This is a very interesting (if short) article by Joe Lunardi at ESPN.com. Essentially he looks at the last 10 years of NCAA tournament results and compares middle-quality majors (receiving double-digit seeds) vs. supposed "mid-major" teams receiving equal seeding. While the result is not too suprising given the "cinderella" nature of the tournament, it certainly shows that more mid-major teams than you think are doing well, and presents a good argument for inclusion of such teams over middling BCS teams like USC or Notre Dame.