Again, lumping these 2 conferences together oughta get AAC fans riled up again.
Dayton (27-2) (16-0) NET 3 SoS 25
Vital signs: 11-2 R/N, non-con SoS 33, avg win 138
4-2 vs. Q1, 7-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-St Mary's, @Richmond, @VCU
Bad losses: none
I don't think they have a strong enough collection of wins to make it to the 1 line. I think.
Houston (22-7) (12-4) NET 22 SoS 78
Vital signs: 9-5 R/N, non-con SoS 221, avg win 139
2-4 vs. Q1, 7-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept WSU, Cincy? @South Carolina?
Bad losses: Okla St?
Not a lock. See the non-con SoS, the general lack of signature wins. However, without a truly catastrophic loss, I think they'll be fine. But there's still time to absorb a couple more losses.
Rhode Island (20-8) (12-4) NET 43 SoS 70
Vital signs: 8-6 R/N, non-con SoS 42, avg win 154
1-5 vs. Q1, 6-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @VCU, Bama, Providence?
Bad losses: @Brown, St Louis?
With their season sweep of VCU evaporating into not much resume help, it's closer to the bubble than you think. I think they should be safe still, but I'm having a tricky time figuring out just how valuable these decent Q2 home wins are.
Wichita St (22-7) (10-6) NET 47 SoS 81
Vital signs: 6-5 R/N, non-con SoS 136, avg win 145
2-4 vs. Q1, 7-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Oklahoma, @UConn and @Okla St?
Bad losses: @Temple
Oklahoma at home might very well represent their only win over a tourney team. That is a major resume hole. Okay SoS numbers and road numbers, and no one part of this profile sticks out as unassailable. I would highly suggest handling your business next week, because a volume of losses would be a problem that this resume isn't designed to overcome.
Cincinnati (18-10) (11-5) NET 53 SoS 9
Vital signs: 6-8 R/N, non-con SoS 26 avg win 119
2-6 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Houston, swept WSU, Memphis?
Bad losses: Colgate, UCF, N-Bowling Green, @Tulane
4 Q3 losses is a problem. The SoS numbers are well inflated by scheduling the right mid-majors (Vermont, Colgate, BGU). Problem is they sure lost to a bunch of them. I don't know how much those Houston/WSU wins will matter, but they sure better hope they mean everything. How high they end up rated will likely cause a trickle down effect to Cincy's bubble hopes.
Richmond (22-7) (12-4) NET 48 SoS 93
Vital signs: 9-5 R/N, non-con SoS 100, avg win 168
3-4 vs. Q1, 1-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Wisky, @URI, VCU?
Bad losses: N-Radford, @St Bona?
Only 4 wins in the top 2 quads isn't the greatest mark. 8-3 in true road games is. I would highly suggest keeping your nose clean against non-tourney teams the rest of the way. That might be enough, given there's at least the 2 solid legit Q1 wins on the board above.
Memphis (20-9) (9-7) NET 60 SoS 89
Vital signs: 6-6 R/N, non-con SoS 162, avg win 162
2-4 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Houston, Cincy, N-NCSU
Bad losses: USF, Georgia, SMU all at home
Well, they have Houston and Wichita left. So there's time yet. But this isn't a tournament team right now.
Tulsa (20-9) (12-4) NET 83 SoS 171 - non-con SoS in the 330s. That's a non-starter for this resume.
SMU (19-9) (9-7) NET 81 SoS 133 - non-con SoS in the 310s. That's a non-starter for this resume.
UConn (17-12) (8-8) NET 61 SoS 69 - just too many losses to have any kind of chance.
St Louis (20-8) (10-6) NET 66 SoS 84 - a couple decent road wins, a couple dumb losses. In other words, your quintessential NIT resume.
VCU (18-11) (8-8) NET 56 SoS 56 - good lord did the bottom drop out here. Home wins over LSU and Richmond, but too many losses to be bubble relevant.
Duquesne (20-8) (10-6) NET 96 SoS 134 - poor SoS numbers, 5 losses in Q3/4. Despite being 5-3 in the top 2 quads...this is a NIT bubble team.
Davidson (15-13) (9-7) NET 71 SoS 116 - gets a quick glance because of the NET, but probably not viable for the NIT.
St Bonaventure (17-11) (10-6) NET 115 SoS 115 - their resume looks better than NET 115. But probably not a NIT team either.