Originally Posted by
jaytoc
Feldspar asks:
"Well then why do seeding anyway? If we're a #1 seed, why not just stick us against another #2 seed in the first round while a #2 seed battles it out with a #16 seed in the first round. You're saying you'd be okay with that?"*
Yes.
Take 64 or 65 teams. Randomly bracket them off (flip coins, draw names from a hat) and play. Six wins, you're the tourney champs. It's not about fair, it's about fun.
Oh, sure, we'd be deprived of all the talking heads' and bulletin board teeth nashers' endless, enlightening, annual complaints about the Committee's work, the conspiracy theorists' bitterness over the location or seeding of their favorites. But you could still worry about the relative merits of the regions, and think of the stories you'd tell your grandchildren after the (bad)luck of the draw required the Devils to fight their way to consecutive victories over UCLA, Memphis, Indiana, UConn, Kansas, and Carolina on the way to the 2008 Championship. And some day you might even get a long shot champion from a weak region. Now that's entertainment!
I really don't have strong feelings about any of this. My initial point was merely that worrying about ratings, especially in November, is silly. To your point that ratings may affect seedings, sure, indirectly they may, although to believe the Committee it is strength of schedule, won-loss record, conference record, et al that have the most impact. You can worry about that stuff if you'd like. To me, the only things that matter about college bball are decided on the floor, as they should be, not in a reporter's brain or via computer.
*Apology for inability to properly quote from prior post.