(Get your downloadable .pdf bracket here)

Why those three teams against those other three teams? Well, that's what I was wrong about in the official Dagger projection of 65.

I had Ohio State, Arizona State, and Virginia Tech in the field ... and I had South Alabama, Villanova, and Oregon on the outside looking in.

The committee disagreed. To be honest with you, I like my bracket better, but sadly, my opinion doesn't count nearly as much as I'd like it to.

I'm with Dick Vitale on this. Before I attempt to project this again next year, I want someone from the committee to tell me the exact criteria that the committee is looking for. Do they truly want the best 34 at-large teams? Can anyone that was in that room say that with a straight face?

And if they can, I'd like to wrap that straight face in duct tape, as well as his hands and feet, so I could throw him in the trunk of my car and drive him far, far away from the selection process in any future year. Because if he believes that South Alabama is one of the best three teams of those six, the oxygen deprivation he'll experience in my trunk can't possibly do much to make him any dumber.

Villanova, I don't have a tremendous complaint with. I don't think Oregon should've gotten a spot, but I can see their argument. South Alabama, though? You gotta be pulling my lariat.

South Alabama went 24-6, which is nice. But they did it in the Sun Belt, which featured two decent squads, and then a group of teams that could be beaten by the intramural champs from any of the Big East schools. If your criteria is the RPI, overall record, and how deserving a team is when compared to other teams in their conference (no matter how terrible the conference), then fine. South Alabama's in.

But this team has only three wins against the RPI top-90. In fact, they only played three teams in the RPI top-90. To me, that's not enough. Not if you're looking for the actual best 34 at-large teams out there.