These teams didn't win their conference tournament, and were rewarded by the committee for having good regular seasons.
Choosing the field isn't easy. Every year, there are a few teams that deserve to make the tourney, but can't because there isn't enough room.
When a team is on the bubble, it's hard to argue that they were snubbed.
Nevertheless, there were a few teams this year that made the field that probably didn't deserve it.
Here are a few teams that shouldn't have made the tournament, and the teams that should've been selected instead:
Who made it: Iona 25-7 (15-3)
Who should have made it: Drexel 27-6 (16-2)
These two teams are very similar.
Both are mid-major schools that finished with the best record in their respective conferences, but failed to win their conference tournaments. Iona was chosen over Drexel because they had a better RPI and played a more difficult schedule.
But that doesn't tell the whole story.
Iona may have faced better teams, but they didn't exactly perform well against them. Iona had no wins against teams in the RPI top 50.
Why does it matter that Iona played some decent non-conference opponents if they didn't beat any of them?
Drexel had more wins than Iona in the regular season. They also had one less loss in their conference, the CAA, which is ranked higher overall than Iona's conference, the MAAC.
Give Iona credit for playing a more challenging schedule, but losing to good teams shouldn't be a prerequisite to making it to the postseason.
Who made it: California 24-9 (13-5)
Who should have made it: Washington 21-10 (14-4)
Washington is the first ever team to have the best record in a BCS Conference, but not make the NCAA Tournament.
California made the field over the Huskies, despite finishing behind them in the Pac-12, and not winning the conference tournament.
Washington was hurt by not beating any good teams outside of the conference, but the same can be said for Cal. The Huskies may not have beaten a team in the RPI top 100 outside of the conference, but the Golden Bears didn't beat a single team outside of the Pac-12 that made the field of 68.
Sure, they played Missouri and UNLV, but they lost those games by a combined 66 points.
Why should Cal benefit from those two blowouts?
Both schools beat weak non-conference teams, and lost in the Pac-12 Tournament. The team that won the regular season title should've been rewarded with a tourney berth.
Who made it: BYU 25-8 (12-4)
Who should have made it: Seton Hall 20-12 (8-10)
Seton Hall's poor finish doomed them when it was time for the committee to select the at-large bids.
BYU finished with a better conference record and more wins on the season, but the Pirates play in a much tougher league.
The Big East is second in the NCAA in RPI, while the West Coast Conference, which BYU plays in, finished 11th. Seton Hall had four wins against teams that made the NCAA Tournament. BYU had just one.
The Pirates suffered a six-game losing streak, which is what probably landed them in the NIT. However, five of those losses came against teams that will be playing for a national championship.
It's hard to argue, that if they played in the WCC, Seton Hall wouldn't have had a better season than BYU.