There is a general consensus that the NCAA selection committee hosed Penn State and gave Princeton/Denver a gift. With all the upsets and splits of wins for teams that played twice, it was a very odd and difficult year to measure teams accurately. I think it was close. While I think Penn State deserved to be in more than Princeton, I also can live with the NCAA’s selections. Maybe they need to explain better (or keep their mouths shut), as part of the problem stems from what was explained half-a**ed.
Simple solution is…win when you need to and don’t put yourself in a bubble team situation.
So while I have no problem with the NCAA and teams chosen, I have to wonder about the seedings. I also wonder why no one is questioning them. As I said earlier, it has been a very level year with teams not winning dominantly or consistently. I am not complaining or calling a conspiracy. Just pointing out some odd coincidences…
After all 4 of the ACC teams make it into the tournament, based on seedings none have to play each other until potentially the final four. Thus an all ACC Final Four is possible.
The only 2 Ivy teams to make it into the tournament are Yale and Princeton. They are in the same bracket and could play each other in just the second round.
The only 2 ECAC teams to make it into the tournament are Denver and Loyola. They are in the same bracket and could play each other in just the second round.
Duke was given Syracuse. Typically the NCAA doesn’t like to set up 1st round rematch games. Also the NCAA likes to keep the distance generally 400 miles (drivable by bus). Both of these guides broken for this matchup.
Undefeated UMass gets #6 seed. I agree they might be overrated, and am generally anti-anything Mass related, but #6?