I guess it's time to start the weekly bubble watch. Will try to update early each week with the 4 ratings that the committee uses, along with notable bracketology,'

As of 2/13/24 morning:
NET - 75
KPI - 44
SOR - 46
KenPom - 78

Jerry Palm - 4th team out
Lunardi - outside the first 8 out (which is frankly ridiculous)
Bracket Matrix - 6th team out

Bubble teams from Lunardi, Palm, Bracket Matrix with the 4 rankings:

Memphis - NET 75, KPI 44, SOR 46, KP 78

Boise - 48, 34, 56, 54
Butler - 50, 52, 33, 49
Cincy - 35, 50, 47, 33
Colorado - 38, 45, 65, 37
Gonzaga - 24, 64, 48, 19
Nebraska - 53, 39, 38, 51
Nevada - 47, 37, 44, 46
New Mexico - 22, 28, 59, 22
Old Miss - 59, 19, 16, 60
Providence - 58, 62, 54, 55
Seton Hall - 76, 70, 55, 69 (Lunardi has them first 4 out - psssh)
St Johns - 46, 66, 50, 43
TCU - 42, 53, 32, 36
Texas - 34, 51, 39, 26
Utah - 49, 40, 51, 44
Villanova - 41, 58, 67, 34
Wake Forest - 39, 46, 53, 29

Here is why in just four words


HOME LOSS TO RICE.

We should consider ourselves lucky we pulled it out against Wichita State and UTSA at home. At least we have a chance at an at large if we win out or almost win out

(02-14-2024 01:50 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Here is why in just four words


HOME LOSS TO RICE.

The one to USF wasn’t good either. You just can’t lose at home in AAC

New year. Same crap.

As someone else said he's just slotting USF in because they're first in AAC. If they lose that spot they won't be in it any longer. Not saying UM will take their spot either BTW. USF has beaten literally no one except us and at this point that win is against a non-tourney team so not sure how impressive that is in big scheme. They are about to play FAU, SMU, UNCC, and Tulane (3 of 4 at home) so that will probably settle a lot of things. If they somehow win all those then I guess you can legit look at them as a tourney team.

(02-14-2024 10:34 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  As someone else said he's just slotting USF in because they're first in AAC. If they lose that spot they won't be in it any longer. Not saying UM will take their spot either BTW. USF has beaten literally no one except us and at this point that win is against a non-tourney team so not sure how impressive that is in big scheme. They are about to play FAU, SMU, UNCC, and Tulane (3 of 4 at home) so that will probably settle a lot of things. If they somehow win all those then I guess you can legit look at them as a tourney team.

Right at this point in time FAU is the only AAC team that would get an at large if they didn't win tournament.

SMU 16-7 has a good NET 43rd but is 1-6 in Quad 1&2 games.

5 of final 7 games are against teams ahead of us in standing and the other two are right behind us in 7th and 8th.

These last three weeks are going to be like the old Lawler story line when he had to beat the people ahead of him to move up the rankings and get shot at title.

Except this time the outcome isn't scripted with results already known.

(02-14-2024 11:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 10:34 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  As someone else said he's just slotting USF in because they're first in AAC. If they lose that spot they won't be in it any longer. Not saying UM will take their spot either BTW. USF has beaten literally no one except us and at this point that win is against a non-tourney team so not sure how impressive that is in big scheme. They are about to play FAU, SMU, UNCC, and Tulane (3 of 4 at home) so that will probably settle a lot of things. If they somehow win all those then I guess you can legit look at them as a tourney team.

Right at this point in time FAU is the only AAC team that would get an at large if they didn't win tournament.

SMU 16-7 has a good NET 43rd but is 1-6 in Quad 1&2 games.

5 of final 7 games are against teams ahead of us in standing and the other two are right behind us in 7th and 8th.

These last three weeks are going to be like the old Lawler story line when he had to beat the people ahead of him to move up the rankings and get shot at title.

Except this time the outcome isn't scripted with results already known.

Yep, essentially its win or go home for everyone in AAC except FAU and if they lose a couple then they'd be on the bubble too.

(02-14-2024 09:41 AM)Claw Wrote:  New year. Same crap.

Penny has to address January. He’s only 59% in that month. Don’t get what the deal is

(02-14-2024 11:20 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:41 AM)Claw Wrote:  New year. Same crap.

Penny has to address January. He’s only 59% in that month. Don’t get what the deal is

His focus is on developing his players rather than making the tourney. He ends up doing a poor job of both.

(02-14-2024 11:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  SMU 16-7 has a good NET 43rd but is 1-6 in Quad 1&2 games.

You either use the NET and their quad system or you don't.
You can't really say, yeah their NET is decent, but their quad wins are not.
You don't get it both ways.

(02-14-2024 11:58 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  SMU 16-7 has a good NET 43rd but is 1-6 in Quad 1&2 games.

You either use the NET and their quad system or you don't.
You can't really say, yeah their NET is decent, but their quad wins are not.
You don't get it both ways.

It all depends on who is in the committee room and what they deem is more important

(02-14-2024 11:38 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:20 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 09:41 AM)Claw Wrote:  New year. Same crap.

Penny has to address January. He’s only 59% in that month. Don’t get what the deal is

His focus is on developing his players rather than making the tourney. He ends up doing a poor job of both.

I think it’s something else. We were fine in December against a much harder schedule

(02-14-2024 12:14 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:58 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  SMU 16-7 has a good NET 43rd but is 1-6 in Quad 1&2 games.

You either use the NET and their quad system or you don't.
You can't really say, yeah their NET is decent, but their quad wins are not.
You don't get it both ways.

It all depends on who is in the committee room and what they deem is more important

I agree with EOP. The individuals in the room will likely each reach their conclusions of who should be in based all the data available, plus the 'eye test'. Which is very subjective.

(02-14-2024 12:22 PM)bbqtiger Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 12:14 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:58 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  SMU 16-7 has a good NET 43rd but is 1-6 in Quad 1&2 games.

You either use the NET and their quad system or you don't.
You can't really say, yeah their NET is decent, but their quad wins are not.
You don't get it both ways.

It all depends on who is in the committee room and what they deem is more important

I agree with EOP. The individuals in the room will likely each reach their conclusions of who should be in based all the data available, plus the 'eye test'. Which is very subjective.

The "eye test" is: when they look at the name of the conference, do they have this feeling that it just means more (regardless of the actual metrics).

(02-14-2024 01:11 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 12:22 PM)bbqtiger Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 12:14 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:58 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024 11:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  SMU 16-7 has a good NET 43rd but is 1-6 in Quad 1&2 games.

You either use the NET and their quad system or you don't.
You can't really say, yeah their NET is decent, but their quad wins are not.
You don't get it both ways.

It all depends on who is in the committee room and what they deem is more important

I agree with EOP. The individuals in the room will likely each reach their conclusions of who should be in based all the data available, plus the 'eye test'. Which is very subjective.

The "eye test" is: when they look at the name of the conference, do they have this feeling that it just means more (regardless of the actual metrics).

There lies the problem. We still have people manipulating the results. And that power will not be relinquished - too much money involved.

As Tiger87 touched on, are we using the ranking system or not?

This particular season, the use of the eye test against us is totally fair.

We almost lost to Vandy and Tulsa
We really were at better than a 50% chance of losing at home to UTSA if not for a call 30 seconds before the end of regulation
We were at a 97% chance to lose to Wichita State at home.
We got curbstomped by an average Villanova team.
We are 2-13 against the spread since the Virginia game.
Then there are the actual losses.

We have been our own worst enemy. We have had every chance in the world to eliminate any bias against us or our conference by just winning. The fact that we still have a chance for an at large at all is very lucky.

If __________ was coaching, he'd be praised for winning so many close games. Enter media approved coach name here.


Penny somehow gets credit for almost losing. It's just weird and dishonest when it's from sports writers! It's awful when it's from our fans!

(02-14-2024 03:39 PM)Gusrob2.0 Wrote:  If __________ was coaching, he'd be praised for winning so many close games. Enter media approved coach name here.


Penny somehow gets credit for almost losing. It's just weird and dishonest when it's from sports writers! It's awful when it's from our fans!

The issue is MOV is a part of the NET.

When you're not covering the spread you take a hit in the NET.