I don't think it's parity, just short term luck and matchups overlooked by overconfidence. UD has played 2 teams that insisted on playing worse than UD. They get Stanford now instead of Kickass U. UT has played possibly the worst teams in the thing consecutively, so far. Lots of short teams that shoot 60% from 3 win a game...but time isn't on their side...As Creighton showed. UK didnt play like freshmen for the rare occurance against WS. They get U of L next, lotsa bad blood there. Still a few giants in the mix, the 16 will separate most of the previous storylines.
Wichita didn't take what was given to them and in the end, didn't play very well against a team that was a lot bigger than they ever faced all year. Kentucky really impressed me with their inside strength but I can see how that won't always work for them.
Duke tried to win with the 3-point shot. If they play Mercer three times, Mercer loses twice.
What amazed me was how lopsided the games were on Sunday evening. I think after 35 games, the good teams can really just adjust well to teams that come in with good records. So, 1507, I think your assessment is spot on.
But the old saying is: You don't have to beat everybody, just the team that's next. So it doesn't matter if Stanford belongs, they're in it.
You can't win from the stands. I'm not sure that what got you by last time is always enough to get you by next time, especially if you cant repeat what you did last time, next time though.
As example, Baylor is big, fast and can shoot. It's a tough mix to beat, but if their opponents have same, it often depends on who's in foul trouble, and who can hit the free throws. Injuries change things. Occasionally it comes down to best use of time outs, and who panics.
Experience counts.
FLA and AZ are unfazed so far. Michigan State, Louisville have been there done that. UK, UConn, Baylor, Michigan are used to big games. So are Iowa St, Wisconsin, UCLA, VA, SDS...Dayton and Stanford and Tennessee are fairy tales, most likely.