OK - so after today's games I decided to check the 16 seeds and 15 seeds, because while the UTSA game was a fine win, it did not feel like a #1 seed/16 seed match-up. I know the committee does all sorts of arcane mumbo jumbo to calculate their seeding, and Massey is not involved in their process and is just a logarithmic calculation, but especially when you get way down in the weeds of the back end of the conferences you got to use something, so ... opponents for the top eight seeds by
Massey rating and Massey sos, plus home state:
Uconn - 108, 89, TX
UCLA - 131, 199, CA
*Texas - 103, 117, MO
*SC - 224, 312, LA
LSU - 166, 240. FL
Mich - 159, 241, MA
Vandy - 149, 341, NC
Iowa - 176, 376, NJ
I put in geography because that has often been used to defend stupid seedings. The two * are for 'play in games for 16 seeds (which I dislike) but doesn't explain how the strongest of the 15/16 seeds ended up in a play-in game in SC. Nor how the second strongest with by far the strongest SOS ended up 1900 miles away from home in Storrs CT, while two much weaker teams 39 miles away, and 140 miles away ended up as 15 seeds playing 1000 miles away from their homes.
I mean - just look as the SOS if you want to knock Massey's ratings - two teams do not look anything like the other 6, and 4 of those six are exactly what you expect from 16 seeds, and yet only one of them was actually in a playoff game against an even weaker 16 seed type team, while one of the two 'oddities' was also in a playoff game with another of the classic 16 seed no hopers.
This obviously has no bearing on who wins the NCAA tournament. It doesn't matter in the least in terms of the next 5 games, but it just points out how completed messed up the NCAA committee experts are. I would love hearing their justifications on the 15/16 seeds and I suspect the 14 and 13 seeds would raise similar questions about their process.
