For the seemingly hundredth time in a row, the NCAA Tournament selection committee used inconsistent, non-transparent methods to select the field of this year’s NCAA Tournament.

What is supposed to be a transparent process has turned into a methodology that changes from year to year on a whim, never quite making sense, but always screwing teams over.

For example, last year, the committee included Alabama (19-15, 8-10 SEC) in its field as a No. 9 seed. The Crimson Tide’s resume boasted just two major nonconference wins, a December win over Texas A&M and a January win over Oklahoma, a losing record in conference play and six losses to non-tournament teams (Central Florida, Georgia, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Minnesota).

But because of its residence in the SEC, a Power Five conference, the Crimson Tide played a tough schedule (No. 8 in the country according to KenPom). As a result, the committee determined that Alabama’s weak record was more of a result of going through a gauntlet of tough opponents than being a bad team.

So, Alabama got the tournament nod over mid-major St. Mary’s, which finished 28-5 and beat two tournament teams, including defending national runner-up Gonzaga, but otherwise lacked a strong strength of schedule (No. 196 in the country, per KenPom) and had a handful of bad losses (BYU, San Francisco, Georgia, Washington State). A reasonable decision, if not debatable. But this year, the committee decided to put mid-majors with weak schedules over Power Five schools with tough schedules, without ever explaining a change in thought.

Belmont made the NCAA Tournament this year as a First Four team, despite arguably the worst resume in the tournament. The Bruins did rack up a 26-5 record, but on the back of a weak non-conference and conference schedule, ranking 230th in the country in Strength of Schedule according to KenPom. The Bruins dropped three games to non-tournament teams in Green Bay and Jacksonville State twice, and picked up just one win against a tournament team, beating Murray State on the road in January.

Last year, Belmont would have been out of the tournament, similar to St. Mary’s. But, as the committee does so often, the Bruins were selected to the tournament for reasons that remain inconsistent and unclear, leaving out NC State.

The Wolfpack (22-11, 9-9 ACC) boasted a .500 record in the ACC, an ACC Tournament win, a December non-conference win over SEC champion Auburn and a home win over a tournament team, Syracuse. Two losses to non-tournament teams (at Wake Forest, Georgia Tech) hurt the Pack’s chances, but the Pack was 59th in the country in Strength of Schedule, having to face No. 1 seeds in the NCAA Tournament five times (Virginia twice, UNC-Chapel Hill twice, Duke).

Neither resume is particularly impressive, but if the committee was to remain consistent in what it values (i.e. strength of schedule, good wins, bad losses), either last year St. Mary’s would have made the tournament over Alabama or this year NC State would have made the tournament over Belmont.

Instead, the committee stayed true to its roots, switching up its methods from last year, giving vague, hypocritical reasoning as to why certain teams made it over others, and completely whiffing on another opportunity to display a transparent selection process.

These aren’t outlier examples; in 2017, the committee left out Syracuse (SOS of 57), with wins over tournament-bound Duke, Miami, Florida State and Virginia, in favor of mid-major Virginia Commonwealth (SOS of 81), which parlayed a weak schedule into a strong record.

In the last three years, the committee’s logic has flip-flopped each year: 2017 it chose a mid-major over a Power Five school, in 2018 it chose a Power Five school over a mid-major and in 2019 it chose a mid-major over a Power Five school.

Ultimately, every team that gets left out needs to look at itself and accept it could have won an extra game or two. But when it comes to Selection Sunday, the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee needs to look at itself and accept it needs to be consistent and transparent.