Less leftovers than I thought.
Loyola (19-4) (16-2) NET 16 SoS 164
Vital signs: 1-2 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2, 8-4 R/N
Signature wins: @Drake, swept MSU?
Bad losses: @Indiana St
A pretty classic beat-who-you're-supposed-to resume. An alarming 11 Q4 wins, so it's a pretty light resume. Is the NET ranking reliable in this instance? I lean yes. There's still a strong, strong road/neutral record to lean on. This is a resume that certainly could miss the tournament, but this year causing problems with cutting the non-con short might save them.
Drake (22-3) (15-3) NET 41 SoS 261
Vital signs: 1-1 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, 10-2 R/N
Signature wins: Loyola, swept MSU?
Bad losses: @Bradley and Valpo
Kinda in the same boat as LU, but without the NET boost and with horrendous SoS numbers. That said, I lump them in the same bucket. If they meet in the MVC finals, I reluctantly would put both in, but I'm not excited about either.
There's not much else to look at for at-large bids. Things that caught my eye:
The SoCon had another good year overall it seems, but this time they don't have the at-large resumes to contend for multiple bids.
Colgate has a NET of 10. lol. Only because there's basically no non-conference games in the Patriot this year. Navy and Colgate have separated in the league, and Navy did win at Georgetown. No at-large bid for either, but a good solid seed should await for the winner.
I don't think anyone else is in play on the bubble. Committee will use the shortened non-con as a shield, say no one from a mid-major conference has a resume good enough for an at-large bid, forgetting that no one had a chance to build up a resume good enough.