I cannot speak for everyone and this might be semantics, but I want to be clear that I don't think the Selection Committee necessarily changes seeds or matchups for better storylines ... but I think it's entirely reasonable to think it could be a subconscious or even "after the fact" thought. Like "Hey look, we placed Loyola as the #8 seed in #1 Illinois' region. That would be a really interesting matchup given the instate relationship and that Loyola has been such a cool Cinderella story lately!" Did placing Loyola there make sense for other reasons (at least in the minds of the Committee)? Sure ... but it's difficult to say how much subconsciously thinking about that could bias the Committee if they're deciding where to put two #8 seeds.
Sec has a 16 team tourney. Instead of 8/9 it’s 8 vs winner of 9/16 I believe. Could’ve had 1 more.
I get that money drives everything and that the Big Ten seems to love this idea of rewarding a higher conference finish with a series of byes, but it just feels wrong that every conference team wouldn't participate in the conference tournament. One of the essential ideas of the BTT is that it "starts your second season," and EVERY team can theoretically earn an invitation to the Big Dance. While we came up short both times, think of the fond memories of our 1999 and 2008 teams making runs to the BTT Championship, when they would never have sniffed the NCAA Tournament otherwise.
Well put.
This matches exactly what we do on the basketball court. Either easy 2 or 3 point shot. Missing a deep 2 is detrimental just like playing quad 3 games
It'd be basically impossible for them not to be "overrated" based on the seeds they're about to get. They'd have to make up like half the Sweet 16 to not be overrated.Here's a fun article from Ken Pomeroy as to why the SEC is probably overrated heading into the tournament:
I think it's pretty obvious that they set seed lines and then potentially make some changes to make for some exciting potential matchups.
We might need USC to win their first BTT game for this to remain accurate. The loss against them is right on the edge of Q2/Q3. But on the other hand if Rutgers beats them, then our loss against Rutgers becomes Q1.
No, they don't do that.
I agree with that, but with the size of conferences now even that is really hard to do. Even though they can have teams from the same conference play earlier now than before they still protect the top say 4 teams from at least the major 2/3 conferences.
While I’m not holding my breath, I think it would be a great gesture — and hurt no one — for B1G Commissioner Tom Petitti to retroactively name Illinois and Michigan co-champions for 2021. My arguments are two points:
Michigan essentially got credit for going 3-0 in games it didn't play, due the way "win percentages" work. That's the only way they could have been the outright champion had they played the games.
I think you've turned your fun little post which I read with great interest into something of an absurdity now.
… but you literally can’t know that for sure, and neither can we.
There is an ocean of reasonable and nuanced middle ground between conspiracy theories and the knee-jerk, expert-worship reaction on the opposite end of the spectrum.I guess not matching us up with Akron when we were seeded opposite them twice in three years was just to keep us off the scent.
Glad you liked it. It was meant to be absurd.
Yeah, I mean I never said these people obsess over it or even prioritize it whatsoever. I just said it’s not asinine to think it ever plays a role, especially if all else is equal. There were also probably reasons to not put Illinois and Akron together that were way more important than “storylines,” and literally not one person here has suggested the Committee would ever let a good matchup get in the way of the more objective constraints of their duties to make a good and fair bracket.
