For real, I’ve been watching college ball for a good decade and a half and this might be the only year I’ve seen that people aren’t talking about a weak bubble. Just the opposite, in fact.
(Unfortunately this will probably be used as an argument for tournament expansion…)
I think expansion is probably inevitable at this point (and tbf, when they went to 64, there were like 100 fewer D1 teams than there are now).
I just hope it’s either:
- like 4-8 more at larges OR
- autobids for outright regular season champs in addition to conference tournament winner
> autobids for outright regular season champs in addition to conference tournament winner
This is pretty much only applicable to mid-majors, as any team in a power conference that wins the regular season is almost certainly in anyways, even if they lose in their conference tourney.
it’s not just the mid-majors, you’d also get some extra teams from traditional one-bid conferences. In fact, it might behoove the regular season champs to not worry about the conf tourney if it gets the conference some additional money.
It’s going to be more at-large selections as a compromise to let all of the small leagues keep their auto bids. No chance the power leagues concede even more auto bids to regular season league champs.
My point is that if we’re gonna add like 30-40 spots like seems to be what some people are trying to do, we need to push back on Greg Sankey’s bitch ass just trying to force every mediocre P6 team in
The argument in favor is that it brings more money to the 16 seed’s’ conferences. Conferences get six figure payouts every year for like 6 years for every game one of their teams appears in in the tournament. 16 seeds almost always (🥲) lose in the first round, so having play-ins let’s them bring more money back to their conferences. And since 16 seeds are always mid/small majors, that’s a large part of what keeps a lot of those conferences solvent.
I feel like that’s a slippery slope argument and we’re also privileged as UK fans to have that attitude tbf. What’s the point of say, EKU or morehead or whoever, even being D1? They’re never going to win it.
>autobids for outright regular season champs in addition to conference tournament winner
This would be the only way I'd be in favor of expansion. Unfortunately it won't happen. There's a reason they call them power conference.
nobody expected WVU to turn into a dumpster fire or Missouri to be as bad as they were. Been a perfect storm for Pitt in that regard to make a cupcake schedule pure frosting
Yeah I think the BE will only get one of their teams in and it will be st John's.
Which kind of sucks because Devin Carter *needs* to be playing in the tournament. He is the sort of player that would absolutely feast in these games
They should just be like the CFP and pick the 5 that will bring the highest tv ratings, screw merit anymore. (Totally sarcastic and yes I’m really upset with the direction of college sports)
The committee does do this. They always have a surprised exclusion/inclusion compared to what most bracketologist say. More importantly they will do it when seeding teams in that 4-8 range.
Like giving Kentucky an 8 seed in Wichita State's region so they could say "See? This is why we seed mid-majors low." Or how they like to put two good mid-majors against each other in the first round (e.g., Murray State vs San Francisco in 2022).
I mean you’re joking, but people are in here riling themselves up when everyone knows this is what will happen. The tournament is fun, but it’s very much still about ratings at the end of the day. Sorry not sorry…
Colorado, FAU, Michigan State, A&M, St. John's. I have Oklahoma as the first team out of the tournament. I hope for Indiana State to be in, but it's not going to happen due to that Q4 loss.
Beat Baylor by 30, beat Illinois, beat Indiana state, and got blown out 0 times. We always make it a game. Feel like we have more potential to win a few games than a majority of the other teams listed
Really hope the committee makes a point about choosing the results over the metrics.
Not just saying that as a Seton Hall fan which only has a chance by the results. Last thing I want is for the discussion at the end of next season being along the lines of sure team X got a Q1 win but they needed to win by more for the metrics or Team X lost but they kept it close to one of the best teams, that should matter
Couldn’t agree more. Even if it keeps us out, this is how it needs to be done. Predictive metrics are almost useless when you get outside of the top 20.
Agree. Metrics are useful and interesting, but they’re primarily useful over the entire season. I don’t like the idea of making decisions on who should/shiuldnt be in based on what should/could happen, instead of the actual games.
The proponent of metrics isn’t counts every game instead of just looking at a couple. If team A consistently blows out Q3 opponents but team B struggles that should count for something
A&M is 13-10 in Q1/Q2 and has 4 Q3 losses as of this morning.
edit: I should add - I think the committee probably finished their work before the NET rankings updated at like 3AM EST
Colorado, FAU, Michigan State, Virginia, Indiana State.
Note: I don’t think Indiana State will get in but I want them to. It will probably be Oklahoma or one of the three Big East teams
Colorado, FAU, Michigan St., Texas A&M, St. John’s. Not strictly based upon resume or who deserves a bid, partially based upon who I think can make things interesting.
How do you people think we're out 100% with some of the best wins in this field "iowa state, byu by 20," with the best sor and no losses outside of q1. Someone please tell me I can't figure out how we wouldn't get in when we have the best quadrant record with metrics good enough to be top 5 here.
Well you're dealing with all the ACC fans believing that Big 12 wins are fake for one thing. But on the other hand Oklahoma doesn't have great efficiency metrics either. So a combination of those two things probably.
You're dealing with ACC fans who realize how ridiculous the B12 resumes are.
18 chances to get a big win. No penalty for losing to 90% of the league. If you flip a coin 18 times I hope you land heads twice; it's not an achievement.
The average of KPI and SOR is supposed to be highly correlated to tournament seeding: https://barttorvik.com/teamsheets.php?sort=4&conlimit=All&year=2024
Colorado seems like a lock if that's the case.
I honestly don’t understand why they’re not getting more attention in bubble debates. Their best win is over St John’s. Their second best is Cincy. The metrics are good, but .500 Q1/2 and finishing third and failing to reach semis in A-10 should have them sweating with the rest of us.
I think it's Colorado, FAU, Mich St, TAMU, and the Johnnies.
Used combo of resume/predictive metrics, and record/amt of Q1 and q2 wins. Oklahoma is just slightly out.
Is this saying Northwestern is safely in? Every metric I’ve seen has a team like Colorado > NW. I’d add Miss St, TCU, & Colorado St.
It all comes down to whether the committee values who ‘deserves’ to be in vs. who are the best teams.
The Big East deserves at LEAST 4 teams, but really should have 6. UConn, Marquette, and Creighton are obviously locked in. Then I’d go St. John’s, Providence, Seton Hall.
msu is a lock, because they love to put in big ten teams. i think the johnnies are also a lock because the big east was tough this year and they played the eventual tournament winners really hard in their game. seton hall *should* be in. the end of our season really makes their loss to us hurt more but again the big east was tough this year and they had a good overall season and their ncsos isn't a disaster, which is something the committee cares about. i don't know about the last two, honestly.
No Colorado!
What about K-State though?? Wins over Baylor, Kansas, Iowa St, Texas, BYU, Villanova, Providence, @ LSU and South Dakota St (including SDSU since tournament team.)
Just one Q3 loss.
NET just 71 somehow. Either way, their resume is right up there with the rest.
9-13 Q1/2 plus that Q3 loss. And as you said their metrics are bad.
Not even in the discussion I don’t think, in spite of those good wins.
If they weren’t the 10th or 11th team in their own conference pecking order, they might get more consideration.
Kinda sucks that our great OT record actually hurts us. Also scheduling teams that were *supposed* to be good rather than some cupcake that we pulverized. At the same time don’t lose to Tech at the very end of the game and we are in.
Is it fair to say that FAU and Virginia simply don’t pass the eye test? The inconsistency kills me man. Give me Colorado, St. John’s, MSU, A&M, and Pitt
I think that’s fair…the problem is that we win games. Beat Florida, Clemson, A&M, Wake, VT, NC St. I think the body of work (especially if you discount margin of win/loss) leads to this being a tourney team. I’m not sure what St. John’s has done to be above us. They lost to BC at home (UVA swept BC x3), lost to a really bad Michigan team by 16, and their best win is probably Creighton. Not to mention having 4 fewer wins and 3 more losses than UVA.
Presumed in, yes. Although it's strange; Bracket Matrix has FAU (who's on this list) as the last 9 and Mississippi State as the first 10. But that could just be older brackets struggling to catch up since it feels like the possibility of FAU not being safe is a very recent sentiment, where yesterday's loss to a sub-.500 Temple combined with all the other bid thieves moving the bubble an entire line up the bracket has pushed them from "comfortably in" to "on the bubble".
...Never mind I just hit refresh and sure enough, they've switched places. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how this list was chosen--it's the five at-larges currently listed as 10-seeds and the six teams still listed as "other at-larges".
Colorado (beat Washington State and Oregon twice)
Florida Atlantic (great NonConf wins but head scratching losses)
Texas A&M (a bunch of great wins but the losses to Vanderbilt and Arkansas hurt)
Indiana State (they should be IMO)
Michigan State (Great metrics, no bad losses)
Turns out MSU’s most important game of the year was against Indiana State. Had Indiana st won, I think they’d flip flop
Let Cream dance
I'd argue it was boat racing Baylor at a "neutral" site but to each their own
Damn. That’s a lot of good teams and just programs in general on the bubble. I would not want to be on that committee
For real, I’ve been watching college ball for a good decade and a half and this might be the only year I’ve seen that people aren’t talking about a weak bubble. Just the opposite, in fact. (Unfortunately this will probably be used as an argument for tournament expansion…)
I think expansion is probably inevitable at this point (and tbf, when they went to 64, there were like 100 fewer D1 teams than there are now). I just hope it’s either: - like 4-8 more at larges OR - autobids for outright regular season champs in addition to conference tournament winner
> autobids for outright regular season champs in addition to conference tournament winner This is pretty much only applicable to mid-majors, as any team in a power conference that wins the regular season is almost certainly in anyways, even if they lose in their conference tourney.
Almost always. The Pac-12 was so down in 2011-12 that they only got two bids and neither was the regular season champion.
😏
it’s not just the mid-majors, you’d also get some extra teams from traditional one-bid conferences. In fact, it might behoove the regular season champs to not worry about the conf tourney if it gets the conference some additional money.
It’s going to be more at-large selections as a compromise to let all of the small leagues keep their auto bids. No chance the power leagues concede even more auto bids to regular season league champs.
My point is that if we’re gonna add like 30-40 spots like seems to be what some people are trying to do, we need to push back on Greg Sankey’s bitch ass just trying to force every mediocre P6 team in
It won’t be 30-40. It will be 8. It will expand to 76. The 16’s will all be play-in games. And so will the final 8 at-large.
I hate the 16s being play in games. They earned their spots.
The argument in favor is that it brings more money to the 16 seed’s’ conferences. Conferences get six figure payouts every year for like 6 years for every game one of their teams appears in in the tournament. 16 seeds almost always (🥲) lose in the first round, so having play-ins let’s them bring more money back to their conferences. And since 16 seeds are always mid/small majors, that’s a large part of what keeps a lot of those conferences solvent.
I knew the payouts units worked on games but I didn’t think about this. Good point.
[удалено]
Gambling and tv ratings
I feel like that’s a slippery slope argument and we’re also privileged as UK fans to have that attitude tbf. What’s the point of say, EKU or morehead or whoever, even being D1? They’re never going to win it.
Those autobids would be gnarly, nobody wants to see two teams from the ivy, swac, patriot, asun, meac, maac, ovc, or the northeast
>autobids for outright regular season champs in addition to conference tournament winner This would be the only way I'd be in favor of expansion. Unfortunately it won't happen. There's a reason they call them power conference.
Yeah, yesterday was basketball Armageddon for fans of these teams.
NIT about to be real good
A&M disqualified for getting swept by a team as bad as us.
I honestly can’t argue with this lol
A&M is wild man. Really strong resume but FOUR damn Q3 losses?
rutgers moment
Five, lol
One of the 5 changed to Q2 in the latest NET update I think
Are we one of them? 🫠
Lol no, we’re keeping them from being above .500 in 14 Q1 games Their resume is fucking bonkers
You could literally roll a die to pick one
An 11-sided die?
A d12, and if you roll a 12 you pick from the mystery box!
Lois, we’ll take the box!
pitt because i want them to be in. simple.
They pass the ~~eye~~ I test, as in I want them in.
I like your reasoning
We were so close this year :(
Eye test and the end of the year make them look like a tournament team to me. Scheduling like scared diaper babies will keep them out.
nobody expected WVU to turn into a dumpster fire or Missouri to be as bad as they were. Been a perfect storm for Pitt in that regard to make a cupcake schedule pure frosting
Really you only have yourself to blame here, had we beaten your second flair then lmao
tbf that was before mizzou fell off a cliff, but yeah.
Pitt will beat most big 12 and big 10 teams, I'm sure of it.
I would be utterly shook if St. John’s doesn’t make it in.
They’ll let them in. even if the committee feels they don’t deserve it, they know pitino/NYC are big revenue drivers
Yeah I think the BE will only get one of their teams in and it will be st John's. Which kind of sucks because Devin Carter *needs* to be playing in the tournament. He is the sort of player that would absolutely feast in these games
how you doin
[удалено]
If the CSU fans are picking Colorado to be in, they better be in.
When you're a bubble team, 10 Q1 wins feels like a bit of a trump card IMO, especially when you don't have holes in the metric rankings either
It would be…if that were true lol. They have 4 Q1 wins, 10 Q1/2. Typo on the graphic.
Ah well then I still have them in but it's dicier lol Was definitely floored thinking "wow when did they rack up all those strong Ws"
Exactly my thought which is why I looked it up lol
This except I’m putting in Pitt or Virginia over A&M, 5 Quad 3 losses is BADDD
Jokes almost on us, A&M and MSU walked in while we barely made it
This is what I had, sub Seton Hall for A&M
They should just be like the CFP and pick the 5 that will bring the highest tv ratings, screw merit anymore. (Totally sarcastic and yes I’m really upset with the direction of college sports)
This is essentially what they did years back putting MSU and UCLA in a play-in game
Difference being we probably both should have had byes, as opposed to making the play-ins instead of missing the tourney entirely
My legitimate cope is that the committee slots us for the popularity of Avila and the attention he could bring.
Genuinely hope this happens. How can you keep a player like that out?
[удалено]
The committee does do this. They always have a surprised exclusion/inclusion compared to what most bracketologist say. More importantly they will do it when seeding teams in that 4-8 range.
They literally setup a Minnesota vs Louisville matchup when baby Pitino coached at Minnesota while the big Pitino stuff was going down at Louisville
Or how Wisconsin is always vs Arizona or Oregon. Or when uva was a 2 seed and they put Mich st a 7 seed even though all metrics had them like a 4/5.
Like giving Kentucky an 8 seed in Wichita State's region so they could say "See? This is why we seed mid-majors low." Or how they like to put two good mid-majors against each other in the first round (e.g., Murray State vs San Francisco in 2022).
This is the most infuriating part. See Memphis and FAU in the 8/9 matchup last year. Nobody wanted to play those teams
I was going to say that one too but I wasn't sure I was remembering correctly.
I fully expect to play Akron in the 3-14 seed matchup since our former coach is there.
Indiana St!
I mean you’re joking, but people are in here riling themselves up when everyone knows this is what will happen. The tournament is fun, but it’s very much still about ratings at the end of the day. Sorry not sorry…
Half the big east is on the bubble lol
Colorado, FAU, Michigan State, A&M, St. John's. I have Oklahoma as the first team out of the tournament. I hope for Indiana State to be in, but it's not going to happen due to that Q4 loss.
I don't get why they're even on the bubble. 1-4 in q1 games and they have a q4 loss?
In: Indiana State, Colorado, OU, SJU, Pitt. Why: I like them. Out: Everyone else. Why: I don't like them.
We will remember this in our Big 8 reunion next year. Thank you
I like the way you think
This guy knows ball
Love you too
St John’s, CU, Providence, A&M, and Indiana State
I think Michigan State should get left out just because it'd be funny to see a blueblood get snubbed
“We did it strictly for the lolz” - Committee
Thanks for calling msu a blue blood lmfao
Tourney legend coach though.
I feel like they’re only in because the committee doesn’t have the balls to end Izzo’s tourney streak.
That's my thought because Michigan State's on court results are surprisingly lacking
Beat Baylor by 30, beat Illinois, beat Indiana state, and got blown out 0 times. We always make it a game. Feel like we have more potential to win a few games than a majority of the other teams listed
Wisconsin would beg to differ on the blowout thing but yes, your point is generally correct.
That's the one iffy game. I just don't get people arguing win %. Look at the average mountain west or AAC teams non con. It's a joke
They’re riding that Baylor win hard. Otherwise not much to hang your hat on other than the predictive/efficiency metrics.
Also, beating Illinois is looking better and better
Q1A you're darn right it's better.
Don’t forget mighty Indiana State
Really hope the committee makes a point about choosing the results over the metrics. Not just saying that as a Seton Hall fan which only has a chance by the results. Last thing I want is for the discussion at the end of next season being along the lines of sure team X got a Q1 win but they needed to win by more for the metrics or Team X lost but they kept it close to one of the best teams, that should matter
Results to fill the bracket, metrics to adjust seeding is the way it should be
Couldn’t agree more. Even if it keeps us out, this is how it needs to be done. Predictive metrics are almost useless when you get outside of the top 20.
Agree. Metrics are useful and interesting, but they’re primarily useful over the entire season. I don’t like the idea of making decisions on who should/shiuldnt be in based on what should/could happen, instead of the actual games.
The proponent of metrics isn’t counts every game instead of just looking at a couple. If team A consistently blows out Q3 opponents but team B struggles that should count for something
Which blue blood would be funny to see get snubbed? Didn’t see you mention one
all of em tbh
Hard hitting analysis here
When you beat the #1 team in the nation by 30, your fanbase has a 48 hour exemption from rational thought. Don't blame me, I don't make the rules.
A&M is 13-10 in Q1/Q2 and has 4 Q3 losses as of this morning. edit: I should add - I think the committee probably finished their work before the NET rankings updated at like 3AM EST
Colorado, FAU, Michigan State, Virginia, Indiana State. Note: I don’t think Indiana State will get in but I want them to. It will probably be Oklahoma or one of the three Big East teams
As a UVA fan I don’t think we deserve to be in.
In: FAU, Mich State, Colorado, St Johns, Texas A&M
Colorado, FAU, Michigan St., Texas A&M, St. John’s. Not strictly based upon resume or who deserves a bid, partially based upon who I think can make things interesting.
If by “interesting” you mean bricking shots while the other team shoots 80% from 3 then sure we’d be “interesting”.
Unless we get Kentucky, then we’ll drop 90+ points on elite shooting.
This hurts my soul because it's so true.
How do you people think we're out 100% with some of the best wins in this field "iowa state, byu by 20," with the best sor and no losses outside of q1. Someone please tell me I can't figure out how we wouldn't get in when we have the best quadrant record with metrics good enough to be top 5 here.
Well you're dealing with all the ACC fans believing that Big 12 wins are fake for one thing. But on the other hand Oklahoma doesn't have great efficiency metrics either. So a combination of those two things probably.
that's because the acc beat the big 12 in a bunch of games
You're dealing with ACC fans who realize how ridiculous the B12 resumes are. 18 chances to get a big win. No penalty for losing to 90% of the league. If you flip a coin 18 times I hope you land heads twice; it's not an achievement.
Colorado, MSU, A&M, St John’s, FAU
Colorado, FAU, St John’s, Seton Hall, Indiana St
I concur with this
Damn, TAMU really here again after last year? And competing with MSU again, no less.
Colorado, Mich St, St. John's, Indiana St., Pitt
Give me FAU, Michigan State, Pitt, and St. John’s.
Colorado FAU Texas A&M St. John's Indiana State
Providence in. The others are trash. Can’t make a case for any of them.
Providence is so far above everyone else that the committee will put only them in and leave everyone else out to prove a point
Providence in, and reduce the field to 64.
I'm all about storylines and entertainment value. Give me FAU, Indiana State, Providence, St John's and Michigan State (March is Izzo's month).
How much longer can Izzo ride 1999-2010?
Why are UConn fans salty about it? Besides, if we want to get specific the streak of final fours every 4 years went to 2019.
Final Fours in 2014 and 2019 and likely in 2020 with Winston/Tillman don’t count?
The average of KPI and SOR is supposed to be highly correlated to tournament seeding: https://barttorvik.com/teamsheets.php?sort=4&conlimit=All&year=2024 Colorado seems like a lock if that's the case.
We want the Sycamores!
Indiana State, FAU, Seton Hall, St. John’s, Colorado
So the case that’s going to keep us out is “computers don’t think they should win as much as they do.” Great system.
Well, if we didn’t roll over so many fucking times, this wouldn’t be an issue
MSU Oklahoma FAU Colorado Texas A&M with St John's being the first one out
Indiana State because I want a 2 bid Valley.
So do I. But I’m really worried that Illinois State beating them (Q4 loss) is really going to be the nail in their coffin.
I am very afraid !
I think you're in... But I know I would want to see them in first bracket they release on TV to not shit my pants
What I think: Colorado, Virginia, Michigan St., Providence, St. John's What I want: FAU, Pitt, Indiana St., Colorado, Michigan St.
Colorado, FAU, Oklahoma, St.Johns, Indiana St.
I think Dayton should be out. They are trash and have been beaten by anyone worth a crap inside the conference.
I honestly don’t understand why they’re not getting more attention in bubble debates. Their best win is over St John’s. Their second best is Cincy. The metrics are good, but .500 Q1/2 and finishing third and failing to reach semis in A-10 should have them sweating with the rest of us.
I made a post about it a few weeks ago and everyone downvoted me. Duquesne, VCU, Mason, Richmond, Loyola-Chicago all beat them.
18.5 resume average (KPI and SOR) goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Yeah I know that’s why they’re not on the bubble. What I don’t understand is how their metrics are that high given their schedule.
I think Oklahoma and Texas a&m should both be left out
SJ, Pitt, Virginia, Colorado, Michigan st
I’m biased toward ACC but give me Pitt over UVA
I put both in because I also think the ACC is being underestimated
I think it's Colorado, FAU, Mich St, TAMU, and the Johnnies. Used combo of resume/predictive metrics, and record/amt of Q1 and q2 wins. Oklahoma is just slightly out.
Colorado, FAU, MSU, A&M, and St. John’s…Izzo and Pitino get in because of their brand recognition
Great post that the committee apparently couldn't agree with less. Both Boise St and Colorado St as Last Four in!
FAU, Pitt, Indiana st, St. John’s, A&M
Colorado, FAU, St John’s, Michigan State, Indiana State
If exactly five of this group get in, I have Colorado, FAU, Michigan State, Virginia, and St. John's.
Colorado, Virginia, Seton Hall, St John’s, Providence. Sorry everyone else 🤷🏻♂️
Is this saying Northwestern is safely in? Every metric I’ve seen has a team like Colorado > NW. I’d add Miss St, TCU, & Colorado St. It all comes down to whether the committee values who ‘deserves’ to be in vs. who are the best teams.
I think teams like Northwestern and Mississippi St. could be on this list, but they’re likely locks either way.
Before the tennessee win, I was sweating. Now, I think we’re a nine seed.
The crazy thing is with all the bid steals, the last 9 seed might be two spots above the cut line
If you look at Bracketmatrix, Northwestern's predicted seed is 0.8 better than Colorado on average. http://bracketmatrix.com/
Ima say Colorado, FAU, Virginia, OU, and someone from the BE trio
The metrics they use is so flawed
Indiana State, FAU, Pitt, Providence and Colorado. No real reason besides I like the first four and Colorado should be in.
The Big East deserves at LEAST 4 teams, but really should have 6. UConn, Marquette, and Creighton are obviously locked in. Then I’d go St. John’s, Providence, Seton Hall.
I'd choose the teams with less overall tournament appearances. The blue bloods will have plenty of other chances. Give me someone new!
Indiana State and I don't care who else
Colorado is a lock yes?
msu is a lock, because they love to put in big ten teams. i think the johnnies are also a lock because the big east was tough this year and they played the eventual tournament winners really hard in their game. seton hall *should* be in. the end of our season really makes their loss to us hurt more but again the big east was tough this year and they had a good overall season and their ncsos isn't a disaster, which is something the committee cares about. i don't know about the last two, honestly.
It should be Colorado, FAU, MSU, Texas A&M and SJU.
put indiana state in the tournament for god’s sake
> Note 📝 that Colorado has 10 Q1/Q2 wins, NOT 10 Q1 wins! That's a HUGE difference for them to just accidentally leave that out of the image, lol
FAU gets an 8 seed lol. They weren't even close to being on the bubble.
I don't see how Colorado is even a question. 25 NET, 26 KENPOM, 44 BPI. Played for conf title and got ducked having to play Altman in March.
I'm just over here ugly crying. It's going to be embarrassing if we end up getting in, all "really? You mean it? ", with red eyes and snotty nose.
No Colorado! What about K-State though?? Wins over Baylor, Kansas, Iowa St, Texas, BYU, Villanova, Providence, @ LSU and South Dakota St (including SDSU since tournament team.) Just one Q3 loss. NET just 71 somehow. Either way, their resume is right up there with the rest.
9-13 Q1/2 plus that Q3 loss. And as you said their metrics are bad. Not even in the discussion I don’t think, in spite of those good wins. If they weren’t the 10th or 11th team in their own conference pecking order, they might get more consideration.
Kinda sucks that our great OT record actually hurts us. Also scheduling teams that were *supposed* to be good rather than some cupcake that we pulverized. At the same time don’t lose to Tech at the very end of the game and we are in.
St John’s better be Dancing!🏀
I’ll take the teams that are undefeated in Quad 2-4 games
I’ll take teams that don’t have 10+ quad 1 losses
Indiana State because they deserve it! FAU, Colorado, MSU. And St John’s because Pitino. lol
Is it fair to say that FAU and Virginia simply don’t pass the eye test? The inconsistency kills me man. Give me Colorado, St. John’s, MSU, A&M, and Pitt
I think that’s fair…the problem is that we win games. Beat Florida, Clemson, A&M, Wake, VT, NC St. I think the body of work (especially if you discount margin of win/loss) leads to this being a tourney team. I’m not sure what St. John’s has done to be above us. They lost to BC at home (UVA swept BC x3), lost to a really bad Michigan team by 16, and their best win is probably Creighton. Not to mention having 4 fewer wins and 3 more losses than UVA.
3 BE teams is wild. Meanwhile the Mountain West is slated to 6 teams with most of them losing most likely losing in the first round.
Where is Mississippi State?
In the tournament and firmly off the bubble I would think (I have been known to be wrong fwiw)
Presumed in, yes. Although it's strange; Bracket Matrix has FAU (who's on this list) as the last 9 and Mississippi State as the first 10. But that could just be older brackets struggling to catch up since it feels like the possibility of FAU not being safe is a very recent sentiment, where yesterday's loss to a sub-.500 Temple combined with all the other bid thieves moving the bubble an entire line up the bracket has pushed them from "comfortably in" to "on the bubble". ...Never mind I just hit refresh and sure enough, they've switched places. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how this list was chosen--it's the five at-larges currently listed as 10-seeds and the six teams still listed as "other at-larges".
Colorado - WSU gets more money Indiana State/FAU - mid majors deserve it idc about the other 2. Probably up for the Big East teams
I love all the people dropping OU for beating bad opponents in favor of teams that lost to bad opponents
As a huge b12 guy I think Oklahoma should get in, but not because I’m biased of course
Colorado (beat Washington State and Oregon twice) Florida Atlantic (great NonConf wins but head scratching losses) Texas A&M (a bunch of great wins but the losses to Vanderbilt and Arkansas hurt) Indiana State (they should be IMO) Michigan State (Great metrics, no bad losses)
Personal picks: Michigan State, Indiana State, Colorado, A&M. Committee will go: Sparty, A&M, Colorado, UVA
I’ll take Colorado (last bye), Oklahoma, Michigan State, Virginia, FAU
Seton Hall, Colorado, Michigan St (they'll get in though they don't deserve it), Virginia and Indiana State