Cracketology: Bracket Brokedown

 

Marquette celebrates their selection to the 2025 NCAA Tournament

Photo from gomarquette.com

Every year after the NCAA tournament bracket comes out, I look back to see how the Selection Committee did. Because their work reflects which teams are selected and where they are sent, they technically can't get it wrong. But this year, as soon as Selection Committee chairman Bubba Cunningham appeared with his Vice Chair Keith Gill, it was clear he needed cover for something the Selection Committee got wrong. We'll start with the most glaring error and work our way down from there.

West Virginia got snubbed

Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.

There is no other way to say it. The Mountaineers should have been in this field. This isn't just me saying it. On bracketmatrix.com, there were 111 brackets updated as of the Selection Show. All 111 had West Virginia in. No team has ever been left out that was included in all of their submissions. There are always additional brackets that come in from people who don't do regular updates throughout the year and just submit a bracket email at the end. Of the additional 109 brackets that did so, 104 had WVU in. Every serious bracketologist and the vast majority of people who just throw in results at the end included the Mountaineers.

Why should WVU have been a lock? The at-large field extends to team #46 on the S-Curve, North Carolina. In terms of selection, West Virginia was inside the top-46 (45 KPI, 42 SOR, 43 WAB) in all three resume metrics. North Carolina (55 KPI), Texas (58 KPI, 54 SOR), and Xavier (60 KPI) cannot claim the same, yet all three were in. As a result, West Virginia had a better resume average than any of those three included teams (as did Indiana, top-49 in all three metrics).

For years, we have been told the Selection Committee looks at who you played, where you played them, and what the result was. West Virginia won 6 Q1 games, 5 away from home (2 neutral, 3 true road games). Bubba Cunningham cited that West Virginia would be without Tucker DeVries for the Tournament as a reason they were left out. That is simply preposterous. DeVries only played 8 games this year. The Mountaineers were still 13-10 without him, including two of their best wins, at Kansas and over Iowa State. Those two wins are better than anything North Carolina has on their team sheet.

Cunningham needed Gill to provide air of legitimacy

Photo from CBS Sports broadcast

Vice Chair Keith Gill even cited North Carolina's Q2 record as a reason for inclusion. This is ridiculous for two reasons. First, no one has ever used Q2 record as a reason to include a team before, particularly a team that was 1-12 in Q1 games. Second, there were ZERO tournament teams on North Carolina's Q2 column. Xavier at least beat UConn and Creighton in Q2, but UNC didn't add a single game of value. What the Selection Committee is effectively telling us is that a win over UCLA on a neutral court is worth more than winning at the Phog (UCLA & Kansas are on the same seed line) and beating ISU (a 3-seed) combined. Not to mention the wins over Gonzaga (N), Arizona (N), Cincinnati (A), and Utah (A), all also Q1 wins the Mountaineers earned, each of which equals the sum total of UNC's Q1 wins and combined obviously are better than UNC's sum resume.

It has been noted that Cunningham would not have been in the room when North Carolina discussed. I'm sure this is true, but it does not preclude Cunningham as chair from influencing this decision without being in the room. When the Selection Committee was initially discussing their procedures and then first got together in February, it was presumably Cunningham who explained what would be important or not important for selection. At that time, North Carolina was already 1-10 in Quadrant 1 games, but 5-0 in Q2. Graham Doeren has pointed out the influence a Chairman can have in this regard. Looking ahead, UNC only had one Q1 game left on their schedule, so they weren't going to significantly improve their Q1 record. But they would have the chance to improve their SOR/WAB simply by winning Q2 & Q3 games in the ACC. If Cunningham says "we like to prioritize the metrics over just raw results, especially the new WAB metric that was added this year. And teams in Q1 and Q2 are designed to reflect postseason caliber teams, with Q1A representing protected seeds, Q1B representing at-large caliber teams, Q2A representing upper seed (12-14) auto-bid teams, and Q2B representing lower seed (15-16) auto-bid teams. Because all of these could be tourney teams, we will weigh those games about the same." Anyone saying that Cunningham didn't matter or couldn't have mattered in this regard is being disingenous.

And while I'm zeroing in on North Carolina, Texas might be an even more egregious inclusion. In terms of resume metrics, the only top-46 metric they had was #45 WAB. Yes, they had 7 Q1 wins, but they balanced that with 10 losses. We're told that for North Carolina, Q2 record matters, yet Texas was 3-5 in Q2. Like North Carolina, they had zero wins over tournament teams in Q2. Texas tied a record for the most total losses for an at-large team (15) and had an abysmal NCSOS (#286) so they positively fail the "who/where/result" question because in terms of their controllable schedule, they played 8 low-major buy games (all wins), 3 teams not near the tournament (all wins), and 2 teams that were in consideration (both losses). They didn't beat a single non-conference opponent that was in at-large tournament consideration. No team has ever made the field at more than 1 game under .500 in Q1-3, yet Texas was 12-15, worse than the precedent by a magnitude of three. 

But of course, Big East fans will be happy Xavier was included. Why was Xavier included? I'm confident the answer is because there is no comparison under which you can include North Carolina and not Xavier. Both had just 1 win in Q1, but Xavier had the better win percentage there and two additional wins over the field. Xavier had a cleaner resume, with zero losses outside Q1+2. And like UNC, they had 8 of these apparently now coveted Q2 wins.

Darian DeVries and West Virginia deserved a bid

Photo by William Purnell | Imagn Images

 

So in order to snub West Virginia, they had to make up an excuse for Tucker DeVries, who hasn't played since the kids were opening St. Nick's stockings, shoehorn Xavier in because of the UNC comparables, and include a Texas team with unprecedentedly bad performance in meaningful games.

Quickly on Indiana, they had 4 Q1 wins, including 2 over protected seeds (at Michigan State, over Purdue), were undefeated in Q2 (and Q3 for that matter), and had better resume metrics than any of the three "Last Four In" teams we are discussing here. And don't get me started on Boise State or UC Irvine, it's very obvious that even with a majority of non-power conference members, the name on the front of the jersey is a whole lot more important than the substance of the resume. Texas & UNC over Boise is laughably bad, and while I can see leaving Irvine out (I did) there is no world under which they are not in the First Four out and should certainly be ahead of Ohio State. But again, name on the front of the jersey, unless you're Indiana who already fired their coach.

Missed Seedings

Three in particular stood out. The first one was on the 5-line, where Memphis shows up. The Selection Committee has 7 metrics on the team sheet. According to the NET, which is primarily a sorting tool for the quadrants, Memphis is ranked #51, which equates to a 13-seed. According to the results average, their 18.3 does reflect a 5-seed, but their predictive average puts them at 51.3, also a 13-seed. Logically, they should be somewhere between those ranges, which is why we had them as an 8-seed, giving them extra credit for their big wins and result averages despite the quality metrics saying they should be 5 seed lines lower. This miss was so bad that Memphis is a +3.5 point underdog at Action Network against 12-seed Colorado State.

Memphis earned their bid, but not their 5-seed

Photo by Ben Solomon | AAC

What compounds this is our next missed seed. Louisville landed on the 8-line. We had them as a 6, which was right in line with their 23.3 overall metric average. But if the message from Memphis is that resume metrics matter more for seeding, then why was Louisville's 13.7 resume average, more than a full seed line in value better than Memphis', not get them a better seed than the Tigers, particularly when Louisville was better in every other metric on the team sheet? This is the definition of hypocrisy, having completely different criteria for teams. This is exacerbated by putting Louisville in the Lexington pod with Auburn. This means that if Louisville wins, the overall #1 seed will be playing a de facto road game in their opening weekend. It's less than an 80 mile drive from Louisville to Lexington. That will be a heavily pro-Louisville crowd. So not only are the Cardinals punished in terms of being given a seed worse than they deserved, Auburn is punished by being bracketed against a team better than they should see in the second round in a road environment. Typically, a team is never given a true seed lower than their lowest metric. Louisville's lowest metric on the team sheet was their #28 BPI, which was only that low because it includes a factor for preseason ranking, so Louisville's worst metric was that bad because the formula BEFORE ANY GAMES WERE PLAYED didn't think they were good. But even with that, they should be no lower than #28, which is the last 7-seed. There is no excuse for this.

The last error of note is Gonzaga. Quite simply, they should not have been an 8-seed. The design of the bracket is to give a favorable path to the best teams. That means a 1-seed should not have to worry about facing a top-10 predictive matchup before the Elite Eight, and certainly not in the round of 32. But that's the case for Houston if they advance to play the Zags. While the seeding is only one line off what we had, Gonzaga's predictive metrics were far too good to put a 1-seed in that position the first weekend.

Our Results

On the whole, it was a decent year. We correctly predicted 65/68 teams, but as virtually everyone had West Virginia in, it was more akin to 65/67. Of those 65, we had 49 on their exact seed line and 14 that were one line off. Our total Paymon score, which is used to judge entries on the Bracket Matrix, was 356 points, a 10-point improvement over last year. Rankings will be out later, but we'll mostly be on to other pursuits (like picking our own bracket) at that point.

My final argument is that it is past time for the Selection Committee to be broken up and reconfigured. Having partisan conference members play such a major role in who gets in and who is left out is a bad look. Right now, it is impossible to not look at the selection of UNC over West Virginia and not assume the Chair's presence influenced that decision. According to the New York Post, Cunningham earns a $67,905 bonus for making the field. Whether that played into the selection or not, the mere impression that it could is problematic.

Rocco Miller belongs on the Selection Committee more than the current members

 

Photo from ESPN broadcast

The Selection Committee makeup should be radically reshaped. If conference commissioners and athletic directors are included, that should only be a portion of the makeup. On a 12-team Committee, they should make up no more than 3 spots. Perhaps one P4 member, one from the traditional non-P4 multibid leagues (Big East/Mountain West/WCC/American/etc), and one from the single-bid leagues. The Committee should also feature members of the media who cover this the entire year round at different levels. This shouldn't just be prominent names like a Gary Parish or Seth Davis, but people who track low and mid-majors, such as Jim Root from Three Man Weave. I would put three media members on the panel. There should also be bracketologists. For someone like me, this is a hobby I do aside from my full-time job, but there are people who track this annually and are in touch with the sport as a whole like Joe Lunardi, Rocco Miller, and Lukas Harkins. That should make up a portion of the Committee. And finally, there should be coaches in there. None that are working, and none that have not worked at multiple programs across different levels. People like Matt McCall, Scott Davenport, or Jay Wright would fit that mold.

The Committee as it exists clearly follows an agenda that has not been the best for programs at all levels of the sport. Diversifying the people that make these selections, bringing in different levels of media, coaching, and bracketologists to bolster the experience of college administrators would not only improve the process but the perception from the outside.

I would also make one last plea that this shows the need for expansion. If we are going to get garbage high-major teams like Texas and North Carolina with a field limited to 68, then the sport should really look at expanding to 80 so teams like Boise State and UC Irvine, both of whom were more deserving than any of the three high-major teams heading to Dayton, aren't left out in the cold and the bracket has room for them. I'm sure others will come away with the opposite conclusion, but year after year I've seen teams like 2019 UNC-Greensboro and 2024 Indiana State left out. There are countless others, but if the Selection Committee, even with a 7-5 membership edge outside the current power structure, cannot put these teams in under the current format, we need more bids to insure these teams get a shot.

Okay, ranting over. Enjoy the true start of March Madness!

Please Dance with Caution

 Welcome to the most exciting, important, and stressful portion of #mubb season. We are back to talk about where they are seeded in the tournament, what take-aways we have from BET, and how we feel going forward. We chatted about the match up against New Mexico and then look forward a potential match-up for revenge against Michigan State. We talk about hope (and good 3pt shooting) as the one and only path to a deep run. It's a fun pod and have to hope we've got several left in the season. Enjoy!

 

 https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/y56tvczjh8rwuiqu/Eggs_2025_March_16_Dance8qk7q.mp3

 

Cracketology: Final Submission

Pencils down!

Here are changes since this morning:

• Michigan winning the Big 10 Tournament moved them up to the 4 line, replacing Oregon.
• Rescrubbed the 6/7 cutoff, Saint Mary's moved up to a 6 and Kansas moved down to a 7.
• Reconsidered the bubble, heavily considered Xavier and UNC, but ultimately stuck with Indiana and Boise as the last two teams in the field.

Here we go:

 

Cracketology: Dreaming of a White Selection Sunday

 

Marquette fans in Milwaukee were greeted this morning by a heap of snow falling on this most festive of days. We may not have had a White Christmas, but we certainly have a White Selection Sunday. Let's get a quick rundown of where things stand going into Selection Sunday.

The last 1-seed: I feel good about Florida here, even if they lose. I'll re-evaluate if Tennessee pulls it off, but Florida will have the better metrics and Q1+2 record regardless. If not, Florida is clearly the most dangerous 2-seed.

At Sixes & Sevens: There is certainly confusion and disorder at the end of the 6-seeds and start of the 7-seeds. It seems for the most part that Missouri, Kansas, UCLA, and Illinois are the root of that. I went with Missouri and Kansas on the 6-line because they have better top end wins and metric averages. I seem to be in the minority, but we'll see how it pans out. BYU is also a complication because depending on the order of the 3-seeds, they may not be able to play as a 6-seed. I'm projecting Wisconsin as Big 10 champs, which pushes them up to #10 overall and opens the door for BYU/Texas Tech in Wichita.

Marquette's Seed: Because of the metrics and the evolution of wins, I can't get Marquette higher than #29 overall, the top 8-seed. I'm prepared to be wrong because Marquette does have a 6-seed resume, but the top 7 lines are stronger than normal this year, which means everyone from the 6-line to the middle of the 8-line has a 6-seed resume or better. One more win and Marquette is probably a 6, but they didn't get it while other teams got just enough results to inch ahead. The Golden Eagles playing New Mexico in Auburn's Lexington pod has been in every scenario I've envisioned since yesterday morning.

Last Team In: I agonized over this last night and this morning. I was down to Xavier, UNC, and UC Irvine. The overall resume favors UC Irvine, the cleanest resume belongs to Xavier, and UNC has the best metrics. Ultimately, the UC Irvine loss to UCSD was one loss too many, which knocked them out (UCSD would've been an at-large). That left Xavier and UNC, and from Q1 record to wins over the field to best overall win, Xavier was the winner. I feel good about Xavier ahead of UNC, and felt good about them as my last team until Boise lost to Colorado State. That puts Boise back into the at-large field. They have a better resume average than Xavier, similar win away from home (Saint Mary's on a neutral), and six wins over the field to Xavier's three. For now, Boise State is my last team in.

Bid Thieves: George Mason (A-10) and UAB (American) remain as potential bid thieves. One winning would knock Boise State out, two would knock Indiana out as well. George Mason would slot in as a 12-seed, while UAB is likely a 13 or 14. Personally I'd love the bid thieves because it would take out the debate over the last two spots. I do think VCU would get in if GMU wins the A-10, likely heading to Dayton. Memphis would stay on the 8-line.

Surprise Exclusions: Teams that most everyone projects in that could be left out are Baylor and Vanderbilt. The Bears' 13-14 record in Q1-3 is uninspiring and while most of their losses are Q1A, they only have 1 win in that same quadrant. I've seen them as high as the 9-line, but they could be on the outside looking in. Vanderbilt has a great collection of wins, but their #331 NCSOS typically isn't good enough to get to Dayton. That alone could keep them out, especially because in terms of scheduling intent, teams like SEMO & Jackson State (both Q4) were projected to be even worse to start the season.

Surprise Inclusions: We covered the most likely bubble teams, but if someone's name shocks people by getting in, it's either Ohio State with their excellent collection of wins or UC Irvine. The Buckeyes have three wins over top-5 seeds (Maryland, Kentucky, Purdue) with the latter two away from home and three more Q1 wins away from home. UC Irvine set a record for the most road wins by a D1 team. While 10 were in Q3+4, they went 4-1 in true road games in Q1+2. That's impressive, and I'd be very happy to be wrong and see UC Irvine in the field.

Here's the updated S-Curve and bracket:

Cracketology: Marquette Falls

A valiant first 10 minutes wasn't enough for Marquette

Photo by Jason Szenes | NY Post

The first 8 minutes against St. John's went about as well as Marquette could hope for. Kam Jones was cooking, the threes were falling, and the Golden Eagles raced out to a 24-9 lead. Then it all came apart as St. John's pulled back within 2 by halftime and overwhelmed Marquette in the second half. That result not only knocked Marquette out of the Big East Tournament, but coupled with Louisville's win over Clemson  pushed them down to an 8-seed. It could also jeopardize Marquette's 50-week streak in the AP Top 25 (4th longest in the nation) but that won't impact their NCAA selection or seeding.

The bubble is also of interest. First, here are the potential bid thieves still remaining:

Mountain West - Boise State/Colorado State: A thief here is guaranteed, and they knocked UC Irvine out of our field late last night. Boise has been tentatively placed as the Mountain West champ, and is still a viable at-large candidate. Colorado State likely needs to win to take a spot. The biggest question is if the winner will be on the 11 or 12 line, which would determine if a play-in game goes to the 12-line.

Atlantic 10 - George Mason/St. Joseph's/Loyola-Chicago: Any of these would be unexpected, and at a glance VCU should be included. However, the Selection Committee could hold their #280 NCSOS against them. Would it matter that teams like Seton Hall (bad loss) and Miami were Q4 games that typically would not be expected that low? Unsure, but VCU winning is best for teams on the bubble.

American - North Texas/UAB/Tulane: Memphis is locked into the field, though have also fallen down the seed lists. Any of these teams winning would likely slot them to the 12/13 lines. Keep an eye on this one until the end, no one on the bubble will feel safe until the American is decided.

Big West - UC Irvine: This is where it gets interesting. If the Anteaters take the automatic bid, UC San Diego goes into the at-large pool with a 2-1 Q1 record, a win at Utah State, and 11-5 record in the first three quadrants. I think that would be enough to get them to Dayton, but it would be close. I'm pulling for 2-bid Big West, but it feels like a long shot.

So what about the teams hoping to get in? Here are quick thoughts batching the teams at the bottom.

Shock Miss Potential - Baylor/Vanderbilt: Baylor is 13-14 in Q1-2 with only 1 Q1A win. Vanderbilt has a respectable all-around resume, but a glaring #331 NCSOS is something the Selection Committee could leave out. I think these teams are in, but while it would surprise pundits, there is precedent for leaving them out.

Sweating on the Inside - San Diego State/Indiana/Xavier: I think SDSU's wins over Houston and Creighton get them in, but every metric is very bubbly. Indiana has good resume metrics, but 4-13 in Q1 isn't good at all. Oklahoma was the first team out last year at 4-12 in Q1, so Indiana being left out wouldn't be unprecedented, but it took five bid thieves to knock OU out. Xavier is hanging on by their fingertips. They edge out North Carolina in Q1 and not having any bad losses, but bubbly metrics and a UConn win that is teetering on Q1/Q2 could be the deciding factor. If anything, this is clear evidence to do away with the Quadrant system.

Banging on the Window - UC Irvine/North Carolina: UC Irvine can remove doubt by winning today. Their 15-5 Q1-3 record and NCAA record 14 road wins are strong indicators, but UNC's metric superiority and the presence of Bubba Cunningham as Selection Committee chair could come into play. Colorado State could be in the mix, but I think they need to win their way in.

Unprecedented Either Way - Texas: No team that is more than 1 game under .500 in Q1-3 has ever made the tournament, and Texas is 12-15. No team with 7 Q1 wins has ever been left out of the field, and Texas has that. I think the shrinking bubble keeps them out, but they have a slim shot.

Here's our updated S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

Big East: 5

Mountain West: 4

ACC: 3

WCC: 2

Cracketology: March Dreams & Nightmares

Kam Jones & Shaka Smart want more NCAA milkshakes in March

Photo by Mike de Sisti | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Selection Sunday is just days away, which means we will soon know where Marquette is going and who they will be matching up with in the NCAA Tournament. So much of March success is about matchups, which is why today we are going to look at potential first and second round opponents for Marquette to see who we hope to see and hope to avoid in the opening weekend.

First, we need to assess Marquette's strengths and weaknesses. I used a combination of kenpom, CBB Analytics, Haslametrics, and Synergy Sports to determine places Marquette can take advantage of opponents on offense and defense as well as places opponents can exploit Marquette.

Marquette Offense: Marquette's drive to get to the rim pays off as they are one of the best teams in the country when they get there. They are also very good at pick & pop plays, largely highlighted by Ben Gold's tendency to pop off of screens. In transition, they get a heavy dose of chances and are lethal when they are on the run. There are negatives as well. Marquette is miserable against zone. And while their 3PFG% conversion rate is just below average, the high frequency of three point attempts makes this a weakness, especially against teams that let them shoot those shots they are poor at converting on. Haslametrics notes Marquette performs poorly against teams that deny second chance points, largely because while they are decent on the offensive glass, they are terrible at putting those rebounds back through the hoop.

Marquette Defense: Marquette's pick and roll familiarity pays off with high efficiency defending those plays. They also excel at forcing turnovers and converting them into points, which is related to the offensive transition numbers. Marquette is also very good in isolation, which is good because it's a frequent means of attack for opposing teams. Where Marquette struggles is on cuts to the rim as well as defending off screens. Marquette can also be beat on the boards as teams are good at getting second chances and better at converting them.

We currently expect Marquette to land as either a 6-seed or 7-seed and will base our opponent expectations on those seed lines. Most of these evaluations will be based on Synergy percentiles, which means the higher the number the better the team is in that particular area.

Opening Round Opponents

11-Seed Dream - Indiana: Offensively, Marquette would likely gash Indiana at the rim (53%) and in transition (19%). They are average rebounding on both ends, so this isn't an area they would really be able to exploit. Indiana runs a lot of pick & roll ball handler (74%) but are terrible at executing it (7%). They're also an even worse shooting team than Marquette. One thing that jumped out is that while they don't use a lot of zone (3.9% of defensive possessions) they used zone on 42/66 possessions in their upset win at Michigan State. But overall, this is a team where the matchups would really favor Marquette.

11-Seed Nightmare - VCU: Defensively, what Marquette wants to do is exactly what VCU is best at taking away. They are in the 99th percentile of at the rim defense, they defend well off screens, and they are great denying second chances. While I do think Marquette could turn VCU over, their other strengths don't really play into what VCU is best at. The Rams are good at cuts and excellent coming off screens, both of which would be problematic. Add in a pair of high-major caliber scorers in Joe Bamisile and Max Shulga and the Rams will be a tough out. Not to mention all the extra attention that will come with a Shaka vs VCU matchup.

Marquette shouldn't be afraid of Jeremiah Fears & Oklahoma

Photo by Tim Aylen | AP Photo

10-Seed Dream - Oklahoma: This is a team Marquette should feast on. They are awful defending at the rim (9%), not particularly good in transition (43%), and turn the ball over a lot (Ranked 202nd). They don't run much zone and are poor defending putbacks. On the other end, pick and roll ball handler is their second most frequent play type but they execute poorly (11%) and they run heavy isolation (96% usage) with mediocre effectiveness (43%). They're also a poor cutting team (12%) and on put back attempts (26%) so they don't seem suited to take advantage of Marquette's weaknesses. While the individual talent of guys like Jeremiah Fears and Duke Miles is impressive, this is a team Marquette should handle.

10-Seed Nightmare - Utah State: Defensively this team is trouble. They primarily run zone, which will immediately make things more difficult for Marquette. They aren't great guarding the paint but do very well keeping teams out of it (7% frequency). They rate out as excellent guarding transition (89%), off screens (94%), and pick and roll ball handler (91%). Offensively, they are don't use much pick and roll ball handler (22% frequency) or iso (27%) and have the best turnover rate on the 10-line (ranked #87). They are great on cuts (99%) and good off screens (75%) and put backs (96%). Basically, the things Marquette would exploit they don't do frequently, and the things Marquette does poorly they are great at. Historically Mountain West teams don't fare well in the tournament, but I'm not sure Marquette wants to test that trend.

----------

--------------------

----------

Second Round Opponents

2-Seed Dream - Alabama: Take this with the caveat that playing any 2-seed isn't ideal, but what Marquette does well is suited to beat the Crimson Tide. They're the worst 2-seed defending the rim defending in transition (62% in both). They didn't run a single possession of zone this year per Synergy, don't chase teams off the line, and are abysmal on offensive putbacks (6%). Offensively, they're good-not-great on cuts (74%), off screens (59%), and on putbacks (53%) so they aren't going to massively exploit Marquette's weaknesses. While they are a good P&R team (89th), they turn it over a lot (Ranked 167th) while not turning opponents over at all (350th) so this is a team Marquette should have a possession edge over. Add in the marquee matchup of Kam Jones vs Mark Sears and I would like Marquette's chances.

2-Seed Nightmare - Tennessee: The Vols have an elite rim defense (98%) and are good guarding off screens (73%) and transition (69%). They don't chase teams off the line but are great at shutting down three point shooters (#2 rank 3PFG% D). Offensively, they are a great cutting team (86%). And while it wasn't one of our focuses above, they are also elite on baseline out-of-bounds plays (93%) which is another weakness for Marquette (9%) as anyone who watched the Dayton game will remember.

Buzz Williams' Texas A&M squad would be a tough, tough out

Photo by Erik Williams | USA Today Sports

3-Seed Dream - Kentucky: The Wildcats are poor defending the rim (32%) and in transition (25%). While they run a little zone, they are 1-5 in games where they play 5+ zone possessions and their zone efficiency (2%) is woeful. And while it's not as prevalent as it was with Tyler Kolek, Kentucky's defense saw more pick and roll ball handler than any other play type and were miserable (5%) defending it, which is still a place Marquette excels (90%). Offensively, they would pose problems as it would be strength on strength with their offensive pick and roll (92%) and isolation (92%), while they are a great cutting team (100%). Kentucky doesn't turn it over a ton (Ranked #37) but were 1-4 in games where they turned over 19.2+% possessions, something Marquette did in 20/31 games.

3-Seed Nightmare - Texas A&M: This would be another game that fans thought was planned by the Selection Committee. The Aggies are great defending the rim (88%), pick & pop (86%), and mix in a lot of zone (79%) with very good results (84%). Offensively, it all really comes down to rebounding. Texas A&M leads the nation in offensive rebound rate and second change points according to Haslametrics. They wouldn't beat Marquette with skill, but their physicality is like St. John's on steroids. It would also be a particularly bitter pill to come up short against Buzz Williams. Marquette would have to turn A&M over, turn up the pace, and turn this into a shooting contest.

14/15-Seed Dream - Anyone: While it wouldn't be unheard of for a 14-seed or 15-seed to win, any of these are preferable to anyone above. If Marquette gets to the second round against a lower seeded team, that's a dream under any circumstance.

Let's look at the updated S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10:  9

Big 12: 8

Big East: 5

ACC: 3

Mountain West: 3

Big West: 2

WCC: 2

Cracketology: Championship Week Watchlist

 

Marquette & Kansas will battle for conference titles & seeding this week

Photo by Marco Garcia | AP Photo

We have made it to Championship Week, and while it might not be the week to watch that Marquette fans were expecting in January, there's still a lot to pay attention to. Today will just be a quick hit to update the seed list and explain the six groupings of teams we are looking at. We'll go a bit deeper on the third grouping, which is where Marquette is located.

First Grouping - The 1-Seed Contenders: Auburn, Duke, Houston, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Michigan State

The first four currently sit in 1-seed position. Auburn and Duke are pretty well cemented here. Houston and Florida are solid, but Alabama or Tennessee can make a case with an SEC Tournament title, while it would be hard to imagine a Big 10 regular season and tournament champ not being on the 1-line. None of these teams will be below a 2-seed.

Second Grouping - Protected Seed Contenders: St. John's, Texas Tech, Kentucky, Texas A&M, Iowa State, Purdue, Maryland, Wisconsin, Clemson, Oregon, Arizona, Saint Mary's

I feel confident about the St. John's through Wisconsin group likely being protected seeds. One of those Big 10 teams might fall out, but they are in good shape. Clemson and Oregon are very close for the last 4-seed, with Clemson having the edge metrically over Oregon's overall wins. Arizona and Saint Mary's are a stretch in this group, but too good to be in the next group.

Third Grouping - The Middle Seeds: Michigan, UCLA, BYU, Illinois, Louisville, Ole Miss, Kansas, Marquette, Missouri, Memphis, Mississippi State

This group has fluctuated a little, but the 20-30 spots have been the hardest to sort out over the past 7-10 days. A tournament title could put any of these teams into the mix to climb into the battle for the last 4-seed, while a loss could have them dropping to an 8 or even a 9. I expect game through Friday to hold weight here because the resumes are so close. We'll look ahead at each of these teams further down this page so you know when to tune in for Marquette fans trying to figure out their seed in real time.

Fourth Grouping - Should Be In: UConn, Creighton, Gonzaga, Utah State, Georgia, New Mexico, West Virginia, Vanderbilt, Drake

Obviously Drake is in, but they round out this group of teams from a seeding perspective. These are primarily the 8-10 seeds that should feel confident they will hear their names on Selection Sunday. Gonzaga is probably the most difficult to figure out here, as they have 11-seed resume metrics and 3-seed predictive metrics. The WCC finishes early, so if they can get the title it might push them as high as a 6 or 7. I do think they are in regardless, but I wouldn't advise losing their opener to test the Selection Committee. For Marquette, a UConn/Creighton Big East Tournament title would be a bad thing. Right now the non-con wins have Marquette clearly grouped ahead of the other Big East teams here, but if they are drawn into a direct comparison, Creighton being the outright #2 with so a double-round-robin to compare and UConn having the sweep of Marquette could have either of those teams jumping up ahead of the Golden Eagles.

Fifth Grouping - Bid Thief Watchers: Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, San Diego State, Xavier, UC San Diego, Baylor, UC Irvine

This past weekend really cleared up the bubble picture. These teams are in, but those last three in particular (four if SDSU loses to Boise) should be watching for bid thieves. These are teams that have generally overcome fatal flaws and have enough to be in. I don't think these teams will automatically fall out with an early loss, but a loss and a bid thief could push any of them (especially the Dayton-bound) out of the field. In the Big West, UC San Diego has the better bubble case than UC Irvine because of their win over Utah State, so for that to be a 2-bid league the most likely scenario is Irvine beating UCSD in the title game.

Sixth Grouping - On Life Support: North Carolina, Boise State, Wake Forest, Dayton

I have a hard time seeing any of these teams getting in, but if some of the teams in the fifth grouping lose early and there aren't many bid thieves, these are the teams with the best cases to sneak into Dayton. UNC and Wake will likely have a play-out game on Thursday with the winner needing to beat Duke to have any shot of an at-large. Boise gets SDSU in a game that could flip the two Mountain West schools. Dayton has been hanging at the edge of the bubble but the big non-con wins might get them back in the mix if they can add a couple wins and get chaos ahead of them. Anyone not listed here likely needs to win a conference tournament to hear their name.

Here's a quick look at the next games for the teams in the third grouping:

Michigan vs Purdue/Rutgers/USC - Friday, March 14: Michigan needs a couple wins to have any hope of getting back to the 4-line. They haven't played well of late, but if they get a win over Purdue it would likely secure them on the 5-line barring someone from behind making a big run.

UCLA vs Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa - Friday, March 14: The Bruins have been strong since their 4-game swoon in early January. Their top end wins are excellent but the 5-line is probably their ceiling because of the late title game.

BYU vs Iowa State/Oklahoma State/Cincinnati - Thursday, March 13: BYU has rocketed up the seed list of late. They might have the best case in this grouping to be able to get to the 4-line with a tournament title because their path would likely include Iowa State, Houston, and another team in the field while also wrapping up by Saturday night. Their seed could come down to location as they need to open play in Providence, Lexington, Wichita, or Denver while playing in the East or West regions.

Illinois vs Iowa/Ohio State - Thursday, March 13: Which Illinois team will show up in Indianapolis? They could win the whole thing and likely push for a 5-seed or possibly back end 4, or could drop their first game and crack the door for Ohio State (if they are alive) to crawl back into the field.

Louisville vs Stanford/Virginia Tech/Cal - Thursday, March 13: Louisville won't move the dial on Thursday, needing to beat Clemson and/or Duke to really help their case. Despite the gaudy record, the lack of resume wins in the ACC has them looking destined for the 6/7 lines.

Ole Miss vs Arkansas/South Carolina - Thursday, March 13: For Ole Miss to move the needle they need to win at least two games, which would include Auburn on Friday. That feels unlikely. I feel safe pencilling them in as a 7-seed, as their destiny seems to rely more on the teams around them than themselves.

Kansas vs Utah/UCF - Wednesday, March 12: The Jayhawks win over Arizona stopped the bleeding, but they'll need to win their opener and beat Arizona again to have any shot at moving up further. It feels like a 6-seed is their ceiling unless they win the Big 12 Tournament.

Marquette vs Xavier - Thursday, March 13: It will be a desperate Musketeers squad that lines up Thursday night as they are 2 bid thieves removed from being on the outside looking in. If Marquette can win Thursday and Friday, they should be safely on the 6-line, with a 5-seed still possible. Barring some collapse further up the bracket, I don't see them getting back to the protected seeds. On the other end, a loss could see Marquette end up in an 8/9 game, though most likely still wearing home whites in the opener.

Missouri vs Mississippi St/LSU - Thursday, March 13: If Mississippi State beats LSU, that sets up the only Middle vs Middle battle currently on our slate. Mizzou's wins have them on the 7-line ahead of Mississippi State, but if one of these teams can win and then beat Florida, they could jump up 1-2 lines. I can't imagine much after that mattering with the SEC not wrapping their tournament until Sunday.

Memphis vs South Florida/Wichita State - Friday, March 14: Tiger fans won't like seeing themselves on the 8-line, but their wins have lost some luster and three Q3 losses is more outside Q1+2 than any team in the running for a single-digit seed. This is one of the hardest teams to seed as they have 5-seed resume metrics and 13-seed predictive metrics. They get bumped up a bit because of their Q1 record (6-1) and counting as AAC champs, but this is a team that could land anywhere from the 5-10 seed lines because of their bizarre resume.

Here's our current seed list:

 

Better but not good enough ends the regular season

 Welp, it wasn't the regular season ending we wanted for #mubb and it's been a long time since we've been daggered like that. We're back to talk about the last week of the regular season and just kind of sort out our feelings. We also talk about where the team is at overall and what hope/fears we have for the win or go home portion of the season. We chat about the Big East tournament and what we can expect from there before turning to the NCAA tournament and touching on seeding and match ups. Now it's time for everyone to get serious. Enjoy!

 

 

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/hc29ndu5nrmvee4j/Eggs_2025_March_9_FSJU6tdbu.mp3

 

 

Cracketology: Rethinking the Resumes

 

Marquette fans don't have fond memories of UNC & R.J. Davis

Photo by Robert Willett | Raleigh News & Observer

Today our focus will again be on the bubble. After a week of reviewing resumes and considering what the Selection Committee will likely prioritize, we have made some major bubble changes. Many are the unfortunate type because some teams we'd like to see in the field (Boise State, UC Irvine) just might not have enough polish on their resumes, while other teams we'd rather not see in (North Carolina, Oklahoma) have some major advantages. Let's dig in.

Last Four Byes: 39-West Virginia, 40-Georgia, 41-Indiana, 42-San Diego State

Currently, our last at-large team comes in at #47 on the S-Curve, which means any resume metric inside the top-47 meets at-large qualification. Collectively, these four teams have 11/12 resume metrics inside the top-47, with only Indiana's SOR (49) on the outside. All of them have at least .500 records in Quadrants 1-3 with at least 3 Q1 wins and 1 Q1A win. For whatever Bracket Matrix is worth, they also all show up in at least 87/92 brackets there as of this writing. If there are bid thieves, these teams could end up in trouble, but for the moment they look fairly safe.

Last Four In: 44-Arkansas, 45-North Carolina, 46-Oklahoma, 47-Xavier

Collectively, these four teams have 10/12 resume metrics inside the top-47. The outlier is KPI for both North Carolina (50) and Xavier (59). Arkansas and Oklahoma are the two safest for selection. While Oklahoma gets knocked for their 5-12 SEC record and 1 road win, those aren't official criteria and their 13-0 non-con record along with 5 neutral court wins help offset those issues. Bracket Matrix is positive on both of these teams, with 85 including Arkansas and 66 including Oklahoma. Both also boast 5 Q1 wins and mulitple Q1A wins.

North Carolina and Xavier are a little different, mostly because of only having 1 Q1 win apiece. However, at the Top-16 reveal, we covered how SOR and WAB were the best predictors of seed, and both of these teams are inside the top-46 in those metrics. Further, they both have just 1 loss outside Q1, so while their Q1 records are poor, their winning overall records in Q1-3, solid resume metrics, and backing that up with predictive averages inside the top-40 give them enough to be selected. One other note for Xavier, they have 3 wins over projected non-bubble at-large teams (Marquette, Creighton, UConn). Bracket Matrix doesn't like these teams as much, with just 29 including Xavier and 20 including UNC, but these are the types of teams that the Selection Committee is more likely to take on historical precedent. Essentially, these teams have no fatal flaws and just enough to get them into Dayton.

First Four Out: Ohio State, Texas, Boise State, Wake Forest

Taking a step back and rethinking things, these teams definitely break into two clear categories. The fatal flaw of Q1-3 record is harmful for Ohio State (11-13) and Texas (10-13) despite having some great wins at the top of their resumes. They also both have 2/3 resume metrics outside the top-47. Ohio State is in 89/92 brackets, so it would surprise most if they are left out, but Texas shows up in just 17 on Bracket Matrix. If they win this weekend and in their conference tournament openers they might have a shot to get back in the mix, but for now they are on the outside looking in.

Boise State's biggest problem is all of their resume metrics are 52 or below. I love their wins over St. Mary's and Clemson, but I'm not sure the Committee will put them in because of those. Bracket Matrix has the Broncos in 34/92 brackets. If I were the one voting, the Broncos would be in, but in terms of predicting what the Selection Committee will do, I think they'll be out.

I was surprised Wake Forest landed this high in consideration. Having 2/3 resume metrics inside the top-47 helped. They also have a winning Q1-3 record and more Q1 wins than North Carolina or Xavier, but like UNC have just one win against a projected non-bubble at-large team. Wake is not in any of the Bracket Matrix entrants right now, but I think they still have a shot, though any bid thieves would likely end that chance. If it comes down to one win between UNC and Wake, the edge goes to UNC who is better in every team sheet metric than the Demon Deacons despite Wake's 1-point home win over the Tar Heels.

Also Considered: Nebraska, UC Irvine

We looked at more teams than these two, but these two tumbled the furthest so I wanted to address them. Nebraska is 11-13 in Q1-3, every team sheet metric is outside the top-47, and despite some nice quality wins, there just isn't enough good to outweigh the bad. They are 15-5 in Q1-3, have 1 Q1A win, and lead the nation with 13 road wins. However, WAB and SOR are both designed to equalize resumes and they are 54 or lower in each. Maybe their 43 KPI gives them a shot, but their predictive average (80.7) would be the second lowest ever included. Like Boise, I would vote for them, but based on historical precedent, I don't think the Committee will put them in without an automatic bid.

Bids Thieved: Gonzaga, VCU, Drake, UC San Diego

If we see these teams that are currently the NET leaders in their respective leagues lose in their conference tournaments, I feel good about the first three making it in. Gonzaga and Drake both have all resume metrics inside the top-47. From a seeding perspective, Gonzaga's predictive average (9.3) would push them higher up the seed line than Drake's (66.3) would but I think both of them have enough in terms of resume quality, Q1-3 records, and Q1 wins to get in. VCU has 2/3 resume metrics in the top-47 and with a 12-4 record in Q1-3 and strong predictives (28.7) I think they get in, though they might be sent to Dayton again. Ram fans may not object to that, given their history.

UC San Diego, on the other hand, I don't feel so good about. I moved them down to the 12-line today and I think if they fall in the Big West tournament, they will be in trouble. All 3 resume metrics are outside the top-47 and while they have the Q1-3 record and Q1 wins, this is the kind of team that tends to get left out. The other problem is if they lose again in the Big West Tournament, it won't be a Q1 game (UC Irvine is Q2). I strongly advise they win their automatic bid.

So that's the bubble. Here's what you can expect from Cracked Sidewalks in the next week as Selection Sunday draws closer:

March 10: Scrambled Eggs - Phil and Joe will wrap up the regular season and look ahead to the Big East Tournament.

March 12: Dreams & Nightmares - our annual piece that looks at which teams Marquette fans would most and least want to see in their pod come Selection Sunday. This piece accurately picked Vermont as a dream scenario in 2023 and Colorado as a nightmare (single possession game in the final minute).

March 15: Contingency Time - On the eve of Selection Sunday, most of the field will be set and most teams will be done playing. This should be pretty close to what our final projections will look like.

March 16: Selection Sunday - We'll provide a last update once we have a better sense of conference tournament champions, bid thieves, and any last minute changes the Selection Committee may take into account.

March 17: Scrambled Eggs: Phil and Joe are back to talk about the bracket and their expectations for the NCAA Tournament.

Here's the current S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

Big East: 5

ACC: 4

Mountain West: 3

WCC: 2

A Week That Went As It Should

 Finally #mubb had a "normal" week. #ScrambledEggs is back to generally overview the week that was and talk about the challenges of the week to come. We chat about some of the performance against Providence and Georgetown and what it means for the rest of the season. We then chat about the UCONN and St Johns games from a basketball perspective. We also get a little misty eyed about senior day and the end of the regular season. Lastly we spend some time talking about seeding. As always, enjoy!

 

 

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/eutbk9d5xzyuhxg7/Eggs_2025_March_2bvmyy.mp3

 

 

Cracketology: Maddening March

 

Marquette's win over Maryland in November helped tilt a seeding decision

Photo by Nick Wass | AP Photo

As we unveil our first bracket of March, there are a number of conundrums that start at the top of the field and carry on all the way to the bubble. Today I'll talk my way through these decisions and the tilting points that made the difference. One note, I'm not including the NET of the teams compared, because we only use the NET as a grouping tool for the Quadrants.

The Final 1-Seed

In the final minute of Tennessee's comeback win against Alabama on Saturday, the announcers proclaimed that a 1-seed was on the line. While Auburn, Duke, and Houston seem very solid as 1-seeds at the moment, it's close between Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida for the last 1-seed. Let's look at the comparative resumes:

In terms of overall record, Florida edges Tennessee and Alabama. The resume average favors Alabama, the predictive average favors Florida, but the total metric average is separated by only 0.5 (with Alabama in the lead). Where things start to separate is in the next categories. In terms of challenging themselves, Alabama stands out with their NCSOS of 11. Not only did Alabama schedule multiple high-major opponents, they also had Arkansas State, McNeese, and South Dakota State, all of whom lead their respective leagues in NET.

In the Quadrants, Alabama and Tennessee are tied with 10 wins, with the slight win percentage advantage to the Volunteers. But Alabama's 17 Quadrant 1+2 wins are more than either of the other two and second only to #1 overall seed Auburn. Alabama also leads in Q1A victories, while having the fewest games played in the bottom two quadrants, reinforcing their schedule strength. Looking at the best results, while both Alabama and Tennessee have 6 Q1 wins, Tennessee's three best wins come at home while Alabama has five Q1A wins away from home.

Despite yesterday's loss, Alabama remains on the top line, relegating Tennessee and Florida to the 2-line despite having resumes that are clearly worthy of 1-seeds.

The Final 2-Seed

As tough as the top line decision is, the fight for the last 2-seed is even closer. Michigan State is clearly deserving of the #7 overall seed, but their win over Wisconsin put the Badgers in a dogfight with St. John's, Iowa State, and Texas Tech. All of these teams look more like 3-seeds, but one of them has to land on the 2-line.

St. John's record jumps ahead of the rest. The Red Storm are level with Wisconsin in resume average while Texas Tech and Iowa State are far ahead in the predictive average. It's worth mentioning that during the Top-16 Reveal it was the resume average that was the better seed predictor than the predictive average. The overall metric average favors Wisconsin.

Looking at the Quadrants, a few things stand out. First, Wisconsin, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have 6 Q1 wins, though Texas Tech having 5 in Q1A jumps off the page. St. John's lags behind here with 3 Q1 wins. However, it's the totality of the resume that matters. St. Johns' has no losses outside Q1 while the other three all have losses outside the top quadrant. The two that stood out the most were St. John's overall quality against Texas Tech's 5 Q1A wins.

So why do we have St. John's ahead of the Red Raiders? In 2023, we saw Marquette get a 2-seed as the Big East Champions despite having 3-seed metrics. St. John's is the only team here that has secured a league crown. That coupled with a better record and metrics than that Marquette team shows they have a 2-seed profile despite lagging in a few categories.

Marquette's Seed

The Golden Eagles come in at #21 overall, the first 6-seed. They land in between a pair of Big 10 teams in Oregon and Maryland. They represent the turn between the 5-seeds and 6-seeds, but are a good example of evaluating wildly different resumes.

Oregon's resume average leads the way but the Ducks lag significantly in the predictives. While the overall average for Marquette and Maryland are very close, Oregon's predictive disadvantage feels like a definite negative mark for them. However, they also have the most Q1 and Q1+2 wins and the best winning percentage in those quadrants. They also have more Q1A wins than the other two combined. Oregon's early season wins really stand out here and push them ahead. As with Alabama and St. John's, we're looking closely at the resume average and the comparison here would be teams like 2022 Wisconsin and Providence who were seeded higher than their overall metric average despite lagging predictive numbers.

So why does Marquette finish ahead of Maryland? These teams are very close. Marquette wins in resume average, Maryland wins in predictive. Maryland has one more Q1 win and one fewer Q2 loss, but the teams have the same 11-7 Q1+2 record and two Q1A wins. In terms of challenging themselves, Marquette's NCSOS stands out significantly. Comparing their best wins is where this is truly decided. Both teams beat Wisconsin at home. Maryland also notched a road win at Illinois while Marquette picked up a road win at...Maryland! I rarely like to use head-to-head because most teams in different conferences don't play each other, but when it's this close, they played head-to-head, and the road team won the game it's enough to tilt it in their favor.

Fatal Flaws & the Bubble

The quality on the bubble isn't close to what we see on the top seed lines, so we are first going to highlight some of the trends that have historically been disqualifying:

• Less than +4 win vs loss differential: Typically, teams with fewer than four more wins than losses are unlikely to earn at-large bids. So 16-13 teams like Ohio State and Texas shouldn't feel secure.
• Quadrant 1 Wins: The worst Q1 record to ever make the field was 1-6 for 2023 NC State. This feels like it may be tested this year with teams like Baylor, Xavier, North Carolina, and Cincinnati all under consideration.
  
• Record below .500 in Quadrants 1, 2, and 3 combined: Rocco Miller calls these "meaningful games" and while this is historically a difficult obstacle to overcome, the sheer quantity of teams on the bubble with Q1-3 records from 11-12 Nebraska to 10-13 Ohio State will likely lead to this being broken.
• Fewer than 2 road wins: No team has ever made the field as an at-large without at least 2 true road wins. Georgia just secured a second with their win at Texas but Oklahoma sits on the bubble with a 1-7 road record.
• Sub-300 NCSOS: Weak non-conference schedules are harmful to a resume, but particularly so for teams on the bubble. If a team's NCSOS is full of cupcakes, they'd better leave no doubt in terms of deserving inclusion. Currently Vanderbilt has risen above the bubble despite this.
  

The problem this year is many teams have a fatal flaw, or multiple fatal flaws, and are still strongly in the mix for inclusion simply because you have to put 68 teams in the field. In addition, some teams with fatal flaws have so much quality in terms of wins that it's hard to leave them out even with their flaws considered. We'll start with the last six teams in the field and the reasoning behind their inclusion:

 

• Boise State: The Broncos non-con wins over St. Mary's and Clemson have aged very well. Their record and quadrant breakdowns are adequate. The resume average is the biggest question mark, but they do well enough in every other category to be included.
  
• Georgia: This is a team clearly playing their way into the field. Georgia's Q1-3 and NCSOS are less than ideal, but wins over Florida, Kentucky, St. John's, and Texas, the latter two away from  home, are enough to get them into the field.
• Arkansas: I'm not overly comfortable with having this team in, but everything on their resume is just good enough. Wins over Michigan and Kentucky away from home bolster their case, but with a 10-12 record in Q1-3 they have work to do. The Razorbacks need to keep winning to get in.
• Baylor: The Bears are the yo-yo team right now, going from in to out to in over the past week. The positive is they are 18-2 outside of Q1A, but when you get 11 tries and only one win, it isn't very convincing. The worst predictive average to be left out was 2022 Oklahoma being out at 32.7, which gives Baylor just enough to lift them in.
• Ohio State: The 10-13 record in Q1-3 is abysmal, and 16-13 overall should be disqualifying. Wins over Kentucky and Purdue away from home are elite and just enough to get them in over teams that don't have comparable wins. They likely need to win out and get at least one win during Championship Week to have any breathing room.
• UC Irvine: The Anteaters have a lot to like. While they only played one Q1 game, it was a Q1A road win at UC San Diego. Their 13-5 record in Q1-3 is very good and their 12 road wins are tied for the most in the country. The biggest negatives are three losses in Q3 and a predictive average that would be the worst in at-large history (81.3 for 2022 Wyoming). But with as much good as they have, I like them to be a surprise pick in Dayton.

Next we'll move to the first five teams out. There are a couple other resumes I'm still looking at, but these felt like the most serious options. All of them have at least one fatal flaw and simply not enough quality in terms of their wins to overcome them.

• Nebraska: The 'Huskers disqualifying 11-12 record in Q1-3 is comparable with some teams that are in, but two losses in Q3 and wins that just aren't on par with the other high-major at-large bubble teams keeps them on the outside looking in.
• Oklahoma: Having both a losing Q1-3 record and only one road win is a double-whammy. The Sooners need to win their final game at Texas to have a real shot. Conference record isn't supposed to be a factor, but sitting at 4-12 in the SEC is a real eyesore if they can't add wins.
• Xavier: The Musketeers have done well to get back on the bubble, and while they don't have any fatal flaws, there's no real there there. The win at Marquette is nice but they've done little else away from home. I fear the consecutive road losses at St. John's, Creighton, and Villanova may have cost them a bid before their winning streak began.
• North Carolina: 10 of the 11 Tarheel losses are in Q1 and they do have a winning record in Q1-3. The NCSOS is great, but the argument "we only lose to good teams" isn't as good as showing a tendency to beat good teams. UNC's Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham is the Selection Committee chair, but they need to beat Duke to get into the field.
• Cincinnati: The Bearcats don't have a great resume, mostly based on their Q2 work. Their only Q1 win is over BYU and their only other win over the field is Baylor at home. They just don't have enough substance to the resume for inclusion.
  

Let's look at the full S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 12

Big 10: 10

Big 12: 8

Big East: 4

Mountain West: 4

ACC: 3

Big West: 2

WCC: 2