Bracketology - week of Jan 27

[BRS24]

Women's Bracketology: How the committee's top-16 reveal rippled through the field

Saturday, the committee revealed the top-16 teams that will host early round games. North Carolina moved in.

www.espn.com

The NCAA added another metric-based criterion for the selection process this season: wins above bubble (WAB), which calculates how many more or fewer wins a team has compared to what an average bubble team would average against the same schedule. The NET is the basis for determining opponent strength and the bubble team is based on a team ranked 45th in the NET. It’s a way for the committee to empirically see if a team is better or worse than a standard bubble team. The men’s selection committee began using WAB last season; how much it will factor into the women’s selections is something we will start to be able to gauge this March. But WAB has already become a dilemma for one team. Virginia is 14-6 with a 37 NET ranking, but the Cavaliers are winless against Quad 1 opponents. Even more telling: Virginia’s WAB has been negative most of the season. That means the Cavaliers would be expected to have fewer wins (-0.97 is the current number) than the average bubble team. That’s the main reason Virginia is on the outside looking in this week.​

Oh goody, another metric to try and understand, debate, and wonder if the seeding committee actually uses it as intended.

Maryland in and Kentucky out of the top 16. Villanova in Last Four Byes, Seton Hall still in the Last Four Out.

12 -Big Ten
11 -SEC
9 - ACC
8 - Big 12
2 - Big East

 

[ConnMotors]

USC is not a tournament team this year. Next season with Juju and company that a yes for sure.

 

[packwrap]

USC is not a tournament team this year. Next season with Juju and company that a yes for sure.

If they get their act together, they can still sneak into the field this year. That assumes Jazzy Davidson keeps improving, they start winning some close games, and they play well in Big10 tourney.

Next year they will be back to a 4-8 ranked team.

 

[fomalhaut]

Despite playing in the Big East, vs. UCLA in the Big Ten and others in the SEC, Connecticut is still 2nd in the country in Wins above Bubble, only 0.3 behind UCLA.

Wins Above Bubble

 

[Phil]

I know I'm being hypercritical but I'm troubled by these three sentences.

But WAB has already become a dilemma for one team. Virginia is 14-6 with a 37 NET ranking, but the Cavaliers are winless against Quad 1 opponents. Even more telling: Virginia’s WAB has been negative most of the season.

The first asserts that the WAB is a dilemma for one team. The next sentence notes that Virginia as a decent net rating but doesn't have a win against Quad 1 opponents. Unless I'm missing something, that has absolutely nothing to do with WAB. The third sentence starts with "even more telling" which suggests that the previous sentence was relevant to WAB. I do have some criticisms of Creme but he's normally easy to follow. I am new to WAB and I have no doubt that a high WAP is correlated to number of wins against Quad 1 teams but I don't see any necessary relationship between the two. It would all make a lot more sense if you switch the first and second sentences. Is that all it is or am I missing something?

 

[Phil]

USC is not a tournament team this year. Next season with Juju and company that a yes for sure.

USC is almost certainly a tournament team, assuming they don't self-destruct. They are currently ranked number 20 in Massey. I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but I think there's only been one team in history ranked that high the didn't make it in and they weren't from one of the top four conferences.

 

[Phil]

Yes, isn't it interesting after weeks of being number one in the NET rankings they come up with a new metric in which UConn's not number one. Nope, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it is interesting.

 

[Vowelguy]

Yes, isn't it interesting after weeks of being number one in the NET rankings they come up with a new metric in which UConn's not number one. Nope, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it is interesting.

WAB did not just originate this week, and kinda lame that you would imply otherwise.

Was used for the men last season and added for the women before this season.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I know I'm being hypercritical but I'm troubled by these three sentences.



The first asserts that the WAB is a dilemma for one team. The next sentence notes that Virginia as a decent net rating but doesn't have a win against Quad 1 opponents. Unless I'm missing something, that has absolutely nothing to do with WAB. The third sentence starts with "even more telling" which suggests that the previous sentence was relevant to WAB. I do have some criticisms of Creme but he's normally easy to follow. I am new to WAB and I have no doubt that a high WAP is correlated to number of wins against Quad 1 teams but I don't see any necessary relationship between the two. It would all make a lot more sense if you switch the first and second sentences. Is that all it is or am I missing something?

Crème is sensationalizing the reason why NET-37 Virginia (The Selection Committee (12 members) will only be selecting 37 at-large teams) is “outside looking in”.

• The black mark on VA’s resume is that it had a “bad loss” (one of the specifically enumerated other resume factors). The loss is to NET-204 UMBC.

VA’s case illustrates that the NET’s use as probabilities can contradict its construction:

• It is constructed using “resume” records of PPP and Opponent PPP (PPP = Points Per Possession).
• So VA’s cupcake schedule can boost its NET, despite its bad loss. It has a negative WAB because it should have won its bad loss (since WAB is calculated in reference to NET-45).

 

[visitingcock]

VA’s case illustrates that the NET’s use as probabilities can contradict its construction:

• It is constructed using “resume” records of PPP and Opponent PPP (PPP = Points Per Possession).
• So VA’s cupcake schedule can boost its NET, despite its bad loss. It has a negative WAB because it should have won its bad loss (since WAB is calculated in reference to NET-45).

I believe Charlie’s mathematical reasoning is faulty.

Yes, there are 68 slots for the tournament and 31 of those slots will go to AQ conference champs. That leaves 37 at large slots.

However, you ant just look at the top 37 ranked teams because at least 5 (and possibly more) of the at ranked teams will be filled by the P/5 champs who have already qualified as AQ’s. They can’t be both a AQ and an at large! Thus, a ranking of 37 is not the cutoff to determine at large bids. It must be expanded by least five ranking places to 42..

If you add in a Princeton as an AQ who could also qualify as an at large, it expands the ranking to 43.

I’m not sure I have stated by reasoning clearly. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[YKCornelius]

Yes, isn't it interesting after weeks of being number one in the NET rankings they come up with a new metric in which UConn's not number one. Nope, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it is interesting.

Phil, the NCAA seeding committee decided over the summer to include WAB as part of this year's enhanced selection criteria. Most fans of WCBB don't keep up to speed on these types of decisions, so I understand your questioning of Charlie's "announcement" at the end of January.

Perhaps the fact that he just now factored it into his Bracketology projections for Virginia suggests that maybe he didn't get the memo earlier? Better late than never.....

See the below link.

DI Women’s Basketball Committee announces selection enhancements - NCAA.org

At its summer meeting this week in Philadelphia, the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Committee approved championship and selection enhancements, reviewed tournament

www.ncaa.org

 

[YKCornelius]

FWIW, Autumn Johnson, who publishes her own form of bracketology on the NCAA.com site, does indeed have Virginia in the field at this time.

Charlie Creme's biggest competition. See the link below.

2026 March Madness women's bracket predictions: Autumn Johnson's first NCAA tournament projections

With March Madness approaching, Autumn Johnson revealed her first NCAA tournament bracket predictions of the season with UConn, UCLA, South Carolina and Texas grabbing the No. 1 seeds.

www.ncaa.com

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

VA’s case illustrates that the NET’s use as probabilities can contradict its construction:

I believe Charlie’s mathematical reasoning is faulty.

Yes, there are 68 slots for the tournament and 31 of those slots will go to AQ conference champs. That leaves 37 at large slots.

However, you ant just look at the top 37 ranked teams because at least 5 (and possibly more) of the at ranked teams will be filled by the P/5 champs who have already qualified as AQ’s. They can’t be both a AQ and an at large! Thus, a ranking of 37 is not the cutoff to determine at large bids. It must be expanded by least five ranking places to 42..

If you add in a Princeton as an AQ who could also qualify as an at large, it expands the ranking to 43.

I’m not sure I have stated by reasoning clearly. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

At bottom, I don’t think we’re saying anything different.

The “37” in NET (Virginia) vs “37” At-Large (non-AQ) is just coincidence. The NCAA/ Torvik pegs the bubble team for WAB purposes at “45”, i.e. there are Auto-bids (AQ) among the Top NET-45sh.

• I imagine the Selection Committee can quickly unanimously agree which Top NET non-AQs to add to the Top NET AQs for inclusion;
• And by this step, which Top NET non AQs go through extra scrutiny (other factors) to determine the rest of the 37 non-AQs for inclusion;
• Seeding, of course, is separate.
• See: How the field of 68 DI women’s teams is picked for March Madness

VA is one such case for extra scrutiny:

• A NET-39 win (Clemson) (Quad 2) is its signature win;
• It also has a NET-41 non-competitive loss at home (60-79) against Syracuse (Quad 2);
• It is 0-4 against Q1; 1-1 against Q2; 2-0 against Q3; 11-1 against Q4;
• Its Q4 loss is to NET-203 (UMBC) at home.

I understand how the NET works and the Committee, with such understanding, will question VA’s NET-37 as being buoyed by its cupcake schedule.

 

[visitingcock]

At bottom, I don’t think we’re saying anything different.

The “37” in NET (Virginia) vs “37” At-Large (non-AQ) is just coincidence. The NCAA/ Torvik pegs the bubble team for WAB purposes at “45”, i.e. there are Auto-bids (AQ) among the Top NET-45sh.

• I imagine the Selection Committee can quickly unanimously agree which Top NET non-AQs to add to the Top NET AQs for inclusion;
• And by this step, which Top NET non AQs go through extra scrutiny (other factors) to determine the rest of the 37 non-AQs for inclusion;
• Seeding, of course, is separate.
• See: How the field of 68 DI women’s teams is picked for March Madness

VA is one such case for extra scrutiny:

• A NET-39 win (Clemson) (Quad 2) is its signature win;
• It also has a NET-41 non-competitive loss at home (60-79) against Syracuse (Quad 2);
• It is 0-4 against Q1; 1-1 against Q2; 2-0 against Q3; 11-1 against Q4;
• Its Q4 loss is to NET-203 (UMBC) at home.

I understand how the NET works and the Committee, with such understanding, will question VA’s NET-37 as being buoyed by its cupcake schedule.

I don’t think WE are saying anything very different . I Just question CHARLIE’S analysis.

 

[ConnMotors]

USC is almost certainly a tournament team, assuming they don't self-destruct. They are currently ranked number 20 in Massey. I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but I think there's only been one team in history ranked that high the didn't make it in and they weren't from one of the top four conferences.

They have nine games left in the regular season. I see USC going 5 and 4. My opinion but they don’t belong unless they win games against the upper tier Big 10 teams.

 

[jake0414]

Despite playing in the Big East, vs. UCLA in the Big Ten and others in the SEC, Connecticut is still 2nd in the country in Wins above Bubble, only 0.3 behind UCLA.

Wins Above Bubble

Torvik’s WAB figures differ from the WAB data posted on the NCAA website:

NCAA Stats as of 27 Jan 2026

 

[fomalhaut]

Torvik’s WAB figures differ from the WAB data posted on the NCAA website:

NCAA Stats as of 27 Jan 2026

Thanks! I hadn't seen this. Still second, though further behind UCLA than on Torvik. Connecticut's Non-conference WAB, though, is easily the best.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I don’t think WE are saying anything very different . I Just question CHARLIE’S analysis.

I think Creme does know NET-37 VA is not at the fault-line of the 37 At-Large (non AQ) bids.

He picked VA as the case to illustrate the Selection Committee process — ostensibly to tie into the newsy bit that WAB is new to the dashboard / team sheets this year.

However, choosing WAB and Q1 as his main reasoning is not the strongest case he could have made arguing for VA’s exclusion.

• And I think he knows that.

 

[fomalhaut]

They have nine games left in the regular season. I see USC going 5 and 4. My opinion but they don’t belong unless they win games against the upper tier Big 10 teams

Hardly anyone in the Big Ten has won games against the upper tier, depending on how you define that. USC has wins against Washington and Nebraska in conference and NC State out of conference. They're 2.56 above the bubble in the stats jake0414 just pointed us to.

No one has beaten UCLA or Iowa in conference. No one but those two has beaten Ohio State. Wisconsin has a win against Michigan State,
and Washington against Michigan.

Flipping it around: Maryland's best win so far is against ...USC.
Ohio State is in easily, with wins against Maryland and two good OOC wins against West Virginia and TCU.
Michigan has only beaten Wisconsin and Illinois (plus ND when they were still ranked).
Michigan State has only beaten Washington and Nebraska (same as USC!).

I just don't see "unless they win games against the upper tier" as being a qualifier for the NCAA tournament in a power conference.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

These kind of metrics can be manipulated in scheduling and will be.

 

[Phil]

They have nine games left in the regular season. I see USC going 5 and 4. My opinion but they don’t belong unless they win games against the upper tier Big 10 teams.

I think UCLA wins over Rutgers, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State and Indiana are highly likely although of course anything can happen. That's five. I don't disagree that losses are expected against UCLA and Ohio State.
That leaves Illinois and Iowa. Are those the two you think will be losses for USC that don't fall into the very likely to win and very likely to lose buckets?

I note that Massey gives USC a slight edge over Iowa but I can not only see that going either way I could see that being a large loss to Iowa. That leaves Illinois, which is had some good games notably win over Maryland.

Five wins would give the USC 16 wins which may not be enough. They do play one of the toughest schedules in the country so I'm thinking 17 or 18 wins and they are in but that still in dangerous territory.

 

[packwrap]

USC really needs to get to 9-9 in the league, and win a game or 2 in league tourney to lock up a spot.

That would required at minimum 2 good wins still in league play. Iowa game sure interesting since it's in LA.

 

[Phil]

USC really needs to get to 9-9 in the league, and win a game or 2 in league tourney to lock up a spot.

I'm curious why you say they need to "get to 9-9 in the league".

 

[visitingcock]

I'm curious why you say they need to "get to 9-9 in the league".

Me too.

I think it’s pretty obvious that a few teams in the expanded SEC and Big Ten are going to get bids with less than a .500 record in conference play.

USC is currently ranked 22 in the NET against the best SOS in the country halfway through the conference season. Barring injury, they should end up easily within the top 44 NET which can be eligible for a bid. When Kennedy returns from injury, top half of the Big Ten is also achievable

 

[cancontent]

Hardly anyone in the Big Ten has won games against the upper tier, depending on how you define that. USC has wins against Washington and Nebraska in conference and NC State out of conference. They're 2.56 above the bubble in the stats jake0414 just pointed us to.

No one has beaten UCLA or Iowa in conference. No one but those two has beaten Ohio State. Wisconsin has a win against Michigan State,
and Washington against Michigan.

Flipping it around: Maryland's best win so far is against ...USC.
Ohio State is in easily, with wins against Maryland and two good OOC wins against West Virginia and TCU.
Michigan has only beaten Wisconsin and Illinois (plus ND when they were still ranked).
Michigan State has only beaten Washington and Nebraska (same as USC!).

I just don't see "unless they win games against the upper tier" as being a qualifier for the NCAA tournament in a power conference.

They also beat Ole Miss in non-conference play. If you're going to reference non-conference games for BIG10 teams, all should be referenced to make your argument.

 

[WBBTakeover]

FWIW, Autumn Johnson, who publishes her own form of bracketology on the NCAA.com site, does indeed have Virginia in the field at this time.

Charlie Creme's biggest competition. See the link below.

2026 March Madness women's bracket predictions: Autumn Johnson's first NCAA tournament projections

With March Madness approaching, Autumn Johnson revealed her first NCAA tournament bracket predictions of the season with UConn, UCLA, South Carolina and Texas grabbing the No. 1 seeds.

www.ncaa.com

Autumn constructed this bracket on January 26 and still has UVA, who doesn't have a Q1 win, has a Q4 home loss to UMBC, got blown out by Q2 Syracuse on its home floor two weeks ago, and has one win over a P4 with a winning conference record (Clemson, whose inclusion in the field is also a little shaky), in the field. She leaves out Virginia Tech, who has a Q1 win over Syracuse, a win over the same Clemson team that Autumn credits UVA for having, no Q3 or Q4 losses, and has already played Louisville (a team that will almost certainly blow out UVA next month).

I'm convinced that these folks are not paying close attention. I know that Autumn focuses mainly on the Big Ten, but still--do the research.

 

[packwrap]

I'm curious why you say they need to "get to 9-9 in the league".

Well they made a good start toward that with the win over Iowa.

I may just be too conservative, but I figured 7-11 and 1st game tourney loss might knock them out even with their good wins.

Bubble gets interesting with the big strong leagues. Even if deserved, fans are not enthusiastic about teams with losing records getting in, unless they win the conference tourney.

 

[WBBTakeover]

Notre Dame just dropped a road game to Cal (their second straight loss after losing to Clemson). They have a fairly tough stretch of games before they get to the Wake Forest game (which isn't really a gimme anymore).

Is this a cause for concern for the Irish?

 

[BRS24]

A TGIF double bracketology, herhoopstats (orange) and ESPN.(grey). HHS will start posting brackets each week (lordy).

Megan Gauer's take:

Undefeated UConn takes the top seed, while UCLA, South Carolina and Texas all hold firm on the No. 1 seed line. The SEC and Big Ten are dominating the hosting group, but 10-0 starts for both Louisville and Duke in ACC play have both teams surging. The Cardinals have climbed to a No. 2 seed and the Blue Devils are on the hosting bubble. On the tournament bubble, the conversation centers around conference play in the Big 12 and ACC. Automatic qualifiers are selected as the team in the league with the highest Her Hoop Stats ranking. Outside of the Power 4, look out for the Big East and A10 to be multi-bid leagues. The Ivy league and Summit League also have the potential to generate bid stealers. Follow along for weekly bracketology updates for the rest of the season.​

Charlie Creme's take:

Perhaps no team this season needed a win as badly as USC did on Thursday. Not only did the Trojans register their biggest win of the year, it might have saved their season. They had lost six of their last seven games and were one more loss away from falling out of the NCAA tournament field. Instead, USC’s dominating performance against Iowa gave the Trojans their third Quad 1 win. A much more manageable portion of the schedule awaits, and a bid is safe for now. Mississippi State was equally dominant at Tennessee on Thursday and picked up its most important victory of the season. The Bulldogs earned their second Quad 1 win (both over teams in the top 20 of the NET). With a NET ranking in the top 40, the Bulldogs might have done enough to earn a second straight NCAA tournament berth, as long as they win the games they are supposed to for the rest of the season.​

An interesting juxtaposition between Megan and Charlie's #1 picks. Regionally, HHS has UConn from 2 to 1, UCLA from 3 to 2, S Carolina from 4 to 3, and Texas from 1 to 4.

No changes to the ESPN top 16, however HHS added OSU, MSU, Tennessee, and Baylor, while removing MD, USC, ISU, and UNC.

	HHS	ESPN
Big Ten	12	12
SEC	11	11
ACC	8	9
Big 12	8	8
Big East	2	2
Atlantic 10	2

 

[ConnMotors]

Great win for USC over Iowa. I thought that hat would be one of their losses. Guess that there is an opening for them unless they fall apart like ND is doing.