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.
You can see all the resumes for yourself here.
With that out of the way, let’s look at the state of the bubble as of Tuesday afternoon on Feb. 18, 2020:
LOCKS
Dayton (A-10): 24-2, NET: 5, SOS: 33, vs. Q1: 3-2
Louisville (ACC): 21-5, NET: 10, SOS: 31, vs. Q1: 4-3
Florida State (ACC): 22-4, NET: 13, SOS: 49, vs. Q1: 4-3
Duke (ACC): 22-3, NET: 6, SOS: 16, vs. Q1: 6-1
Baylor (Big 12): 24-1, NET: 2, SOS: 75, vs. Q1: 10-0
Kansas (Big 12): 22-3, NET: 4, SOS: 1, vs. Q1: 10-3
West Virginia (Big 12): 18-7, NET: 9, SOS: 2, vs. Q1: 5-6
Seton Hall (Big East): 18-7, NET: 16, SOS: 22, vs. Q1: 8-6
Butler (Big East): 19-7, NET: 19, SOS: 62, vs. Q1: 8-5
Villanova (Big East): 19-6, NET: 15, SOS: 3, vs. Q1: 6-6
Creighton (Big East): 20-6, NET: 11, SOS: 19, vs. Q1: 8-6
Maryland (Big Ten): 22-4, NET: 7, SOS: 41, vs. Q1: 7-4
Penn State (Big Ten): 20-6, NET: 24, SOS: 117, vs. Q1: 7-4
San Diego State (MWC): 25-0, NET: 1, SOS: 105, vs. Q1: 4-0
Oregon (Pac-12): 20-6, NET: 20, SOS: 8, vs. Q1: 6-4
Colorado (Pac-12): 20-6, NET: 12, SOS: 13, vs. Q1: 6-3
Auburn (SEC): 22-3, NET: 25, SOS: 36, vs. Q1: 4-2
Kentucky (SEC): 21-5, NET: 22, SOS: 94, vs. Q1: 6-3
Gonzaga (WCC): 26-1, NET: 3, SOS: 165, vs. Q1: 5-1
SHOULD BE IN
Marquette (Big East): 17-8, NET: 23, SOS: 4, vs. Q1: 5-7
The Golden Eagles have a lot going for them: great computer numbers, no real bad losses, an 11-8 record against Q1 and Q2 opponents. They shouldn’t have too much of an issue getting into the NCAA Tournament at this point. What’s keeping Marquette from being a lock is a lack of any marquee road victories. Its win at Xavier is its best to date, and that’s nothing to scoff at. But to be a lock this far out from Selection Sunday, you need a little bit more.
Michigan State (Big Ten): 17-9, NET: 14, SOS: 41, vs. Q1: 6-8
It has not been the season that was expected in Lansing thus far. The Spartans aren’t in any serious jeopardy of missing the tournament, but they aren’t the absolute lock everyone thought they’d be when the season began. Michigan State has absorbed a couple losses too many to move up a category at this point, but it shouldn’t be too concerned about missing the Big Dance. It would take a monumental collapse for that to even be possible.
Iowa (Big Ten): 18-8, NET: 29, SOS: 86, vs. Q1: 9-6
With nine Q1 wins and a 11-7 record against Q1 and Q2 competition, the Hawkeyes should see themselves dancing in March. However, a non-conference SOS of 198, relatively poor NET and Jan. 7 loss at Nebraska (NET 175) keep them from being locked up four weeks away from Selection Sunday. Iowa’s inclusion in the Big Dance shouldn’t be a worry, but with some weaknesses to its resume, I can’t lock the team up just yet.
Ohio State (Big Ten): 17-8, NET: 17, SOS: 54, vs. Q1: 5-7
There were some eyebrows raised when Ohio State dropped six of seven games from late December into January, but the team rebounded with five victories in six tries since, including wins against Indiana, Rutgers, Purdue and at Michigan. The Buckeyes are now 9-8 against Q1 and Q2 foes with zero bad losses and pretty good computer numbers. Any panic in Columbus about missing the Field of 68 should mostly disappear, although a return to the same form as a month ago could create some problems.
Arizona (Pac-12): 18-7, NET: 8, SOS: 5, vs. Q1: 3-5
Arizona has one of the stranger resumes out this season. The Wildcats are top 10 in NET and have otherwise amazing computer numbers, but they have only three Q1 victories to their name. Arizona has a home victory over Colorado (NET 12) and a handful of wins over other tournament-caliber teams, but it doesn’t have the same number of high-quality Ws that most other teams with similar NETs have. It means the Wildcats aren’t 100 percent in to the tournament just yet, but with computer numbers like that, they don’t need much more to break into lock status.
OVER THE BUBBLE
Houston (AAC): 20-6, NET: 27, SOS: 87, vs. Q1: 2-4
Houston hasn’t lost very many games, and that bodes well for making the NCAA Tournament. However, holding only two victories over Q1 competition isn’t great at this stage of the season. The Cougars have more to offer, though – a good NET, seven Q2 wins, no bad losses, a 6-4 road record – and that’s why they’re not on the bubble. Houston lacks a true marquee victory, though, with its best coming Jan. 18 at Wichita State (NET 43). The problem is, the AAC probably can’t provide Houston with any better opportunities. So, what the Cougars can do is avoid any anchor losses, pick up a new more Q1 and Q2 triumphs, and they won’t need the AAC Tournament title to get into the Field of 68.
Texas Tech (Big 12): 16-9, NET: 18, SOS: 68, vs. Q1: 2-8
The Red Raiders have another one of the weirdest resumes this year. A top 20 NET, plus a home win against West Virginia (NET 9) and a neutral one versus Louisville (NET 10), are fantastic, but a 2-8 record against quadrant one is not. This is why Texas Tech finds itself in this situation: not on the bubble, but with a string of losses it could certainly tumble down to it. With six regular season games left, four of which are currently Q1 games, the Red Raiders will have their chances to stay in the field. But if losses start piling up, then so too will the sweat in Lubbock.
Rutgers (Big Ten): 17-8, NET: 28, SOS: 58, vs. Q1: 3-6
Rutgers is 7-7 against Q1 and Q2 competition, with home wins against Seton Hall (NET 16) and Penn State (NET 24) as the headliners. The Scarlet Knights have racked up a good number of quality wins at home, but their issue has been away from their friendly confines. Rutgers is 1-6 on the road, and the committee will not like to see that. Right now, the team has good enough numbers and enough quality wins to not be on the bubble, but it would be wise to win at least one of its three remaining away games to help improve that record at least a little bit. That’s going to the number on thing that holds this team back on Selection Sunday.
Wisconsin (Big Ten): 16-10, NET: 30, SOS: 21, vs. Q1: 7-8
Out of the 25 games Wisconsin has played so far this year, 15 of them have been against Q1 competition. With an almost-.500 record in those matchups, the Badgers find themselves over the bubble with a month left in the regular season. The issue is, 10 losses are a lot, and it would be surprising if this team finished out the year without at least a couple more Ls. The committee is forgiving of ugly records if the quality wins and other positives are there, but it will only tolerate so much losing. If the Badgers start a slide to close the season, and with how difficult the Big Ten is, that could be possible, then they might find themselves sweating in a few weeks. But with a few wins, it would go the complete other way.
Michigan (Big Ten): 16-9, NET: 26, SOS: 64, vs. Q1: 5-8
It wasn’t long ago that Michigan was 11-8 and looking like it was throwing away all its good work from the early part of the season. But after five wins in six games, the Wolverines are solidly over the bubble and appeared poised to propel away from the cutline even further. The team boasts one of the best wins in the country – a neutral court victory over Gonzaga (NET 3), giving the Zags the only loss of their campaign so far. The Wolverines also have home wins against Creighton, Michigan State and Iowa that have them feeling good about their tournament hopes. Do you notice a theme, though? All those big wins came at home. Michigan is 2-5 on the road, and that’s a mark that will hurt it. Four of the team’s final five games are away from home, giving Michigan ample opportunity to prove to the committee that it can win outside of Ann Arbor.
Illinois (Big Ten): 16-9, NET: 34, SOS: 39, vs. Q1: 6-7
It hadn’t been a good last couple week for the Illini until they snapped a four-game losing streak with a 62-56 victory at Penn State (NET 24) on Tuesday, their now-best win of the season. It was a much needed W after Illinois started undoing some of the goodwill it built in its seven-game positive streak prior to the recent skid. The PSU win gives the team six Q1 wins, four of which came on the road. A non-conference SOS of 223 and volatile NET make Illinois still somewhat vulnerable to the bubble if losses pile up, but the Illini are undoubtedly a distance from the cutline.
LSU (SEC): 18-8, NET: 31, SOS: 11, vs. Q1: 2-6
The Tigers were sitting pretty with an undefeated record in the SEC through eight games. But now, the Tigers have lost four of five, including a horrendous loss at Vanderbilt, the ‘Dores first conference win since 2018, and things aren’t as peachy. Still, the team isn’t on the bubble, but too many more losses would bring it there. LSU is only 2-6 against Q1 opponents, and its best win is a neutral one against Rhode Island (NET 32). These things make it vulnerable. However, the Tigers have excellent computer numbers, headlined by a non-conference SOS of 8, and are 8-1 versus Q2, and those things help them remain currently comfortable in the pursuit of an NCAA Tournament bid.
BYU (WCC): 20-7, NET: 21, SOS: 44, vs. Q1: 2-4
Great numbers and zero bad losses have BYU in good position to make its first NCAA Tournament appearance since 2015. The Cougars are currently not on the bubble, and that’s something for them to feel good about. But the job is far from done, especially with the minefield the WCC presents. BYU has three regular season games remaining: a huge opportunity against Gonzaga to home, which would possibly lock the Cougars into a bid with a win, and two Q3 games. Losing one or both of those Q3 matchups, especially without a triumph over the Zags, would move BYU closer to the cutline, and the WCC Tournament can only offer St. Mary’s and Gonzaga as opponents who would really move the needle in the committee’s eyes. The Cougars are in good shape right now, but they have to remain focused and at least take care of the teams they should from here on out. Do that, and they’ll probably be dancing.
ON THE BUBBLE
Cincinnati (AAC): 17-8, NET: 50, SOS: 24, vs. Q1: 2-5
The Bearcats have had an up-and-down year. and it has them squaring on the cutline, teetering on the edge with every passing day. Their computer numbers are fine but nothing that screams they have to be included. Their 2-5 Q1 record is meh, and three losses to Q3 opponents isn’t friendly. But Cincinnati is 8-5 overall against Q1 and Q2 foes, and a home win against Houston (NET 27) and road victory at Wichita State (NET 43), two of the other best teams in the AAC, are important. The team needs some more to make it feel comfortable heading into Selection Sunday, and completing the season sweep over Wichita State would be a great first step in that direction, although overlooking “lesser” competition won’t do Cincinnati much good, either.
Memphis (AAC): 17-8, NET: 59, SOS: 82, vs. Q1: 1-4
With a 64-61 loss at UConn the other day, pushing Memphis’s losing streak to three, the Tigers are barely holding on to their status as a bubble team. It has all gone wrong for Memphis this campaign, with injuries and departures dismantling the roster it expected to have on hand. That doesn’t mean the committee will have any mercy, though, if the Tigers don’t give them something to get excited about. Memphis has only one Q1 win: a 51-47 December victory at Tennessee (NET 65). That is not going to be enough to get into the tournament, plain and simple. The team has three Q1 opponents on the remaining on the schedule as of right now, plus a Q2 home date with Wichita State. The opportunities are there to save the season, but Memphis must act quick.
Wichita State (AAC): 19-6, NET: 43, SOS: 80, vs. Q1: 2-3
Wichita State isn’t as bad off as its other two conference mates who are on the bubble, but no one on the bubble can truly say they feel safe. The Shockers looked like a probable tournament team a few weeks ago, but losses at Temple, at Tulsa, at home against Cincinnati and sweep from Houston in a seven-game span knocked them down a peg. An 8-8 record against Q1 and Q2 opponents is good, and Wichita State hasn’t picked up any anchor losses. But its two Q1 wins are barely good enough to quality as such: at Connecticut (NET 68) and at Oklahoma State (NET 74), two teams that will not be in the NCAA Tournament without miracle conference tournament runs. The Shockers also have home wins against Oklahoma and VCU, but they have to do more to feel safe for Selection Sunday. An upcoming date at Cincinnati on Feb. 23 is a huge one, although at this point, winning any game is a big deal.
Richmond (A-10): 19-6, NET: 46, SOS: 85, vs. Q1: 2-4
The Spiders smashed their intracity rival VCU, 77-59, over the weekend, the latest victory in their present four-game winning streak and receiving the same treatment from the Rams on Jan. 28. Richmond now holds a 4-4 record against Q1 and Q2 competition, a passable NET and 7-2 road record, all things the committee will like to see. Richmond’s best wins are at Rhode Island (NET 32) and neutral against Wisconsin (NET 30), which is better than some bubble teams can say. But is it enough to make the Spiders comfortable? Not even close. At this point, all Richmond can do in the regular season is avoid more bad losses and pick up Q2 road wins. Doing that would really help its cause, but those wins won’t move the needle a tremendous amount. Avoiding anchor losses and how well the Spiders do in the A-10 Tournament is what will determine their postseason fate.
Rhode Island (A-10): 19-6, NET: 32, SOS: 50, vs. Q1: 1-4
URI is one of the more comfortable teams on the bubble, but it is far from safe. The positives of this resume are good computer numbers, a winning record in Q1 and Q2 games (6-5), and a positive road record (6-4). However, Rhode Island lacks any sort of marquee victory, with its best wins coming against fellow bubble teams (Alabama, Providence, VCU, at VCU), and it did lose at Brown (NET 218) on Jan. 2. Still, the Rams have been winning lately, and all you can do is beat the teams in front of you. The committee knows that, but it still wants to see an eye-catching victory. URI will have that chance when Dayton comes to town March 4. Until then, though, the Rams need to take care of business and avoid any unnecessary strikes to their resume.
VCU (A-10): 17-9, NET: 52, SOS: 53, vs. Q1: 0-6
VCU had a tremendous opportunity to salvage its resume Tuesday when Dayton (NET 5) came to town. The Rams were in the game and played well but ultimately fell, 66-61, which won’t do them any good in the eyes of the committee. The team is now 0-6 in Q1 games, and that obviously won’t get it done. VCU has home wins over LSU (NET 31) and Richmond (NET 46), but that’s about it. The Rams are dangerously close to dropping off the bubble, and another loss in their remaining Q2 and Q3 games would probably do it, especially with LSU’s late skid.
North Carolina State (ACC): 16-9, NET: 60, SOS: 91, vs. Q1: 4-3
Last season, NC State’s non-conference SOS was a major part of why it spent March in the NIT. That problem doesn’t exist this season, as the Wolfpack come in at 74 in that metric. But the issue of bad losses still exists, and the team’s NET is not doing it any favors. But what State lacks in those departments, it does have in quality wins. State has a positive record in Q1 games, plus an overall record of 7-6 against Q1 and Q2 competition. Its closest thing to a marquee win is a home victory over Wisconsin (NET 30) back in December, and adding a win in one of its remaining games against Duke and Florida State would do wonders for this resume. It would also be ideal if the Wolfpack could stop losing to bad teams, as three Q3 losses in already enough. Their NET will continue to be held back if they keep dropping games to lesser competition.
Virginia (ACC): 17-7, NET: 54, SOS: 71, vs. Q1: 3-3
First, let’s discusses the pros of this resume: a marquee home victory versus Florida State (NET 13) and an 8-6 record against Q1 and Q2 opponents, two great things the committee will love. Now the negatives: a lackluster NET, a Jan. 7 defeat at Boston College (NET 142) and a non-conference SOS of 168. At the moment, Virginia has enough to feel like it’s on the right side of the cutline, but it’s certainly still possible for it to go the other way. This season, no team should feel absolutely confident about its inclusion in the Big Dance without a top 50 NET, and the Cavs won’t jump up much without the addition of more big wins. Opportunities are available, though, and Virginia will have every chance to prove that it belongs in the NCAA Tournament.
Oklahoma (Big 12): 16-10, NET: 48, SOS: 25, vs. Q1: 2-9
For the last few seasons, Oklahoma men’s basketball has become very adept at playing lots of good teams and losing to most of them. The Sooners have participated in 11 Q1 games and are 2-9 in them. That’s not very good. They are also 2-7 on the road, which is another strike the committee will hate. But Oklahoma has taken care of business in Q2, boasting a 7-1 record in that quadrant for a 9-10 collective record in Q1 and Q2 games. Fortunately the Oklahoma, its best win is a pretty good one: a 69-59 home victory over West Virginia (NET 9). Otherwise, though, it just has victories over fellow bubble hopefuls Minnesota and Mississippi State to offer, and the losses are beginning to pile up. Oklahoma needs to start winning some games to feel good about its NCAA Tournament position. Texas Tech (NET 18) at home next week would be a great start.
Xavier (Big East): 17-9, NET: 39, SOS: 20, vs. Q1: 3-8
Xavier did a great service for its resume by beating Seton Hall (NET 16) on the road Feb. 1, 74-62, giving it one of the best wins it could have earned on its schedule to show the committee it belongs in the Field of 68. That win becomes the headliner in a lineup that includes Georgetown, Cincinnati and Providence, plus two road victories over St. John’s and DePaul that qualify as Q1 wins. The only questionable loss the Musketeers have is a 80-78 defeat at Wake Forest (NET 103) from mid-December, and their numbers are certainly good enough for a bid. Xavier would be wise to take care of business in one or two of its four remaining Q1 opportunities, but for the time being, it can feel relatively good about its tournament chances. That can change with some Ls, though.
Georgetown (Big East): 15-10, NET: 45, SOS: 7, vs. Q1: 5-9
When the Hoyas took down Butler (NET 19) at Hinkle Fieldhouse on Saturday, it completely changed the complexion of its resume. Couple that big victory with Creighton’s recent surge, making Georgetown’s 83-80 home victory over the Bluejays in mid-January look that much better, and things are looking quite positive for the team’s quest for a tournament bid. Georgetown has nine Q1 and Q2 wins, pretty good computer numbers and two wins over some of the best its league has to offer. On top of that, four of its five Q1 wins have come on the road, and the committee will love to see the team’s ability to beat decent teams away from home. There is still more work to be done. Ten losses is a lot to have at this junction. But the skeleton of a resume that comfortably makes it into the Big Dance is there. Georgetown just needs to not let it collapse.
Providence (Big East): 14-12, NET: 58, SOS: 18, vs. Q1: 5-8
Providence has the same resume every season: tons of losses, lots of losses to terrible teams, super difficult SOS, poor NET, but also somehow a lot of high-quality victories. The Friars have home wins over Creighton and Seton Hall and roads ones against Butler and Marquette, really holding their own with the best teams in one of the nation’s best conferences. But they have also lost in three Q3 games, and worst of all, fell 66-65 to Long Beach State (NET 290) on a neutral floor in November. With the amount of Ls Providence currently has, it doesn’t have much room for error from here on out if it wants an at-large bid. But with the amount of fantastic wins on this resume and an NET that could become acceptable with more big wins, Providence has a shot. A long one, but a shot.
Indiana (Big Ten): 16-9, NET: 63, SOS: 52, vs. Q1: 4-7
The Hoosiers are hanging on to four home victories over NET top 30 teams (Florida State, Michigan State, Ohio State, Iowa), which is better than many other bubble teams can say. But they’re 1-6 on the road and have a terrible NET, which is doing a great job of balancing out all the goodwill from the major wins. Indiana needs to win some roads games, and it has three more chances left: at Purdue, at Illinois and at Minnesota. By 2020 Big Ten standards, these are winnable games away from home. The Hoosiers are probably going to have to get at least one of them or otherwise pull off an undefeated home record the rest of the way with a decent Big Ten Tournament run to play their way into an at-large bid. They’re certainly not dead, but they find themselves right on the cutline right now, and every loss drops them closer to the edge.
Minnesota (Big Ten): 12-12, NET: 44, SOS: 27, vs. Q1: 5-10
Let’s be very clear: the committee is not giving a bid to a team with a .500 overall record. If Texas couldn’t get a bid last season with its resume and .500 record, then it won’t happen. That immediately disqualifies the Gophers from the NCAA Tournament at the moment, but they have plenty of good on this resume that makes it salvageable. Minnesota has five Q1 wins, including a season sweep of Ohio State and home wins against Penn State, Michigan and Wisconsin. But the team is 1-8 on the road and has a non-conference SOS of 128. Still, the NET is pretty good considering the record, and it means that a string of wins would jump it right back into the 30s, which would be huge. Bad losses have to be avoided, and picking up at least two more road wins would do a lot for this resume. But first and foremost, Minnesota needs to be a few games over .500 to feel like it can rest easy at all.
Purdue (Big Ten): 14-13, NET: 33, SOS: 63, vs. Q1: 4-10
Like the other Big Ten bubble teams, Purdue has wins over some very quality competition, and those victories are keeping it in the discussion for an at-large bid. However, a 3-8 road record is holding it back, and 13 losses in quite lot at this stage of the season. The computer numbers are decent, especially the NET, and wins against so many teams garnering tournament consideration – Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, at Indiana, Minnesota, vs. VCU, Virginia – is why Purdue is still teetering along the cutline with a 14-13 record. But like Minnesota, the Boilermakers are going to have to win some games, any games, to improve that record for the committee to consider them seriously when Selection Sunday rolls around. All four of the team’s remaining regular season games are Q1 or Q2 games. Purdue needs wins in as many as it can possibly get.
Northern Iowa (MVC): 20-4, NET: 40, SOS: 96, vs. Q1: 1-1
If UNI had won at Loyola Chicago over the weekend, it would have taken a huge step in stepping off the bubble and into comfortable territory for an at-large bid. Instead, the Panthers fell, 82-73, and remain on the bubble. The team has a road win at Colorado (NET 12) as its main proof that it belongs on the national stage, and it’s a pretty convincing argument. It also boasts a 4-2 record in Q1 and Q2 games, a 7-3 road mark and decent computer numbers. If Northern Iowa were to win out until the MVC Tournament Final, it would probably get an at-large bid anyway. The problem, though, is the MVC offers ample anchor loss opportunities, and should UNI add more than the two it already has, it could create some issues. Three of its final four regular season games are Q3 and Q4 matchups, and a loss in any of those would add a lot of pressure to win the conference tournament.
Utah State (MWC): 19-7, NET: 41, SOS: 95, vs. Q1: 2-4
Utah State wasn’t expected to be in this position, but considering where it was several weeks ago, being on the bubble is an improvement. The Aggies have neutral court wins over LSU and Florida, which are the main thing keep them alive for an at-large bid. They have a few road MWC losses that aren’t helping – at Boise State (NET 95), at UNLV (NET 122) and Q3-loss at Air Force (NET 209) – and although their computer numbers are fine, they’re not going to be the reason the committee includes them. With both meetings with San Diego State gone and wasted, Utah State only has opportunities for anchor losses left. It needs to win out in the regular season and likely make a run to the Mountain West Tournament Final to keep its bubble hopes alive, although with help around the rest of the bubble, it could maybe absorb one more loss soon and get in assuming LSU and Florida turn it on.
Stanford (Pac-12): 16-9, NET: 37, SOS: 93, vs. Q1: 2-5
What Stanford has going for it is a Feb. 1 home win over Oregon (NET 20), a neutral victory against Oklahoma (NET 48) back in November and a relatively good NET. What it doesn’t have going for it is pretty much everything else. A 2-5 mark against Q1 competition and a combined record of 4-8 in Q1 and Q2 games is bad, especially for a power-conference team. Road losses at Utah (NET 83) and California (NET 155) and a home defeat to Oregon State (NET 72), none of which will probably be in the NCAA Tournament without a conference tournament title, are bad. A non-conference SOS of 205 is bad. The Cardinal have four Q1 games left, so chances to play their way into the Field of 68 exist. Anchor losses must be avoided, too, though, as keeping the NET high is going to be crucial. Stanford’s season stands on a knife’s edge right now.
USC (Pac-12): 19-7, NET: 47, SOS: 69, vs. Q1: 2-6
USC is better off than a majority of the rest of the bubble. A 2-6 mark against Q1 opponents isn’t great, but USC is 17-1 in all other games, including a perfect 6-0 in Q2 games, and the Trojans have a positive road record (5-4) to boot. But a non-conference SOS of 139, a lack of high-end wins and a merely passable NET make USC vulnerable to falling off if some losses pile up. Three of the team’s final five regular season games against about tournament-caliber competition, and how USC does in those games will do a lot for turning it into a lock or question mark for Selection Sunday.
Arizona State (Pac-12): 17-8, NET: 49, SOS: 23, vs. Q1: 4-6
The Sun Devils have played they way into the at-large conversation the last couple of weeks with a five-game winning streak that includes triumphs over fellow bubble teams USC and Stanford. Arizona State now has four Q1 wins, a 7-8 record in Q1 and Q2 games, a marquee win over Arizona (NET 8) and a 6-3 road record, four of such victories coming in the top two quadrants. The team has totally turned its season around on this run and is looking good for a bid at the moment. That could change if fortunes change, but the Sun Devils are heading in the right direction.
Florida (SEC): 17-9, NET: 35, SOS: 40, vs. Q1: 3-6
The Gators were supposed to be one of the best teams in the country this year. Instead, they’re on the bubble in mid-February. Such is life in college basketball. At least their tournament outlook looks positive at the moment, with victories against Auburn, Xavier, Alabama, Arkansas, Providence and South Carolina helping give Florida a resume that’s likely on the right side of the cutline for the time being. Per usual, Florida’s computer numbers are solid, but also per usual, it has piled up too many losses to feel like a definite participant in the 2020 NCAA Tournament. The Gators have five Q1 or Q2 games remaining. With a win in either of its two matchups left with Kentucky, they could move themselves off the bubble, assuming no bad losses are added otherwise. But more Ls will keep Florida down near the cutline.
Tennessee (SEC): 15-11, NET: 65, SOS: 45, vs. Q1: 1-7
Tennessee is holding on for dear life, but it probably won’t get an at-large bid without a serious turnaround before the end of the regular season. Right now, all it has going for it is decent SOS numbers, a road win at Alabama (NET 38) as its best win, and other notable victories over Arkansas, VCU and South Carolina. No marquee win and a bad NET means Tennessee is on the outside looking in, and unless both of those things change, that’s how it will remain.
Alabama (SEC): 14-11, NET: 38, SOS: 6, vs. Q1: 1-6
The Crimson Tide have come so close to a marquee road victory more than once, but they haven’t been able to get it done. Instead, a Jan. 15 home victory over rival Auburn (NET 25) is their big win, with triumphs against LSU, Richmond, Mississippi State and Furman as the other worthwhile Ws. The issue, though, is those were all at home, and Alabama is 3-6 on the road. The computer numbers are very good, and those help a lot, but 11 losses don’t. Alabama’s only remaining Q1 game in the regular season is at Mississippi State (NET 53) this coming Tuesday, so it will either need to racking up a lot of middling wins or tread water the rest of the way out and add a major win or two in the SEC Tournament in order to get in. Adding any more anchor losses to the resume would be extremely painful.
Mississippi State (SEC): 16-9, NET: 53, SOS: 56, vs. Q1: 2-6
Mississippi State has road wins at Florida and at Arkansas keeping it afloat in the bubble conversation, plus home victories against the Raxorbacks and Tennessee, too. That’s about it, though. Its computer numbers are meh, it doesn’t have any real marquee W, it has two anchor losses to Louisiana Tech (NET 93) and New Mexico State (NET 127) and a losing road record (3-5). There is nothing on this resume that says the Bulldogs should dance, although the framework of a workable resume is there. Right now, Mississippi State has a chance, but that chance is slipping by the day unless they add some more quality wins to their report card.
Arkansas (SEC): 16-10, NET: 51, SOS: 15, vs. Q1: 2-6
How to tank a resume in two weeks, written and preformed by the Arkansas Razorbacks. Arkansas looked like a tournament team when the month began, but a five-game losing streak has struck since, and now its resume is a shell of its former self. The Hogs have road wins at Alabama and at Indiana to be proud of, and that’s great. But it’s 4-10 mark against Q1 and Q2 competition isn’t. Their non-conference SOS of 11 is something the committee will respect a lot, but without big-time wins, stuff like that doesn’t matter much. Four of of the team’s five remaining games are currently Q2 matchups, with one Q3 game in the mix. The Hogs will have to wait until the SEC Tournament to add a statement win to their resume. Until then, though, they could do a lot of good by winning games they should and making knocking off LSU when it comes to town March 4.
South Carolina (SEC): 16-9, NET: 62, SOS: 72, vs. Q1: 3-5
The Gamecocks have inched their way onto the bubble with an 8-2 record since Jan. 15 when they toppled Kentucky (NET 22), 81-78, at home. That win is still their best, with road victories at Arkansas, Virginia and Clemson complimenting it. In all, South Carolina is 7-7 in Q1 and Q2 games combined, and that’s better than many other bubble teams can say, not to mention a 6-3 road record. However, its NET is pretty poor, and its other computer numbers aren’t much to get excited about either. Home non-conference losses to Boston U (NET 150) and Stetson (NET 288) are painful as well. But the skeleton for a tournament-worthy resume is there, and South Carolina has tons of opportunities remaining in the regular season to convince the committee.
ETSU (SoCon): 20-4, NET: 42, SOS: 158, vs. Q1: 2-2
ETSU is in the difficult spot that many mid-majors and small-majors have been in before it. If the season were to end right now, there’s a good shot this team would have an at-large bid. It would be close, but definitely possible. But ETSU still has a little more of the regular season and a conference tournament left to play. The SoCon is pretty decent for its size, but any upsets from teams outside of the league’s very top would do seriously harm to this resume. However, ETSU does still have a home date with Furman (NET 71) remaining, which is a Q2 game. Defeating the Paladins would really help prove to the committee that this team is the best in its league, and it would go on its mantle along with a road win at LSU and a season sweep of UNCG. Still, the Buccaneers will probably need to make it to the final of the SoCon Tournament to have a shot at an at-large bid, and their opponent would need to be UNCG or Furman so the theoretical loss wouldn’t sting as bad as it could.
UNCG (SoCon): 19-6, NET: 55, SOS: 127, vs. Q1: 2-2
Georgetown’s recent rise has been a major help to UNCG, who defeated the Hoyas on the road, 65-61, back in November. That’s the marquee win the Spartans have to show the committee they belong, plus road victories at Furman and Vermont, giving them a 4-4 mark in Q1 and Q2 games. But losing both games to ETSU, the top team in its league, is going to harm UNCG in the eyes of the committee, plus two anchor losses at Wofford (NET 165) and at home to Montana State (NET 217) hurt. Three of the team’s final four regular season games are against Q3 or Q4 competition, and losses in any of them would probably kill its at-large hopes. The other showdown is a home date with Furman, a shot at a Q2 victory. A win there would really help UNCG, although at this point, it’s looking like winning the SoCon Tournament is probably the path forward for the Spartans.
St. Mary’s (WCC): 20-6, NET: 36, SOS: 70, vs. Q1: 3-3
Is St, Mary’s in serious jeopardy of missing the NCAA Tournament at this time? No, not really. A top 40 NET, wins over BYU, Wisconsin, Arizona State and Utah State help give it a 6-4 record versus Q1 and Q2 competition, and its 5-2 road record is a bonus. But the reason I haven’t moved them off the bubble is simple: the WCC offers a lot of pitfalls. The Gaels play at arch rival Gonzaga (NET 3) on Feb. 29, but otherwise, all of its remaining games would bring more pain in a loss than positivity in a win. St. Mary’s doesn’t need to beat Gonzaga to get in, although a win would lock it up. As long as it avoids adding any more anchor losses in the next couple of weeks, it won’t find itself on the bubble any longer. But until then, I’ll remain cautious.
BUBBLE BURSTING
Tulsa (AAC): 17-8, NET: 82, SOS: 186, vs. Q1: 2-2
SMU (AAC): 18-6, NET: 67, SOS: 169, vs. Q1: 2-2
Duquesne (A-10): 18-6, NET: 90, SOS: 174, vs. Q1: 0-2
Saint Louis (A-10): 17-8, NET: 78, SOS: 87, vs. Q1: 1-4
Notre Dame (ACC): 16-10, NET: 61, SOS: 128, vs. Q1: 1-6
Clemson (ACC): 13-12, NET: 79, SOS: 37, vs. Q1: 2-6
Virginia Tech (ACC): 15-10, NET: 75, SOS: 153, vs. Q1: 2-5
Syracuse (ACC): 14-11, NET: 64, SOS: 47, vs. Q1: 3-5
Liberty (A-Sun): 22-3, NET: 56, SOS: 313, vs. Q1: 0-1
Texas (Big 12): 14-11, NET: 84, SOS: 30, vs. Q1: 2-9
St. John’s (Big East): 14-12, NET: 66, SOS: 67, vs. Q1: 3-9
Oregon State (Pac-12): 15-10, NET: 72, SOS: 124, vs. Q1: 4-3
Furman (SoCon): 19-5, NET: 71, SOS: 178, vs. Q1: 0-2
Stephen F. Austin (Southland): 19-3, NET: 87, SOS: 333, vs. Q1: 1-2
