The committees job is to get the best at large teams into the tournament . Syracuse making it this far proves to me that they were selected correctly .
Wrong. The committees job is to reward the teams with the best resume throughout the course of the regular season. They aren't supposed to put in which teams they feel are subjectively the best. That's why instead of just looking at player talent they look at RPI, strength of schedule, quality wins, bad losses etc.
Whose to say St Mary's or Monmouth wouldn't have made the same run? Again, Syracuse could have just as easily lost in the first or second round of the NIT at which point everybody would have said it was the correct move not putting them in.
If Georgetown and UCLA had NCAA tournament caliber seasons, Monmouth would have made it in. Their wins over ND and USC weren't that impressive on their own. I would have taken them over Tulsa, but I do think SU was deserving. Their schedule was as challenging as anyone's.
It's fine if you think they deserved to be in based on their performance from November until selection Sunday. However, their performance in the tournament is completely irrelevant to if they should have been in or not.
Literally nobody thought Tulsa deserved to be in. They happened to lose in the first four but if they went on a little run and got to the sweet 16 or elite 8 that would not have changed the fact they did not deserve to be in
It's the committee's job to consider the team you are at the time the tournament begins. SU lost their last 5-6 games. Had they not done that, I think they would have been a 5-8 seed. But close games to Pitt more than once and UNC at UNC didn't go their way. But even still, they best Uconn, A&M, @Duke at ND. That's a strong resume regardless of the 13 losses.
I loved watching us embarrass them at MSG, but that team isn't the one the committee selected. They selected the team that won in Atlantis, because despite the tough losses late, they were still playing well overall. The committee was right in terms of this being a consistent way to select a team. They weren't given a favorable seed. No one is saying they absolutely deserved it, but I do think the case is stronger for them than it was for the Bonnies, Monmouth or St.Mary's.
I think losing to Iona twice in a row made it clear that Iona was the better team, and there wasn't room for a second place MAAC team this season. Other than us, where are their bad losses? Only Clemson is questionable. The rest are losses to good teams.