Again, lumping these 2 conferences together oughta get AAC fans riled up again.
Lockbox:
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.
Bubble:
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.
NIT watch:
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.
Sunday, March 1, 2020
Bubble watch: Big 12
Lockbox:
Kansas (25-3) (15-1) NET 1 SoS 1
Vital signs: 11-2 R/N, non-con SoS 1, avg win 74
11-3 vs. Q1, 8-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Dayton, @Baylor, Colorado, swept WVU, etc etc
Bad losses: none
The news isn't that they're #1 overall, it's that I believe they can spend multiple losses and still be #1 overall.
Baylor (25-3) (14-2) NET 5 SoS 74
Vital signs: 12-2 R/N, non-con SoS 193, avg win 108
10-1 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Kansas, N-Nova, Zone, @TTU, etc etc
Bad losses: @TCU, N-Washington
Can a 1 seed have those 2 bad losses on the docket? We're about to find out, because the rest of the resume is sterling.
West Virginia (19-10) (7-9) NET 21 SoS 2
Vital signs: 6-8 R/N, non-con SoS 4, avg win 94
5-7 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Ohio St, TTU, N-UNI
Bad losses: @Kansas St, @TCU
They're safe from the bubble because of that SoS and enough significant non-con results. But they are bleeding a lot of seed lines right now.
Bubble:
Texas Tech (18-11) (9-7) NET 23 SoS 88
Vital signs: 5-8 R/N, non-con SoS 175, avg win 159
3-8 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Louisville, WVU, @Texas?
Bad losses: @TCU
Some troubling marks in the SoS and average win mark mean no lockbox yet, despite the shiny NET. Potential alarming situation: their last 2 games are Baylor and Kansas. If they slide to 18-14, there's gonna be some worrying.
Oklahoma (18-11) (8-8) NET 42 SoS 32
Vital signs: 6-9 R/N, non-con SoS 59, avg win 107
5-9 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept WVU, TTU, @Texas?
Bad losses: @K-State, @IaSt
3-8 in true road games is disconcerting. But they have a decent chunk of quality wins (or at least enough of them) to probably miss the tourney at this point. They have 2 games they really should win this week. I highly suggest winning both to avoid drama.
Texas (18-11) (8-8) NET 58 SoS 39
Vital signs: 7-6 R/N, non-con SoS 112, avg win 133
4-7 vs. Q1, 2-4 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Purdue, @TTU, WVU
Bad losses: @IaSt and N-G'town are the worst
I'm not sure there's enough here, but it's not an unreasonable resume. Decent numbers everywhere, a couple good honest wins, no horrifying losses. Worse resumes have gone farther.
NIT watch:
TCU (15-13) (7-9) NET 92 SoS 62
Oklahoma St (15-14) (5-11) NET 68 SoS 25 - both teams seems like classic NIT bubble teams to me.
Kansas (25-3) (15-1) NET 1 SoS 1
Vital signs: 11-2 R/N, non-con SoS 1, avg win 74
11-3 vs. Q1, 8-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Dayton, @Baylor, Colorado, swept WVU, etc etc
Bad losses: none
The news isn't that they're #1 overall, it's that I believe they can spend multiple losses and still be #1 overall.
Baylor (25-3) (14-2) NET 5 SoS 74
Vital signs: 12-2 R/N, non-con SoS 193, avg win 108
10-1 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Kansas, N-Nova, Zone, @TTU, etc etc
Bad losses: @TCU, N-Washington
Can a 1 seed have those 2 bad losses on the docket? We're about to find out, because the rest of the resume is sterling.
West Virginia (19-10) (7-9) NET 21 SoS 2
Vital signs: 6-8 R/N, non-con SoS 4, avg win 94
5-7 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Ohio St, TTU, N-UNI
Bad losses: @Kansas St, @TCU
They're safe from the bubble because of that SoS and enough significant non-con results. But they are bleeding a lot of seed lines right now.
Bubble:
Texas Tech (18-11) (9-7) NET 23 SoS 88
Vital signs: 5-8 R/N, non-con SoS 175, avg win 159
3-8 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Louisville, WVU, @Texas?
Bad losses: @TCU
Some troubling marks in the SoS and average win mark mean no lockbox yet, despite the shiny NET. Potential alarming situation: their last 2 games are Baylor and Kansas. If they slide to 18-14, there's gonna be some worrying.
Oklahoma (18-11) (8-8) NET 42 SoS 32
Vital signs: 6-9 R/N, non-con SoS 59, avg win 107
5-9 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept WVU, TTU, @Texas?
Bad losses: @K-State, @IaSt
3-8 in true road games is disconcerting. But they have a decent chunk of quality wins (or at least enough of them) to probably miss the tourney at this point. They have 2 games they really should win this week. I highly suggest winning both to avoid drama.
Texas (18-11) (8-8) NET 58 SoS 39
Vital signs: 7-6 R/N, non-con SoS 112, avg win 133
4-7 vs. Q1, 2-4 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Purdue, @TTU, WVU
Bad losses: @IaSt and N-G'town are the worst
I'm not sure there's enough here, but it's not an unreasonable resume. Decent numbers everywhere, a couple good honest wins, no horrifying losses. Worse resumes have gone farther.
NIT watch:
TCU (15-13) (7-9) NET 92 SoS 62
Oklahoma St (15-14) (5-11) NET 68 SoS 25 - both teams seems like classic NIT bubble teams to me.
Bubble watch: Pac-12
Lockbox:
Oregon (22-7) (11-5) NET 18 SoS 6
Vital signs: 7-7 R/N, non-con SoS 17, avg win 94
7-5 vs. Q1, 6-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept Zona, N-SHU, @Michigan
Bad losses: N-UNC, @Wazzu
I can be talked into any line between 2 and 5.
Colorado (21-8) (10-6) NET 20 SoS 12
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 32, avg win 109
7-4 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Dayton, Oregon, @USC
Bad losses: @Cal, UCLA and OSU at home?
A good solid resume with a couple home losses too many to be a 3 seed or greater. I can be talked into the 4 line here.
Bubble:
Arizona (19-10) (9-7) NET 11 SoS 5
Vital signs: 7-7 R/N, non-con SoS 18, avg win 120
3-8 vs. Q1, 6-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Colorado...@Stanford? @Washington? USC?
Bad losses: UCLA at home I suppose
I can't believe a team with a NET this good isn't a lock yet. But I mean...what's their 2nd best win? After the Colorado win, their only wins over tourney teams might be home wins over USC/ASU/New Mexico St/South Dakota St. It's not an impressive group of quality wins. However, with so many of their other metrics in order, I can't imagine them missing. But they have the Washington schools at home, which means they're 2 dumb losses away from real trouble.
Arizona St (19-10) (10-6) NET 50 SoS 11
Vital signs: 7-8 R/N, non-con SoS 56, avg win 117
5-8 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Zona, @Stanford, Oregon
Bad losses: @Wazzu is the only dumb one
Your stock bubble resume. A decent collection of quality wins, but behind the backdrop of a lot of opportunities that make you wonder if they lost 1 or 2 too many. I'm coming around to being ok with them in the field.
USC (21-9) (10-7) NET 39 SoS 58
Vital signs: 8-7 R/N, non-con SoS 152, avg win 132
5-7 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Zona, N-LSU, @UCLA
Bad losses: Temple, @Utah?
Another stock bubble resume. Throw them in the bucket with ASU.
UCLA (18-11) (12-5) NET 75 SoS 56
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 209, avg win 117
6-6 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept Arizona and Colorado (!)
Bad losses: Cal St-Fullerton, Hofstra, @Wazzu
They lead the Pac-12. What a time to be alive. Non-con SoS is a problem, as is non-con performance (they went 6-6 with no Q1 or Q2 wins). Swept two quality teams, but after that and a home win over ASU, no other wins over tourney teams. I just can't imagine this team in right now.
Stanford (19-9) (8-7) NET 30 SoS 103
Vital signs: 6-5 R/N, non-con SoS 213, avg win 156
4-5 vs. Q1, 2-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Oregon, N-Oklahoma, @UCLA?
Bad losses: @Cal, OSU
The ultimate test of NET. SoS numbers are poor. A couple good wins, a couple bad losses, an otherwise unremarkable resume. But the NET is shiny. Who knows what they'll do.
NIT watch:
Utah (15-14) (6-11) NET 87 SoS 40 - beat BYU and Kentucky so they have a chance here.
Oregon St (15-13) (5-11) NET 72 SoS 106 - probably not, but 4 Q1 wins are worth noting.
Oregon (22-7) (11-5) NET 18 SoS 6
Vital signs: 7-7 R/N, non-con SoS 17, avg win 94
7-5 vs. Q1, 6-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept Zona, N-SHU, @Michigan
Bad losses: N-UNC, @Wazzu
I can be talked into any line between 2 and 5.
Colorado (21-8) (10-6) NET 20 SoS 12
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 32, avg win 109
7-4 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Dayton, Oregon, @USC
Bad losses: @Cal, UCLA and OSU at home?
A good solid resume with a couple home losses too many to be a 3 seed or greater. I can be talked into the 4 line here.
Bubble:
Arizona (19-10) (9-7) NET 11 SoS 5
Vital signs: 7-7 R/N, non-con SoS 18, avg win 120
3-8 vs. Q1, 6-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Colorado...@Stanford? @Washington? USC?
Bad losses: UCLA at home I suppose
I can't believe a team with a NET this good isn't a lock yet. But I mean...what's their 2nd best win? After the Colorado win, their only wins over tourney teams might be home wins over USC/ASU/New Mexico St/South Dakota St. It's not an impressive group of quality wins. However, with so many of their other metrics in order, I can't imagine them missing. But they have the Washington schools at home, which means they're 2 dumb losses away from real trouble.
Arizona St (19-10) (10-6) NET 50 SoS 11
Vital signs: 7-8 R/N, non-con SoS 56, avg win 117
5-8 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Zona, @Stanford, Oregon
Bad losses: @Wazzu is the only dumb one
Your stock bubble resume. A decent collection of quality wins, but behind the backdrop of a lot of opportunities that make you wonder if they lost 1 or 2 too many. I'm coming around to being ok with them in the field.
USC (21-9) (10-7) NET 39 SoS 58
Vital signs: 8-7 R/N, non-con SoS 152, avg win 132
5-7 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Zona, N-LSU, @UCLA
Bad losses: Temple, @Utah?
Another stock bubble resume. Throw them in the bucket with ASU.
UCLA (18-11) (12-5) NET 75 SoS 56
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 209, avg win 117
6-6 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept Arizona and Colorado (!)
Bad losses: Cal St-Fullerton, Hofstra, @Wazzu
They lead the Pac-12. What a time to be alive. Non-con SoS is a problem, as is non-con performance (they went 6-6 with no Q1 or Q2 wins). Swept two quality teams, but after that and a home win over ASU, no other wins over tourney teams. I just can't imagine this team in right now.
Stanford (19-9) (8-7) NET 30 SoS 103
Vital signs: 6-5 R/N, non-con SoS 213, avg win 156
4-5 vs. Q1, 2-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Oregon, N-Oklahoma, @UCLA?
Bad losses: @Cal, OSU
The ultimate test of NET. SoS numbers are poor. A couple good wins, a couple bad losses, an otherwise unremarkable resume. But the NET is shiny. Who knows what they'll do.
NIT watch:
Utah (15-14) (6-11) NET 87 SoS 40 - beat BYU and Kentucky so they have a chance here.
Oregon St (15-13) (5-11) NET 72 SoS 106 - probably not, but 4 Q1 wins are worth noting.
Bubble watch: SEC
Lockbox:
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?
Bubble:
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.
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?
Bubble:
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.
Bubble watch: Big East
Lockbox:
Seton Hall (21-7) (13-3) NET 13 SoS 16
Vital signs: 10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 62, avg win 98
10-5 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Maryland, @Nova, swept BU/MU
Bad losses: @Iowa St
Probably a loss or two too many for the 1 line, but I'm finding it harder and harder to find teams to bump SHU down to the 3 line.
Villanova (22-7) (11-5) NET 16 SoS 4
Vital signs: 10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 38, avg win 100
7-6 vs. Q1, 7-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Kansas, @Creighton, Butler
Bad losses: Providence at home?
They are 2-6 within Q1-A. This limits seed upside, but all the metrics are in great shape otherwise. Just feels like a 3 seed, can't quite make the argument for the 2 line at the moment. I think. I can be swayed on this though.
Creighton (21-6) (11-4) NET 8 SoS 24
Vital signs: 7-5 R/N, non-con SoS 129, avg win 100
8-6 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @SHU, @Nova, N-TTU
Bad losses: all inside Q1...@G'town?
Bad loss avoidance matters....signature road wins matter...they're in the middle of the 2 line discussion.
Butler (20-9) (8-8) NET 19 SoS 52
Vital signs: 7-6 R/N, non-con SoS 225, avg win 117
8-6 vs. Q1, 5-3 Q2
Signature wins: Creighton, Nova, Marquette
Bad losses: G'town, @DePaul?
The non-con is more hurt by cupcakes, they at least beat Stanford and Purdue. So with that last concern off the board, I'll go ahead and lock them up.
Bubble:
Marquette (18-10) (8-8) NET 25 SoS 3
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 73, avg win 116
5-9 vs. Q1, 6-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Nova, Butler, @Xavier
Bad losses: swept by Provi?
They are 0-8 against Q1-A. That keeps them from the lockbox for now, just in case. But 5 Q1 wins should be enough to hold on. Just don't collapse.
Xavier (18-10) (7-8) NET 45 SoS 14
Vital signs: 6-6 R/N, non-con SoS 67, avg win 110
2-9 vs. Q1, 7-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @SHU, Cinci and Provi at home?
Bad losses: @Wake
Provi, Cincy, @St John's. Take your pick. One of those is Xavier's 2nd best win of the year. So many metrics are in favor of Xavier right now, but that's one potentially fatal flaw. A home game with Butler is in the hopper, and boy oh boy do they need that.
Providence (17-12) (10-6) NET 44 SoS 7
Vital signs: 6-9 R/N, non-con SoS 128, avg win 99
7-8 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Creighton, SHU, @Nova, @Butler, swept Marquette...
Bad losses: N-LBSU, N-Charleston, Penn, @Northwestern
Goodness gracious, this is a busy resume. Very strong SoS. 7 Q1 wins! 3 Q3 losses and a Q4 loss! The average win is below 100! But it's below 100 because they blew 4 cupcakes who would've dragged that average way down. I guess they have to go if they have that many signature wins (5 Q1-A wins!), but good god. This resume is drunk.
Georgetown (15-13) (5-10) NET 59 SoS 21
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 58, avg win 134
4-10 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Creighton, N-Texas, @Okla St?
Bad losses: technically UNCG is a Q3 loss, which is bullshit
A courtesy listing at this point, as they have games with Creighton and Nova in the hopper.
NIT watch:
St John's (14-14) (3-12) NET 74 SoS 46 - beat Zona and WVU, so a reasonable chance at the NIT.
Seton Hall (21-7) (13-3) NET 13 SoS 16
Vital signs: 10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 62, avg win 98
10-5 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Maryland, @Nova, swept BU/MU
Bad losses: @Iowa St
Probably a loss or two too many for the 1 line, but I'm finding it harder and harder to find teams to bump SHU down to the 3 line.
Villanova (22-7) (11-5) NET 16 SoS 4
Vital signs: 10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 38, avg win 100
7-6 vs. Q1, 7-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Kansas, @Creighton, Butler
Bad losses: Providence at home?
They are 2-6 within Q1-A. This limits seed upside, but all the metrics are in great shape otherwise. Just feels like a 3 seed, can't quite make the argument for the 2 line at the moment. I think. I can be swayed on this though.
Creighton (21-6) (11-4) NET 8 SoS 24
Vital signs: 7-5 R/N, non-con SoS 129, avg win 100
8-6 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @SHU, @Nova, N-TTU
Bad losses: all inside Q1...@G'town?
Bad loss avoidance matters....signature road wins matter...they're in the middle of the 2 line discussion.
Butler (20-9) (8-8) NET 19 SoS 52
Vital signs: 7-6 R/N, non-con SoS 225, avg win 117
8-6 vs. Q1, 5-3 Q2
Signature wins: Creighton, Nova, Marquette
Bad losses: G'town, @DePaul?
The non-con is more hurt by cupcakes, they at least beat Stanford and Purdue. So with that last concern off the board, I'll go ahead and lock them up.
Bubble:
Marquette (18-10) (8-8) NET 25 SoS 3
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 73, avg win 116
5-9 vs. Q1, 6-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Nova, Butler, @Xavier
Bad losses: swept by Provi?
They are 0-8 against Q1-A. That keeps them from the lockbox for now, just in case. But 5 Q1 wins should be enough to hold on. Just don't collapse.
Xavier (18-10) (7-8) NET 45 SoS 14
Vital signs: 6-6 R/N, non-con SoS 67, avg win 110
2-9 vs. Q1, 7-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @SHU, Cinci and Provi at home?
Bad losses: @Wake
Provi, Cincy, @St John's. Take your pick. One of those is Xavier's 2nd best win of the year. So many metrics are in favor of Xavier right now, but that's one potentially fatal flaw. A home game with Butler is in the hopper, and boy oh boy do they need that.
Providence (17-12) (10-6) NET 44 SoS 7
Vital signs: 6-9 R/N, non-con SoS 128, avg win 99
7-8 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Creighton, SHU, @Nova, @Butler, swept Marquette...
Bad losses: N-LBSU, N-Charleston, Penn, @Northwestern
Goodness gracious, this is a busy resume. Very strong SoS. 7 Q1 wins! 3 Q3 losses and a Q4 loss! The average win is below 100! But it's below 100 because they blew 4 cupcakes who would've dragged that average way down. I guess they have to go if they have that many signature wins (5 Q1-A wins!), but good god. This resume is drunk.
Georgetown (15-13) (5-10) NET 59 SoS 21
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 58, avg win 134
4-10 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Creighton, N-Texas, @Okla St?
Bad losses: technically UNCG is a Q3 loss, which is bullshit
A courtesy listing at this point, as they have games with Creighton and Nova in the hopper.
NIT watch:
St John's (14-14) (3-12) NET 74 SoS 46 - beat Zona and WVU, so a reasonable chance at the NIT.
Bubble watch: ACC
Lockbox:
Florida St (24-5) (14-4) NET 12 SoS 36
Vital signs: 9-5 R/N, non-con SoS 103, avg win 105
5-4 vs. Q1, 8-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept L'ville, @Florida, N-Purdue?
Bad losses: @Pitt, @Clemson?
A merely okay non-con results page, and a down ACC means the 1 line is probably out of play. And maybe the 2 line, but the ACCT will be a factor in that.
Louisville (23-6) (14-4) NET 9 SoS 27
Vital signs: 7-5 R/N, non-con SoS 27, avg win 122
4-5 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Duke, Michigan, @NC State?
Bad losses: @Ga Tech, @Clemson?
2 or 3 line, and I can't see them being higher or lower.
Duke (23-6) (13-5) NET 6 SoS 25
Vital signs: 10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 7, avg win 108
4-4 vs. Q1, 6-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Kansas, @MSU, FSU
Bad losses: @Wake, SFA, @Clemson?
That Wake loss is the one that's gonna hurt. That's a Q2 loss, and they probably have too much damage to make it to the 1 line. That said, there's 3 really signature wins on the board. On the other hand, those might be the only 3 teams they beat that will actually make the NCAAs. A lack of depth of signature wins could be worth a seed line or two.
Bubble:
Virginia (21-7) (13-5) NET 51 SoS 76
Vital signs: 8-4 R/N, non-con SoS 212, avg win 124
4-3 vs. Q1, 7-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Duke, FSU, N-Arizona St?
Bad losses: @BC, Syracuse and South Carolina at home
The bad NET and SoS numbers keep this resume from the lockbox for now. But I can't imagine them missing at this point. Especially because UL is still on the sked and that'll be a house money game.
North Carolina St (18-11) (9-9) NET 54 SoS 74
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 89, avg win 142
4-4 vs. Q1, 5-4 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Duke, Wisky, @Virginia
Bad losses: GT, UNC, @BC
3 Q3 losses is a problem; the rest of the resume reads like a typical bubble resume. With their SoS numbers in order this time around, I give them a fighting chance, so long as they avoid a dumb loss.
Clemson (15-13) (9-9) NET 73 SoS 38
Vital signs: 4-8 R/N, non-con SoS 174, avg win 135
3-6 vs. Q1, 5-5 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Duke, Louisville, FSU
Bad losses: Miami, VT, Yale, South Carolina, @Wake, @GT, @Minny?
This is an aggressive listing, since every metric but one is not good enough. But that signature win category. If they can keep a clean sheet in their final week, we'll have to take a longer look.
NIT watch:
Notre Dame (18-11) (9-9) NET 57 SoS 127 - non-con SoS in the 300s. Average win of 169. Best win is @Syracuse. Just can't make a case. Last chance saloon with a game at home vs. FSU coming.
Syracuse (16-13) (9-9) NET 70 SoS 50 - 2-7 vs. Q1, with a couple Q3 losses and middling SoS numbers. I don't see a path forward.
Georgia Tech (14-14) (9-9) NET 77 SoS 31 - seems to be good enough for a NIT bid if they can stay at .500.
Virginia Tech (15-13) (6-11) NET 85 SoS 114 - VT on the other hand, is not.
Florida St (24-5) (14-4) NET 12 SoS 36
Vital signs: 9-5 R/N, non-con SoS 103, avg win 105
5-4 vs. Q1, 8-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: swept L'ville, @Florida, N-Purdue?
Bad losses: @Pitt, @Clemson?
A merely okay non-con results page, and a down ACC means the 1 line is probably out of play. And maybe the 2 line, but the ACCT will be a factor in that.
Louisville (23-6) (14-4) NET 9 SoS 27
Vital signs: 7-5 R/N, non-con SoS 27, avg win 122
4-5 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Duke, Michigan, @NC State?
Bad losses: @Ga Tech, @Clemson?
2 or 3 line, and I can't see them being higher or lower.
Duke (23-6) (13-5) NET 6 SoS 25
Vital signs: 10-4 R/N, non-con SoS 7, avg win 108
4-4 vs. Q1, 6-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Kansas, @MSU, FSU
Bad losses: @Wake, SFA, @Clemson?
That Wake loss is the one that's gonna hurt. That's a Q2 loss, and they probably have too much damage to make it to the 1 line. That said, there's 3 really signature wins on the board. On the other hand, those might be the only 3 teams they beat that will actually make the NCAAs. A lack of depth of signature wins could be worth a seed line or two.
Bubble:
Virginia (21-7) (13-5) NET 51 SoS 76
Vital signs: 8-4 R/N, non-con SoS 212, avg win 124
4-3 vs. Q1, 7-3 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Duke, FSU, N-Arizona St?
Bad losses: @BC, Syracuse and South Carolina at home
The bad NET and SoS numbers keep this resume from the lockbox for now. But I can't imagine them missing at this point. Especially because UL is still on the sked and that'll be a house money game.
North Carolina St (18-11) (9-9) NET 54 SoS 74
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 89, avg win 142
4-4 vs. Q1, 5-4 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Duke, Wisky, @Virginia
Bad losses: GT, UNC, @BC
3 Q3 losses is a problem; the rest of the resume reads like a typical bubble resume. With their SoS numbers in order this time around, I give them a fighting chance, so long as they avoid a dumb loss.
Clemson (15-13) (9-9) NET 73 SoS 38
Vital signs: 4-8 R/N, non-con SoS 174, avg win 135
3-6 vs. Q1, 5-5 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Duke, Louisville, FSU
Bad losses: Miami, VT, Yale, South Carolina, @Wake, @GT, @Minny?
This is an aggressive listing, since every metric but one is not good enough. But that signature win category. If they can keep a clean sheet in their final week, we'll have to take a longer look.
NIT watch:
Notre Dame (18-11) (9-9) NET 57 SoS 127 - non-con SoS in the 300s. Average win of 169. Best win is @Syracuse. Just can't make a case. Last chance saloon with a game at home vs. FSU coming.
Syracuse (16-13) (9-9) NET 70 SoS 50 - 2-7 vs. Q1, with a couple Q3 losses and middling SoS numbers. I don't see a path forward.
Georgia Tech (14-14) (9-9) NET 77 SoS 31 - seems to be good enough for a NIT bid if they can stay at .500.
Virginia Tech (15-13) (6-11) NET 85 SoS 114 - VT on the other hand, is not.
Bubble watch: B1G
Lockbox:
Maryland (23-6) (13-5) NET 15 SoS 39
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 71, avg win 107
7-6 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @MSU, N-Marquette, @Illinois is Q1-A?
Bad losses: all are Q1-A
Their record within Q1-A is 3-6. That probably means the 1 line is out of play, but it's tough to imagine a B1G champ this year not on at least the 2 line. Probably a couple wins away from locking that up.
Michigan St (20-9) (12-6) NET 7 SoS 42
Vital signs: 9-6 R/N, non-con SoS 60, avg win 115
7-8 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @SHU, @Maryland, @Illinois is Q1-A?
Bad losses: N-Va Tech
Pretty standard good resume. Beating just about everyone at home, losing a majority of the toughest road games in conference. 4 line? 5 line? Either is reasonable.
Iowa (20-9) (11-7) NET 29 SoS 80
Vital signs: 6-8 R/N, non-con SoS 215, avg win 109
8-7 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Maryland, N-TTU, Ohio St
Bad losses: DePaul, @Nebraska
The schedule means they'll be a half-step behind the top of the conference.
Penn St (21-8) (11-7) NET 26 SoS 330
Vital signs: 7-6 R/N, non-con SoS 330, avg win 120
7-6 vs. Q1, 6-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @MSU, Maryland, @Michigan
Bad losses: N-Ole Miss
That schedule might very well cost PSU a seed line. Be warned. All their other metrics are more or less in line with other 5 and 6 seeds, but that SoS number. Yikes
Michigan (18-10) (9-8) NET 24 SoS 54
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 137, avg win 119
7-9 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: MSU, N-Gonzaga, Creighton
Bad losses: none, really
They might have an uncomfortable number of losses for a 6 or 7 seed, but it feels like they're tracking in that direction.
Wisconsin (18-10) (11-6) NET 27 SoS 19
Vital signs: 5-9 R/N, non-con SoS 37, avg win 106
8-8 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: MSU, Maryland, @OSU and UM
Bad losses: N-New Mexico
5-4 vs. Q1-A. So they can easily survive a bunch more losses. Quality wins up and down the board, good SoS numbers. Will be seeded higher than people think, IMO.
Ohio St (19-9) (9-8) NET 17 SoS 67
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 101, avg win 134
5-8 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Kentucky, Maryland, Nova
Bad losses: I suppose Minnesota at home
I suppose it's possible they lose 4 in a row, but let's go ahead and lock them up anyways. The average win number is pretty darn low for a B1G team this year, given the conference strength. So the seed might take a hit there.
Bubble:
Illinois (18-9) (11-6) NET 36 SoS 94
Vital signs: 6-6 R/N, non-con SoS 252, avg win 139
5-7 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Michigan, @PSU, @Wisky
Bad losses: Miami, N-Mizzou
Holding back on a lock, as the SoS numbers are not great and the average win mark is down. However, 6-5 in road games, with a few quality road wins in there, is an encouraging sign for candidacy.
Rutgers (17-11) (9-9) NET 35 SoS 43
Vital signs: 1-10 R/N, non-con SoS 80, avg win 136
3-9 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Seton Hall, PSU, Wisky
Bad losses: N-St Bonaventure, @Pitt
1-8 true road record. That's a major problem. Sure, many of those are Q1-A games....but you gotta win one of them. Just one. Their one road win is Nebraska. Their SoS numbers and Seton Hall win is more likely to save them than not, but this is gonna be close.
Indiana (18-10) (8-9) NET 55 SoS 53
Vital signs: 4-7 R/N, non-con SoS 78, avg win 125
6-8 vs. Q1, 2-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: FSU, MSU, PSU
Bad losses: Arkansas at home probably
Only 2 true road wins is a problem, but at least 1 is a half-decent Minny team. Basically, they win their home games (with a couple bad exceptions), and they lose their road games (with a couple expected exceptions. The SoS numbers are good enough, the NET number isn't, but it isn't clear that number actually matters. I'd suggest a couple more wins to get home free.
Purdue (15-14) (8-10) NET 34 SoS 48
Vital signs: 4-10 R/N, non-con SoS 83, avg win 127
4-11 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: MSU, Wisky, Iowa
Bad losses: @Nebraska, Texas at home?
At some point, you just absorb too many losses. If they can't beat Iowa on the road, they'll end up with 16 losses if they're in the at-large pool. That's just probably too many. If they had a road win better than Indiana, I'd be more optimistic.
NIT watch:
Minnesota (13-14) (7-10) NET 49 SoS 40 - under .500, 2-8 true road record. Probably safe to dismiss at this point. Road games left at Wisky and Indiana, so I'm not sure they can actually make it. All the other B1G bubble teams have a win over a top-4ish projected seed. Minny does not.
Maryland (23-6) (13-5) NET 15 SoS 39
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 71, avg win 107
7-6 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @MSU, N-Marquette, @Illinois is Q1-A?
Bad losses: all are Q1-A
Their record within Q1-A is 3-6. That probably means the 1 line is out of play, but it's tough to imagine a B1G champ this year not on at least the 2 line. Probably a couple wins away from locking that up.
Michigan St (20-9) (12-6) NET 7 SoS 42
Vital signs: 9-6 R/N, non-con SoS 60, avg win 115
7-8 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @SHU, @Maryland, @Illinois is Q1-A?
Bad losses: N-Va Tech
Pretty standard good resume. Beating just about everyone at home, losing a majority of the toughest road games in conference. 4 line? 5 line? Either is reasonable.
Iowa (20-9) (11-7) NET 29 SoS 80
Vital signs: 6-8 R/N, non-con SoS 215, avg win 109
8-7 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Maryland, N-TTU, Ohio St
Bad losses: DePaul, @Nebraska
The schedule means they'll be a half-step behind the top of the conference.
Penn St (21-8) (11-7) NET 26 SoS 330
Vital signs: 7-6 R/N, non-con SoS 330, avg win 120
7-6 vs. Q1, 6-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @MSU, Maryland, @Michigan
Bad losses: N-Ole Miss
That schedule might very well cost PSU a seed line. Be warned. All their other metrics are more or less in line with other 5 and 6 seeds, but that SoS number. Yikes
Michigan (18-10) (9-8) NET 24 SoS 54
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 137, avg win 119
7-9 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: MSU, N-Gonzaga, Creighton
Bad losses: none, really
They might have an uncomfortable number of losses for a 6 or 7 seed, but it feels like they're tracking in that direction.
Wisconsin (18-10) (11-6) NET 27 SoS 19
Vital signs: 5-9 R/N, non-con SoS 37, avg win 106
8-8 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: MSU, Maryland, @OSU and UM
Bad losses: N-New Mexico
5-4 vs. Q1-A. So they can easily survive a bunch more losses. Quality wins up and down the board, good SoS numbers. Will be seeded higher than people think, IMO.
Ohio St (19-9) (9-8) NET 17 SoS 67
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 101, avg win 134
5-8 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: N-Kentucky, Maryland, Nova
Bad losses: I suppose Minnesota at home
I suppose it's possible they lose 4 in a row, but let's go ahead and lock them up anyways. The average win number is pretty darn low for a B1G team this year, given the conference strength. So the seed might take a hit there.
Bubble:
Illinois (18-9) (11-6) NET 36 SoS 94
Vital signs: 6-6 R/N, non-con SoS 252, avg win 139
5-7 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: @Michigan, @PSU, @Wisky
Bad losses: Miami, N-Mizzou
Holding back on a lock, as the SoS numbers are not great and the average win mark is down. However, 6-5 in road games, with a few quality road wins in there, is an encouraging sign for candidacy.
Rutgers (17-11) (9-9) NET 35 SoS 43
Vital signs: 1-10 R/N, non-con SoS 80, avg win 136
3-9 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2
Signature wins: Seton Hall, PSU, Wisky
Bad losses: N-St Bonaventure, @Pitt
1-8 true road record. That's a major problem. Sure, many of those are Q1-A games....but you gotta win one of them. Just one. Their one road win is Nebraska. Their SoS numbers and Seton Hall win is more likely to save them than not, but this is gonna be close.
Indiana (18-10) (8-9) NET 55 SoS 53
Vital signs: 4-7 R/N, non-con SoS 78, avg win 125
6-8 vs. Q1, 2-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: FSU, MSU, PSU
Bad losses: Arkansas at home probably
Only 2 true road wins is a problem, but at least 1 is a half-decent Minny team. Basically, they win their home games (with a couple bad exceptions), and they lose their road games (with a couple expected exceptions. The SoS numbers are good enough, the NET number isn't, but it isn't clear that number actually matters. I'd suggest a couple more wins to get home free.
Purdue (15-14) (8-10) NET 34 SoS 48
Vital signs: 4-10 R/N, non-con SoS 83, avg win 127
4-11 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2
Signature wins: MSU, Wisky, Iowa
Bad losses: @Nebraska, Texas at home?
At some point, you just absorb too many losses. If they can't beat Iowa on the road, they'll end up with 16 losses if they're in the at-large pool. That's just probably too many. If they had a road win better than Indiana, I'd be more optimistic.
NIT watch:
Minnesota (13-14) (7-10) NET 49 SoS 40 - under .500, 2-8 true road record. Probably safe to dismiss at this point. Road games left at Wisky and Indiana, so I'm not sure they can actually make it. All the other B1G bubble teams have a win over a top-4ish projected seed. Minny does not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)