Bracketology provides fans provide insight into how the committee sees teams and what the tournament would look like if the season ended that day. But there’s a lot that goes into it, and from only seeing the finished bracket, you don’t get the full picture.
That’s why we’re releasing a bubble watch where our bracketologist (me) breaks down where teams stand from the cutline and what they can do to remain or work themselves into the field of 68.
There are five categories: locks, should be in, over the bubble, on the bubble and bubble bursting.
Locks are teams that could lose the rest of their games and still get an at-large bid. It’s a tricky thing to lock a team up, and so it isn’t done lightly. Just because a team is unlocked doesn’t mean it won’t be in the tournament. It only means there are enough potential losses left that the resume could fall apart and risk being left out.
Should be in teams aren’t quite locks, but they’re looking pretty solid. If Selection Sunday was tomorrow, they would be absolute locks, and there’s a slim chance they play themselves out of the field. But the possibility remains, and so they stay unlocked.
Over the bubble squads are exactly that. They wouldn’t be worried about being excluded if the season ended now, but the resume isn’t strong enough that a few mistakes wouldn’t drop them down onto the bubble.
Those on the bubble are either barely in or barely out. They are receiving significant enough consideration for at-large positions, but in no way could they feel safe if the tournament selection occured now. Finally, bubble bursting teams have enough of a foundation laid that if they collected some quality wins, they could play themselves onto the bubble, but at the time aren’t receiving significant consideration for an at-large bid.
With that out of the way, let’s look at the state of the bubble as of Friday afternoon on Feb. 22, 2019:
Houston (AAC): 25-1, NET: 4, SOS: 61, vs. Q1: 3-1
Virginia (ACC): 23-2, NET: 2, SOS: 25, vs. Q1: 8-2
Duke (ACC): 23-3, NET: 3, SOS: 2, Q1: 7-2
North Carolina (ACC): 21-5, NET: 9, SOS: 5, vs. Q1: 6-5
Florida State (ACC): 21-5, NET: 21, SOS: 54, vs. Q1: 5-3
Kansas (Big 12): 20-6, NET: 15, SOS: 1, vs. Q1: 9-5
Texas Tech (Big 12): 21-5, NET: 10, SOS: 49, vs. Q1: 4-5
Kansas State (Big 12): 20-6, NET: 28, SOS: 36, vs. Q1: 6-3
Marquette (Big East): 22-4, NET: 19, SOS: 42, vs. Q1: 8-3
Michigan (Big Ten): 24-3, NET: 7, SOS: 78, vs. Q1: 7-3
Michigan State (Big Ten): 22-5, NET: 8, SOS: 38, vs. Q1: 10-3
Purdue (Big Ten): 19-7, NET: 11, SOS: 8, vs. Q1: 7-6
Wisconsin (Big Ten): 18-8, NET: 12, SOS: 11, vs. Q1: 7-6
Tennessee (SEC): 24-2, NET: 6, SOS: 98, vs. Q1: 4-2
Kentucky (SEC): 22-4, NET: 5, SOS: 30, vs. Q1: 8-3
LSU (SEC): 21-5, NET: 16, SOS: 20, vs. Q1: 6-2
Gonzaga (WCC): 26-2, NET: 1, SOS: 48, vs. Q1: 4-2
SHOULD BE IN
Cincinnati (AAC): 22-4, NET: 25, SOS: 68, vs. Q1: 3-2
A big home win against UCF on Thursday inched the Bearcats closer to total safety. There’s a lot to like about this resume, with a good NET, a positive road record and a winning Q1 record. But none of those Q1 wins are particularly eye-grabbing (Ole Miss on a neutral court, at Temple and at Memphis), and a non-conference SOS of 132 and loss to NET 259 East Carolina don’t help. Ultimately, there’s enough here for Cincinnati to get in if it wins the remaining games it should.
Louisville (ACC): 18-9, NET: 18, SOS: 4, vs. Q1: 4-8
This is not the time of year you want to slump. Losers of four of its last six, Louisville has slipped some from where it stood three weeks ago, a recent whooping courtesy of Syracuse the latest blow to its resume. However, Louisville’s computer numbers are fantastic, it has no Q3 or Q4 losses and some seriously impressive wins against Michigan State at home, at North Carolina and at Virginia Tech. The Cardinals are most likely in, but landmines at Boston College and Notre Dame at home remain, as well as two matchups with Virginia. It will only take a win or two to lock them up.
Virginia Tech (ACC): 20-6, NET: 13, SOS: 81, vs. Q1: 3-6
Not having Justin Robinson is clearly hurting this team, and Virginia Tech has not been forthcoming with his timetable. If the Hokies are forced to enter the tournament without their best player, the wins they had with him won’t count as much as they would have otherwise, but if he comes back, their seeding will improve. At this point, with Robinson’s status in the air, this team is going to need to avoid any bad losses or win one of its two remaining Q1 opportunities (Duke, at Florida State) to lock itself up before the ACC Tournament.
Villanova (Big East): 20-7, NET: 27, SOS: 17, vs. Q1: 4-5
Losing three of four has kept Villanova from locking itself up, but it built up plenty of good will winning every game for seven weeks beforehand. The numbers are tournament worthy, and 13 total Q1 and Q2 victories have the Wildcats comfortable. But other than a neutral court win against Florida State in November, it has no other elite wins. Continuing this losing skid to end the season could put Villanova in jeopardy of going without a marquee win in 2019. There’s probably enough positives in this resume to save the Wildcats from missing the Big Dance, but the small chance is enough to keep them unlocked.
Maryland (Big Ten): 20-7, NET: 23, SOS: 15, vs. Q1: 6-5
A big road win over Iowa was it’s first road ranked victory in years, and it helped Maryland’s resume quite a bit, too. It was the team’s sixth Q1 win and sixth road win, clinching a winning record on the road in the Big Ten. That’s something the committee will respect greatly. The reason the Terps aren’t locked yet, though, is because three of its final four games provide good opportunities to slip up, with home games against Ohio State and Minnesota and a road trip to Penn State, all teams outside of the conference’s top six. It should only take a win or two for Maryland to be 100 percent locked.
Iowa (Big Ten): 20-6, NET: 30, SOS: 82, vs. Q1: 4-6
Iowa is undefeated in Q2, Q3 and Q4 games, is 4-3 on the road and has elite wins against Michigan and Iowa State, both at home, to hang its hat on. But the numbers make this resume susceptible in the event of a slide. The Hawkeyes have home games against Indiana and Rutgers, and road trips to Ohio State and Nebraska left on the schedule. Loses in those games would not be kind to the resume, and with its lackluster SOS numbers, an NET drop could make Iowa sweat some on Selection Sunday. But with only couple wins in games it should win, Iowa could easily lock itself up.
Nevada (MWC): 24-2, NET: 22, SOS: 140, vs. Q1: 0-0
Nevada has a very strange resume. Zero Q1 wins, but zero Q1 opportunities. The SOS reflects it, sitting near the middle of D-I. But the NET is good and reflects how dominant the Wolfpack have been against most of their competition. Nevada fell Wednesday at San Diego State, a Q2 loss. Four of its five final games are currently Q3 games, and losses in enough of those games could bring that NET down some. This team could still suffer a few losses and most likely remain in the field, but the possibility remains.
Mississippi State (SEC): 19-7, NET: 26, SOS: 16, vs. Q1: 8-4
Eight Q1 wins is what stands out the most from this resume, and it’s what has Mississippi State feeling pretty safe about its tournament chances. The computer numbers are also very good, and no bad losses and a winning road record are extra feathers in its cap. The Bulldogs are yet to beat an elite team, though, and have three remaining Q3 games to potentially trip up on. It wouldn’t take much to lock Mississippi State up, but a collapse could make Selection Sunday a stressful one.
OVER THE BUBBLE
Syracuse (ACC): 18-8, NET: 42, SOS: 28, vs. Q1: 3-4
The Orange played themselves off the bubble with a 69-49 shellacking of Louisville on Wednesday, their third Q1 win of the season. Syracuse’s best attribute is its conquering of Duke at Cameron in January, one of the best wins possible. It will have another shot against the Blue Devils, this time at home, Saturday in primetime. A win would move Syracuse up a category, as would a win at North Carolina in its next game or against Virginia in a couple weeks. With two Q3 losses, a volatile NET and games at Wake Forest and at Clemson remaining as pitfall opportunities, this team still has work to do.
Baylor (Big 12): 17-9, NET: 33, SOS: 34, vs. Q1: 4-6
Baylor took losses to Texas Southern and Stephen F. Austin, both at home, and an 8-4 record with it into Big 12 play. But the Bears have been a new team in the new year and are well positioned for a return to the Big Dance after a one-year hiatus. A sweep of Iowa State and home win over Texas Tech are this resume’s crown jewels, and a 5-4 road record shows the committee this team can win away from home. Even with the positives, the clunkers from the non-conference and a non-conference SOS of 196 hold Baylor back from full safety. Avoiding any more bad losses will probably keep the Bears playing in March.
Texas (Big 12): 15-11, NET: 35, SOS: 9, vs. Q1: 4-6
The record doesn’t look good, but the committee isn’t going to care much about that when Texas can boast excellent computer numbers and eight Q1 and Q2 wins. The Longhorns upset North Carolina on a neutral floor in November, and a win at Kansas State and home victories against Purdue and Kansas round out enough top-end triumphs to forgive some shortcomings. Senior guard Kerwin Roach was suspended indefinitely Friday, though, and who knows how the team will perform with its leading scorer. The Big 12 is an unforgiving conference, and a slew of losses would really harm what is right now a solid resume.
St. John’s (Big East): 19-8, NET: 49, SOS: 59, vs. Q1: 6-5
St. John’s did itself a huge favor Sunday by defeating Villanova, but then threw away some of its gain by losing at Providence on Wednesday, giving the Friars the season sweep. There’s good things here, with the six Q1 wins, the Villanova win and a sweep of Marquette at the forefront. But the numbers aren’t anything great, a home loss to DePaul holds them back, and it’s remaining games provide zero Q1 opportunities. If the tournament were tomorrow, St. John’s would be fine. But it isn’t, and there’s still work to be done for this team to feel safe.
Ohio State (Big Ten): 17-9, NET: 43, SOS: 60, vs. Q1: 4-6
It’s a good thing Ohio State picked up that road win at Cincinnati in early November, or this resume would be very thin. It’s the closest thing the Buckeyes have to an elite win, and a few underwhelming losses and uninspiring computer numbers aren’t making them safe. But the committee will love to see Ohio State’s prowess away from home, though, with all four of its Q1 wins coming on the road. The bubble is so weak right now that that fact, along with a collection of good-not-great wins, is enough to keep Ohio State over the bubble for now.
Buffalo (MAC): 23-3, NET: 17, SOS: 74, vs. Q1: 3-1
Buffalo has had a remarkable regular season, dominating most of its competition and earning wins at Syracuse, at Toledo and a neutral court win over San Francisco. It’s NET requires a tournament bid, and the loss at Northern Illinois is the only true blemish on the resume. However, the MAC won’t provide Buffalo is any more opportunities to improve its standing but plenty of chances at anchor losses. Until Buffalo takes care of business against a few more of its conference opponents, it will stay unlocked.
Washington (Pac-12): 21-5, NET: 29, SOS: 53, vs. Q1: 2-4
The Huskies have commanded the Pac-12 this season, and their resume reflects it, in good ways and bad. There’s no bad losses here, a 6-3 road record and decent numbers, all things putting Washington in the field. But good wins are also tough to come by, with Washington’s only two Q1 wins coming on the road to Oregon and Colorado, two teams barely inside the NET top 75. There are no more Q1 opportunities left on the regular season schedule, so the Huskies would be wise to take care of business in the games it should win.
Ole Miss (SEC): 18-8, NET: 34, SOS: 86, vs. Q1: 4-7
A positive road record, no Q3 or Q4 losses and a handful of good wins have Ole Miss sitting as a tournament team roughly three weeks from Selection Sunday. But the computer numbers aren’t special, and with how difficult the remaining schedule is, a few losses could hurt the numbers even more. A win against Kentucky or Tennessee would add an elite-level win to this resume and move it up a category and help greatly with seeding.
ON THE BUBBLE
Temple (AAC): 19-7, NET: 54, SOS: 63, vs. Q1: 1-5
You won’t find a team more on the edge than Temple. Only 1-5 against Q1 opponents, but that one win is against NET 4 Houston. The numbers are remarkably average, and one ugly home loss to Penn weighs the resume down. The Owls have one Q1 game (at Memphis on Tuesday) and a home game against fellow bubble team UCF left to improve the committee with before the AAC Tournament. Temple will need to avoid any more bad losses and pick up those two good win opportunities to feel even a little safe at the end of the regular season.
UCF (AAC): 19-6, NET: 39, SOS: 72, vs. Q1: 0-3
A major opportunity was squandered Thursday with the 60-55 loss at Cincinnati. It would have been UCF’s best win of the season. Instead, it still has to run with its home wins against Temple and Alabama, two other teams in a similar bubble position. The positive of this resume is its NET, which is high for a bubble team this year, but there isn’t much meat otherwise. But UCF will have its opportunities to play itself into the tournament. Games at Houston, at Temple and Cincinnati at home remain, all Q1 games. The Knights will have their chances to decide their fate.
VCU (A-10): 20-6, NET: 37, SOS: 32, vs. Q1: 2-3
Sitting in pole position in the A-10, VCU has won seven straight to play itself into solid contention for an at-large bid. The Rams have non-conference victories at Texas and on a neutral floor against Temple from the non-conference to go along with a road win at Dayton in the A-10 to offer the committee. The numbers are really VCU’s strength, though, with a tournament-caliber NET and non-conference SOS of 2. All remaining regular season games are Q3 and Q4, and the A-10 Tournament will likely provide other opportunities for resume-tanking losses, so there’s still business to be taken care of before anyone in Richmond can celebrate a tournament bid.
Clemson (ACC): 15-11, NET: 44, SOS: 31, vs. Q1: 1-8
That 1-8 record against Q1 jumps out at you, and it’s certainly not something a team aiming for a tournament berth should want. But with the bubble right now, it’s ordinary. The one win is a good one, a home victory against NET 13 Virginia Tech on Feb. 9. That’s about it, though. Bland numbers. No Q3 or Q4 losses, but barely anything positive the other way. A bad 2-6 away record. Clemson has a home games with North Carolina on March 2 and Syracuse on March 9 and would do itself a great service by winning at least one of those games.
North Carolina State (ACC): 19-8, NET: 32, SOS: 208, vs. Q1: 1-7
This team looked like a tournament lock weeks ago, but a rough stretch in January and early February pulled this resume down. The 73-58 home win against Syracuse was a good one Feb. 13, but NC State can only pair it with two other home wins against Auburn and Clemson. The NET is the saving grace, but State’s other numbers are anchors. A SOS of 208 and non-conference SOS of 352 are horrendous, and a loss at NET 187 Wake Forest doesn’t help. The bubble is weak enough at the moment that their NET and collection of above average wins can keep them afloat, but with only one Q1 chance left at Florida State on March 2, the Wolfpack would be remiss to let it slip.
Lipscomb (A-Sun): 21-6, NET: 47, SOS: 224, vs. Q1: 2-3
Lipscomb appeared to have a good shot at an at-large bid a couple weeks ago after winning 11 straight and having a W over an NET top-30 team in TCU. But then the Bisons dropped 74-66 at home to Liberty on Feb. 13 and lost at NET 229 Florida Gulf Coast on Wednesday. To make matters worse, TCU started its own funk, and that win doesn’t carry the same weight it did. Things look dire for Lipscomb’s at-large chances at this point with only Q4 games left before the A-Sun Tournament, which will only provide more chances for anchor losses. Lipscomb will need the rest of the bubble to implode and win until the A-Sun Tournament championship, then lose to Liberty in the final, to have hope for an at-large.
Oklahoma (Big 12): 16-10, NET: 38, SOS: 13, vs. Q1 3-8
A solid NET, three Q1 wins (which is tons for this bubble), no bad losses and strong SOS numbers have this team on the right side of the bubble right now. The losses can pile up, though, and there’s no elite wins on this resume currently to let it survive too many Ls. There are chances coming up: road games at Kansas State and at Iowa State and a home matchup with Kansas. If the Sooners can grab at least one of them and avoid a bad loss at home to West Virginia, they will probably dance. Lose all three? It might be do-or-die in the Big 12 Tournament.
TCU (Big 12): 17-9, NET: 41, SOS: 33, vs. Q1: 1-6
Another one Q1 win team, TCU has seen itself fall down to the bubble during a three-game losing skid that tanked its NET and undid a lot of the positivity from the 92-83 win at Iowa State on Feb. 9, its only elite win of the season. Like Oklahoma, no real bad losses, a group of above-average wins and passable numbers are enough to keep TCU in the field right now. But this resume isn’t as strong as Oklahoma’s, and the 2-6 road record is an eye sore. The Horned Frogs have four Q1 chances left, so they’ll have their opportunities. It’s up to them to save their season.
Seton Hall (Big East): 16-10, NET: 64, SOS: 51, vs. Q1: 3-6
Following up three-straight wins against middling Big East competition with a loss to Xavier at home wasn’t the best outcome, but it happened. Seton Hall has two elite wins, neutral court victory over Kentucky and at Maryland, but only won one Q1 game in conference play. The NET is nasty, the SOS numbers are average, and three Q3 losses are a bane. There are four Q1 matchups left on the schedule, and the Pirates are going to need to take advantage of some to feel comfortable on Selection Sunday.
Butler (Big East): 15-12, NET: 50, SOS: 21, vs. Q1: 2-7
There’s nothing on this resume that tells the committee this is a tournament team. Numbers are middling, no great wins and a bad road record. But the bubble is so bad that this team is still hanging around by not being completely useless. There’s two Q1 wins, Florida on a neutral floor and at Georgetown, which is something. That’s about it, though. The game at Villanova on March 2 is a must-win unless Butler wants to have to play its way into the tournament at MSG.
Georgetown (Big East): 16-10, NET: 69, SOS: 75, vs. Q1: 4-4
A home win against Villanova finally gives this resume the great win it needed for selection consideration. Two non-conference clunkers to SMU at home and Loyola Marymount on a neutral court are anchors to accompany bad computer numbers, but those can be made up for with Q1 wins in upcoming opportunities at Marquette and at Creighton. Not many bubble teams can boast four Q1 wins, and that alone gives Georgetown some credibility.
Indiana (Big Ten): 13-13, NET: 57, SOS: 40, vs. Q1: 5-9
Indiana has played itself out of the tournament, dropping 10 of its last 11. But if you’ve noticed a theme with the current bubble, not too many teams have five Q1 wins to show the committee. The Hoosiers have victories at Michigan State and at home against Louisville and Marquette, which are an impressive few wins. But there have been too many losses for those few bright spots to mean enough. They stay alive through those wins, the rest of the bubble ineptitude and and hope to turn it around with three Q1 games left in the regular season. It’s awfully bleak in Bloomington, though.
Minnesota (Big Ten): 17-10, NET: 52, SOS: 39, vs. Q1: 3-8
The Gophers won at the Kohl Center in early January, but it’s been a while since the 59-52 triumph. Minnesota is now in the midst of losing five of six, and a 1-7 road record would make the committee roll its eyes. Games at Maryland and versus Purdue at the Barn are going to be crucial. At the very least, Minnesota cannot afford lackluster losses at Northwestern or at Rutgers in its other final two games.
Utah State (MWC): 21-6, NET: 36, SOS: 123, vs. Q1: 1-2
Utah State’s resume in its current form is not good enough to get in the field. Its one Q1 win is against NET 40 St. Mary’s, who likely won’t be in the tournament, more than three months ago. Otherwise road wins at Fresno State (NET 93) and at UC Irvine (NET 94) are all the Aggies have to their name. An NET of 36 is keeping Utah State alive, and for the most part the team has avoided anchor losses. But there is only one thing that can flip the script for this resume: a win when Nevada comes to Logan on March 2. Until then, the Aggies need to take care of business and not add anything negative to their resume.
Belmont (OVC): 22-4, NET: 53, SOS: 217, vs. Q1: 2-1
If Belmont had a better NET, it would be in a better position for an at-large spot, but not much can be done about that now. At this point, Belmont needs to root hard for Lipscomb and Murray State, who make up its two Q1 wins and one of its Q2 victories, and not lose again until the OVC Tournament final. With two Q3 losses already, this resume couldn’t survive two more losses to any OVC team but Murray State. The Bruins need to win the OVC Tournament to feel good on Selection Sunday.
Arizona State (Pac-12): 18-8, NET: 66, SOS: 69, vs. Q1: 4-2
This is a very strange resume. With home wins against Kansas and Washington and neutral victories versus Mississippi State and Utah State, not many bubble teams have more to show. But the Sun Devils also lost at home to NET 179 Princeton and NET 166 Washington State for two Q4 defeats, and the NET is a problem. There’s no more chances at great wins for Arizona State other than a possible matchup with Washington in the Pac-12 Tournament, so it needs to be careful to not add to the negatives. With those wins, Arizona State could likely let the rest of the bubble implode and steal a bid. With this team, though, who knows what you’re doing to get.
Alabama (SEC): 15-11, NET: 51, SOS: 27, vs. Q1: 2-6
Alabama has lost three straight at one of the worst times. Wins in Tuscaloosa against Kentucky, Mississippi State and Ole Miss are what this team has to show, but it also has two Q3 stinkers, a 3-7 road record and an unhelpful NET, too. Home games against LSU and Auburn are coming in March, and Alabama is going to need one of them to feel good going into the SEC Tournament, especially if it drops either of its other games at South Carolina or to Vanderbilt at home.
Florida (SEC): 15-11, NET: 31, SOS: 29, vs. Q1: 3-10
The overtime win at LSU on Wednesday could be a season-altering success for Florida. The Gators were on life support in early February after three-straight losses and a near-.500 record, but now three consecutive wins have them right back in the conversation. The numbers have always been there, and now there’s an elite win to point to as well. Florida has a couple more Q1 chances in March at Kentucky and home against LSU, and winning either of those could send it to the Big Dance.
Auburn (SEC): 18-8, NET: 20, SOS: 37, vs. Q1: 1-6
Auburn is in the tournament as it stands. Its numbers are too good to be left out, and there are several above-average wins on the resume to complement them. But that one Q1 notch is at home against Washington, and with an NET of 29, the Huskies are teetering between a Q1 and Q2 win for the Tigers. Auburn is going to have to get another Q1 win at some point to feel good on Selection Sunday. It has four chances left in the regular season and can earn more in the SEC Tournament. One way or another, it has to happen.
Wofford (SoCon): 23-4, NET: 24, SOS: 152, vs. Q1: 2-4
The Terriers have only lost to NET top-40 teams, but their only Q1 wins are at NET 60 UNC Greensboro and at NET 68 East Tennessee State. A home win against Furman is helpful, too, but it would be huge for Wofford to get the rematch in Greenville on Saturday, which would qualify as a Q1 win. The NET is going to catch the committee’s eye, but there’s still plenty of opportunities for mistakes on the rest of its schedule and in the conference tournament. Although Wofford looks good now, it cannot feel comfortable yet.
Furman (SoCon): 22-5, NET: 45, SOS: 232, vs. Q1: 1-4
This resume’s ace is the road win at Villanova in November, which is on par with what many other bubble teams can offer. Otherwise, Furman can submit a few Q2 wins, a serviceable NET and 9-4 road record to the committee as proof it deserves a shot. Without a win at home against Wofford on Saturday, though, that probably won’t be enough. Outside of the SoCon Tournament, Furman’s season likely comes down to that showdown.
Dayton (A-10): 17-9, NET: 74, SOS: 87, vs. Q1: 2-5
Davidson (A-10): 19-7, NET: 70, SOS: 114, vs. Q1: 0-2
Providence (Big East): 15-12, NET: 73, SOS: 55, vs. Q1: 2-6
Creighton (Big East): 14-13, NET: 56, SOS: 14, vs. Q1: 3-9
Nebraska (Big Ten): 15-12, NET: 46, SOS: 92, vs. Q1: 2-9
Old Dominion (C-USA): 21-6, NET: 78, SOS: 255, vs. Q1: 1-0
Murray State (OVC): 22-4, NET: 59, SOS: 277, vs. Q1: 0-2
Oregon State (Pac-12): 16-9, NET: 85, SOS: 116, vs. Q1: 2-2
Oregon (Pac-12): 15-11, NET: 72, SOS: 65, vs. Q1: 1-6
Arkansas (SEC): 14-12, NET: 71, SOS: 41, vs. Q1: 1-7
South Carolina (SEC): 14-12, NET: 81, SOS: 22, vs. Q1: 3-7
UNC Greensboro (SoCon): 23-5, NET: 60, SOS: 148, vs. Q1: 1-5
San Francisco (WCC): 21-6, NET: 48, SOS: 133, vs. Q1: 0-4
St. Mary’s (WCC): 18-10, NET: 40, SOS: 44, vs. Q1: 1-5