Thank you for the writing, I found it quite enjoyable. I do agree with many of your points, especially about the SEC's scheduling in football, but in basketball have seen slightly different results both objectively and observationally.
Ex: Indiana State was not a tournament team when graded by the NET, or by non-NCAA-tinged metrics like KenPom's AdjEM. ISU might be now that they've had a few NIT wins, but on selection Sunday if a computer had objectively seeded the field, they would not have been included by those metrics. That takes nothing away from their spectacle. Subjectively, I found it was both a pleasure to watch their offense and an incredible experience to watch the refs ignore Avila committing foul after foul, push off chicken wings on offense, over the back on rebounds, or undercutting the shooter on defense. The man is national-executive-level untouchable and big dance crowds would've marveled .
Despite all the talk about the NET, it also was widely ignored by the selection committee in their decision making. Based on some of the reaches that made the field, the arguments of NET-rigging by the ACC commissioners and others largely fell flat - that is, unless it was the main reason Virginia, (An insane reach!) was included. I appreciate your deep dive into its bias, but I don't think it ultimately came into play here. Similarly, strength of schedule, and quality of road wins also was largely ignored, with plenty of teams on the outside possessing better resumes in those departments than several that got in.
The SEC bias was absolutely real with at least 2 too many teams in the field, but I suspect that to be more psychological, the inherent bias we flawed humans carry, than based on any of the numbers. The Big East should have likely had 2 more, and the Big XII as the best conference by far was deserving of having an additional 1-2 teams. The committee has proven time and time again that no matter what criteria they claim to judge teams by, they rarely adhere to their own guidance when it comes to the bubble teams they do pick. It can still work out for non-power conference teams: Utah St. was objectively not in the field, but still made it in on a current committee love for the MWC.
As you alluded with the financial desires of the power conferences, the selection committee is also comprised of actively employed commissioners and athletic directors. Their full-time jobs and their friends have fiscal interests impacted by the decisions that get made - including the oft over-seeding of big name programs. I also wish that competition was paramount. As long as any committee remains in such a state of conflict-of-interest, the statistics, the schedules, and perceived attempts to rig favor all pale when weighed against the brutally corporate, cash-driven NCAA and its heavily compromised selection crew.
One solution to the imbalance gripe, and one that would have to be widely adopted by every non-power conference team: Don't agree to play buy-off games unless it's a binding home-and-home over 2 seasons. We see this with some regional rivalries, but it's definitely not as common as it should be.
