We all have our own opinions. Firstly, tourney MVP, is definitely debatable. I agree, Pale is definitely deserving, had I a say, I would most likely agree with you.
On the flip side, Aaron did drop 25 the first night on PC and 41 against Campbell. I have the books next to me as we speak.
His line against Campbell was:
41 pts on 12-18 shooting, was 13-19 from the line, 5 rebounds 2 steals and 2 assists.
It's hard to argue against someone who in a 3 game tourney averages 26 points and carries his team to the championship as not being deserving of a "Most Valuable Player" award. The whole Heisman thing...
In the end, your point, and Pale, deserving; valid.
Next topic, I can also understand the disagreement over Quincy Mason's selection. At 5'10 he isn't flashy. He isn't big. He doesn't stand out. In fact, it doesn't really look like he does much at all offensively. He averaged 3.33 pts a game for the tournament. That is not deserving at all.
Back to Kaipo Pale, he came in averaging 21 points over the first two contests. While we initially had another post guarding him (switched Mason to him following 2 easy buckets and 2 free throws), Quincy held him to 3 points. Quincy also averaged 8.33 rebounds a game for the tourney.
Depending on which game (I haven't calculated our latest PPP [Points per Possession] yet), those rebounds, along with steals, loose balls and assists, can easily translate to a ten to twelve point night.
I can provide mathematical explanation of the translation from a rebound, loose ball, steal to points in the overall scheme of a game if necessary.
Is that enough? I don't know. I also was not a part of the selection committee. I've explained what I do know.
I do think you make valid points. I simply wanted to give you my own personal insight.