Bubble watch: SEC

Auburn (15-2) (3-2) NET 20 SoS 26
Vital signs:  6-2 R/N, non-con SoS 20, 1-2 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  @Mississippi St?  NC State at home?
Bad losses:  @Alabama I suppose

So weird.  Look at that non-con SoS.  A lot of smart scheduling in there.  Furman, Davidson, New Mexico, Colgate, St Louis, Richmond.  Well done.  Unfortunately, that means they're missing signature wins, and chances in the SEC will be limited.  Great teams can still get a high seed through good performance, though.

LSU (13-4) (5-0) NET 23 SoS 11
Vital signs:  4-3 R/N, non-con SoS 15, 2-2 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  Liberty?  @Tennessee?
Bad losses:  N-Utah St doesn't look good anymore

A strange resume where the SoS numbers are strong but they lack a high-end win.

Kentucky (13-4) (4-1) NET 27 SoS 95
Vital signs:  3-3 R/N, non-con SoS 188, 4-1 vs. Q1, 1-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  N-Michigan St, Louisville, @Arky?
Bad losses:  Evansville, holy crap

The SoS numbers aren't that great, you know.  One of the hidden downfalls of Calipari's teams is that he doesn't put together elite SoSs.  In a year where the SEC is down and won't help him out, that matters.  High end wins are there; depth of wins isn't.

Arkansas (14-3) (3-2) NET 32 SoS 35
Vital signs:  3-2 R/N, non-con SoS 29, 1-2 vs. Q1, 2-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  @Indiana, and nothing else
Bad losses:  @WKU

They need something of substance, and frankly a few somethings.  Other peripherals are there, though.

Florida (12-5) (4-1) NET 39 SoS 33
Vital signs:  5-4 R/N, non-con SoS 54, 1-2 vs. Q1, 5-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  Auburnb, N-Xavier?
Bad losses:  I suppose N-Utah St

Another resume with solid peripherals all around, but needing more substance.  The good news is the 5 Q2 wins should carry some value.  4 neutral site wins among those 5 R/N, so that number is a bit deceiving.

Tennessee (11-6) (3-2) NET 63 SoS 46
Vital signs:  4-3 R/N, non-con SoS 50, 2-6 vs. Q1, 1-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  N-VCU, N-Washington
Bad losses:  none

More of a case of missed chances with this resume.  They'll get more, but they desperately need a volume of wins.

Alabama (10-7) (3-2) NET 43 SoS 14
Vital signs:  3-6 R/N, non-con SoS 39, 1-4 vs. Q1, 2-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  Auburn, Richmond?
Bad losses:  Penn, N-UNC counts as one lol

Only listed because they beat Auburn and have a confounding NET/SoS ranking.

Mississippi St (11-6) (2-3) NET 57 SoS 29 - nominally listed because of the computer numbers, but there's nothing in the resume yet.

By the way, South Carolina and their 3 Q1 wins (including Kentucky and @Virginia) have a NET of 98.  That tells you where the rest of the resume is.  4-1 in true road games though, so do monitor this situation.