It was a familiar refrain from coaches, players and media following UCLA’s easy defeat of UAB in the opening game of the third round of the NCAA tournament: Despite the controversy over the mediocre Bruins making the tournament (and somehow avoiding a play-in game), the team clearly showed they belonged by making it to the Sweet 16.

Bryce Alford, son of coach Steve Alford and UCLA’s shooting guard, said almost exactly that after the game. “Now we’re proving we belong,” he said.

Nonsense. Being an average, NIT-type team in the regular season isn’t mutually exclusive to tournament success. There are plenty of bubble teams that could have won games during March Madness; it doesn’t mean they belonged to make it. Kansas State, a team that wasn’t even on the bubble, beat Kansas during the season. You’re telling me the Wildcats couldn’t have made a decent run in March? Seton Hall beat No. 1 seed Villanova, which clearly showed they had the talent to win some games in March. Top-seeded Wisconsin lost to Rutgers and Rutgers went 2-16 in the Big 10. Any team can win in March, as Georgia State has shown this year.

UCLA has no wins like Kansas State, Seton Hall or Rutgers. They barely have any close calls, like Wake Forest did in losing at UVA in the final seconds. The Bruins were 20-13 in the regular season, a barely-average record in a barely-average conference. Before the tournament, UCLA played eight games against teams rated in the Pomeroy top 30. The team won just one (home vs. Utah). The average margin of defeat against those others teams was a staggering 18.9 points.The best non-conference win was over No. 115 San Diego. The team finished 11-7 in the Pac 12, a conference ranked a clear last among the six college basketball power conferences. There were four losses to teams ranked below No. 50 in Pomeroy.

In short, UCLA had no business being in the tournament. There were other deserving teams, Temple among them, as the Owls actually defeated a good non-conference team in Kansas. UCLA didn’t come close to winning a good non-conference game. The committee says they look at good wins, UCLA had one. They also look at bad losses, UCLA had four. So how did the Bruins get in again? If Washington St. had the same resume, do they get in, or do John Wooden’s titles and the program’s pedigree give UCLA the extra boost.

But this is dredging up a topic that’s long ago been decided. UCLA is in the tournament and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. They’ve made the most of it since arriving, defeating a No. 6 seed in SMU thanks to a touchy goaltending call, then got a win over UAB, a team that went 19-15 in Conference USA, only got into March Madness because they own their conference tournament and still isn’t UCLA’s best non-conference win. And this proves UCLA belongs?

With the school’s history, Los Angeles recruiting advantage and a big-name coach, the team shouldn’t be proud of proving the doubters wrong. They shouldn’t have to and they haven’t even done that. The doubters should continue to be skeptical. All UCLA has done is win two games in a row against average opponents, nothing more. If the Bruins had simply done this all season, they wouldn’t have had to boast about belonging. They would have actually belonged.