5 teams with 8-10 records in major conferences made the Tournament (Arizona State, Syracuse, Oklahoma, Texas and Alabama).  Only one in Alabama made a showing in their conference tournament that was worthy of saying that they might be better than their record indicated.

Somehow, Nebraska went 13-5 in the Big 10, yet the only win the committee felt was worthy enough was the Michigan victory.   Somehow USC went 12-6 in the Pac 12, yet none of their wins were worthy enough.  St. Mary’s went 28-5 and was nationally ranked in both the AP and Coaches Poll – but then the committee goes through their “resume” and say all they were able to do was beat Gonzaga once.  That is not enough wins against teams in the tournament (which is also unfair – they beat New Mexico State and CS Fullerton – who are both their conference’s representative in the tourney).  That is because teams like St. Mary’s that get 25+ victories each year don’t get games against the Syracuse’s and Oklahoma’s of the world.

I get that you don’t want teams to just schedule weak opponents and then say I have 20+ wins, I deserve to be in.  But by letting in 8-10 teams from the power conferences, you are kind of saying that is OK as long as your conference is a powerful one.  There were teams that won the games they were supposed to win – both from the major conferences and the mid-majors.  Why not reward the teams that won their games.