It would seem to me that the more competitive the league is, the more that works against us. If, as we had this year, a group of teams hovering around the 500 mark, the idiots on the selection committee can view that (or more likely justify that) as being mediocre.
I wonder if the league would be better off if 5 teams pulled away from the other 5?
The problem this year was three teams. UCONN, Depaul, and Georgetown.
Seton Hall beat a somewhat depleated UCONN team early (which is probably why they were closer to the Tournament than the other bubble teams), but nobody else did, and we know now that this UCONN team was playing on a different level than everybody else.
Everyone picked up 4 wins (or 5, in the cases of Villanova and Providence) against the bottom two, who, in most rankings, rated as two of the three worst power-conference teams in America (some had Georgetown as being better than Louisville). Depaul's closest non-Georgetown Big East game (prior to the Villanova tournament heartbreaker), was 11 points vs Providence. Most games were 20+ margins, with several over 30.
As much as we all love the double round robin format, it might have hurt the league this year, because of how bad DePaul was (Georgetown too, but at least they were competative in a good majority of their games). Those two teams really brought the individual team rankings of the conference down. UCONN brought it back up a bit, but not many teams even came really close to beating them.
In the end, the committee had to basically take all or none of the bubble teams, since the resumes were so similar. Throw in the unusually high number of conference tournament bid-stealers, and in the end, they chose none.