Loses today to UMass in 1st rd of tourney. Let's see how the committee looks at someone not playing anybody (probably through no fault of their own). I saw a clip from last Saturday w/ Greenberg, Bilas, etc where they had 6 teams. for 4 spots. Greenberg 1st puts Miami (OH) in - why? Because they are undefeated in the regular season. Yet in that same breath, they put Auburn in and say well, they would have 16 losses, but they played hard teams. That reeked of politician talk (talking out both sides of your mouth). If one of them spoke up and said, "I value competition, so if you don't play anyone inside the top 125, you shouldn't be in - that is why I am putting Auburn in." Or, have one say, "I am putting Miami (OH) in because they won, and I am keeping Auburn out because they lost too many games." Sadly, I think this represents what happens in the committee, so then people are wondering why certain teams got in because all of the criteria doesn't match up. I think they should combine like the BCS did - 50% is the committee ranking the at-large teams and 50% based on certain metric rankings (by the way, the same should be for the college football play-off).