ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

TjgtAg08 said:

---

AggiesinNC said:

---

I don't think a 1 seed is in play without Alabama or Auburn stumbling bad.

Finish at least 5-3 and get a 2/3 seed (really not much of a difference). Five games most likely to win: Georgia, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, @LSU, and then ???? (@Miss State or Tennessee).

---

We would need some help, but it's not crazy. Bama and Auburn play each other twice, so if one team sweeps the other, that's 3 conference losses for that team right there. And we play Auburn at home, so we have a chance to gain a tiny bit of ground on them by beating them.

Realistically though, it's probably UT/UF/A&M competing for a 1 seed, as I do agree that Auburn and Bama probably lock 2 of them up unless something crazy happens.

We play both UT and UF to finish, so you could argue we "control our own destiny" as it pertains to those two teams - beat them both and we would be in/near the drivers seat for a 1-seed.

Not likely, just considering how good they both are and who else we have to play, but I would say we have a large bit of control over whether we get a 1-seed or not. Not complete control, but a large portion of it.

---

If we win out we will 100% be a 1 seed no matter what. And likely will be if we only lose 1 more, depending on how Duke, Houston, etc fare.

---

Oh of course, 8-0 is a lock for a 1, I'm just realistically not thinking that is going to happen.

What I was trying to say is the most realistic finish is somewhere between 7-1 and 5-3, and at 7-1 (maybe even 6-2) there is a still a path to a 1 seed. The more we lose, the more "help" we need, but some of that help would involve Tennessee and UF losing, and we play them both, so we could provide that help.

If you had to break it down further to just to the teams that could be a 1-seed, would you say maybe -

Auburn
Duke
Bama
Tennessee
Houston
Florida
A&M
Purdue
Iowa State

Have we ever had a higher seed than the 3 seed in 2007?

We've been a 3 twice

We were a 3 seed in 2007 and 2016.

TjgtAg08 said:

---

If you had to break it down further to just to the teams that could be a 1-seed, would you say maybe -

Auburn
Duke
Bama
Tennessee
Houston
Florida
A&M
Purdue
Iowa State

---

Still way too much basketball left and a ton of teams have 6 or 7 quad 1 games left on the schedule.

I would also include
St. John's
Texas Tech
Arizona
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Michigan

In that same mix although most of those need to win out to have a realistic shot.

Interesting that ESPN's BPI only gives Mizzou a 59% chance to make the field.

SeattleAg05 said:

---

Interesting that ESPN's BPI only gives Mizzou a 59% chance to make the field.

---

Among people who do this well, ESPN bubble watch is pretty well known to be the absolute worst breakdown of who is in/out. It is essentially an AI algorithm based on their power rating BPI. Since Mizzou is a bit lower on that scale, the BPI favors them to only go 3-5 down the stretch (49.5% chance of beating Vandy is counted as a full loss, as are winnable games at Georgia and at Arkansas.).

Given that closing stretch, ESPN is saying if they lost all those games they would only have a 59% chance to make it. Even that I strongly disagree with, as they would be 100% lock with just 2 more wins.

This same methodology also has Texas and UNC as high 80s percent to make it when both of them are right around 50% in reality.

It says something about this team and season that the expectations are now I will feel a tinge of disappointment if they only finished well enough to earn a 3-seed .

Checking in on Neil Paine’s bubble watch via ESPN.

What are we doing? How hard is it to have someone put work together that understands the selection process? pic.twitter.com/uJYfMiyrld

— T3 Bracketology™️🏀 (@T3Bracketology) February 9, 2025

Just to add onto what Colleyville said.

It's such a bizarre dynamic.

On one hand, ESPN *IS* College Basketball. Sure, the Big Ten and Big East have games on FOX and NBC, but the vast majority of meaningful college hoops games are on ESPN. They set the storylines and they're the loudest voice in the room.

Yet, for some reason, they're 100% ALL-IN on just one guy's bracket opinions, and it's a guy that very provably isn't all that good at it. He's not bad, but he's pretty mid. Why wouldn't they at least have a second guy for debate content? And then they put out trash like the bubble watches.

I'd almost get it more if they just completely bailed on hyping up the NCAA Tournament because they don't own the broadcast rights to it. They spend all season debating and hyping an event that they don't have a piece of.

But instead they do it, just poorly.