I disagree. You should never have to play a conference opponent in the round of 32 like MSU had to do with Minnesota. They loaded up bottom half of the East region with THREE Big Ten Teams...MSU, Minnesota, AND Maryland, forcing them all to cannibalize each other by the Sweet 16. Had Maryland defeated LSU (and it was close), MSU would have played back-2-back Big Ten teams in the Round of 32 (Minnesota) and Sweet 16 (Maryland). They could have spread out the Big Ten teams a lot better amongst the 4 regions. Minnesota and Maryland are not that good, but they should have been given a better shake.
Not only that, they put the Michigan and MSU regions on the same side even though they've already played 3 times this year...which would call for a Final 4 matchup instead of a potential rematch in the National Championship. Meanwhile, they conveniently have Duke / UNC on opposite sides. I'm sure the committee is salivating at that potential National Championship game. The entirety of the seeding and placement in this year's bracket is skewed for the ACC.
I agree that it’s a bad draw for the B1G, but I think the committee had their hands tied. NCAA website published an article about it a few days ago. Saying that they couldn’t move those teams because it’d interfere with rules. Something about Minnesota playing Michigan 3 times so they couldn’t go West, or swap with Seton Hall because they already played Louisville... Something along those lines.
After the #1 seeds are selected and given geographic preference, the same narrative follows the rest of the seeds. Michigan St was ranked 6th by the committee. Tennessee was 5th and geographically selected to South bracket for Louisville regional. MSU having 2nd “choice”, DC was geographically closest regional to their campus since TN got Louisville regional. UK being 7th gives them Kansas City instead of Anaheim. Michigan (8th / last #2) was booted to Anaheim. MSU ends up on the same side as Michigan because Gonzaga was 4th (last #1) so the West region pairs vertically with East due to Duke being #1 overall getting the weakest #1. Of course Gonzaga’s geographic preference is the West, they were only awarded it because the other 3 #1s ahead of them are on the East coast.
I don’t agree with the geographic preference crap, I think the #1 overall should be warranted the weakest of each seed, while the 4th #1 should be given the strongest..... For example, Kansas was ranked 13th (top #4) so they were given geographic preference to Kansas City regional. Had they survived, they’d potentially face #1 seed UNC while virtually playing in their backyard. I love the idea of the Tar Heels being screwed, but as a realistic fan I’ll admit it would of been an unearned advantage.
In 2011 Duke was the final #1 seed and kicked out West. Losing to #5 Arizona while playing in Pac-10 country (Anaheim / LA) 2,500 miles from home. If they would have advanced that, they’d then face #2 seed San Diego State in their backyard. I damn near wanted to punch my TV in half after seeing our bracket released. Hell, I remember when we won it all in 2010 we were a #1 seed in the South and played Baylor(#3) in Houston.
The placement process needs remodeled. I know it’s impossible for the committee to guarantee a neutral court advantage for the #1 seed - but the rest of the seeds should never be geographically positioned to potentially play in their backyard considering their advancement would give disadvantage to #1 or higher seed.
