For the sake of discussion, mid-majors are generally from a conference where most schools either don't play football or play below the NCAA Division I level.

Some expressed outrage at Packer and Nance for making those comments. Frankly, their remarks didn't trouble me all that much. They are paid to give their opinions. When a commentator says something you agree with, you think they're smart. When they say something that you disagree with, you think they're crazy.

It's like being a sports columnist.

The most disappointing aspect of their comments was that the pair appeared to be uninformed. I wonder if they watched games played by Wichita State, Bradley or George Mason.

Maybe they really believe that the sixth, seventh and eighth place teams in major conferences are better than the best the mid-majors have to offer.

Say what you want, but the deck is stacked in favor of the major conferences.

Consider that teams from the major conferences usually have bigger budgets than teams from mid-major conferences.

Consider that universities in major conferences generally have the pick of the best available coaches.

Consider that those coaches have easier access in recruiting the best and most talented athletes.

Consider that schools from major conferences have tremendous advantages in scheduling non-conference home games.

Consider that schools from major conferences get a better seed in the tournament than mid-major schools.

It's easy to understand how Packer and Nance came to their conclusion. They cover the high-profile teams on a regular basis, so there's a natural bias to Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, etc., and all schools with a rich basketball history and tradition.

Teams from mid-major conferences rarely win the NCAA Tournament. George Mason's success notwithstanding, they don't make the Final Four very often.

However, mid-major teams are consistently good at pulling some upsets in the first two rounds of the tournament.

By putting more mid-major teams in the tournament this year, the tournament selection committee didn't say the mid-major teams are as good as the best major conference teams.

However, it is saying that the best teams in the mid-majors are better than some of the sixth, seventh and eighth-place teams from major conferences.

The Missouri Valley put two teams in the Sweet 16. The Big 12 had one and the Big 10 had zero. Kansas, Duke, North Carolina and others may land the majority of hamburger, er, McDonald's All-Americans, but there are many talented athletes flying under the radar. Players at mid-major schools may not be quite as big, or strong or athletic, but playing together as a team, they can compete with anyone.

Nowadays, the high-profile basketball programs face a different challenge: players leaving school early to turn pro, resulting in a lot of turnover.

Maybe the unusual success by the mid-majors in this year's tournament is an anomaly. Then again, don't be too sure. Mid-majors have a lot of up-and-coming coaches who work hard, and their players may have more incentive because they feel like they have more to prove.

If nothing else, the tournament results show there isn't that much difference in talent levels. And in a single-elimination tournament, on any given night in basketball, unlike football, a couple of great talents surrounded by competent role players can do a lot.

For his part, after the mid-majors' strong showing in the tournament, Packer said, "The great thing about the tournament is that nobody's opinion matters."

One of the most attractive aspects of the NCAA Tournament is that there's always a Cinderella or two. Why begrudge a few mid-major teams with a shot at playing the big boys on a neutral court?

At least Nantz and Packer admitted they underestimated the talent of the mid-majors. During one of the tournament games, Nantz said, "I guess our words did not play well in Peoria."

And Packer was quoted as saying, "I'm often wrong, but never in doubt."

Anyone who has ever been wrong can probably say the same.