+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: How many AAC teams will play in the NCAA tourney? (/thread-918266.html)
How many AAC teams will play in the NCAA tourney? - jedclampett - 03-09-2021 12:11 PM
.
Now, with SMU and Wichita having been knocked out of the AAC tourney, how many teams could there possibly be in the NCAA tournament?
Believe it or not, even one day before Selection Sunday the answer could still range anywhere between 1 and 4. Why?
1. Houston is a lock.
2. If any team but Houston wins the AAC tourney championship, there will be at least 2 conference teams in the NCAA.
3. Wichita State is the regular season champion, and was considered fairly safe coming into the Cincy game, and it's possible that they could hang on even if they do drop down to a 12 seed.
---Why? Because there just aren't many bid-stealers this year, and most of the other contenders also got knocked out of their conference tournaments.
4. If Memphis were to beat Houston today, they might be able to grab an open 12 seed and hang on to it even if they lose the AAC tourney championship game.
---It doesn't seem at all likely that the committee would permit the AAC to receive 4 NCAA bids (if Cincy were to win the AAC tourney on Sunday), but it may be an extremely remote possibility).
---It may be more likely that the conference would have only one team than that it would have four, but the most likely might outcome might be two AAC teams, even if Houston doesn't win the championship.
Houston and Wichita is possible if Houston wins the AAC tournament.
Houston and Memphis is possible if Memphis beats Houston and wins the AAC tournament.
Cincy, Houston, and Memphis or Cincy, Houston, and Wichita St. would become a possibility if either Memphis or Cincy were to beat Houston.
Houston and Cincy is possible if Cincy beats Houston in the championship game.
If Houston wins the AAC tournament, the committee might lean toward granting Wichita State a bid, because the conference is good enough as a Major 7 to receive at least two bids.
--In part, it's due to the fact that the Shockers did win the AAC regular season championship.
--
3.
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - jedclampett - 03-09-2021 02:15 PM
.
Yet, and still, there are some writers out there who think that the NET is going to have a significant effect on the selection committee:
NCAA tournament bracketology: NET rating offers clues to how committee will sort bubble teams
By Patrick Stevens
March 5, 2021 at 12:39 p.m. EST
EXCERPTS:
"To size up the edge of the NCAA tournament field at the moment, let’s take a quick look back at 2019. In addition to being safely nestled in the Before Times when there was little reason for most people to perceive themselves as amateur epidemiologists, it was also the debut season of the NCAA’s new basketball metric.
That, of course, was the NET. The replacement for the RPI and the mildly charming acronym for the blandly named NCAA Evaluation Tool, the NET was designed to be exactly what its moniker suggests.
March Madness begins where it ended last year, with fingers crossed at conference tournaments
And how were teams at the edge of the field evaluated? Well, the four teams shipped to Dayton that year finished at .500 or better against the top two tiers of opponents (Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2). The eight teams that were the top seeds in the NIT were under .500.
Coincidence? Possibly. One year doesn’t make a trend, but those are decisions with a certain logic to them. Good teams — tournament-worthy teams — are probably going to win at least as much as they lose in their best games. Or at least they should."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/03/05/ncaa-tournament-bracketology-net-rating/
.
Oddly, however, while he mentions the NET in the headline of the article, by far his main focus is on how the teams performed in the quadrants 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Since we don't have the NET formula, we have no way of knowing how muc of an impact the Q1/Q2 W-L % affects the NET rankings, but there are many indications that they don't have a huge effect on the NET rankings, themselves.
Rather than the quadrants influencing the NET, it seems more likely that the teams' performances in each quadrant are going to be used as supplemental data by the selection committee.
But, since the Q1/Q2 etc. is the one thing that is transparent about the newer procedures, the question still remains - - since we're all using the Q1/Q2 information, which ranking system should we be using alongside it to guess what the selection committee is going to do?
...and on that point, the bracket matrix still seems to come out ahead...
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - jedclampett - 03-09-2021 07:12 PM
Looking at the number of at-large teams there were in the 2018 and 2019 NCAA tournaments, all of the 12 seeds and two of the 11 seeds, each season, ended up going to teams that won their conference tournaments.
The result was that there was only enough room in the field for 44 at-large teams and conference champions from the top 9 or 10 conferences, rather than for 48 such teams.
If that happens again this season, based on the way things stand in the bracketmatrix.com rankings right now, these four teams would be bumped out of the NCAA and into the NIT:
(47) Drake, (50) Colorado State, (43) Boise St., & (57) Xavier
(NET rankings in parentheses)
.
That would mean that these four teams would play each other in the "first four" NCAA games:
(64) Wichita State vs. (51) Louisville & (38) Georgia Tech vs. (65) Michigan State
.
The NIT #1 seeds would be: (47) Drake, (50) CSU, (43) Boise St., & (57) Xavier
The NIT #2 seeds would be: (49)Syracuse, (53)Mississippi, (48)Utah St., & (45)St. Louis
The NIT #3 seeds would be: (58)Seton Hall, (54)SMU, (52)Memphis, & (67)St. Mary's
The NIT #4 seeds would be: (68)St. John's, (71)Richmond, (60)Duke, & (61)IU/(40)PSU
.
# NCAA teams from each conference:
ACC: 7 teams (+1 NIT)
Big Ten: 9 teams (+1 NIT)
Big 12: 7 teams (+1 NIT)
SEC: 6 teams (+1 NIT)
PAC 12: 4 teams (+1 NIT)
.............................Total "A5" NCAA at-large teams: 28 teams
BEC: 3 teams (+3 NIT)
AAC: 2 teams (+2 NIT)
A-10: 2 teams (+2 NIT)
WCC: 2 teams (+1 NIT)
MWC: 1 team (+3 NIT)
.............................Total non-A5 NCAA at-large teams: 5 teams*
*Two at-large teams will be eliminated in the first four games, and there would be either 4 or 5 non A-5 teams in the tournament at the beginning of the first full round.
.
The NCAA tournament would have - from the beginning of the first full round - 26 or 27 "A5" at-large teams and 4 or 5 non-A5 at-large teams.
In contrast, there would be twice as many non-A5 than A5 teams in the NIT. Most of the action for the A5 teams would be in the NCAA, while most of the action for the non-A5 teams would be in the NIT.
.
Caveat: This is just what the bracket matrix predicts, so it only provides one possible scenario, but things could possibly work out this way.
.
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - jedclampett - 03-09-2021 08:06 PM
NET ranks and Q1/Q2 records (Non-A5 teams are highlighted):
Teams that have won 3 times as many games as they have lost, overall, are bolded, and teams with Q1/Q2 W-L records below .400 or .600+ are bolded.
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2 record.......Team:..............Projected seed:
33 (14-12)..........6-8 (.429).......Oklahoma....................6
36 (16-6)..........10-6 (.625).......Clemson......................6
45 (15-8)...........9-8 (.529)........Missouri.......................7
32 (19-5)...........10-3(.769).......Oregon........................7
26 (16-11)..........9-11(.450)......Wisconsin.....................7
21 (19-4)............6-4 (.600)......San Diego St.................8
29 (13-8)............8-9 (.471)......Florida..........................8
28 (16-8)...........7-8 (.467).......LSU..............................8
10 (22-4)...........6-4 (.600).......Loyola...........................8
42 (15-5)...........5-5 (.500).......Virginia Tech..................9
31 (14-6)............6-6 (.500)......Connecticut....................9
37 (14-10).........9-10 (.473)......Rutgers.........................9
27 (15-4)...........6-3 (.667).......St.Bonaventure...............9
39 (16-9)...........9-8 (.529).......UNC.............................10
41 (17-8)...........5-8 (.385).......UCLA...........................10
34 (14-9)...........6-12 (.333).....Maryland.......................10
51 (13-6)...........7-5 (.583).......Louisville.......................11
38 (15-8)...........8-6 (.571).......Georgia Tech.................11
65 (15-11).........9-11(.450).......Michigan St...................11
64 (13-4)...........4-4 (.500).......Wichita St.......................11
47 (23-4)...........6-2 (.750).......Drake............................12
50 (16-5)............3-5 (.375)......Colorado St....................12
43 (17-7)............4-6 (.400).......Boise St........................12
57 (13-7)............6-7 (.462).......Xavier..........................12
35 (19-6)............9-4 (.692).......VCU.............................12
......................................................................................................
Have you noticed the patterns in the data? If not, here's a summary:
1. Seven of the projected nine 6, 7, and 8 seeds are A5 teams, while all of the 6 teams with the lowest seedings are non-A5 teams.
2. Seven of the non-A5 teams, but only 2 of the A5 teams have won 3 times as many games as they've lost. This is generally attributed to playing a less strenuous schedule, but note that the non-A5 teams have tended to win a similar % of their Q1 and Q2 games, as compared with the A5 teams.
3. The Q1/Q2 W-L percentages for the A5 and non-A5 teams are quite comparable in most respects, as are their NET rankings. In these respects, the A5 and non-A5 teams appear to be drawn from the same basic population of D1 basketball schools. That is to say, there is nothing in these data that suggests that the A5 and non-A5 teams are drawn from fundamentally different (i.e., more or less talented or skilleld) populations of college basketball teams.
---In scientific terms, the statistically conservative "null hypothesis" that there is no fundamental difference in the Q1/Q2 or NET data in the table appears to be supported by the evidence presented.
4. However, there are some striking anomalies, or "puzzlements" in the data:
---For example, Michigan St. is listed as a likely 11 seed in the bracket matrix, but MSU's NET rank (#65) and its Q1/Q2 winning ratio/% (.450) are considerably lower than those of Drake (#47; .750) and VCU (#35; .692), which are listed as being likely 12 seeds.
---Moreover, MSU's NET rank is the lowest in the projected NCAA tournament field. These mismatches in the data make MSU stick out in the data as a kind of statistical outlier. WSU would also seem to, at first blush - due to their #64 NET - but WSU has won a much higher percentage of their games, overall, and CBS' bracketologist has stated that Wichita State's Strength of Schedule is strong enough, in his view to merit moving them up to a 9 seed.
5. Apparent 10 seeds Maryland and UCLA also stick out like a sore thumb in the table due to their sub-.400 Q1/Q2 winning percentages, which are the lowest in the table. Most of us had assumed that a team's NET ranking would be very adversely affected by a poor winning percentage in Q1 and Q2 games, but the fact that Maryland and UCLA have NET rankings of 34 and 41 suggests that Q1 and Q2 winning % may have little, if any direct bearing on NET rankings. These data suggest the possibility that Q1/Q2 winning percentage may be statistically orthogonal (i.e., independent).
---Since we don't have any information about the NET formulae and procedures, we have no way of knowing how it is possible for a team with a sub-.390 Q1/Q2 record to have a NET rank of 34 or 41 and a probable 10 seed, while there is a team with a Q1/Q2 winning ~ near .700 that is apparently the 12 seed that is most likely to be dropped from the tournament field.
6. Perhaps the largest anomaly or puzzlement in the data is this:
When one considers the fact that the data from the A5 and non-A5 teams in the table are much more similar than they are different in all other respects, it's very difficult to explain why the 6 teams with the lowest projected seedings are all non-A5 teams.
A strong case could be made that at least two of the non-A5 teams toward the bottom of the table (Drake and VCU) should be in the NCAA tournament field, and that Michigan State in particular should not be, unless they're able to make up for lost ground in the Big Ten Tournament.
.
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - quo vadis - 03-10-2021 09:16 AM
I think Houston (of course), WSU and Memphis all get in to the big dance.
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - TripleA - 03-10-2021 10:48 AM
(03-10-2021 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I think Houston (of course), WSU and Memphis all get in to the big dance.
I say UH and probably one of WSU or Memphis, but not both. Memphis has to beat UH to get in, and likely has to win it all (can't afford a subsequent loss to WSU or SMU), which means WSU would have to lose again to Memphis or earlier.
WSU can get in by beating SMU and not getting blown out by Houston, but they likely can't afford to take a loss to Memphis, being that close to the bubble themselves, and with the NET they currently have.
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - jedclampett - 03-10-2021 11:43 PM
.
UPDATE: VCU has moved up several spots in a number of bracketologies rankings, and is now a 10 seed at bracketmatrix.com.
It's great to see their accomplishments being recognized. It would have been a real injustice for them to have ended up in the first four or the NIT.
.
A number of important developments this week are likely to play a role in determining how many AAC teams make it into the NCAA tournament.
First, the positive developments:
1. Louisville lost their first round ACC game to Duke, and this has resulted in a 5 point drop in their NET ranking (from 52 to 57). Now they will need some good breaks (such as some key teams losing their 1st round Big Ten games) to get a NCAA bid.
2. Xavier lost their first round Big East game to 10-14 Butler, resulting in a 4 drop in their NET ranking (from 58 to 62). They were already considered a marginal team and are now considered unlikely to get a NCAA bid.
3. Maryland will play MSU in the first round of the Big Ten tourney, and the loser of this game may be knocked out of the NCAA by rising bubble teams (see below).
4. St. Louis (14-6; NET #45), #4 on the list of "other at-larges" at bracketmatrix.com, lost the A-10 semi-finals game with St. Bonaventure, and is one of the teams that SMU and Memphis might be able to leap-frog past with wins in the AAC tournament.
5. Seton Hall (13-12; NET #58), the #6 "other at large" team, failed to advance in the ACC tournament, and appears to likely to play in the NIT.
The other developments:
1. SMU and Memphis are currently listed as the #5 (7 "votes") and #7 ("3 votes") teams on the "other at larges" list at bracketmatrix.com. To earn at-large bid, they're going to win enough AAC tournament games to pass by some of the "other at-large" teams and some of the currently projected 12 seeds. Their contenders among the "other at-large" teams include:
Syracuse (16-8; Q1/Q2: 6-7), the #1 "other at-large" team listed at bracketmatrix.com, has moved back into contention for a NCAA bid with their first round win in the ACC tournament. Their NET has risen to #39, and they could move up as high as a projected 10 seed in the bracket matrix if they win their second round game.
Mississippi (15-8; NET #53; Q1/Q2: 8-8), the #2 team on the "other at-larges" list - - has won their last two regular season games, and will be a strong contender for an at-large bid if they win 1 or 2 SEC tourney games. They're likely to win round 1 vs. 6-14 South Carolina.
Utah St. (18-7; NET #49; Q1/Q2: 3-5) - - currently #3 on the list of "other at-larges" - - could earn a NCAA bid with a couple of wins in the MWC tourney. They seem likely to pick up a win over 7 seed UNLV in round 1 tonight.
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - jedclampett - 03-11-2021 08:43 AM
(03-09-2021 08:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote: These are now projected to be the last 12 teams in the NCAA tournament field (UPDATED - VCU is now listed as a 10 seed) by bracketmatrix.com (Non-A5 teams are highlighted):......................................................................................................
Teams that have won 3 times as many games as they have lost, overall, are bolded, and teams with Q1/Q2 W-L records below .400 or .600+ are bolded.
......................................................................................................
..............................................................bracketology.com
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
32 (16-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......10 UNC
42 (17-8)......5-8 (.385).....12-0 (1.00)....39.......10 UCLA
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....31......10 VCU
37 (15-8)......8-6 (.571).....7-2 (.778)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
34 (14-12)....6-12 (.333)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......11 Maryland
57 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......37.......11 Louisville
65 (15-11)....9-11(.450)......6-0 (1.00).....29.......11 Michigan St.
64 (13-4)......4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34.......11 Wichita St.
Last Four In:
45 (23-4)......6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895).....47.......12 Drake
50 (16-5).....3-5 (.375).....13-0 (1.00).....52......12 Colorado St
43 (17-7)......4-6 (.400)....13-1 (.929)......54.......12 Boise St.
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....6-0 (1.00)......53.......12 Xavier
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
However, given the fact that the teams are supposed to be seeded based on quantitative data, including NET rankings and Q1/Q2 records, it is very difficult to explain why the five lowest-seeded teams on this list are all non-A5 teams.
......................................................................................................
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - jedclampett - 03-11-2021 08:49 AM
.
Here's how the projected 10, 11, and 12 seeds currently listed at bracketmatrix.com would be seeded if they were ranked based on their NET ranks alone:
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......11 UNC
34 (14-12)....6-12 (.333)....8-0 (1.00)......48.......10 Maryland
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....31......10 VCU
37 (15-8)......8-6 (.571).....7-2 (.778)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
42 (17-8)......5-8 (.385).....12-0 (1.00)....39.......11 UCLA
43 (17-7)......4-6 (.400)....13-1 (.929)......54.......11 Boise St.
45 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......11 Drake
50 (16-5)....3-5 (.375).....13-0 (1.00)......52......11 Colorado St
Last Four In:
57 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......37.......12 Louisville
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....6-0 (1.00)......53.......12 Xavier
64 (13-4).....4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34.......12 Wichita St.
67 (15-11)....9-11(.450)....6-0 (1.00)......29.......12 Michigan St.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
Here's how they would be seeded based on their Q1/Q2 W-L% alone:
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
45 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......10 Drake
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....31......10 VCU
37 (15-8)......8-6 (.571).....7-2 (.778)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......11 UNC
52 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......37.......10 Louisville
64 (13-4).....4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34.......11 Wichita St.
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....6-0 (1.00)......53.......11 Xavier
67 (15-11)....9-11(.450).....6-0 (1.00)......29......11 Michigan St.
Last Four In:
43 (17-7)......4-6 (.400)....13-1 (.929)......54.......12 Boise St.
42 (17-8)......5-8 (.385).....12-0 (1.00)....39.......12 UCLA
50 (16-5)....3-5 (.375).....13-0 (1.00)......52......12 Colorado St
34 (14-12)....6-12 (.333)....8-0 (1.00).....48........12 Maryland
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
Here's how they would be seeded if they were ranked based on (a) their NET rank, (b) their Q1/Q2 winning %, and © their Strength of Record*:
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......11 UNC35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....31......10 VCU
37 (15-8)......8-6 (.571).....7-2 (.778)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
45 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......10 Drake
42 (17-8)......5-8 (.385).....12-0 (1.00)....39.......11 UCLA
64 (13-4)......4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00).....34......11 Wichita St.
57 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......37.......11 Louisville
67 (15-11)....9-11(.450).......6-0 (1.00)......29......12 Michigan St.
Last Four In:
34 (14-12)....6-12 (.333)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......11 Maryland
43 (17-7)......4-6 (.400)....13-1 (.929)......54.......12 Boise St.
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....6-0 (1.00)......53.......12 Xavier
50 (16-5)....3-5 (.375).....13-0 (1.00)......52......12 Colorado St
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
If these 12 teams were being seeded on the basis of their NET ranks and their Q1/Q2 winning %, Drake would be a 10 seed, and 3 of the 6 lowest seeded teams in this group would be A5 teams.
......................................................................................................
RE: Massey Composite: Memphis is ranked #43 after Houston game; SMU is #48; WSU #51 - jedclampett - 03-11-2021 09:51 AM
.
Now, let's see where SMU and Memphis would match up with the teams on this list, applying the same criteria: (a) NET rankings, (b) Q1-Q2 %, and © Strength of Record:
.
Here's how SMU and Memphis would fit in when compared to the projected 10, 11, and 12 seeds currently listed at bracketmatrix.com (as they would be seeded if they were ranked based on their NET ranks alone):
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......10 UNC
34 (15-12)....7-12 (.368)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......12 Maryland
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....31......10 VCU
37 (15-8)......8-6 (.571).....7-2 (.778)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
42 (17-8)......5-8 (.385).....12-0 (1.00)....39.......11 UCLA
44 (17-7)......4-6 (.400)....13-1 (.929)......54.......11 Boise St.
47 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......11 Drake^
50 (16-5)....3-5 (.375).....13-0 (1.00)......52......11 Colorado St
52 15-7.......4-6 (.400)....11-1 (.917).......72.......12 Memphis
55 11-4........4-3 (.571)....7-1 (.875)......45........12 SMU
57 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......37.......12 Louisville^
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....6-0 (1.00)......53.......12 Xavier^
64 (13-4).....4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34.......12 Wichita St.
67 (15-12)....9-12(.429)....6-0 (1.00)......29.......12?Michigan St.^
^Lost their most recent tournament game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
Here's how they would be seeded based on their Q1/Q2 W-L% alone:
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
47 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......10 Drake^
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....31......10 VCU
37 (15-8)......8-6 (.571).....7-2 (.778)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
55 11-4........4-3 (.571)....7-1 (.875)......45........10 SMU
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......11 UNC
57 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......37.......11 Louisville^
64 (13-4).....4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34.......11 Wichita St.
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....6-0 (1.00)......53.......11 Xavier^
67 (15-12)....9-12(.429)....6-0 (1.00)......29.......12?Michigan St.^
52 15-7.......4-6 (.400)....11-1 (.917).......72.......12 Memphis
44 (17-7)......4-6 (.400)....13-1 (.929)......54.......12 Boise St.
42 (17-8)......5-8 (.385).....12-0 (1.00)....39.......12 UCLA
50 (16-5)....3-5 (.375).....13-0 (1.00)......52......12 Colorado St
34 (15-12)....7-12 (.368)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......12 Maryland
^Lost their most recent tournament game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
Here's how they would be seeded if they were ranked based on (a) their NET rank, (b) their Q1/Q2 winning %, and © their Strength of Record*:
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......10 UNC
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....31......10 VCU
37 (15-8)......8-6 (.571).....7-2 (.778)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
[i]47 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......10 Drake^
42 (17-8)......5-8 (.385).....12-0 (1.00)....39.......11 UCLA
64 (13-4)......4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00).....34......11 Wichita St.
52 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......37.......11 Louisville^
34 (15-12)....7-12 (.368)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......12 Maryland
55 11-4........4-3 (.571)....7-1 (.875)......45........12 SMU
67 (15-12)....9-12(.429)....6-0 (1.00)......29.......12?Michigan St.^
44 (17-7)......4-6 (.400)....13-1 (.929)......54.......12 Boise St.
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....6-0 (1.00)......53.......12 Xavier^
50 (16-5)....3-5 (.375).....13-0 (1.00)......52......12 Colorado St
52 15-7.......4-6 (.400)....11-1 (.917).......72.......12 Memphis
^Lost their most recent tournament game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
With Maryland or MSU are eliminated after their first round game, SMU (and possibly, Memphis) might be able to work their way up to an 11 seed if they can win a couple of conference tournament games.
RE: Do Memphis, SMU, and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - indianmustang - 03-11-2021 12:51 PM
Duke is out with positive
RE: Do Memphis, SMU, and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - jedclampett - 03-11-2021 01:24 PM
Note:
1. Xavier is now listed among the "other at-larges" at bracketmatrix.com.
2. SMU and Memphis have got to hope that UConn or Creighton wins the Big East tournament, and that potential dark horses (e.g. Maryland, Mississippi) don't win the other major conference tournaments.
RE: Do Memphis, SMU, and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - jedclampett - 03-12-2021 01:42 AM
Here's how SMU and Memphis would fit in when compared to the projected 10, 11, and 12 seeds currently listed at bracketmatrix.com - - and the top few "other at-larges" listed on the bracket matrix (as they would be seeded if they were ranked based on their NET ranks alone):
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......10 UNC
34 (16-12)....8-12 (.400)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......12 Maryland
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....29......10 VCU
37 (16-8)......8-6 (.571).....8-2 (.800)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
39 (16-9).....6-8 (.429).....10-1 (.909)......42.......11 Syracuse^
42 (17-9)......5-8 (.385).....12-1 (1.00)....39.......11 UCLA
44 (18-8)......4-7 (.364)....13-2 (.867)......59.......11 Boise St.^
47 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......11 Drake^
49 (17-7)......3-5 (.375)....14-2 (.875)......68.......12 Utah St.
50 (17-5)....3-5 (.375).....14-0 (1.00)......51......12 Colorado St.
52 (15-7).....4-6 (.400)....11-1 (.917).......72.......12 Memphis
53 (16-10).....8-8 (.500)....8-2 (.800)........62.......12 Mississippi
..............................................................."Other At-Large's"
55 (11-4)......4-3 (.571)....7-1 (.875).........45..........SMU
57 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......38...........Louisville^
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....7-1 (.875)......56...........Xavier^
64 (13-4).....4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34...........Wichita St.
67 (15-11)....9-11(.450)....6-0 (1.00)......30...........Michigan St.^
^Lost their most recent conference tourney game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
Here's how they would be seeded based on their Q1/Q2 W-L% alone:
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
47 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......10 Drake^
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....29......10 VCU
37 (16-8)......8-6 (.571).....8-2 (.800)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
55 (11-4)......4-3 (.571)....7-1 (.875).........45......10 SMU
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......11 UNC
57 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......38.......11 Louisville^
64 (13-4).....4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34.......11 Wichita St.
53 (16-10).....8-8 (.500)....8-2 (.800)........62.......11 Mississippi
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....7-1 (.875)......56.......12 Xavier^
67 (15-12)....9-12(.429)....6-0 (1.00)......30.......12 Michigan St.^
39 (16-9).....6-8 (.429).....10-1 (.909)......42.......12 Syracuse^
34 (16-12)....8-12 (.400)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......12 Maryland
..............................................................."Other At-Large's"
52 (15-7).....4-6 (.400)....11-1 (.917).......72...........Memphis
42 (17-9)......5-8 (.385).....12-1 (1.00)....39...........UCLA
50 (17-5)....3-5 (.375).....14-0 (1.00)......51.........Colorado St.
49 (17-7)......3-5 (.375)....14-2 (.875)......68...........Utah St.
44 (18-8)......4-7 (.364)....13-2 (.867)......59...........Boise St.^
^Lost their most recent conference tourney game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
Here's how they would be seeded if they were ranked based on (a) their NET rank, (b) their Q1/Q2 winning %, and © their Strength of Record*:
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
32 (17-9)......10-8 (.556).....7-1 (1.00).....24.......10 UNC
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....29......10 VCU
37 (16-8)......8-6 (.571).....8-2 (.800)......41.......10 Georgia Tech
47 (23-4).....6-2(.750).....17-2 (.895)......47......10 Drake^
42 (17-9)......5-8 (.385).....12-1 (1.00)....39.......11 UCLA
52 (13-7)......7-6 (.538).....6-1 (.857).......38.......11 Louisville^
64 (13-4).....4-4 (.500).....9-0 (1.00)......34.......11 Wichita St.
39 (16-9).....6-8 (.429).....10-1 (.909)......42.......11 Syracuse^
55 (11-4)......4-3 (.571)....7-1 (.875).........45......12 SMU
34 (16-12)....8-12 (.400)....8-0 (1.00).....48.......12 Maryland
67 (15-12)....9-12(.429)....6-0 (1.00)......30.......12 Michigan St.^
44 (18-8)......4-7 (.364)....13-2 (.867)......59.......12 Boise St.^
..............................................................."Other At-Large's"
50 (17-5)....3-5 (.375).....14-0 (1.00)......51..........Colorado St.
53 (16-10).....8-8 (.500)....8-2 (.800)........62...........Mississippi
62 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....7-1 (.875)......56...........Xavier^
52 (15-7).....4-6 (.400)....11-1 (.917).......72...........Memphis
49 (17-7)......3-5 (.375)....14-2 (.875)......68...........Utah St.
^Lost their most recent conference tourney game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
RE: Do Memphis, SMU, and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - bearcatmark - 03-12-2021 07:48 AM
As long as they don't lose to anyone outside the top 4 i think wichita will get a bid.
I think Memphis has a shot if they beat Houston. I think smu must win the conference tournament.
RE: Do Memphis, SMU, and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - virgosports - 03-12-2021 08:34 AM
(03-12-2021 07:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: As long as they don't lose to anyone outside the top 4 i think wichita will get a bid.
I think Memphis has a shot if they beat Houston. I think smu must win the conference tournament.
Agreed that Wichita st has a good shot even if they don’t win the tournament but definitely need to win the first round and probably better to win the semi and then they can afford to lose in the final.
Memphis has to beat ucf and Houston and may have a chance if they lose to smu or Wichita in the final depending on what happens with other bubblers. I almost feel like the only way for sure if AAC gets three bids, Memphis beats Wichita in the final (Houston, Wichita, Memphis). If smu beats Memphis in the final then two are guaranteed (smu, Houston) and Wichita, Memphis will become last four in/out scenario.
RE: Do Memphis, SMU, and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - Stickboy46 - 03-12-2021 09:16 AM
(03-12-2021 08:34 AM)virgosports Wrote:(03-12-2021 07:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: As long as they don't lose to anyone outside the top 4 i think wichita will get a bid.
I think Memphis has a shot if they beat Houston. I think smu must win the conference tournament.
Agreed that Wichita st has a good shot even if they don’t win the tournament but definitely need to win the first round and probably better to win the semi and then they can afford to lose in the final.
Memphis has to beat ucf and Houston and may have a chance if they lose to smu or Wichita in the final depending on what happens with other bubblers. I almost feel like the only way for sure if AAC gets three bids, Memphis beats Wichita in the final (Houston, Wichita, Memphis). If smu beats Memphis in the final then two are guaranteed (smu, Houston) and Wichita, Memphis will become last four in/out scenario.
The wildcard scenario is how many teams fail the testing criteria between now and the start of the tourney. I'd bet the "first four out" all end up in the tourney
RE: Do Memphis, SMU, and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - GoOwls111 - 03-12-2021 09:56 AM
If Seton Hall gets in without winning the NBE... Then the AAC should have Houston, WSU, SMU and Memphis all in the NCAA
RE: Do Memphis and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - jedclampett - 03-13-2021 01:13 PM
NOTE: There have been a lot of revisions in the NET and SOR rankings after Friday's games.
The revised NET rankings were obtained here: http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2021/net-nitty
......................................................................................................
Here's where Wichita St., Memphis, and SMU would fit when compared with the teams that would receive 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 seeds if they were ranked based on current (a) NET ranks, (b) Q1/Q2%, and © Strength of Record (SOR*) rankings:
......................................................................................................
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
34 (20-6).......9-4 (.692).......(11-2).........23........8 Oregon
41 (16-7).......10-6(.625).......6-1(.857)......18......8 Clemson^
32 (18-10).....10-8 (.556).....7-1 (.875).....27........8 UNC^
30 (15-7)......6-7 (.462)......9-0 (1.00)......31........8 UConn^
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....33.......9 VCU^
31 (14-9).....8-8 (.500)......6-1 (.857)......36.........9 Florida^
38 (16-8).......8-6 (.571)......8-2 (.800)......38.........9 Georgia Tech
39 (15-11).....11-11 (.500).....4-2(.667)......29........9 Rutgers^
45 (16-9).......9-9 (.500).........7-0 (1.00).......25......10 Missouri^
40 (16-9)........7-8 (.467)........9-1 (.900)......42.......10 Syracuse^
36 (15-10).....5-9 (.357).......10-1 (.909)......44.......10 Oklahoma^
43 (23-4).......6-2(.750)........17-2 (.895)......46......10 Drake^
48 (15-6)......5-6 (.455).........10-0 (1.00).......40.....11 Virginia Tech^
33 (16-13)......8-13 (.381)......8-0 (1.00).....47.......11 Maryland^
45 (14-6)........4-3 (.571)......10-2 (.833)......62......11 St. Louis^
56 (13-7).......7-6 (.538).........6-1 (.857).......35......11 Louisville^
64 (14-4).......4-4 (.500)........10-0 (1.00)......32.....12 Wichita St.
37 (20-7)......4-5 (.444).......15-2 (.875)......59.......12 Utah St.
47 (17-9).......5-8 (.385)........12-1 (1.00)....43.......12 UCLA^
51 (18-6).......4-6 (.400)........14-0 (1.00)......57....12 Colorado St.^
..............................................................."Other At-Large's"
52 (16-7).....4-6 (.400)....12-1 (.917).......69...........Memphis
57 (11-5)......4-3 (.571)....7-2 (.778).........50.........SMU^
53 (16-11).....8-8 (.500)....9-2 (.800)........64..........Mississippi^
59 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....7-1 (.875)......55...........Xavier^
57 (14-13)....7-12(.429)....7-1 (.875)......56...........Seton Hall^
70 (15-12)....9-12(.429)....6-0 (1.00)......37...........Michigan St.^
50 (17-8)......4-7 (.364)....13-2 (.867)......68...........Boise St.^
^Lost their most recent conference tourney game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
NOTE: It appears most likely that either Wichita St. or Memphis - - but not both - - will get a NCAA bid, unless Cincy wins the AAC tournament.
......................................................................................................
.
RE: Do Memphis and WSU still have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid? - jedclampett - 03-13-2021 03:18 PM
Unfortunately, the averages of 133 bracketologies summarized at bracketmatrix.com have many of these teams ranked quite differently:
6 seeds:
18 (Q1/Q2: .333) (SOR*: 39) TEXAS TECH^ (SHOULD BE 9 SEED)
11 (Q1/Q2: .714) (SOR*: 19) COLORADO
34 (Q1/Q2: .692) (SOR*: 23) OREGON^ (SHOULD BE 7 SEED)
45 (Q1/Q2: .500) (SOR*: 25) MISSOURI^ (SHOULD BE 10 SEED)
7 seeds:
20 (Q1/Q2: .571) (SOR*: 22) BYU^ (SHOULD BE 6 SEED)
27 (Q1/Q2: .458) (SOR*: 28) WISCONSIN^ (SHOULD BE 8 SEED)
36 (Q1/Q2: .357) (SOR*: 44) OKLAHOMA^ (SHOULD BE 10 SEED)
41 (Q1/Q2: .625) (SOR*: 18) CLEMSON^ (SHOULD BE 6 SEED)
8 seeds:
21 (Q1/Q2: .636) (SOR*: 30) SDSU (SHOULD BE 7 SEED)
31 (Q1/Q2: .500) (SOR*: 36) FLORIDA^ (SHOULD BE 9 SEED)
10 (Q1/Q2: .600) (SOR*: 41) LOYOLA (SHOULD BE 6 SEED)
29 (Q1/Q2: .467) (SOR*: 26) LSU
9 seeds:
30 (Q1/Q2: .462) (SOR*: 31) UConn^
32 (Q1/Q2: .556) (SOR*: 27) UNC (SHOULD BE 8 SEED)^
39 (Q1/Q2: .500) (SOR*: 29) Rutgers^
48 (Q1/Q2: .455) (SOR*: 40) Virginia Tech^ (SHOULD BE 11 SEED)
10 seeds:
28 (Q1/Q2: .667) (SOR*: 34) ST. BONA. (SHOULD BE 8 SEED)
33 (Q1/Q2: .381) (SOR*: 47) Maryland^ (SHOULD BE 11 SEED)
35 (Q1/Q2: ..692) (SOR*: 33) VCU^ (SHOULD BE 9 SEED)
38 (Q1/Q2: .571) (SOR*: 38) Georgia Tech (SHOULD BE 9 SEED)
11 seeds:
47 (Q1/Q2: .[b]385[/b]) (SOR*: 43) UCLA^ (SHOULD BE 12 SEED)
70 (Q1/Q2: .429) (SOR*: 37) Michigan St.^ SHOULDN'T BE IN THE NCAA
50 (Q1/Q2: .538) (SOR*: 35) Louisville^
64 (Q1/Q2: ..500) (SOR*: 32) Wichita St. (MAY DROP TO 12 SEED)
12 seeds:
43 (Q1/Q2: (.750) (SOR*: 46) Drake^ (SHOULD BE 10 SEED)
51 (Q1/Q2: ..400) (SOR*: 57) Colorado St.^
40 (Q1/Q2: .467) (SOR*: 42) Syracuse^ (SHOULD BE 10 SEED)
37 (Q1/Q2: .444) (SOR*: 59) Utah St.
*SOR=Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
......................................................................................................
Have you noticed the pattern?
Six of the 9 (66.7%) non-A5 teams that are projected to be 6-12 seeds are underseeded.
None of the non-A5 teams are over-seeded by the 133 bracketologists.
In comparison, only 4 (21.1%) of the 19 A5 teams that are projected to be 6-12 seeds are underseeded.
Most (52.6%) of the 19 A5 teams are over-seeded.
......................................................................................................
Either consciously or unconsciously, the guys who prepare these bracketologies appear to be showing a consistent bias in favor of the A5 teams.
The evidence in the tables is fairly clear clear. The main factors in assessing teams are supposed to be their NET rankings, their Q1/Q2 winning percentages, and their strength of schedule. Yet there appears to be a large enough fudge factor to sway the bracketologists in favor of the A5 teams.
What's unfortunate about it is that the very same fudge factor has been affecting the judgments of the NCAA selection committee in recent years.
In other words, the bracketologists are simply making the same kinds of judgments, and are affected by the same basic fudge factors that have been influencing NCAA selection committees since the A5 conferences became dominant.
Hopefully, I will turn out to be wrong, and the NCAA selection committee will do the right thing this year. I doubt it, but anything could happen.
Maybe some of them will read this post and will decide that they don't want to get caught showing favoritism yet again for the 2021 tournament. The whole point of this work is to document the process along the way, so it will be possible to point out - and hopefully prevent - any injustice that might otherwise occur.
......................................................................................................
RE: How many AAC teams will play in the NCAA tourney? - jedclampett - 03-13-2021 06:42 PM
.
The losses by Wichita State and Memphis today, combined with Georgetown stealing one of the 12-seeds today make it now seem pretty unlikely that the AAC will have more than 2 teams in the NCAA
The only question, if there are two, is which two teams would represent the conference. Cincy's only pathway would be by winning the AAC tourney championship tomorrow. Short of that, if the conference gets a second bid, it would go to WSU or Memphis.
An argument can be made for either team, as they both appear to be potential 12 seeds, and much will depend on how the teams are seeded after their Saturday games, and strongly how their Strength of Record (SOR) will be affected.
Memphis may have the momentum, since they played such a competitive game vs. Houston and were still in the game until the closing seconds. Their NET (52) shouldn't drop at all, and their SOR (currently SOR=69) could improve, but their their Q1/Q2% will drop from .400 to .363.
Wichita State already had a lower NET (64) coming into the AAC semifinals, and it could drop a few ranks, but their SOR (32) today was significantly higher than that of Memphis (69), and their Q1/Q2% (.500) - which was unaffected by today's Q3 loss to Cincy - is also higher than that of Memphis.
In fact, despite their loss to a Q3 team today, Wichita State's Q3/Q4 record (10-1) remains similar to those of potential 12 seeds Utah St. (15-2) and Memphis (12-1), and they (Q1/Q2%=.500) now have a bigger Q1/Q2% lead over Utah St.Q1/Q2%=.400) and Memphis (Q1/Q2%=.364) than they had prior to their Q1 losses today.
In addition, the Shockers are the regular season champions, and there is some precedent for honoring the regular season champions with an at-large bid if they don't win their conference tourneys.
If they hadn't been so unimpressive in the AAC tourney, Wichita State would probably be viewed having the edge over Memphis, but it appears that the decision may be so close that it might down to a coin flip.
Another factor to consider is that, as this is being written, Wichita is listed as an 11 seed at bracketmatrix.com, while Utah St. is listed as a 12 seed, and Memphis is #5 on the list of "other at-larges" at bracketmatrix.com.
We will know a lot more about all of these things when the NET and SOR rankings are revised later this evening.
....................................................................................................
The revised NET rankings have been obtained here: http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2021/net-nitty
....................................................................................................
Here's a fairly comprehensive comparison of where Wichita St., Memphis, SMU, and the other teams would fit when compared with the teams that would receive 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 seeds if they were ranked based on current (a) NET ranks, (b) Q1/Q2%, and © Strength of Record (SOR*) rankings:
....................................................................................................
NET (W-L)......Q1/Q2%.....Q3/Q4%....SOR*...SEED/TEAM
34 (20-6).......9-4 (.692).......(11-2).........23........8 Oregon
41 (16-7).......10-6(.625).......6-1(.857)......18......8 Clemson^
32 (18-10).....10-8 (.556).....7-1 (.875).....27........8 UNC^
30 (15-7)......6-7 (.462)......9-0 (1.00)......31........8 UConn^
35 (19-6).....9-4 (.692).....10-2 (.833).....33.......9 VCU^
31 (14-9).....8-8 (.500)......6-1 (.857)......36.........9 Florida^
38 (16-8).......8-6 (.571)......8-2 (.800)......38.........9 Georgia Tech
39 (15-11).....11-11 (.500).....4-2(.667)......29........9 Rutgers^
45 (16-9).......9-9 (.500).........7-0 (1.00).......25......10 Missouri^
40 (16-9)........7-8 (.467)........9-1 (.900)......42.......10 Syracuse^
36 (15-10).....5-9 (.357).......10-1 (.909)......44.......10 Oklahoma^
43 (23-4).......6-2(.750)........17-2 (.895)......46......10 Drake^
48 (15-6)......5-6 (.455).........10-0 (1.00).......40.....11 Virginia Tech^
33 (16-13)......8-13 (.381)......8-0 (1.00).....47.......11 Maryland^
45 (14-6)........4-3 (.571)......10-2 (.833)......62......11 St. Louis^
56 (13-7).......7-6 (.538).........6-1 (.857).......35......11 Louisville^
64 (14-5).......4-4 (.500)........10-1 (1.00)......32.....12 Wichita St.^
37 (19-8)......4-6 (.400).......15-2 (.875)......59.......12 Utah St.
47 (17-9).......5-8 (.385)........12-1 (1.00)....43.......12 UCLA^
51 (18-6).......4-6 (.400)........14-0 (1.00)......57....12 Colorado St.^
..............................................................."Other At-Large's"
52 (16-7).....4-7 (.364)....12-1 (.917).......69...........Memphis
57 (11-5)......4-3 (.571)....7-2 (.778).........50.........SMU^
53 (16-11).....8-8 (.500)....9-2 (.800)........64..........Mississippi^
59 (13-8)......6-7 (.462).....7-1 (.875)......55...........Xavier^
57 (14-13)....7-12(.429)....7-1 (.875)......56...........Seton Hall^
70 (15-12)....9-12(.429)....6-0 (1.00)......37...........Michigan St.^
50 (17-8)......4-7 (.364)....13-2 (.867)......68...........Boise St.^
^Lost their most recent conference tourney game.
*ESPN Strength of Record (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/overview/page/1)
....................................................................................................
NOTE: This does not match up with the seedings reported at bracketmatrix.com, because it was prepared on the basis of NET rankings, SOR rankings, and Q1/Q2 percentages.
If you're interested in checking it out, there is a different table presented a couple of posts with this one, with sections in red typeface highlighting the differences in the seedings based on the two different approaches.
.