tournament to make such a claim, while using the tournament to justify Michigan State's improved position. Right?

Arkansas and UNI both lost to their 4 seed counterparts. West Virginia and Utah proved to be the best of the 5 seeds, and Utah appears to have fared better than West Virginia after their showing against Kentucky. In other words, Utah has proven that it was possibly the best 5 seed, and since they beat a 4, it isn't a stretch to say that they should have been a 4.

Looking at the 6 seeds, I don't see any that were better than Utah. Only argument would be Xavier, but why jettison Utah from the 5 seed mix when there were at least 2 worse 5s.

Your Michigan State argument is actually very problematic, considering that their seed seemed about right. Did they pass an "eyeball" test? They were playing better later in the season, but have really shown their mettle in tournament action. This is typical Tom Izzo team development. Many losses early, hitting stride late. Should they have been a 5? Obviously, maybe higher, but again, were there teams that could have been reasonably jettisoned from the 4 and 5 seeds that were not named Utah? Absolutely. It is very realistic to say that both Utah and Michigan State should have been 4s.

I honestly can't believe that I got sucked in to this.