Welcome to Bubble Watch 2020!
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 occurred 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 Wednesday afternoon on March 4, 2020:
Houston (AAC): 22-7, NET: 18, SOS: 76, vs. Q1: 2-4
Dayton (A-10): 27-2, NET: 3, SOS: 24, vs. Q1: 4-2
Louisville (ACC): 24-6, NET: 8, SOS: 31, vs. Q1: 4-5
Florida State (ACC): 24-5, NET: 11, SOS: 36, vs. Q1: 5-4
Duke (ACC): 24-6, NET: 6, SOS: 23, vs. Q1: 4-4
Virginia (ACC): 21-7, NET: 48, SOS: 74, vs. Q1: 4-3
Baylor (Big 12): 26-3, NET: 5, SOS: 72, vs. Q1: 11-1
Kansas (Big 12): 25-3, NET: 1, SOS: 1, vs. Q1: 11-3
West Virginia (Big 12): 20-10, NET: 19, SOS: 2, vs. Q1: 5-7
Seton Hall (Big East): 21-7, NET: 12, SOS: 15, vs. Q1: 10-5
Butler (Big East): 20-9, NET: 20, SOS: 52, vs. Q1: 8-6
Villanova (Big East): 22-7, NET: 14, SOS: 4, vs. Q1: 7-6
Creighton (Big East): 21-7, NET: 13, SOS: 28, vs. Q1: 8-7
Maryland (Big Ten): 23-7, NET: 17, SOS: 40, vs. Q1: 6-7
Penn State (Big Ten): 21-9, NET: 30, SOS: 107, vs. Q1: 7-7
Michigan State (Big Ten): 21-9, NET: 7, SOS: 39, vs. Q1: 7-8
Iowa (Big Ten): 20-10, NET: 35, SOS: 93, vs. Q1: 8-7
Ohio State (Big Ten): 20-9, NET: 15, SOS: 65, vs. Q1: 6-8
Michigan (Big Ten): 18-11, NET: 24, SOS: 46, vs. Q1: 6-10
Wisconsin (Big Ten): 19-10, NET: 27, SOS: 22, vs. Q1: 8-8
Illinois (Big Ten): 19-9, NET: 36, SOS: 91, vs. Q1: 5-7
San Diego State (MWC): 27-1, NET: 4, SOS: 106, vs. Q1: 4-0
Oregon (Pac-12): 22-7, NET: 16, SOS: 5, vs. Q1: 7-5
Colorado (Pac-12): 21-9, NET: 23, SOS: 6, vs. Q1: 7-5
Auburn (SEC): 24-5, NET: 28, SOS: 26, vs. Q1: 4-3
Kentucky (SEC): 24-6, NET: 21, SOS: 78, vs. Q1: 7-3
Gonzaga (WCC): 29-2, NET: 2, SOS: 133, vs. Q1: 6-2
BYU (WCC): 23-7, NET: 9, SOS: 35, vs. Q1: 4-4
SHOULD BE IN
Marquette (Big East): 18-11, NET: 26, SOS: 7, vs. Q1: 5-9
It’s now five losses in six games, and Marquette has done a great job of tanking its once-promising seed. I still don’t think the Golden Eagles have too much to worry about in getting into the tournament, because this resume is somehow made of Teflon, but losing at St. John’s (66) to close the regular season would potentially knock them down a category. Even without another win this season, this team is probably in the Dance, but it’s going to be a lot closer than it should have been.
Arizona (Pac-12): 19-10, NET: 10, SOS: 3, vs. Q1: 3-8
Arizona’s computer numbers don’t really make sense, but they are what they are, and they’re really saving the team right now. The Wildcats have 10 losses, they’re 3-8 versus the top quad and they’re road record is negative. But they’re also in the NET top 10, have great SOS numbers, and analytics generally like them. The team has now dropped three in a row and has two home games against the Washington teams remaining. Those would be bad losses, all things considered. Arizona could fall categories with more losses, especially if its NET decides to make sense.
USC (Pac-12): 21-9, NET: 39, SOS: 62, vs. Q1: 5-7
The Trojans took care of the Arizona schools back-to-back, and it took them off the bubble. USC is now 10-8 against Q1 and Q2 competition, and it has wins over Arizona (10), Stanford (25), Arizona State (49), a neutral victory against LSU (31) and some okay road wins. The team has one more regular season game – a home date with arch rival UCLA (75) – which is on the border of a Q2 game right now. The unfortunate thing is the Bruins are playing like a Q1 opponent, but they will count as a low-end Q2 or high-end Q3 game. A win would lock USC up. A loss would likely keep it in this category with the Pac-12 Tournament awaiting to send this team to lockdom.
St. Mary’s (WCC): 23-7, NET: 29, SOS: 54, vs. Q1: 3-4
St. Mary’s didn’t do anything to move on itself, but with so many teams near and around the bubble losing, its lack of doing anything detrimental has moved it further from the cutline. At this point, as long as SMC wins its first game of the WCC Tournament, it will become a lock. A loss to BYU in the conference tournament wouldn’t drop the Gaels out of an at-large bid. A lot of things would have to go wrong for St. Mary’s to miss the Big Dance now.
OVER THE BUBBLE
Texas Tech (Big 12): 18-12, NET: 22, SOS: 73, vs. Q1: 3-9
Tech has now dropped three in a row after falling 71-68 at Baylor in overtime. It was a valiant effort from the Red Raiders against one of the nation’s best teams, but great efforts don’t count as Q1 wins. They’re still stuck with just three, which isn’t very much. Fortunately for Texas Tech, its NET, lack of any Q3 or Q4 blemishes and versus win over Louisville (8) are keeping it afloat. But a 3-7 road mark, bad Q1 record and a short list of quality wins put TTU right on the edge of falling onto the bubble. A home loss to Kansas would give Tech 13 losses, and that would likely become 14 after the Big 12 Tournament. If it doesn’t topple the Jayhawks, this team will find itself on the bubble.
Oklahoma (Big 12): 18-12, NET: 46, SOS: 30, vs. Q1: 5-9
A huge W at West Virginia (19) took Oklahoma off the bubble, solving two of its biggest problems of a poor Q1 record and bad road mark. The Sooners then lost to Texas at home in a heartbreaker, but the good from the WVU victory is enough to keep the Sooners just off the bubble for the time being. Ten Q1 and Q2 wins is solid, the computer numbers are passable and no anchor losses is important. There is certainly not enough here for Oklahoma to feel safe, though. A win at TCU (92) to close the regular season would be big in securing a bid to the Big Dance and making finding at least one win in the Big 12 Tournament less crucial. A loss would probably put Oklahoma back on the bubble.
Arizona State (Pac-12): 19-10, NET: 49, SOS: 8, vs. Q1: 5-9
It’s now two-straight defeats for ASU: at UCLA (75) and at USC (39), two losses that won’t kill the resume too much. But the Ls don’t help, and Arizona State finds itself in danger of falling back onto the bubble if it continues its losing ways in its final regular season games, both homes dates against Washington (70) and Washington State (114). Picking up both wins would probably lock the Sun Devils up ahead of the Pac-12 Tournament. Going 1-1, and certainly going 0-2, would put ASU in danger of needing something from the conference tournament to get a bid.
LSU (SEC): 20-9, NET: 31, SOS: 13, vs. Q1: 3-7
The Tigers took care of Texas A&M (123) at home, 64-50, in what was finally a comfortable win for them in what feels like forever. It was the team’s first double-digit victory since Feb. 1, and even though it only adds a Q3 W to the resume, avoiding the L was big. Now, LSU needs to avoid a landmine in a home date with Georgia (84), and taking care of business on the road at Arkansas (47) for a much-needed Q1 win as well would mean certain lockdom. Going 1-1 could mean that, too, depending on what other teams do. Going 0-2 could spell a drop to the bubble and a necessity to win one or two in the SEC Tournament.
Florida (SEC): 18-11, NET: 34, SOS: 34, vs. Q1: 4-8
Florida has lost two of three after dropping, 63-58, at Tennessee, a low-end Q1 defeat. The team is currently 8-11 against Q1 and Q2 competition combined, which is okay. It has a large collection of good wins – Auburn (28), LSU (31), Arkansas (47), Alabama (50), versus Xavier (41), versus Providence (44) and at South Carolina (61) – which is why the Gators aren’t on the bubble at the moment. But a 3-7 road record and no true elite-level wins, plus 11 losses, leaves Florida vulnerable. A home date with Kentucky (21) is a major opportunity to take care of a lot of the uneasiness, and a road game at Georgia (84) is a major opportunity to fall back down onto the bubble.
ON THE BUBBLE
Cincinnati (AAC): 19-10, NET: 51, SOS: 14, SOS: 28, vs. Q1: 2-6
This week, Cincinnati lost at Houston (18) in its last real chance to impress the committee, then took care of business at South Florida (128) for yet another Q2 win. The Bearcats are now 9-6 against Q1 and Q2 opponents, which is something the committee will like to see and the reason why they’re on the bubble, plus a home win against Houston and a sweep of Wichita State. Those four Q3 blemishes are so ugly, though, and those are the reason why this team isn’t safely in. With only a home game against Temple (112) left in the regular season, there is nothing Cincinnati can do until the later rounds of the AAC Tournament to impress the committee. At this point, it’s about beating the teams it should and letting the rest of the bubble collapse around it. If a chance against Houston, Wichita State or Memphis comes up in the conference tournament, it will be a must-win situation.
Memphis (AAC): 20-9, NET: 63, SOS: 90, vs. Q1: 2-4
This can resume can be best summed up as basically Cincinnati’s but a little bit worse. Biggest win is a home one against Houston (18), not great Q1 record but the Q2 mark is keeping the resume alive, several bad Q3 anchor losses and an NET that isn’t going to be reason the team gets into the Dance. In Cincinnati’s case, it has all those marks but most everything is slightly better – 7-0 versus Q2, NET hovering around 50, and a sweep of Wichita State to boot – while Memphis finds itself just below in almost every way. This is why the Tigers are largely considered to be on the outside looking in, and the Bearcats are right on the cutline. This can change in a big way before the conference tournament, though, as Memphis still has at Houston and Wichita State (43) at home left. Two wins in those games would put the Tigers into the Field of 68, but losses would more of less kill their bubble chances.
Wichita State (AAC): 22-7, NET: 43, SOS: 81, vs. Q1: 2-4
Wichita State came close to throwing away a lot of the goodwill it built earlier in the year at SMU (88), but it came back from an incredible deficit to pull out the 66-62 victory. The loss would have been devastating to a resume with no real great wins, but that doesn’t matter now. The Shockers are 9-7 in Q1 and Q2 games, which is solid. But the issue of no major wins is there, and winning at Memphis (63) or against Tulsa (82) at home won’t do it. However, those wins would help improve the NET, add another Q1 win to the resume and keep Wichita State above the other bubble teams that will inevitably lose. If the Shockers don’t win both of these games, it’s going to be a desperate situation in the AAC Tournament.
Richmond (A-10): 23-7, NET: 42, SOS: 94, vs. Q1: 2-4
Two wins later, and Richmond’s NET is back into the top 50 and nearing top 40, a very important mark for any non-power team looking to get an at-large bid. The Spiders took care of UMass (142) and Davidson (76) at home, and now they only have a road date at Duquesne (89) left before the A-10 Tournament. Richmond is working with four Q1 and Q2 wins, so any opportunity for more of those are ones it has to take, adding huge implications to the game with the Dukes. That’s a game that a bubble team in the A-10 wins to get in the tournament. A loss would set the Spiders further back and make it so they need a run to likely at least the A-10 Tournament Semifinals to feel like they have a real shot at a bid and perhaps further if no real quality wins were added along the way.
Rhode Island (A-10): 20-8, NET: 52, SOS: 77, vs. Q1: 1-4
Here’s a terrible plan for any bubble team: have only one Q1 win late into the season, then supplement it with two losses in three games in the final couple weeks of the regular season to likely non-tournament teams, once at home. The home defeat to Saint Louis (56) and road loss at Davidson (76) added two Q2 losses to URI’s resume, and they would have been so incredibly helpful in the face of needing anything to make up for only one Q1 W. Instead, the Rams are now 6-7 against Q1 and Q2 competition without any major victories to point to. The home game with Dayton (3) on Wednesday is that much more necessary now. Without a win in that one, Rhode Island is going to have a very tough uphill climb in the A-10 Tournament to claw its way back into the Field of 68.
North Carolina State (ACC): 18-12, NET: 58, SOS: 53, vs. Q1: 4-5
NC State has now followed up its huge win against Duke (6) back on Feb. 19 with a 1-3 run in its last four games, including a road loss at North Carolina (83). Now the Wolfpack have 12 losses, three Q3 defeats and an NET getting closer to 60. They are 9-9 in Q1 and Q2 games with high-end wins versus Duke and Wisconsin (27), plus a road W at Virginia (48), but those losses to Georgia Tech (77), North Carolina (83) and at Boston College (151) are harming them quite a bit. With one regular season game left – a home date with Wake Forest (103) – NC State cannot afford to lose. It needs to win that game to stay on the right side of the bubble and probably another one in the ACC Tournament to remain right on the cutline. Another win could make the team safe, though, but it’s going to have to actually win games to get there.
Clemson (ACC): 15-13, NET: 72, SOS: 42, vs. Q1: 3-6
Clemson knocked off Florida State (11), 70-69, in what was a wild and ridiculous game. That’s now the trifecta of wins against the top three teams in the ACC, and it’s enough to get the Tigers in the very fringe of the bubble. A 3-7 road record, 13 losses, a terrible NET and 3-6 Q1 record isn’t good enough for them to really be in serious consideration for a bid, but this resume has to be considered on the bubble now. Clemson can’t afford to lose many more games, including its final regular season ones at Virginia Tech (87) and at home against Georgia Tech (77). Wins in those games are imperative, and one or two more in the ACC Tournament would be needed, too. But it’s certainly possible, and it means Clemson is on the bubble, at least for the time being.
Texas (Big 12): 19-11, NET: 55, SOS: 41, vs. Q1: 5-7
Out of nowhere, Texas is really in contention for the Dance. The Longhorns have won five straight, taking care of their latest victim, arch rival Oklahoma, on the road with a late-second dagger three to seal a 62-61 win. The team’s last three wins have all been against viable Big 12 tournament teams – West Virginia (19), at Texas Tech (22) and at Oklahoma (46) – and a road win at Purdue (33) from November helps add to its now 5-7 mark versus Q1. A win at home against Oklahoma State (71) to end the regular season is a must, and Texas is in no way safe right now. But wow, what a turnaround from a team that looked questionable for even the NIT a month ago.
Xavier (Big East): 19-10, NET: 41, SOS: 12, vs. Q1: 3-9
Xavier is inches away from getting off the bubble following two wins in a row against DePaul (81) and at Georgtown (62). At this point, a win at Providence (44) on Wednesday would do it, or a win at home against Butler (20) in its final regular season game would work, too. Going 0-2 would make things a little hairy for the Musketeers heading into the Big East Tournament, though, and make it necessary to find a win or two in order to feel good about its chances on Selection Sunday.
Providence (Big East): 17-12, NET: 44, SOS: 10, vs. Q1: 7-8
The Friars continued to do what they’ve done all month, and that’s beat high-end competition. This time, Villanova (14) became the latest victim as Providence went to Philadelphia and knocked off another one of the league’s best, 58-54. That now marks at least one victory over other top five team in the Big East, some of which have come on the road. If not for four losses in Q3 and Q4 games, Providence would easily be in the tournament at the moment. Instead, it needs to keep winning to really secure its bid, although it will be tough for the committee to ignore any team that boasts as many Q1 wins as it does.
Indiana (Big Ten): 18-11, NET: 54, SOS: 51, vs. Q1: 5-9
The Big Ten is a cruel mistress, and Indiana has been one of its recent victims. Two away losses at Purdue (33) and Illinois (36) have set this resume back a little bit, making the Hoosiers now 2-8 in road games and 8-11 against Q1 and Q2 competition. It has a collection of great to pretty good wins – Michigan State (7), Florida State (11) and Ohio State (15) the headliners – but they’re pretty much all at home. Those wins are why Indiana is still in the field for the time being, but more losses will knock this team down closer to the cutline and out if it isn’t careful. Two home dates against Minnesota (45) and Wisconsin (27) loom large before the Big Ten Tournament.
Purdue (Big Ten): 16-14, NET: 33, SOS: 45, vs. Q1: 4-11
Purdue was in a must-win situation at Iowa (35) on Tuesday, and it got it done, 77-68. The Boilers are now 4-8 on the road, a not great but improved mark from just a couple weeks ago, and have nine Q1 and Q2 wins. The problem is, they also have 13 losses against those quads, plus a Q3 defeat at Nebraska (194) from December. Pretty good computer numbers are also part of why Purdue is afloat with 14 losses, but it certainly cannot lose more than once from here on out, including in the Big Ten Tournament. A home game with Rutgers (32) on Saturday is another must-have for Purdue.
Rutgers (Big Ten): 18-11, NET: 32, SOS: 38, vs. Q1: 4-9
The Scarlet Knights added another statement win to their resume with a 78-67 beating of Maryland on Tuesday. It’s enough to definitely have them on the right side of the bubble right now, but it wasn’t enough to get them off the bubble in my eyes, and here’s why: 1-8 road record and not enough Q1 wins to make up for it. Sure, it’s enough for Rutgers to dance for the time being, and if the team doesn’t win another game, it could still find itself in the tournament. But this resume doesn’t look magnitudes better than it did before the Maryland game, and so its position relative to the bubble remains unchanged. However, it does end the three-game losing streak and help with the desperation. If Rutgers wins one more game against anyone, it should find itself off the bubble.
Northern Iowa (MVC): 23-5, NET: 37, SOS: 117, vs. Q1: 1-1
UNI is doing all it can, which is take care of business against what’s in front of it. After dropping two in a row in mid-February, Northern Iowa has three wins in three games, including a 70-43 beating at Drake (173) to end its regular season. Now, the MVC Tournament is here, and the Panthers probably only need to get to the tournament final to secure an at-large bid, assuming its opponent in the championship wouldn’t tank their resume with a loss. With a 5-3 record in Q1 and Q2 games and a top-40 NET, UNI is looking good, but its still remaining in the bubble category until it takes care of some more teams it should.
Utah State (MWC): 21-8, NET: 38, SOS: 120, vs. Q1: 2-4
A consistently terrible idea for mid-major teams on the bubble is to lose to non-tournament teams in their league in the final weeks of the season. Utah State still chose to take one of those Ls, and it could cost the team dearly. The Aggies fell, 66-64, at New Mexico (147) for their second Q3 defeat of the season, dropping their road record to 4-6. Now only the MWC Tournament is left, and Utah State isn’t going to get many chances to prove itself to the committee in the event. As the No. 2 seed, USU can’t meet San Diego State (4) until the MWC Final, and at the point, a win wouldn’t matter for its at-large chances. This is why it was so crucial for the Aggies to take care of the bad teams in front of them, but they couldn’t do that. Now, they will have to win out until the MWC Final to have realistic shot at an at-large bid and need help from other bubble teams to get in.
Stanford (Pac-12): 20-9, NET: 25, SOS: 97, vs. Q1: 5-5
Stanford capitalized on its great home opportunity against Colorado (23) and got a much-needed win that helped propel it into the NET top 25 and give it five Q1 wins. The Cardinal have now rattled off four straight Ws and are looking like they’re playing themselves onto the right side of the bubble. A great NET and solid record against Q1 competition are the pluses. The horrible non-conference SOS, road defeat at Cal (136) in late January and zero high-quality wins on the road are the minuses. Still, there is definitely enough here for a tournament bid, and two current Q1 opportunities – at Oregon (16) and at Oregon State (73) – remain before the Pac-12 Tournament. Stanford could be well off the bubble by the end of the regular season if it takes care of business.
UCLA (Pac-12): 18-11, NET: 75, SOS: 56, vs. Q1: 6-6
Somehow, UCLA is in sole possession of the first place in the Pac-12 by half a game. The Bruins have won seven games in a row and played themselves into bubble conversation. Their latest success have come at home against the Arizona schools: first a 75-72 late victory over Arizona State (49), then an outlasting of Arizona (10), 69-64. The same issues as before with this resume remain, with the awful NET that doesn’t seem to be improving much with each passing major victory as the biggest issue. A road game at USC (39) is the last regular season matchup left, and it could again move the needle in a major way for the Bruins. This is such a weird resume that it’s difficult to know what the committee will do with it, but it is clear that UCLA cannot fall off its winning ways and feel safe on Selection Sunday.
Mississippi State (SEC): 19-11, NET: 53, SOS: 59, vs. Q1: 2-7
The Bulldogs have done an excellent job of putting together a resume that remains on the bubble but is consistently on the wrong side of the cutline. That’s what happens when you generally don’t have any high-end wins, have a few anchor losses and numbers that don’t inspire. Mississippi State had a major opportunity at South Carolina (61) on Tuesday, which would have been an important road win to improve a negative away mark and added a vital Q1 win to the list. It’s the kind of game that a tournament team would win, fully understanding the situation. Mississippi State lost, 83-71. That’s pretty much all that needs to be said. If the Bulldogs want to dance, they need beat Ole Miss (94) at home and do some serious damage in the SEC Tournament, point blank, end of discussion.
Arkansas (SEC): 18-11, NET: 47, SOS: 27, vs. Q1: 2-6
Speaking of SEC bubble teams that have done a great job of remaining on the bubble while not actually getting close to the right side of the cutline, here’s Arkansas, which thought that losing at Georgia (84), 99-89, would be a good idea. It turns out that it wasn’t, and the Razorbacks are now 5-11 versus Q1 and Q2 competition and very close to falling off the bubble. All regular season games remaining – LSU (31) and at Texas A&M (123) – are must-wins now, and something of note has to happen in the SEC Tournament, too. It’s getting dire.
South Carolina (SEC): 18-12, NET: 61, SOS: 55, vs. Q1: 4-7
The Gamecocks are yet another SEC team that has stayed on the wrong side of the bubble for weeks. They did something good for themselves to keep that streak going, defeating Mississippi State (53) at home, 83-71. South Carolina is now 4-7 against Q1 and 8-11 in Q1 and Q2 games combined, which is enough to stay in contention for a bid. But the NET and two anchor losses, most notably a home loss to Stetson (300), are holding the resume back. Only a road game at Vanderbilt (148) is left in the regular season, and it is a must-win. A run in the SEC Tournament will be necessary at this point, too, but it is doable.
ETSU (SoCon): 24-4, NET: 40, SOS: 136, vs. Q1: 1-2
It hasn’t been pretty, but ETSU has taken care of the teams it needed to to close out its regular season, escaping Western Carolina (135) in the last game, 68-67. Now it’s on to the SoCon Tournament, which only provides landmines for the Buccaneers outside of Furman (68) and UNC Greensboro (79). ETSU doesn’t necessarily have to win the conference tournament to dance. If it can take care of business until the final and lose to Furman or UNCG in that game, the at-large hopes could come to fruition. But at that point, you might as well just win and make it official. No need to spend the time between then and Selection Sunday biting your nails.
Tulsa (AAC): 20-9, NET: 82, SOS: 167, vs. Q1: 2-3
Saint Louis (A-10): 20-8, NET: 56, SOS: 88, vs. Q1: 2-4
Georgetown (Big East): 15-14, NET: 62, SOS: 18, SOS: 4-10
Tennessee (SEC): 16-14, NET: 57, SOS: 17, vs. Q1: 2-9
Alabama (SEC): 16-14, NET: 50, SOS: 33, vs. Q1: 1-7
Stephen F. Austin (Southland): 24-3, NET: 80, SOS: 328, vs. Q1: 1-2