (without names):

West – WCC champs, ACC reg season champs, Big 12 third place team (tourney runner-up), and SEC 4th place team.

East – Big 12 reg-season co-champ, SEC reg season tied for 2nd, Big 10 third place team (tourney runner-up), and Pac 12 reg-season 2nd place team (tourney runner-up).

South – Pac 12 champs, Big East tourney champ (and 2nd place reg season), SEC tourney champ (tied 2nd reg season), and Big 10 reg season co-champ

Midwest – Big 12 tourney champ (and reg season co-champ), SEC reg season champ, Big 10 reg season co-champ, and Big East regular season champ

So, 11 of the top 16 teams won either their regular season championship or tournament championship, all the power conferences are represented, and they are split so they don’t play anyone they have played before the regional final. You simply can’t go wrong. We can debate if Tennessee should be a 2 seed and Duke should be a 3 seed, but in the end, you set up the champs to play other champs. And once again, it has led to an outstanding tournament.

Conference tournaments apparently don’t matter

Before the tournament, I really didn’t like this. The SEC tournament is the biggest example of this. Both at the top and at the bubble.

Lets look at the top first. Kentucky and Tennessee were tied for 2nd in the SEC. They split their games in the regular season, both defending their home courts. Going in, Kentucky is 5th in the polls and Tennessee is 9th – so people felt the Wildcats are felt as slightly better. Then, the SEC tournament happens and watches the Volunteers beat Kentucky in the semi-finals and go on to win the SEC tournament. So you had to figure the Vols would jump Kentucky. Even the polls agreed with me – as the final AP poll had Tennessee at 5th and Kentucky dropped to 7th.

Then, when the bracket comes out, Kentucky is a 2 seed as the 6th overall team, and Tennessee is a 3 seed as the 10th overall team. How is that even possible. Two teams from the same conference – tied in the standings and split their games – you would think the team that wins in the tournament would get the edge. Instead, the Volunteers reward for winning the SEC tournament is getting ranked also behind Wisconsin who lost in the Big 10 tourney quarter-finals to Michigan State.

I can see the committee not wanting to do what I did and put three SEC teams on the 2nd line. But then why weren’t the 2 teams the SEC reg season champ Auburn and the SEC tourney champ Tennessee.

The bubble side was just as confusing. Texas A&M was clearly on the bubble – with a NET ranking of 43rd, there were not a lot of at large team spots left. Before the tournament, they were only 2-9 against the Top Quadrant teams. The Aggies then beat fellow bubble team Florida, Auburn – who ended up being a 2 seed and then Arkansas – who ended up being a 4 seed before finally falling to the Volunteers.

So, it was a crazy surprise to see that the Aggies didn’t make it to the dance. All the bubble teams have double digit losses – they all have flaws. But not many of them have victories against two teams ranked in the top 16. And isn’t that who you want in the tournament as your 10-12 seeds. Someone who is inconsistent but capable of beating anyone.

The Aggies didn’t change my opinions from their performance in the NIT – making it all the way to the NIT final and losing on a shot with 3 seconds left to Xavier – who has a different fascinating profile. But this is about the conference tourneys. The Aggies looked like they were peaking at the right time to make a run in March – except they apparently peaked to late.

The SEC had 6 teams in the top 6 seed lines – with the two 6 seeds being 9-9 in the conference. LSU was 22-11 overall, 9-9 in conference, and of teams in the at-large part of the field they had home victories against Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama. If that is the profile of a 6 seed, why did Texas A&M, who was 23-12 overall, 9-9 in same conference, and of teams in the at-large part of the field had a road victory against Alabama and neutral court victories against Auburn, Arkansas and Notre Dame, not even get in the field. The Aggies had the same record, had all their big victories away from home, and had one more big victory than the 6 seed from their conference and are not even worth an 11 seed.

The only reasonable explanations for that are somehow LSU had a NET ranking that was 18th instead of 43rd (which I don’t understand how that happened and still doesn’t explain why they don’t at least deserve an 11 seed$ or that the tournament games don’t count and so the Aggies don’t get credit for their 2 big victories over top 16 teams.

What to do with the Mountain West

At the end of the day, I am not upset that Wyoming got one of the last spots. I have always said that I would rather see a runner-up from a non-power conference make it over a 18-15 power conference team like Oklahoma. But was the 4th place team from the Mountain West the right choice.

4 Mountain West teams made it – and they created a confusing set of rankings.

Colorado State was ranked 23rd in the polls – and they beat St Mary’s and Creighton. They split against SD State and Wyoming and swept Boise St. But they lost twice to UNLV to fall to 2nd in the standings and lost to San Diego St in the semi-finals

Then you have Boise State. Boise St lost those two to Colorado St and once to Wyoming, but then won the other 15 conference games (including the other game against Wyoming and a sweep of San Diego St). They also swept UNLV to make up the losses to CSU. They beat power conference teams that didn’t make the tourney in Mississippi and Washington State but they also lost two games to some of the best in the Atlantic 10 (St Bonaventure and St Louis) – which is relevant later. They also beat Wyoming and SD State to win the conf tournament. It is weird that a team wins their conference regular season title, beats everyone again in the tourney, and falls 2 seed lines below the conference runner-up. But I guess there is enough weirdness with their non-conference and the fact that they were swept by the runner-up. I don’t agree with it but I can see the complexity

San Diego St finished 3rd in the conference – they have also a victory against St. Mary’s. They have the 2 victories against Colorado State and a victory against Wyoming, but the could not figure out Boise State in three games.

This brings us to Wyoming. The Cowboys finished 4th. In non-conference, they did beat CSU Fullerton and Washington, but the game against a top 40 team against Arizona ended in a 29 point defeat. They managed to hold their home court against Boise State and Colorado State but lost in the conference tournament to Boise State.

Should this be enough? The conference has only beat St. Mary’s twice and beat Creighton. Not Wyoming – the top 6 teams from the conference (I checked out UNLV and Fresno State as well). Why not reward another non-power conference with an extra bid.

That brings us back to the Atlantic 10. Dayton was tied for 2nd in the conference with VCU. Unlike Wyoming, when they played a number 1 seed in Kansas, they successfully pulled the upset. They also beat Miami FL in that November tournament. They also won on their home court against Virginia Tech and Davidson before getting upset in the conference tournament by March darling Richmond.

So, Dayton had arguably a bigger win in Kansas and the same number of non-conference victories as the top 3 teams from the Mountain West conferences. And so it makes sense that they are behind Wyoming who has only the two Mt West home victories on their resume. One could point out that Wyoming was 50th in the NET and Dayton was 58th. But if NET is the reason, I could probably list out a few other deserving mid-majors who were ahead of Wyoming in the NET rankings – 47th North Texas who won the Conf USA regular season, 45th SMU was the runner-up in the American but got passed up by 3rd place Memphis – who got a 9 seed (and by the way then beat 8th seeded Boise State).

I am thrilled the committee wanted to reward a talented non-power conference team. I just think there were probably better choices. Hindsight then agreed with me as the Mountain West went 0-4 in the tournament.

We both went wrong with the ACC

I don’t like the fact that UNC was ranked in the top 25 after their big victory against Duke and ended up as an 8 seed. The Tar Heels didn’t seem to mind – since they are playing tonight in the Final Four. But it is ridiculous that non-ranked 9-9 teams from the SEC are getting 6 seeds and the Tar Heels who were tied for 2nd in the ACC settle for an 8 seed.

I also don’t like that Notre Dame, the other 14-4 team tied for second in the ACC, ended up in the play-in game. The play-in game should be for middle of the road 9-9 or 8-10 power conference teams that sneak into the tournament, not a 2nd place team. Notre Dame couldn’t win any of their multiple games against tourney teams in non-conference, but they did beat UNC, Miami and Virginia Tech. Somehow, Miami who finished 4th in the conference jumped them in the standings – would the Irish have been in the Final Four and if conference standings mattered and they switched places with the Hurricanes – maybe. Regardless, they should not have been in the play-in game.

Conference standings should matter!!!

As I have been typing this, I have noticed multiple times the committee reversed the standings. It is hard to say in every case – might be a research topic for Sunday. But it doesn’t seem right.

I agree that we are putting in teams instead of conferences. I am glad that non-conference games matter as well. But it is hard enough to compare Memphis to Creighton to North Carolina – we should be able to leverage the conference standings to at least have a good ranking between teams that play each other.

There have been a few examples here, but I will add one more. Creighton was 4th in the Big East, 1 game ahead of Seton Hall and Marquette. Creighton then made it to the Big East championship while Seton Hall lost in the quarterfinals to UConn. Yet, Seton Hall ended up an 8 seed, and Creighton was a 9 seed – probably due to the fact that the Hall swept Creighton. But that says something in the standings of a league with a relatively balanced home and away. Creighton was 3 games better in the standings against the rest of the conference…..

Creighton ended up winning an exciting game against San Diego State, while Seton Hall got destroyed by TCU. So, maybe it all worked out for Creighton – but we are grading the committee here. If it is really due to uneven schedules, it is one thing – but otherwise, the conference standings should matter in the rank ordering.

So glad to be wrong!!!

In my bracketology, I had St. Peter’s as a 14 seed and Yale as a 15 seed. But the selection committee felt that those teams should be swapped.

If the Selection Committee listened to me, my Boilers might have lost their 3 point game in the First Round instead of the Sweet 16 – glad that the Committee was right and believed the team we beat by 22 points was better….

I am sure that if my bracket had been the final, people could rip apart the inconsistencies as well. The Selection Committee deserves credit for coming up with a great tournament. I can not-pick seeding, but at the end of the day, the teams still get to play the games on the court.

Speaking of which, not sure I will have time for part 2 before the game starts. Kansas and Villanova tip-off a great night of basketball in New Orleans in 20 minutes!!!! Enjoy the games!!!!