Hoops news for the next generation - Basketball Jones barely describes it
Topics
Welcome to Bubble Watch 2020, keeping tabs how teams stack up relative to the bubble, with explanations from our expert bracketologist, Justin Meyer.

Bubble Watch: Locks, Should Be, Over, On & Bursting

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: locksshould be inover the bubbleon 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.

You can see all the resumes for yourself here and find our previous bubble watch here.

With that out of the way, let’s look at the state of the bubble as of Monday afternoon on March 9, 2020:

LOCKS

Houston (AAC): 23-8, NET: 20, SOS: 62, vs. Q1: 2-5

Dayton (A-10): 29-2, NET: 3, SOS: 27, vs. Q1: 5-2

Louisville (ACC): 24-7, NET: 8, SOS: 19, vs. Q1: 4-6

Florida State (ACC): 26-5, NET: 10, SOS: 39, vs. Q1: 6-3

Duke (ACC): 25-6, NET: 6, SOS: 28, vs. Q1: 5-3

Virginia (ACC): 23-7, NET: 42, SOS: 73, vs. Q1: 5-3

Baylor (Big 12): 26-4, NET: 5, SOS: 61, vs. Q1: 11-2

Kansas (Big 12): 27-3, NET: 1, SOS: 1, vs. Q1: 12-3

West Virginia (Big 12): 21-10, NET: 17, SOS: 2, vs. Q1: 6-7

Seton Hall (Big East): 21-9, NET: 15, SOS: 4, vs. Q1: 10-7

Butler (Big East): 22-9, NET: 19, SOS: 53, vs. Q1: 10-6

Villanova (Big East): 24-7, NET: 13, SOS: 3, vs. Q1: 10-6

Creighton (Big East): 23-7, NET: 11, SOS: 23, vs. Q1: 9-7

Maryland (Big Ten): 24-7, NET: 18, SOS: 44, vs. Q1: 7-7

Penn State (Big Ten): 21-10, NET: 35, SOS: 122, vs. Q1: 7-7

Michigan State (Big Ten): 22-9, NET: 7, SOS: 37, vs. Q1: 8-7

Iowa (Big Ten): 20-11, NET: 34, SOS: 95, vs. Q1: 7-8

Ohio State (Big Ten): 21-10, NET: 16, SOS: 52, vs. Q1: 5-9

Michigan (Big Ten): 19-12, NET: 25, SOS: 50, vs. Q1: 6-10

Wisconsin (Big Ten): 21-10, NET: 24, SOS: 31, vs. Q1: 9-8

Illinois (Big Ten): 20-10, NET: 38, SOS: 77, vs. Q1: 5-8

San Diego State (MWC): 29-2, NET: 4, SOS: 99, vs. Q1: 4-1

UTAH STATE (MWC): 24-8, NET: 40, SOS: 111, vs. Q1: 3-4

Oregon (Pac-12): 24-7, NET: 12, SOS: 16, vs. Q1: 8-5

Colorado (Pac-12): 21-10, NET: 23, SOS: 14, vs. Q1: 6-4

Arizona (Pac-12): 20-11, NET: 14, SOS: 7, vs. Q1: 3-7

USC (Pac-12): 22-9, NET: 45, SOS: 72, vs. Q1: 4-7

Auburn (SEC): 25-6, NET: 27, SOS: 26, vs. Q1: 7-3

Kentucky (SEC): 25-6, NET: 21, SOS: 81, vs. Q1: 9-3

Gonzaga (WCC): 29-2, NET: 2, SOS: 132, vs. Q1: 5-2

BYU (WCC): 23-7, NET: 9, SOS: 30, vs. Q1: 3-4

St. Mary’s (WCC): 24-7, NET: 31, SOS: 59, vs. Q1: 2-4

SHOULD BE IN

Marquette (Big East): 18-12, NET: 26, SOS: 5, vs. Q1: 5-10

That’s now three losses in a row and only one win in the final seven games of the regular season. Marquette went from a top seed that needed one win to get locked up in mid-February to now teetering near the bubble after what can only be considered an abysmal last month. The latest failure was at St. John’s (66), 88-86, where a valiant comeback came up short. Now, the Golden Eagles will play Seton Hall (15) in the Big East Tournament Quarterfinals. A win would lock Marquette up. A loss would probably not knock it out of the field because of all the work it did before the final four weeks of the campaign, but it would make things more tricky. Bid stealers and bubble teams having great conference tournaments could make Marquette pay severely for its poor close. WINS TO LOCK: 1

Oklahoma (Big 12): 19-12, NET: 46, SOS: 29, vs. Q1: 5-9

Austin Reaves beat TCU over the weekend, 78-76, to keep the Sooners off the bubble. Well, he didn’t really do it all himself, but it felt that way. Reaves went for 41 points on 12-of-23 shooting from the field and a 15-of-16 mark from the charity stripe, including a game-winning jumper in the final moments of the contest. A loss would have put Oklahoma right back on the bubble, but his heroics have spared it from the dreaded drop. Instead, the Sooners have a chance to lock themselves up with a win over West Virginia (17) in the Big 12 Tournament Quarterfinals, and a loss probably wouldn’t knock them out of the field. WINS TO LOCK: 1

Florida (SEC): 19-12, NET: 28, SOS: 20, vs. Q1: 5-9

The Gators would be in lockdom if they had held onto the lead they had over Kentucky (21) over the weekend, but alas, it was instead a crushing defeat for Florida. The team is still in good position to dance, but it’s not as certain as it would have been had that game gone differently. The computer numbers are pretty good, which we seem to say about Florida every season. There’s a lack of elite wins, but a collection of Ws over Auburn, LSU, Providence and Xavier is decent, plus nine total Q1 and Q2 wins and zero anchor losses. A 4-7 road record is holding this resume back from being locked, but with just one win in the SEC Tournament, that will be solved. WINS TO LOCK: 1

LSU (SEC): 21-10, NET: 29, SOS: 10, vs. Q1: 4-8

It has been a turbulent last month or so in Baton Rouge, and LSU took its frustration out on Georgia (95) in a very serious way Saturday. The Tigers blasted the Bulldogs, 94-64, in a home game that they absolutely could not lose. LSU is now very close to a definite at-large bid to the Big Dance, and failing to win even a game in the SEC Tournament would probably only harm the team’s seed, not its postseason tournament. But there is still the possibility of an anchor loss that this resume can’t really afford, and that keeps it as a “should be in” and not a “lock” as we approach the conference tournaments. WINS TO LOCK: 1

OVER THE BUBBLE

Texas Tech (Big 12): 18-13, NET: 22, SOS: 54, vs. Q1: 3-10

It’s getting to the point where the computer numbers, a neutral win against Louisville (8) from Dec. 10 and a home victory against West Virginia (17) on Jan. 29 are really what’s keeping Texas Tech alive and off the bubble. A 3-7 road record is bad, and 13 losses, with a likely 14th coming somewhere in the Big 12 Tournament, is a ton. No anchor losses make a huge difference, although it’s not like losing to TCU (92) and DePaul (86), both Q2 losses because they were on the road, are positive. If for nothing else but the top-25 NET, the Red Raiders are in the tournament right now and not even on the bubble, though they’re very close. It’s possible that their Big 12 Quarterfinal matchup with Texas (69) is a must-win, and it certainly is for them to feel comfortable on Selection Sunday. A loss in that game would have a good chance of meaning a trip to Dayton for the First Four, or at least a bad seed that doesn’t match up with the team’s analytics otherwise. WINS TO LOCK: 1

Rutgers (Big Ten): 19-11, NET: 32, SOS: 42, vs. Q1: 4-9

The win against Maryland (18) was big, but maybe even more important was the victory Rutgers picked up at Purdue (33) over the weekend. It was the team’s second road win of the season, and it’s remarkable how much better 2-8 with a top-40 NET away victory looks than 1-8, with that only W being against the worst team in the Big Ten. How poor the Scarlet Knights have been away from the RAC has been the number one thing holding this resume back, and now that that has been slightly alleviated, Rutgers has moved off the bubble. Now, Rutgers will face Michigan (25) in the Big Ten Tournament Second Round. It’s a win that Rutgers doesn’t necessarily need to make the tournament, but another loss away from Piscataway might make the committee but it in the First Four. A win, though, would lock the Scarlet Knights up and secure at worst a No. 10 seed. WINS TO LOCK: 1

Arizona State (Pac-12): 20-11, NET: 52, SOS: 15, vs. Q1: 5-8

After losing three in a row, Arizona State got back to winning, defeating Washington State (119) at home, 83-74, in a game it really couldn’t afford to drop. Now, the Sun Devils has a resume with a positive road record (6-5), home wins over Oregon (12), Arizona (14) and USC (45), plus zero anchor losses to weigh them down. ASU will face the winner of Colorado (23) and Washington State in the Pac-12 Tournament Quarterfinals, and depending on who its opponent is will affect what a win or loss would do for its standing in the field. A loss to CU would hurt far less than one to WSU, but most importantly, a win over either would be enough to ensure a spot in the conference tournament semifinals, which should be enough to keep this team off the bubble at the very least. Beating the Buffaloes would undoubtedly lock Arizona State. Upending the Cougars might not, though. WINS TO LOCK: 1/2

ON THE BUBBLE

Cincinnati (AAC): 20-10, NET: 51, SOS: 21, vs. Q1: 2-6

Per usual, Cincinnati needed late-game theatrics to pull out the home win against Temple (116), 64-63. A loss would have been the fifth Q3 defeat of the season for the Bearcats, which would have certainly tanked their NET and tournament odds. But, Cincinnati survived, and so it remains right on the cutline as it was before. The win clinched a share of the regular season AAC title, and with tiebreakers, Cincinnati is the top seed in the AAC Tournament. In the event’s quarterfinals, the Bearcats will face UCF (125) or South Florida (127), which will be a Q3 game regardless of who advances out of the first round. That game will be a must-win, no question about it. It would likely be a date with Wichita State (41) or Connecticut (59) in the semifinals, which would move the needle to a degree if a win were achieved. To remain in consideration for a bid, Cincinnati has to win once, although that would leave it teetering on the cutline. To feel better about its odds, the team will need to win twice. Unfortunately, I don’t see a scenario in which the Bearcats can become at-large locks at this stage given the AAC Tournament in front of them, but two wins, especially assuming the second is against Wichita State, would get them off the bubble. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Memphis (AAC): 21-10, NET: 58, SOS: 57, vs. Q1: 2-5

Memphis had an incredible opportunity to play its way into the field Sunday at Houston (20). The Tiger didn’t capitalize, though, falling 64-57. Memphis has a similar resume to Cincinnati, though slightly worse in most every way, so while the Bearcats are right on the edge, the Tigers are close but out. Fortunately, though, the AAC bracket falls favorably for a bubble team like Memphis. Its first game is against East Carolina (205), and losing that is obviously not an option. Next, a date with Tulsa (78) would come, a shot at a Q2 win over one of the regular season champs. Then, there’s a good chance it would be a third meeting with Houston in the semifinals. If that’s the path Memphis takes to the AAC Tournament Final, then it will dance as an at-large with or without the auto bid. Getting to only the semifinals probably wouldn’t be enough, though, especially considering that there will likely be more bid stealers. Things are dire for Memphis at this point. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 3

Wichita State (AAC): 23-8, NET: 41, SOS: 69, vs. Q1: 2-5

Wichita State had to beat Tulsa (78) in its final game of the regular season, and it did, 79-57. The big win helped out with the team’s NET and kept it undefeated in Q3 and Q4 games. The issue of having any major wins still remains, with Wichita State’s best wins coming at UConn (59), at Oklahoma State (61) and Oklahoma (46) at home, and two of those teams are going to have to do some serious damage in their conference tournaments, if not win them, to get into the Field of 68. However, if the Shockers can handle the winner of Connecticut and Tulane (169), it will keep it afloat and even be helpful if the Huskies are their victim. A win over presumably Cincinnati (51) in the semifinals would be a must in what would likely be a de facto elimination game. Becoming an at-large lock is probably not possible. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Richmond (A-10): 24-7, NET: 37, SOS: 85, vs. Q1: 3-4

While much of the rest of the bubble has imploded to varying degrees, the Spiders have quietly taken care of business, winning four in a row and climbing into the top 40 of NET. Richmond is now 6-6 against Q1 and Q2 competition after a 73-62 victory at Duquesne (94) on Friday, and its road record improved to a remarkable 9-3. As the No. 2 seed in the A-10 Tournament, Richmond will face the winner of Davidson (73) and La Salle (171), and the outcome of that game will have a big impact on what a win in the quarterfinals would mean for the Spiders. If they advanced, they would likely face either Rhode Island (57) or Duquesne in the semifinals, which would both qualify as Q2 opponents. If Richmond adds one or two Q2 wins and avoids an anchor loss, it can kiss the bubble goodbye. If it adds one win only, it’ll remain on the bubble, and things could get dicey depending on what the rest of the bubble does. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Rhode Island (A-10): 21-9, NET: 57, SOS: 55, vs. Q1: 1-6

Rhode Island avoided disaster with its 64-63 win at UMass (133), which qualifies as a Q2 win but would have tanked this resume to the point of no return had it been an L. URI is now 8-8 in Q1 and Q2 games, but it’s a terrible 1-6 versus Q1 competition, which is just not good enough to dance, especially given the rest of its resume. The Rams are behind the eight ball here, and that means they need a long run in the A-10 Tournament to get in as an at-large. It’s possible, though, especially if it gets to play Duquesne (94) and Richmond (37) on its way to the final. Even if it beat those teams back-to-back, though, it might not be enough, and some help from other bubble teams failing and no bid stealers would be needed. Still, it is possible, and more possible than for many others. Anything but an appearance in the final will see URI in the NIT, though. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 3 (AUTO BID)

Saint Louis (A-10): 22-8, NET: 49, SOS: 90, vs. Q1: 2-5

From absolutely nowhere, Saint Louis has played it way from obscurity to the bubble in the matter of a few weeks. That’s what winning five straight to close the regular season will do, including a 72-49 waxing of St. Bonaventure (121) at home Saturday. The Billikens don’t have a great Q1 record or combined Q1 and Q2 mark (4-7), and outside of a road win at Richmond (37) from Jan. 11, there aren’t many other particularly notable wins to hang their hat on. But a 7-4 road record is positive, plus a top-50 NET and only one anchor loss: a home defeat to Duquesne from early February that serves as the resume’s only Q3 or Q4 blemish. SLU will need to do damage in the A-10 Tournament to get in and its resume doesn’t have the meat necessary to dance right now, but the framework is there. It’s going to come down to a potential semifinals matchup with Dayton (3), as it should. Obviously, a win in the quarterfinals will be a requirement first, but that won’t move the needle regardless of the opponent. It will be a matter of beating Dayton and nothing else. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

North Carolina State (ACC): 19-12, NET: 54, SOS: 65, vs. Q1: 4-5

The Wolfpack took care of Wake Forest (108) at home, 84-64, to end their regular season, avoiding a third Q3 loss. Now, State will face the winner of Wake and Pittsburgh (110) in the ACC Tournament Second Round, and that game will need to end in a W. After that, a third meeting with Duke (6) would await, and you have to feel that NC State needs that win to feel at all comfortable with its bubble situation. A second loss to the Blue Devils would mean the Wolfpack did little to improve their resume in the final week before Selection Sunday, and bid stealers and other bubble teams winning would probably force them out of the Field of 68 if that were the case. So, it’s basically looking like the options are to beat Duke for the second time this year or enjoy another top seed in the NIT. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Texas (Big 12): 19-12, NET: 69, SOS: 43, vs. Q1: 5-8

You were doing so well, Texas, but of course it was too good to be true. After winning enough games to claw back onto the bubble, and even into the field based on most projections, the Longhorns got absolutely run out of the building by Oklahoma State (61), 81-59, on Saturday. The defeat tanked their NET, taking it from an acceptable mid-50s range to barely still in the top 70. Texas still has wins at Texas Tech (22), at Purdue (33), at Oklahoma (46) and West Virginia (17) at home, plus a 6-5 road record, which is why it’s still alive for a bid, but that loss to the Cowboys really, really hurt this resume. Now, the Longhorns will play Texas Tech in the Big 12 Quarterfinals, and it is unquestionably a must-win for them. A victory in that one wouldn’t be enough to move Texas off the bubble, but it could be enough to barely get into the tournament, assuming other results across the country are in its favor. However, a win against Kansas (1), who will likely advance to the semifinals, would take this team off the bubble and into probable safety. But first, the Red Raiders pose enough of a challenge before shifting focus to the Jayhawks. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Xavier (Big East): 19-12, NET: 44, SOS: 11, vs. Q1: 3-11

Xavier had another great opportunity to prove to the committee it belongs in the NCAA Tournament, and it again failed. The Musketeers fell in the final seconds, 72-71, to Butler (19) at home Saturday, and while that defeat on its own isn’t a resume killer, that now makes 11 losses in Q1 games. A 7-1 record in Q2 games, zero anchor losses and good computer numbers, plus an elite road win at Seton Hall (15), are why Xavier is still probably in the field at the moment. But the committee isn’t going to reward a team for losing to tons of good teams. Anyone can lose. At a certain point, you need to win enough of these games to prove you can do so consistently enough. That’s why the Musketeers might need to not only beat DePaul (86) in the Big East Tournament First Round but also upset Villanova (13) in the quarterfinals. Winning only its first game would still leave Xavier in contention for an at-large bid, but would the committee put in a team with 13 total losses and a 3-12 record in Q1 games? That would remain to be seen. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Indiana (Big Ten): 19-12, NET: 60, SOS: 47, vs. Q1: 4-10

Indiana would be sitting pretty off the bubble if it hadn’t imploded down the stretch in its home date with Wisconsin (24) over the weekend, but alas, it didn’t. The Hoosiers lost, 60-56, and now are 4-10 in Q1 showdowns with an ugly NET. Home wins against Michigan State (7), Florida State (10) and Ohio State (16) are impressive, especially for a bubble team, and the biggest reason why Indiana is still in the running for a tournament berth. But that 2-8 road record isn’t going to change at this point as only the Big Ten Tournament remains, and Indiana needs to do something to make up for that. The Hoosiers will get Nebraska (198) in the first round of the event, and they obviously cannot lose that game. After a win, Indiana would face Penn State (35), and a win there would be necessary to get off the bubble. That would secure five Q1 Ws, wins against most of the tournament teams in the Big Ten and zero anchor losses, not to mention it would help with the NET at least a bit. Failing to pick up a win over the Nittany Lions, though, would leave Indiana in the same spot it is now and very vulnerable to being jumped by bid stealers and more successful bubble sides. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Northern Iowa (MVC): 23-6, NET: 48, SOS: 115, vs. Q1: 1-1

All UNI needed to do to likely be in the tournament was not lose to Drake (156) in its opening game of the MVC Tournament. It proceeded to do exactly that. The 77-56 whooping was Northern Iowa’s third Q3 loss of the season, and with its neutral win over South Carolina (67) not looking like it’ll be over a tournament team, this resume is quite lackluster. The Panthers have an NET nearing 50 that won’t be getting any better, three anchor losses, and SOS numbers in the triple digits. A road win at Colorado (23) from December, an 8-4 road record and 4-3 combined Q1 and Q2 record is all the positives, but those likely won’t be enough, especially without any more games left. Instead, UNI can sit at home and watch bubble teams jump them and bid stealers push them further from the cutline this week. It’s the NIT life for you. WIN TO OFF THE BUBBLE: N/A

Stanford (Pac-12): 20-11, NET: 30, SOS: 92, vs. Q1: 4-7

A win at Oregon (12) would have been huge for Stanford’s bubble chances, but the Cardinal fell, 80-67, to close the regular season. Heading into the Pac-12 Tournament, Stanford sports four Q1 wins, a 7-10 record against Q1 and Q2 competition, a top-30 NET, one anchor loss at Cal (148), a 4-6 road record and non-conference SOS of 219. Some of that is good, some of that is bad, and all together it equals a resume that cannot be comfortable. The Cardinal play their arch rivals, California, in the first round of the Pac-12 Tournament, and that is unsurprisingly a must-win game. Next, they would face UCLA (76), their fellow Pac-12 bubble team, in what would seem to be a de facto elimination game. Winning those two games would probably get Stanford off the bubble, depending on what happened around the nation, but anything less would leave it very vulnerable on Selection Sunday, or worse. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

UCLA (Pac-12): 18-12, NET: 76, SOS: 51, vs. Q1: 6-7

UCLA came close but couldn’t pull it out at USC (45), 54-52, a tough pill to swallow in more ways than one. The defeat knocked the Bruins from contention for the Pac-12 regular season title, and it also harmed their at-large bid chances. It didn’t hit them too hard as it’s merely another Q1 loss, and UCLA is now 6-7 versus the quadrant. In all, its 9-10 mark against Q1 and Q2 competition is pretty good, and its collection of wins, which includes sweeps of Arizona (14) and Colorado (23) and a home triumph of Arizona State (52), is why the Bruins are even in this conversation. The NET of 76 and non-conference SOS of 202 are bordering on unacceptable, and two anchor losses to Hofstra (122) and Cal State Fullerton (262), both at home, are really not helping. If UCLA is to add a 13th loss to its record before the NCAA Tournament, it better not come in its first game of the Pac-12 Tournament against the winner of Stanford (30) and California (148). Even if the Bruins get the Cardinal and beat them, it still might not be enough with how atrocious those numbers are. That could be barely enough to get in, but it would require some help. It wouldn’t get the Bruins off the bubble, though. That would take a deeper run to the tournament final to achieve that. Should have beat the Trojans when they had the chance. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2

Mississippi State (SEC): 20-11, NET: 50, SOS: 71, vs. Q1: 2-7

The Bulldogs are the remaining SEC team on the bubble, but not by much. A home win against Ole Miss (93) to end the regular season keeps Mississippi State alive, but it needs to do some real damage in the SEC Tournament to avoid the NIT. A 2-7 mark against Q1 opponents is simply not good enough, and two anchor losses, a 4-7 road record and middling computer numbers don’t do enough to make up for it. The Bulldogs will likely face Florida (28) in the SEC Quarterfinals, and that will have to end in a W. After that, it’s probably Kentucky (21) in the semifinals, and that would need to go Mississippi State’s way, too, because bid stealers and other bubble teams will force it. Not to mention the Bulldogs are currently out and need to play their way in. Those two wins might get the Bulldogs in, but they might not get them off the bubble, though. It’s a good draw for a bubble team that needs opportunities to prove itself, but that will also require Mississippi State to, you know, actually beat some good teams to prove it belongs in the Big Dance. Remember, though: some upsets would be a negative for Mississippi State’s at-large chances, although if it means the auto bid comes easier, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 2/3

ETSU (SoCon): 26-4, NET: 39, SOS: 138, vs. Q1: 1-2

You can’t ask much more from ETSU than what it is doing. The Buccaneers have been taking care of business in the SoCon for a while, having avoided a loss since Jan. 29. ETSU is now in the conference tournament final and can make its tournament bid official with a win over Wofford (152). A win would obviously lock up an auto bid. A loss would add a second Q3 defeat and third anchor loss to this resume, and it remains unclear whether or not it can absorb that blow and still get into the Field of 68. It’s fortunate for ETSU that it drew Wofford in the final for auto bid purposes. It’s unfortunate for ETSU that it didn’t draw Furman (75) or UNC Greensboro (83) in the final for at-large purposes. Hopefully for ETSU’s sake, we don’t find out what its at-large odds are with another bad loss. WINS TO OFF THE BUBBLE: 1

BUBBLE BURSTING

Tulsa (AAC): 21-10, NET: 78, SOS: 145, vs. Q1: 2-4, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 1/2

Connecticut (AAC): 19-12, NET: 59, SOS: 78, vs. Q1: 2-5, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 3

Oklahoma State (Big 12): 17-14, NET: 61, SOS: 36, vs. Q1: 3-9, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 2

Purdue (Big Ten): 16-15, NET: 33, SOS: 40, vs. Q1: 4-10, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 2

Tennessee (SEC): 17-14, NET: 63, SOS: 6, vs. Q1: 3-11, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 2

South Carolina (SEC): 18-13, NET: 67, SOS: 79, vs. Q1: 3-9, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 2

Arkansas (SEC): 19-12, NET: 47, SOS: 25, vs. Q1: 4-6, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 2

Stephen F. Austin (Southland): 25-3, NET: 77, SOS: 313, vs. Q1: 1-2, WINS TO ON THE BUBBLE: 1

Leave a Reply
Total
0
Share