I feel like Charlie is picking and choosing his reasons at this point to justify putting in Tennessee.
First off, of Tennessee's 6 top 50 wins, 3 of those wins are over 48/49 RPI teams and a 4th is vs 45 RPI. The other 2 are vs. #29 and #31. Compare that to a team like West Virginia, who has a win over #11 Iowa State, #32 Kansas State, and #29 Texas. I'd value 1 win over Iowa State as equivalent or stronger than 4 wins over Belmont, Auburn and Clemson if I'm on the committee.
Then if you look at bad losses, Tennessee has losses to 116 Georgia, 158 Alabama, and 206 Vanderbilt vs. West Virginia's sole bad loss to 155 Oklahoma. Yeah SOS and RPI matter, but notable wins/losses tell you more about a team than their RPI IMO. No way should West Virginia be 8 spots below Tennessee.
Charlie also mentions thinking Tennessee was toast until those other teams lost, but look at their losses:
TCU-lost to Texas, an 8 seed in his bracket
USC-lost to Arizona (non tournament team...this was a bad loss)
West Virginia-lost to Kansas State, 10 seed in his bracket
Meanwhile, Tennessee beats a non-tournament team and then loses to a top 2 seed.
How does a team that looks "toast" and beats a non-tournament team all of a sudden jump several spots over the likes of West Virginia and TCU, teams who were ahead of Tennessee and lost a game they were expected to lose (TCU), or at worst it was expected to be a tossup (West Virginia)? Seems like a big change of opinion without a lot of substance behind it, but that's just my 2 cents.