I disagree, I think it's the way it should be done, really. I'd much rather see a team that accomplished more during the regular season, even with dubious talent (Harvard) get a bid than a team that accomplished much less during the season, but would possibly be a better team (USC). Granted, it gets a little odd seeding straight by talent, but in reality, for tournament seeding, it'd be the most balanced if it were sorted by quality of team, and not so much accomplishment during the year. And yes, I realize it tosses Illinois way out to a 5 seed, as they're one of the outliers that performs exceedingly well, many blowouts, but is terrible at closing out close games. Call it luck, call it poor offensive strategy, but they have one of the biggest discrepancies between ability and accomplishment of anyone in the NCAA (Maryland is probably the biggest overall). I just don't understand why you would distinguish the two. I absolutely agree that the Harvard should get a bid over the USC, but why would you not apply the same logic to seeding? There's no need for separate criteria. I agree with you. I've seen Gasaway argue for it before and I think it's terrible.