that Duke team in SMith looks like it won only 19 games - didnt check, but did they go deep in their CT? had they been seeded higher some would argue that a team that performs like that - and has ZERO seniors deserves a lower seed

no seniors, didnt win 20 games.....cant tell without looking at the seeds generally, but a lowish seed makes sense - I'd have expected your seniors to beat them up

looks like Duke packed it in at minus 4 and your guys didnt make them pay - might have tried a slowdown to keep your seniors on the floor for more of the game....dont know

They won in the opening round of the ACC tourney, then lost to Boston College in the second round.

As Metsmax mentioned, they have no seniors, which hurts their IQ's and probably explains their record.  The talent is certainly there (they beat my Maryland by ten in the regular season), but most likely the seeding formulas only look at results (RPI being the most important measure) and not ratings.  Frustrating to be the coach who draws them in the opening round of the dance, but we've all been there - sometimes that's just how it goes.

Top 40 RPI, 10 wins in a tough ACC, won at least a game in the CT tourney and a 14 seed? At large bids are never lower than 12 in real life. MAYBE 13 at worst. This is bull. And clemson was a 14 seed too that won. How often do two 14 seeds win a game in the same tournament? Never.

I'm not sure what their RPI was heading into the dance, but yeah, if they were in the top forty in RPI then they shouldn't have been a 14 seed.

Here are the seeds

Division I Field of 64
#	Midwest	East	South	West
1	Kentucky (26-3, 1)	Oregon St. (24-5, 6)	Alabama (25-4, 3)	Georgia (24-4, 2)
2	Michigan St. (25-3, 5)	Syracuse (24-5, 4)	Texas Southern (29-0, 9)	Texas (28-1, 8)
3	Stanford (25-3, 10)	Illinois (23-6, 12)	Louisville (25-3, 7)	Connecticut (24-5, 11)
4	Utah (22-7, 18)	UNC (22-7, 14)	Maryland (22-7, 15)	UCLA (22-7, 13)
5	Marquette (24-5, 20)	Auburn (19-8, 17)	Colorado (23-5, 16)	Louisiana Tech (25-4, 21)
6	Vanderbilt (19-8, 24)	Kent St. (24-5, 27)	CSU, Northridge (23-6, 26)	Michigan (24-5, 22)
7	Southeastern Louisiana (20-9, 33)	Nebraska (23-6, 23)	Minnesota (20-8, 19)	Temple (25-4, 35)
8	N. Carolina St. (18-10, 34)	Ohio St. (21-6, 31)	Hawaii (21-6, 30)	Georgia Tech (18-10, 25)
9	Boston U. (27-2, 45)	Jackson St. (25-4, 51)	Marshall (21-6, 38)	Fairleigh Dickinson (26-3, 48)
10	Boston College (19-9, 37)	Mississippi (16-12, 29)	Louisiana St. (16-12, 32)	Arkansas (17-11, 28)
11	Memphis (22-7, 47)	USC (20-9, 41)	E. Kentucky (23-6, 50)	Miami (FL) (19-9, 40)
12	Campbell (26-2, 46)	Howard (25-4, 39)	Winthrop (24-4, 43)	E. Michigan (24-5, 65)
13	Appalachian St. (23-6, 52)	Siena (26-3, 66)	Buffalo (18-10, 42)	Dartmouth (26-2, 56)
14	Maryland, E. Shore (24-5, 70)	Clemson (18-10, 36)	Duke (18-10, 44)	Utah St. (21-8, 57)
15	Bradley (17-12, 67)	UNC, Asheville (18-11, 85)	Northwestern St. (19-10, 53)	New Mexico (21-8, 49)
16	Navy (22-7, 107)	James Madison (22-7, 97)	Oral Roberts (20-9, 102)	Lipscomb (19-10, 104)

so the core of what the HD seeding did appears to be that teams like App State, Siena and Dartmouth were rewarded for their high win totals.  Perhaps also rewarded for their record in the last 10 games (I didnt check, but I bet they did well in last 10 games)

Duke and Clemson were punished for low win totals and probably middling records over last ten

I'm guessing that in real life an ACC team with that sort of record would be more like an 11 or a 12....perhaps a 13.  Still would have expected a team like L-ville to win, with its edge in seniors etc etc

Just beat me to it, mets.  Looks like there's a clump in the 11-14 range where all the teams are, RPI-wise, very similar, and the sim doesn't distinguish between talent when assigning seeds, just results.  Are E. Mich and Siena maybe a little high?  Probably, but they won their CTs and are on 9 and 8-game winning streaks.  Otherwise, it's almost impossible to accurately order the 16 teams in that group (except for Mary. E. Shore).  Just rotten luck, really.  But the alternative is what -- to always give BCS schools a seeding advantage because they're probably better and underperformed?  That would result in more angry posts (and rightly so) than I care to imagine...

Duke was only 6-4 in their last ten games, so that would've worked against them in terms of seeding.

That happened to me in Allen, too - as a 726-OVR 5-seed, I went up against a 12th-seeded Boston College team - 18-12, 6-10 in the ACC, RPI 31, and 755 OVR despite a walkon.

watch_this - In Phelan this past season there were also two 14 seeds that beat the  three seeds. My Villanova team was one of them and actually was a Sweet 16 team.  Guess it's not that rare...at least in the WIS world.