As I mentioned in another thread, it's a myth that the committee does any real analytical work. First, they're all athletic directors or league commissioners, aren't they? So they're fat cats used to having others do grunt work--and I suspect that the committee has staffers who do the grunt wort on selection, seeding, bracket placement. Second, I strongly suspect most of the brackets are laid out well before this past weekend--and there is not much inclination to mess with them based on weekend results, a point Lunardi has made. Third, I strongly suspect that the committee uses the projections of drones like Lunardi and maybe one or two others to prepare their brackets...because to do otherwise would require fat cats doing work. The Committee Fat Cats are not pouring over metrics for weeks prior to the big reveal--that much is certain. Fourth, there is obviously quite a bit of laziness involved in bracket selection and seeding--because any sort of genuine analytical work would have revealed that Tennessee had a much bigger call on a 2 seed than Duke. But Duke had long been projected as a 2 seed, Tennessee had long been projected as a 3--and both Lunardi and the committee (the latter perhaps relying on the former) were too lazy to do some digging and make changes. And the same holds for other seeding issues. This is why when the committee chairman and Lundardi are asked to explain some selection/seeding decisions, they typically offer very little specific info but rather blah, blah, mumble, hem and haw without saying much--as we saw with Lunardi last night.
