This “Simpleton Goes to Town” children’s book you keep selling is problematic for anyone trying to understand how this works. Given clear metrics and no major rule conflict, the committee will choose the path as defined by the guidelines. Full stop. When there is ambiguity, the sway of influence changes the outcome. Our 3 seed behind KY in 22 is an example. Duke’s preferential seed in 23 is an example. Neither case you listed fits that intersection of ambiguity and an opening for interpretation. Stop squawking about “Why Alabama?” which involved no complexity (they were a 1 in their home region and earned it) or “Why Gonzaga?” (Again a 1 in their home region). If you want to actually take on the complexity of the situation, then give specific examples where a hard choice was made against a blue blood, a strong narrative, a compelling matchup opportunity, a team that naturally fits a region, time zone etc. They absolutely weigh ratings, storylines, power conferences, regional affiliations etc. when the door is open to do so. You reducing this to your binary literalist read on the situation does everyone a disservice. You have no experience with the matter, no connection to any real life situation involving the tournament, and no understanding of any aspect beyond what Google has told you. Still you continue to hammer your pedantic case into the ground anytime you get the chance. You’ve guaranteed a one seed for Tennessee. On that matter, I hope you’re incidentally or accidentally correct. As for you actually being able to handle any information beyond black and white, you apparently can’t. Let’s hope our team does the work to get a one seed so you don’t have to sit in a puddle of your own making.