From what I can tell, college basketball isnt exactly huge here on the forum. But, I'll give my thoughts on March Madness anyway...
First off, the people who do the seedings have no fucking clue what they're doing. How the fuck does Syracuse win the Big East and then only get a 4 seed? Thats total bullshit. They went 27-6 and get a 4 seed, while UConn, whom Syracuse beat in the Big East semis, went 22-7 and gets a 2? Bullshit
BC went 24-4 in the deepest conference in the country, they had the 11th ranked RPI, and they get a 4? I realize they lost in the first round of the conference tournament, but so did Wake Forest, and they're a 2
Oklahoma lost 7 games and didnt even make their conference final, and they're a 3? Bullshit
And by the same token, how could Louisville be 6th in the nation going into their conference tournament, win the conference, and then be made a 4 seed? I realize Conference USA isnt a powerhouse conference, but I'd put them right on par with the PAC-10, and Washington jumped from 11th in the country to a 1 seed, while Lousiville dropped at least 6 spots to 13th in the nation. Plus, Conference USA is much stronger than the West Coast Conference, Louisville and Gonzaga have the same number of losses, but Gonzaga is a 3 while Louisville is a 4? Bullshit
This is how I think the seedings should have gone
#1's: Illinois (conference champion), Duke (Conference champion), UNC, Louisville (Conference champion)
#2's: Kentucky (made conference final), Oklahoma St (conference champion), Washington (conference champion), Wake Forest
#3's: Syracuse (conference champion), Gonzaga (conference champion), Arizona (made conference final), BC
#4's: UConn, Kansas, Oklahoma, Florida (conference champion)
Basically, Syracuse and Louisville have the biggest gripes. I can kinda understand BC as a 4, but i think a 3 is more appropriate. UConn should not be anywhere near a 2 seed.