Field of 68 Projection: Conference Season Is Just Around The Corner

[SelectionSunday]

EDEN PRAIRIE, MN – We’re at the stage of the college basketball season where full-fledged conference play is just around the corner. The Diamond Head Classic (Dec. 22-23, 25) in Hawaii and what’s left of Christmas week signals things are about to get truly real.

As we finish the scraps of the non-conference season, let’s take a look at how the Field of 68 is shaping up. Again, this week’s projection is almost exclusively about tournament resumes to date and not about projecting future results though, full disclosure, you will see an outlier at-large team (or two) in the bracket with nothing close to a quality win on its resume (cough, cough, #20 Texas).

Automatic qualifiers (team with best conference record and/or best NET ranking) from multiple-bid conferences are noted in bold. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all!

5th IN-SEASON FIELD OF 68 PROJECTION (through games played December 18)
America East (1): Vermont (94)

American (2): Houston (5), UCF (45)

ACC (4): Duke (7), Virginia Tech (28), Wake Forest (34), North Carolina (49)

ASUN (1): Jacksonville (121)

Atlantic 10 (1): Davidson (52)

Big East (7): Xavier (12), Villanova (16), UConn (21), Seton Hall (26), Providence (31), Creighton (58), Marquette (68)

Big Sky (1): Montana State (125)

Big South (1): Campbell (126)

Big Ten (8): Purdue (4), Michigan State (13), Illinois (17), Ohio State (19), Iowa (23), Wisconsin (29), Minnesota (33), Indiana (40)

Big XII (7): Baylor (2), Kansas (8), Iowa State (14), Texas (20), Texas Tech (30), West Virginia (39), Oklahoma (42)

Big West (1): UC-Irvine (53)

Colonial (1): Towson (77)

Conference USA (1): UAB (50)

Horizon (1): Oakland (63)

Ivy (1): Princeton (102)

MAAC (2): Monmouth (46), Iona (56)

MAC (1): Ohio (83)

MEAC (1): Norfolk (197)

Missouri Valley (1): Loyola (15)

Mountain West (3): Wyoming (18), Colorado State (27), Utah State (44)

NEC (1): Wagner (59)

OVC (1): Belmont (36)

Pac 12 (3): Arizona (1), USC (11), UCLA (22)

Patriot (1): Navy (66)

SEC (6): LSU (3), Tennessee (9), Auburn (10), Alabama (24), Kentucky (32), Florida (60)

SoCon (1): Chattanooga (43)

Southland (1): Nicholls (124)

SWAC (1): Texas Southern (147)

Summit (1): Western Illinois (96)

Sun Belt (1): Texas State (74)

WCC (4): Gonzaga (6), BYU (25), San Francisco (37), Saint Mary’s (54)

WAC (1): New Mexico State (67)
_________________________________
Last 4 In: San Francisco (37), Indiana (40), Iona (56), Florida (60)

First 4 Out: Michigan (35), Murray (38), Cincinnati (51), Arkansas (90)

8 to Watch: Northwestern (41), Mississippi State (47), Memphis (55), DePaul (57), TCU (62), San Diego State (64), Clemson (65), VCU (79)

Non-Power 6 At-Large Bids (7): Houston (5), BYU (25), Colorado State (27), San Francisco (37), Utah State (44), Saint Mary’s (54), Iona (56)

New to the Field (10): Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana State, New Mexico State, Nicholls, Norfolk, Ohio, Texas State, UCF

Dropped from the Field (10): Arkansas, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Michigan, Saint Bonaventure, South Alabama, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, UMES, Utah Valley, Weber
__________________________________________
Ineligible for NCAA Tournament (9): Oklahoma State (75), Cal Baptist (174), UC-San Diego (200), Saint Thomas (208), Bellarmine (226), Tarleton (227), North Alabama (251), Dixie (254), Merrimack (283)

 

[Ope3]

I haven't paid much attention to the ACC, are they really that weak?

 

[Cayman]

I haven't paid much attention to the ACC, are they really that weak?

Western Kentucky beat Louisville the other day, and Chris Mack might be on the hot seat. Virginia is having a down year, they nearly lost to Pitt. Notre Dame is under .500. Every team except Duke and Wake Forest has at least 3 losses.

 

[SelectionSunday]

I haven't paid much attention to the ACC, are they really that weak?

So far, yes.

Even having 4 in the field at this point could be considered generous. Won't be a lot of conference wins that will move the resume needle.

 

[SelectionSunday]

A "NET" nugget to throw out there for future reference.

Since the NCAA introduced the NET in 2018-19 season, #73 (Saint John's in 2019) has the lowest NET ranking to receive an at-large bid. Here are the 5 worst NET rankings to get an at-large bid (and how far they advanced).

#73 Saint John’s (2019) – First Four
#72 Wichita State (2021) – First Four
#70 Michigan State (2021) – First Four
#63 Arizona State (2019) – 1st round
#61 GOPHERS (2019) – 2nd round

 

[Holy Man]

A "NET" nugget to throw out there for future reference.

Since the NCAA introduced the NET in 2018-19 season, #73 (Saint John's in 2019) has the lowest NET ranking to receive an at-large bid. Here are the 5 worst NET rankings to get an at-large bid (and how far they advanced)?

#73 Saint John’s (2019) – First Four
#72 Wichita State (2021) – First Four
#70 Michigan State (2021) – First Four
#63 Arizona State (2019) – 1st round
#61 GOPHERS (2019) – 2nd round

So, with the greater familiarity with the NET formula, are we likely to see more consistent patterns of its use in determining the field? As I recall, with the Gophers entering the field at 61, we on the board were hostile to the NET being flawed because the Gophers were pretty good but the numbers didn't show it. NC State appeared to game the system and have an inflated NET. Wolfpack didn't get an invite, and the Gophers did with justice prevailing. Has the NET been modified enough to make it a more reliable tool than it was before?

 

[Ope3]

So, with the greater familiarity with the NET formula, are we likely to see more consistent patterns of its use in determining the field? As I recall, with the Gophers entering the field at 61, we on the board were hostile to the NET being flawed because the Gophers were pretty good but the numbers didn't show it. NC State appeared to game the system and have an inflated NET. Wolfpack didn't get an invite, and the Gophers did with justice prevailing. Has the NET been modified enough to make it a more reliable tool than it was before?

I would think the NET is used as the RPI was, one's own NET does not matter (unless it's extremely good) as much as how it used to figure out Quad 1 & 2 wins etc.

For instance, if I was a coach of a bubble team, I would much rather have a couple more Quad 1 wins and a NET of 61 than a few less and a NET of say 55. No brainer.

 

[skyman31]

Yeah, the NET feels pretty good at broadly grouping teams into categories, even if it’s not necessarily great for direct comparisons between teams

 

[bizzle22]

Yeah, the NET feels pretty good at broadly grouping teams into categories, even if it’s not necessarily great for direct comparisons between teams

Yep. This is a great way to explain it. Totally different than the Pairwise rankings in college hockey which are meant to directly compare teams.