So I thought I would bring up a topic to talk about. I think that the mid-majors were screwed with their seedings and pairings. Xavier is really good and have the best seed among the schools, but they didn't even win their conference tournament. Drake is a 5 seed and then Butler and Gonzaga are 7 seeds? BYU is an 8 seed? These are teams that have been ranked in the top 25 late in the season.
An even bigger beef I have is the first round match-ups. They have paired mid-major against mid-major. Butler vs. South Alabama, Drake vs. Western Kentucky, Gonzaga vs. Davidson, UNLV vs. Kent State. Think how many of these teams could beat teams from the power conferences in the first two rounds. No longer do you get these great mid-major programs beating the major conferences. You get less of these good teams further in the tournament because they have to beat each other. Schools and conferences get money for every game they win in the tournament. Is this some way of keeping money out of the smaller schools and conferences? (A conspiracy theory)
Tell me what you think.
1 comment:
The only real problem I have, like you mentioned is pairing them up together. It just seems like the committee is uneasy to put them in or something, cause why else would they put them together? Maybe they want to eliminate the Mid-majors ASAP so pairing them up was the best idea. I agree with Spenc, conspiracy theory is harsh, but there is absolutely something fishy going on...but I will give the commitee props: OVERALL they did a great job of seeding. Obviously there will always be problems but trying to get a bunch of people to agree on anything is hard, so I'm pretty impressed.
Post a Comment