I think we might be overvaluing resume metrics. It wouldn't surprise me if there's someone else in the mix we're not really thinking about. Like Maryland.

OP updated

Locks: Drake secures the auto bid
Eliminations: Nebraska (didn't even make the Big 10 tournament - yikes (can you imagine if the SEC had a similar setup and Oklahoma didn't make the conference tournament?

Moving Up: None
Moving Down: Michigan

Fairly light Sunday, a few tickets punched by way of the conference tournament auto bids and i will start to track seed ranges for those that punch their tickets (please don't match us with High Point).

Nebraska is eliminated after not getting into the Big 10 tournament - from fairly safe 5 games ago to losing the last 5 and now NIT bound.

San Francisco plays late tonight which should be a good one. Winner plays Gonzaga tomorrow night to get thier chance to make a statement.

This is the cleanest bubble i have ever seen. There is a clear separation between the first 41 teams and those last 7 spots, and there are only 8 after the bubble that feel like they have any kind of chance at all with a conference tournament run.

With still a week to go its normally like 25 teams fighting for 12 spots. This year it is 15 teams for 7 spots. A decent chance that in a couple of days this is down to just 6 teams for 3 spots.

In terms of the last 2 seed, i would say the teams in play would be:

St. John's
A&M
UK
Tech

And then the long shots:
Iowa State
Maryland
Wisconsin

Here is my bracket prediction: As much as I wanted to put BYU against Kentucky, the Sunday issue arose and it can't happen. Now if St. John's gets the 2 seed, then I think it definitely happens.

What I don't know and too lazy to research at this time on a Sunday night is who has played who in the tournament in the last two years.

I don't think you can have Florida and Auburn in the same region.

Only one T in Wichita

The distance from College Station to Wichita is 531 miles
Lubbock to Wichita 508 miles
Lubbock to Denver 548 miles

Please tournament committee send the Sand Fleas to Denver and let my Aggies give me 2 home games

chap said:

---

I don't think you can have Florida and Auburn in the same region.

---

Yup. Unless he thinks were ahead of Florida

LouisvilleAg said:

---

Dont forget Omaha who punches their ticket via forfeit because St. Thomas is not eligible due to just joining Division 1. Stupidest rule that exists!

---

Yes I accounted for that - spot 66 I already show Omaha as into the tournament before tonight's game.

Taking a deeper dive at the last 2 seed among those 7 and looking at it from the angle of where they were on 2/15 during the initial reveal and what they have done since then:

#6 Texas A&M 3-4 Wins: Arkansas, Auburn, @LSU. Losses: @Miss St., Tenn, Vandy, @Fla

#9 Iowa State 4-3 Wins: Cincy, Colorado, Arizona, @Kansas State Losses: @Houston, Oklahoma State, BYU

#10 Kentucky 4-3 Wins: Vandy, @OU, LSU, @Mizzou Losses: @Texas, @Bama, Auburn

#11 Wisconsin: 4-3 Wins: @Purdue, Illinois, Washington, @Minnesota Losses: Oregon, @MSU, Penn State

#13 Texas Tech: 5-2 Wins: @Ok State, West Virginia, @Kansas, Colorado, Az State Losses: TCU, Houston

#16 St. John's 6-0 Wins: Creighton, @Depaul, UConn, @Butler, Seton Hall, @Marquette

NR: Maryland: 5-1 Wins: Iowa, USC, @Penn State, @Michigan Northwestern Losses: Michigan State


We only have 2 years worth of data but no one team outside of the intial top 16 moved up higher than a 4 seed on selection Sunday. We already have Michigan State (who was mentioned by the committee as them and Marquette just missed the 16) that we know is going to move to a 2. Is it possible we have 2 teams from the same conference that were outside of the top 16 initially and move all the way to a 2? Seems highly unlikely.

Comparing A&M to each on the list, we were ahead of Iowa State before and they went 1-2 vs. the field since with adding another loss on their home court to Oklahoma State, its hard to see them as a serious contender. Same for Wisconsin, 2-2 vs. the field with a loss at home to Penn State. I feel comfortable with our margin over them.

So that leaves just the 4 i mentioned a few posts ago....
A&M, St. Johns, UK and Tech. I feel most confident we would stay ahead of Tech considering the previous gap, their loss to TCU and that 3 of their wins don't move the needle. So it really comes down to just how big was the gap between us, Kentucky and St. John's.

The 4 profiles i think are most in contention for that final spot:

Team
KPI SOR WAB (the 3 resume rankings avg) BPI KenPom Torvik (the 3 quality ranks avg) NET
Quad 1A Quad 1 Quad 2 Quad 1+2 Quad 3 Quad 4


Texas A&M
10 10 8 (9.3) 20 17 25 (20.7) 16
5-5....8-7... 8-2... 16-9.... 1-0.... 5-0

Kentucky
8 12 9 (9.7) 13 11 16 (13.3) 12
7-6.... 10-9..... 1-1.... 11-10.... 4-0... 6-0

Texas Tech
20 9 13 (14) 8 7 7 (7.3) 7
4-4... 8-4.... 4-2.... 12-6.... 6-1... 6-0

St John's
14 7 10 (10.3) 16 15 22 (17.7) 17
2-1... 4-4... 10-0.... 14-4... 7-0... 6-0

So of the 4

Tech is the metrics darling, and if that is weighted heavily it favors them. They are also the only one of the 4 that has a quad 3 loss. So how much will a bad loss (to UCF) sway the decision. And if it does, how much does it weigh in that A&M also lost to UCF, although ours was on the road.

St. John's is clearly lacking in the top end wins category with just 2 quad 1A and only 4 quad 1. The 10-0 mark in quad 2 is impressive.13 of their wins coming vs. quad 3 and 4, as opposed to just 6 for A&M. Tech also has 12 wins vs. the last 2 quadrants.

Kentucky has the edge in the sheer number of high quality wins, interesting to note, they did not add any quad1A wins after the initial reveal and "only" added 2 quad 1 wins. Kentucky also has a significant edge over A&M in the quality metrics, particularly in Torvik, although i think that's probably the metric that will be discounted the most.

I agree, the more i keep studying the resumes the more i feel good about why i have St. John's ahead. And just remember i had St. John's ahead of us before Saturday when they added one of their best wins of the year, while we merely added a quad 2 win.

ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

I agree, the more i keep studying the resumes the more i feel good about why i have St. John's ahead. And just remember i had St. John's ahead of us before Saturday when they added one of their best wins of the year, while we merely added a quad 2 win.

---

I don't really see it that way. In my mind I had them ahead of us thanks to their great run they've been on but side by side i think we have the better resume.

I think its close enough that if you got 10 people in a room at least 3 would see it on each side of it. Just depends what metric is most important to the committee.

ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

I think its close enough that if you got 10 people in a room at least 3 would see it on each side of it. Just depends what metric is most important to the committee.

---

Y'all know I get hung up on non conference schedule and with everything relatively close I can see us getting rewarded.

Absolutely. If we get a 2 it is absolutely because of the non conference.

Great discussion!

Sure beats the bubble talk we've been part of in the last few years (even though we clearly were not really on the bubble last year).

So according to bracketing principles (unless I am reading an outdated version), the committee will try to place a team to the closest venue and will even move down a team to get them to a venue close to home.

While this does apply to the pods, it also applies to the regions. I ultimately think St. Johns will get more votes than us, but in order to be a 2 seed, SJU would have to go to the furthest region away. I don't think they will do this as they can put them as a 3 seed in the East (which is probably what they prefer)

Quick question because I am too lazy to go look it up...

As far as rules go with conferences, do they avoid conference match-ups until S16, or could you see a conf match-up occur at 32?

Okay, I got un-lazy...

Quote:

---

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.

---

Does A&M get back in consideration for a #2 seed if they beat Vandy/longhorns and Tenn? Previous tourney committees were pretty set on seedings, and the only purpose of the conf tourneys was to create some chaos, forcing the committee to adjust things.

Overall, I am not a fan of conference tourneys, which do nothing for major conferences and devalue the season for mid-majors.

I think A&M is already back in consideration for the 2 seed, regardless of what happens in the SEC tournament. There are multiple factors that could determine whether or not a 2 seed actually happens.

1) How much will the committee weight wins/losses in the SEC tourny to determine seeding? All wins/losses in the tournament will be quad 1 for A&M.

2) What does the committee value when seeding the teams? There are already multiple breakdowns on this forum of A&M against some of the other 2-seed competition.

I think we're gonna be at least a 3 almost no matter what, maybe that would depend on other games more than ours if we lose early. I think beating Tennessee still leaves us in the 2 or 3 range, and beating Auburn again would kinda lock us in as a #2 seed regardless of any other result. Potential championship game is virtually a total non-factor.

caleblyn said:

---

Okay, I got un-lazy...

Quote:

---

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.

---

---

So based on this, we could potentially play a team like ole Miss in round 2 if they were a 6 seed because we only played them once this season

NyAggie said:

---

caleblyn said:

---

Okay, I got un-lazy...

Quote:

---

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.

Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.

---

---

So based on this, we could potentially play a team like ole Miss in round 2 if they were a 6 seed because we only played them once this season

---

Yes… If I were betting though, I think it's more likely they avoid matching the 2/7 or 3/6 and instead have that possible matchup being the 2/10 or 3/11…. so more likely a 3/6/11 of Texas A&M/Louisville/Arkansas.

ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

Placing a team on a different seed line just to get them a preferred region violates their bracketing principles and the entire process that they use to create the field.

They place the 1s in their preferred region from 1-4.

Then they do the 2s, #5 gets first choice (but generally can't be with #1 and can't be with a team from the same conference - read Alabama is going to be with Houston)
The #8 team just gets the last region left that meets their principles. They won't move a team to a 3 to get them closer to home.

The only time teams change seed lines is if they can't make a seed work for the team because it violates a rule that has more priority. I.e. there are no sites as an 8 seed for BYU, or if Mississippi state couldn't be an 8 because they had already played all the 1 seeds this year (that's not actually true, just an example).

---

I understand that. But there are stipulations in their rules that allow for that variance:








https://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/files/finalfourprinciples.pdf

I do think the natural area of interest thing is worded strangely in the bracketing principles but what you're saying would screw up the whole process.

Can someone think of any other team that ever received a #2 seed in the NCAA Tournament that would be similar to St Johns getting one without even playing a single team rated in the top 20, much less beating one?

You'd need an absolutely dominant team in a bad but major conference so I doubt it's happened. 2018 Cincy was close, 2015 Gonzaga only had one top 20 game and only had 4 top 30 games because they played BYU three times.

But we're also in kind of a new era of which metrics they're looking at and whatnot so it's hard to draw on too much historical data.

I mean just this year we have a whole new metric that it looks like the committee is going to lean pretty heavily on and we have a bunch of huge conferences now.

This pdf is 14 years old. The NCAA publishes their updated procedure at their website.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2025-01-16/how-field-68-di-mens-teams-picked-march-madness-each-season

That confusing language (which was referring to the principles of conference teams not playing each other) was reworded.