Plenty of sentiment that this committee did one of the poorer jobs in quite some time. Joe Lunardi with plenty of criticism:
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...nd-here-is-how
"The committee is clearly protecting North Carolina from a potential regional final against Villanova (in Philadelphia) by moving the Wildcats to the South and Xavier to the East. Haven’t we been told for years that the committee doesn’t project matchups? So Michigan State gets desired placement as a No. 2 seed, but the top Big East seeds don't. I don’t get it, unless Rich Kotite got the committee’s mileage chart wet. (Aside: If Michigan State was a No. 1 seed, the committee wouldn’t be stuck flying the Southern/Holy Cross First Four winner to Spokane, Washington, as St. Louis would have been an available and a far more sensible alternative."
"Further down the bracket, two of the questionable at-large choices -- Vanderbilt (RPI of 61) and Syracuse (RPI of 71) -- won only six of 23 road games combined, including 1-9 against Top 50 teams. That’s not counting the eggs they laid in their respective conference tournaments or their aggregate 6-16 record against the field. Even without player (Vandy) or coach (Syracuse) absences, it’d be asking a lot to turn those records into something respectable. (Another aside: Even with all the known weaknesses of the RPI, do you know how hard it is to have the number Syracuse had given their decent nonconference schedule and an ACC slate? The only way to do it is to lose too many games to the wrong teams. That’s why William & Mary, Stony Brook, Hofstra, Chattanooga, Valparaiso, Little Rock, UNC Wilmington, Yale, Princeton, Akron and, yes, Monmouth all had better RPIs than the Orange. I can only hope this was a case of poor judgment and not power-conference politics -- although neither is a very acceptable answer."