I said before the tournament started that Ohio State should have been in over Kentucky, and I was blasted by the SEC fans. The only good thing about UK's resume was their 12-4 conference record, but I (and people who supported my argument) said that record means nothing when the SEC is probably the worst of the BCS conferences (or at least 2nd worst).
I said it was a travesty that the SEC got 6 bids while the Big Ten only got 4, and that it should have been 5 each. The SEC fans said that teams should be looked at as individuals and not as a member of a conference. Ok then, I guess that 12-4 conference record means jack since we're all individuals.
Ohio State was #49 in RPI, with a record of 19-13. UK was RPI #57 with a record of 18-12.
Ohio State's good wins -- Syracuse (neutral), Florida (home), Purdue (home), MSU (home)
Ohio State's bad losses -- Iowa (road), Michigan (road)
Kentucky's good wins -- Vanderbilt (home), Tennessee (home), Arkansas (home), Miss St (home), Florida (home)
Kentucky's bad losses -- Gardner-Webb (home), San Diego (home), UAB (semi-home), Houston (road), Georgia (semi-road)
Now please, who had the better resume? All UK had was conference record, but the SEC (and UK) proved in the tournament to be a big flop, and the Big Ten did significantly better despite less teams and lower seeds. But if you're only looking at teams as individuals and not as members of a conference, than conference record means nothing and UK has no reason to be in the field of 65.
Ohio State got robbed, and we proved it tonight.
P.S. If you say, "well OSU would have got killed their 1st game anyway" all I have to say to you is that all you need is one guy to get hot and carry you in a single elimination tournament. Anything can happen in March.