This is why I generally think two things about the NCAA tournament --
You can easily construct a narrative to either overrate or underrate what you did in a tournament (e.g., Georges' broken foot, not having to play Purdue, etc.). Therefore, because it is all such a roll of a dice in a single-elimination format like that, I think you kind of have to "be what your record says you are." If you made the Sweet Sixteen, you made the Sweet Sixteen, you did not make the Final Four because you "should have" or "we would have, if XYZ happens differently." Nope, that is not how this works.
We overrate the NCAA tournament for determining a program's level of success throughout the season. I like to take a more holistic approach of their overall record, conference record, record in big games/wins over high-quality teams, and in discreet accomplishments such as winning their preseason tournament, the conference regular season championship, or the conference tournament. Success in the NCAA tournament is nice, even defining for many teams as a failure or success, but it is not the alpha and the omega. I can only be so disappointed if we at least make it in the first place, and the true secret to success seems to be having as many swings at the piñata as possible.