As soon as the 65 teams in the 2002 NCAA Tournament were unveiled on Sunday, questions about why certain teams were picked over others started. The biggest concern was whether mid-majors were treated unfairly by the selection committee.

We asked ESPN analysts this question and got varying opinions whether the folks picking the 34 at-large bids in Indianapolis were right to leave Butler, Ball State and Bowling Green out of the dance, while inviting Boston College, Charlotte and Missouri.

The one aspect that is missing in this debate is the subjective clause. There needs to be some basketball sense. The committee needs to watch Butler and decide are they one of the best 34 at-large teams. I say, yes. If the question is are they better than Boston College or Southern Illinois, then the answer is still yes. That's a basketball question. Watch the two teams. The committee gets too hung up on numbers. Butler won the Top of the World Classic, the Bulldogs beat Indiana and Purdue. Butler had 15 wins on the road or neutral courts. That's quite an impressive number. OK, the Bulldogs lost to Wisconsin-Green Bay, the eighth seed, and gave the committee a reason to leave them out of the field. But the subjective clause wasn't invoked. That's where the mid-majors get crushed. These committee members don't get out and see games, enough of them, during the regular season. Watch the mid-majors and judge, are they better than some of the high majors that got into the tournament and the answer would be yes in some cases, especially Butler.

A strict limit on the number of teams eligible from a given conference is silly. For one thing, such a "hard cap" would penalize truly deserving at-large candidates almost every year (including Stanford and Ole Miss this year). It is even more unfair to conferences with expanded membership, such as the Big East (14 members) and Conference USA (13). What is needed to free up spots for the mid-majors is the "Lunardi Plan." All teams must play at least .500 in their conference regular season, or reach .500 via conference tournament games, to be "NCAA-eligible." This would recognize the major conference/mid-major disparity with regard to scheduling and resources, as well as free up a spot or two most years for a Butler and Ball State. It happens this year there are no sub-.500 major conference teams in the bracket, which is as it should be.

The selection committee has to stick with schedule strength as a determining factor. It's important that a team goes out and plays people. The committee is inviting teams to play for a national championship -- not to a banquet celebrating some 20-win seasons. I agree that schools like Butler and Bowling Green should have a chance, but teams do get the chance to play their way in via their conference tournaments. The bottom line is that the 34 best teams should get the at-large bids. I'm not sure whether the committee achieved that this time, but it came pretty close. Meanwhile, I'm outraged that Gonzaga is a No. 6 seed. It makes you wonder if the committee really watches these games.

I'm upset about Butler and Bowling Green not getting invitations to the Big Dance. These schools had phenomenal seasons. There should be a rule that a conference can get no more than five teams into the NCAA Tournament. When I see mediocrity rewarded over teams that excel all season, it bothers me. The selection committee needs to make the regular season more meaningful. And I don't want to hear anything about schedule strength -- the big schools don't want to play these mid-majors. So the little guys don't get the chance to improve their RPI. Bowling Green (24-8) beat Ball State in the MAC semifinals. Remember, Ball State beat both Kansas and UCLA in Hawaii to start the season. The MAC is an outstanding league. Butler is 25-5 and won the Horizon League regular season, but they're left sitting at home while some mediocre at-large teams play in the tournament. And when will Gonzaga get some respect? A No. 6 seed? You've got to be kidding me. The Zags should at least be a No. 3 or 4 seed. They've earned that this season. We talk a lot about seeds, but over the past five years, a No. 10 seed has reached the Sweet 16 nine times -- which is exactly how many times a No. 2 seed has gotten there. A No. 6 seed has gotten to the Sweet 16 on 10 occasions. So I'm not all that concerned about the seedings. But as a guy who used to coach at a smaller school (Detroit), it really bothers me when I hear critics and analysts talk about schedule strength. That's a flat-out joke -- it's ludicrous and absurd. The big schools won't give the mid-majors the chance to play them. You can ask my colleague, ESPN's Digger Phelps. When I was coaching and he was coaching at Notre Dame, he would never give me a game. He said to me, "Who would I rather play, Detroit or UCLA?"