RealGM

Way to go, Dan Shaughnessy of Sports Illustrated.

If any team has a reason to be disappointed about not making the tournament, it's Harvard. Co-champions of their conference and a solid RPI (the best RPI of any team excluded). Any team that wins (or co-wins) its conference and has an RPI under 50 should be in the field, no questions asked. Especially this year when the pool of good teams was so shallow.

Harvard (and Missouri State) should be in. And some teams among the likes of Clemson, USC, Missouri, Illinois, etc., should be out. Missouri's been circling the drain for months...trust me, I've seen all of their games...do we really have to watch more of their sleepwalking? The tournament committee should reward success, not mediocrity and underachievement.

Well they just got dismantled in the first round of the NIT's, I don't know how big a snub you can really call them.

I still think Colorado should be in BTW.

If you like .500 teams from the Big 12, then Colorado would have been a better choice than Missouri. At least Colorado won a few road games and has not appeared to be in a collective coma for the last two months.

There aren't any big snubs any more with this many teams in the tournament field. But if you're going to let in 68 teams, seems like there should be room for regular-season champs with respectable RPIs. Past tournaments have shown those teams are just as likely to be competitive as are big-conference teams with mediocre records, particularly within conference play.

And it's not a big surprise that Harvard lost on the road to Oklahoma State. So did Kansas State and Missouri. Let's see them play on a neutral court.

Basing anything of RPI is a terrible idea.