Bubble watch

[msstate7]

Duke and NCSU tied at 40

Really don't need NCSU locking up a spot tonight

[Coach34]

Let us assume we split this week. Does getting to Sunday in the conference tourney get us in? Thoughts?

If we split? Probably have to make it to Sunday

[CrookedLetta]

Regarding the tournament, this is all dependent upon who we play. If we play and beat a Quad 1 team, we move up. If we play and beat a Quad 2 team, we potentially stay the same.

[msstate7]

Regarding the tournament, this is all dependent upon who we play. If we play and beat a Quad 1 team, we move up. If we play and beat a Quad 2 team, we potentially stay the same.

And it also depends on who others win against/lose to

[smootness]

This is an inexact science. There is no guarantee for us at this point short of the auto bid. No one knows anything, including those making definitive statements about what gets us in.

[msstate7]

Duke appears to have this game in control now.

[msstate7]

South Carolina -2

[DawgBone]

So I went back and did some research, using only last years tournament for reference since it was the first year the NCAA went to the NET formula. I?m not 100% certain on what teams were bubble teams at the end of the year, but I did the best I could.

Bubble teams to miss tournament
NC State- NET-33, Record- 22-11, Q1- 3-9
Clemson- NET-35, Record- 19-13, Q1- 1-10
Texas- NET-38, Record- 16-16, Q1- 5-10 (a team very similar to Purdue this year)
Furman- NET-41, Record- 22-7, Q1- 1-5 (Terrible SOS)
Memphis- NET-46, Record- 21-13, Q1- 2-9
TCU- NET-52, Record- 20-13, Q1-3-9 (similar resume to ours this year, except they went 7-11 in conference)

Teams to make the tournament with an at-large bid
Arizona St(last 4 in, play in game)- NET-63, Record- 22-10, Q1 3-3(the lowest rated NET in tournament to grab an at-large bid)
Minnesota- NET-61, Record- 21-13, Q1 5-9
Seton Hall- NET-57, Record- 20-13, Q1- 7-8
Ohio State- NET-55, Record- 19-14, Q1- 4-10 (their 57% win % is one of the lowest to get an at-large, Florida 56%) (No team has ever received an at-large below 53%)
Temple(last 4 in, play in game)- NET- 56, Record 23-9, Q1- 2-6
Belmont(last 4 in, play in game)- NET- 47, Record- 25-5, Q1-2-2
St. Johns(last 4 in, play in game)- NET-73, Record- 21-12, Q1- 5-7

St. Johns is probably the biggest head scratcher here, other than their 5 Q1 wins, their Non Conf. SOS was 197. They went 4-6 down the stretch and 2-2 vs Q1 teams. The Big East was down last year and only got 4 teams in. I just don?t understand how they got in.
I felt like NC State probably deserved a bid over ASU
Ohio State went 3-7 down the stretch and didn?t have a single Q1 win in their final 10 games(5 opportunities)
Temple only played 1 Q1 game their last 10 games
Belmont played 1 Q3 game, 8 Q4 games and 1 Q1 game.
8 teams with a NET rating of 45 and below earned an at-large last year
10 teams with a NET of 46-73 failed to receive an at-large(didn?t count teams with losing records, zero Q1 wins or obvious non-tourney teams)

[klong-dog]

I give us about a 40% chance in Columbia. We need this one so bad.

[confucius say]

So I went back and did some research, using only last years tournament for reference since it was the first year the NCAA went to the NET formula. I?m not 100% certain on what teams were bubble teams at the end of the year, but I did the best I could.

Bubble teams to miss tournament
NC State- NET-33, Record- 22-11, Q1- 3-9
Clemson- NET-35, Record- 19-13, Q1- 1-10
Texas- NET-38, Record- 16-16, Q1- 5-10 (a team very similar to Purdue this year)
Furman- NET-41, Record- 22-7, Q1- 1-5 (Terrible SOS)
Memphis- NET-46, Record- 21-13, Q1- 2-9
TCU- NET-52, Record- 20-13, Q1-3-9 (similar resume to ours this year, except they went 7-11 in conference)

Teams to make the tournament with an at-large bid
Arizona St(last 4 in, play in game)- NET-63, Record- 22-10, Q1 3-3(the lowest rated NET in tournament to grab an at-large bid)
Minnesota- NET-61, Record- 21-13, Q1 5-9
Seton Hall- NET-57, Record- 20-13, Q1- 7-8
Ohio State- NET-55, Record- 19-14, Q1- 4-10 (their 57% win % is one of the lowest to get an at-large, Florida 56%) (No team has ever received an at-large below 53%)
Temple(last 4 in, play in game)- NET- 56, Record 23-9, Q1- 2-6
Belmont(last 4 in, play in game)- NET- 47, Record- 25-5, Q1-2-2
St. Johns(last 4 in, play in game)- NET-73, Record- 21-12, Q1- 5-7

St. Johns is probably the biggest head scratcher here, other than their 5 Q1 wins, their Non Conf. SOS was 197. They went 4-6 down the stretch and 2-2 vs Q1 teams. The Big East was down last year and only got 4 teams in. I just don?t understand how they got in.
I felt like NC State probably deserved a bid over ASU
Ohio State went 3-7 down the stretch and didn?t have a single Q1 win in their final 10 games(5 opportunities)
Temple only played 1 Q1 game their last 10 games
Belmont played 1 Q3 game, 8 Q4 games and 1 Q1 game.
8 teams with a NET rating of 45 and below earned an at-large last year
10 teams with a NET of 46-73 failed to receive an at-large(didn?t count teams with losing records, zero Q1 wins or obvious non-tourney teams)

Good stuff. Hard to find a common denominator among teams that got in vs teams that didn't.

I still believe if we get to 12-6 and fourth in the league (or better) we are going to get in. Winning one in Nashville would seal it.

[confucius say]

Lunardi has us third team out now. With Cincinnati the last team in and bc state and Tex ahead of us. All three of those have worse nets than us right now.

[notoriousdog]

Bubble teams to miss tournament
NC State- NET-33, Record- 22-11, Q1- 3-9
Clemson- NET-35, Record- 19-13, Q1- 1-10
Texas- NET-38, Record- 16-16, Q1- 5-10 (a team very similar to Purdue this year)
Furman- NET-41, Record- 22-7, Q1- 1-5 (Terrible SOS)
Memphis- NET-46, Record- 21-13, Q1- 2-9
TCU- NET-52, Record- 20-13, Q1-3-9 (similar resume to ours this year, except they went 7-11 in conference)

Teams to make the tournament with an at-large bid
Arizona St(last 4 in, play in game)- NET-63, Record- 22-10, Q1 3-3(the lowest rated NET in tournament to grab an at-large bid)
Minnesota- NET-61, Record- 21-13, Q1 5-9
Seton Hall- NET-57, Record- 20-13, Q1- 7-8
Ohio State- NET-55, Record- 19-14, Q1- 4-10 (their 57% win % is one of the lowest to get an at-large, Florida 56%) (No team has ever received an at-large below 53%)
Temple(last 4 in, play in game)- NET- 56, Record 23-9, Q1- 2-6
Belmont(last 4 in, play in game)- NET- 47, Record- 25-5, Q1-2-2
St. Johns(last 4 in, play in game)- NET-73, Record- 21-12, Q1- 5-7

St. Johns is probably the biggest head scratcher here, other than their 5 Q1 wins, their Non Conf. SOS was 197. They went 4-6 down the stretch and 2-2 vs Q1 teams. The Big East was down last year and only got 4 teams in. I just don?t understand how they got in.
I felt like NC State probably deserved a bid over ASU
Ohio State went 3-7 down the stretch and didn?t have a single Q1 win in their final 10 games(5 opportunities)
Temple only played 1 Q1 game their last 10 games
Belmont played 1 Q3 game, 8 Q4 games and 1 Q1 game.
8 teams with a NET rating of 45 and below earned an at-large last year
10 teams with a NET of 46-73 failed to receive an at-large(didn?t count teams with losing records, zero Q1 wins or obvious non-tourney teams)

Excellent info! I agree that St. John's and Temple were weird ones last year.

NC State was punished for their Non-Conf SOS -- 340. Something that the committee has consistently rewarded/punished teams for over the years. They also had an RPI of 83 which makes me wonder if some committee members were still leaning on that metric.

Q1 wins: St. John's 5 > NC State 3
Non-Conf SOS: St. John's 197 > NC State 340

These two appear to be big factors.

Ohio State vs TCU: OSU had a similar NET (55 vs 52) and SOS (34 vs 35). The non-conf SOS (82 vs 99) appears to have given them the edge over TCU.

Temple's NET was similar to all of the bubble teams, but they had less Q1 wins than pretty much all. Their trump card? A win over NET #4 Houston. They had the best win on their resume of all the bubble teams. Also, they had an RPI of 36 and a conf record of 13-5. Once again-- are committee members still leaning on RPI?