Friday, February 22, 2019

Bubble watch: everyone else

Buffalo (23-3) (12-2) NET 17 SoS 71
Vital signs:  12-3 R/N, non-con SoS 92, 3-1 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2, avg win 156
Signature wins:  @Syracuse, N-San Fran, swept Toledo
Bad losses:  @NIU, @BGU?

Not completely out of the bubble woods yet, but they’ll be fine.

Wofford (20-4) (15-0) NET 24 SoS 154
Vital signs:  8-3 R/N, non-con SoS 134, 2-4 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, avg win 200
Signature wins:  swept UNCG, Furman, @South Carolina
Bad losses:  none

4 losses to UNC, Kansas, Miss St, and Oklahoma.  I’d love to see where they could be if they could just flip one of those.  As is, they’re running the table in the #10 conference.  I just don’t see how that can be denied.  The overall strength of the SoCon is absolutely paying off this year, because it’s propelling Wofford (and others!) into at-large talk.  8 road wins is a bit low for a mid-major; but they’ve got 3 more chances coming.

Furman (19-5) (11-4) NET 45 SoS 233
Vital signs:  9-4 R/N, non-con SoS 289, 1-4 vs. Q1, 3-0 vs. Q2, avg win 227
Signature wins:  @Nova, UNCG, ETSU
Bad losses:  Samford

I so badly want to make the case, but that SoS makes it tough.  3 of the losses were roadies to the other top teams in the SoCon.  So those aren’t bad losses, but at-large teams probably have to get at least one of those.  I just don’t think I can justify them making it right now.

UNC Greensboro (21-5) (12-3) NET 60 SoS 150
Vital signs:  10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 155, 1-5 vs. Q1, 1-0 vs. Q2, avg win 230
Signature wins:  @ETSU, Furman, Radford
Bad losses:  @Furman?

Listing them out of respect, but it’s probably over for them.

East Tennessee St (20-7) (12-4) NET 68 SoS 188
Vital signs:  10-5 R/N, non-con SoS 264, 0-4 vs. Q1, 2-3 vs. Q2, avg win 231
Signature wins:  Furman, @Ga Southern
Bad losses:  @Georgia St

Nope.  Respect, though.

Lipscomb (19-6) (12-2) NET 47 SoS 236
Vital signs:  10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 74, 2-3 vs. Q1, 1-2 vs. Q2, avg win 235
Signature wins:  @TCU, @Liberty, Vermont?
Bad losses:  @FGCU, Liberty at home?

Actually did some work in the non-con, but man.  Would love to make the case, but the SoS makes it tough.  And 6 losses is 1 or 2 too many, I think.

Liberty (20-5) (12-1) NET 55 SoS 304
Vital signs:  10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 242, 1-1 vs. Q1, 1-3 vs. Q2, avg win 255
Signature wins:  @Lipscomb, @UCLA
Bad losses:  N-Austin Peay

How is their NET so high?

Belmont (21-4) (13-2) NET 53 SoS 215
Vital signs:  10-3 R/N, non-con SoS 95, 2-1 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2, avg win 228
Signature wins:  swept Lipscomb, @Murray St, @UCLA
Bad losses:  Jax St, @Green Bay

Actually with 5 Q1/2 wins, giving them a real chance.  Those Q3 losses hurt though.  Decent non-con SoS.  All in all, a reasonable chance.  For some reason, only get to play Murray St once in the regular season.  Resume killer.  Every Q2 game counts.

Murray St (20-4) (13-2) NET 59 SoS 273
Vital signs:  9-3 R/N, non-con SoS 228, 0-2 vs. Q1, 1-2 vs. Q2, avg win 262
Signature wins:  @Austin Peay
Bad losses:  @Jax St

Just to show you guys why they are irrelevant.  16 Q4 wins.  16!

New Mexico St (21-4) (11-1) NET 58 SoS 124
Vital signs:  9-3 R/N, non-con SoS 200, 0-1 vs. Q1, 2-1 vs. Q2, avg win 188
Signature wins:  swept Grand Canyon and Utah Valley?
Bad losses:  @Cal Baptist

Worth a cursory look given their record and NET, but nothing more.

Hofstra (22-5) (13-2) NET 62 SoS 221
Vital signs:  8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 187, 0-2 vs. Q1, 1-1 vs. Q2, avg win 232
Signature wins:  swept Charleston, Northeastern?
Bad losses:  @UNCW

See NMSU comment.

No comments: