Mid-Major vs Major debate:

Each year as the NCAA Tournament approaches, the debate over who should get the precious final at large spots commences. Should it be the middle of pack, .500 in conference major team, or the sparkling conference record, yet not played as strong of competition, mid-major team. Being an avid defender of mid-majors, I personally prefer having the strong mid-major. Of course, their are exceptions to this train of thought. In 2001, despite a 16-13 overall record, and 9-7 in SEC, I felt that 2001 Georgia team was indeed deserving of an at large, ahead of strong mid-major Colonial team(at that time, now they play in Atlantic 10) like Richmond. Having personally seen many of the Big East teams play, and the quality of basketball played in that league, an 8-8 team in that league most certainly deserves serious consideration for an at large bid.

Just to give an idea of the type of debate that will go on, here are two teams that as of now are fighting for one of the last large spots in the NCAA Tournament

Team A:
George Mason: 13-5, 7-2 in Colonial, 41 RPI, 1-2 vs RPI top 50, 7-3 road/neutral record

Team B:
Arkansas: 13-5, 2-3 in SEC, 61 RPI, 2-3 vs RPI top 50, 4-4 road/neutral record

Frankly, neither profile comes close to blowing you away. Not having the chance to see George Mason play yet, you have to rely on numbers to judge what type of team they have. Arkansas has looked impressive the times I've seen them, but then the question becomes, why they can't they consistent play to that level, because if they did, this discussion wouldn't be taking place right now. This is the classic debate that will always rage on as long as there's an NCAA Tournament.