FIVE SEED DEBATE

Only two Big Ten teams had a non-conference strength of schedule above 200, per KenPom.



Six Pac-12 teams had a non-conference strength of schedule above 200.



The committee sent a clear message: Who you play matters.



Whether the seeds are what a Big Ten champion "should" get, historically has gotten or whatever, a poor non-conference strength of schedule was evident for Indiana and the Big Ten.



Wisconsin (131) and Iowa (152) were the only two Big Ten teams with non-conference SOS above 200.



What did they have in common: Not many games vs. sub-250 teams. (There are 351 Division I teams.)



The Missouri Valley figured all this out around a decade ago or so.



The math is simple: Really bad teams drag down a non-con SOS.



Now, if the Big Ten is tremendous, really terrific, that can make up for a lot.



When the Big Ten isn't tremendous, it is left with seeds like this.



Whether that is fair or not, whether the criteria should be different ... Again, all different conversations. And all valid.



When looking at what the seeding criteria is right now, these things matter.



The problem with Calipari's point — and he did an exceptional job of playing to a national college basketball audience that is generally thinking "The NCAA screwed my team!!!" — is the selection and seeding criteria is sent to every school well before it sets its non-conference schedule.



Yes, there is human interpretation from humans on a committee. And some humans can give "A" a little more weight while some may give "B" a little more weight.



But schools know the deal in plenty of time.



Again, the Missouri Valley figured this all out around a decade or so ago.



If a mid-major league can figure all this out ...



Some of this is scheduling, especially sub-250 teams.



Some is, IU lost early in Maui and didn't play the top teams there. Maryland, as Scott Greene of the Maryland Rivals site points out, scheduled Georgetown and Rhode Island and both were well below expectations.



Some is, IU lost in its first Big Ten Tournament game and didn't get to play better teams, which would have impacted overall SOS.



That's no one's fault from a scheduling standpoint. But it happens.



I've been through the mock selection twice. Non-conference SOS matters, especially when looking at seeding.



It can matter in selection, but is much more of a factor in seeding when differentiating teams that play in different leagues.



Again, I'm not saying the seeds are what they should be or anything of that nature.



These points are about, the seeds are reflective of the mock selection exercises, which are based on what is.



I said on Friday in Bankers Life after IU lost that a 5 seed was very much in play.



Ask Peegs. Ask Mike Marot of the AP. Ask IU professor Malcolm Moran. Ask beat writers from Ohio State, Michigan State and other Big Ten schools who were near my table. Ask a certain Big Ten official who laughed when I said that.



It had nothing to do with "should."



It had everything to do with "this is the way it is currently set up."



Now, again, as far as non-con SOS ... if the Big Ten is terrific, it can make up for a lot. It can. It has the muscle to do so. Doesn't always happen.



This was a year it didn't.



And, sure, Rutgers and Minnesota were 20,000 leagues below awful.



Difficult to foresee those things, but those things happen.



When a team has a lower non-con SOS, when most teams from a league have lower non-con SOS and when that league isn't great, these seeds occur, as the process is currently structured.