Ken Pom has us doing the same thing, losing our last ten. We will be underdogs in all ten of those contests probably.
As stated in other threads, the magic number is NINE more wins (I don't think it matters what buckets they come from). EIGHT puts us in good position that we might likely sneak in.
Bottom line, to get to NINE wins somehow, they better make hay in the next six-game stretch. Then, will probably need to pull off 2-4 upsets.
The models don't like us because we don't play very efficient on either end of the floor. But, every year, there are teams who aren't all that efficient who win games. That's why I'm not a huge fan of the NCAA adding the "efficiency" models into their calculations.
A highly efficient team that is supposed to win 21 games based on the model, but wins only 17 games instead will rank much higher than a lesser efficient team that is supposed to win 17 based on the model, but wins 21 - just because they are more efficient (almost rendering the actual most important thing meaningless - the WIN). It drives me nuts that the NCAA has now included "predictive" formulas into a decision that should be completely results oriented.