It is easy to get up on a high horse and be critical of the work of the NCAA tournament selection committee. But it is important to remember that there is a lot of subjectivity in selection and are a lot of binding rules in bracketing, and that reasonable minds can differ. By and large, I have no complaints with the results, and no complaints with the decisions made by the committee. There was an overall lack of accomplishment on a lot of résumés at the end of the line, and precious few teams can cry foul for being passed over. All things considered, from selection to seeding, the committee did a terrific job.
Committee makeup: I have been vocal regarding the lack of "basketball experience" on this committee. I hope that is not misunderstood. I am not in any way suggesting that the committee as it is currently configured cannot and did not do a good job. It can and it did. I am saying that we should strive to have a committee that can do the best possible job. I believe that having basketball experience is vital. Anyone can look at numbers and punch them into an equation, and anyone can select the top four seeds. The real work and tough calls come after that, and I believe that basketball experience is invaluable. When there are "basketball people" on the committee (Dave Gavitt, Carroll Williams, C.M. Newton and Stan Morrison, to name a few), their work and expertise is universally praised by the other committee members. Why then would we not want more such experts on the committee? It doesn't mean that the current makeup of the committee (six of 10 without any basketball experience) can't do a good job. We should strive to do the best possible job, not just a good job.