Coach Dan Muller did some justifiable grandstanding Monday morning, and who could blame him? The Redbirds went 27-6, cruised through the non-Wichita precincts of the Missouri Valley and couldn’t get the attention of the selection committee.

There are two elements in play on this subject: What the committee will do, and what it should do. The first element is objective, and there’s now three consecutive years of data that suggest it is a new golden era for power conference teams. Quantity of high-end victories is rewarded heavily, and the best way to acquire them is to have many opportunities. You don’t get that in the Missouri Valley.

(Quick aside: It’s not all about quantity. Beating somebody with a pulse away from home still counts for something, too, which is why Syracuse didn’t get in).

AD

AD

Illinois State has zero reason to act surprised. If it is, it should check in with St. Bonaventure, Saint Mary’s and San Diego State from last year and Colorado State from the year before that. Those are the teams that have the biggest beefs with the committee’s philosophical shift.

But is this approach what’s best for the tournament? Some of the most enjoyable runs in recent memory — 2006 George Mason, 2011 Virginia Commonwealth and 2013 Wichita State — were uncorked by at-large picks outside the power-conference structure. Such teams shouldn’t have an at-large quota working in their favor, but it shouldn’t be nearly impossible for them to get in with an at-large bid, either.

The lessons of the last two years ensured a decent showing in The Post’s final bracket. It included all 68 teams that were ultimately selected (up from 65 in 2016), with 37 teams seeded correctly (the same as last year) and 60 within at least a line of the correct seeding (down two from a year ago). The eight seeding misreads are worth diving into, especially in the absence of any selection surprises.

AD

AD

SEEDING ISSUES

Louisville: The Cardinals were projected as the best of the No. 4 seeds, so landing on the No. 3 line wouldn’t have been too out of place. But a bump to a No. 2 seed was surprising for Rick Pitino’s team, which beat exactly one team in the tournament field away from home (Wichita State). In this case, good road wins count, except when they don’t.

Minnesota: The committee was kind to Pitinos on Sunday, though Richard Pitino’s Golden Gophers owned a rock-solid profile. Minnesota was a last-second shift down to the No. 7 line after Michigan won the Big Ten tournament. Right idea (Michigan swapping seeds with another Big Ten team), wrong team to change (it was Wisconsin that dropped a line in the committee’s deliberations).

South Carolina: The biggest misread of the day in the projection. The Gamecocks’ limited profile suggested it might be headed to Dayton for a play-in game as a No. 11 seed. Instead, they landed a No. 7 seed and get to play a de facto home game in Greenville. It might not do them much good considering how they’ve played down the stretch, but it’s fine treatment. They’re this year’s answer to Oregon State as an inexplicable No. 7 seed.

AD

AD

Dayton: Was skeptical the Flyers would be treated well after recent Atlantic 10 issues with the committee, but that didn’t come to fruition. Pegged Dayton as a No. 9 seed and it landed a No. 7.

Wisconsin: The aforementioned Badgers ended up behind Purdue, Minnesota, Maryland and Michigan in the Big Ten seeding pecking order, landing a No. 8 seed. The projection had Wisconsin as a No. 6. It’s possible Wisconsin’s poor nonconference schedule played a role in relegating it to an 8/9 game.

Seton Hall: Probably overthought things a bit with the Pirates while placing them on the No. 11 line. Seton Hall ended up as a No. 9 seed. Though Seton Hall may have been better off with the projection and the possibility of meeting a No. 3 seed in the second round rather than North Carolina.

AD

Wichita State: Thought the Shockers were a seeding wild card, and they were. Advanced metrics love Wichita State, the RPI less so and the committee’s seeding decisions even less than that. The absence of high-end victories other than a pair of defeats of Illinois State clearly played a role in the Shockers landing a No. 10 seed rather than a projected No. 8.

AD

Middle Tennessee: The Blue Raiders (30-4) looked good on paper — top-40 RPI, No. 16 nonconference schedule, 2-1 against the tournament field, 4-1 against the top 100, 17-2 away from home. That got them a No. 12 seed, which means they almost certainly would have been squeezed out had they lost in the Conference USA final.