Texas A&M men's basketball head coach Mark Turgeon was cordial in his effort to make it known he, nor the team, understood how Baylor was a No. 3 seed, while they were slotted at No. 5.
Turgeon has every right to question the NCAA tournament selection committee in that particular decision. A&M and Baylor tied for second in the Big 12, they split the two games they played, they both made the Big 12 tournament semis, their RPIs are 13 and 9 and rankings 19th and 23rd, respectively, and the Aggies' strength of schedule was third in comparison to the Bears' 13th.
It's almost like splitting hairs between the two teams, and yet, the committee said at the very least Baylor is five slots better than A&M.
So as stated earlier, understandable that Turgeon spoke out about his disappointment in the seeding, and that despite the Aggies' accomplishments, primarily a second-place finish in the Big 12, the No. 1 RPI conference in the nation, they were traveling nearly 1,900 miles for their opening two games.
But there is a big picture here that once examined should have the Aggies getting out of College Station as quietly as they can and flying off to Spokane under the radar so the committee doesn't look back at what they've done and revamp the entire bracket.
In other words, A&M may have been disrespected a little by the committee when comparing the Bears and the Aggies, but A&M couldn't hardly have paved the road to Indianapolis any easier if they would have made up the bracket themselves.
First, lets go back to Baylor. If you're a No. 5 seed and you believe you're better than or, at the worst, just as good as the No. 3 seed, advantage No. 5 seed.
So if you're A&M, or a fan looking for a silver lining, that's one of the higher seeds in your region that shouldn't be that high.
Next is Purdue, the No. 4 seed. That seeding is probably a little low if a young gentleman named Robbie Hummel was playing. He and his 15.7 scoring average and 6.9 rebounding average are not though, out with a season-ending knee injury five games back.
Hummel led the team in 3-point shooting, free-throw shooting and is considered the Boilermakers' all-around best player. Without him, Purdue has struggled.
If the Boilermakers would have had to play all season without Hummel, they would have been one of the lower at-large berth teams at best.
Next up, Villanova, the No. 2 seed.
The Wildcats lost six of its last 10 games, including its conference tournament opener.
Villanova's RPI is down to 11th, its ranking down to ninth. Neither of those are in the top 8, which is what a No. 2 seed should be.
If you want to argue about the selection committee not looking at the last 10 games, use Villanova as an example.
And now President Obama has picked them to come out of the South.
So we're up to three seeds above A&M that should be at least one seed lower than they are.
Finally, there is Duke, the No. 1 seed.
I'm not going to debate that the Blue Devils are deserving of a No. 1 seed. But they are not one of the top two teams in the nation, which magnifies the validity of Villanova being a No. 2 seed or Baylor a No. 3 in Duke's region. The two seed should be reserved for a West Virginia or Ohio State. Kansas State would also fit there, but then Baylor and possibly A&M would have to be moved out.
Duke also has the unenviable task of facing two Texas teams in Houston, another perk in the tournament the Aggies couldn't have scripted better.
So the most legitimate seeded team that No. 5 A&M will face, barring an upset, is Utah State at No. 12. The "other Aggies" won the WAC regular season, and made their tournament final interesting until the final seconds before losing to New Mexico State. And even though it's at a neutral site, A&M had to make a much longer road trip to get there.
Get past the opener and it's a favorable draw for a No. 5 seed.
Richard Croome's e-mail address is richard.croome@theeagle.com.