Friday, February 22, 2019

Bubble watch: American/A-10


Houston (25-1) (12-1) NET 4 SoS 62
Vital signs:  8-1 R/N, non-con SoS 141, 3-1 vs. Q1, 10-0 vs. Q2, avg win 140
Signature wins:  LSU, Cincy, @UCF?
Bad losses:  @Temple I suppose

Not much to say.  Modest SoS, win all your games, no real way to seed them on the top 2 lines given the competition.


Cincinnati (22-4) (11-2) NET 25 SoS 70
Vital signs:  7-3 R/N, non-con SoS 138, 3-2 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2, avg win 149
Signature wins:  N-Ole Miss, @Temple, UCF?
Bad losses:  @ECU

The lack of high-end win probably keep them away from the lockbox.  Losses in the noncom to Miss St and Ohio St plus a down AAC will do that to you.  They’ve been unlucky with their non-con SoS, it really should’ve been better when you look at the names on it.  They’ll be fine, and do close with a strong schedule.

Central Florida (19-6) (9-4) NET 39 SoS 73
Vital signs:  6-4 R/N, non-con SoS 151, 0-3 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2, avg win 153
Signature wins:  Alabama, Temple, Memphis?
Bad losses:  FAU, @Mizzou and Wichita?

The lack of signature win is disconcerting.  They need more.  Alas, they still have Houston and Cincy once more, and they probably need to win one of those to make a realistic bubble case.  And heck, @Temple represents a third signature win chance.  Everything is ahead of them.

VCU (20-6) (11-2) NET 37 SoS 32
Vital signs:  7-5 R/N, non-con SoS 2, 2-3 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2, avg win 151
Signature wins:  @Texas, @Dayton, N-Temple
Bad losses:  Charleston?  @URI?

Committee has a SoS fetish, so this resume has a real chance.  They won enough against the quality competition they did play, so I think a reasonable argument can be made.  All their Q1 games were road/neutral, so I think that 2-3 mark is actually good.  In this bubble climate, this could be good enough.  The bad news:  they’re out of chances to enhance the resume in the regular season.

Temple (19-7) (9-4) NET 54 SoS 67
Vital signs:  9-5 R/N, non-con SoS 222, 1-5 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2, avg win 155
Signature wins:  Houston, Memphis?  N-Davidson?
Bad losses:  Penn, @Tulsa?

How much can one signature win carry you?  I’m not sure.  Temple’s non-con SoS is marginal, which doesn’t give them much to work with.  Schedule isn’t their friend either, as UCF and maybe @Memphis are their only reasonable chances to enhance this resume.

Memphis (16-11) (8-6) NET 63 SoS 45
Vital signs:  3-9 R/N, non-con SoS 38, 0-7 vs. Q1, 2-3 vs. Q2, avg win 200
Signature wins:  UCF, Yale?  South Dakota St?
Bad losses:  N-Charleston, N-Oklahoma St?

A courtesy look as they’ve emerged from the rest of the pack in the AAC.  They still have Temple and Cincy left; we’ll talk if they win both.

Dayton (17-9) (9-4) NET 74 SoS 89
Vital signs:  6-6 R/N, non-con SoS 90, 2-5 vs. Q1, 0-3 vs. Q2, avg win 189
Signature wins:  N-Butler, Davidson, uhhhh
Bad losses:  George Mason, @StL?

Can’t really justify them, and they’re out of resume-enhancing chances.

Davidson (19-7) (11-3) NET 70 SoS 115
Vital signs:  8-6 R/N, non-con SoS 117, 0-2 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2, avg win 168
Signature wins:  VCU, N-Wichita?  N-Northeastern?
Bad losses:  @UMass, @Wake, @St Joe’s

No depth of quality win behind VCU, means this resume is close to dead on arrival.

South Florida (17-8) (7-6) NET 76 SoS 147
Vital signs:  4-5 R/N, non-con SoS 330, 0-4 vs. Q1, 2-3 vs. Q2, avg win 213
Signature wins:  Memphis, @SMU, UConn?
Bad losses:  Citadel, @Tulsa


No comments: