I think the premise of the thread is a bit off because seeding doesn't always equate well with true strength.  The best conferences which often have the best teams typically suffer a "penalty" in NT seeding due to a loss or two that wouldn't happen in a lesser conference.  Some of the 3 and 4 seeds are better than 2 seeds and occasionally even the 1 seed.

That said, I think the reduction of variance leading to "chalk" outcomes is spot on.  I'm shocked that mully lost but I'd really like to have seen that box score.  I think the problem is that the reduction in variance has made certain players relatively unstoppable.  And by that I don't mean old-school NBA Jam "HE'S ON FIRE!!!" but that you aren't going to ever see a John Starks 2 for 18 performance from the field.  If the better team has an unstoppable shooting guard and he gets a dozen shots or more, he's going to find his true level.  And double teams or gimmick +/- strategies really don't do much to stop that.  Players are going to play to the true level as the game progresses and that typically means the best team always wins.  I'd like to see mully's box score because the variance somewhat falls apart if both teams have the entire roster getting possessions.  Since the variance doesn't kick in until after the fourth shot, you can get some flukes if nobody is really shooting more than six or seven times.

The Allen D3 Final Four ended up being two 33-0 teams, a 32-1 team, and a 29-4 team.  (The 29-4 team had two losses the 33-0 team with the #1 RPI and the other two losses were to the #6 and #12 RPI.)

Running the table or coming within a loss of doing so almost never used to happen.  Even when Rails built what was probably the greatest D3 dynasty yet seen in winning 4 titles in 5 seasons, his championship team's had 4 losses, 5, 5, and 5.

Tonight Allen has a 34-0 team going up against a 33-1 team.  If the 34-0 team wins, it will be the 4th season out of the last 5 that there was a 35-0 team -- and the 5th season was a bucket away from having a 35-0 team in that season as well.

Either we all the sudden have a plethora of coaches that figured out how to run the table in Allen or events aren't nearly random enough.

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this but I hate it.  Give the better team enough possessions it will eventually win.  I'm perfectly fine with this theory if you extend the game long enough.  But there aren't enough possessions in a 40 minute game to have the better team win every time.  And while not happening every time, it's coming quite close to that.

From the forum it seems that most folks like the current situation because one "unrealistic" loss completely ruined seasons for folks.  And that makes sense if you think about it because #1 seeds don't get knocked out early in the tourney.  I'm not going to actually run the numbers but I think I heard on the CBS telecast that #1 seeds make the Final Four 93% of the time in real life and that's how it should be in this game too.  It's unrealistic to think #1 seeds would lose earlier than that.  It would be completely unrealistic to have a #1 seed from a Big 6 conference lose to a #9 seed from the WAC, or to a #8 seed from the Atlantic 10, or to a #9 seed from the Missouri Valley, or to a #11 seed from the Colonial.  None of those scenarios are realistic -- that just wouldn't happen in real life.  The better team would always win.  And I'm not just talking about the #1 seeds either.  It's absolutely preposterous to suggest that a #3 seed would ever lose to a #14 seed from the Patriot or that a #4 seed could lose to a #13 from the Missouri Valley.  If those crazy scenarios aren't going to happen in real life -- and it never ever has happened in the real life NCAA tourney  -- it shouldn't be happening in this game either.