How closely have tournament seedings followed the projection report?  I ask because this one for Knight D3 concerns me:

1.	CMHMS	S. Cal.	aejones	10	1	1	20-7	9-2	11-4	0-1	6-4	Lock
2.	La Verne	S. Cal.	ki87	4	2	4	22-5	11-1	11-3	0-1	7-3	Lock
3.	California, Santa Cruz	S. Cal.	kmasonbx	6	3	3	21-7	9-2	11-4	1-1	6-4	Lock
4.	Redlands	S. Cal.	mbalding	11	8	6	22-8	7-5	11-3	4-0	8-2	Lock
5.	Pomona-Pitzer	S. Cal.	theeyetest	8	5	7	21-7	6-4	14-2	1-1	6-4	Lock
6.	Hanover	Heartland	cbous3040	9	11	15	24-5	9-3	12-2	3-0	9-1	Lock
7.	Whittier	S. Cal.	shqipta	15	10	10	21-8	5-5	14-2	2-1	6-4	Lock
8.	Rochester	Upstate	dahsdebater	1	4	14	25-4	9-2	13-2	3-0	10-0	Lock
9.	Texas, Dallas	ASC	foxbat99	2	6	25	26-3	9-0	14-3	3-0	9-1	Lock
10.	California Tech.	S. Cal.	thewizard10	20	16	8	19-9	7-5	11-3	1-1	3-7	Lock
11.	N. Carolina Wesleyan	USA South	dwoelflin	3	7	35	27-2	10-0	14-2	3-0	9-1	Lock
12.	Thiel	N. Coast	dawson	5	12	23	25-3	11-2	13-0	1-1	9-1	Lock
13.	CSU, Eastbay	S. Cal.	tcole23		18	5	19-11	10-5	7-5	2-1	6-4	Lock
14.	John Jay	CUNY	Area51man	7	14	37	26-3	11-1	12-2	3-0	10-0	Lock
15.	Marymount	Capital	windixies	16	13	18	24-4	11-2	12-1	1-1	9-1	Lock
16.	Austin	ASC	bjb2378	17	20	40	25-4	8-2	15-1	2-1	9-1	Lock
17.	Howard Payne	ASC	scottslotss	21	15	19	23-5	12-1	10-3	1-1	8-2	Lock
18.	Scranton	Freedom	crickett13	12	23	83	26-2	12-1	13-0	1-1	9-1	Lock
19.	Mary Washington	Capital	nf41	13	19	17	23-6	10-4	10-2	3-0	9-1	Lock
20.	California Lutheran	S. Cal.	rusticity		9	2	14-13	3-5	11-7	0-1	2-8	Lock

I haven't been paying all that much attention to HD recently, so I haven't been watching D1, but it's never been the case before that 1 conference has been able to so dominate the tournament seeds.  It's also the case that I've never seen a conference as strong as the Knight So Cal is this season before in D3.  Nevertheless, the projection report has all 4 1 seeds going to that conference, 2 to 7-loss teams and 1 to an 8-loss team.  Furthermore, the top 3 ranked teams are looking at a 2-seed and a couple of 3-seeds.  This seems pretty harsh.  I actually believe that with 4 losses (to RPI #1, 3, 5, and 7) I might deserve a 2-seed this year, but NC Wesleyan should certainly be a 1.  I also don't understand how Hanover is 2 spots above me.  Is it maybe because they went 5-5 against the RPI top 50 whiIe I went 4-4?  My losses were certainly of higher quality.  So I'm not quite sure what the criteria being used are at this point with the hypothetical game-by-game weighing basis.

DISCLAIMER: the So-Cal was so strong this year that my 14th-ranked SOS is in fact the 2nd best from outside that conference. My conference-mate cagefan's Chicago team at SOS #12 is the only team to break up the So-Cal lock on the top spots.

Based on the projection report, CSU Eastbay is getting a 4-seed and Cal Lutheran a 5.  To me 19-11 in a conference like that is worthy of a 5 or 6 seed, 14-13 maybe an 8 or a 9.  I would say that good losses are being overvalued, but if that's the case I'm not sure how Hanover got above me.

I ended up seeded 1 line below what projection report would seem to indicate ( I think I was under 20 and got a 5 seed - if seedings are ranked left to right (regions) as I think then I got the top 5 seed...

Posted by dacj501 on 12/25/2011 3:04:00 PM (view original):
I ended up seeded 1 line below what projection report would seem to indicate ( I think I was under 20 and got a 5 seed - if seedings are ranked left to right (regions) as I think then I got the top 5 seed...

Dacj, couldn't a 5 seed be anywhere between 17-20?

Posted by dcy0827 on 12/25/2011 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 12/25/2011 3:04:00 PM (view original):
I ended up seeded 1 line below what projection report would seem to indicate ( I think I was under 20 and got a 5 seed - if seedings are ranked left to right (regions) as I think then I got the top 5 seed...

Dacj, couldn't a 5 seed be anywhere between 17-20?

probably - I guess that makes sense - had the numbers in my head different...

With the way things fell out, the #1 and #2 teams in the country could be forced to play each other for a spot in the Elite Eight as the #2 and #3 seeds.  That's BS.  Our 1-seed, incidentally, is rank #10 but RPI #1.

Nobody has a comment on this?  Why even bother with rankings when the #1 and #2 teams at the end of the season are on a collision course for a S16 matchup...

rankings aren't "fixed" yet. all I can tell you...

This seeding kind of shows what I have been saying all along. Play as many strong teams as possible and you will get a good seed. The best teams in the country have 7 and 8 losses?!?

So why is it not also possible its the rankings that need adjustment?   HD isn't going to have the records at the top look the same as real life, largely because they human controlled coaches in HD schedule NOTHING like real life coaches;  they build insane schedules that no real AD would ever schedule.  If they scheduled like real life teams did, all of the top ranked teams would have few losses.  In the case of CMHMS, I am not sure there has ever been a real life equivalent to their conference schedule.

In real life, UNC schedules this:

 

12/06/11	vs. Evansville	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 97-48
12/10/11	vs. Long Beach State	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 84-78
12/17/11	vs. Appalachian State	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 97-82
12/19/11	vs. Nicholls	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 99-49
12/21/11	vs. Texas	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 82-63
12/29/11	vs. Elon	Chapel Hill, N.C.	7:00 p.m. ET
01/01/12	vs. Monmouth	Chapel Hill, N.C.	3:00 p.m. ET

Posted by tianyi7886 on 12/26/2011 3:04:00 AM (view original):
This seeding kind of shows what I have been saying all along. Play as many strong teams as possible and you will get a good seed. The best teams in the country have 7 and 8 losses?!?

I think we'll have to wait and see how the postseason shakes out to decide if it was right or wrong.  It's hard to judge teams that play 12 tough in conference games by record versus teams with 2 or4 tough conference games.

Posted by arssanguinus on 12/26/2011 8:40:00 AM (view original):
So why is it not also possible its the rankings that need adjustment?   HD isn't going to have the records at the top look the same as real life, largely because they human controlled coaches in HD schedule NOTHING like real life coaches;  they build insane schedules that no real AD would ever schedule.  If they scheduled like real life teams did, all of the top ranked teams would have few losses.  In the case of CMHMS, I am not sure there has ever been a real life equivalent to their conference schedule.

In real life, UNC schedules this:

 

12/06/11	vs. Evansville	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 97-48
12/10/11	vs. Long Beach State	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 84-78
12/17/11	vs. Appalachian State	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 97-82
12/19/11	vs. Nicholls	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 99-49
12/21/11	vs. Texas	Chapel Hill, N.C.	W, 82-63
12/29/11	vs. Elon	Chapel Hill, N.C.	7:00 p.m. ET
01/01/12	vs. Monmouth	Chapel Hill, N.C.	3:00 p.m. ET

This is a significant point. Tough (impossible, maybe) to make a valid real life comparison when the scheduling doesn't look anything remotely like we might see in real life.

Posted by asher413 on 12/26/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 12/26/2011 3:04:00 AM (view original):
This seeding kind of shows what I have been saying all along. Play as many strong teams as possible and you will get a good seed. The best teams in the country have 7 and 8 losses?!?

I think we'll have to wait and see how the postseason shakes out to decide if it was right or wrong.  It's hard to judge teams that play 12 tough in conference games by record versus teams with 2 or4 tough conference games.

Honestly, I don't think what happens in the postseason has the ability to validate or invalidate.

You could play the same NT twice, once where this conference totally dominates, once where they stink up the joint. A sample that small just doesn't mean much, and certainly can't decide whether the seeding was just or not.

I'm not going to go into "just" all that much, but I have a hard time imagining the RL selection committee giving 3 #1 seeds to teams with 7+ losses while Rochester has a 2 and Texas Dallas and NC Wesleyan have 3s.  All 3 of our teams have solid RPIs and played good teams in the non-con schedules.  And what I REALLY don't understand is the logic that puts Hanover above any of the three teams I named.  Hanover had a solid season, but looks for all the world like a 3-seed.  If I were generating the top 10 with some consideration for what I'd expect from a RL selection committee it would probably look like this:

1. NC Wesleyan
2. La Verne
3. Texas Dallas
4. Cal Santa Cruz
5. CMHMS
6. Rochester
7. Pomona-Pitzer
8. Redlands
9. John Jay
10. Thiel

Asher, going against a tough conf is one thing, but most of the teams in socal are .500-.600 against teams in rpi 1-50. You could say wow, that means socal is really strong and no one can dominate, but does it show that socal has the four best in teams in the country and deserve all #1 seeds? Hardly. If that logic applies, we might as well have all #1 seeds and #2 seeds in D1 belong to the ACC, and have 40-50 teams in the NT from the big 6 conf in D1. 

How is NC Wesleyan not a #1 seed with only 2 losses, and an 8-2 record against rpi 1-50? Sure, they didn't play 16-18 games against top opposition but they did go .800 in 10 games against top opposition. When all #1 seeds have this many losses, the system isn't working right.