I understand the we only got 7 total bids, and that the 2 teams left out with the highest NET were from the ACC, but State was dead last in Non-Con SOS and were 1-8 against the 7 teams in the conference that got in. Late year loses to Wake and GT cost them. I'm just saying that if this were Football, i wouldn't want someone with few positive data points on their resume getting the benefit of the doubt because of their conference. That's everything we all despise about the SEC and the bias of the media, etc.
Also, the NET thing is funny because after investing so much time in money in making it the lead metric for the committee, they didn't seem to account for it.
I get the argument for "not" NC State. The were a falling team and if they picked UNCG over NC State, that would be better.
But the issue is how LOW the committee dipped to get other teams with 2X lower NET ranking into the Tourney without a clear reason.
Then you had Furman and UNCG with strong/decent NET and they were bypassed for other mid-majors with lower net.
St.J (Rk 73) is a sub .500 conference team in a weaker conference this year... and they are in over UNCG (Rk 60)?
On one hand, the committee wanted to reward mid-majors but then turns around and gives a hande to the Pac12, Big East, and a lesser extent, the American. Sorry, not buying Houston.
At the end of the day, it looked like they wanted conference symmetry...