You are exactly right on both accounts.Stephen F. Austin isn't a 14 seed. Good job committee, screwing over both West Virginia and potentially, SFA
SFA deserved better than a 14 but they'd have to be a double digit seed regardless. WVU is roughly seeded where they should be.Stephen F. Austin isn't a 14 seed. Good job committee, screwing over both West Virginia and potentially, SFA
Right: but they should have been an 11 or a 12, so getting a very good WVU team--better than all the 4/5 seeds except Kentucky--was messed up. That said, they're doing well. But West Virginia should have gotten a team like Stony Brook instead. Better seeds should mean easier opponents. That hasn't entirely happened this tournament.SFA deserved better than a 14 but they'd have to be a double digit seed regardless. WVU is roughly seeded where they should be.
While each may have the right to claim they should have been facing a lesser opponent in round one, neither can gripe about the outcome of this game as WVU should be able to handle a double digit seed and SFU should have been up against a pretty solid opponent.
Stephen F. Austin isn't a 14 seed. Good job committee, screwing over both West Virginia and potentially, SFA
Once you get into those later seeds, where no one beat anyone, KenPom/BPI/Sagarin is probably the way they should seed. RPI is meaningless in judging between those teams.Between that and Wichita State being an 11, it's clear the committee didn't take the metrics that seriously. It's interesting because SFA had kind of a nothing resume, so it isn't like they 'deserved' to be that much higher, but there's no sense in punishing a great team like West Virginia while Syracuse gets to play freaking Dayton.
I would like to see a better balancing act in future years.
.
Refs missing WVU pushing fouls on rebounds, trying to hand them the game.