Blind Resume (Part 3)

Excluding weekends, I'll roughly do a couple per day (1 morning, 1 afternoon) throughout the next couple weeks as we head toward Championship Week (begins Feb. 27). This exercise will help familiarize us with potential bubble teams across the country.

I'll provide the resumes of 3 bubble teams & in each scenario you're the Selection Committee and you can only choose 1 of the 3 for inclusion in the NCAA Tournament. (you have to trust me that the teams are not considered locks for the NCAA Tournament) I will not list the team's RPI but will provide some of the basic things that I look at when selecting the 37 at-large teams. You have about 4 hours to submit your selection here. I will disclose the teams at approximately 11 a.m.

Which 1 of these 3 would you select if you only had 1 spot left for your NCAA Tournament field?

Team A
Record: 19-8
Overall Strength of Schedule (SOS): 124
Nonconference SOS: 321
Road/Neutral Record: 7-4
Record vs. RPI Top 50: 4-3
Record vs. RPI Top 100: 5-5
Bad Losses (RPI 101+): 3
Best 3 Wins by RPI: @ #12, @ #24, #38 (total = 74)

Team B
Record: 17-7
Overall Strength of Schedule (SOS): 101
Nonconference SOS: 1
Road/Neutral Record: 10-7
Record vs. RPI Top 50: 0-6
Record vs. RPI Top 100: 2-7
Bad Losses (RPI 101+): 0
Best 3 Wins by RPI: vs. #52, @ #93, @ #121 (total = 266)

Team C
Record: 17-7
Overall Strength of Schedule (SOS): 97
Nonconference SOS: 187
Road/Neutral Record: 5-6
Record vs. RPI Top 50: 2-4
Record vs. RPI Top 100: 3-5
Bad Losses (RPI 101+): 2
Best 3 Wins by RPI: vs. #24, #26, #53 (total = 103)

I ask that if you think you've figured out who any of these teams are, please do not post the team(s) name, as that could influence people's selection.

Team A

There really aren't 37 better at large options than these three? I say Team C, same record as B with a tougher schedule and roughly the same winning percentage as A with a tougher schedule.

Team A.

Team A

Team B

A

Slight nod to A for the high quality and quantity of wins they have, and still a good road record. They obviously didn't challenge themselves in non-conference, but they've got quality anyway, which tells me they're heating up.

B. A has 3 really bad losses.

The teams are. ...

I thought this was our most difficult one to date, as the 3 resumes were vastly different. In the end, my gut told me to pick C because they "split the difference" between A and B.

I like A's quality wins, but the nonconference schedule is deplorable. The Selection Committee generally doesn't like teams that play nonconference schedules in the 300's (see Virginia Tech in 2010, Colorado in 2011). I like the fact that B has the toughest nonconference schedule in the country and has no bad losses, but I can't get past the fact they have no top-50 wins. Playing a great schedule is a good thing, but it doesn't do you much good if you don't beat any of the best opponents (top-50) on your schedule.

So I chose C. Not a ringing endoresment, I know, but they've done enough when compared directly vs. A and B for 1 spot.

The final tally. ...

A = Cincinnati (5 votes)
B = Long Beach State (2 votes)
C = UCF (2 votes)

For what it's worth, if LBSU fails to win the Big West Tournament and ends up in the at-large pool, I think they're going to be the most interesting/difficult case for the Selection Committee. When I watch LBSU play I see a team that has "scheduled up", competed well vs. top-notch opponents and could win a game or 2 in the NCAA tourney, but on the other hand, should the committee reward a team that has no top-50 wins and only 2 vs. the top 100?

A