They were at least 22 rankings lower in predictive metrics than all the 10s, not to mention ranked behind two 11s and three 12s. And they weren't even top 50 in the NET. So analytics didn't want them in. And Lord knows the eye test didn't want them in.

Their strength was their resume. 2 Quad 1 wins, 10-10 in Q1 and Q2, zero losses to Q3 and Q4, decent strength of schedule. Their strength of resume was ranked 32nd on the team sheets. And no high major conference team with 10 or fewer losses going into the tournament was left off.

The analytics would've preferred St. John's, Pitt, Oklahoma, Indiana State... but all of those teams either had worse strength of resumes, worse records against Q1/Q2, or both. And I think the whole world can agree we'd have preferred any of those teams to Virginia.

(Then again, Michigan State is definitely in due to analytics-- so the committee clearly wasn't applying any sort of consistent logic, they were just picking and choosing whoever they felt like. Which is what happens with a human committee that has no transparent consistent methodology of seeding.)