Bracketology (3/28) Mar 29, 2021 2:56:05 GMT -5
Post by ay2013 on Mar 29, 2021 2:56:05 GMT -5
I still think the committee has avoided the regional semifinal matchups of same-conferences since 2016 because of that specific match. It made no sense to seed USC at #10 and Creighton at #9 in 2017 except to avoid a 8-9 USC/Washington matchup. There have been no potential re-matches of the 16 seeds since that happened. Could be coincidence, could be an unwritten rule.
The tournament will consist of four brackets of 16 teams each. The committee will seed the top 16 teams on a national basis. The remaining 48 teams will be placed in the bracket following bracketing policies approved by the NCAA Division I Competition Oversight Committee. The 16 first and second-round winners will feed into four regions. When pairing teams, the committee will avoid conference matchups in the first and second rounds of the championship.
And of course this year, the bracketing policies for the 32 unseeded teams don't matter because geography doesn't have an impact. So, there is no real standard for how the rest of the teams will be seeded. Actually, there really aren't any policies for the 16 top seeds either, for whatever that's worth, since there's no RPI or measurement tools.
So last year are you suggesting that the NCAA purposefully gave Nebraska the 5 seed over Pitt as to justify Penn State as the 11 seed so they couldn’t meet in the sweet 16?