Every year when the March Madness brackets come out, the same brouhaha breaks out about Mid Majors vs. Big BCS Conferences.

This year it is Arkansas, Illinois, Purdue and Stanford standing in for the big conferences vs. Drexel, Appalachian State and a few others (interestingly Syracuse is complaining too this year, rather disingenuously imo - 10-6 in the Big East is not what it used to be because of unbalanced schedules).

The argument it seems to me is simple - by and large the 5th, 6th and 7th place teams in the big conferences will be better than the "deserving" mid major teams. The question is not that for me, it is whether the idea of having the tournament include lesser teams - the 14, 15 and 16 seeds are mostly from tiny conferences where the teams are almost certainly not worthy in conventional terms - extends to the 34 at large bids. But who has a beef here really? Let's think about it on the flip.