Bracketology - week of Feb 17 | The Boneyard

Bracketology - week of Feb 17

BRS24

BRS24

LisaG
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,001
Reaction Score
38,927
www.espn.com

Women's Bracketology: Why Nebraska could have bubble trouble

Teams with a high NET ranking are typically NCAA tournament locks. So why are the Huskers in the Last Four In?
www.espn.com
Teams with a NET ranking in the 20s are typically locks to make the NCAA tournament. But occasionally a team’s NET ranking doesn’t match what’s happening on the court. Nebraska is that team this season. The Cornhuskers lost at home to Iowa on Monday. They’ve dropped five straight games and eight of their past 10, yet have fallen only from No. 16 to 25. That NET ranking is keeping Nebraska in the field for now. It’s rare for a team to miss the field with a NET that high, but it happened as recently as 2022-23. That season, Oregon lost seven in a row in February and was 17-14 but ranked No. 19 in the NET -- and didn’t make the NCAA tournament. The Cornhuskers -- with an 0-9 mark in Quad 1 games and a nonconference schedule strength of 230, numbers worse than those Ducks -- are one loss away from playing themselves out of the field.​

Kentucky back in and Ole Miss out of the top 16.

1771354760935.jpeg


12 -Big Ten
11 -SEC
8 - ACC
8 - Big 12
2 - Big East
2 - Ivy
 
STOP the presses

Creme's latest has the Sun Devils in the play in! In Durham. Against the Huskers!(My wife is Nebraska born)

I'm allowing the euphoria to wash over me I don't think there's any way in Nebraska makes the tournament given the way they're playing..... and tomorrow's game in Ames we'll go a long way to determining if the NCAA picks ASU who swept Utah and beat both Oklahoma State and Colorado.
 
2026 WCBB NCAAT Bracketology Teams by Overall Seeding:
  • Number in () is the NET on the day on/before the Bracketology date.
  • AQ means “Automatic Qualifier” for a Conference.
IMG_9295.jpeg


NCAA Dashboard (2/16/2026) appended to ESPN Bracketology (2/17/2026) to provide insight on:
  • (a) the Hypothesis Testing continuum of the 37 At-Large (Type &1 = 2) Qualifiers;
  • (b) the 68-team Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed (OSeed)).
The NCAA procedures for (a), S-Curve and (b) are here.

&1 Type = 1 (Automatic Qualifier) and 2 (At-large Qualifier).

IMG_9294.jpeg


Top 20 Overall Seed | Remaining Schedule:
Conference Standings
 
Today's update from both CC and HHS. I'm not doing any shading on HHS predictions.
www.espn.com

Women's Bracketology: Why Nebraska could have bubble trouble

Teams with a high NET ranking are typically NCAA tournament locks. So why are the Huskers in the Last Four In?
www.espn.com

Duke’s turnaround from 3-6 start to the dominant team in the ACC is one of the top stories this season. The Blue Devils have won 17 straight games and are three victories away from becoming the first team to finish an ACC season unbeaten since Notre Dame in 2016. They’ve gone from a top-10 preseason team to out of the projected field altogether to now No. 9 overall, the top No. 3 seed. But can they get any higher? Yes -- with a caveat. A team in front of Duke must fall. LSU is unlikely; the Tigers are five spots ahead of the Blue Devils in the NET and beat them handily in early December. Despite sitting at No. 6, Michigan might be the most likely chance for Duke to climb. The Wolverines play Iowa, Ohio State and Maryland to finish the regular season, but it might take two Michigan losses to open the door.​
​
Ole Miss in, Oklahoma out of top 16. Villanova and Princeton hanging in the last four byes group.

1771594847380.jpeg

11 -Big Ten
11 -SEC
9 - ACC
8 - Big 12
2 - Big East
2 - Ivy
 
On the first Reveal, Oklahoma was #16. Since then, they won 2 road games vs. ranked opponents. I thought it was fishy that we dropped out...here is a list of all the analytics I could find of the teams that are currently 3 or 4 seeds. Is it me or is something off???

Net Ranking - Better than all but 2 teams
Best Win - Better than the other 8 teams
Worst Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Ave Net Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Q1 Record - More Q1 wins than 4 teams
ELO- Better than all but 2 teams
WAB - Better than all but 2 teams
Massey - Better than all but 1 team
AP - Better than all but 1
Coaches Poll- best
Seed - Highest seed of all the teams?????

EFC699BF-C446-49EC-9590-5CAD6F64B7AA.png
 
.-.
2026 WCBB NCAAT Bracketology Teams by Overall Seeding:
  • Number in () is the NET on the day on/before the Bracketology date.
  • AQ means “Automatic Qualifier” for a Conference.

IMG_9324.jpeg
 
NCAA Dashboard (2/19/2026) appended to ESPN Bracketology (2/20/2026) to provide insight on:
  • (a) the Hypothesis Testing continuum of the 37 At-Large (Type &1 = 2) Qualifiers;
  • (b) the 68-team Bracketed S-Curve (Overall Seed (OSeed)).
The NCAA procedures for (a), S-Curve and (b) are here.

&1 Type = 1 (Automatic Qualifier) and 2 (At-large Qualifier).

IMG_9320.jpeg


Top 20 Overall Seed | Remaining Schedule
By Conference Bids: Conference Standings | Conference Tournaments

IMG_9325.jpeg
 
Last edited:
SoonrFan said:
On the first Reveal, Oklahoma was #16. Since then, they won 2 road games vs. ranked opponents. I thought it was fishy that we dropped out...here is a list of all the analytics I could find of the teams that are currently 3 or 4 seeds. Is it me or is something off???

Net Ranking - Better than all but 2 teams
Best Win - Better than the other 8 teams
Worst Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Ave Net Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Q1 Record - More Q1 wins than 4 teams
ELO- Better than all but 2 teams
WAB - Better than all but 2 teams
Massey - Better than all but 1 team
AP - Better than all but 1
Coaches Poll- best
Seed - Highest seed of all the teams?????

View attachment 117272
Expand ...
Slotting teams into the S-Curve is akin to a Rolling Hypothesis Testing (and not a uniformly applied scale based on different metrics/ factors):
  • Resume (OSeed(j)) > Resume (OSeed(k)) for every j < k.
  • &1 The operand “>” in comparing two resumes can be unique to the teams being compared [based on 12 Committee beholder votes].
That said:
  • HHS seems to agree with you;
  • I do also find it odd that in a span of 5 days with OK improving its NET ranking and not losing, Creme was able to move KY, WV, MN, and NC ahead of OK.
  • The “rational basis” of the rolling hypothesis testing is a low bar, but a 5-day change in “rational basis” for moving OK down 4 spots when it did not lose, seems to whipsaw the “rational” part.
One thing against Oklahoma’s resume, it’s signature Quad 1A win over South Carolina is diluted by its home blowout loss to LSU, its away blowout loss to Vanderbilt, its close loss at home to #19 Ole Miss, and only winning 2 out of its 7 Quad 1A games.
  • While its numerical NET ranking is 12, it seems its true ranking could really be around 20 from its triangulating wins and losses.
 
NycUcWbbFan said:
Slotting teams into the S-Curve is akin to a Rolling Hypothesis Testing (and not a uniformly applied scale based on different metrics/ factors):
  • Resume (OSeed(j)) > Resume (OSeed(k)) for every j < k.
  • &1 The operand “>” in comparing two resumes can be unique to the teams being compared [based on 12 Committee beholder votes].
That said:
  • HHS seems to agree with you;
  • I do also find it odd that in a span of 5 days with OK improving its NET ranking and not losing, Creme was able to move KY, WV, MN, and NC ahead of OK.
  • The “rational basis” of the rolling hypothesis testing is a low bar, but a 5-day change in “rational basis” for moving OK down 4 spots when it did not lose, seems to whipsaw the “rational” part.
One thing against Oklahoma’s resume, it’s signature Quad 1A win over South Carolina is diluted by its home blowout loss to LSU, its away blowout loss to Vanderbilt, its close loss at home to #19 Ole Miss, and only winning 2 out of its 7 Quad 1A games.
  • While its numerical NET ranking is 12, it seems its true ranking could really be around 20 from its triangulating wins and losses.
Expand ...

Oh thank you for some of that insight...those answers do open up more questions for me though.

I am curious how you come up with the last line though that their true ranking could be around 20? It seems they would really be penalized if they went 2-7 in Q1A games if their overall AveNETLoss is 8!!! Way lower than any of the teams in front of them because they played 5 of the top 7 teams in the NET. There Highest Loss was to #19 Ole Miss and TCU's highest win was 20 in the NET??

Where is the weighting for the Quad 2 losses? 8 teams in front of them have Quad 2 losses and West Virginia has 3

It seems to me that the math is still off, even if you take into account the points you make above when we played 5 of the top 7 teams in the NET. No other teams in the 3-4 seed talk are even close to that which is part of the reason our AveNETLoss of 8 is so low. Seems like we are penalized when other teams have losses 50's, 70's, & 80's?!?!?!

At the end of the day if the NET is not a True number, is the WAB the same? Are the higher numbers for all the other teams ahead of us that have Higher NETS and WABS than us have better "True" numbers??


E0815788-DB23-44F0-ACFF-53994C7584ED_4_5005_c.jpeg


At the end of the day, these are still all TRUE statements based on numbers that are listed.

Net Ranking - Better than all but 2 teams
Best Win - Better than the other 8 teams
Worst Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Ave Net Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Q1 Record - More Q1 wins than 4 teams
ELO- Better than all but 2 teams
WAB - Better than all but 2 teams
Massey - Better than all but 1 team
AP - Better than all but 1
Coaches Poll- best

Sorry, clearly i'm a huge OU fan, but this just seems crazy that now the numbers are not true. Maybe in the future instead of weight Q1a games they weight top 10 games period. Playing 5 of the top 7 teams and winning one of the games (also the only team that beat south caronlina) in the conference should not hurt you. Getting blown out didn't seem to hurt Michigan State when they lost their 3 games by 20+ points and i double checked we didn't lose any games by 20. So how do they quantify getting blown out? Why did it not effect Michigan State who also has a Quad 3 loss to #87 Wisconsin by 14 points???

Just want to make sure there isn't a missed formula, because non of that makes sense.
 
SoonrFan said:
Oh thank you for some of that insight...those answers do open up more questions for me though.

I am curious how you come up with the last line though that their true ranking could be around 20? It seems they would really be penalized if they went 2-7 in Q1A games if their overall AveNETLoss is 8!!! Way lower than any of the teams in front of them because they played 5 of the top 7 teams in the NET. There Highest Loss was to #19 Ole Miss and TCU's highest win was 20 in the NET??

Where is the weighting for the Quad 2 losses? 8 teams in front of them have Quad 2 losses and West Virginia has 3

It seems to me that the math is still off, even if you take into account the points you make above when we played 5 of the top 7 teams in the NET. No other teams in the 3-4 seed talk are even close to that which is part of the reason our AveNETLoss of 8 is so low. Seems like we are penalized when other teams have losses 50's, 70's, & 80's?!?!?!

At the end of the day if the NET is not a True number, is the WAB the same? Are the higher numbers for all the other teams ahead of us that have Higher NETS and WABS than us have better "True" numbers??


View attachment 117286

At the end of the day, these are still all TRUE statements based on numbers that are listed.

Net Ranking - Better than all but 2 teams
Best Win - Better than the other 8 teams
Worst Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Ave Net Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Q1 Record - More Q1 wins than 4 teams
ELO- Better than all but 2 teams
WAB - Better than all but 2 teams
Massey - Better than all but 1 team
AP - Better than all but 1
Coaches Poll- best

Sorry, clearly i'm a huge OU fan, but this just seems crazy that now the numbers are not true. Maybe in the future instead of weight Q1a games they weight top 10 games period. Playing 5 of the top 7 teams and winning one of the games (also the only team that beat south caronlina) in the conference should not hurt you. Getting blown out didn't seem to hurt Michigan State when they lost their 3 games by 20+ points and i double checked we didn't lose any games by 20. So how do they quantify getting blown out? Why did it not effect Michigan State who also has a Quad 3 loss to #87 Wisconsin by 14 points???

Just want to make sure there isn't a missed formula, because non of that makes sense.
Expand ...
sorry, i should also proofread my comments before pressing send. :(
 
NycUcWbbFan said:
Slotting teams into the S-Curve is akin to a Rolling Hypothesis Testing (and not a uniformly applied scale based on different metrics/ factors):
  • Resume (OSeed(j)) > Resume (OSeed(k)) for every j < k.
  • &1 The operand “>” in comparing two resumes can be unique to the teams being compared [based on 12 Committee beholder votes].
That said:
  • HHS seems to agree with you;
  • I do also find it odd that in a span of 5 days with OK improving its NET ranking and not losing, Creme was able to move KY, WV, MN, and NC ahead of OK.
  • The “rational basis” of the rolling hypothesis testing is a low bar, but a 5-day change in “rational basis” for moving OK down 4 spots when it did not lose, seems to whipsaw the “rational” part.
One thing against Oklahoma’s resume, it’s signature Quad 1A win over South Carolina is diluted by its home blowout loss to LSU, its away blowout loss to Vanderbilt, its close loss at home to #19 Ole Miss, and only winning 2 out of its 7 Quad 1A games.
  • While its numerical NET ranking is 12, it seems its true ranking could really be around 20 from its triangulating wins and losses.
Expand ...
I'm not sure what HHS is?

But i should also add that our last 2 wins were both Q1 games on the road and we still dropped below WV, MN, NC, KY & Ole Miss?

WV lost their last game.
NC also lost on Feb 15th and went to OT on Feb 19th vs. a Net 40 team
MN has a Quad 2 loss
KY has a Quad 2 loss
Ole Miss lost its last game
 
.-.
SoonrFan said:
I'm not sure what HHS is?

But i should also add that our last 2 wins were both Q1 games on the road and we still dropped below WV, MN, NC, KY & Ole Miss?

WV lost their last game.
NC also lost on Feb 15th and went to OT on Feb 19th vs. a Net 40 team
MN has a Quad 2 loss
KY has a Quad 2 loss
Ole Miss lost its last game
Expand ...
HHS = Her Hoop Stats
herhoopstats.com

The #1 source for women's basketball insight used by coaches, broadcasters, players, and fans

Traditional and Advanced Statistics for Teams and Players, Leaderboards, Ranks, Team Comparisons, Schedules, Rosters, Game Logs, and more
herhoopstats.com herhoopstats.com
 
SoonrFan said:
I'm not sure what HHS is?

But i should also add that our last 2 wins were both Q1 games on the road and we still dropped below WV, MN, NC, KY & Ole Miss?

WV lost their last game.
NC also lost on Feb 15th and went to OT on Feb 19th vs. a Net 40 team
MN has a Quad 2 loss
KY has a Quad 2 loss
Ole Miss lost its last game
Expand ...
Just for fun....
E2B22B8E-8053-4D8C-BE99-0C790C783A78_4_5005_c.jpeg



Worst Losses
OU. #19 Ole Miss
WV. #55 UTAH (3 quad 2 losses)
MN. #51 Kansas

If this is the case, the WAB, NET, Coaches & AP are all not true. Personally i like Massey too.
 
SoonrFan said:
Oh thank you for some of that insight...those answers do open up more questions for me though.

I am curious how you come up with the last line though that their true ranking could be around 20? It seems they would really be penalized if they went 2-7 in Q1A games if their overall AveNETLoss is 8!!! Way lower than any of the teams in front of them because they played 5 of the top 7 teams in the NET. There Highest Loss was to #19 Ole Miss and TCU's highest win was 20 in the NET??

Where is the weighting for the Quad 2 losses? 8 teams in front of them have Quad 2 losses and West Virginia has 3

It seems to me that the math is still off, even if you take into account the points you make above when we played 5 of the top 7 teams in the NET. No other teams in the 3-4 seed talk are even close to that which is part of the reason our AveNETLoss of 8 is so low. Seems like we are penalized when other teams have losses 50's, 70's, & 80's?!?!?!

At the end of the day if the NET is not a True number, is the WAB the same? Are the higher numbers for all the other teams ahead of us that have Higher NETS and WABS than us have better "True" numbers??


View attachment 117286

At the end of the day, these are still all TRUE statements based on numbers that are listed.

Net Ranking - Better than all but 2 teams
Best Win - Better than the other 8 teams
Worst Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Ave Net Loss - Better than all but 1 team
Q1 Record - More Q1 wins than 4 teams
ELO- Better than all but 2 teams
WAB - Better than all but 2 teams
Massey - Better than all but 1 team
AP - Better than all but 1
Coaches Poll- best

Sorry, clearly i'm a huge OU fan, but this just seems crazy that now the numbers are not true. Maybe in the future instead of weight Q1a games they weight top 10 games period. Playing 5 of the top 7 teams and winning one of the games (also the only team that beat south caronlina) in the conference should not hurt you. Getting blown out didn't seem to hurt Michigan State when they lost their 3 games by 20+ points and i double checked we didn't lose any games by 20. So how do they quantify getting blown out? Why did it not effect Michigan State who also has a Quad 3 loss to #87 Wisconsin by 14 points???

Just want to make sure there isn't a missed formula, because non of that makes sense.
Expand ...
HHS is HerHoopStats. They (specifically Megan Gauer) publish their own Bracketology, the link to their latest version is in BRS24’s post (#5).

As to “around 20”, I probably should have said “as high as 20”, and it depends on how much weight one ascribes to Oklahoma’s 5-point loss to #19 Ole Miss at home on 1/8.
  • But Creme had this information, hence the understandable whiplash in why he could move Oklahoma down 4 notches; Gauer didn’t.
As to your point about NETSOS, there is the notion of “Success against an Aggressive Schedule” (see pic from Massey) which the Committee adheres to (see Michigan and its 3-point losses to UConn, UCLA and Vanderbilt).

The best raters ascribe to “Signal Wins and Losses” which is codified in the NCAA’s factors list.

IMG_9326.jpeg


I wasn’t going to look at OK’s peers, but here goes a cursory look:
  • West Virginia has 3 Quad 2 losses including a blowout loss to #35 Villanova at home. OK should be ranked higher.
  • Kentucky is 2-5 in Quad 1A and a couple of close losses (Vanderbilt and TN); KY has 7 losses (1 in Q2) to OK’s 6 losses. Tossup with OK.
  • Minnesota has 6 losses, 3 close ones in Quad 1B/2 (including to #51 Kansas); OK should be ranked higher.
  • North Carolina is 1-5 in Quad 1A including a blowout loss to #25 ND at ND in addition to a Quad 2B loss to #45 Stanford. OK should be ranked higher.
  • So it seems that I agree with Megan Gauer.
 
Last edited:
I like all this chat about the Sooners. That team with outside, inside and rookie Chavez is set up to be very good...but often they just don't deliver.

If they keep winning and make SECT semis, much of the bracketology will take care of itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,247
Messages
4,515,040
Members
10,393
Latest member
jims


Top Bottom