I am not confident we get to host for two reasons:
1. The rankings by both the committee and the press/coaches polls are based almost 100% on # of wins. So playing almost all bad teams is a huge help. It is a problem in the Big-12 since so many teams can defeat you in conference games. Texas beat the top 4 team ON THE ROAD and is still ranked too low simply because they played so many hard games early. In our case we lost to Oral Roberts and that is hurting us just enough to keep us out of the top 16. It should never have happened - but it did. The football final 4 was handled the same way. Even heads-up results could not overcome this factor. They took the computers out of it since software is better at evaluating things than humans. Most coaches couldn't pass a math or CS class if their lives depended on it, so the only analysis they can do is "number of wins". Strength of schedule is given lip service but not given any weight in the committee rankings - except if they can use it to boost a team they are already biased toward.
2. East coast bias. Almost 100% of the time teams from the eastern part of the country are ranked higher than similar teams farther mid-land. I suspect that is due to percentage of voters from each area. And coaches from a given area/conference are aware of and biased toward the schools they play and see. This is a natural bias and was the value for having a SOS factor as done by the computers. Charlie Crème has the same problem. Just look at us and Kansas State in the Bracketology. He has us both ranked almost identically (6th and 7th seeds) even though we beat them heads up and have a significantly better conference record. Who knows how things will end up, but rankings must be based on what you have done - not on what the future may hold.
If we ran the table - and then won the conference championship we would likely get to host, but losing even one more game probably sinks our chances.