- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 3,631
- Reaction Score
- 11,975
I count 8 games in the first round in which a lower seed beat a higher seed. In the second round, I count 5 games with upsets, out of a total of sixteen games.
If you take out the top seeds, that means that in the second round nearly half (5 out of 12 games) resulted in upsets. In the first round, it meant that, if you take out the first three seeds, since they were clearly paired with inferior opponents, 8 of 20 games resulted in upsets. For both rounds, the seedings meant that the results could have been virtually replicated by throwing darts a a board with the teams' names on it.
So it seems that the NCAA seeding committee has hardly done a job that suggests competence. Would it be better to seed just the first four against the last four? And then just draw names out of a hat for all other games? I just can't believe that so many "upsets" are occurring. Seems more likely that the seedings were poorly done.
If you take out the top seeds, that means that in the second round nearly half (5 out of 12 games) resulted in upsets. In the first round, it meant that, if you take out the first three seeds, since they were clearly paired with inferior opponents, 8 of 20 games resulted in upsets. For both rounds, the seedings meant that the results could have been virtually replicated by throwing darts a a board with the teams' names on it.
So it seems that the NCAA seeding committee has hardly done a job that suggests competence. Would it be better to seed just the first four against the last four? And then just draw names out of a hat for all other games? I just can't believe that so many "upsets" are occurring. Seems more likely that the seedings were poorly done.