Selection Sunday for the 2026 NCAA Tournament is less than two months away. Our Bubble Watch dives into every at-large contender with weekly Wednesday updates.
The 2026 NCAA Tournament is drawing nearer, and with that comes a new season of the Bubble Watch — this time for Basket Under Review. The goal of the Bubble Watch is to assess the at-large landscape, separate teams into categories based on their current status, and evaluate the pros and cons of resumes, as well as the remaining schedules.
The Bubble Watch page will be updated each Wednesday, sandwiched between updates to the bracketology projected field that are posted on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. If looking simply for that projected bracket, see here.
For those who are new to the Bubble Watch column (previously at Heat Check CBB for the past few seasons), here is a breakdown of the categories:
Write-ups are current through the morning of Jan. 28, 2026.
Atlantic Coast
Deadbolt lock: Duke
Firmly in the field: Virginia, North Carolina, Louisville, Clemson
Some perspiration: SMU, NC State
Double the deodorant: Miami (FL), Virginia Tech, California, Stanford
Needs a shower (of wins): Wake Forest, Notre Dame
Virginia Cavaliers
Virginia is quietly 4-0 in Quadrant 1A games this season, the second-most wins of any team in those elite-tier contests. It also only has three losses and ranks pretty solidly across efficiency metrics. The first year under Ryan Odom has been a clear success, as the Cavaliers are jockeying for protected seed positioning heading into February. A couple of Quadrant 3 games are next on the schedule after needing double-OT to win at Notre Dame. Successfully navigate the games against Boston College and Pittsburgh, and UVA will reach lock status.
North Carolina Tar Heels
North Carolina’s raw metric average of 25.4 slots in around the No. 6-7 seed range, but its top-level wins far outstrip its metric peers and would likely lead to a seed boost. Teams like St. John’s, Saint Louis, and Iowa are all in a similar tier of UNC’s metrics but own a combined two wins over the projected at-large field. The Tar Heels can boast about a home win over Kansas, as well as road victories over Kentucky and Virginia. Their road slip-ups to Stanford and California remain in Quadrant 1 but are still noticeable when comparing the top 16-24 resumes of the sport, as are the lower metrics.
North Carolina is yet to lose at home, and still gets all three of Duke (Feb. 2), Louisville (Feb. 23), and Clemson (Mar. 3) at the Dean Dome before the end of the regular season.
Louisville Cardinals
Louisville’s resume is similar in archetype to that of teams like Florida, Iowa, and NC State dotted throughout the seed list. That is, the Cardinals’ results-based resume (average rank of 33.3) does not match that of its presumed quality by performance-based metrics (average rank of 15.7). This leads to some potential seed volatility; UL could be underseeded for its quality or overseeded for its lesser merits.
Where Louisville’s resume lacks is in quality wins; its only wins over the field are over Kentucky and Cal. Where it thrives is with no bad losses and some extremely impressive margins (winning at Cal and Pittsburgh by a combined 61 points) to boost metrics like the BPI, where it ranks 10th in the country.
Additionally, Mikel Brown returned to UL’s lineup two games ago after missing the previous month of action. The Cardinals went 4-4 without the star freshman, compared to 10-2 when he has been available. Even with their recent 31-point road loss to Duke with Brown, Louisville has played at the level of the No. 9 team in the country when he’s been available compared to just the No. 22 team when he was unavailable (Hoop-Explorer). If the Duke loss was just a blip and they continue to be excellent when Brown plays, it could be something to monitor.
Clemson Tigers
Clemson has simply stacked solid albeit not spectacular wins throughout the first 2.5 months of the season en route to a largely inoffensive resume. The Tigers are 17-4 with metrics that rank in the top 30 across the board, plus own a respectable three wins over the projected field. However, none of those wins are over teams projected better than a No. 8 seed at the moment (N over Georgia, H over SMU, H over Miami (FL)).
Where the Tigers’ resume particularly thrives is in its depth; they own seven Quadrant 2 wins, second-most in the country (behind Michigan and tied with UConn). With a 12-4 record against the upper-three quadrants, Clemson is in strong position to dance as a mid-tier at-large seed. After hosting Pittsburgh in its next game, Clemson then plays four straight games against either tournament hopefuls (at Stanford, at Cal, vs. Virginia Tech) or a projected No. 1 seed (at Duke). The stretch could majorly determine seeding down the road.
SMU Mustangs
There is not a ton to love about SMU’s resume, but there also isn’t anything to hate, and sometimes that is all it takes to earn a steady seed. The Mustangs are 15-5 with a trio of wins over the field (N over Texas A&M, H over North Carolina, H over Virginia Tech), plus boast a clean resume of no losses outside of Quadrant 1. Their resume metrics are ~10 spots higher than their quality metrics, indicating a potential drop-off pending but SMU is still at the level of a tournament team. The Mustangs have opportunities to boost their seeding up next when they go on the road to face Louisville before returning home to host NC State.
So far this season, SMU has beaten all but one team (LSU) it is rated higher than on KenPom. Continue to do that, or mix in a quality win to compensate for a “bad” loss, and the Mustangs should reach the Big Dance for the first time since 2017.
NC State Wolfpack
Right after suffering a Quadrant 3 home loss to Georgia Tech, NC State has bounced back with a three-game win streak that included a road win over Clemson. The win over the Tigers marks the Wolfpacks’ only in Q1 and their only over the projected field, but it is enough compared to several bubble teams either matching that quantity or lacking it — especially when paired with NC State ranking in the top 30 across all three quality metrics. With resume metrics of 40.0 and the aforementioned Q3 loss, the Wolfpack are still feeling some perspiration.
The ACC is filled with tournament teams this season, and NC State’s upcoming schedule reflects that. After facing Wake Forest on the road in its next game, the Wolfpack then play six straight against teams currently in the projected field. They can quickly add to only owning one tournament-level win over this stretch. A feather in NC State’s cap is a 4-1 true road record.
Miami (FL) Hurricanes
Miami (FL) looked to be in pretty solid, or at least only “some perspiration,” shape a couple of weeks ago when it was 15-2 with its only losses coming on neutral floors to Florida and BYU. After back-to-back double-digit losses to Clemson and Florida State (thankfully followed by a road win over Syracuse), though, the luster wore off on the elite win percentage. The view now shows no wins over the projected field, its lone Q1 win over a non-bubble team in Wake Forest, and a Quadrant 3 loss to Florida State to drag down its resume. The Hurricanes also only played the No. 225 nonconference SOS, leading to nine of their 16 wins coming in Quadrant 4.
The reasons for still being included in the projected field are road performance and metric-based. Miami (FL) is 4-1 in true road games and 5-3 in all games away from home, with the losses all coming to quality competition in Florida, BYU, and Clemson. Six of their seven team sheet metrics rank in the top 42 (54th in KPI), leading to a low-40s metric average that is superior to much of the rest of the bubble.
Virginia Tech Hokies
Virginia Tech has played in three of the top 23 most “exciting” games on KenPom this season, needing triple-OT to beat Virginia, and single-OT to beat both Providence and South Carolina. Obviously, winning all of those games has been key to landing on the right side of the cutline right now (40.7 resume metric average), but the skinny margins have led to ranking sub-60 on average across quality metrics. Additionally, the win over Virginia is their only in Quadrant 1. As such, there is work to be done to avoid running out of deodorant before Selection Sunday.
Virginia Tech has plenty of opportunities left, though, starting with playing each of its next three games against tournament-caliber opponents: vs. Duke, at NC State, and at Clemson. All three are Quadrant 1 games, and the Hokies might need to take at least one. Even though they are underdogs in all, falling to 1-8 in Q1 would be the consequence of going 0-3; that would be tough to recover from.
California Golden Bears
Another bubble teams with far better resume metrics (40.7) than quality metrics (66.0), the question is: which is more indicative of future play? Theoretically, the predictive-based models of BPI, KenPom, and T-Rank will win out in the end, and all rank Cal at 60th or worse, leading to reduced confidence of continuing on the win-loss trajectory that it has displayed to this point. But, bracketology is about projecting the field at a given time and, for this given time, Cal has done enough to be firmly in the bubble mix, mainly due to its wins over North Carolina, UCLA, and Stanford — all three of which land in Quadrant 1.
The poor quality metrics are a major blow as is having faced just the No. 328 nonconference strength of schedule. Both are easy reasons to leave the Golden Bears out, especially as more teams around them start to match their quantity of quality wins. Perhaps it is easier to already have those wins and instead focus on piling up easier victories and boosting metrics than still needing to chase an elusive signature victory or two, though.
Stanford Cardinal
There might not be a trickier resume to evaluate in college basketball than Stanford’s right now. The Cardinal are 4-2 in Quadrant 1 with all of the victories being over projected tournament teams, but also have suffered three Quadrant 3 losses. Even results-based metrics are confused as to what to do with that information, as Stanford ranks 50th in WAB and 59th in SOR…but 30th in KPI? Perhaps all things balance out in the resume department to be around the bubble, but then what should the committee do with quality metrics averaging sub-80?
As it stands, the Cardinal’s four tournament-level wins are way above most of the bubble and some people could have them safely in the field as a result. Others could view Stanford’s bad losses combined with relatively horrible quality metrics as reasons to put them several teams away from the field. There is no telling what the committee would do if Selection Sunday was this weekend, but I lean towards the four Q1 wins as the most important, and thus have Stanford ever-so-barely in the field, at least until other teams start catching up.
If Stanford keeps adding to its Q1 total, though, such as on the road against Miami FL next, it will become increasingly difficult for those siding with the quality metrics to ignore the wins.
Big 12
Deadbolt lock: Arizona, Iowa State, Houston, Texas Tech
Firmly in the field: BYU, Kansas
Some perspiration: UCF
Double the deodorant: TCU, Oklahoma State, West Virginia
Needs a shower (of wins): Baylor, Cincinnati, Arizona State
BYU Cougars
With top-15 rankings in six of seven team sheet metrics, BYU has put itself not only firmly in the field but also in solid positioning for a protected seed. The metrics paint the picture of a likely No. 4 seed at this point, and not having suffered any losses outside of Quadrant 1 furthers the belief in a high seed projection. BYU owns four wins over the current field+core bubble, but none over teams projected as No. 6 seeds or better. While all games are treated equally regardless of timing, the Cougars’ best win came all the way back on Nov. 3.
The 0-3 record against the upper-half of Q1 is what stagnates the projection around a No. 3-seed ceiling — at least for right now. Opportunities still persist for BYU to climb. The Cougars still have four chances in Q1A games left, including a road bout with Kansas up next.
Kansas Jayhawks
Since Bill Self took over back in 2003-04, Kansas has earned a top-4 seed in 21 of the last 22 NCAA Tournaments; last season was his first to not reach that mark, settling for a No. 7 seed. This season, Self and the Jayhawks are again competing for a protected seed, and every single metric says they belong to that status right now. From NET to SOR to KenPom, each team sheet metric slots KU between No. 14 and No. 17 in the country; in other words, welcome to a projected No. 4 seed. The Jayhawks own three Quadrant 1A wins, and have won the sixth-most Q1+2 wins in the country (10-5 in such games).
KU ranks third in overall strength of schedule, and its upcoming schedule represents a chance to rise into the top-3 seed lines with strong play. Four of the Jayhawks’ next five games are of the Q1A variety: vs. BYU, at Texas Tech, vs. Arizona, and at Iowa State — sandwiched around hosting Utah.
UCF Knights
UCF barrels towards February as a relatively easy team to select for the NCAA Tournament field but a difficult one to seed. The Knights rank top 22 across all three resume metrics, plus can boast tournament-level wins over Texas A&M (on the road) and Kansas. They are 11-4 overall against the upper three quadrants. With that said, though, their quality metric average sits at just 50.0, below many bubble-level teams. As such, projected fields might put UCF’s seeding closer to the bubble than it actually is; remember, teams are selected for the field before they are seeded. If the predictive metrics come to fruition and UCF starts dropping more games, though, the margin for error will obviously shrink.
TCU Horned Frogs
TCU started its at-large journey behind the eight-ball when it lost its season opener at home to New Orleans. The Quadrant 4 loss continues to hold the Horned Frogs back nearly three months later, but they have fought to overcome with neutral-site wins over Florida and Wisconsin, as well as completing a season-sweep of an admittedly non-tournament-level Baylor team. Having also lost to Utah on Jan. 17, though, TCU is now the only team in the at-large or core bubble picture with two losses in Quadrant 3 or 4 combined.
More opportunities for quality wins are on the horizon, though. The Horned Frogs face Houston and Iowa State at home in their next four games, sandwiched around playing at Colorado and vs. Kansas State. A 2-2 record over this stretch would keep TCU on the outside-looking-in, while a 3-1 result could push them into the field heading into mid-February.
Oklahoma State Cowboys
Oklahoma State started this season with a 13-2 record that included wins over Texas A&M and UCF to warrant single-digit seed consideration, even though its resume metrics far outstripped what KenPom and BPI believed of the team. After four losses in their last five games, though, the resume is starting to line up with the quality metrics. Oklahoma State still averages top-50 across KPI, SOR, and WAB, which is enough on its own to warrant consideration, but it lacks a Quadrant 1 win and rates sub-75 on average across the quality metrics. The Cowboys are also winless on the road in three tries, and played the No. 285 NCSOS.
The negatives have begun to outweigh the positives, but Oklahoma State has the time and opportunities to swing momentum back in its direction. Predictive metrics do not expect the Cowboys to do so, but that’s why they play the games. Two huge opportunities approach when Oklahoma State hosts BYU on Feb. 4 before traveling to Arizona on Feb. 7.
West Virginia Mountaineers
There is not much of an argument for West Virginia to be included in the projected field right now, but it is within striking range if it can string together some wins. The Mountaineers average 60.0 across resume metrics and 51.7 across quality metrics, sub-bubble but not by too much. They also already own a signature home win over Kansas, and feature the opportunities in Big 12 play to move up with the right results. Predictive metrics do not express confidence in the Mountaineers winning enough games to overcome what was a tough nonconference resume (-1.94 NC WAB), but they at least warrant inclusion until the metrics sink lower.
WVU must improve on a 2-7 record in Quadrants 1 and 2; all but one of its remaining 10 games fall in those quadrants.
Big Ten
Deadbolt lock: Michigan, Nebraska, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue
Firmly in the field: None.
Some perspiration: Iowa, Wisconsin, UCLA
Double the deodorant: USC, Ohio State, Indiana
Needs a shower (of wins): Washington
Iowa Hawkeyes
Iowa is one of the more difficult teams to assess at this point in the bracketology cycle. The Hawkeyes boast excellent quality metrics averaging at 23.3, but lack quality wins. They are just 1-4 in Quadrant 1 games, with the lone victory coming over a bubble team in Indiana. As such, the lack of wins over the field likely puts them behind teams with similar or even lesser metrics. But not all games against tournament-caliber teams are created equal, either; the Hawkeyes’ four losses in such contests are all to protected No. 3 seeds or better, with three of those games coming away from Iowa City.
Iowa will also have to wait to shore up the resume’s primary issue. The Hawkeyes only face one tournament-level team (USC) in their next six games. Even if Iowa loses some goodwill against non-tournament teams in its more immediate schedule, the closing stretch presents opportunities. Six of its final seven games against teams currently in the field.
Wisconsin Badgers
One win cannot make a resume alone, but Wisconsin looks to be trying. The Badgers’ resume features above-bubble metrics but not by all that much, plus they are only one game above-.500 against the upper three quadrants (7-6). The difference between Wisconsin and almost anyone else on the bubble, though, is having won on the road over a No. 1 seed (Michigan). The result is a peacock feather in their cap that they can wave at just about anyone. With only one other win over the field (vs. UCLA), though, UW is slotted around the No. 8-9 seed lines.
Back-to-back home games against Minnesota and Ohio State are next on the schedule, followed by the most pivotal five-games stretch of the season: at Indiana, at Illinois, vs. Michigan State, at Ohio State, vs. Iowa. As it stands, the Badgers are KenPom underdogs in all five games. They will more than likely win at least a couple of those games, but the results over that stretch could be what determine their eventual fate. The win over Michigan shows who Wisconsin can be at its best, and the looming schedule gives more chances to prove that.
UCLA Bruins
UCLA only holds one win over the projected field this season, but it was a big one at home over Purdue. Combine the signature win with no bad losses and metrics that average in the low-40s, and the Bruins find themselves just on the right side of the projected cutline — though are the closest of the “some perspiration” teams to needing a double dose of deodorant in this Bubble Watch update. The Bruins’ upcoming schedule includes four straight games in which they are favored on KenPom, and they will really want to take advantage of those games given the stretch that follows: at Michigan (Feb. 14), at Michigan State (Feb. 17), and vs. Illinois (Feb. 21).
A major detractor to UCLA’s resume right now is just a 2-6 record away from home. Additionally, the Bruins’ remaining schedule does not make improving on that record easy; they still have to face both Michigan, Michigan State, and USC on the road (in addition to easier chances against Oregon and Minnesota).
USC Trojans
You won’t find many teams with as much success away from home as USC this season. After beating Wisconsin in Madison this past weekend, the Trojans moved to 8-2 in road/neutral games this season. While none of them are major needle-movers, winning away from home is never easy and the quadrant delineations and resume metrics credit USC for doing so.
The Trojans are 11-5 against the upper three quadrants and feature resume metrics averaging in the mid-30s. Quality metrics are not as kind, though, averaging at 50.0. The fact that only the win over Wisconsin qualifies as Q1 or registers as a win over the field is also a blow. As such, the Trojans appear to be on the right side of the cutline but without much wiggle room.
Ohio State Buckeyes
Ohio State’s only Quadrant 1 victory in six tries is over a non-tournament team on the road in Northwestern (NET 69, at top 75 is Q1), while its only win over the field came over projected No. 10 seed UCLA. As a result, much of the Buckeyes’ case to date relies on having no losses against bottom two quadrants and above-bubble metrics. Their resume metrics average at 46.0, ahead of bubblicious teams with better top-end wins like Stanford or Missouri, while its quality metric average of 39.0 is above several other teams also projected in the field like UCF.
As more teams around them secure quality wins, though, Ohio State will have to as well to maintain a spot in the field — that is, if it currently has one (it does in my most recent update). Opportunities are plenty down the stretch, with six of the Buckeyes’ last 11 games coming in Q1.
Indiana Hoosiers
Indiana entered its home matchup with Purdue with top-35 quality metrics but was without a Quadrant 1 win and ranked sub-60 in resume metric average. The Hoosiers then went out and beat their rivals. Now armed with a signature win and a 11-spot jump in resume metrics, there is a much stronger case for Darian DeVries’ unit to be in the field. After all, its quality metric average is higher than the likes of North Carolina, Villanova, Kentucky, etc.
The Hoosiers still need to improve on just a 2-7 record against the upper two quadrants, though, especially as the second win is over a non-tournament team in Washington at home. A road trip to two other bubble teams in UCLA and USC looms that could be a major needle-mover for the Hoosiers. Combined probability gives IU a 72% chance to win at least one (22% of winning both). All three of IU’s away-from-home wins this season have been over opponents ranked outside of the top 140 of the NET; beating the Bruins or Trojans would be a huge plus.
SEC
Deadbolt lock: None.
Firmly in the field: Vanderbilt, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee
Some perspiration: Auburn, Kentucky, Georgia, Texas A&M
Double the deodorant: Missouri, Texas, LSU
Needs a shower (of wins): Mississippi
Vanderbilt Commodores
A 25-point home win over Kentucky might have been the last push for Vanderbilt to reach deadbolt lock status. The Commodores are now 18-3 with five Quadrant 1 wins, no losses outside the first quadrant, and boast top-13 metrics across the board. Vanderbilt was already in position to secure a protected seed, but the margin over UK might mean contending for a No. 2 or 3 seed again. The three-game skid from Jan. 14-20 appears to be over. Another streak that might be coming to an end is Vandy having not reached a Sweet 16 since 2007.
Florida Gators
Florida’s hot run of play over the last few weeks came to halt with a home loss to Auburn on Jan. 24, but the goodwill it earned over that stretch propelled it into the No. 4-6 seed range. Early in the season, results were not matching Florida’s level of play; prior to Jan. 6, the Gators had been just 9-5 but still ranked 14th on KenPom and 18th on Bart Torvik. Since winning five of their last six to reach 14-6, the numbers are starting to even out. Florida still rates much better in quality metrics (10.7 average) than resume metrics (22.0) but they are drawing closer.
Florida’s resume is in a comfortable spot, and its elite quality metrics could sway a committee to seed them higher than current projections. The Gators are the only team with a quality metric average of 12.0 or better to be outside of the top-3 seed lines in the latest Bracket Matrix update, and they are a current projected No. 5 seed.
Alabama Crimson Tide
Albeit not against the same caliber of team as Kentucky, Alabama made a case for lock status similar to Vanderbilt when it blew out Missouri by 26 at home in its latest game. The Crimson Tide do not boast a stellar record at 14-6 but their collection of wins is elite, having won at St. John’s, over Illinois on a neutral-site, and over Clemson and Kentucky at home. Four of their six losses are over projected protected seeds. Three of the Tide’s next four games come on the road, but they have already proven plenty capable in those environments. Their 7-3 record away-from-home is impressive, as are top-21 rankings across all seven team sheet metrics.
Arkansas Razorbacks
Arkansas owns five Quadrant 1 wins, has suffered no bad losses, and ranks in the top-25 universally across team sheet metrics. Essentially, welcome to the NCAA Tournament. The Razorbacks are in excellent position to dance, though their quality metric average of 23.3 is a touch behind those strongly contending for protected seeds at the moment. They are within striking distance to get onto the top-4 lines, though, especially with how loaded the SEC is with top-level win opportunities. Arkansas has already beaten Louisville, Texas Tech, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt, though all but TTU was at home.
Tennessee Volunteers
Tennessee has faced six consecutive KenPom top-40 opponents to begin SEC play, and it has alternated wins to reach a 13-6 overall record. While only a 7-6 record against the upper three quadrants isn’t very impressive, the Volunteers’ collection of wins is: they beat Houston on a neutral, Louisville, Texas A&M, and Texas at home, and Alabama on the road. They rate in the top 20 across all three quality metrics.
The remaining schedule eases up a bit compared to the first six SEC games, but Tennessee’s next two games are still against likely NCAA Tournament teams in Georgia (away) and Auburn (home). Slotted as a mid-tier at-large team right now, Tennessee will have ample opportunity to move up; all but one of its remaining games are in Q1 or Q2. Quality metrics suggest strong results moving forward.
Auburn Tigers
Once just 4-7 against the upper three quadrants, Auburn has since rattled off three straight victories (vs. South Carolina, at Ole Miss, at Florida) to return to .500 in those games. However, as much as the record in Q1+2+3 games is oft-quoted by bracketologists, it doesn’t really apply to a resume like Auburn’s. The Tigers are on pace to play 51.5% of their games in Quadrant 1; it is not fair to compare their Q1+2+3 record to a team mostly facing lesser opponents.
Texas taught us that lesson last year, earning a bid with just a .444 win percentage in Q1+2+3 but having played 50% of its schedule in Q1. Auburn is also simply better than that Texas team.
This all isn’t to say Auburn has an amazing resume; it is still just 13-7 overall with solid yet unspectacular metrics (mid-20s average). Still, though, the Tigers are in solid shape for a single-digit seed, especially after adding a signature win at Florida to give them three wins over projected top-6 seeds (N over St. John’s, H over Arkansas).
Kentucky Wildcats
Losing at Vanderbilt is not a resume-killer by any stretch, though the 25-point margin in the loss was a setback. Still, it far from erases the goodwill that Kentucky earned over its five-game win streak that preceded. The Wildcats are just .500 in Quadrant 1-through-3 games, but they own two very solid wins over the field against St. John’s and Tennessee, while their positive results against Indiana, LSU, and Texas also stack up.
With metrics averaging in the low-30s, Kentucky is solidly in a mid-tier seed range (No. 7-9). UK could drop several more games down the stretch given its rigorous SEC schedule, but it has already shown it is capable of beating such competition to the level it needs to to be safely in the field. The current trajectory will dance, and seed line jumps could occur if they bounce back from the road loss at Vandy well.
Georgia Bulldogs
If looking for why a team with a 7-3 record in Quadrant 1+2 games is projected closer to a double-digit seed than a protected one, two reasons stand out: Georgia played the No. 320 nonconference strength of schedule, plus lost a Quadrant 3 home game during SEC play. Those are potential problems should the Bulldogs slip closer to the bubble but, for now, they have overcome them with a strong record in quality games that includes home wins over Auburn and Arkansas.
Opportunities are plenty in the immediate future as well; the Bulldogs play three of their next four games at home against Tennessee, Texas A&M, and Florida. If they defend home court, they will move away from the projected No. 8/9 seed lines.
Texas A&M Aggies
Texas A&M has played the easiest SEC schedule to date, per KenPom, but that doesn’t make its 6-1 record in those games any less impressive. The conference record is meaningless for bracketology purposes, but owning victories over Auburn and Texas on the road aren’t. And while the timing of results also doesn’t matter, TAMU’s only losses since Nov. 14 have been to SMU and Tennessee, both away from home, and both in overtime.
The Aggies have climbed into single-digit seed territory but are protected underdogs in four of their next five games: at Georgia, at Alabama, vs. Florida, (vs. Missouri), and at Vanderbilt. How they perform over this stretch will be pivotal in determining their stress level for the final month of the season. Bucky Ball is 9-4 against the upper three quadrants.
Missouri Tigers
Similar to Kentucky’s loss at Vanderbilt, Missouri’s loss at Alabama is not a resume-killer but the 26-point final margin was certainly a blow. Unlike UK, though, Missouri was already entering the game on the outside-looking-in at the projected field. The Tigers can boast three wins over the projected field, having beaten Florida and Auburn at home and knocking off Kentucky on the road, but they are just 5-7 against the upper three quadrants. Missouri didn’t play a terrible nonconference strength of schedule (No. 212), but 64.2% of its wins are in Quadrant 4.
Missouri’s metrics average 54.3 for resume and 59.0 for quality, sub-bubble but within striking range given the opportunities left on the schedule. A Quadrant 3 game vs. Mississippi State is next but then the rest of the season is all in Quadrant 1 or 2. The downside is that KenPom has Missouri as underdogs in each of its last nine games (projected ~3-6 record).
Texas Longhorns
Texas tested bracketologists last season when it entered Selection Sunday with just a 12-15 record in Q1+2+3 games. Most left the Longhorns out of the field, but the committee disagreed on the basis of seven Quadrant 1 victories. Well, a similar situation could be playing out again. As the schedule nears February, Texas is just 4-8 against the upper three quadrants but owns three of the best wins on the bubble: N over NC State, A over Alabama, H over Vanderbilt. It also picked up another tournament-level win at home over Georgia in its last outing.
Four wins over the field outstrips most of the bubble, but it took several chances to get there. The Longhorns are only 6-8 against the top 300 on KenPom. It is hard to overlook the negatives, and averaging 57.0 across resume metrics is not as strong as the 52.3 on Selection Sunday last year…but not by much. Texas has an argument given its huge leg up on the rest of the bubble in terms of top-end wins. If the committee takes teams based on what they've done at their best, the Longhorns would have a strong argument right now.
LSU Tigers
LSU only played the No. 257 nonconference strength of schedule, but at least it did what it needed to with it. The Tigers did not suffer a landmine loss en route to a 12-1 nonconference record that included a win over SMU and a loss to Texas Tech. Since the start of league play, though, the Tigers are just 1-6. Conference record is irrelevant, but the piled up losses matter when the nonconference results didn’t feature much to counter them.
LSU still ranks top-50 across all three quality metrics, but its resume metrics are all sub-60. The Tigers are just 2-6 in Quadrant 1+2 games, with a Quadrant 3 loss to their name as well. But while trending is poor, LSU is favored on KenPom to win each of its next three games, including a home bout with Georgia. The Tigers will be worth revisiting if they win all three.
Big East
Deadbolt lock: UConn
Firmly in the field: St. John's
Some perspiration: Villanova
Double the deodorant: Butler, Seton Hall, Creighton
Needs a shower (of wins): None.
St. John's Red Storm
St. John’s has strong metrics that are in the top-26 across the board, but its overall body of work has some cracks that leave it outside the protected seed conversation. For starters, the Red Storm are the only team in the NET top-25 with a Quadrant 3 loss, which came at home to Providence. They also only own one win over the projected field (at Villanova), pending your views on where Butler and Seton Hall currently sit (I lean out for both, and the most immediate path to either joining the field would be BU beating SJU on Jan. 28).
The Big East simply lacks opportunities for SJU to move up, too. UConn and Villanova are the main resume-boosters, and the Red Storm have already played the latter once. With that in mind, SJU’s seed ceiling is capped by its lack of potential to add to its pre-existing lack of top-end wins. SJU is certainly in a very good position to be selected but might be headed more towards a mid-single-digit seed rather than the protected seed many thought in the preseason.
Villanova Wildcats
Like much of the Big East, Villanova lacks quality wins. The Wildcats only own one win over the projected field at this point (again, pending your thoughts on Butler and Seton Hall), and it came in their last nonconference game of the year, a “neutral-site” victory over Wisconsin in Milwaukee. That victory, combined with the wins over the Bulldogs and Pirates both coming on the road, are solid enough when coupled with metrics between 27-34 to be a single-digit seed.
Again, though, the Big East does not provide much in terms of resume-boosting opportunities, and Villanova just missed one losing in overtime at UConn. The Wildcats still get to host the Huskies on Feb. 21, but opportunities to move up seeds are dwindling. Villanova has as many Quadrant 3 games left on its schedule as it does Quadrant 1 games. So long as the Wildcats avoid the landmines of Marquette, Providence, and Xavier at home, though, they should dance.
Butler Bulldogs
Butler has bounced back from a four-game losing streak to win its last three games, including a road bout over fellow bubble team Seton Hall, to reach 13-7 on the season. While nothing about the Bulldogs’ resume screams tournament team, nothing screams that it shouldn’t be, either. Butler’s metrics all rank between No. 46 and No. 59, sub-bubble but not unheard of to dance, it has a signature win on a neutral site over Virginia, is above-.500 against the upper three quadrants (8-7), is yet to suffer a loss in Q3 or Q4, and played an upper-half NCSOS.
Without improved metrics or another quality win (or two), Butler feels stuck in the First or Next Four Out. Opportunities still remain to make that jump, though, beginning with a road matchup with St. John’s in their next outing. Conversely, two Quadrant 3 games remain as potential landmines, including a rematch with a Xavier team that Butler lost to by 14 on the road.
Seton Hall Pirates
A four-game losing streak has sent Seton Hall from a projected single-digit seed possibly to the outside-looking-in over the past two weeks. The Pirates are now 14-6 overall and still only own one win over the projected field (N over NC State). As they’ve slipped back towards the cutline, having played the No. 254 nonconference strength of schedule crops up as another issue.
But while trending is negative, Seton Hall is still in the mix if it can commandeer its vessel again. It still owns bubblicious metrics between No. 50 and No. 58, and is 4-2 in road games despite back-to-back losses last week. The turnaround will have to come quickly, though, as their next games are both in Quadrant 3 against potentially-surging spoilers: vs. Xavier and Marquette. The Pirates set sail for Villanova and Creighton afterward, a critical four-game stretch.
Seton Hall’s remaining schedule is landmine-filled, even in a down Big East. Five of the Pirates’ last 11 games are in Quadrant 3.
Creighton Bluejays
Creighton might be due for a downgrade to “needs a shower (of wins)” following its 24-point road loss to Marquette. The Bluejays are now sub-60 in six of the seven team sheet metrics and two games below-.500 against the upper three quadrants, while only holding one win over the projected field (although it is a good one at Villanova). Creighton must avoid landmines down the stretch, which should double as improving on a 3-6 away-from-home record, while also picking up more quality. The Bluejays still get UConn twice, St. John’s on the road, and Villanova at home. The road ahead will be very difficult, though.
Mountain West
Deadbolt lock: None.
Firmly in the field: None.
Some perspiration: Utah State
Double the deodorant: New Mexico, San Diego State
Needs a shower (of wins): Nevada, Boise State, Grand Canyon
Utah State Aggies
Utah State is still in solid positioning above the bubble even after recent back-to-back losses to Grand Canyon and UNLV. They were just the Aggies’ second and third losses of the season, respectively, and more hindered what was a strong non-P5 resume than broke it. Utah State does not own any wins over the projected field but it is 10-3 against the upper three quadrants. It is clinging to Boise State, currently NET 59, staying top-75 to own a Q1 win.
The path to an at-large bid in the Mountain West is always an arduous one given the league typically features teams capable of beating anyone but also not ranked high enough to avoid being classified as a “bad loss.” Utah State has to avoid piling up too many more of the lost-at-home-to-UNLV-level defeats, but with the way the schedule has worked out, many of those games are already in the rear-view. In fact, eight of Utah State’s last 12 games are in Q1 or Q2 — and none are in Q4. The Aggies have opportunities.
Metrics place Utah State in the top 40 across the board.
New Mexico Lobos
New Mexico brings an impressive 10-4 record against the upper three quadrants to the table, but lacks the top-end wins or metrics to be more than doubling the deodorant at this time. The Lobos’ best two wins of the season are over fellow bubble teams in Santa Clara (home) and VCU (away). While neither is a particularly strong needle-mover, the head-to-head results could matter down the road if those teams are close to one another. As it stands, though, UNM is relatively comfortably ahead of both.
While the Lobos’ metrics do not pop off the screen, they are solidly above-bubble for the time being at 38.3 (resume) and 44.7 (quality). New Mexico also has an opportunity-filled closing schedule to potentially fix holding only one Quadrant 1 victory. The Lobos will play four such games before the end of the season: at Nevada, at Grand Canyon, and both matchups with Utah State.
San Diego State Aztecs
San Diego State’s best win of the season is on the road over Nevada, and its lone win over the projected field was at home against New Mexico. Neither of those facts are particularly strong arguments for an at-large bid, especially not when adding in having suffered a Q3 loss to Troy back in November. Additionally, judging a team based on losses to No. 1 seeds in Michigan and Arizona might be unfair but suffering those losses by 40 and 23 points, respectively, stings.
However, SDSU still holds a metric average inside the top-50 despite those margins in its biggest games. The Aztecs are 8-5 against the upper three quadrants, are 4-1 in true road games, and played the 48th-toughest nonconference strength of schedule in the country. The Aztecs are in the Last Four In/First Four Out conversation right now, and its remaining schedule still affords both opportunities against Utah State, the first coming on the road on Jan. 31.
Atlantic 10
Deadbolt lock: None.
Firmly in the field: None.
Some perspiration: Saint Louis
Double the deodorant: George Mason, VCU
Needs a shower (of wins): Dayton
Saint Louis Billikens
Saint Louis played with fire against a sneaky George Washington team in its last game, but pulled out a late victory to reach 19-1 on the DI season. The sparkling record and top-30 metrics across the board speak for themselves, and they need to, because SLU lacks opportunities against other highly-rated competition. The Billikens are 2-0 in Quadrant 1 but the wins are over Santa Clara on a neutral and at VCU. They are also only scheduled to play one more such game (at George Mason). SLU’s schedule leads to some potential volatility when it comes to safety in the field, but it has built the goodwill to be firmly in, even if it takes a couple of losses.
George Mason Patriots
A road loss to Rhode Island this past weekend brought George Mason’s overall record down to 18-2. While the winning percentage is still sparkling and the Patriots rank top-50 across all three resume metrics as a result, the at-large candidacy lost some luster. The lack of a Quadrant 1 victory is unsurprising given only one try (at Virginia Tech) and the 3-1 record in Q2 is nice, but quality metrics averaging sub-80 might be a non-starter. Both GMU’s nonconference and overall strength of schedules rank outside of the top 300.
Piling up a massive win total is obviously step #1 for George Mason, but it also needs to increase its standing with KenPom, BPI, and T-Rank.
VCU Rams
Death, taxes, and VCU sneaking into the bubble conversation when you were looking the other way. The Rams have won nine of their last 11 games to reach 15-6 overall and rank in the bubblicious low-50s for both resume and quality metrics. They lack a Quadrant 1 win but did beat Virginia Tech on a neutral floor as part of a 4-1 Quadrant 2 record.
The Rams have work to do, but still play Saint Louis on the road as potentially their last chance at a Quadrant 1 win (currently 0-5 in such games). That matchup isn’t until Feb. 20, though. Until then, VCU must continue to stack up wins and buoy its metrics to stay in the mix or leapfrog some teams who suffer losing streaks.
West Coast
Deadbolt lock: Gonzaga
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: Saint Mary's
Double the deodorant: Santa Clara
Needs a shower (of wins): None.
Saint Mary's Gaels
Saint Mary’s schedule does not lend itself to an easy resume to compare to other teams. The Gaels have only played two Quadrant 1 games, losing both of them, have no wins over the projected field, and have arguably two losses to non-tournament teams (pending your thoughts on Santa Clara). BUT, the Gaels are also 12-1 against Quadrants 2 and 3, and are 5-1 in true road games. All those facts taken together are not the usual at-large resume, thus putting more of the team-to-team comparison in the hands of metrics.
Thankfully for the Gaels, their metrics say “tournament team.” Saint Mary’s ranks in the top-40 of every metric, including as high as 24th in KPI. That being said, nobody earned an at-large bid without a Quadrant 1 victory last season; SMC only has two more chances left on its schedule: both of its games against Gonzaga, with the home matchup not coming until Feb. 28. In a league full of landmines, the Gaels must tiptoe around them to stay in good shape and not need a victory over the projected No. 3 seed Bulldogs.
Note: It is possible that SMC backs into a Quadrant 1 victory as well. The Gaels beat Virginia Tech on a neutral site in November. That win would move to Q1 should the Hokies, currently 55th in the NET, climb into the top 50.
Santa Clara Broncos
Santa Clara picked up its first win over the field when it beat Saint Mary’s on Jan. 17, and that was enough to seriously push into the bubble picture. The Broncos are 16-5 against Division I competition, including 10-4 against the upper three quadrants, with metrics that fit alongside the rest of the bubble: a 50.0 resume average and a 47.3 quality average. Per Bart Torvik, Santa Clara has been the 26th-best team in the country since Dec. 28, when it started a stretch of eight wins in their last nine games.
The downside, though, is that recent play isn’t part of tournament criteria, and the December loss to NET 317 Loyola Chicago has not disappeared. As such, the Broncos are one of only two teams in the field or core bubble with a Quadrant 4 loss. The singular defeat is a reason for exclusion, especially when Santa Clara doesn’t have the elite wins to counter. A win over Gonzaga or a second over Saint Mary’s could help, but the Broncos do not face either again until Feb. 14. Until then, they must avoid landmines to stay in the mix.
Others
Deadbolt lock: None
Firmly in the field: None
Some perspiration: None
Double the deodorant: Miami OH, Tulsa
Needs a shower (of wins): Akron, Yale, Belmont, McNeese, South Florida, Liberty, Murray State
Miami (OH) RedHawks
Miami (OH) is this year’s case of “how good of a record is too good to leave out of the field.” The RedHawks are 18-0 against Division I opponents to begin the year, a record that is respected but not adored by resume metrics (34.0 average, 31st in WAB). Those rankings suggest Miami (OH) being above-bubble if not for being projected as the MAC auto-bid, and they are perhaps the best tool to use to evaluate a resume that is extremely difficult to compare to other teams.
The RedHawks’ strength of schedule sits at just No. 347, but is increasing compared to its nonconference SOS of No. 364 (second-worst in the country) — and that is without accounting for playing three non-D1s in nonconference. Additionally, they average ranking at just 87.3 in quality metrics. The key note to make when evaluating Miami (OH)’s resume is it will only be an at-large candidate if it loses in the MAC Tournament; a loss would lead to at least a marginal drop in the aforementioned resume metrics and would need to be accounted for.
Tulsa Golden Hurricane
A 15-3 overall record combined with metrics that are only slightly below-bubble keeps Tulsa in the “double the deodorant” category, but there are more reasons for exclusion than inclusion at this point. The Golden Hurricane do not have a Quadrant 1 win, and both their nonconference and overall strengths of schedule rank outside of the top-290. If they continue to pile up wins, perhaps the at-large candidacy becomes more interesting.
All three of Tulsa’s projected remaining Q1+2 games come before Feb. 14: at Florida Atlantic, at South Florida, and at Wichita State.
