Honest to goodness question about seeding...

[Lawrinson14]

Can someone please explain this to me? I just do not get how Syracuse is being equated with the following teams:

Syracuse:
27-4
Notable wins: Duke, UNC, Pitt x2, Nova,
Losses: @Duke, BC, @virginia (no grant), Ga Tech (no grant)

Kansas:
23-8
Notable wins: Duke, ISU x2, Texas, K-state
Losses: Nova, @Colorado, @FL, SDSU, @Texas, @KSU, @OK ST, @WVU (no Embiid)

Michigan:
23-7
Notable wins: Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU x 2, Ohio St
Losses: ISU, Charlotte, Duke, Arizona, @Indiana, IOWA, Wisconsin,

Villanova:
28-3
Notable wins: Kansas, Iowa
Losses: SU, Creighton x2

Virginia:
25-6
Notable wins: UNC, Syracuse
Losses: VCU, Wisconsin, @Green Bay, Tennessee, @Duke, @MD

Duke:
24-7
Notable wins: Mich, UVA, Syracuse, UNC, Pitt,
Losses: Kansas, Zona, @ND, Clemson, syracuse, @UNC, @WF


All have 2+ more losses besides Villanova, which only has 2 good wins. Also, they lost to Cuse by about 20 pts. And don't give me the RPI, SOS crap as the games not listed above were all basically against cannon fodder. What's really the difference between a team ranked 90 on the RPI and a team ranked 150? They both stink.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

See, this is why I feel confident that the selection committee can view our body of work favorably. Whether they choose to do so...