[2006alum]

I think USC got snubbed because although they had an RPI of 34, they had zero signature wins. Their best two wins were Middle Tennessee and New Mexico State, which means they beat exactly one team that's dancing. They lost to UCLA twice, Arizona twice, Arizona State, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. They had lots of chances for signature wins and came away with nothing. My biggest observation about the committee over the years is that they pick teams based on their ceiling, not their floor. ASU has had atrocious losses, but they beat Kansas away and Xavier on a neutral floor. That team is capable of a big upset, which juices excitement for the tournament. USC would almost surely conform to seeding. What's the upside of that for the tournament when you're slotting an 11 or 12 seed?

[2006alum]

I think USC got snubbed because although they had an RPI of 34, they had zero signature wins. Their best two wins were Middle Tennessee and New Mexico State, which means they beat exactly one team that's dancing. They lost to UCLA twice, Arizona twice, Arizona State, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. They had lots of chances for signature wins and came away with nothing. My biggest observation about the committee over the years is that they pick teams based on their ceiling, not their floor. ASU has had atrocious losses, but they beat Kansas away and Xavier on a neutral floor. That team is capable of a big upset, which juices excitement for the tournament. USC would almost surely conform to seeding. What's the upside of that for the tournament when you're slotting an 11 or 12 seed?