:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/10013721/gyi0063330401.0.jpg)
This article totally reeks of "see! Someone else agrees with me." This is in reference to the selection committee snubbing the Mountain West, or in probably more eloquent than myself in terms of the odd way that the Mountain West was seeded.
Andy Glockner of Sports Illustrated echoes my sentiment of the leagues seeding:
Conference double champ New Mexico, owner of the No. 1 RPI and 19 top-100 wins, ended up ninth overall on the seed list, so they dropped to a 3-seed. They were five spots and two seed lines behind a Gonzaga team that had a clearly inferior profile, in my opinion. Since they both landed in the West, maybe we'll get that in the Elite Eight and see what happens on the floor. The Lobos' placement wasn't the most egregious thing you'll ever see, but it smacks of a lack of respect for the league.
The good thing about the Mountain West is it played a double round-robin schedule, so it's pretty easy to see who was better in league play. Colorado State finished 11-5, a game ahead of UNLV and two games ahead of San Diego State, yet the Rams ended up 30th on the seed curve, somehow four spots behind the Aztecs and a crazy 12 spots behind UNLV. I know non-conference play matters, too, but what did UNLV and San Diego State do that was so great to overcome the league performance by such a significant magnitude? That made no sense.
Glockner nails it with the conference scheduling aspect, and that it should have a fairly hefty bearing on where teams are seeded in relation to their own conference members.
This is the last post about complaining about where teams were seeded. Now it is time to just play the schedule and go from there.
Don't forget to get your printable bracket, right here.