Sunday, January 19, 2020

Bubble watch: Big 12


Baylor (15-1) (5-0) NET 1 SoS 79
Vital signs:  7-1 R/N, non-con SoS 184, 5-1 vs. Q1, 2-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  @Kansas, N-Villanova, @TTU, others
Bad losses:  N-Washington probably counts, if we're talking about a 1 seed

5 Q1-A wins are strong.  Non-con SoS is deceiving a bit, they have Butler, Arizona, and N-Villanova on that ledger.  The computers are dinging them for some bad cupcakes.  That's going to matter if the race for the 1 seed is close in March.  But there's the real chance they play well enough to not make it close.

Kansas (13-3) (4-1) NET 4 SoS 1
Vital signs:  6-2 R/N, non-con SoS 1, 7-3 vs. Q1, 3-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  N-Dayton, WVU, @Stanford
Bad losses:  all 3 losses are Q1-A

Perhaps just missing the truly elite win - lost to Duke and Baylor so far.  Everything else is in sterling shape.

West Virginia (14-3) (3-2) NET 9 SoS 2
Vital signs:  6-3 R/N, non-con SoS 3, 5-1 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  N-Ohio St, TTU, N-Wichita St
Bad losses:  probably @K-State, @St John's

Really really strong computer numbers.  The two marginal road losses kill the chance at the 1 line, but a reasonable chance at a very strong 2 or 3 seed.


Texas Tech (12-5) (3-2) NET 25 SoS 110
Vital signs:  3-4 R/N, non-con SoS 225, 1-5 vs. Q1, 1-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  N-Louisville, @K-State?
Bad losses:  @DePaul, I suppose

2 Q1-2 wins is very light.  A staggering 8 Q4 games in the non-con, they're just very lucky their top 4 non-con games were strong.  Otherwise the non-con SoS would be a disaster instead of just bad.  Not a strong resume at all right now.

Oklahoma (12-5) (3-2) NET 53 SoS 41
Vital signs:  5-4 R/N, non-con SoS 59, 2-4 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  N-Minnesota, @Texas
Bad losses:  @ISU?

Your garden variety bubble resume.  Very good but not great computer numbers.  No real signature win, just a few good solid wins and some losses in all their toughest games.  Will need to pick off a couple games against teams ahead of them.

Texas (12-5) (2-3) NET 59 SoS 61
Vital signs:  4-3 R/N, non-con SoS 158, 1-2 vs. Q1, 1-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  @Purdue, @Oklahoma St
Bad losses:  @Providence, Oklahoma at home?

If Oklahoma was garden variety, Texas is a poor man's garden variety.  Need quality wins, and more resume heft in general.

TCU (11-5) (3-2) NET 65 SoS 102
Vital signs:  2-3 R/N, non-con SoS 165, 0-2 vs. Q1, 1-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins:  @Kansas St is it lol
Bad losses:  N-Clemson probably

Not a lot to say here.  Needs help in conference.  Note that the bottom falls out even more behind TCU - not profiling the bottom 3 teams here.  Big 12 is precarious in that they have 3 top teams, but not a lot behind them.  I'd wager on TTU finding a way into the field, and the law of averages say one of OU, UT, and TCU get in, but that's about it.

No comments: