Conference tourney results rarely ever matter significantly unless it’s a team winning that wouldn’t have otherwise gotten an at large. And the people selecting seeds have nothing to do with punishmentsThe NCAA probably still hates Pearl and Auburn isn't a blue blood. Conference tournament results only matter when they want them to matter.
All the metrics say Auburn is more of a 2 seed also. They have been highly ranked in those metrics the entire season. I just thought it was a head scratcher to place them as a 4 seed whenever everything points to them being one of the best teams in the country.The NCAA probably still hates Pearl and Auburn isn't a blue blood. Conference tournament results only matter when they want them to matter.
The narrative seems to be that they didn't have many Q1 wins, and their SECT win didn't help them because 1) conference tournament results supposedly don't matter much and 2) they didn't beat any upper crust SEC teams on their way to that win because they had already lost. I still think they are much better than a 4 though.All the metrics say Auburn is more of a 2 seed also. They have been highly ranked in those metrics the entire season. I just thought it was a head scratcher to place them as a 4 seed whenever everything points to them being one of the best teams in the country.
That's because Houston's strength was undeniable. They were the most dominant team in the best conference in the country. They aren't going to do something as obvious as taking a clear #1 seed and making them a #2 or #3. I do think there are certain programs they give benefits of the doubt to and ones the don't give benefits of the doubt to, but at the margins.They remember. They don’t care. Two vastly different things. They’ve never shied from praising Cal or Pitino. Houston had a legit shot at number one overall with a repeat offender as their HC.