I don't really feel like doing this, but whatever:
66 of 68 teams correct
34 seeded correctly
59 seeded within one line
2.56 average S-Curve miss
These are all marginal numbers. 66 and 34 seem to be above average with respect to everyone else; 59 isn't. 2.56 is also below the 2.25 target, but I'm far too lazy to calculate it for every other person out there.
7 teams I missed by more than 1 seed line:
Texas A&M (NCAA 3, Bracketball 5)
California (NCAA 4, Bracketball 6)
Oregon St (NCAA 7, Bracketball 9)
USC (NCAA 8, Bracketball 10)
Providence (NCAA 9, Bracketball 7)
Wichita St (NCAA 11, Bracketball 9)
Gonzaga (NCAA 11, Bracketball 9)
The committee went away from trends on the Gonzaga thing - usually conference champs get a seed bump in the process. That applies to Wichita too. However, on the other end, A&M got that bump. So apparently that bump now applies to majors only?
The Pac-12 I underseeded as a whole. I trusted the committee to look past the RPI gimmicks a bit; they didn't. Oregon St is definitely a flagrant rank. Did they see Cal's road/neutral record? I don't like any of the Pac-12 seeds in this tournament, period.
Providence is probably the one mistake I think I made. Too high on my end.
1) Last year, I missed some 13-16 seeds when I tried to break down their resume too much. The committee used the RPI and the conference RPI, and did a poor job seeding them. So this year, I tried to mimick that strategy...and the committee went the other way. PICK A WAY OF EVALUATING MID-MAJORS AND STICK WITH IT. I'm very frustrated by some of these seeds. Green Bay clearly got a name recognition bump with the Horizon...but UNC-Wilmington didn't despite the big year from the Colonial. I give up on the 13-16 lines, there's horrible inconsistency.
2) The committee is very vulnerable to RPI manipulation. Beware the conference that plays the game well; they'll get overseeded like the Pac-12 did.
3) Contingencies are meaningless. The committee ignores Sunday results; they just do.