Dear Committee Members,
First, allow me to thank you for your service to college basketball and for the long hours you put in this week in order to make the NCAA tournament a reality.
Second, I have a few questions and comments about some of your seedings. Most of my problem stems from the treatment of the ACC. The Atlantic Coast Conference is arguably the 4th best conference in the country. The Big East, Big XII, and yes, the Big 10 is better than the ACC. The Big 10 has Wisconsin, Michigan State, Purdue, and Ohio State all at 5 seeds or lower. The ACC has 2 teams at 5 seeds or lower. In addition, the ACC had 6 bids while the Big 10 had 5, with Illinois as a big time snub. Therefore, the ACC is worse at the top than the Big 10, and is no more deep than the Big 10.
This fact establishes that the ACC conference records are inflated compared to the 3 conferences above them, because other than Maryland and Duke, the ACC is nothing but average. Therefore, my biggest problem was with the seeding of Wake Forest. The Demon Deacons went 19-10 (not even 20 wins), 9-7 in the ACC, and finished the season 1-5 including a 21 point throttling by ACC bottomfeeder Miami. That is not and should not be good enough for a 9 seed. Judging by the resume and facts, Wake Forest should instead by the top seed…in the NIT. Yes, they have some big wins, but the way the team finished and the fact that it doesn’t have 20 wins isn’t and shouldn’t be enough to make the NCAA tournament.
My other problem is the seeding of Clemson. The team earned a 7 seed. The Tigers are 21-10 and had less impressive wins than Wake Forest. Clemson should be in over Wake Forest because the team did not have a bad slide to end the season. However, when judging their matchup against Missouri, it is arguable that the teams’ seeds could be switched, and that this seeding would be much more appropriate. Missouri as a 7 seed, Clemson as a 10 seed instead of vice versa; this would make much more sense because Missouri has a better record, in a better conference, with wins over Kansas State, Old Dominion, and Texas. That resume is considerably better than Clemson, who has a worse record, in a worse conference, with wins over Butler, Florida State, and Maryland. The Missouri wins, especially the win over Kansas State, trumps those of Clemson.
Those are my two examples of how the ACC was completely overrated in the bracket selection. While these teams are talented, they simply did not have the quality of seasons required to earn the seeds they did. There were multiple teams behind Wake and Clemson, such as Missouri and Louisville, who had much better seasons and were unfairly ranked behind these two ACC teams. The ACC should not be given special privileges simply because it is the ACC. The teams should be evaluated fairly based upon record, big wins, and strength of schedule. The ACC did not provide an in-conference schedule comparable to that provided by the Big East and Big XII. Why then, when Wake and Clemson did not play out of conference schedules much, if at all, stronger than Louisville and Missouri, should they be rewarded and seeded ahead of these teams? The common thread is their ACC ties, and it seemed very clear on Sunday that the ACC was very overrated by the Selection Committee.
Thanks once more for your service and enjoy the tournament,
Bob Long