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 Selection Sunday morning on March 17th, 2019:
LOCKS
* = auto bid
Houston (AAC): 31-2, NET: 4, SOS: 40, vs. Q1: 5-2
Cincinnati (AAC): 27-6, NET: 26, SOS: 45, vs. Q1: 4-4
UCF (AAC): 23-8, NET: 27, SOS: 25, vs. Q1: 2-4
VCU (A-10): 25-7, NET: 31, SOS: 38, vs. Q1: 3-2
Virginia (ACC): 29-3, NET: 1, SOS: 30, vs. Q1: 12-3
*Duke (ACC): 29-5, NET: 3, SOS: 3, vs. Q1: 11-4
North Carolina (ACC): 27-6, NET: 7, SOS: 4, vs. Q1: 10-6
Florida State (ACC): 27-7, NET: 19, SOS: 37, vs. Q1: 8-5
Virginia Tech (ACC): 24-8, NET: 11, SOS: 46, vs. Q1: 4-8
Louisville (ACC): 20-13, NET: 22, SOS: 2, vs. Q1: 4-11
Syracuse (ACC): 20-13, NET: 44, SOS: 9, vs. Q1: 3-9
Kansas (Big 12): 25-9, NET: 21, SOS: 1, vs. Q1: 11-8
Texas Tech (Big 12): 26-6, NET: 10, SOS: 61, vs. Q1: 7-5
Kansas State (Big 12): 25-8, NET: 24, SOS: 39, vs. Q1: 8-5
*Iowa State (Big 12): 23-11, NET: 23, SOS: 32, vs. Q1: 8-7
Marquette (Big East): 24-9, NET: 28, SOS: 29, vs. Q1: 10-5
*Villanova (Big East): 25-9, NET: 25, SOS: 13, vs. Q1: 5-6
Seton Hall (Big East): 20-13, NET: 59, SOS: 34, vs. Q1: 7-8
Michigan (Big Ten): 28-5, NET: 9, SOS: 55, vs. Q1: 9-5
Michigan State (Big Ten): 27-6, NET: 8, SOS: 24, vs. Q1: 12-4
Purdue (Big Ten): 23-9, NET: 12, SOS: 15, vs. Q1: 7-7
Wisconsin (Big Ten): 23-10, NET: 16, SOS: 21, vs. Q1: 9-8
Maryland (Big Ten): 22-10, NET: 29, SOS: 10, vs. Q1: 6-8
Iowa (Big Ten): 22-11, NET: 41, SOS: 97, vs. Q1: 4-10
Minnesota (Big Ten): 21-13, NET: 57, SOS: 49, vs. Q1: 5-10
*Buffalo (MAC): 31-3, NET: 15, SOS: 87, vs. Q1: 2-1
Nevada (MWC): 29-4, NET: 18, SOS: 113, vs. Q1: 2-1
*Utah State (MWC): 27-6, NET: 30, SOS: 106, vs. Q1: 4-2
*Murray State (OVC): 27-4, NET: 45, SOS: 215, vs. Q1: 1-2
Washington (Pac-12): 26-8, NET: 40, SOS: 59, vs. Q1: 2-4
*Oregon (Pac-12): 23-12, NET: 56, SOS: 72, vs. Q1: 3-5
Tennessee (SEC): 29-4, NET: 6, SOS: 65, vs. Q1: 9-4
Kentucky (SEC): 27-6, NET: 5, SOS: 12, vs. Q1: 10-5
LSU (SEC): 26-6, NET: 14, SOS: 20, vs. Q1: 9-3
Mississippi State (SEC): 23-10, NET: 20, SOS: 11, vs. Q1: 8-7
Auburn (SEC): 25-9, NET: 17, SOS: 19, vs. Q1: 4-7
Ole Miss (SEC): 20-12, NET: 36, SOS: 74, vs. Q1: 4-10
Florida (SEC): 19-15, NET: 32, SOS: 42, vs. Q1: 4-12
*Wofford (SoCon): 29-4, NET: 13, SOS: 111, vs. Q1: 3-4
Gonzaga (WCC): 30-3, NET: 2, SOS: 47, vs. Q1: 4-3
*St. Mary’s (WCC): 22-11, NET: 34, SOS: 17, vs. Q1: 2-6
SHOULD BE IN
Oklahoma (Big 12): 19-13, NET: 38, SOS: 23, vs. Q1: 4-10
Are the Sooners in serious trouble of missing the tournament? Not really. The numbers are solid and there are enough good wins here with this soft bubble. There have been some bid stealers, though, and while it likely hasn’t been enough to squeeze Oklahoma out, it has pushed it closer to the cutline than a week ago.
Baylor (Big 12): 19-13, NET: 39, SOS: 31, vs. Q1: 4-9
Baylor could have locked itself up, but it got blown out in its first Big 12 Tournament game against Iowa State, 83-66. Now, the Bears are in the same position as Oklahoma. Are they in really in jeopardy of missing the tournament? Not really. Do they no longer control their destiny? Unfortunately for their sake, yes.
OVER THE BUBBLE
None
ON THE BUBBLE
Temple (AAC): 23-9, NET: 51, SOS: 78, vs. Q1: 2-6
A win over Wichita State in its opening AAC Tournament game was likely the only thing Temple needed to do to get into the tournament. But that was too tall a task for the Owls, who fell 80-74 to the Shockers to leave themselves squarely on the edge. All Temple can do is sit at home and pray the bubble doesn’t shrink enough to remove it from the field. There have been even more bid stealers since the Owls lost to Wichita State. In no way can Temple be feeling comfortable.
Clemson (ACC): 19-13, NET: 35, SOS: 33, vs. Q1: 1-10
Shouldn’t have lost to NC State. Also shouldn’t have lost nine other Q1 games. The NET is bid worthy, and there’s no bad losses here, but there’s also only one good win: a home one against Virginia Tech from weeks ago. Wave hello to the NIT, Clemson.
North Carolina State (ACC): 22-11, NET: 33, SOS: 171, vs. Q1: 3-9
For years now, the committee has made an example of bubble teams right on the edge with horrendous non-conference schedule of schedules. NC State’s non-conference SOS is 353, which is quite literally the worst it could possibly be. You have to go out of your way as a power-conference team to make a non-conference that bad. If the Wolfpack had beat Virginia in the ACC Quarterfinals, it probably would have been enough to make up for it. Instead, they got blasted, 76-56, and only have three Q1 wins and solid NET to show the committee. State is going to be right on the edge, but with bid stealers and other bubble teams probably winning a few games in their conference tournaments, there’s a good chance it scheduled itself out of a bid.
TCU (Big 12): 20-13, NET: 50, SOS: 35, vs. Q1: 3-9
TCU lost to Kansas State, 70-61, in a game it controlled for a large portion. That’s been TCU’s M.O., though, leading in games and blowing them at some point in the second half. Sometimes, it has been able to hold on, but against better teams like Kansas State, the leads have mostly been blown. The Horned Frogs aren’t dead, with okay numbers, a 10-14 record against Q1 and Q2 opponents and no bad losses. But now they have to sit at home and watch bid stealers and bubble teams squeeze them down the S-Curve and potentially out of the field. TCU has absolutely not done enough to feel safe on Sunday.
Texas (Big 12): 16-16, NET: 37, SOS: 5, vs. Q1: 5-10
How to blow a bid in 30 days. When Texas beat Oklahoma State on Feb. 16, it was 15-11 and looked solid for a tournament bid, with a pretty good resume relative to this weak bubble. The Longhorns proceeded to win one more game in six tries and have played themselves into a .500 record and 16 losses, which would both set records if this resume got an at-large bid. If Texas had won just one of those games, it could have been enough with the quality wins and great numbers, but it didn’t. Instead, it’s probably going to be on the outside looking in, lamenting on what could have very feasibly been.
Creighton (Big East): 18-14, NET: 52, SOS: 14, vs. Q1: 3-10
With the loss to Xavier in its first Big East Tournament game, I could have moved Creighton down to bubble bursting. It’s not going to happen for the Bluejays. There isn’t enough meat on this resume to supplant other bubble teams without a conference tournament run, and obviously that’s not happening. I keep Creighton in this category just because the resume is good enough to be one of the first several teams out, but it shouldn’t go into Sunday with much hope. You’ll be in the NIT with Clemson.
St. John’s (Big East): 21-12, NET: 72, SOS: 67, vs. Q1: 5-7
St. John’s has done an excellent job of putting itself in the same position it was in before it beat Villanova, 71-65, at home Feb. 17. After getting walloped 86-54 by Marquette in the Big East Tournament Quarterfinals and losing multiple games to non-tournament teams before the end of the regular season, the Red Storm have tanked their NET and added some extra bad losses to their resume. A bad non-conference SOS of 217 isn’t going to do them any favors, either. They’re probably in as of right now because of the number of quality wins they possess, but they could very reasonably have been jumped and squeezed out by all the bid stealers and bubble chaos this week. If they had won just one of the games they lost since mid-February, things would probably be different. But I suppose that’s why this team is on the bubble.
Indiana (Big Ten): 17-15, NET: 53, SOS: 52, vs. Q1: 6-9
The Hoosiers lost to Ohio State in their first Big Ten Tournament game, which obviously hurts their at-large chances. However, other bubble teams have slipped up, too, and Indiana is still very much in contention for a bid. Only 15 teams in the country have more Q1 wins than Indiana right now, and that’s something the committee will love, and no bad losses and acceptable numbers are helpful, too. But a non-conference SOS of 212, a total record of 8-15 against Q1 and Q2 competition, 3-9 road record and 15 losses are also eye sores. It’s going to be a close one for the Hoosiers.
Ohio State (Big Ten): 19-14, NET: 55, SOS: 56, vs. Q1: 4-10
The win over Indiana was massive, and it puts Ohio State in solid position for a bid. The loss to Michigan State in its next Big Ten Tournament game still leaves the Buckeyes vulnerable to bid stealing. The committee is going to like how much better the team looked with Kaleb Wesson compared to during the three games he was suspended. It looks better in Columbus now than two days ago, but there’s still cause for concern.
Belmont (OVC): 26-5, NET: 46, SOS: 196, vs. Q1: 2-2
Belmont is rooting for all favorites in conference tournaments and against all other bubble teams. Some good things happened, like Alabama only getting one win in the SEC Tournament, Temple bowing out to Wichita State, the winner of Ohio State-Indiana losing to Michigan State and other bubble losses. But there were so many bid stealers this week, further moving teams like Belmont that haven’t played in days down the S-Curve. Take into account that the committee is notorious for not giving mid-majors the benefit of the doubt, and it’s probably going to be the NIT with Creighton and Clemson for Belmont.
Arizona State (Pac-12): 22-10, NET: 63, SOS: 69, vs. Q1: 3-3
While much of the rest of the bubble has been tripping over itself the last couple of weeks, Arizona State has been chugging along, beating the teams it should and inching itself closer to safety as a result. But the Sun Devils slipped up in the Pac-12 Semifinals to a red-hot Oregon, 79-75, and now leave their fate up to bid stealers. Arizona State has steadily moved itself further away from the cutline with its recent success, but the inconsistency holds it in this category.
Alabama (SEC): 18-14, NET: 58, SOS: 22, vs. Q1: 3-9
Alabama got the win it had to have against Ole Miss in the second round of the SEC Tournament to put itself back in serious discussion for a bid. But it couldn’t get it done a second time, falling 73-55 to Kentucky in the SEC Quarterfinals, submitting the final draft of its season resume. It’s not going to be enough for Crimson Tide to feel safe, that’s for sure. Bid stealers are out in full force this year, and there’s so many faults on this resume. The team is still alive, but it looks less likely with ever tournament favorite getting bounced early.
BUBBLE BURSTING
Lipscomb (A-Sun): 25-7, NET: 48, SOS: 213, vs. Q1: 2-3
Georgetown (Big East): 19-13, NET: 82, SOS: 81, vs. Q1: 5-6
UNC Greensboro (SoCon): 28-6, NET: 60, SOS: 104, vs. Q1: 2-6
Furman (SoCon): 25-7, NET: 42, SOS: 188, vs. Q1: 1-5
