Combining conferences for a few posts. Deal with it
Dayton (21-2) (10-0) NET 5 SoS 36
Vital signs: 8-2 R/N, non-con SoS 32, avg win 149
3-2 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-St Mary's, @Richmond, @St Louis
Bad losses: both are Q1-A
If anything they'll need to rely on NET to make their case to be a 2 seed, as they won't have the signature wins the other contenders likely will have. But it would take serious harm to knock them off the top 4 lines at this point.
VCU (17-6) (7-3) NET 32 SoS 77
Vital signs: 4-5 R/N, non-con SoS 142, avg win 177
1-4 vs. Q1, 2-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: LSU, Richmond, and, um
Bad losses: N-Tennessee?
No real bad splotches on the resume....but it's short on impact wins. They gave themselves chances (the SoS is weighed down by a few cupcakes). They played good teams, and beat LSU at home, and just couldn't cash the neutral/road chances they had. Even if they had just one of them (URI, Wichita, Purdue, etc), they'd be in much better shape.
Rhode Island (18-5) (10-1) NET 35 SoS 41
Vital signs: 7-4 R/N, non-con SoS 29, avg win 143
1-3 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @VCU, VCU, Alabama?
Bad losses: @Brown
Sweep of VCU is huge, because there's not much heft elsewhere in the resume. Good SoS numbers, and they've done good handling the teams they should beat, so that gives them a fighting chance. Season series with Dayton is still in the hopper.
Richmond (17-6) (7-3) NET 55 SoS 86
Vital signs: 7-4 R/N, non-con SoS 112, avg win 174
2-4 vs. Q1, 1-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @URI, N-Wisky, @Davidson?
Bad losses: N-Radford, St Louis?
Average NET win probably highlights the resume flaw. It's not that the signature wins are bad; they just need more depth of wins.
Houston (19-5) (9-2) NET 34 SoS 101
Vital signs: 8-3 R/N, non-con SoS 248, avg win 147
1-3 vs. Q1, 7-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept Wichita, N-Washington? @South Carolina?
Bad losses: Okla St
The non-con SoS got sunk by some cupcakes...Washington and USC aren't great non-con wins, but they'll have to do. 7 Q2 wins is a resume saver, but they have 3 home wins mixed in there that are barely holding onto Q2 status. Not a safe profile, they need the eye test in their favor.
Wichita St (17-6) (5-5) NET 43 SoS 71
Vital signs: 4-4 R/N, non-con SoS 156, avg win 155
2-2 vs. Q1, 5-4 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Okla St, VCU, Oklahoma
Bad losses: @Temple? @Tulsa?
Middling SoS...no true signature wins...good but not great record in Q1/2 games....pretty standard bubble fare. Getting swept by Houston is killer as those resume-building games are off the board.
Cincinnati (15-8) (8-3) NET 46 SoS 17
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 30, avg win 124
1-5 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Wichita, Houston, Tennessee?
Bad losses: Colgate, N-Bowling Green, N-Valpo
3 Q3 losses, missed chances in the Q1 column....strong SoS in its favor though. Usually, you have to do something with it. That something might be winning the AAC and getting the quality wins that come with it.
Memphis (17-6) (6-4) NET 60 SoS 89
Vital signs: 5-3 R/N, non-con SoS 147, avg win 168
1-2 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Tennessee, Cincy? N-NC State?
Bad losses: Georgia, South Florida
The hype does not match the resume. This team's in bigger trouble than I thought.
Tulsa (15-8) (7-3) NET 81 SoS 156 - their SoS is really, really bad. Beating Houston and Wichita at home and being in play for the AAC gives them a pulse, but not much of one.
Duquesne slid back...St Bonaventure is 3rd in A-10 but doesn't have a viable resume. St Louis, I wanted to list, but their 2nd best win is @Kansas St, and they only have 2 Q1/2 wins. Can't stretch their case.
SMU and UConn have NETs in the mid-70s, so they're not completely dead, but I can't see it. SMU in particular has a barren resume. UConn at least beat Cincy and Florida, but nothing really else to work with.