NT Seeding in Rupp resulted in a total of 4 upsets in the first round. 9 over 8 twice and 10 over 7 twice. Looks like the selection committee has done a nice job.....thus far. 

Some random numbers (A world with a lot of parity in D1 IMO, )  for the tournament: 1-8 seeds were 23 from Big 6 conferences. Round 2 teams are 25 from Big 6 conferences. 13 of the 1-4 seeds are from Big 6 conferences. Gonzaga, Dartmouth and McNeese St. are the favored teams from smaller conferences.

nb, I don't think the # of upsets -- in real life or in HD --is indicative of whether the committee has done a good job w. seeding or not.

You could play the same exact bracket out (real life or HD) a number of times, and you'd have some occasions with lots of upsets, and some occasions with very few. The diverse outcomes wouldn't change whether or not the committee did a good job.

(Do we think VCU or Butler were underseeded or that the committee did a bad job on them because they ultimately made deep runs? Of course not. And certainly not any more than the 1 seeds losing means that they were overseeded.)

If anything, if we are seeing an increase in the number of chalk brackets in DI, I think it's simply indicative of a sharper divide in talent between haves and have nots.

Uhm... was that a shot at me, nbstowman?

we are told that the engine was modified a while back to reduce extreme performance variations by players, right?  I have assumed that contributed to more play to chalk

mamxet that line of reasoning only applies if we all concede that the seeding process is logical and the higher seeded "chalk" teams deserve to be there. I'm not sure that's the case in HD right now. I attribute this more to coincidence than anything else, but I'm a bit of a pessimist so, you know...

Survivor not at all. It seems that a lot of guys often have a problem with the seeds. I just was a little hyped at actually winnning a nt game with Saint Louis and took a few minutes to look at the brackets and how things went down in the first round. I was pretty surprised in the lack of upsets. There have been some threads about how wins vs. top teams should mean more in seeding, and I just thought I would throw out some stats. I don't believe the seeding is completely right, I just wanted to open another line of discussion as I have a problem with haves/have nots. Then again, Survivor, you have shown how you can take a Have not and turn them into a great team.