Sunday, March 1, 2020

Bubble watch: SEC


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.

NIT watch:
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.


HenryMuto said...

Utah is a quad 2 loss that is not a bad loss. Bad losses are Q3 or Q4 losses.

HenryMuto said...

Evansville loss is terrible but at the time they had their coach and Kentucky was missing 1 starter and 2 others had the flu. (Coach Cal just said that yesterday in his "Evansville, Evansville, Evansville" post game rant. Go watch it on youtube was pretty funny.

Andrew said...

I've been listing Q2 losses to non-tourney teams as "bad losses". The idea is to capture information that is obscured by the pure W-L records.