Pretty good read, and I’m with him almost 100%. I feel like if you can’t see all teams play an equal amount of time, you’re almost better off having seen none of them play and selections should be based purely on what happened on paper. Selections should be rewards for the best results, not opportunities for teams with the best potential. I hear way too much talk around selection time when comparing teams about “who could fair better in such and such matchups?”, but it shouldn’t matter - it only matters how those teams have already faired.
On the other hand, I think there are cases where it’s good to have eyes of the committee actually taking a look at results. For instance, the out of bounds call in the Purdue game.