There are just zero teams outside of the field that I look at and say “y’know, maybe they deserve an at-large spot”
Yep.
It's just that where it gets hard is when we start thinking of teams on a relative basis. So, folks like
@medinabuckeye1 quibble with the methodology of selecting one at-large prospect over another--perceived and likely actual--weaker at-large prospect and see unfairness. Or the idea of giving a charity bid to a weak conference champ when the at-large prospects left out due to those bids are pretty much objectively stronger teams.
But I look at it along the lines that the tournament is big enough. Everyone worthy is already accounted for in the top 8 seeds. And probably even fewer. Of the 6, 7, and 8 seeds, two of them won the tournament in the first 4 years since 1985, when perhaps our selection processes and advanced/predictive metrics were FAR lower quality than they are right now.
So this is why I'm anti-expansion and pro-contraction to 64. I agree, for example, with medina that Auburn was a better basketball team than Miami (OH). I agree that while you might get some plucky 12 seeds here and there, everyone that's 13 or below is worse than pretty much all even mediocre power conference schools.
But... I don't care. I don't see the first four out as particularly "worthy" to include in a 64-team field because I don't see them having a credible claim that they're good enough to win 6 games in a row against the top 32 in the field. So I don't think we need to expand the field to let more of them in--
even if they're better than the current 13-16 seeds.
Of course, the NCAA doesn't care what I think, so I guess I'll shut up now.
