bobinator said:
People really need to be paying more attention to the NET WAB rankings. I think it's the single most important metric for how the committee is going to do things.
Not a big fan of this one this season given some of Texas' WTF losses to MSU, ASU, etc.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/wins-above-bubble-ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-seeding/Quote:
. . .
While it's improbable that any selection or seeding decision made by the committee would be based on a single metric, WAB can be a guiding light in resume evaluations. It certainly was in 2025.
"Well the hardest decisions the committee has to make, I think, are probably those ones at the bottom of the at-large selection, right?" Gavitt said. "There's a reason why everyone tracks this so closely, the bubble teams. Who is going to get in and who's not going to get in? Comparing those resumes is often a real challenge when you have schools from different leagues, or very different schedule strengths.
"You really want to try to right-size that as much as possible and be comparing apples to apples versus apples to oranges. And the WAB, I think, has helped the committee do just that."
. . .
WAB thus far:
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/wab-rankingA&M (44) is ranked 11th in this metric in the SEC, but just barely behind Mizzou (38), Georgia (39), Texas (40), and Auburn (42).
Going by WAB Alabama (11) is the best team in the SEC and would be a 3 seed today, which is considerably lower than what most have them. Bracketmatrix has them as a 5 seed and Lunardi a 4 seed.
It's probably more useful as to the final bubble teams, as the quote above indicates.