Updated Metrics (2/26/23)

[gtcam]

Things are so vanilla in college basketball that I wouldn't be surprised at anyone's eventual ranking. I think this year more than any other, the committee will be hard pressed to have a definitive top 12 or 16 until all conference tournaments are completed on selection Sunday.
UConn needs to win out the last 2 games and appear in the NBE final, in my opinion, to get above the 3 line. The January cave in was that devastating.

 

[auror]

Against teams that actually matter, they would be 11-14.

Losses matter.

They're 24 and 27 in the two resume metrics right now (KPI and SOR). Those are the primary selection metrics for the bubble (more important than KenPom/NET). 3 more losses - 1 at Baylor, 1 home to West Virginia (who is still top 30 in the NET so it's quad 1), and a neutral site B12 game (which by default is quad 1) means 3 quad 1 losses. That's dropping them 10 points max in resume metrics. They'd still be top 35-40 for resume and likely the same or higher in predictive with 8 quad 1 wins. They'd be fine.

They'd be going up against like UNC with metrics in the mid 40s and something like 3-9 in quad 1. That's what the bubble is.

 

[Fishy]

Losses matter.

Lol…..eight quad one wins.

Look at the bubble and report back on the number of teams there with more quad one wins.

 

[SubbaBub]

Will be a 4. The committee has 2 weeks and a slew of big tournament games to get everyone where they need to be.



If they put us higher and we lay an egg in the next two weeks they will have to explain us staying or dropping too far when our net ranking didn't move all that much.

 

[HooperScooper]

Losses matter.

Things have gone from bad to worse to horrific in Ames with No. 23 Iowa State falling twice this week to OU and to Texas by a combined 29 points. The Cyclones are still comfortably in the NCAA Tournament field but look destined to go one-and-done with the way they're playing of late.

College basketball rankings, grades: Another 'A+' for Kentucky; Michigan earns a 'B+' and Virginia gets 'F'

The Wolverines needed Hunter Dickinson's 3-pointer at end of regulation to earn an OT win vs. Wisconsin

www.cbssports.com

Btw, what's with Boone's comment about UConn's defense? I was not happy about the way they couldn't stop St. John's from getting to the rim yesterday but besides that game I think they've been pretty good lately. I think he's been on the Boneyard. Lol. They've Slipped to #23 in defense on KenPom so maybe that's what he's referring to?

 

[7774]

Losses matter.

You just really don’t have a grasp of how all this works. Basically everything you post illustrates that.

 

[shizzle787]

You just really don’t have a grasp of how all this works. Basically everything you post illustrates that.

I have a better understanding than most. Look up how many teams have gotten in with a 17-14 record in history (regardless of SOS).

 

[shizzle787]

Kansas State (17-14: 1990), Villanova (16-14: 1991), Georgia (16-14: 2001), Michigan (17-14, 2022). That's the list of at-large teams since 1985 that have gotten in less than 3 games over .500. There were two teams in 2021 that met that criteria but that was the COVID season so everything was off.

 

[willie99]

their AD is on the comittee

CHRIS REYNOLDS (2023) – Bradley Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics (Chairman)

BERNADETTE MCGLADE (2023) – Atlantic 10 Commissioner

CHARLES MCCLELLAND (2024) – SWAC Commissioner (Vice-Chairman)

JAMIE POLLARD (2024) – Iowa State Athletic Director

BUBBA CUNNINGHAM (2025) – North Carolina Athletic Director

MARK COYLE (2026) – Minnesota Athletic Director

DAVE HEEKE (2026) – Arizona Athletic Director

GREG BYRNE (2026) – Alabama Athletic Director

KEITH GILL (2026) – Sun Belt Commissioner

BARRY COLLIER (2026) – Butler Athletic Director

MARTIN NEWTON (2027) – Samford Athletic Director

TOM WISTRCILL (2027) – Big Sky Commisisoner

The most important variable. George Mason should not have been selected in 2006. In their own conference, Hofstra finished higher, had a better RPI, beat them twice and eliminated them in the conference tournament. But Mason's AD was on the committee and Mason got the at large, not Hofstra

 

[uconngb]

The 68-team era having a worse bubble would make sense if there wasn't consolidation among the top 10 leagues in the last decade, but there has been. The major leagues are bigger (and thus more major conference teams have suspect records) and we still have only seen Michigan (last year) get in with a record this bad. (I don't count the two 2021 teams as OOC schedules were all over the place.) In the 26 seasons between 1985 and 2010, three suspect teams got in. So about 11% of the time, one of these teams got in. Between 2011 and 2022 (10 seasons-not counting 20 or 21), only one suspect team got in (9% of the time). For all the talk of the bubble getting worse, statistically it is actually harder to get in only three games over .500.

Also, Iowa State has eight Q1 wins right now, but you are forgetting some of those may turn into Q2 before Selection Sunday, and they will pick up at least one more Q2 loss along the way if they lose out.

You need to read up on the theory of holes…..when you are in one, you should stop digging.

 

[7774]

The 68-team era having a worse bubble would make sense if there wasn't consolidation among the top 10 leagues in the last decade, but there has been. The major leagues are bigger (and thus more major conference teams have suspect records) and we still have only seen Michigan (last year) get in with a record this bad. (I don't count the two 2021 teams as OOC schedules were all over the place.) In the 26 seasons between 1985 and 2010, three suspect teams got in. So about 11% of the time, one of these teams got in. Between 2011 and 2022 (10 seasons-not counting 20 or 21), only one suspect team got in (9% of the time). For all the talk of the bubble getting worse, statistically it is actually harder to get in only three games over .500.

Also, Iowa State has eight Q1 wins right now, but you are forgetting some of those may turn into Q2 before Selection Sunday, and they will pick up at least one more Q2 loss along the way if they lose out.

GL with your analysis.

 

[MDHuskFan]

Why do people still debate w/ Shizzle ? Insanity

 

[ucp990411]

Who cares? We are going to win 14 straight

 

[caw]

Losses matter.

ISU (11-11 Q1/Q2) 17-11, no bad losses, only WVU and Baylor remain on schedule. Both Q1 games. They will not be outside looking in come the dance. They could fall pretty far but look at the last eight teams in. There isn't a single one with a better resume, even if you give ISU three losses.

ESPN last four BYES:
Pitt(7-7), 21-8, one bad loss
Nevada (9-7), 21-7, no bad losses
WVU (9-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Memphis (9-6), 21-7, one bad loss

ESPN last four in:

USC, PAC12 version (10-6 Q1/Q2) 21-8 overall, 2 bad losses
Wisconsin (10-9 Q1/Q2) 16-11 overall, 2 bad losses
Mississippi state (8-9 Q1/Q2) 19-10, 1 bad loss
Oklahoma state (8-12 Q1/Q2) 16-13, 1 bad loss

ESPN last four out:
PSU (7-11) 17-11, no bad losses
UNC (6-11) 18-11, no bad losses
Utah State (6-5) 22-7, 2 bad losses
Charleston (2-1) 28-3, 2 bad losses

Next four out:
Texas Tech (5-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Michigan (8-11), 16-12, 1 bad loss
New Mexico (6-5) 20-9, 4 bad losses
Clemson (7-4) 21-8, 4 bad losses

 

[shizzle787]

ISU (11-11 Q1/Q2) 17-11, no bad losses, only WVU and Baylor remain on schedule. Both Q1 games. They will not be outside looking in come the dance. They could fall pretty far but look at the last eight teams in. There isn't a single one with a better resume, even if you give ISU three losses.

ESPN last four BYES:
Pitt(7-7), 21-8, one bad loss
Nevada (9-7), 21-7, no bad losses
WVU (9-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Memphis (9-6), 21-7, one bad loss

ESPN last four in:

USC, PAC12 version (10-6 Q1/Q2) 21-8 overall, 2 bad losses
Wisconsin (10-9 Q1/Q2) 16-11 overall, 2 bad losses
Mississippi state (8-9 Q1/Q2) 19-10, 1 bad loss
Oklahoma state (8-12 Q1/Q2) 16-13, 1 bad loss

ESPN last four out:
PSU (7-11) 17-11, no bad losses
UNC (6-11) 18-11, no bad losses
Utah State (6-5) 22-7, 2 bad losses
Charleston (2-1) 28-3, 2 bad losses

Next four out:
Texas Tech (5-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Michigan (8-11), 16-12, 1 bad loss
New Mexico (6-5) 20-9, 4 bad losses
Clemson (7-4) 21-8, 4 bad losses

You're forgetting something: bid thieves. A few teams will come out of nowhere and snatch bids shrinking the bubble so you have to move about four spots down the pecking order for everyone. Iowa State is also 2-8 on the road. The committee values road wins possibly more than anything else.

WVU is Q1 for now, but if they beat Iowa State and lose their other two, falling from 27 to 31 is very possible. Also, if Iowa State loses out, they will likely play Oklahoma in the first round of the Big 12 tournament (that would be a Quad 2 loss).

I highlighted the ones that IMO would have a better resume than Iowa State if it loses out.

Also, this is Lunardi's predictions. He is notoriously average on BracketMatrix so I would pick someone else out to do an analysis on.

 

[auror]

You're forgetting something: bid thieves. A few teams will come out of nowhere and snatch bids shrinking the bubble so you have to move about four spots down the pecking order for everyone. Iowa State is also 2-8 on the road. The committee values road wins possibly more than anything else.

WVU is Q1 for now, but if they beat Iowa State and lose their other two, falling from 27 to 31 is very possible. Also, if Iowa State loses out, they will likely play Oklahoma in the first round of the Big 12 tournament (that would be a Quad 2 loss).

I highlighted the ones that IMO would have a better resume than Iowa State if it loses out.

Also, this is Lunardi's predictions. He is notoriously average on BracketMatrix so I would pick someone else out to do an analysis on.

Oklahoma is top 50 NET, so on neutral it would be Q1.

Michigan (17-14, 2022). That's the list of at-large teams since 1985 that have gotten in less than 3 games over .500. There were two teams in 2021 that met that criteria but that was the COVID season so everything was off.

They'd have a better profile than Michigan 2022, just last year, who was NET 34, KenPom 33, SOR 44, 5-10 in Q1, 3-3 Q2, with a strong SoS and a Q3 loss. 6-10 road/neutral.

Iowa St. would be similarly ranked analytically. They're 22, 24, and 27 right now, but with 3 somewhat close loses will drop to around 34, 33, 44. They'd be 8-12 in Q1 (substantially better), 2-2 Q2 (similar), and undefeated in Q3+Q4 (better). 4-10 in road/neutral (slightly worse).

 

[AdamaNation]

We can really right a lot of January wrongs by winning both this week and at least 2 in BET .
Win out and the BET and the worse we would be is a 2 with a punchers chance at a 1.( lot of variables) If we go 1-1 this week and lose game one of BET we are a 5 probably maybe 6. We are in charge of our destiny now again. Let’s take advantage

A loss to a revitalized nova may not be the distance as they are probably on or near the bubble

 

[caw]

Q

You're forgetting something: bid thieves. A few teams will come out of nowhere and snatch bids shrinking the bubble so you have to move about four spots down the pecking order for everyone. Iowa State is also 2-8 on the road. The committee values road wins possibly more than anything else.

WVU is Q1 for now, but if they beat Iowa State and lose their other two, falling from 27 to 31 is very possible. Also, if Iowa State loses out, they will likely play Oklahoma in the first round of the Big 12 tournament (that would be a Quad 2 loss).

I highlighted the ones that IMO would have a better resume than Iowa State if it loses out.

Also, this is Lunardi's predictions. He is notoriously average on BracketMatrix so I would pick someone else out to do an analysis on.

Nope, I didn't forget "bid thieves" thus why I included the last four to have byes. The only thing shown by the sixteen released is that they value that for seeding, but they obviously also value whatever ISU had before considering they were in the 16.

The difference in WVU moving to Q2 is negligible as a loss. It remains a game which can not become a bad loss.

Great, your opinion based on what? What metric do you think they have that is better. Not Q1/Q2 wins. And in regards to the ones you highlighted, aside from Nevada let me quote someone here:

Losses matter.

More importantly bad losses matter, those being Q3/Q4 losses. Overall record, that seems flawed and counters everything the NCAA committee has said they look at. Q1 road wins? Sure, let's do that:

ISU 2-8 Q1A

Pitt 3-2 Q1A
Nevada 1-4 Q1A
Memphis 0-3 Q1A
Wisconsin 4-4 Q1A
USC 3-4 Q1A
Utah St 0-3 Q1A

So of the six teams you highlighted, only three have more Q1A wins than ISU, and again all three have bad losses. Pitt may have the best argument of the six at 3-2. Not exactly running away with it here are they. Wisconsin at 4-4, but again 2 bad bad losses to ISU's zero and ISU isn't the team making up distance.


Yes, it is Lunardi, but it doesn't really matter how good he is or isn't at bracketology. Unless you are arguing those 16 teams are not around the bubble? Are you arguing that? Be clear here then, give your bubble. Maybe all 16 are in or maybe there are eight other teams in instead of the eight he has out right now. Maybe there are eight in instead that he has 9-16 on the outside looking in. Doesn't really matter. That is very realistic sample of teams on/around the bubble. If you disagree with that statement give your sample. Give you numbers.

I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't bring anything to the argument but "dude my opinion is different".

Want to continue. Give your bubble teams, give your reasoning, give your data.

 

[ucp990411]

I hope the committee gives it as much thought as you guys

 

[shizzle787]

Q


Nope, I didn't forget "bid thieves" thus why I included the last four to have byes. The only thing shown by the sixteen released is that they value that for seeding, but they obviously also value whatever ISU had before considering they were in the 16.

The difference in WVU moving to Q2 is negligible as a loss. It remains a game which can not become a bad loss.

Great, your opinion based on what? What metric do you think they have that is better. Not Q1/Q2 wins. And in regards to the ones you highlighted, aside from Nevada let me quote someone here:



More importantly bad losses matter, those being Q3/Q4 losses. Overall record, that seems flawed and counters everything the NCAA committee has said they look at. Q1 road wins? Sure, let's do that:

ISU 2-8 Q1A

Pitt 3-2 Q1A
Nevada 1-4 Q1A
Memphis 0-3 Q1A
Wisconsin 4-4 Q1A
USC 3-4 Q1A
Utah St 0-3 Q1A

So of the six teams you highlighted, only three have more Q1A wins than ISU, and again all three have bad losses. Pitt may have the best argument of the six at 3-2. Not exactly running away with it here are they. Wisconsin at 4-4, but again 2 bad bad losses to ISU's zero and ISU isn't the team making up distance.


Yes, it is Lunardi, but it doesn't really matter how good he is or isn't at bracketology. Unless you are arguing those 16 teams are not around the bubble? Are you arguing that? Be clear here then, give your bubble. Maybe all 16 are in or maybe there are eight other teams in instead of the eight he has out right now. Maybe there are eight in instead that he has 9-16 on the outside looking in. Doesn't really matter. That is very realistic sample of teams on/around the bubble. If you disagree with that statement give your sample. Give you numbers.

I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't bring anything to the argument but "dude my opinion is different".

Want to continue. Give your bubble teams, give your reasoning, give your data.

Another thing you are forgetting is that some of these bubble teams will win three or four more games. Teams play themselves off the bubble, but they also play themselves in. About half will play themselves in and you have bid-thieves.

Take Pitt. They have 21 wins. They will likely win one or two more. Even in a down year for the ACC, a 23-win Pitt is getting in.

One thing that you are also not taking into account is the human element on the board (and I type this as I realize that the Iowa State AD is on the committee). The ACC representative is not going to stand for a 17-win Iowa State getting in over a 23-win Clemson. Not going to happen.

Anyway: I have 25 teams as pure mathematical locks as of today.

I have 9 more teams that will likely play their way in (one or two more wins): Kentucky, USC, Missouri, Texas A&M, USC, Arizona State, Illinois, Pitt, Clemson.

That is 34 teams that should be in. They play in the major six leagues, the MW, WCC, and AAC.

Let's assume there are three bid thieves among those nine leagues: 34 teams that should be minus six auto bids = 28 at-larges already accounted for.

Let's assume one of Charleston or FAU lose in their conference final (and VCU wins the A-10): another bid thief.

This gives us eight spots to fight for.

The contenders (my bubble-predicted regular season records in second parentheses):
Iowa State (17-11: not on the bubble yet but if they lose all three I think they are out) (17-14)
North Carolina (18-11) (20-11)
Oklahoma State (16-13) (17-14)
Wake Forest (18-11) (19-12)
West Virginia (16-13) (17-14)
Texas Tech (16-13) (16-15)
Michigan (17-12) (17-14)
Iowa (18-11) (19-12)
Michigan State (17-11) (19-11)
Rutgers (18-11) (20-11)
Wisconsin (16-12) (17-13)
Boise State (22-7) (23-8)
Utah State (22-7) (24-7)
Nevada (22-7) (24-7)
New Mexico (20-9) (22-9)
Auburn (19-10) (19-12)
Arkansas (19-10) (19-12)
Mississippi State (19-10) (21-10)
Charleston (28-3: assuming losing in CAA final) (30-4)

If Iowa State is to make the field, they have to be one of the top eight here; to make the field without a bye, one of the top four.

I don't know who will do what, but I will predict a little (only regular season-conference tourneys would take too long).

I based my projections on realistic results: you are probably not going to win on the road against the #8 team in the country, etc.


The eight teams I highlighted will be the eight teams I think get in.

My reasoning:
The MW will get three teams in. SDSU + 2 others. That is two bids.
Mississippi State has a favorable schedule. I see them going 2-0 this week to get to 21 wins. Probably win one more in the SEC tournament to get to 22. Don't see a 22-11 SEC team with a win over Marquette being left out.
Auburn and Arkansas I have both losing their last two regular season games to good teams, but I think one will win at least one game in the SEC tournament (probably Auburn). If you get to 20 wins in the SEC, you will get in (unless you're Texas A&M who likes to schedule a ton of cupcakes). One more bids.
UNC is going to get on a little heater here. I think they beat Duke at home and win a game or two in the ACC tournament. One more bid.
Michigan State and Rutgers have favorable schedules and will probably be in even if they lose in their first respective games in the B1G tournament as long as they go 2-0 this week. Two more bids.
Finally, Charleston. I think there is a good chance they get to the final of the CAA tournament and lose to Hofstra. Politically, I don't see a 30-4 team from a middle of the pack D-1 league missing the tournament, especially in a year with few mid-majors in the field otherwise. One more bid.

My projected last four byes:
Michigan State
Rutgers
Boise State
UNC

My projected last four in:
Utah State
Auburn
Charleston
Mississippi State

My projected first four out:
Arkansas
Utah State
Iowa
Oklahoma State

My projected next four out:
Iowa State
Michigan
New Mexico
West Virginia

Iowa State will be the fifth team out according to my projections.

 

[shizzle787]

Oklahoma is top 50 NET, so on neutral it would be Q1.

They'd have a better profile than Michigan 2022, just last year, who was NET 34, KenPom 33, SOR 44, 5-10 in Q1, 3-3 Q2, with a strong SoS and a Q3 loss. 6-10 road/neutral.

Iowa St. would be similarly ranked analytically. They're 22, 24, and 27 right now, but with 3 somewhat close loses will drop to around 34, 33, 44. They'd be 8-12 in Q1 (substantially better), 2-2 Q2 (similar), and undefeated in Q3+Q4 (better). 4-10 in road/neutral (slightly worse).

Oklahoma is 65 according the ncaa website.

 

[MDHuskFan]

Another thing you are forgetting is that some of these bubble teams will win three or four more games. Teams play themselves off the bubble, but they also play themselves in. About half will play themselves in and you have bid-thieves.

Take Pitt. They have 21 wins. They will likely win one or two more. Even in a down year for the ACC, a 23-win Pitt is getting in.

One thing that you are also not taking into account is the human element on the board (and I type this as I realize that the Iowa State AD is on the committee). The ACC representative is not going to stand for a 17-win Iowa State getting in over a 23-win Clemson. Not going to happen.

Anyway: I have 25 teams as pure mathematical locks as of today.

I have 9 more teams that will likely play their way in (one or two more wins): Kentucky, USC, Missouri, Texas A&M, USC, Arizona State, Illinois, Pitt, Clemson.

That is 34 teams that should be in. They play in the major six leagues, the MW, WCC, and AAC.

Let's assume there are three bid thieves among those nine leagues: 34 teams that should be minus six auto bids = 28 at-larges already accounted for.

Let's assume one of Charleston or FAU lose in their conference final (and VCU wins the A-10): another bid thief.

This gives us eight spots to fight for.

The contenders (my bubble-predicted regular season records in second parentheses):
Iowa State (17-11: not on the bubble yet but if they lose all three I think they are out) (17-14)
North Carolina (18-11) (20-11)
Oklahoma State (16-13) (17-14)
Wake Forest (18-11) (19-12)
West Virginia (16-13) (17-14)
Texas Tech (16-13) (16-15)
Michigan (17-12) (17-14)
Iowa (18-11) (19-12)
Michigan State (17-11) (19-11)
Rutgers (18-11) (20-11)
Wisconsin (16-12) (17-13)
Boise State (22-7) (23-8)
Utah State (22-7) (24-7)
Nevada (22-7) (24-7)
New Mexico (20-9) (22-9)
Auburn (19-10) (19-12)
Arkansas (19-10) (19-12)
Mississippi State (19-10) (21-10)
Charleston (28-3: assuming losing in CAA final) (30-4)

If Iowa State is to make the field, they have to be one of the top eight here; to make the field without a bye, one of the top four.

I don't know who will do what, but I will predict a little (only regular season-conference tourneys would take too long).

I based my projections on realistic results: you are probably not going to win on the road against the #8 team in the country, etc.


The eight teams I highlighted will be the eight teams I think get in.

My reasoning:
The MW will get three teams in. SDSU + 2 others. That is two bids.
Mississippi State has a favorable schedule. I see them going 2-0 this week to get to 21 wins. Probably win one more in the SEC tournament to get to 22. Don't see a 22-11 SEC team with a win over Marquette being left out.
Auburn and Arkansas I have both losing their last two regular season games to good teams, but I think one will win at least one game in the SEC tournament (probably Auburn). If you get to 20 wins in the SEC, you will get in (unless you're Texas A&M who likes to schedule a ton of cupcakes). One more bids.
UNC is going to get on a little heater here. I think they beat Duke at home and win a game or two in the ACC tournament. One more bid.
Michigan State and Rutgers have favorable schedules and will probably be in even if they lose in their first respective games in the B1G tournament as long as they go 2-0 this week. Two more bids.
Finally, Charleston. I think there is a good chance they get to the final of the CAA tournament and lose to Hofstra. Politically, I don't see a 30-4 team from a middle of the pack D-1 league missing the tournament, especially in a year with few mid-majors in the field otherwise. One more bid.

My projected last four byes:
Michigan State
Rutgers
Boise State
UNC

My projected last four in:
Utah State
Auburn
Charleston
Mississippi State

My projected first four out:
Arkansas
Utah State
Iowa
Oklahoma State

My projected next four out:
Iowa State
Michigan
New Mexico
West Virginia

Iowa State will be the fifth team out according to my projections.

So a UNC team who just got their first quad 1 win vs a sliding UVA would get in over Iowa State, and also get a bye?

 

[shizzle787]

So a UNC team who just got their first quad 1 win vs a sliding UVA would get in over Iowa State, and also get a bye?

If they win three more games including over Duke, yes. No way is a 21-win UNC getting left out. You guys love the net so much yet it just let us down with the committee reveal as I screamed for days it would and everyone swore by the NET. It's one of several metrics the committee uses. A 21-win UNC (brand) is not getting left out. You can adjust a team or two and may have to play-in but they will be in.

 

[caw]

If they win three more games including over Duke, yes. No way is a 21-win UNC getting left out. You guys love the net so much yet it just let us down with the committee reveal as I screamed for days it would and everyone swore by the NET. It's one of several metrics the committee uses. A 21-win UNC (brand) is not getting left out. You can adjust a team or two and may have to play-in but they will be in.

I have said over and over NET will be a good predictor for who gets in, not for seed.

Another thing you are forgetting is that some of these bubble teams will win three or four more games. Teams play themselves off the bubble, but they also play themselves in. About half will play themselves in and you have bid-thieves.

Take Pitt. They have 21 wins. They will likely win one or two more. Even in a down year for the ACC, a 23-win Pitt is getting in.

One thing that you are also not taking into account is the human element on the board (and I type this as I realize that the Iowa State AD is on the committee). The ACC representative is not going to stand for a 17-win Iowa State getting in over a 23-win Clemson. Not going to happen.

Anyway: I have 25 teams as pure mathematical locks as of today.

I have 9 more teams that will likely play their way in (one or two more wins): Kentucky, USC, Missouri, Texas A&M, USC, Arizona State, Illinois, Pitt, Clemson.

That is 34 teams that should be in. They play in the major six leagues, the MW, WCC, and AAC.

Let's assume there are three bid thieves among those nine leagues: 34 teams that should be minus six auto bids = 28 at-larges already accounted for.

Let's assume one of Charleston or FAU lose in their conference final (and VCU wins the A-10): another bid thief.

This gives us eight spots to fight for.

The contenders (my bubble-predicted regular season records in second parentheses):
Iowa State (17-11: not on the bubble yet but if they lose all three I think they are out) (17-14)
North Carolina (18-11) (20-11)
Oklahoma State (16-13) (17-14)
Wake Forest (18-11) (19-12)
West Virginia (16-13) (17-14)
Texas Tech (16-13) (16-15)
Michigan (17-12) (17-14)
Iowa (18-11) (19-12)
Michigan State (17-11) (19-11)
Rutgers (18-11) (20-11)
Wisconsin (16-12) (17-13)
Boise State (22-7) (23-8)
Utah State (22-7) (24-7)
Nevada (22-7) (24-7)
New Mexico (20-9) (22-9)
Auburn (19-10) (19-12)
Arkansas (19-10) (19-12)
Mississippi State (19-10) (21-10)
Charleston (28-3: assuming losing in CAA final) (30-4)

If Iowa State is to make the field, they have to be one of the top eight here; to make the field without a bye, one of the top four.

I don't know who will do what, but I will predict a little (only regular season-conference tourneys would take too long).

I based my projections on realistic results: you are probably not going to win on the road against the #8 team in the country, etc.


The eight teams I highlighted will be the eight teams I think get in.

My reasoning:
The MW will get three teams in. SDSU + 2 others. That is two bids.
Mississippi State has a favorable schedule. I see them going 2-0 this week to get to 21 wins. Probably win one more in the SEC tournament to get to 22. Don't see a 22-11 SEC team with a win over Marquette being left out.
Auburn and Arkansas I have both losing their last two regular season games to good teams, but I think one will win at least one game in the SEC tournament (probably Auburn). If you get to 20 wins in the SEC, you will get in (unless you're Texas A&M who likes to schedule a ton of cupcakes). One more bids.
UNC is going to get on a little heater here. I think they beat Duke at home and win a game or two in the ACC tournament. One more bid.
Michigan State and Rutgers have favorable schedules and will probably be in even if they lose in their first respective games in the B1G tournament as long as they go 2-0 this week. Two more bids.
Finally, Charleston. I think there is a good chance they get to the final of the CAA tournament and lose to Hofstra. Politically, I don't see a 30-4 team from a middle of the pack D-1 league missing the tournament, especially in a year with few mid-majors in the field otherwise. One more bid.

My projected last four byes:
Michigan State
Rutgers
Boise State
UNC

My projected last four in:
Utah State
Auburn
Charleston
Mississippi State

My projected first four out:
Arkansas
Utah State
Iowa
Oklahoma State

My projected next four out:
Iowa State
Michigan
New Mexico
West Virginia

Iowa State will be the fifth team out according to my projections.

You have MSU way lower than I do, and I mean way lower. I have them at a 7-8 right now. I'm not surprised considering right now they have a similar resume to ISU that you have them barely in the tournament even with winning.

Rutgers I have at a 9. Boise State a 10 (so theoretically could be a last bye I guess). I'm also higher on Auburn.

Can't argue with what you have because honestly, it's a waste of time without knowing your full list and I don't have the time or patience to do it.

 

[shizzle787]

I have said over and over NET will be a good predictor for who gets in, not for seed.



You have MSU way lower than I do, and I mean way lower. I have them at a 7-8 right now. I'm not surprised considering right now they have a similar resume to ISU that you have them barely in the tournament even with winning.

Rutgers I have at a 9. Boise State a 10 (so theoretically could be a last bye I guess). I'm also higher on Auburn.

Can't argue with what you have because honestly, it's a waste of time without knowing your full list and I don't have the time or patience to do it.

I literally gave you my list. Including the nine teams I expect to get in ahead of the bubble situation. But either way, if Iowa State wins tonight, it’s moot. If not, the debate will intensify.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Another thing you are forgetting is that some of these bubble teams will win three or four more games. Teams play themselves off the bubble, but they also play themselves in. About half will play themselves in and you have bid-thieves.

Take Pitt. They have 21 wins. They will likely win one or two more. Even in a down year for the ACC, a 23-win Pitt is getting in.

One thing that you are also not taking into account is the human element on the board (and I type this as I realize that the Iowa State AD is on the committee). The ACC representative is not going to stand for a 17-win Iowa State getting in over a 23-win Clemson. Not going to happen.

Anyway: I have 25 teams as pure mathematical locks as of today.

I have 9 more teams that will likely play their way in (one or two more wins): Kentucky, USC, Missouri, Texas A&M, USC, Arizona State, Illinois, Pitt, Clemson.

That is 34 teams that should be in. They play in the major six leagues, the MW, WCC, and AAC.

Let's assume there are three bid thieves among those nine leagues: 34 teams that should be minus six auto bids = 28 at-larges already accounted for.

Let's assume one of Charleston or FAU lose in their conference final (and VCU wins the A-10): another bid thief.

This gives us eight spots to fight for.

The contenders (my bubble-predicted regular season records in second parentheses):
Iowa State (17-11: not on the bubble yet but if they lose all three I think they are out) (17-14)
North Carolina (18-11) (20-11)
Oklahoma State (16-13) (17-14)
Wake Forest (18-11) (19-12)
West Virginia (16-13) (17-14)
Texas Tech (16-13) (16-15)
Michigan (17-12) (17-14)
Iowa (18-11) (19-12)
Michigan State (17-11) (19-11)
Rutgers (18-11) (20-11)
Wisconsin (16-12) (17-13)
Boise State (22-7) (23-8)
Utah State (22-7) (24-7)
Nevada (22-7) (24-7)
New Mexico (20-9) (22-9)
Auburn (19-10) (19-12)
Arkansas (19-10) (19-12)
Mississippi State (19-10) (21-10)
Charleston (28-3: assuming losing in CAA final) (30-4)

If Iowa State is to make the field, they have to be one of the top eight here; to make the field without a bye, one of the top four.

I don't know who will do what, but I will predict a little (only regular season-conference tourneys would take too long).

I based my projections on realistic results: you are probably not going to win on the road against the #8 team in the country, etc.


The eight teams I highlighted will be the eight teams I think get in.

My reasoning:
The MW will get three teams in. SDSU + 2 others. That is two bids.
Mississippi State has a favorable schedule. I see them going 2-0 this week to get to 21 wins. Probably win one more in the SEC tournament to get to 22. Don't see a 22-11 SEC team with a win over Marquette being left out.
Auburn and Arkansas I have both losing their last two regular season games to good teams, but I think one will win at least one game in the SEC tournament (probably Auburn). If you get to 20 wins in the SEC, you will get in (unless you're Texas A&M who likes to schedule a ton of cupcakes). One more bids.
UNC is going to get on a little heater here. I think they beat Duke at home and win a game or two in the ACC tournament. One more bid.
Michigan State and Rutgers have favorable schedules and will probably be in even if they lose in their first respective games in the B1G tournament as long as they go 2-0 this week. Two more bids.
Finally, Charleston. I think there is a good chance they get to the final of the CAA tournament and lose to Hofstra. Politically, I don't see a 30-4 team from a middle of the pack D-1 league missing the tournament, especially in a year with few mid-majors in the field otherwise. One more bid.

My projected last four byes:
Michigan State
Rutgers
Boise State
UNC

My projected last four in:
Utah State
Auburn
Charleston
Mississippi State

My projected first four out:
Arkansas
Utah State
Iowa
Oklahoma State

My projected next four out:
Iowa State
Michigan
New Mexico
West Virginia

Iowa State will be the fifth team out according to my projections.

Lol. Iowa State is making the ncaa tournament. I guess if they lose out. But come on. They are in today .

 

[DaveHuskiesFan]

Pulled team sheets back to 2018.

No team with 8 Q1 wins has missed the tournament.

No team with 7 Q1 wins has missed the tournament.

1 Team with 6 Q1 wins has missed the tournament.

Average seed of teams with 8 Q1 Wins = 3.26

Last year's Iowa St got in as an 11 seed with a much worse resume. I don't think Iowa St. is in trouble.

 

[Citrusdog]

I'll start with the cliches (or similar), because they seem particularly apt.

Heads we lose a lot; tails we don't win much

For every punch, there's a counter punch.

Any loss counts hugely against us and means we're not that good.

But any victory is no big deal and can be explained away so that we're not that good:

The margin wasn't big enough, so we're not that good

We beat a team that lost, so we're not that good

The second half margin was smaller than the first half, so we're not that good

We were the home team, so we were expected to win, so the victory wasn't all that great, so we're not that good

Our good opponents really aren't all that good, so we're not that good

The final 8, 4, or 2 minutes saw the margin shrink, so we're not that good

One false move and we aren't that good.

Any success and it's ephemeral.

The losses are proof positive that we aren't that good. They can and must be trusted.

The victories are at best provisional, and always undeserving of trust.

Remember:

We were great in the beginning of the season, but that was months ago not now.

We were terrible in January, and must never forget this.

We must always know that the January bad could re-emerge at any time.

None of these notions apply, for example, to Purdue which is 3-4 in February.

Except that our victories over Iowa State and Oklahoma State don't really mean much, because those teams have both lost a lot in Big 12 play recently.

And our victory over Oregon counts even less because their roster was depleted by injuries when we played.

The 15-point victory over Alabama was from when we were good and they weren't yet great. Brandon Miller was a freshman, playing in only his 6th game. Plus, we let them close an earlier double digit gap. Besides, their losses to Tennessee and Oklahoma were on the road, and the Oklahoma game was a fluke anyway, so it shouldn't be held against them, and their Gonzaga loss wasn't a home loss because the game was played in Birmingham not Tuscaloosa, and they beat Houston in an away game coming back from a large margin, but the UConn loss that featured a closed margin that got reopened as a second large margin doesn't mean as much because it was done on a neutral court which wasn't as hard as coming back in a true road game, so WE'RE not that good AND they are not bad AND it wasn't so great a UConn win.

Remember, no other team is viewed by its fans through the UConn lens. And no other team is viewed this way by the AP voters or the NCAA Committee, and the computers are not trustworthy.

No other fan base subjects its team to such scrutiny, and no other team catastrophizes their teams or its losses:

Not Miami for losing at home to Florida State after being up 25. That was a fluke, and all teams have a let down and it doesn't matter that FSU isn't very good, and besides, Alabama lost to Oklahoma a bottom-dweller in the Big 12 but it was a road game, and besides, Oklahoma just beat Iowa State on the road, and Iowa State was a Top 16 reveal, even if they've lost 3 in a row, so that UConn's neutral court 18-point win back in December doesn't count much. And besides, Big 12. And, oh yeah, Miami is only 1 game behind the Pittsburgh in the ACC, which is a much better conference that people think, because ACC.

Not Purdue for being swept by Indiana. That just means that Indiana is really good, and besides, B1G.

When UConn plays DePaul on Wednesday, nothing good can come of it. It's a home game against a perennial bottom dweller. NO matter how large a victory margin is, so what? That's supposed to happen, so it's meaningless. ANYTHING less than a huge margin means (you guessed it), we're not that good at best, and every worst fear has been confirmed at worst. In the latter case, we may be relieved of pain by the world ending.

And next Saturday holds only the slimmest possibility of anything good. If UConn wins convincingly on the road against a full-strength Nova team, who will take notice and care? Nova is a .500 team in a non-P5 conference, with a new coach who might be in over his head after being hastily-chosen after the unexpected retirement if a legend, so how good a victory can it be considered? But anything other than a convincing win will be regarded as something ranging from troublesome to horrifying. OK, maybe not horrifying, but it would hurt UConn while pushing the narrative that Nova is back!

In other words, after these many many words, there is NO winning EXCEPT for winning the games, as they are played...

One
Game
At
A
Time

Go Huskies

And continue to develop. We are getting better. I think of how they looked at Florida. We are rising. We have enough pieces to be a very difficult out. NA is getting more comfortable - obviously. This is extremely helpful. If we play well - it’s possible - in my ‘fan opinion’. The BE tourney (may be) additional or needed as a developing environment. I don’t know. But - lots of little things seem to be improving… The whole idea of picking us to win a NC (on the current trajectory and eye test) is not a stretch. We need to just keep improving - as we are obviously doing…

 

[shizzle787]

Pulled team sheets back to 2018.

No team with 8 Q1 wins has missed the tournament.

No team with 7 Q1 wins has missed the tournament.

1 Team with 6 Q1 wins has missed the tournament.

Average seed of teams with 8 Q1 Wins = 3.26

Last year's Iowa St got in as an 11 seed with a much worse resume. I don't think Iowa St. is in trouble.

Again, how many of those teams with 7 or 8 Quad 1 wins finished three games above .500.

 

[Hurleyman216]

Again, how many of those teams with 7 or 8 Quad 1 wins finished three games above .500.

You really aren't very good at this...not sure how or why you decided to become the Boneyard expert on March Madness seeding, but you should probably pick a different topic and stick with that. There is ZERO chance that Iowa State misses the tournament just like there was ZERO chance that Houston who has likely solidified itself as the overall #1 seed ever should have been in the "more work to do" category in the month of February. I'm not sure now if you just post this garbage to get people riled up, but you really need to try something different because it's a bad look.