Kentucky (24-5) (14-2) NET 14 SoS 80
Vital signs: 8-4 R/N, non-con SoS 161, avg win 117
7-3 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-MSU, Louisville, @TTU
Bad losses: Evansville lol. Also N-Utah
Marginal SoS numbers, but a strong group of Q1 wins. I'm more inclined to subscribe to the "everybody gets one" thought when it comes to that Evansville loss. I think the eye test moves them to the 2 line, if they hold serve.
Auburn (24-5) (11-5) NET 28 SoS 23
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 22, avg win 104
4-3 vs. Q1, 9-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Kentucky, N-Richmond? LSU
Bad losses: @Mizzou and @Georgia are Q2-A, but I suppose they count
A shockingly light resume given the record and SoS. There's not a lot of impact wins here. They'll need help in seeding from the eye test...and I don't think they're going to get it. They feel destined for the 4 line in a western regional. Doesn't that just seem perfect for this resume?
LSU (20-9) (11-5) NET 32 SoS 13
Vital signs: 6-7 R/N, non-con SoS 8, avg win 117
4-7 vs. Q1, 7-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-URI, @Texas, Florida
Bad losses: @Vandy
Strong SoS numbers. Naturally, they lost almost all of their significant non-con games though. So there's not a lot of meat on the bones. Just to be safe, don't lose out.
Florida (18-11) (10-6) NET 33 SoS 34
Vital signs: 7-8 R/N, non-con SoS 18, avg win 113
4-8 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Auburn, N-Provi, N-Xavier
Bad losses: @Mizzou and @Ole Miss technically don't count, but still
3-7 true road record isn't great...they could use one more real quality win to feel safe. They still have Kentucky in the hopper, and I don't think the resume is good enough to automatically feel safe absorbing a loss there.
Mississippi St (19-10) (10-6) NET 52 SoS 59
Vital signs: 6-8 R/N, non-con SoS 99, avg win 130
2-6 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Florida, swept Arkansas? Bama?
Bad losses: La Tech, N-NMSU counts as a Q3, weirdly
The resume gives the impression they just haven't done enough. Needed maybe one more Q1 win to help balance out their numbers a bit better. True borderline case. No real path to resume improvement in the next week.
South Carolina (17-12) (9-7) NET 63 SoS 65
Vital signs: 6-7 R/N, non-con SoS 96, avg win 138
4-7 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Kentucky, @UVa, @Arkansas?
Bad losses: Stetson, Boston U
Nominally listed at this point, with a couple key wins in pocket.
Alabama (16-13) (8-8) NET 40 SoS 17
Vital signs: 6-9 R/N, non-con SoS 45, avg win 112
1-7 vs. Q1, 7-4 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Auburn, LSU, Richmond
Bad losses: Penn, A&M
Really, honestly, just listed because of the NET (and I suppose 7 Q2 wins). Plenty of home wins (but a couple dumb home losses), and all the losses you'd expect. Pass.
Arkansas (18-11) (6-10) NET 46 SoS 31
Vital signs: 4-7 R/N, non-con SoS 10, avg win 122
2-6 vs. Q1, 3-5 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Bama, @Indiana
Bad losses: @WKU, @Mizzou?
3rd straight team with a very, very marginal resume.
Tennessee (16-13) (8-8) NET 67 SoS 33 - I have to cut off the SEC bubble somewhere. UT's more or less on the level of the 3 teams above, but without the NET or signature wins in tow.
Georgia (14-14) (5-11) NET 84 SoS 29 - probably shouldn't make the NIT, but we've seen dumber selections before.