Not one of the top four seeds, mind you, but one of the best four.

Those would be seeds five through eight, which doesn't make much sense on the surface, of course, but is actually supported by the data in hand.

That's the same data, by the way, that two pretty influential groups - the Big East's 16 coaches and the league's like number of athletic directors - used when they voted in each of the last two offseasons to do away with the relatively new double-bye that goes to seeds one through four.

It's also the data that the conference presidents - obviously a more influential assemblage - chose to ignore when they struck down the recommendation both years.

"I think it's been very well noted that the coaches voted unanimously to not do the two-game bye, and the athletic directors voted unanimously [the same way],'' West Virginia coach Bob Huggins said. "And then for whatever reason the presidents voted to [keep the double-bye]. I don't think anybody wants it.''

So why is the double-bye such a bad thing? Well, here's the deal. When the Big East began bringing all 16 teams to Madison Square Garden for the league tournament in 2009, the format was set up to have the bottom eight teams play each other on Tuesday, seeds five through eight face the winners on Wednesday and teams one through four jump in to play those winners in Thursday's quarterfinals.

Obviously, no one wants to finish in the bottom eight and play on Tuesday. It means the only path to the championship is to win five games in five days. It's just not going to happen. Ever.

From that standpoint, finishing in the top four seems terrific. Those are the teams that have to win just three games in three days, perhaps facing in every game a team that has already been forced to play more games. A huge advantage, right?

Wrong. The first year, 2009, two of the top four seeds lost in that first game - No. 2 Pitt to West Virginia and No. 3 Connecticut against Syracuse in that six-overtime gem - and No. 4 Villanova survived Marquette by a point.

Then last year three of the top four seeds lost in the quarterfinals - No. 1 Syracuse, No. 2 Pitt and No. 4 Villanova. The only winner was No. 3 West Virginia, which needed a banked Da'Sean Butler 3-pointer at the buzzer to beat a Cincinnati team playing its third game in three days.

True, one of the top four seeds each year won the tournament - No. 1 Louisville in 2009 and WVU in 2010 - but the first-game record of the top four in those eight first-round games stands now at 3-5.

Why? Because in a league that annually fields at least seven to 10 NCAA tournament-worthy teams (perhaps 11 this year), those top four seeds are watching while teams that are pretty much just as good as they are play a warm-up game on Wednesday. When Thursday comes, the top seeds haven't played in five days and are plenty rested, but also plenty rusty.

"That first game's hard,'' Huggins said. "I don't know what it is. Guys are more relaxed, more comfortable that second game.''

OK, so back to the original point, which was that West Virginia this week is playing for one of the best four seeds in the tournament. Those would be the 5-through-8 seeds, who in the first two years under the current format are 7-1 in their Wednesday games. Those seven winners were then 5-2 against the top four seeds in the quarterfinals.

That's right, of the measly three wins in two years that the top four seeds have managed in their opening quarterfinal games, only two came against seeds five through eight. The other was WVU's win over Cincinnati last year, when the Bearcats became the first and only bottom-eight team to win a second-rounder against one of those four middle seeds.

Still think finishing in the top four is the place to be heading into the tournament?

Well, on one hand, sure. It is likely going to position a team better in the NCAA tournament mix, as well as allowing those teams the chance not to kill themselves the week before the NCAAs begin.

That is, if they can navigate the Big East tournament as West Virginia managed to do last year as a top-four seed, but has generally been a death knell to a team's league tournament chances.

"It helped us probably after that, but the first game's hard,'' Huggins said, meaning that playing and winning just three games (as opposed to four or five) gave his team confidence and kept it sharp for a run to the Final Four. "Three of the four best teams in our league lost and we very well could have if [Cincinnati's Dion Dixon] hadn't dribbled it off his foot [to give WVU the ball and set up Butler's game-winner].''

It helps, of course, if that first game played in the tournament isn't against another ranked team. That's where the middle seeds have the biggest advantage. Yes, they are just like those top four seeds in that they are facing a team that has had a game to warm up, but would you rather face a warmed-up Rutgers or Providence on Wednesday or a warmed-up Georgetown or Connecticut on Thursday?

All that having been said, of course, perhaps this is a bit of a different year. After all, there are going to NCAA tournament locks playing on Tuesday (with 11 teams in the mix, only eight will get first-round byes, so three of the four Tuesday winners could be NCAA bound), so maybe those 5-through-8 seeds aren't as comfortable as they have been the past two years.

Then again, it's tough to argue with the numbers, which say that the 5-through-8 seeds have lost once in their first-round games under the current format, and the 1-through-4 seeds have lost five times.

"Obviously, you want to finish in the top four [for so many other reasons],'' said Huggins, whose team won't finish in the top four but should wind up fifth through eighth by winning two games this week. "But as far as seeding goes, I don't know if that's the best place to be.''

Reach Dave Hickman at 304-348-1734 or dphickm...@aol.com.