As usual, the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Selection Committee did a horrible job of seeding and choosing the final at large teams. The process is obviously more political than analytical. The Committee contradicts itself at every turn. Sometimes wins against the RPI Top 50 matter, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes how you are playing down the stretch matters, sometimes it doesn't. Here are the top five outlandish choices made by the Committee in no particular order.

1. Tennessee Gets a 2 Seed -- In my final analysis, I gave Tennessee a 5 seed and I thought that might be have been generous. The Vols have lost four of their last six games including an SEC Tournament quarterfinal loss to South Carolina. They nearly lost to Vanderbilt in the regular season finale. Given Tennessee's seven losses overall and their recent poor play, it is hard to justify selecting them ahead of conference champions like Florida, Gonzaga, Kansas or Iowa or teams that are playing exceptionally well like BC and North Carolina.



2. George Mason In, Hofstra Out -- These two teams from the Colonial have very similar NCAA Tournament resumes. George Mason was 23-7 overall and 15-3 in the conference. Hofstra was 24-6 overall and 14-4 in the conference. Hofstra was slightly better against the RPI Top 50 (3-2 vs 2-4). They were both 8-2 in their last ten games and had similar road/neutral records. Here's the big difference: Hofstra has played George Mason twice in the past two weeks and won both times. If I'm on the Selection Committee, I can invite them both or leave them both out but there is no logical defense for taking George Mason and not Hofstra. I wondered how this could possibly happen. My research took me to a list of ten people on this year's Selection Committee. Lo and behold, one of them is George Mason Athletic Director Tom O'Connor. Now it all makes sense.



3. Air Force Gets the Nod -- I'm a big supporter of the military but this is ridiculous. Air Force was a bubble team coming into the Mountain West Tournament and they didn't exactly enhance their resume when they lost to 12-17 Wyoming in the conference tournament quarterfinals. Ironically, the Committee raised eyebrows just two years ago when they invited Air Force as an at large participant despite the Falcons' RPI ranking of 70 (the second highest ever for an at large team). I've noticed that a good portion of the most bizarre at-large selections of the past ten years have come from the Mountain West or the WAC. There seems to be a Rocky Mountain bias when it comes to selecting bubble teams.



4. Utah State Gets the Nod -- As for Utah State, their only win of consequence this year was a road win at Nevada. Their best non-conference win came at home against BYU. They finished 11-5 in the WAC. Does anyone really think that Florida State and Cincinnati wouldn't have won more than 11 games in the WAC? The Committee claims that they are looking for the 34 best at-large teams. You could make the argument that Bradley, Wichita State and maybe even George Mason are better than Florida State and Cincinnati. You cannot make the same argument with Air Force or Utah State.



5. BC Gets a 4 Seed, UNC Gets a 3 Seed -- Last year, I renamed the NCAA Selection Committee the "NCAA Tournament / Screw Boston College" Committee. The shoe still fits. I am not really upset that BC is seeded #4. I would not have had a problem with either Kansas or Florida (both conference champs) getting the higher seed. The fact that North Carolina received a better seed than BC is one of the most grotesque examples of popular team bias that I have ever seen. North Carolina and BC came into the ACC Tournament ranked 10 and 11, respectively, in the polls. North Carolina finished only one game ahead of BC in the ACC standings and both teams lost exactly seven games this year. Boston College beat North Carolina in the ACC semifinals yesterday and beat the Heels earlier in the season in Chapel Hill. For this reason, seeding North Carolina ahead of BC is indefensible. Not only was North Carolina given a better seed, they were placed in the Washington DC bracket and will be playing close to home. BC is getting shipped off to Salt Lake City for the first two rounds and will likely be playing what amounts to a road game in the second round (Nevada borders Utah). If BC advances, they be traveling to Minneapolis for the Sweet Sixteen. I am not sure why the Selection Committee believes that it is their job to prop up schools like North Carolina and Connecticut (last year) with seeding upgrades. It makes my blood boil. It appears that the top four factors in seeding are: (1) t-shirt and jersey sales, (2) media popularity of the head coach, (3) on court performance over the past ten years, (4) on court performance in the current year.

Here are some other examples of BC's treatment by the Selection Committee over the past ten years:

• 2005 -- BC finished the season with a 24-4 record and was ranked 9th in both polls. Not only were they given a 4 seed, but they were given the lowest 4 seed (based on the fact that they were in the same region as #1 Illinois). BC lost a heartbreaker in the second round.



• 2003 -- BC finished 10-6 in the Big East and won their Division (the Big East had two divisions then). They finished with 18 wins overall, won 10 of 13 down the stretch and were 9-4 on the road. They did not make the tournament. Two teams that did make it were Alabama (7-9 in the SEC) and NC State (18-12 overall and lost at home to BC that year).



• 2001 -- BC finished the season with a 25-4 record and won the Big East regular season and conference tournament championships. They finished the season ranked 5th in the RPI and 7th in both polls. They were given a 3 seed. Lower-ranked Kentucky (9 losses) and Iowa State were given 2 seeds. BC lost a heartbreaker in the second round.



• 1997 -- BC beat Villanova in the Big East Championship game by 12 points (and it really wasn't that close). Villanova (22-9) was a 4 seed in the East, BC (21-8) was a 5 seed in the West. This wasn't quite as outrageous because Villanova had a much better RPI ranking, but if the situation were reversed, there is no way that BC would have been seeded higher than Villanova. BC lost in overtime in the second round.

Some thoughts on the brackets:

• The potential Duke-George Washington second round game could be very interesting if Pops Mensah Bonsu plays and is healthy enough to be a factor. George Washington's seed is lower than their AP and USA Today ranking.



• California was on the bubble and somehow wound up with a 7 seed. This is very puzzling. That's good news for Texas who is projected to face either Cal or fading NC State in the second round.



• Memphis and Arkansas would be a very interesting second round matchup geographically and basketball-wise. The 1 seeds have their work cut out for them in the second round this year. I already mentioned GW-Duke. Connecticut could play #8 Kentucky. Villanova will play either Arizona or Wisconsin.



• The best potential 4/5 matchup is Kansas-Pittsburgh in the Oakland bracket. Both the Jayhawks and the Panthers could have easily been 3 seeds. The Oakland region is probably the weakest but it is also the most balanced. Any of the top five (Memphis, UCLA, Gonzaga, Kansas and Pitt) could easily make the Final Four. I am going to have a hard time picking a winner from this group. Indiana, Marquette and Arkansas could do some damage as well.



• There is an interesting rematch in the Washington DC Region. #8 Kentucky and #9 UAB will meet in the first round. In 2004, the #8 seeded Blazers upset #1 Kentucky in the second round.



• The Washington DC region includes a group of four with: #2 Tennessee vs #15 Winthrop and #7 Wichita State vs #10 Seton Hall. This is probably the worst group of four teams in the same first/second round bracket that I have seen in the NCAA Tournament. Tennessee at #2 is a joke, Wichita State should not be a 7 seed and #10 Seton Hall barely made the tournament. I wouldn't pick Winthrop in my pool but if a #15 seed is ever going to advance to the Sweet Sixteen, this could be the year. Michigan State and North Carolina have got to be thrilled with this half of the region.



• The last four teams to make the Tournament, in my opinion, are all in the Washington Region: Seton Hall, George Mason, Air Force and Utah State. This region also has (again in my opinion) the weakest #2 and the weakest #7. Is this what the Committee refers to as balance?



• Minneapolis is loaded from top to bottom. I'm not sure about Nevada as a 5 seed but the rest of the region is strong at every seed. This region also has some of the best lower seeds. #10 Northern Iowa was one of the few small conference teams that actually beat a top team out of conference (LSU and Iowa) and #11 Wisconsin-Milwaukee was in the Sweet Sixteen a year ago.

I'll post more analysis and some statistics by Wednesday morning. Let the pools begin!

MARCH MADNESS LINKS