Alabama Crimson Tide (21-11, 12-4 in the SEC; RPI: 80; SOS: 136)

What the committee would say: "Alabama had a nice SEC season, sure, but we think that 12-4 conference record has more to do with its status as the SEC West 's lone competent team and less to do with any inherent quality on Alabama's part. What's more, every game counts. You can't lose play one of the worst high-major nonconference schedules in the country -- rank: 294 -- and expect to get the benefit of the doubt unless you easily handle that schedule. Alabama went 9-7 against that slate. It lost to Iowa, Seton Hall and St. Peter's. Its RPI would be one of the worst to ever get in the NCAA tournament. We like the eye test, but it only goes so far, and we can't ignore Bama's ugly resume just because we think Anthony Grant's team "looks" like it can compete in the tournament."

What fans would say: "Dudes ... we went 12-4 in the SEC! We were 4-4 against the RPI top 50! Sure, we had a bad weekend in November. So what? Whatever happened to considering how teams played late in the season? (We were 8-4 in our last 12 games, including two wins over Georgia and one at Tennessee, not to mention the royal jobbing we got in an 81-77 loss to Vanderbilt.) For that matter, whatever happened to considering how teams played against their conferences? The SEC West was bad, but we didn't get to 12-4 merely by beating Auburn, LSU and Arkansas. We're one of the best defensive teams in the country! If you don't think we're a tournament team, you just haven't been paying attention."

SEC only gets 5 teams in. SEC was not represented on the selection committee.

I cannot believe beating GA twice in the last week and going 2-0 against them does not matter.

There is at least 10 at teams in the field that we are better than.