https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7102894/2026/03/10/conference-tourneys-ncaa-tournament-committee-argument/
Quote:
Yet some don't want to believe the committee has contingency brackets in place for seeding changes based on five conference championships played Sunday, hours before the selection show. I've been told on the CBS side, on the NCAA administrative side and by two former committee members that they do. I don't think they're all lying.
Dave Worlock, NCAA director of media coordination/statistics, has been working the bracket selection since 2006. He said one Sunday morning, the committee had 14 different brackets in play based on various scenarios that could unfold. That's automatic bids. And that's seeding.
I get the skepticism based on results. I've believed a team that did serious work in a conference tournament should have been seeded higher than they were, which led me to: "Oh, so the committee just didn't bother factoring in the Sunday games." Every major fan base in the sport has a year and an example in mind to validate this belief.
Quote:
When Davis posted his annual refrain reminding of the contingency brackets, ESPN's Scott Van Pelt, a ball knower and typically a purveyor of quality hoops discussion, replied: "Ohhhhhh. So, they just didn't care that Michigan won the Big 10 when they gave them a 5. They clearly carry little, to no, weight."
That was a reference to a year ago when Michigan won the Big Ten Tournament and got a No. 5 seed. I agree that seemed a line low. I had the Wolverines getting a No. 4 seed.
But again we had no idea where the committee had the Wolverines on Wednesday. We only know where those of us who guess about the brackets had them. Somehow, that becomes gospel.
