Saturday, February 27, 2021

Bubble Watch: Big East

Job hunting is time-intensive, I've learned.

Creighton (17-6) (13-5) NET 18 SoS 142
Vital signs:  4-2 vs. Q1, 7-1 vs. Q2, 7-3 R/N
Signature wins:  Nova, @UConn, @SHU
Bad losses:  3 Q3 losses at home to decent-ish teams

The non-con SoS is above 300.  I guessing it won't mean as much this year as in years past, but it does put a cap on this resume.  Actually some good, solid road wins on this resume help balance out the home losses, so a protected seed is a reasonable outcome for this resume.

Villanova (15-3) (10-2) NET 8 SoS 81
Vital signs:  2-2 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2, 7-3 R/N
Signature wins:  @Texas, @SHU, UConn?
Bad losses:  none

I don't think there's enough impact wins to be a viable candidate for a 1 seed, or even 2 seed.  I think the low number of losses is a stat that might be overrated by bracketologists.  Given what I've seen so far elsewhere, I think this is one of the 8 best resumes in the country, but they might need to beat Creighton at home to hold it.

UConn (12-6) (9-6) NET 42 SoS 79
Vital signs:  2-3 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2, 6-3 R/N
Signature wins:  N-USC, @Xavier?
Bad losses:  I suppose @Provi and St John's, kinda

They don't have much volume on the resume, which makes this tricky.  They've shown competence on the road, though, which I think helps more than the other stats hurt.  That said, it feels like USC is carrying their entire resume, and they really really could use one more signature win, or at least a small string of decent wins to beef up the resume.  They're one dumb loss away from ruining everything.

Xavier (13-5) (6-5) NET 57 SoS 55
Vital signs:  2-2 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2, 2-3 R/N
Signature wins:  Creighton, Oklahoma, uh...Toledo?
Bad losses:  none below Q2A

Another case where the volume is lacking.  Two great home, albeit at home, and not much working for them on the resume beyond that.  The lack of dumb losses does help though.  This does feel like a resume the committee will acquiesce to if they can keep the dumb losses off the resume.  It looks like they're going to miss Villanova on the schedule this year....that's a really, really bad break.  A loss wouldn't hurt this resume at all, and we know what a signature win would do.

Seton Hall (13-10) (10-7) NET 54 SoS 50
Vital signs:  3-6 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2, 6-7 R/N
Signature wins:  @UConn, @PSU, @Xavier?
Bad losses:  Providence, @Butler?

A token mention.  Swept by CU and Nova means they better beat one of them in a conference tournament.

St John's (14-10) (8-9) NET 75 SoS 123
Vital signs:  2-6 vs. Q1, 3-2 vs. Q2, 5-7 R/N
Signature wins:  Nova, @UConn, @Provi?
Bad losses:  DePaul at home oh no

The one win over Nova gets them listed, for now.  Not much else going on here.


HenryMuto said...

Nova despite not much in the way of quality wins was still a #2 seed a couple weeks ago by the committee. They have had 2 losses since then and 1 real bad one today.

I wonder if the name "Villanova" and the lack of losses is what is keeping them up there.

What is worth more a team with 7 quad 1 wins with 7 total losses or a team like Nova or Florida State with just 4 losses and only a couple quad 1 wins.

Eye of the beholder especially in a year like this where 1 team plays 18 games the other plays 26 games.

Unknown said...

You have Arizona listed on bubble for PAC 12?. you know Arizona is not playing in tournament due to self imposed ban, right?